Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

For the criteria to become a featured article, see Wikipedia:Featured article criteria.

For the similar process page for good articles, see Wikipedia:Good article nominations.

Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.

This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page. Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ. Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, David Fuchs and FrB.TG—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators: actionable objections have not been resolved; consensus for promotion has not been reached; insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or a nomination is unprepared. It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and  Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed. An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback. Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere. A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}. Table of Contents – This page:

Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Featured article candidates (FAC): Featured article criteria Featured article log Featured article statistics Featured article review (FAR): Archived FARs Former featured articles Unreviewed featured articles/2020 Today's featured article (TFA): This month's queue About Today's featured article Recent TFAs and statistics Current TFA requests Potential TFA requests TFA oddities Most viewed TFAs Featured articles yet to appear as TFA Script to track TFA recent changes Featured article tools: Mentoring for FAC Nominators of featured articles promoted Recent changes to featured articles Random featured article

Nominating How to nominate an article Nomination procedure Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead. Commenting, etc Commenting, supporting and opposing Supporting and opposing To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process. To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria. To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive. To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice. For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems. Specifically, a semi-colon creates an HTML description list with a description term list item. As a result, assistive technology is unable to identify the text in question as a heading and thus provide navigation to it, and screen readers will make extra list start/item/end announcements. If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.

Nominations

Beebo the God of War

Nominator(s): Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

"Beebo the God of War" is the ninth episode of the third season of the science-fiction series Legends of Tomorrow. The episode is considered a turning point for the series from the self serious drama to a wacky nonsense comedy. Prior to the nomination I consulted with who was listed as a mentor User:Gen. Quon.

This is my first FAC so I'm fully expecting this to fail. It recently underwent a GOCE copy edit and a PR If anything I'm shooting for this to pass on renomination. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

UC

Welcome to FAC, and good luck with the process. I'll pop in when I can, but two early-bird questions in response to This is my first FAC so I'm fully expecting this to fail: has the article been to Peer Review, and have you found a more experienced FA writer who might be willing to act as a mentor? Both come highly recommended to help with a first nomination and to help things go smoothly. Just looking through briefly, there are a couple of small typographical, tone and MoS errors which would probably be caught and fixed quickly on a pre-FAC PR. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I did take it to PR (though there was limited engagement) and have the article copy edited. I also consulted a mentor. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Excellent: who's mentoring it? Normally they are tagged in the nomination. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: it was User:Gen. Quon Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• Two refs seem to be duplicated (refs 6 and 23 as well as refs 13 and 47). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  Fixed Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Wyclef Jean (song)

Nominator(s): CarbonLollipop talk┊contribs 08:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

This article is about "Wyclef Jean", a song by Young Thug. I like this song a lot, and think that the story behind its music video is funny and interesting. I've improved this article a lot over the past few days, and feel it now meets the FA criteria. I look forward to receiving feedback! CarbonLollipop talk┊contribs 08:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Aoba47

• Is this just a song or was it released as a single? This article uses the infobox for a song, but the article for Jeffery lists it as the mixtape's second single. Considering that the mixtape article sources a radio release date for this song, I am leaning more toward this being a single, assuming that the citation from that article is accurate.
• Are there any citations that explicitly say that this is a reggae song? I am uncertain that describing a song as having a reggae beat is enough as a song could have a specific type of beat, but still be changed or subverted. It is similar to how saying a song having influences or elements of a certain genre is not enough to classify as that genre for the Wikipedia article.
• Do you have any background about the song's creation? If so, I think it would be helpful to add some here rather than going directly into talking about the song's composition. It would also be better to name the song the first time it is mentioned in the article, instead of saying just "the track", and to link Young Thug on the first mention. The jump from the lead to the article is a bit jarring.
• Is there any further information on the production process behind the song? The Jeffrey article says that TM88 and Supah Mario programmed the track, but that is not present in this article, and that Joe LaPorta was the mastering engineer and Alexander Tumay was the mixing engineer for all the songs on the mixtape. However, none of that information is present in this article. Also, why does this article not have a "Personnel" section? Not to sound like a broken record, but the Jeffrey article uses liner notes as a citation. Does this mixtape have liner notes that you can use?
• I do not think on award is enough to justify having a separate "Awards and nominations" section and table. I would suggest removing that and keeping it just in the prose.
• The chart placements and certifications should be present in the prose and not just in tables.

I hope that these comments are helpful. The FAC process can be difficult so I hope that this review does not come as unnecessarily harsh. At this moment, I do not think the article is prepared for a FAC. I believe it would be better to try the peer review process first, but I will leave that up to you. I hope you are having a great day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for the review! I've implemented your suggestions; here's what I changed:

• Added a Personnel section, based on the liner notes at Jeffery

• Everyone in the "Personnel" section should also be discussed in the prose. An example is that Joe LaPorta is only listed in this section, and he is not discussed in the prose. There are also issues with how the article discusses songwriters, as the infobox includes a whole listing of songwriters that are not discussed in the prose for the article and are not listed in the "Personal" section. Aoba47 (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• Added that it was released as a single
• Included some information about the song's name, as I couldn't find much about its production process

• The transition from the lead to the actual article is still quite jarring. I would start by talking about Young Thug rather than burying that in the second sentence. See how articles like "I'm Goin' Down", "Your Girl", and "Fearless" each start the article by talking about the singer. The prose in general could use work. For instance, Jeffery should be clearly identified as a mixtape on its first mention (and it would better to both in the lead and the article to clarify where this falls in his overall release, as in is this his first mixtape, fourth, fifth, etc.?). Aoba47 (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• Removed the Awards and nominations section
• Added the chart placements and certifications to the prose
• Added sources that categorize the song as being pop and reggae

I've also slightly reworded the lead to flow better. Thanks again for the review! CarbonLollipop talk┊contribs 07:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. Unfortunately, I oppose this FAC for promotion. I do not believe that this is ready for a FAC. I am noticing issues with the prose and with information being inconsistently presented in the article, such as a lot of the songwriters only being in the infobox. I would strongly recommend that this be put up for a peer review instead. Aoba47 (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

George Washington

Nominator(s): ErnestKrause (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC); Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the founding father George Washington. It is a co-nomination with Nikkimaria and is the sixth time that this page has been nominated. A previous GA nomination of the article from a decade ago was successful though subsequent FAC nominations did not move forward. The current nomination is a significantly trimmed and condensed version of the Washington biography which previously had reached about 230Kb in system size, though now condensed to about 160Kb system size. Looking forward to comments and criticisms from editors interested in this founding father. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• I recommend George Washington pass FA nomination. It is well written. The only issue I noticed is the Introduction does not mention why/when Washington joined the Patriot forces. Maybe something like, "Believing Parliamentary Acts and the King were oppressing American colonists, Washington joined the Patriot forces." Maybe something to that effect. Thank you. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Image review (passed)

Given the large number of images, I'm only going to highlight any issues:

• File:Residence of the Washington Family on the Rappahannock.jpg - The template reads "The copyright situation of this work is theoretically uncertain, because in the country of origin copyright lasts 70 years after the death of the author, and the date of the author's death is unknown." Given that this work appears to have been published in the US, that's not accurate. I get that this is intended to allow for copyright status in other jurisdictions, but I wonder if there are better templates.
• Jacques Auguste Regnier died in 1860, so File:Washington the soldier.jpg should be PD-100 in addition to the US PD Template.
• File:Martha Custis Washington as a young woman circa 1843 (Steel engraving).jpg - Do we have years of death for Cheney and Kellogg?
• File:George Washington, 1776.jpg - Ideally we should have a proper licensing template as well (PD-100/PD-1929 as per the other Peale painting)
• File:Washington taking command of the American Army at Cambridge, 1775 - NARA - 532874.jpg] - Given that the source identifies the work as having been created in 1775, this can't be PD-USGov (Bicentennial Commission wasn't active in Washington's lifetime). Better tags are needed.

• Removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• File:Gilbert Stuart, George Washington (Lansdowne portrait, 1796).jpg - The source provided (Smithsonian) does not seem to point to the same digitization (colours are less vibrant in the SI's)

• Not sure what significance that has? Digitization doesn't typically garner separate copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• Not a copyright concern, but rather one of verifiability. That being said, that's a different ball of wax that could easily derail discussion, and this isn't the article on the painting that would require such a detailed discussion. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• File:Washington Monument Dusk Jan 2006.jpg - No tag for copyright status of the monument. Also, alt-text does not begin with a capital letter.

• The monument does not meet the US threshold of originality. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• Fair enough. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• File:George Washington Presidential $1 Coin obverse.png and File:2006 Quarter Proof.png - Source links are dead.
• Coin and stamp images don't have WP:ALTTEXT
• Per MOS:IMGSYN, captions should be last; several have the alt text last.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks Chris, all fixed except as noted. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. I can't tell if I'll have time for such a massive prose review, but marking the image review as passed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

2007 Greensburg tornado

Nominator(s): E_F⁵ 16:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the massive EF5-rated tornado that hit Greensburg, Kansas on the night of May 4, 2007. The tornado directly hit he town, damaging 95% of the buildings within city limits to some degree and killing eleven people. Meetsall criteria, passed a DYK that was recently featured and GA, so trying my luck at probably only the third individual tornado FAC ever. Also successfully nommed an FP for the tornado, which can be found in the infobox. E_F⁵ 16:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Departure–

Glad to see this passed GA! I'll give a bit of constructive criticism:

• Is the GT name really relevant if it was only used in studies?

I'd say yes, because that's what it's officially named as in NWS-led and other papers. E_F⁵ 14:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Kiowa County Memorial Hospital, destroyed in the tornado," change to "which was destroyed in the tornado"

Done. E_F⁵ 20:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• "As of 2024, the tornado is the most recent to receive an EF5 rating in Kansas" I don't really see this being relevant - it's the only EF5 in Kansas. This should be replaced with maybe more from earlier in the lede about how it was the first EF5 tornado, which would go better here.

Done. E_F⁵ 20:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• "the 2 miles (3.2 km) width estimate from the 1896 Seneca–Oneida tornado is considered unofficial" - in the text body, this sentence is entirely uncited, and is the rating unofficial at all? I'm less than convinced.

Done, removed. E_F⁵ 20:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Meteorological synopsis: wasn't it a high risk day? The body only mentions a moderate risk.

The high risk was for May 5, the day after the tornado. E_F⁵ 20:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Shortly after this circulation was first found" swap "found" with "detected" or some variant, ideally.

Done, E_F⁵ 20:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Several storm chasers captured the formation of a tornado south of Greensburg around 9:20 pm CDT, which apparently strengthened as it neared Greensburg and began moving due-north towards the town, and at 9:38 pm CDT, storm chasers reported that it had grown to over 0.5 miles (0.80 km) in diameter. Eyewitnesses and storm chasers reported that multiple vortices were circulating around the perimeter of the large, wedge-shaped tornado during its early stages. A short time later, at least two distinct satellite tornadoes, including a narrow rope tornado, were reported by local media and observed by multiple weather spotters and storm chasers." Source doesn't back this up at all - no ctrl+f hits for "rope". "satellite", or "chaser", nor anything regarding multi-vortex structure.

Done, changed reference to a research paper. E_F⁵ 17:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

• Would the tornado emergency text go better on WikiSource than here? The first half is boilerplate anyway.

Done, removed. E_F⁵ 14:49, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

• Inline damage photos either in the summary or damage section would be great, especially when the school being hit is mentioned in the text but the swimming pool isn't.

Done, I've added three new images and removed the Bush one since it's not really relevant. E_F⁵ 14:49, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

• I hate to say it, but I'd really like a better source than the Cincinnati Enquirer for the satellite tornadoes.

Done, the research paper also backs up the tornadoes. CE should be reliable as it's stripped from the NWS. E_F⁵ 20:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• The Trousdale section should probably be given a mention in the final paragraph of the Greensburg tornado's summary, i.e. "the tornado then caused a wide tornado near Trousdale. It broke some records for Kansas.

Done. E_F⁵ 17:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

• I mentioned this in the DYK review, but why is Blagojevich given more spotlight than George W Bush? All Bush gets is an image and one sentence, where Blagojevich, who isn't even from Kansas, gets a whole quote.

Bush just said a few words, none were of long-term significance. E_F⁵ 20:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• "The tornado was the first in over 50 years to kill at least one person in Kiowa County." Is this really needed? Tornadoes aren't rare enough in these United States in my opinion. Killer tornadoes tend to be both unsurprising and uncommon at once.

Over 50 years? Seems suprising to me, especially for Kansas. E_F⁵ 20:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Depiction in media: There was another here you removed in the GAN. Can you find it with a better source than IMDB?

I cannot, hence why I removed it. E_F⁵ 20:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

The article came from nothing a month or so ago and is already pretty darn good. You've done great here, EF5. Cheers! Departure– (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@Departure–: How's it look now? E_F⁵ 17:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Definitely better. I'd remove Blagojevich's letter quote altogether, given that his speech doesn't appear to be substantial either. This NBC article and this from 2008 both seem a lot more substantial than the Bush coverage we have here. Saying "several" and only listing one for depiction in media isn't ideal, the "first" EF5 in Kansas seems unideal given it was the first EF5 in general but not the first F5 in Kansas (by a long shot). Ninth most recent seems unimportant - maybe replace that entire line with "Greensburg was the first of only nine tornadoes rated EF5 on the EF scale" or something to that effect. The Seneca-Oneida estimate is still unsourced and directly affects the lede. The infobox figure of $250 million also combats another estimate of $268 million - maybe inflation is the cause? "the first hospital in the United States to operate using carbon neutral energy" should be rephrased to "the first hospital in the United States to achieve carbon neutrality", and there's a lot of MOS:SANDWICHing going on, but other than that no clear show-stopping issues. Cheers! Departure– (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I guess Bush did say some cool stuff. I've replaced Blagojevich's letter with a sentence from Bush. "Several" has been removed and instead of a bulleted list the section is now a sentence. "First EF5 in Kansas" has been changed to "first EF5". Changed "second-widest" to "one of the widest" to compensate for the Seneca-Oneida tornado. I believe the $250 million is in fact inflation. Also changed the hospital sentence per your suggestion. Last but not least, I've removed a few of the images located on the left side of the article, as it was in fact SANDWICHing. Pinging @Departure–: (last time, I'm not trying to ruin your Christmas) to make sure I got everything. :) E_F⁵ 18:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

William D. Hoard

Nominator(s): M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

This article is about William D. Hoard, 16th Governor of Wisconsin and founder of Hoard's Dairyman. This is a resubmission of the article to FAC following a failed nom in October and a Peer Review. All prior comments have been addressed and improvements made across the board. Thanks for taking a look! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• File:William_Dempster_Hoard.png: when and where was this first published?

I have searched far and wide for evidence that this portrait was published in a manner that meaningfully meets the definition of "published" in any of the ways we have discussed as appropriate for when the painting was completed in 1891 or after it was committed to the Wisconsin Historical Society archives in 1908 and I have found none. Copyright law is pretty murky on publication circa 1891, when it was presumably hung in the executive chambers at the Wisconsin Capitol Building. I went to the Commons village pump and asked about this in October and was told by folks there that by hanging it in a place without the means to restrict copying the portrait, it would have been considered published prior to 1978. It was hung in a place that did not specifically restrict copying (the executive chamber, a semi-public place) sometime between 1891 and 1908, so I believe that would count.

These volunteers also said that if the portrait was published "without a copyright notice (before March 1989), or with a notice (before 1964) but no renewal" then it would be public domain. Again, there is no specific evidence of publication in any manner other than hanging the portrait in the executive chamber, nor does the portrait appear in the US Copyright Office's archives from what I could find.

My guess, and that is all it is, is that the portrait was hung after Hoard left office in 1891, so it was published based on the definition the others provided in Madison in 1891, but there is no specific evidence that I have been able to locate of the specific date of hanging. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• File:Privy_Seal_of_Wisconsin.svg needs a tag for the original design. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea what tag would be appropriate for that design. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Google-fu has eluded me for this tag. I am not entirely sure this image is appropriate at all, given state vs. federal copyright. Wisconsin holds its works in copyright unlike the feds. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you know when the seal was first used? If it's old enough, it could be in the public domain due to age. Hog Farm _Talk 14:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems to have been created by an act of the legislature in the 1970s. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 18:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

750h

Happy to support as per my peer review. 750h+ 16:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The All-Story Magazine

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

This article is about an influential early pulp magazine. All-Story published many writers who were either already famous or went on to become famous, but it is best remembered for launching the career of Edgar Rice Burroughs. Under the Moons of Mars, better known by its book title of A Princess of Mars, was his first sale; he followed this up almost immediately with Tarzan of the Apes. All-Story wasn't a science fiction magazine, but it did publish a lot of sf and fantasy. At the end of the 1930s these stories (and those in Argosy, its sister magazine) were hard to find for fans of the genre, so two more magazines were launched with the sole purpose of reprinting these old classics. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

TompaDompa

I intend to review this (but make no promises). As an initial comment, more images would be nice, assuming of course that there are appropriate ones to add. TompaDompa (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

All the covers are out of copyright, so I can add at least one more -- space is the main consideration, given that I don't want the images to interfere with the tables of issue data. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Two more images added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

UC

Put me down for a review, probably after Christmas. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• It was published monthly until March 1914, and then switched to a weekly schedule. Munsey merged it with The Cavalier, another of his pulp magazines, in 1914,: can we put a more specific date on the second one (we've changed levels of precision midstream)?

  I made it May 1914. It was weekly at the time and I could give the actual issue date but I think that detail isn't necessary in the lead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• In 1920 it was merged with Munsey's Argosy; the combined magazine was retitled Argosy All-Story Weekly. The editor was Robert H. Davis;: this sounds as if Davis was the editor of Argosy All-Story Weekly.

  Switched sentence order, which I hope takes care of this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• In 1912 All-Story printed Burroughs's Tarzan of the Apes, and more stories of Tarzan followed, along with two instalments of another of Burroughs' series: the MoS prefers the first style. See, later, Mary Roberts Rineharts' first story and Burroughs' Pellucidar series.

  Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• two magazines created to reprint old stories from the Munsey magazines.: anything to be done about the repetition here?

  Had a go at this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• There are a lot of changes of names and two merges in this story, and I'm intrigued that we've treated them differently. When the magazine merges with The Cavalier, we treat this as if All-Story is trundling on uninterrupted; meanwhile, when it merges with The Argosy, we treat it as if All-Story is no more. I'm not disputing this decision, but what's the thinking behind it?

  This is surprisingly complex in general. The short answer is that I follow the treatment in the sources on the history of these magazines. One common way to look at it is to see which magazine's volume and issue numbering is continued -- that's the magazine that is considered to carry on from the merge. Another is to see what happens to the name -- it's common to carry the secondary name as a subtitle of some kind for a while, but if that disappears after a year or two (as in this case) it's a sign that the magazine was absorbed into the other title. There are some cases where it's really not clear what happened at all, such as Future Science Fiction and Science Fiction Stories, which is why those two are covered in a single article. The reorganization of the Munsey magazines in 1929 is another example: before the change it was Argosy All-Story Weekly and Munsey's Magazine; afterwards it was Argosy and All-Story Combined with Munsey's, which is generally considered to be a completely new magazine, retitled All-Story Love Stories or some variation of that for most of its life. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• The first issue included the first instalment of five novels: first instalments, I think (cf. "the invaders cut off the heads of twelve villagers").

  Fixed. Sounds like you're getting the hang of this pulp fiction lark. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)

• which science fiction historian Sam Moskowitz commented "caused some to class Serviss as the equal of Jules Verne".: not necessarily your problem, but it strikes me that Moskowitz is doing a classic bit of WP:WEASEL here. Can we substantiate this any further: does he give names, for instance?

  There's no more in the source. I would guess he's talking about the readers' letters, but that's just a guess. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• Italics versus quotation marks for titles: is the thinking that one-shot short stories are WP:MINORWORKS and so get quotes, while longer serialised novels are major works and so get italics?

  Yes, exactly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• the March 15, 1919 issue: this kind of structure needs a comma after the year (it's the same idea as MOS:GEOCOMMA). There are quite a few later in the "Bibliographic details" section.

  Done, but some of them look hideous to my eyes. If leniency is available for any of these please let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree: I looked this up in the Chicago Manual of Style (with which the MoS usually agrees) to make sure I wasn't leading you the wrong way, and I'm afraid that I wasn't: the double comma is correct. The CMoS suggested going DMY in contexts when lots of dates will be used: another approach is to try to get that second comma to line up where you would want to put a comma anyway (so phrases like "on March 15, 1919, All-Story introduced a new character."). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

  I had a look and I don't see any immediate places where it would be easy to fix; I'm OK with just letting them be. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• All-Story also published poetry, including work by Djuna Barnes: can we give the reader any sense of why we've singled her out: I don't think she's famous enough that most people will get it automatically. Presumably it's not just that she's got a Wikipedia article?

  That was in the article before I began working on it, and the source is sufficiently scholarly that I thought it was worth keeping. Plus it's nice to have examples of authors of each of the genres, including poetry, particularly as I don't cite many other women or any other modernists. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  Oh no, I agree with the inclusion: I was wondering whether we could gloss something like "later known as an important figure in modernist and lesbian literature" to give a sense of why we were drawing attention to her above all the other poets who wrote for the magazine. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  I like your wording; added that and found a couple of sources to cite it to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• Johnston McCulley's Zorro series began: do I take it right that this magazine was the birthplace of Zorro? I think that would be worth mentioning in the lead. More generally, you could perhaps restructure the lead slightly to pick out the "big takeaways" that All-Story was an incubator for a couple of really famous characters that came out of the pulp era into the wider media world. Tarzan is mentioned there, but he gets a little lost among many other stories that are now mostly forgotten.

  Added a sentence to the lead. I added "the vigilante" as he's not as well-known as Tarzan but perhaps that's unnecessary? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  Personally, I think it's always better to over-explain than under-explain, especially when we're trying to judge which bits of popular culture are well known (I'd suggest Zorro might have quite a strong generational skew, even before we start to factor in geography, language etc), though I wouldn't be too distraught if those words fell out. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• When magazine titles appear in chapter/website/book titles, they should be in italics.

  Italics added for one website title. For the other two, the form is not that of the magazine title so I'm reluctant as it implies that was a title of a magazine at one point (Argosy, The, and All-Story (Cavalier) Weekly/Magazine). For the chapters in Tymn & Ashley, those are not italicized in the source; they're bolded chapter headings (and often don't match the magazine title, though in these cases they do). I can do this if you think it's necessary, and indeed I used to do this, but I now think these are better not italicized. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  I was thinking of e.g. The Argosy and All-Story (Ashley 1985): is that not two titles? If so, should be The Argosy and All-Story. We've routinely used All-Story (italicised) as a shortened form of the title, just as you sometimes see e.g. Freewheelin', Fellowship or "Sultans", either in less formal writing or in contexts where the title is being used a lot. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

  OK, I've done that one, and two others where the exact form of the magazine title is available. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• popular science-fictional love stories: science-fiction is the usual adjective, I think. There's a possible inconsistency with having a hyphen here but not in science fiction historian Sam Moskowitz, but I think your choice is fine: one is more likely to be misconstrued than the other, since popular science is a thing. However, see later short science-fictional tales, where I think you've broken your own rule.

  Changed them all to "science fiction". "Science-fictional" (with and without the hyphen) does have a long history; see here for a handful of citations, for example (the website is run by Jesse Sheidlower, who used to be the American editor of the OED). But I think it's fine to use the better-known form. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  I stand enlightened -- but still think you've made the right decision by changing. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• a historical romance of knights and damsels in distress: consider linking damsel in distress, which would help to avoid the misreading that Metcalf wanted stories about knights in distress.

  Good idea; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• Burroughs responded with The Outlaw of Torn at the end of November, which Metcalf rejected: might be worth adding an EFN to explain what eventually happened to it?

  Added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• The next three Barsoom novels appeared in All-Story over the next four years: I think something has gone awry here: we haven't yet mentioned Barsoom in the body, though we have mentioned Under the Moons of Mars.

  Oops, yes. Fixed. I'm tempted to put in more, since the series was enormously influential, but this isn't an article about Burroughs and as you say below there's plenty about him in the article already. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• The Gods of Mars was serialized from January to May, 1913: no comma here.

  Removed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• The initial rate of less than a cent per word that Burroughs received for his first sale began to increase: it might be worth flagging at the first instance, for readers who are slow with their math(s), that $400 for a manuscript of 70,000 words is just over half a cent per word.

  The trouble is that I don't know what the final word count was. It's quite likely that the final version wasn't exactly 70,000 words, and I don't have a reference that says how much it was, so I don't want to imply a final word count by giving an exact rate. I can confidently say the rate was less than a cent per word given the numbers Porges quotes but I can't get much closer than that without guesswork. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  No, I did notice that we'd elided whether Burroughs actually met the word count specified. Probably can't be too precise here without OR, so will have to leave this one where it is. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• Burroughs gets the overwhelming majority of the airtime in the section on Contents and Reception. That clearly isn't a reflection of how much of the magazine his work occupied, but is it an accurate reflection of what the scholarship on All-Story looks like? I note that a lot of it is cited to Porges, which is a work about Burroughs rather than about the magazine.

  There's no question that Burroughs is the most important author to have been published in the magazine, but it's also true that the article simply spends more time on him because of the availability of the details in Porges. The other sources generally list a few names and a few stories, but don't go into nearly that much detail. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Victor Rousseau" should link to Victor Rousseau Emanuel: Victor Rousseau was a Belgian sculptor.

  Oops. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• The cover illustrations did not at first have any relationship to the stories in the magazine: you may wish to show this by putting an early one and a late one side by side?

  Done, and thanks for fixing the sequence -- I ran out of time to make that change last night. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• Popular brought back Fantastic Novels for another 20 issues between 1948 and 1951: missing a period at the end. Popular demand -- or do we mean Popular magazine? While looking for an answer, I noticed that the word "popular" is used frequently here: you may wish to vary it a little.

  This was opaque; I was referring to Popular Publications, a pulp magazine publisher. Now clearer, I hope. I've substituted one of the usages of "popular"; let me know if more need to go. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• the magazine had reached 200,000 circulation: is this idiomatic? I'd say "a circulation of 200,000", but will defer if the professionals do otherwise.

  Changed; you're right that that was a clumsy way to say it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• In 2006, a copy of the October 1912 issue of All-Story, featuring the first appearance of the character Tarzan in any medium, sold for $59,750: inflate?

  Yes, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note 1 and Note 2 are identical: clever use of the |name= parameter could avoid this.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

All replied to now; thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Support: all sorted and another worthy addition to the pantheon of pulp-fiction FAs. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• " founded in 1905 and published Frank Munsey" - there's a word missing in there
• "whose first sale was Under the Moons of Mars" - shouldn't the story title be in either italics or quote marks (not sure which is correct for a story title but I am pretty sure it should be one of them)....?
• ""The Conquest of the Moon Pool", a sequel to latter story," - missing "the"
• "followed in 1919, and were very popular" - the subject of the sentence is just a single story, so the verb should be singular
• Minor possibly, but in the lead you have Frank Munsey and Robert Davis whereas in the bosy you have Frank A. Munsey and Bob Davis
• That's it, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  All dealt with. It's amazing how one can't see missing words in one's own writing. Thanks for the review! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Aoba47

• Would a pulp magazine link in the lead's first sentence be helpful? It is linked in the article, but I do not think it is linked in the lead, unless I am overlooking something of course.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

• I think that it may be helpful to qualify in the lead that Thomas Newell Metcalf worked as a managing editor, as I was a bit uncertain on my first read-through on why Metcalf and Robert H. Davis are presented as editors for the magazine, but presented in two different parts rather than together. By the way, I do appreciate the note in the article that defines the role of a managing editor to those unfamiliar with this type of industry.

  Done, though maybe I should just remove the mention of Metcalf -- he doesn't have his own article. He's important mainly because of the interactions with Burroughs, but I don't know if that requires him to be in the lead. I'll think about that some more and might cut him. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

  That makes sense. I will leave that decision up to you as I believe that you would know best about it. I can understand the argument for removing him as it avoid having to define the managing editor role in the lead, but I am not familiar enough with Metcalf or this type of article in general to say either way confidently enough. That being said, I could understand keeping him in the lead or keeping him in the article and removing him from the lead for the reasons you have said above. Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

• For this part, (and more stories of Tarzan followed), it may be useful to link to the Tarzan (book series) article. I was also wondering if this part, (set on Mars), would benefit from a link to the Mars in fiction article, but I am admittedly less certain about that or if it would be too forced or ambiguous in the prose.

  Both links added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

• I was curious about the selection of File:All story weekly 19200410.jpg for its particular spot in the article? It is a striking cover that is visually interesting, but I was wondering why it was paired with the paragraph about Burroughs. Why not use File:Under the Moons of Mars.jpg instead, which while less visually interesting, is more directly related to the Burroughs paragraph and provides readers with a look inside the magazine and not just at the cover? This is more of a suggestion than anything, but I did question the image usage and placement on my first read-through of the article.

  I decided not to pick a Burroughs cover at that point because the Tarzan one is at the top of the article, so I picked one that illustrated a story by one of the other named authors -- Max Brand. I could swap the two images, but Tarzan is so universally known that it seemed the natural image to put at the top. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

  I just realized I didn't answer your question about the internal image. I like that image, but I don't think I have room to include it -- I'm afraid someone with a wide screen would see sandwiching issues if I add another one. I don't think it's a good idea to have only Burroughs-related images -- he was important, but the magazine was important for other reasons too, and I don't want to give the impression that Burroughs is the only reason the magazine is remembered. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for the explanation. That makes sense to me, and I honestly did not consider that. I agree that it is best to not over-emphasize Burroughs in this article. I did not think about the lead image when making this suggestion. I agree that the Tarzan image is best kept at the top because of its popularity. And it is always best to keep in mind how readers will access the article, and Wikipedia in general, through different devices and platforms so I agree with the sandwiching concerns. With all of that in mind, I agree that the current image makes more sense in this context. As I said above, I really like the image, and it does show more of the art style and the variety of stories associated with the magazine, which is always a plus in my opinion. It was likely a case of me just over-thinking it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that the Tarzan image is a good choice. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• Were there any other notable auctions related to the magazine other than the one for Tarzan's first appearance?

  Not that I'm aware of. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

  I had a feeling that was the case, but thank you for clarifying it for me. Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I hope that this review is helpful. I always find it a joy to read about this kind of stuff as it always reminds me of my brother as he loves more pulpy stories. Also, reminds me that I should read more short stories in general. I did not have that much to comment on to be honest, but after everything has been addressed, I will read through everything again to just make sure I do as thorough a job as possible as a reviewer. I hope you are having a great end of your year. Aoba47 (talk) 03:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Hope you're having a good holiday season. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I am glad that I am able to help with this review. I could not find anything further to bring up here, and I have added my responses above. I agree with your comments, and I will leave it up to you on how to best handle Metcalf's inclusion in the lead as I trust your opinion on that. I support the FAC for promotion based on the prose. I hope you are having a great holiday season as well. Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Image review - pass

Hi Mike Christie, happy to do the image review. The article contains the following images:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tarzan_All_Story.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:All_story_weekly_19200410.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_All-Story_Magazine_1905-01.jpg

They are all in public domain because of their age. The images are relevant to the article and placed in appropriate locations. They all have captions and alt texts. The source links of the last two were dead but I was able to fix them. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, and for fixing those links. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Another image of the same age now added; it has alt text and I just fixed the source link. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, looks good. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Source review

What makes https://web.archive.org/web/20230128191052/http://www.philsp.com/data/data018.html#ALLSTORYMAGAZINE1905 and https://comics.ha.com/heritage-auctions-newsletter/rare-pulp-brings-record-price-at-heritage-.s?inFrame=yes&id=1823&date reliable sources? Mike Ashley and Michael Ashley seem to be the same person, so perhaps they should be given the same name. Greenwood Press is linked on its second mention. None of the sources seem questionable, checked the reviews of some and they seemed fine too. I assume that we are going by "OCLC, if that's not available ISBN" as the source formatting rule? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• Philsp.com is maintained by bibliographer Phil Stephensen-Payne; per this he is treated as reliable by The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction.
• The ha.com page is used only to support information about Heritage Auctions in their specialist field, that of auction prices for collectibles.
• For Ashley I've used the form of the name on the books themselves, which has changed over the years.
• Have now added publisher links in all source listings where there's an article to link to.
• ISBN I think you meant to say the reverse? Which would be correct: ISBN unless it's too early, in which case use OCLC.

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Aye, got the numbers of OCLC and ISBN mentally confused. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Sieges of Berwick (1355 and 1356)

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 15:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

This article went through GAN in September 2021 and ACR in June 2022. Then it stalled. With access to several additional sources I have been able to expand and tweak it sufficiently that I now consider it may be worthy of FA status. A typical Medieval tale of cunning French, perfidious Scots, and an English army which bounces from northern England to France to Berwick, Lothian and then Carlisle over seven months, ending with little change in the situation apart from the expenditure of gold and blood. Also the Auld Alliance in action: the French distracting the English from Scotland, then the Scots returning the favour. This episode also marked the end of the Second War of Scottish Independence. No battles, no great drama, but - I think - a taste of a typical Medieval campaign. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments from mujinga

I'll get the ball rolling for a prose review. My level of expertise is shown by not knowing Berwick was so important back then.

One has to be a bit of an aficionado to be aware of that sort of thing.

• "The disastrous English campaign of Stanhope Park brought" - my first thought here was that Stanhope Park was a general, is Battle of Stanhope Park acceptable?

I am so close I would never have thought of that. This is where your not knowing the topic is an advantage. Changed to "The disastrous English Weardale campaign ..."

• "Edward never accepted the validity of the treaty[2] and by 1333 England and Scotland were at war again when Edward besieged Berwick, starting the Second War of Scottish Independence." - second Edward could be a "he"?

Fair enough. Done.

• "with Edward's son about to lead an attack in south-west France" - maybe name him as the Black Prince?

I wondered about that. Ok, done.

• "A force under Walter Mauny went ahead, escorting 120 miners." - why miners? *reads on* ah i see!

:-)

• "Edward moved his army up the River Tweed to Roxburgh.." in this paragraph i was slightly surprised by the contemporary chronicler coming after the modern historians and i also wondered if it is worth adding a sentence saying something along the lines of "modern historians see the campaign as a success for Edward" or whatever, so that then the names which come after are clearly all historians .. on present reading it wasn't immediately clear to me Jonathan Sumption was a historian

Rephrased, is this clearer? Modern historians see the campaign as varying degrees of unsuccessful for Edward. Do I need to make that clearer?

that's great now! i was just giving an exmaple of a gloss sentence

• i think dependent not dependant?

Oh dear.

• is Moffett Moffat?

Good grief!

• it's Walter Manny in the infobox but Walter Mauny in the text

Like many people, Sir Walter was inconsistent in the spelling of his name. (Did you know that six signatures of Shakespeare survive, and he spells his surname differently each time? And none of them are "Shakespeare".) Wikipedia is a notoriously unreliable source, and my sources lean heavily to Mauny.

Argh! I misread your comment, sorry. Standardised as "Mauny".

• that's it, thanks for an interesting read! Mujinga (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

All addressed Mujinga, and thanks for boldly stepping up and being the first to tackle this. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

happy to support Mujinga (talk) 08:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

• "had been underway for over 22 years" – the OED makes "under way" two words.

Done.

• "He was only prevented from worse depredations by his seaborne supplies not arriving due to bad weather" – two quibbles here. First the gerunds are back: it isn't "them not arriving" but "their not arriving" and as "seaborne supplies' not arriving" looks odd I suggest a simple "because". And we must have been through "due to" before: in AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer. But as we don't want two becauses in one sentence, may I suggest something like "He was only prevented from worse depredations because bad weather prevented his seaborne supplies from arriving"?

You certainly may. Thank you.

• "The castle was overtopped in places" – overtopped is a word I don't know. Perhaps a blue link or something?

Wiktionary link added. ("To be higher than; to rise over the top of".)

• "the Auld Alliance, which stipulated that if either country were attacked by England, the other country would invade English territory" – was there any formal agreement to that effect or was it merely an understanding?

I am unsure that an understanding counts as an alliance. It was signed in 1295, renewed in 1326 and while never formally terminated has been a dead letter since 1560.

• "Norham Castle, a significant English border fortification" – and what did it signify? I think you mean major or important.

I do indeed.

• "he led a chevauchée" – excellent! I'd been waiting for one of those.

:-)

• "according to a contemporary 'by reason of the discord of the magnates'" – could do with a citation.

It has one. Number 23. Nicholson page 160. (From memory the last line. Want a photo?)

• "devastation was a improvised campaign by Edward" – needs "an" rather than "a"

!

• "A winter storm then scattered the fleet, so Edward cut short the campaign and withdraw" – two things here. First, you know my fusty old views on press-ganging "so" into use as a conjunction in formal prose, and secondly "withdraw" should be "withdrew"

Tweaking the first obviated the need to do anything about the second.

• "a ceremony known as candlemas" – looks a bit odd without a capital C" – like writing "christmas".

Quite right.

That's my lot for now. Tim riley talk 18:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Excellent stuff Tim. I think I managed a full bingo card of my usual errors, but you picked them all up. All fixed. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy to support. Highly readable, clear even to a layman like me, nicely illustrated, evidently balanced and neutral, and well and widely referenced. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. I hope there will be more to come in the same series. Tim riley talk 19:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Done. Thanks Nikkimaria. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Borsoka

• Just a first question: why are the two sieges presented in the same article? Does encyclopedias customarily adopt this approach? Borsoka (talk) 10:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Frequently. My recently promoted Siege of Breteuil actually dealt with two sieges with a relief in the middle. Sieges of Vannes (1342), not an article I have contributed to, involves four separate sieges in one year. This is just the cases I have come across in the past week. There are numerous similar examples, in Wikipedia and other encyclopedias. In this case the two sieges form a single seamless event. (IMO) If you would prefer a different article name, feel free to suggest one, I am as ever entirely relaxed about such things. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Source review

I will conduct a source review soon. Hog Farm _Talk 22:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks HF, I shall strap myself in. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm assuming that after this many centuries, the British and French literature on this subject are in general agreeance? I know I would oppose a FAC on a Mexican-American War topic that used only American or only Spanish/Mexican sources because the literature from each side varies greatly in some respects, but I suspect that after over 650 years passions have cooled enough for both camps to be fairly representative.

It's all non-controversial stuff, certainly re POV. The original chroniclers didn't see it like that - "oath breakers", "suckers" etc - but no one has got jingoistic about it for a century or more. Some of the best work on things like French archives and tax records is done by UK or US academics. Although as Sumption laments, scholars often have to use an English approach because many French organisations (eg towns and religious establishments) deliberately destroyed their records so as to be able to obfuscate over tax demands, and many central records were similarly destroyed during the French Revolution.

The 1907 source is an archaeological report supporting some basic information that an archaeological report would be suspected to support, so no concerns there. The old 1911 EB citation also seems non-problematic.

I'm less sure that Robson is a high-quality RS - this is travel literature written by a TV presenter published by a publisher that apparently specializes in children's books and gardening literature. I wouldn't object to this at GAN, but I do wonder about it for FAC.

Well someone was happy with it at ACR. :-) I really like that quote and the only other places where I can find it are both nineteenth century. I entirely understand your doubts, so if you rule it out, let me know and I'll come up with some less grandiloquent form of words from a more HQ or two. And, obviously, bear a grudge about it for ever. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Does the 19th-century attestation seem reasonable? I'm mainly concerned about making sure there is a reasonable historical basis for this quote. If you're confident that there is suitable attestation for this, I'm comfortable with citing Robson. I just want to make sure we don't have some variant of citogenesis occurring. Hog Farm _Talk 16:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Goodness no! It is nailed down enough. There are some variations of translation from the original Latin. "second Alexandria" or "another Alexandria" sort of thing. Eg here, note the third work - 2022 with a chunk of my quote - or in 1974 Davies in The Black Douglas has "so populous and busy that it might well be called a second Alexandria" and attributes it to the Lanercost Chronicle.

That works for me. Hog Farm _Talk 17:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

From a formatting perspective, I wonder why Robson is the only one with a linked publishers.

I have no idea. Good spot. Link removed.

I'll try to do a couple source checks tomorrow. Hog Farm _Talk 03:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Source checks:

• "In any event, Edward was in Newcastle in the north by Christmas Eve (24 December), where a large army was assembling, and a small fleet was being prepared to supply it. The army left Newcastle on 6 January 1356" - OK
• "The miners tunnelled towards the town walls while Mauny prepared simultaneous land and sea assaults. On 13 January Edward arrived with the main English army. The Scots offered to parley" - OK
• "Some sources state that in 1355 the town's and castle's defences were in good repair" - OK (assuming "some sources" is a reference to Sumption)
• " the traditional place of coronation for Scottish monarchs" - OK
• "Chris Brown considers that the invasion of Scotland and associated devastation was an improvised campaign by Edward, intended to deter future Scottish aggression" - OK

Pass on the source review. Hog Farm _Talk 23:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Octopussy and The Living Daylights

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

This book is a collection of initially two but now four Bond short stories. It was published the year after Fleming's death and it comprises the remaining work about Bond that hadn't already been published up to that date. It wasn't widely reviewed and hasn't been as analysed as any of his novels, but it has some points of interest and some nice writing in it too. A profitable PR saw help from Tim riley and Dudley Miles, to whom many thanks. Any more constructive comments are most welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Prose readthrough

• Lede good.
• Bond sees Trigger get in position to kill him and he realises that it is the cellist I might be sleepy, but I have no idea what "it" refers to here. I assume you mean the cellist is Trigger; Why not "she was the cellist"?
• employee known to be a double agent working for the Soviet Union whose employee - the secret service? Might be easier to say "one of their employees" or something similar
• "Background and writing history" good to me.
• Development and style also good.
• Release and reception good, well written reception section. (wow, they still used Guineas as a unit of currency?)

  Only as an invoicing mechanism to squeeze an extra 5% onto the bill, rather than the coin, which stopped in 1816! I remember seeing bills from professionals in the 1980s in guineas, but that was just an affectation by then, although it's still used in some animal auction houses (the extra 5 pence per pound being the auctioneers commission) - SchroCat (talk) 07:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• plot device of auctioning of a Fabergé egg maybe "the auctioning"?
• Went through and corrected some misordered citations.

@SchroCat: that's all! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 08:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks Generalissima. All your suggestions duly enacted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Support - Looks good to me, good job. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 08:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

I apologise for this, but on rereading for FAC I've found a few things I must have overlooked at Peer Review. Nothing to cause alarm and despondency but worth a mention, I think:

• On reading the latest text I'm not wild about "an octopus that lives off his beach". The OED defines "live off" as to subsist on, derive food, etc., from; (figurative) to be supported by. whereas you, I think, mean Octopussy lives (i.e. dwells) offshore of the beach.
• "While in New York he sent her a telegram that he needed time ..." – might be better with "saying" after "telegram"?
• I'm sure you have excellent reasons for capitalising and including the definite article in the link for The Sunday Times but not for that for the Express, but it looks a bit odd to me.
  • Because The Sunday Times is the correct name for that publication, while Daily Express is as low class as it's contents suggest and drops the article. If only it would drop the poisonous articles in its pages too, the world would be a better place... - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
• "too long and specialised for the target audience, so he wrote the story" – you know my antediluvian views about pressing "so" into use as a conjunction in formal prose.
• "Although he liked New York, his experiences on the trip soured his view" – this is the first we're heard of a trip there. Perhaps "on a recent trip" or some such.
  • I reworked the earlier sentence which gives the better context. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
• "the part of the story where Smyth hunted ... Smyth is a semi-autobiographical portrayal of Fleming ... Fleming and Smyth were ex-military men ... Smyth is one of only two British villains" – but back in the Plots section he's "Smythe", with an e, six times.
  • Now with "e"s thrown around like confetti. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
• "reprinted in Playboy in January 1964, while "Octopussy" was serialised in the March and April 1966 editions – I suggest a plain "and" or semicolon instead of "while" which seems too temporal for comfort here (the Bishop preached the sermon while the Dean read the lesson)
• "published daily in the Daily Express newspaper – it is necessary (or even accurate) to identify the Express as a newspaper? You don't identify Playboy as a magazine or The Observer, Manchester Evening News et al as newspapers.
  • I toyed with changing for "comic" or "rag", but dropped it altogether. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

That's my lot, I hope. Over to you. Tim riley talk 16:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks Tim; your suggestions all followed, except where noted otherwise.

Happy to support the elevation of this article to FA. It seems to me to meet all the criteria; it's a good read, well and widely sourced, seems balanced, is well illustrated (I bet you had to do a fair bit of digging), and strikes me as comprehensive. I look forward to seeing it on our front page – as another of your Fleming articles is today, I see. Tim riley talk 13:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

PMC

You know it! I'm a bit backlogged so maybe a bit longer than the usual one-week turnaround, but I'll get to it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• "published in different publications" reads a little awkwardly because of the repetition, although I understand if it can't be written around

  Tweaked a little around this - SchroCat (talk) 11:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• I am absolutely floored to learn that Octopussy was the name for an actual Octopus, what
• Nothing to remark on until the Style section, which is unfortunately a little skint. I might even make it a subsection under Development, but won't insist

  Let me have a think about this - SchroCat (talk) 11:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• "In "Octopussy" he sees the hooks in action, keeping the pace of the story moving, despite no passages of action." - Repetition of "action", and also to be honest I'm not entirely sure what this means

  Tweaked a bit - SchroCat (talk) 11:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• "The story, which he considers a morality tale uses the flashback technique that Fleming liked." - needs a comma after "tale", but also how does the morality tale aspect relate to the flashback technique? Does he elaborate at all?

  Comma added. He doesn't link the morality tale to the flashback (neither do we, explicitly) but doesn't make too much of the point either, so we either have a medium sized sentence like this, or two very stubby sentences. - SchroCat (talk) 11:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

That's really all I've got. There's not much left to go over, following the PR and the other prose reviews already at this FAC. Nice to see you making your way through the entire Bond archive. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks, PMC. All addressed. Happy to talk over any of them further, particularly the final one. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Images

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks Nikkimaria; I think this is a first for me, that there hasn't been a single quibble over any of the images. It's only taken a decade to get a clean sheet...! - SchroCat (talk) 08:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Support from Crisco

• Octopussy, starring Roger Moore as James Bond, was released in 1983 as the thirteenth film in the series and provided the back story for the film character Octopussy; - The short story provided her backstory, or it was new to the film?
• Fleming had often hiked and skied in Kitzbühel in the late 1920s, while attending a small private school to study for entry into the Foreign Office and knew the area well; the experiences were used as the part of the story where Smythe hunted for the gold. - Feels like the comma is misplaced. Would "Fleming had often hiked and skied in Kitzbühel in the late 1920s, having attended a small private school to study for entry into the Foreign Office, and knew the area well; the experiences were used as the part of the story where Smythe hunted for the gold." work better?

  Reworked it in a different way: how does that look? - SchroCat (talk) 11:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• who he named "Pussy" - I believe this should be "whom" or "which", as the subject is Fleming rather than Pussy
• he wrote an article about the animal for The Sunday Times in 1957 "My Friend the Octopus" - Would a comma be better after 1957?
• partly based on Amaryllis, Fleming's half-sister. She was a concert cellist with blonde hair, and Fleming managed to get a passing reference to her in the story, saying: "Of course Suggia had managed to look elegant, as did that girl Amaryllis somebody. - You have two links to Amaryllis in two sentences
• Fleming also used her name as Bond's own housekeeper, May - Would "for Bond's own housekeeper" work better? The name is not the housekeeper; the woman with the name is.
• The historian Jeremy Black sees Bond's colleague, the officious Captain Sender, as the antithesis of Bond and an echo of Colonel Schreiber, the head of security at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, who appeared in the 1960 short story "From a View to a Kill". - How so? Did they relish killing?

  In their officious manner - quite the opposite of Bond's approach. - SchroCat (talk) 11:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• the daughter of a character Bond had allowed to commit suicide, rather than face the shame of arrest and imprisonment - Is the comma needed here? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  Many thanks Chris. All sorted, more or less down the lines you suggest, except where commented up above. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  Looks good. Thanks! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Support from MSincccc

Placeholder. MSincccc (talk) 10:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• Many of the elements of the stories derive from Fleming's own interests and experiences, including climbing in Kitzbühel, Austria, wartime commando deeds and the sea-life of Jamaica.

  I think I'll stick with what's there - SchroCat (talk) 11:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• Rest of the lead is fine.

MSincccc (talk) 10:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Background

• Could you describe John Griswold and Henry Chancellor— in short?

  We already do. - SchroCat (talk) 11:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• Rest of this section is fine for the time being.

MSincccc (talk) 10:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Adaptations and reprints

• Yaroslav Horak could be described.

  We describe him as illustrating the work: I think it's a little superfluous to describe him as "the illustrator Yaroslav Horak" as well. - SchroCat (talk) 11:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• ... he was adapted to be the father of Ernst Stavro Blofeld, the leader of the criminal organisation Spectre, and the former legal guardian of Bond in his youth.

Release and reception

• Anthony Burgess could be described.
• Paul Bacon (designer) could also be described.

  Like Horak, he's described as illustrating the book, which is enough of an indication, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 11:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Style

Within the James Bond series, Benson identifies what he described as the "Fleming Sweep", ... Could the full name be used here given that his name is being taken for the first time in the new section and that he was introduced in a previous section?

We could, but the previous full name and introduction was not too far above that people are likely to forget. - SchroCat (talk) 11:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Inspirations

• Blanche Blackwell could be linked and described as the Jamaican heiress... as it's the first instance of her being mentioned in the article.

Characters

• According to Matthew Parker and Jon Gilbert,... The two could be described in short.

  We already do. - SchroCat (talk) 11:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

SchroCat The rest of the article is fine though I will take another look at it later. Minor comments above. MSincccc (talk) 10:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• Fleming was so unhappy with the final piece, he wrote to Wilson and refused payment for something he considered so lacklustre. Could be reworked for clarity and concision.

  It's all good as it is. - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  Dissatisfied with the final piece, Fleming wrote to Wilson, refusing payment for what he deemed a subpar work. What about this one? MSincccc (talk) 12:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  As I've indicated, I think it's fine as it is. There are lots of ways we can phrase it, but I don't see this change as an improvement. - SchroCat (talk) 12:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• Fleming had often hiked and skied in Kitzbühel in the late 1920s, while attending a small private school to study for entry into the Foreign Office and knew the area well... Could be reworked. Id you ask, I have an alternative sentence.

  This doesn't appear in the article: it was reworked based on a comment from a previous reviewer. - SchroCat (talk)

@SchroCat Two more only. The rest of the prose appears flawless. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 11:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Support MSincccc (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Why are #5 and #53 formatted differently from the other paginated sources? What makes Slashfilm, Mutant Reviewers and Empire reliable sources? Otherwise, I see little that seems problematic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

##5 and 53 (and 57) all now have pages nos added, which I think is all of them. I think these three are considered generally reliable sources (there was nothing at RSN that debars their use on film topics), and they are the highest quality I could find that deal with the level of information being cited. Many thanks for your review, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

What a Merry-Go-Round

Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Following the smashing success of Voss, Alexander McQueen continued to lash out with What a Merry-Go-Round, which used imagery of clowns and circuses to portray the fashion industry as chaotic and deranged. Elements of the designs are considered to be potshots aimed at LVMH and its management as well as fellow designer John Galliano. Despite the aggressive undertones in the show, critics agreed that the clothes themselves were elegant and wearable, if perhaps not meant for the mainstream consumer. Though overshadowed by its predecessor, What a Merry-Go-Round is worth a look in its own right. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• McQueen Merry Go Round Look 67.jpg is fair use, and seems like a quite justified rationale.
• McQueen, Musée des beaux-arts - 32.jpg - CC-BY-SA.
• La Liberté guidant le peuple - Eugène Delacroix - Musée du Louvre Peintures RF 129 - après restauration 2024.jpg - PD

All of these seem good, support on image review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Aoba47

• Apologies in advance for being nitpick-y, but I am uncertain about the use of "now" in this part, (that is now a signature of the brand), per MOS:RELTIME. I wonder if this could be substituted with something like, (that has become a signature of the brand).
• I have a question for this part, (with at least six more in the finale). Is there a reason why we do not know the exact number of looks that were presented as part of the finale?
• If possible, I would avoid sentence constructions like the following, (with early looks in neutral colours, and orange and green becoming more prominent later on). I have seen comments in other FACs that discourage the use of the "with X verb-ing" construction, and while I do not have any strong opinions on it, it is probably best to avoid when possible.
• Would it be possible to attribute this quote, "holding pens", in the prose?
• Is there any particularly reason to include Krzysztof Komeda in the descriptor for "Sleep Safe and Warm"? I was just curious as the focus seems to be more on its inclusion on the Rosemary's Baby soundtrack so I was wondering why the composer would be mentioned here (as opposed to someone like the performer Mia Farrow).
• Here are some suggestions for some potentially useful links to add, (khaki, heavy metal music), but feel free to ignore this.

I hope that these comments are helpful. I have focused my review on the prose if that is okay. Wonderful work as always. I always enjoy reading through your work. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times to make sure that I have not missed anything, but I doubt that I will find any major. Best of luck with the FAC!

Andrea Navagero

Nominator(s): Kimikel (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

This article is about 16th-century Venetian diplomat and writer Andrea Navagero. I've included nearly all of the information that I could find regarding him, from his early days translating Greek and Latin classics at the Aldine Press to his harrowing journey from Venice to Spain, during which he survived near-shipwrecks, imprisonment, and a volatile political scene. This is my first FAC, so pass or fail, I am happy to learn from the experience and would like as much feedback as possible. Thank you. Kimikel (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

I can see no reason why this admirable article shouldn't become an FA. I know little, if anything, of the period, but the text strikes my layman's eye as thorough, balanced and reliable. It is also a good read – clear and interesting. If, as I hope, this is your first of many visits to FAC you will have to accustom yourself to an alarming amount of carping, quibbling and nit-picking about your prose. We all have to. With that in mind you may like to consider some or all of the following:

• "In 1515, on the request of general Bartolomeo d'Alviano" – unexpected preposition: wouldn't "at the request of…" be more usual?
• "he was designated Official Historian of the Republic of Venice" – do we need the capital letters in Official Historian, here and in the main text?
• "As a result of his high standing among Venetian scholarly circles" – another unexpected preposition, I'd say. "High standing in" those circles strikes me as more natural.
• "he traveled to Paris to acquaint himself with the royal court of Francis" – you really must decide whether you are using the American or the English spelling of "traveled/travelled". At present we have both throughout the text.
• "Much to his dismay, however, he was appointed ambassador" – this is the first of six "howevers" in your text. It is a word that slips so easily from one's pen or typing fingers, but is more often than not a woolly superfluity. I reckon your prose would be crisper without the first, second, fifth and sixth "howevers".
• "Navagero was born in 1483 to the wealthy and established Navagero family. The Navageros were a patrician family, members of the Venetian nobility" – infelicitous repetition of "family". It could easily be mitigated by recasting "a patrician family" as just "patricians".
• "Geographer and writer Giovanni Battista Ramusio was Navagero's distant cousin" – clunky false title. A definite article in front of "geographer" would do the trick.
• "and would grow to be among his closest friends" – does one grow to be a friend? The friendship grew, no doubt, but just "and would become…" strikes me as a more natural phrasing.
• "alongside fellow humanist Agostino Beazzano" – another false title.
• "As such, Navagero was tasked with negotiating" – I'm not sure what the phrase "as such" is intended to convey here. Do you mean "accordingly" or something like that?
• "dreadful little place on some rocky mountain." – you should watch your punctuation. Wikipedia's manual of style bids us put punctuation marks outside the end quotation marks in sentences like this. I haven't checked the rest of your text for it, but I suggest you do so.
• "he grew to resent Charles' powerful advisor" – I can't work out why you give King Francis an ess-apostrophe-ess possessive but deny it to the Emperor Charles.
• "Mercurino di Gattinara, who he saw as delaying the peace negotiations" – "whom", please.

That's all from me. I'll look in again shortly. Meanwhile, over to you. Tim riley talk 14:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Tim, I am very appreciative of your review. I have implemented all of your suggestions. For the "however" comment, I removed the word entirely, but in some instances I replaced it with "but" or "though". If these words are also superfluous please just let me know and I'll take them out. Thank you. Kimikel (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Good! After another read-through I'm happy to support the elevation of this article to FA. It is a good read, evidently well-sourced, looks comprehensive and balanced and is admirably illustrated. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 19:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Support from Borsoka

• I would avoid presenting the same painting twice in the article, even if one of the images shows only a part of the painting (I refer to File:Andrea Navagero by Raphael.jpg and File:Andrea Navagero and Agostino Beaziano by Raphael.jpg)
• The caption in the infobox is not helpful. Either delete or rephrase it (to be more informative).
• However, these are only minor issues, and I reviewed the article during its peer review weeks ago ([1]), and I concluded that it met all FA criteria ([2]). After re-reading the article, I am convinced that it has even improved, so I support its promotion. Again, thank you for this excellent article. Borsoka (talk) 09:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  Hello Borsoka, I have implemented your suggestions. Thank you very much for your comments and also for your peer review, as it was a big help in giving me the confidence to move ahead to FAC. Kimikel (talk) 16:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Choliamb

Hi Kimikel. I'm afraid I'm going to dump a big bucket of ice water on one specific section of the article, so let me start by saying that I think it's a fine article overall, full of valuable information and clearly written. It appears particularly strong on Navagero's diplomatic career, which is not something that I knew much about, and probably would never have bothered to learn about if I hadn't read the article. So thank you for that. My own interest in Navagero is, as you will see from the comments below, in his work as an editor of classical texts and as a Neo-Latin poet, and it is here, I think, that the article in its current form comes up a little short. His scholarly and literary activities are, for the most part, passed over very quickly, in a single paragraph (the second paragraph in the section headed "Career"), without much context and with several misstatements of fact in the space of half-a-dozen sentences. Without getting into an argument about whether his work as a scholar and a poet is more important than his diplomatic achievements, and without insisting on equal time for the things I find most interesting, I'll just say that I think the skimpiness of the discussion of this aspect of his life creates an imbalance that does not serve readers well. In a run of the mill biography, it wouldn't matter so much, but this is an FA candidate, and the comprehensiveness requirement states that it should "neglect no major facts or details". To me, at least, the article in its present form doesn't quite clear that bar.

Criticism without specifics is not very useful, so here are some specific examples of the kinds of information that might be used to improve the account of N.'s work as a scholar and poet:

• First, a small point, but an important one: the first sentence of the lead should also include the Latin form of his name, Andreas Naugerius, which was the name under which all of his Latin works were published, and the name by which, until relatively recently, he was regularly known to both casual readers and scholars of Italian humanism. It is, for example, the form of the name that his friend and fellow Italian poet Girolamo Fracastoro used as the title of his treatise on the nature and purpose of poetry, Naugerius, sive de poetica, which takes the form of an imaginary dialogue in which Navagero is one of the principal interlocutors. When looking for sources, if you only search for Navagero, and don't also search for Naugerius, you will miss some important things. This is especially true in regard to his work as a scholar and editor of Latin texts, because in the field of classical scholarship (where his contributions are still regularly cited today), he is invariably referred to as Naugerius.
• For the Aldine Press, with which he was involved since its inception, he translated the works of the ancient Roman writers Virgil, Quintilian, Ovid, and Cicero, among others. The Aldine editions were Latin texts, not translations, and Navagero was the editor (the "corrector", in the language of the time), not the translator. (The same mistake occurs in the first paragraph of the lead.) Look again at what Ady (the source cited here) actually says, and compare, e.g., the introduction to Wilson's edition of the Lusus, p. 7. The previous sentence in this paragraph, which says editing manuscripts of classic Greek and Latin works, gets this right, except that as far as I know Navagero did not produce an edition of any Greek text for Manutius. The preface of the Aldine edition of the Greek poet Pindar was addressed to him, but it was written by Manutius, and N. did not edit that volume. Do you have a source (preferably from a scholar who is actually familiar with the history of the Aldine press, not a popular historian repeating information at third or fourth hand) that includes the edition of a Greek author among his publications?
• garnering a reputation as a scholar and a skilled writer. Can this be expanded? In regard to his scholarship in particular (I'll come back to his poetic reputation later), perhaps with some acknowledgment of how highly regarded his editorial work is by modern classicists and textual critics? This is particularly true of his edition of Ovid and his extensive notes on problematic passages in the works of that poet, which take up fifty pages in the Volpi edition of his collected works (on which see below), and which have often been mined by subsequent scholars. E. J. Kenney, the former Kennedy professor of Latin at Cambridge and editor of the Oxford Classical Text of Ovid's amatory works, described him as "an excellent Latinist and Ovid's most competent editor before Heinsius" (The Classical Text, p. 67), and Georg Luck has some useful and admiring comments about his methods and abilities in "Ovid, Naugerius and We, or: How to Create a Text", Exemplaria Classica 6 (2002), pp. 1-40, and "Naugerius’ Notes on Ovid’s Metamorphoses", Exemplaria Classica 9 (2005), pp. 155-224. Philology and textual criticism have advanced by light years since the early 16th century, and it's unusual for a Renaissance editor to be treated with this kind of respect by contemporary classicists.
• All that remains of his poetry is a collection of 47 Latin poems referred to as Lusus. I still see this claim casually repeated, but it's not true, and hasn't been true since at least 1940. Although the Renaissance editions of the Lusus contain 47 poems, this does not take into account a number of other poems, not included in the Lusus, that survive in various Renaissance anthologies and manuscripts. The two essential works here are Maria Antonietta Benassi, "Scritti inediti o mal conosciuti di Andrea Navagero", Aevum 14 (1940), pp. 240–254 (JSTOR 25819298) and Claudio Griggio, "Per l'edizione dei 'Lusus' del Navagero", Atti del Instituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere, ed Arti, Classe scienze morali, lettere, ed arti 135 (1976-1977), pp. 87-113. (Benassi is available via the JSTOR link above; I think Griggio was also available online at one time, because I have a copy of it, but I'm not sure where I got it. If you can't find it, let me know and I'll send you a PDF.) Between the two of them, they have brought the total number of surviving Latin poems attributed to Navagero up to 69, although the attribution is not certain in every case. Both of these important articles are in Italian; if you want an English source to cite, the first paragraph of Dirk Sacré, "Andrea Navagero, Lusus: Three Textual Notes", Humanistica Lovaniensia 36 (1987), pp. 296-298 (JSTOR 23973625) is not great, but is probably sufficient. And in addition to his Latin poetry, Navagero also wrote verses in Italian, some of which survive. A handful of rime, sonnets, and madrigals, together with Italian translations of five of his Latin epigrams, are printed in the Volpi edition of his works (on which see below), pp. 275-286.
• As it stands, the article tells readers nothing at all about the kind of Latin poetry Navagero wrote. The title Lusus might offer a clue (clearly not epic!), but it's not one that will be intelligible to most readers who don't know Latin. As it happens, the bulk of the collection consists of poems in the pastoral mode, looking back to ancient models like Vergil's Eclogues, but treating the material in a briefer, more epigrammatic form. These kinds of pastoral vignettes, sometimes called lusus pastorales, were a Navagero specialty, along with even shorter epigrams that imitate the rustic votive epigrams in book 6 of the Greek Anthology. The second part of the introduction to Wilson's edition of the Lusus gives some of the background; see also W. L. Grant, Neo-Latin Literature and the Pastoral, who credits Navagero and his friend and fellow Venetian Pietro Bembo with introducing the lusus pastoralis as a subgenre of Neo-Latin pastoral; and Giovanni Ferroni, Dulces Lusus: Lirica pastorale e libri di poesia nel Cinquecento, esp. chap. 2 (unfortunately not available online, as far as I can see). The votive epigrams adapted from Greek models are well discussed in J. Hutton, The Greek Anthology in Italy to the Year 1800, pp. 189–192; these made a big impression on the Renaissance French poets (see below). Navagero, like Vergil and other later writers of pastoral, occasionally used the pastoral setting as a device to comment on current affairs: so, most notably, Lusus 20 ("Damon") is in part an elegy for pope Julius II, with allusions to the military campaigns of 1512 (see Grant, p. 332, and Wilson's notes on this poem.)
• The article in its current state also says little about the reputation and influence of N.'s Latin verse among other Renaissance poets, both those writing in Latin and those writing in the European vernaculars. An anodyne phrase like garnering a reputation as ... a skilled writer is pretty inadequate for a literary figure of his stature. He was widely admired by his contemporaries; Fracastoro wrote that he was surpassed by few, if any, of the poets of antiquity (paucis quidem aut nullis ex antiquioribus cedens), and as I mentioned above, made him the central character of the Naugerius, his dialogue on the nature of poetry. Among modern critics he is generally considered one of the finest Neo-Latin poets: cf., e.g., the remarks of Grant (cited above), who calls him "one of the most elegant Latin poets of the Italian Renaissance and one of the very few important Neo-Latin writers produced by Venice" (p. 140). As for influence, the votive epigrams based on the Greek Anthology were especially influential in France, where they were translated, adapted, and imitated by Ronsard, du Bellay, and other poets of the Pléiade: see Hutton, The Greek Anthology in France and in the Latin Writers of the Netherlands to the year 1800, pp. 332-337; Paul Kuhn, "L'influence néo-latine dans les églogues de Ronsard", Revue d'histoire littéraire de la France 21 (1914), pp. 309-325 (JSTOR 40517277); Paul Laumonier, Ronsard, poète lyrique, p. 128. And in a famous encounter in Granada in 1526, Navagero urged the Catalan poet Juan Boscán to try his hand at writing in the humanistic, Petrarchan mode then popular in Italy, a conversation that had a significant effect on the subsequent development of Spanish lyric poetry. (This story has been told many times; see, e.g., E. H. Wilkins, "A General Survey of Renaissance Petrarchism", Comparative Literature 2 (1950), pp. 327-342, at p. 332 (JSTOR 1768389), quoting Boscán's account of the meeting as told in the preface to Sonetos y canciones a manera de los italianos; an English translation of the relevant passage can be found in H. Keniston, Garcilaso de la Vega: A Critical Study of his Life and Works, pp. 74-76. Since you are fluent in Spanish, I will add a reference to A. de Colombí-Monguió, "Boscán frente a Navagero: el nacimiento de la conciencia humanista en la poesía española", Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica 40 (1992), pp. 143-168 (JSTOR 40299553). I haven't read it myself, but from the title it looks like it may have some interesting things to say about Navagero and his role in "the birth of the humanist spirit in Spanish poetry".)

I'm sorry to go on at such length about the shortcomings (or what I see as the shortcomings) of a single paragraph of the article, and I'm not looking for all of the above to be discussed in detail, obviously. But I think this paragraph could easily be expanded, and perhaps split into two (one for scholarship, one for poetry), and doing so would give you a chance to address these topics a little more fully and explicitly, and to illustrate the general points with a couple of specific examples like the ones I've mentioned above (or others -- there are plenty of others!). Doing so would, in my opinion, go a long way toward making the article a more balanced portrait of the man, and would remove most of my reservations about supporting FA status.

I'll finish up with a few additional comments on other points:

• Navagero admired Catullus so greatly that, in order to assert Catullus' poetic supremacy, he burned copies of the work of Martial, Catullus' contemporary, every year. Martial was not in fact Catullus's contemporary: Catullus was writing in the second quarter of the 1st century BCE, Martial in the last quarter of the 1st century CE, a difference of more than a century. The story about the burning of Martial's works is a more complicated one than Watson (the source cited here) indicates, and it's not entirely clear from the conflicting early sources how reliable the story is, whether the burning was intended as a joke or a serious act, and whether it was the licentious content or the impure style of Martial's epigrams that Navagero objected to. The most comprehensive discussion of the various versions of the story is in E. A. Cicogna, Della vita e delle opere di Andrea Navagero, pp. 290-291, note 306. It is first recorded in 1545 by Paolo Giovio, in an elegy for Navagero (printed in Latin in F. A. Gragg, Latin Writings of the Italian Humanists, pp. 348-349; I think Gragg published an English translation of it somewhere, but I can't find it at the moment). Giovio is close enough in time to Navagero himself that there should be some truth to the story, but it still gives me pause, personally, and if I were writing the WP article I would probably hedge a little and say "he is said to have burned copies of the work of Martial", rather than stating it as 100% certain. Still, it's in the sources, and often repeated, so you're well within your rights if you want to leave it as it is.
• In addition to the funeral orations for d'Alviano and Loredan, both of which are mentioned in the article, Navagero is also known to have delivered a similar oration for Catherine Cornaro in 1510 (see Cicogna, cited above, p. 227, note 12). Unlike the other two speeches, this one doesn't survive, but it may be worth mentioning anyway, both because it provides additional evidence of the respect accorded to him as an orator on grand state occasions, and because Catherine herself (the last ruler of the Crusader kingdom of Cyprus) is such an interesting character.
• Navagero's brother Pietro retrieved his coffin, which was later buried next to his beloved garden in Murano. More specifically, Navagero was laid to rest, according to his own instructions, in the church of San Martino di Murano, which apparently no longer exists. At some point in time a memorial inscription was set up by two of N.'s nephews, the sons of his brother Bartolomeo, either in San Martino or in San Giovanni in Bragola or Bragora. For all of this, and for the Latin text of the memorial inscription, see Cicogna (cited above), pp. 169-171. (On pp. 318-321 he also reproduces a group of interesting primary sources on the death of Navagero.) I've cited Cicogna in all three of the last three notes, so let me just insert an additional plug here: his account of Navagero's life and works, published in 1855, is a prodigious work of scholarship, full of all sorts of fascinating information drawn from archives and private sources, much of which is, as far as I know, unavailable elsewhere. It's very dense and not an easy read, especially if your Italian isn't great, but being able to search it electronically for keywords makes it possible to dip into it for his comments on specific subjects of interest without having to read it all from beginning to end.
• Finally, the WP article should certainly include a reference somewhere to J. A. Volpi and C. Volpi, eds., Andreae Naugerii patricii Veneti oratoris et poetae clarissimis opera omnia (Padua 1718), which is still the standard edition of his collected works. In addition to the poetry, it contains the two surviving funeral orations, prefaces from his editions of classical texts, a collection of letters, and his accounts of his diplomatic journeys to Spain and France, as well as a selection of works addressed to him or about him by his contemporaries (like Fracastoro's Naugerius). (Table of contents on p. 430.)

That's it for me. Once again, apart from the reservations expressed above, I think this is a good article, and I enjoyed reading it. Happy holidays, Choliamb (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Choliamb, thank you very much for bringing these shortcomings to light. I will work on rectifying all of this over the next couple of days. Kimikel (talk) 03:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@Choliamb: I would be very appreciative if you could take another look at the article when you have the time. I believe I have incorporated all of your suggestions, mostly in the section "Writer and scholar". If there is still a major piece that I am missing out on, or if I have introduced another inaccuracy, please let me know and I will be happy to continue editing. I hope that I have addressed your concerns and I thank you for your incredibly detailed support. Kimikel (talk) 05:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@Kimikel: I didn't check all the references, but I did give the new section a quick once-over, and it looks good to me. I'm much happier with the article's balance now, thank you. I do see one misunderstanding:

• two separate scholars, Maria Antonietta Benassi and Claudio Griggio, uncovered more of Navagero's Latin works in Italian manuscripts, adding twelve poems to his known body of work. The numbers are still not quite right here. Not your fault; you're relying on Sacré, and his summary is a little confusing. It's true that Griggio published 12 more poems, but that was on top of the 10 new poems previously published by Benassi, so between the two of them they added 22 (not 12) new Latin poems to the corpus, for a total of 69, not 59. (Benassi also published some additional Italian poems.) The complete collection of 69 Latin poems according to Griggio's edition can be consulted online in a couple of different places; perhaps it would be helpful to add one or both to the WP article as external links:
  • the MQDQ (Musisque Deoque) project at Ca' Foscari University in Venice
  • the Perseus Project at Tufts University
• Also, FYI, I see that a new print edition of Navagero's Latin poetry will be published in the spring by Harvard Univ Press, in their I Tatti series of Renaissance Latin texts and translations. No reason for this to appear in the article yet, but you may want to keep an eye on it for future revisions.

Assuming the numbers are sorted out as explained above, I'm now happy to support. Thanks for improving WP's coverage of Renaissance humanists. Happy New Year. – Choliamb (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Editing to add a reply to UndercoverClassicist's question below about Navagero's time in Padua. The indefatigable Cicogna (pp. 224–225, note 5) reports that his presence in that city is confirmed by a volume in the episcopal library, which lists him as a witness in the awarding of doctorates in 1501 and 1502. (In the entry for 1501 he is described as Venetus artium studens; in 1502 the other witness was his lifelong friend Fracastoro). Choliamb (talk) 15:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I have corrected the number from 12 to 22 poems and added an external link to the MQDQ Project's Lusus. I want to thank you again for all of your assistance in making this article a far, far more comprehensive biography, something Navagero certainly deserves. Kimikel (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

UC

Seems that this has already had some very skilled eyes pass over it, but I'll add my carping, quibbling and nit-picking shortly. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• I think we need a brief caption to give a date, artist and brief context for the infobox image, especially as the artist is notable.
• Throughout, text (including titles) in non-English languages needs to be in Lang templates. You can set |italic=no if you wish, but generally non-English words in the Latin alphabet are also italicised.

Done Kimikel (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not sure most of what we give as "occupations" in the infobox really were "occupations" in the modern sense: particularly the translating, poetry and history-writing were more aristocratic side-interests than professional work. Perhaps the |known_for= parameter would be useful here?

Moved everything besides diplomat to known for Kimikel (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• He dedicated himself to editing classic Greek and Latin manuscripts: advise classical instead, which is more neutral description and easier to defend (were the manuscripts really "classic", as distinct from the works themselves?).

Replaced all instances with "classical" Kimikel (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• Other than the date of birth, the Early Life section is pretty light on chronological precision: is that a reflection of the sources? Do we have any idea, for example, when he was at Padua? (I see the dates now added on Padua, but the broader point stands).

Hello UndercoverClassicist, thank you for your comments. I believe I have implemented all of your suggestions in this round of comments. Please let me know if there is anything else, or if I need to redo something you've already listed. Thanks! Kimikel (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• As a result of his high standing in Venetian scholarly circles, he was named the Venetian ambassador to Spain in 1523, and navigated the volatile diplomatic climate caused by the conflict between Holy Roman Emperor Charles V and Francis I of France. : I think we need to mention here that Charles was also king of Spain.

Done Kimikel (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• Many of his contemporaries believed that he had the potential to become an ascendant and successful politician: what is ascendant saying here that isn't covered by successful?

Removed Kimikel (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• In general, the article moves lightly over things that might be better fleshed out or explained, particularly for readers who are not versed in the (many) areas of study touched on here. For instance:
  • Navagero was born in 1483 to the wealthy and established Navagero family. The Navageros were patricians, members of the Venetian nobility.: the Venetian nobility wasn't just one thing: do we have any idea of how aristocratic this family was?

Established that the Navageros were part of the case nuove of the Venetian nobility

• • He attended meetings of the academies of Rome, and subscribed to the humanist and Epicurean schools of thought: what were those things? Was that unusual or interesting at the time?

I have broken these into different sentences which define each idea, and tried to contextualize them more in the era and how they related to Navagero. Kimikel (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• • He delivered a funeral oration for Catherine Cornaro, the final Queen of Cyprus, in 1510: how was it that he ended up doing that? Venice is a long way from Cyprus, isn't it?

Added that she was born and died in Venice, will address other two Kimikel (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• Many of his contemporaries believed that he had the potential to become an ascendant and successful politician: perhaps not your doing, but this is textbook WP:WEASEL, and it makes a big difference as to which contemporaries are being talked about. Does di Robilant give any specifics?

I 100% agree with the weasel comment, but unfortunately di Robilant does not. Will look for another source that attributes it to somebody Kimikel (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Have not been able to find anything that is attributed to a specific person and backs this claim, not even in Cicogna's exhaustive biography. I kept the sentence as it was but since his political career in the Council is not hugely relevant to his life, I can just remove it entirely to avoid the weaseling. Kimikel (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• In fact, Navagero admired Catullus so greatly that in order to assert Catullus' poetic supremacy, he is said to have burned copies of the work of Martial, another Latin poet: this doesn't really connect unless you know a little about the relationship between the two: Catullus was the first major Latin poet of invective and, to Martial, the greatest. Martial saw himself as a humble imitator/apprentice to Catullus, but I imagine the two formed rival "fan clubs" in the Early Modern period.

Added that Martial was imitator/"literary inheriter" of Catullus Kimikel (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• We mention a lot of modern scholars in the section on his Latin and other compositions, but I think we need to be more precise as to exactly when those people were writing. "Modern", in classical scholarship, can cover at least the last century, if not the last two.

Added years of publication for modern scholar quotes Kimikel (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• When editing a work, he generally preferred its older readings and interpretations: I think I know what you mean here, but it's not quite idiomatic or clear. What are, for example, the Aeneid's older readings? We mean older readings and interpretations of the Aeneid -- but then what is "older" in this context? A hundred years or a thousand?

From what I have read Navagero did not specify which manuscripts he was taking from, he just claimed to have found a reading in "old manuscripts". I added this tendency of his to the article, if it still does not read well, I can just remove it entirely Kimikel (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah: this may not quite be the same thing. In textual criticism, a manuscript's "reading" of a text is the word or spelling it has in a certain position. So, what N. may well have been saying is that, given a manuscript of the Aeneid from 1300 that began with "I sing of arms and the man" and one of 1400 that began "I sing of farms and the man", he would write "arms and the man" in his edition because the manuscript containing that reading is older. That's pretty standard practice in modern textual criticism, though I doubt the field was coherent enough to say the same in Navagero's time. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining, apologies for having misunderstood. Since it's now considered standard practice, I felt it wasn't necessary to include it in the article and removed it. Kimikel (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd say this goes the other way: assuming it wasn't standard at the time, it's more of an argument for inclusion that it's standard today. We wouldn't comment that Einstein thought the world was made up of atoms, because everybody did in his time, but it's a major part of Democritus's biography that he did. I suspect Choliamb might have some insight into whether this kind of technique was yet mainstream? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: I believe I've addressed everything up to this point. If I need to expand further on any of these previous points, please let me know. Thank you. Kimikel (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Flight Pattern

Nominator(s): Z1720 (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a dance performance depicting the plight of a group of refugees. Choreographed by Crystal Pite for The Royal Ballet, it was the first time in 18 years that the ballet company commissioned a work by a woman. If successful, I think this would be English Wikipedia's second featured article about a dance performance, and I would like this to be TFA on World Refugee Day. Your comments and feedback are much appreciated. Z1720 (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

Just a place holder for now. I hope to look in tomorrow. Tim riley talk 16:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

A few minor points on prose:

• " a one-act contemporary ballet by Canadian choreographer Crystal Pite" – clunky false title. The addition of a definite article will make the desired improvement.

• I removed "one-act" to resolve this concern. I am open to other suggestions. Z1720 (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• "their spines unravelling" – I should think if one's spine unravels one is probably dead. It seems an odd verb to use and I can't quite picture what you are trying to convey.

• Hm, this must be dancer jargon because, as a dancer, this is a common descriptor of movement. I've clarified in the article using anatomical terms. Z1720 (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• "the couple has lost a child" – but later you use "their" rather than "its" for "the company". Either singular or plural is fine, but I recommend consistency.

• has -> have. Z1720 (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• "with the dancer's fate left ambiguous to the audience" – you might consider omitting the last three words. To whom else would it be ambiguous?

• Done. Z1720 (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• "masterfully layored" – what?

• I switched out the quote for something more explicit. Z1720 (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Reviewers highlighted the 18-year gap since the Royal Ballet commissioned work from a female choreographer" – this is bound to pique your readers' interest and it would be a kindness to add an explanatory footnote saying who the previous one was and giving the name of her work.

• Many sources mention the 18-year gap, but none mention who the last choreographer was. I'm scared that trying to do this research myself would results in WP:OR so, unless someone can find a source that mentions the last choreographer, I might be stuck. Z1720 (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• "the company often performs in their repertoire" – this lurches between singular and plural: either "the company often performs in its repertoire" or "the company often perform in their repertoire".

• Changed "their" to "its". Z1720 (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

My only point about the substance of the article is that you don't mention the conductor (Koen Kessels) or the soprano soloist (Francesca Chiejina) who took part in the première. You mention the costumier, set designer and lighting designer (or unlighting designer to judge from the Royal Ballet's YouTube video) and it seems wrong to overlook the musical performers. The 2019 revival had the same singer but a different conductor, but I don't think it is necessary to mention that.

• I added the conductor and soloist to the "Performances" section. Z1720 (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I hope these few comments are of use. Tim riley talk 13:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Afterthought: in the opening line is it relevant to mention Pite's nationality? Tim riley talk 13:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• Probably not. Removed the nationality. Z1720 (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Tim riley: Comments above. Thanks for the review, and let me know if there's anything else to address. Z1720 (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

After a final read-through I'm happy to support the promotion of this article to FA. It is clear, a good read, seems neutral and balanced, is well and widely referenced (with some heavyweight sources as well as press coverage) nicely illustrated and meets all the FA criteria in my book. The false title is still in the lead but I do not press the point. I look forward to seeing the article on our front page. Tim riley talk 18:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Placeholder

This seems an interesting subject! On first glance though can you let me know why you do not link the publications in the references? Ippantekina (talk) 02:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ippantekina: I was worried about a WP:SEAOFBLUE with the article title and the archived link. Z1720 (talk) 17:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments Support from MSincccc

• Recusing to review. MSincccc (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)~

Lead

• Flight Pattern is a contemporary ballet by the choreographer Crystal Pite,... "Choreographer" could be de-linked here as most occupations are. The "the" ensures that there are no false titles.

• I delinked it. Z1720 (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• by the dancers Marcelino Sambé and Kristen McNally. Again, to avoid false titles.

• Done. Z1720 (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Critical reviews

• Reviewers differed on the emotional impact of the piece: some thought it was impactful[21][25] and that the choreography avoided abstract and metaphorical movement to a positive effect.[8] Others felt the choreography was simplistic and sanitised,[20] melodramatic,[7] or lacked the depth of her previous work.[5] Sambé's performance was "exuded fluency These two sentences could be merged or rephrased, as you prefer.

• Merged. Z1720 (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• Luke Jennings, writing for The Guardian,... Dropped the "when".

• Done. Z1720 (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• Kat Lister stated in The Independent that the performance at Royal Opera House,... The newspaper's name could be linked here.

• Done. Z1720 (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Performances

• succeeding the Belgian choreographer Sidi Larbi Cherkaoui's Medusa... Finer version which also avoids false titles.

• I didn't include Belgian, because this article is not about Cherkaoui and thus I do not think that is important for this article, but I added "the". Z1720 (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

MSincccc (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• @MSincccc: Comments above. Z1720 (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  Nothing more for the time being. I will try to chime in later if I find something new, but at this moment the article is fine as it is. MSincccc (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

You're Not Sorry

Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a lesser-known song by Taylor Swift. Well... I don't know what else to introduce about Ms. Swift, so err, enjoy this song and article, I guess? I believe this article is well-written and comprehensive for an FA, and I'm open to any and all comments :) Ippantekina (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Aoba47

• I am uncertain about "see" in this context, (lyrics see Swift calling out), as lyrics can obviously not see anything. Maybe a different word choice here would be better?

• Rephrased. Ippantekina (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• Should the lead clarify that this song was released prior to the album? I think that it would help to explain its status as a promotional single, and readers may be unaware that this download release on the iTunes Store was done prior to the album's release. It may be obvious though so feel free to disagree.

• Added. Ippantekina (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• For this part, (a March 2009 episode), it may be helpful to link "Turn, Turn, Turn" (CSI episode), which is a redirect to the episode. The redirect is already used in the article so it would be consistent to use it in the lead as well. I think you could just link the phrase without naming the episode as it is not notable enough to mention by name in the lead.

• Added. Ippantekina (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• It may be nice to link catchy, but this is just a suggestion.
• I would link re-recording in the lead and in the article itself.

• Added. Ippantekina (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• Why is the "Release" section placed before the "Music and lyrics" section? It seems out of order.

• This followed the structure I used for "Hey Stephen". I think it makes sense that "Release" follows "Background" and the current order doesn't seem too out of place imo. Let me know if you think otherwise! Ippantekina (talk) 06:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you for the explanation and for the link to the other example. I can understand using a certain order if the information is best presented that way so this should not be an issue for me. Aoba47 (talk) 12:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• The word "released" is repeated multiple times in the first paragraph of the "Release" section, and it would be good to add variety.

• Switched up in places. Ippantekina (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• Just out of curiosity, and apologies in advance if this is obvious, but how was the electronic remix released? Was it put out as a standalone remix on places like iTunes Store? I am guessing based on when it was released that it was not made available on the Fearless album, or at least physical copies.

• Added. Ippantekina (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• I would avoid the repetition in saying "sing the song".

• Tweaked in places. Ippantekina (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• The following source (here) has credited authors that are not included in the citation.

• Added authors. Ippantekina (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I hope that this review is helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article again a few more times just to make sure that I have not missed anything. I doubt that I will find anything significant though as you have done a great job with writing about one of Swift's lesser-known songs. The mention of the CSI guest appearance, as well as the iTunes Store, are big throwbacks for me. It would be cool if she ever performed that remix live. Anyway, best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Aoba47: thanks for the review! I've addressed your comments above. Let me know if any outstanding concerns remain :) Ippantekina (talk) 06:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. You have done a wonderful job with this article, and I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I always enjoy reading through your articles, and I hope you are having a great start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 12:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words as always :) Ippantekina (talk) 13:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I am just glad that I could help. I have posted my image and media review below as I thought that it may be helpful to get that out of the way. Everything looks good to me with that. I just have a quick question about the summary for the audio sample. Aoba47 (talk) 14:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

brachy0008 (minor)

hi! this is my… second FA review… im completely inexperienced (i did review a mariah carey article before (FA)) and as advice, im here… to do more reviews for a little prep for my you know, first FAC

• Erin Strecker of Billboard wrote about how seems a bit ambiguous.
• Rob Sheffield writing for Blender: Where is the commas? Minor punctuation error. (/j)

and that is all the nitpicking i could find so far. will get back to you later ;D

Image and media review (pass)

Image use and placement make sense to me. Both images have appropriate WP:ALT text. The WP:FUR is complete and well-done forFile:Taylor Swift - You're Not Sorry.png, and I do not see any issues with File:Taylor Swift - Fearless Tour - Los Angeles 05.jpg. The audio sample, File:YoureNotSorry sample.ogg, has a clear purpose and use in the article, but I do have a quick question about this part. The file information for this sample seems shorter than those you have done for other Taylor Swift articles, such as this one for "Labyrinth" (Taylor Swift song), and I was wondering about the reason for it? Once this has been addressed, this will pass my image and media review. Aoba47 (talk) 14:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Aoba. I've added detailed FUR for the audio sample. Let me know if that works! Ippantekina (talk) 05:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Everything looks good to me. Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 13:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Chris Redfield

Nominator(s): Boneless Pizza! (talk) and StarScream1007 13:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC) (UTC)

This article is about a main character from the Resident Evil game and film series; who is known for punching a boulder at the active volcano in video games.

After Aoba47, Crisco, and Shapeyness (from their talk page) peer reviewed the article I feel like the article has improved a lot. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Media review and support from Crisco

• File:Chris Redfield RE8.png - Source is a bare URL, which is subject to linkrot. A bit more detail is necessary.

  Done 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• File:Chris Redfield.png - Same as above.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  Done 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Prose comments:

• Video game magazines have been polarized in their critiques of the character, - Pretty sure it's not just magazines. Journalism is not synonymous with magazine.

  Replaced 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• Some critics have referred to a scene of Chris punching a boulder in Resident Evil 5 (2009) as one of the most memorable within the Resident Evil series, which was also subjected to internet memes. - "Which was ..." is a dangling modifier and could be read as "the series was also subjected to internet memes", which is true but not what you intended here.

  Replaced to "Which is" 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  Rearranged like this — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• Chris joined the special operations unit of the Special Tactics and Rescue Service (S.T.A.R.S.). - Isn't S.T.A.R.S. the spec-ops unit of the RPD? I'd rephrase this as "Chris joined the Special Tactics and Rescue Service (S.T.A.R.S.), a special operations unit of the Raccoon Police Department.

  Replaced 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• Character designer Tsutomu Kawade noted that Chris' signature was his powerful arms, and they were aware of that. His concept color is green, and Kawade wanted it to be visible, so they designed his attire in blue-tinted green. - These sentences are clunky. Perhaps something like "Character designer Tsutomu Kawade noted that the team was aware of Chris' powerful arms being his most distinctive feature. Their design thus accentuated his arms, with attire in blue-tinted green that continued his concept color."?

  Replaced 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• photo realistic depiction - isn't photorealistic one word?

  Done 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• According to the director of Resident Evil Village, Kento Kinoshita, the production team initially had a different plan for the game's downloadable content (DLC); Kinoshita said that the crew initially preferred a DLC with Rose Winters as the main character, rather than with Chris rejoining the action. - This doesn't really segue with the rest of the paragraph. Also, it doesn't really communicate that a Chris-based DLC was initially discussed.

  I guess it doesn't habe enough detail, so I ended uo removing it. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• a bio-terror attack - Bioterrorism is unhyphenated above

  Done 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• You use "Rose Winters" above but "Rosemary" below

  Removed 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• He also makes a cameo appearance in Fortnite Battle Royale (2017),[68] Nintendo crossover video game Super Smash Bros. Ultimate (2018) as one of the 'Spirit' power-ups,[69] Dead by Daylight (2016) and Tom Clancy's The Division 2 (2019) as an alternate skin,[70][71] State of Survival (2019),[72] digital collectible card game Teppen (2019),[73] Dead Rising Deluxe Remaster (2024) as an outfit for Frank West,[74] and a robot dressed as Chris makes a cameo reference in Astro's Playroom (2020) and Astro Bot (2024).[75][76] - Might be worth splitting

  Done 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• particularly since his more muscular appearance in Resident Evil 5. - particularly since his more muscular appearance debuted in Resident Evil 5.

  Replaced 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• Internet - Capitalized or not?

  Maybe not, replaced 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• videogames - With a space, I should think? — 

  Done 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Chris Woodrich. I've addressed everything. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
• Thanks, BP. Looks good, and happy to support. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  Many thanks to the review! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Aoba47

• I would remove the second comma in this sentence: (Several actors have portrayed Chris, including Wentworth Miller and Robbie Amell, in the live-action Resident Evil films.) It does change the meaning. With the second comma, it is saying that several actors have played Chris in the live-action films with Miller and Amell as just two examples. Without that comma, it is saying that several actors have played this character, including these two live-action instances. I'd go for the meaning without the comma.

  Done 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 21:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• For this part, (with particular focus on the frequent modifications to his design and inconsistent appearance), I do not think that "particular" is necessary as that is already assumed with the word "focused". The final bit seems a bit repetitious to me as it is saying the character is receiving criticism for his design being frequently changed and then saying again that his appearance is inconsistent. Maybe something along the lines of (on the frequent modifications and inconsistency in his design)?

  Done 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 21:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• I do not think that "subjected" works in this context, (which is subjected to internet memes), as I always perceive the word as having a more negative connotation. I would use a different word choice here.

  Replaced 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 21:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• For this part, (modeler Yosuke Yamagata), would it be helpful to have a link for modeler?

  Done 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 21:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• I would more directly attribute the following quote, "pretty dramatic". I believe that this is said by Jun Takeuchi based on context, but since this quote comes in for a new sentence, I think it would be good to clarify who is saying this quote.

  Done 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 21:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• I would avoid using the following sentence construction, (with X verb-ing), when possible as it is something often discouraged on the FAC level. An example of this is, (with the two leading a group to destroy Umbrella's only remaining research facility), as well as this, (with fans using it to demonstrate Chris' masculinity).

  I believe this is done. I found three instances, but please let us know if I missed anything. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  00:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• I would be consistent with using title case for the citation titles. I know that this is a pain, and I was honestly only made aware of it somewhat recently, but it does seem like another common point made in FACs.

  This should be done as well. Please let me know if I missed something or if any the titles still need adjustment. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  01:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I hope that these comments are helpful. I believe that should be everything, but I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure that I have not missed anything. I am always happy to see more fictional characters in the FAC space. Great work as always with that. Best of luck with the FAC, and I hope you are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @StarScream1007. Anyway @Aoba47, done. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current peer review, but I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. I hope you have a great weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for reviewing! Sure, I'll review it tomorrow. =). 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Spotchecks by Lazman321

As you requested, I'll be conducting spotchecks soon here. Lazman321 (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Boneless Pizza!: I think that will be all for my spotchecks. Definitely an improvement over my spotchecks for Claire Redfield. Willing to support once addressed. Lazman321 (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Lazman321 Hi again. I've addressed all of your concenrs now. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 00:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Support based on spotchecks. Lazman321 (talk) 04:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 04:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Source review by Tintor2

I will be doing the source review. Tintor2 (talk) 00:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

All the sources I'm reading count as WP:Reliable sources as approved by the project of video games:

• PCGamesN, Engadget, IGN twice, Bloody Disgusting, GameSpot, Polygon, Platinum Games, Kotaku (this sound lately became controversial in discussion but it's older), 1UP.com, Gameinformer, Eurogamer, GamesRadar+, VG247, Nintendo World Report, Push Square, GamePro, Edge, The Gamer, Den of Geek (lately discussed by the project but still not decided if it's bad), The Escapist, Shack News (I'm not sure about this but the wikilinks leading me to such article seems to make it strong for reliable), Gematsu (lately more approved than Siliconera, I often visit that site and it well written), Anime News Network (probably the most reliable site that deals with anime and related projects), Yahoo News, Siliconera is pretty much like Gematsu and a lot of websites tend to borrow content from it. Destructoid, Gamepur (I'm not familiar with this website but still it seems well organized), Screenrant (kinda like GameRant the commentary might be too subjective but it's pretty useful as far as I've been told), GameSpy, NintendoLife, GameZone, Complex
• Twitter accounts: @aesthetics_re seems to official.
• 5-8, 12-13, 15-16, 19, 39-40, 48, 49: Credits to the original games
• 14, another official twitter account.
• Bibliography: all of them possess wikilinks so they are accessible to every user
• All citations possess the writer's name and dates and are consistently linked.

@Boneless Pizza!: This is all I read. I'm not too experienced with FA reviews but I tried doing everything a source review has to do. I hope this article passes so I give it a pass. If I missed anything, somebody feel free to correct it.Tintor2 (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Kotaku and Den of Geek are reliable, while Screen Rant is reliable for pop culture purpose and as a valnet source, it shouldn't be used a lot; that's why I used only once (BTW, GameRant is a low quality, thus I wouldn't def use it). Thanks! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 01:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I see. It's that I remember recent discord talks about Kotaku and Den of Geek not being approved by the project but since nothing was decided I'm sure they count as reliable. Tintor2 (talk) 01:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

When the content were obviously written like it was made from AI; that's a different story and its unreliable. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 01:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

750h

Reviewing. Feel free to refuse the suggestions with proper justification. 750h+ 12:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

lead

• character, with focus on the frequent ==> "character, with a focus on the frequent"

concept and design

• he had trained intensely in order to fight the series' ==> "he had trained intensely to fight the series'" (conciseness)
• Chris' actions serve as a major mystery ==> "Chris' actions served as a major mystery"
• His appearance was once again redesigned, with ==> "His appearance was again redesigned, with"

appearances

• biological warfare activities, and ultimately comma here is unnecessary
• private organization with the goal of exposing Umbrella's biological ==> "private organization to expose Umbrella's biological"
• a man identifying himself as "Redfield" arrives "himself" is unneeded
• Mia and Rosemary are rescued, Chris and his team head to the BSAA's European ==> "Mia and Rosemary are rescued, and Chris and his team head to the BSAA's European"

critical reception

• mass throughout the games in repeatedly changing remove "in"
• by IGN and in a Famitsu's reader survey remove "a" or remove the " 's"

@Boneless Pizza!: fine work on the article. address my comments and i'd be happy to leave a vote. best, 750h+ 12:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I've addressed all of your concerns already. Many thanks for the review. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

happy to support. 750h+ 12:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Beauty Revealed

Nominator(s):  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

This article is about an audacious miniature by Sarah Goodridge that challenged established norms and played on contemporary tropes: a portrait of her bared breasts. She gave this miniature to the man who bested Satan himself, Daniel Webster, shortly after the death of his first wife, and it has been seen as a sort of "come hither" gift. It is now held by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, having been sold by Webster's descendants more than a hundred and fifty years after she gave it to him.

I wrote this article in 2014, around the time I did September Morn, and it has been a GA since then. I've tidied up the article, expanded a bit with since-published material, and gotten everything ready for FA. As an aside, this is also the most popular article I've ever written, having accrued almost two million views in ten years.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Sarah_Goodridge_Beauty_Revealed_The_Metropolitan_Museum_of_Art.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Miniature_Painting,_Sarah_Goodridge_Self_Portrait.jpg, File:Daniel_Webster_(1825)_by_Sarah_Goodridge.jpg

• File:Beauty_Revealed_MET_DP221518.jpg: this tagging applies to the photo only, not the artwork. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  • All addressed. Thanks.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Prose review by Generalissima

• Centimetre -> Centimeter in American English (along those lines, probably should give the inch units first with the cm. in parenthesis)
  • Done. That template gets tricky.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
• Can we objectively state that the breasts in question have "balance, paleness, and buoyancy" (esp. since that appears to be a direct quote)? It might be better to rephrase that to be how critics have described it.
  • Reworked completely.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
• who was a frequent subject and possibly a lover -> "who was her frequent subject and possible lover following the death of his wife" seems like better phrasing to me
  • Not done. The sources don't indicate that, if they had an amorous relationship, it began only after the death of his first wife (Kornhauser describes Goodridge's 1827 portrait of him as a romantic presentation, referring specifically to his smoldering eyes). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
• "contemporary" is always a messy adjective, esp. when it begins a thought; "contemporary United States" could be read as "modern-day US" at first glance. To avoid it though, you might have to work "during the period" or similar phrasing in there somehow.
  • All instances reworked. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
• It may be good to introduce what Public Domain Review in a couple words
  • Done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
• I don't think sext goes to the article you think it does :P (it might also be good to put "proto-sext" in quotations, as thats an on-the-spot coined term)
  • Oh, that was good for a laugh. Fixed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
• Might be good to restate who Chris Packard is, as he's mentioned on the other sde of the article
  • Done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: that's all my thoughts! Generalissima (talk) (it/she)

• Thanks, Generalissima. That should all be fixed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Support Looks good to me after the fixes and clarifications. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod

• I've done minor changes; ok I hope.
  • Most everything looks good. I've reworked "made by" to "collected by", as "made" may be misinterpreted as "prepared"/"produced". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
• I don't find the descriptions of either the original or current framing/packaging very clear. It's now in a box, like a set of silver spoons, yes? Was there an earlier box? Where does the leather case fit in?
  • The box is the leather case. The sources use the term "case" (or, in the case of Johnson, casework). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    • ok, I think you need to expand to clarify. Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
• Do we know when the current box was added?
  • Not in the sources, unfortunately. It was added at least as early as 1990, since Plate 19 of the Johnson source shows the same case. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
• The article makes it sound like she worked the ivory herself. This doesn't seem very likely; I'd imagine smooth and flat plaques could be bought.
  • The source very explicitly says that she was known to prepare the ivory herself. "She would master the art of cutting fine shavings of ivory into the desired shape for a portrait, preparing the surface for watercolor by sanding it and treating it with gum arabic." I've added "shavings" to the sentence to make it clear she wasn't working directly with the horns/tusks. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I imagine my "smooth and flat plaques" = the source's "fine shavings of ivory", a phrasing which rather suggests something like wood-shavings, which wouldn't make much sense. Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
      • Have replaced with "shaping and preparing ivory plaques", which appears to be a fair paraphrase of the source. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
• Is it elephant ivory?
  • Not in the sources. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
• More later, I expect.

Johnbod (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

I'm still recovering from SchroCat's Secretum (British Museum) FAC, and I doubt if I ought to be exposed to such things at my time of life. I could quibble about "following the death of his wife; she may have intended to provoke him" (who was "she"?) but in practice nobody is going to misunderstand you. I also wondered about "potentially from looking at herself in a mirror", where "possibly" might perhaps be more accurate. I boggle a bit at the suggestion that the clothing indicates a performance similar to the curtains of vaudeville, as Goodridge was decades dead before vaudeville started in the US, but my quarrel there is with the author of the source and not with Chris's citation of it, which is fine. The article is far outside my area of expertise, but all things considered I am happy to add my support for its promotion to FA. It is a good read, well and widely sourced (with 18 sources for a 1,500-word article), judiciously illustrated, and evidently comprehensive. – Tim riley talk 16:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oh, I didn't know about that article. Will have to read it - sounds interesting. I have used "potentially" as "possible" is used in the next sentence. As with vaudeville, it does make me wonder when the proscenium curtain came into wide usage; our front curtain article is decidedly ahistorical. Thanks! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I Got That

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Image review (passed)

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

• I have removed the Amazon.com source link as it is likely best to avoid using that website in this context. I have followed what the "I'm Goin' Down" article did for its cover image. Aoba47 (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• File:AmilBeyonceIGotThat.ogg Recommend providing more detail in the source field, to ensure that we have sufficient detail to find it should it go missing.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• I have removed the YouTube video link as it is not on either Beyoncé or Amil's official YouTube accounts. Amil does not even have an official YouTube account anyway. I have cited the album directly as I have seen this being done for song FAs, such as for "All-American Bitch" for its audio sample. Aoba47 (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Prose comments:

• In the United States, "I Got That" topped the Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Singles chart in September 2000 - Is that a Billboard chart? Worth mentioning. Same issue later.

• Revised and added the link to the Billboard chart. Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• Worth mentioning why Eve featured in the music video when none of the other female rappers mentioned appeared?

• The article does not connect the other female rappers with the music video. The comment about them is a critic's opinion about why this song might have underperformed, as there was was a lot of competition with female rappers at the time, and it even comes after the discussion about the music video. There would be no reason to assume or wonder why anyone else is not present in the music video. Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• Okay, let me rephrase: do the sources say why Eve was included?  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, the source just says that Eve makes a cameo appearance in the music video without going into further detail. I would guess that she was included as the song is all about female independence so there was a decision to include more women, but that is just pure speculation on my part. Aoba47 (talk) 03:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• Don't see much to comment on otherwise. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• @Crisco 1492: Thank you for your comments. I believe that I have addressed everything both in the image and prose reviews. Let me know if there is anything that could be improved upon. I hope that you are having a great day and/or night. Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks, Aoba. Support - seems to be sufficiently detailed, and prose is tight.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you for your help and for your support. Aoba47 (talk) 04:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Medxvo

• I've previously suggested the "Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Singles chart" wording instead of "Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Singles Billboard chart", but I think another good option would be "Billboard Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Singles chart"—something similar to Billboard Hot 100, instead of having two wikilinks

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• I think chorus can be wikilinked in the article (since we're already linking verse)

• Added. Aoba47 (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Beyoncé's vocals were described as breathy by Unterberger, and as "buttery" by Camille Augustin in Vibe" - why quotation marks for "buttery" but not "breathy"?

• I did not use quotation marks for "breathy" as from what I have read, it is a more common description for a vocal performance, while "buttery" seemed like a more uniquie description so I kept the quotation marks for that one. Hopefully, that makes sense, but let me know if this could be improved upon further. Aoba47 (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Makes sense to me, thanks for the clarification Medxvo (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Ippantekina

• "She co-wrote the track with its producers" I think "wrote" should suffice

• Agreed. I was likely over-thinking it when I added that. I have revised it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• "being promoted as its First Lady" is the First Lady moniker supposed to be in quotation marks?

• I do not think that it would need quotation marks as it is commonly-used title even in a non-political context, but I have added a link to hopefully assist with this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• "still a part of the girl group Destiny's Child" inconsistent use of false titles

• Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• Unrelated but I listened to the sample and this song has "Y2K" written all over it lol, so nostalgic

• Agreed. I also get a nostalgic vibe from this song. Everything about it definitely screams Y2K, and these vibes carry over into the music video as well. Aoba47 (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• "shopping at stores, including René Lezard" is this French-sounding store notable?

• Probably not. This store was singled out in the source, which is why I included it here, but since it does not have a Wikipedia article or appear to be notable on its own, I have removed. Aoba47 (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• "A Billboard reviewer" only "Billboard" would do imo

• I would prefer to keep it if possible. I do understand and appreciate your suggestion, but I was trying to keep the prose consistent as in other instances I used the critic name when it is known so I was trying to avoid going between using the name and work/publisher to just the work/publisher and back if that makes sense. Aoba47 (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Says Who of the Michigan Chronicle" is this a pseudonym?

• I believe that it is a pseudonym. Weirdly enough, the clipping, and the entire newspaper issue, are no longer available on Newspapers.com. I have removed the link from the citation. I still see the preview of it in my clippings on Newspapers.com, but clicking on it leads to an error screen. Do you think I should remove the citation because of this? I was honestly quite surprised by this, but it did help me to find an additional source in ProQuest. Aoba47 (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

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

• @Ippantekina: Thank you for your help. I believe that I have addressed everything. I have run into some issues with Newspapers.com where it seems like an entire newspaper issue was pulled so I did ask above about what you think the best course of action would be for this. I could not find this article on other newspaper archives or on other places online. It is quite frustrating and odd as I was able to access this just fine only a week or two ago. Apologies for ranting about that. I hope that you are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The link was archived. Heartfox (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, and I am sorry for not thinking about checking for an archived version of it. I was just more so surprised and confused by this change. Aoba47 (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing my comments and kudos to Heartfox for the archived URL. Support on prose. If you are available, I'd appreciate your comments at my latest FAC :) Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 02:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the support and for the kind words. I will look at your FAC in the near future, but please message me on my talk page if for whatever reason, I have not posted anything by this time next week. I hope you are have a great rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Heartfox

Two reviews on GenealogyBank may be of use:

• San Antonio Express-News
• Chicago Sun-Times

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

• @Heartfox: Thank you for the resources. I have incorporated both of them into the article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Support from PMC

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

• Thank you! I hope that you are doing well. Aoba47 (talk) 13:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• Hi! Sorry for the delay, I got a cold and my brain was full of goop that made me stupid. Been slowly working through my backlog of stuff I'd said I'd do, and here I finally am.

• No need to apologize. I hope that you are feeling better. There has been a lot of cold and flu going around in my area, and it is always best to prioritize your health and well-being first. Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• "as well as with Jay-Z" - "along with" might flow a little more smoothly

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• Suggest moving the lyrical content earlier, perhaps before the production and sampling details

• Moved around. Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• I might revise the sentence about Beyonce a bit. For the first half, I thought it was saying Amil had been in DC, and was surprised to see Beyonce. It might also be worth noting that it was her management lending her. Something like "Beyoncé performs the song's chorus and backing vocals, as her label was trying to assess her viability as a solo artist outside of her girl group Destiny's Child." maybe?

• That does makes sense. It is better to not bury the subject of the sentence, especially when introducing a new person and making such a strong pivot from one person to the other. I have used your suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• suggest trimming the retrospective sentence a bit, perhaps to something like "According to retrospective articles, the song has largely been forgotten or overlooked since its release"? "not well-remembered" is fairly redundant to both of those

• Trimmed. Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• I reorganized para 2 a bit so it went song info, chart performance, then reception; feel free to revert if you don't like it

• Thank you for that. It looks much better to me. I have changed some of it as the reviews on Beyoncé are actually all retrospective and not contemporary to the song's release. I have tried to clarify that in the lead, but please let me know if it needs further work. Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• " would continue to collaborate with" can probably be trimmed to "collaborated with"

• Shortened. Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• You could probably trim "during this time", I think it's clear from context

• Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• Not sure the vocals for "Girlfriend" need to be called out, since DeLuca was also referring to this song

• Taken out. Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• I might give some context for Eve, since if you don't know she's an early 2000s rapper, you might think of the Biblical Eve and have lots of questions

• Agreed. I have added "American rapper" as the description. I was on the fence between that or "female rapper", as her being a woman seems more relevant to her appearance in a music video for a song about female independence, so let me know if that would be a better option. Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

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

• @Premeditated Chaos: Thank you for your review and for your edits. Both were very helpful and have helped to improve the article a lot. Again, I hope you are feeling better, and I hope you are having a great end to your year. Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks Aoba, I hope you're having great holidays as well. It's always a delight to work with you at FAC whether it's your article or mine. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for the kind words and for the support! Aoba47 (talk) 12:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

BP!

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

• Can you maybe mention that The Source and Vibe (magazine) are magazines? I was confused at first about what is "The source", and it almost reads like Camille Augustin is Vibing instead of "Vibe". 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 02:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• Understandable. I have revised both instances. Aoba47 (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  I have read the entire article again, but I couldn't find any problem. I will Support this FAC based on prose. Well done! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for the support and for the kind words! Aoba47 (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Source review

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

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

I must confess that I am not sure myself if that parameter use is right or wrong. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Randy Travis

Nominator(s): Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Randy Travis is of the most iconic country music singers and a leader in the neotraditional country genre; he also has a fascinating backstory regarding how he handled losing his singing ability to a stroke. I recently re-wrote the entire thing top to bottom, getting it successfully to GA and featured in DYK. It's one of my longer and more exhaustively sourced contributions, so I feel it might have the goods to become my first ever FA. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size

• File:Randytravis.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Done. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Placeholder

• I'll take a look at this one over the next few days -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Initial comments

• There's five consecutive sentences in the second paragraph which use his surname. Suggest alternating with "he" for variety
• "Travis released "Where That Came From", his first studio recording since his stroke, where his voice was" => "Travis released "Where That Came From", his first studio recording since his stroke, for which his voice was"
• "Travis also holds several film and television acting roles" - not sure "holds" really works here. Maybe "undertook"?
• The "biography" section only covers the first 18 or so years of his life so I don't think that's an appropriate heading. "Early life" would be better.
• "Randy's then-future wife" - just "Randy's future wife" is sufficient, the context is clear
• "After doing so, he began to hold a conversation with Hatcher" - I think "After doing so, he held a conversation with Hatcher " is fine
• " under the custody of the Hatchers" - only one Hatcher has been mentioned, which other Hatchers were there? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: I think I've addressed your issues up to here. The 1990 Cusic book does not clarify who else was in the Hatcher household at the time and just says "the Hatchers", so I changed it to just mention Lib as she's the only notable Hatcher in that context. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

More comments

• "His first contract with them resulted in the recording of four songs. These were "Prairie Rose", "On the Other Hand", "Carrying Fire", and "Reasons I Cheat"." => "His first contract with them resulted in the recording of four songs: "Prairie Rose", "On the Other Hand", "Carrying Fire", and "Reasons I Cheat"."
• "For this capacity," - don't think "capacity" is really the right word here. Maybe just lose those three words completely?
• "Next was Travis's twelfth number-one "Forever Together"," => "Next was Travis's twelfth number one, "Forever Together","
• "AllMusic writer Thom Owens said of Full Circle, "his mid-'90s albums suffered from a tendency to sound a bit too similar too each other." - second "too" is spelt incorrectly, also there's no closing quote mark
• "the first performances with Dupré cut back to three concerts" => "the first performances with Dupré were cut back to three concerts"
• "For much of his career, Travis was managed by Elizabeth "Lib" Hatcher, a former nightclub owner." - I don't think you need to restate this, as it was covered above. Maybe just start this section with "Travis and Hatcher lived togrther..."
• Some of the last paragraph of "personal life" feels like it overlaps with the last part of the "career" section and might fit better there......?
• That's all I got on the rest of the article - nice work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

Looks pretty good. But some comments to prove I read it:

• "Travis wrote "I Told You So" by himself in 1982 around the time he attempted to sign with Curb Records. Monk had also submitted the song to Lee Greenwood at that time, although he declined it. Both Darrell Clanton and Barbara Mandrell had recorded the song as well," "Also" seems out of place here, and "as well" is a poor choice of words, as on first reading it seems to refer to Greenwood. Consider re-wording.
• "Overall, Always & Forever and its singles accounted for a number of award wins and nominations" "Overall" seems out of place here, and I know some editors hate "a number of", preferring "several" or "numerous"
• "It also accounted for Travis's second consecutive Grammy Award". It was his first consecutive
• Didn't Travis sing "Forever and Ever, Amen" at the 30th Grammy Awards?
• "and Clint Eastwood" ??? Clint Eastwood?
• "Next was Travis's twelfth number-one" Break paragraph before here (and comma after "one")
• "Jackson also co-wrote ... while Travis also co-wrote" repetition here, and "also" is unnecessary. Consider re-wording
• "Travis said that he intentionally wrote more songs for the album than previous ones, as he had fewer tour dates and thus had more time to focus on songwriting." That makes it sound like it was not intentional
• Consider moving the two paragraphs about his stroke from Personal life up to 2013–present
• "Another singer who cites Travis as an influence" We haven't said that Singletary does, so no first one has been cited yet.
• "Travis and his wife selected Dupré" You haven't introduced her yet, so the reader might think you are referring to Hatcher
• You have to admire a couple who live together for twenty years and then divorce on the grounds of incompatibility.
• "On January 31, 2013," This is out of chronological order.
• "Video of the incident was aired on the Investigation Discovery program Exposed: Naked Crimes on December 26, 2023." Citation required here.

That's all! Have a merry Christmas! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: @Hawkeye7: I think I got everything up to here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

HF

I'll review this soon. Hog Farm _Talk 01:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Ovalipes catharus

Nominator(s): TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the New Zealand paddle crab, Ovalipes catharus. It's one of twelve species of Ovalipes and the only one found in New Zealand. Known for their paddle-shaped rear legs, high aggression, voraciousness, and proneness to cannibalism. I found this a couple months back in this state, where its last two major contributions were by Prosperosity and Ttbioclass (the latter being a student editor who did almost all of the work on the 'Mating and reproduction' section). However, major edits prior to these – while helping to expand the article – had what I felt were severe problems with copy-editing and focus (for example, at one point, comparing these crabs to prawns by saying they don't have a narrow body and tail). I quickly realized I had to rip out basically everything before the 'Mating and reproduction' section and start from scratch, and so I did. I worked on improving this to GA status over a month or so, reviewed by Esculenta, and at this point, I want to stress test it as a FAC because I think I've done about as much as I can with it after the GA review.

Disclaimers:

• The Osborne 1987 PhD thesis is cited so much because it really was a landmark work on O. catharus. Attempts to cite peer-reviewed journal articles for this information would just result in citing something that cites Osborne 1987 in some way which is likely indirect to what we need to communicate. I promise it seems absurd until you realize that probably 80% of the works cited in this article also cite Osborne in some way; it's just that seminal.
• The Richards 1992 master's thesis is discussed in the GA review, and I think its usage is easily defensible. The R.J. Davidson 1987 master's thesis was written at a time where R.J. Davidson was already an expert on this behavior, having published about almost this exact subject the year prior (note there are two pre-eminent O. catharus experts named Davidson, the other being G.W.).
• There are still unused refideas which I've suggested, but for the vast majority of them, I think they walk a fine line between meticulous and extraneous detail. I just keep them there in case someone has a revelation about how to include them in a relevant way (or, in the case of H.H. Taylor et al. 1992, in case I ever get access to that $200 book).
• I really would love to have better images in the infobox (the dorsal view of the preserved specimen is a great angle but lacks the real colors of O. catharus due to the preservation, and the ventral view despite being a great angle with correct colors is literally a dead crab in a puddle on the shore), but these were the best suitably licensed images I could find of these two crucial perspectives of the crab.
• If there's anything even remotely important I didn't cover in the article, you can probably audit that by checking either in the Fisheries 2023 citation or the McLay 1988 one.
• I had minimal involvement with the 'Mating and reproduction' section, but reviewing it, it seems to hold up. I've since rewritten the entire 'Mating and reproduction' section to my liking. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Ovalipes_australiensis_dorsal.jpg: licensing doesn't match source. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm very confused. At Commons, I licensed it under "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International". At the source, it's licensed under "Copyright Museums Victoria / CC BY (Licensed as Attribution 4.0 International)". I don't see the discrepancy. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Apologies; I was looking at something else. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

It's all good! It just worried me for a second because I'm convinced that's the only genuinely good freely licensed image of this variety on the entire Internet. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Generalissima

Ooh, New Zealand biology? Mark me down for a prose review to come. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• TheTechnician27 A most preliminary thought; this would be quite a good use case for SFNs or Harvids. Especially with larger sources like Osborne 1987, readers will struggle with where to find the claim within the source material without a page number for each cite. This will also make the job of source reviewers much, much easier. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  I was thinking about doing that, but I didn't know to what extent they were used for journal articles/theses rather than books. I can definitely go ahead and implement that (today, even), since I agree it'd be especially useful for Osborne 1987. Incidentally, I checked out Endemic flora of the Chatham Islands on your list of articles to see if O. catharus was there (before noticing it said "endemic" and "flora", duh), and then I realized it was a FLC. Since I've been thinking about featured lists myself (like is Paralomis a list or an article? I really don't know at this point!), I think I'll familiarize myself with the criteria and take a look at it. This isn't an invitation for you not to tear this article to shreds, though; since I'm tentatively planning to target another species of Ovalipes, I have a personal, vested interest in making this article as robust as possible to be able to draw on its structure in the future. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Generalissima is being tactful. Eg, if I were reviewing then - to select the first random example I came across - I would want each of those ten references to Haddon narrowing down to something tighter than the entire six-page article; ideally a single page each. Even as a closing coordinator I would be unhappy if there were several like that, or if they had longer page ranges. Like Haddon and Wear, or Fenton et al. As for Glaessner - you want me to wade through 55 pages to verify your cite?! I recommend that you take Generalissima's advice and beseech her to keep giving it. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

To answer your question above tho, I think the typical strategy for large genera like that is to have the genus article be an article while splitting off the table of each species into its own list (though a basic taxonomic list of species without the details/subspecies/etc. is often included within the genus article itself from what i've seen) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

All done! All remaining sources which don't use {{sfn}} are ones where we only use at most three pages. The lone exception to this is Vennell 2022, which spans six pages, because I don't have access to the book and have to take (and willingly trust) Prosperosity's word for it. I wasn't trying to pull a fast one here; I just didn't know what the typical sentiment around using {{sfn}} for journal articles and theses was compared to book citations. @Gog the Mild:, I did ask for this article to be torn to shreds, so I hope you'll believe me when I say that I appreciate the nature and manner of your feedback. During this process, I also corrected several pieces of misinformation, and I strongly believe these were among the last if not the last ones. A few of these were small-to-moderate mistakes I directly made, but some were in the 'Mating and reproduction' section which I realize in hindsight that I was inappropriately lax and frankly negligent in my review of. I think I had a subtle preconceived notion going in that this was the "good part" of the article. I apologize for grinding the review to a halt right as it got started, but I think it should be able to proceed as normal now. If nothing else, this probably cleared out several problems that would've come up anyway. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 06:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• One comment: I can't do a full review, but its recommended that there be no cites in the lead paragraphs. They are meant to summarize the body of the article which should already be cited. Otherwise, good luck. We need a crab FA article. LittleJerry (talk) 00:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  I understand the premise here, but I heavily disagree that the lead should be uncited. This sort of stylistic prescriptivism 1) directly contradicts WP:LEADCITE which indicates editors are free to choose either way, 2) makes the lead substantially less maintainable by forcing editors to go digging in the article to then find a citation, and 3) is to the detriment of a reader who might simply want to get the gist of a subject but still wants to verify something we're saying. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Jens

Great to see this here! Looks mostly good, but I have two general concerns that should be addressed:

First, the article could be more accessible. Please have a look at WP:MTAU. This is especially important for an FA, since when it appears on the main page, it will be read by non-experts. You are not writing for experts. Specifically, whenever possible, the reader should not have to follow links in order to get a basic understanding of the text. In some cases, you could replace jargon with more common terms (maybe "pincers" and "rearward" instead of "proximal"), and in others, you could add a brief in-text explanation in brackets. In particular, I think that these terms would benefit from such an in-text explanation: chelipeds, dactyli, fingers (what does it mean in the context of crabs?), isometric, osmoconformer/osmoregulator, stenotherm, Phosphorylation of ADP.

Second, the "Taxonomy" and "Diet" sections seem to be shorter and less specific than other sections (particularly the description section). The Diet section contains some general statements that are already covered in much greater detail in the "Description" (maybe it is worth to move those discussions down to "Diet")? And maybe rename the section to the more general "Feeding"? There are a couple of papers concerned with specific aspects on the biology of this species, so there seems to be more to add. Regarding the taxonomy:

• can we add the etymology of "catharus"?
• maybe there is something more to add on the research history? Circumstances of the 1843 description maybe? For example, was the description based on life specimens, or based on a collected one (holotype collected where?)
• The "Taxonomy" should have a little bit on the classification of Ovalipes itself. Yes, you have a footnote, but I think it warrants spelling out in the main text. Also, it does not seem there is consensus that Ovalipes sits within Ovalipidae, as this study ([3]) proposes something else.

Other comments:

• Ovalipes catharus has an oval-shaped, streamlined, and slightly grainy carapace with five large teeth to either side of the eyes and four teeth at the front. It is overall sandy grey with orange-red highlights and dotted with small, brown spots. Its carapace – I suggest to switch the order. Discuss the color (including the white underside, too), and then the carapace shape, or vice versa, but not carapace -> color -> carapace -> color as it is currently.
• a butterfly-shaped mark – remove the link to "butterfly"? It does not help I think.
• somewhat hairy, and a line of setae runs from – Is "hairy" refering to setae, too, or are these different structures?
• as a form of signalling – link to Animal communication?
• chelae – maybe replace with "pincer" or add that word in a bracket)?
• on the posterior border of the arms – what is the "posterior border"? Doesn't that depend on posture?
• but it may exhibit negative allometry in males – add "(grows more slowely)"?
• Relative length diminishes compared to the width – the "relative" is redundant here, I propose to remove it.
• It can reverse its ventilatory flow – It would help to add a bit of context here; what does it mean to reverse the ventilatory flow, and why are they doing that?
• Internal anatomy – This section has much stuff that's not anatomy, including the paragraph on biochemistry.
• Ovalipes catharus is colloquially known as the paddle crab, the common swimming crab, or Māori: pāpaka. They were – Here you address the species in plural, elsewhere you use singular. That should be consistent (I think the convention is to use singular when talking about the species).
• Having been synonymised with O. punctatus alongside three other species prior to 1968, O. catharus is part of a distinct subgroup of Ovalipes which also includes O. australiensis, O. elongatus, O. georgei, O. punctatus, – When O. punctatus is a synonym, why is that one still listed and appears as a separate species in the cladogram?
• fine granules on the raised ridges of the top side of its hands – "Hands"? Are these the pincers?
• Ovalipes catharus is native to New Zealand, where it can be found from Stewart Island to Northland and in the Chatham Islands. They are also uncommon on the southern coast of Australia – "also uncommon" somehow implies they are uncommon in New Zealand.
• Members of the isolated population of O. catharus from the Chatham Islands tend to be larger and take longer to mature than those in mainland New Zealand. – that does not belong under "Taxonomy" I think.
• The following cladogram – It would help to date this (e.g., "from a 1998 study") and indicate on what it is based on (molecular data?).
• Large Ovalipes catharus tend to feed less frequently but generally on algae as well as on larger animals s – Can't quite follow. They feed less frequently in general? Or they feed infrequently on algae and frequently on animals? "Frequently but generally" confuses me.
• Ovalipes catharus does not appear to be typically parasitised by nematodes or barnacles.[86] Instead, the overwhelming majority of them – A bit confusing, needed to read several times. I think the general advice applies: State the most important facts first (here, Triticella capsularis), then add the details/secundary info (the parasites that don't apply to this species).
• through vigorous waving of the female's body, which disturbs their egg cases and causes them to break out.[98] Females generally release their larvae at night. – How females release their larvae should come later in the text, after the more general information, no?
• How many batches of eggs does a female produce per season?
• The zip is accompanied by what may be a courtship display whereby the crab "walks forward and flicks both swimming paddles in a twisting motion." – I recommend to rephrase this in your own words; I don't see why this should be quoted. Also, if you quote, you would have to state the author of that quote in-text according to the WP guidelines, I believe.
• The females of a group – what "group"? Are they gregarious?
• In one example, male crabs that had not cannibalised females readily accepted food, while those that had engaged in cannibalism rarely did. – Ok, it does not accept food because it just ate, but what's the point?
• Males of O. catharus sometimes practice sexual cannibalism toward females.[13] This occurs when the female is soft-shelled and therefore vulnerable after moulting.[13] Male crabs generally protect the females during mating, but afterward, the female is vulnerable to cannibalism by other males or, less commonly, by her partner – "Secual cannibalism" is cannibalism between mating partners, right? But the text goes on to talk about cannibalism by other males, which is confusing.
• The crabs are known to be a traditional food source – do we really need the "known to be" here?
• There is a huge box in the talk page ("The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future") – has this been resolved, can it be removed?
• Hope this helps. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 03:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry this response isn't in the correct order: the order itself didn't seem relevant, and I didn't feel like sorting it.

• I think that these terms would benefit from such an in-text explanation: chelipeds, dactyli, fingers (what does it mean in the context of crabs?), isometric, osmoconformer/osmoregulator, stenotherm, Phosphorylation of ADP[, and proximal].
  • I've just eliminated the use of "isometric", because I agree it didn't really add anything. I've also given a brief description of 'stenotherm', because I agree it's trivial to explain inline. I've now added that the chelipeds are the "front legs" and informally called the chela "pincers" before introducing proper terminology in en-dashes or parentheses. Lastly, I've explained what the dactyli are in en-dashes. All of these I think cater to the casual reader without harming the experience of a serious reader. The next two points will be justifications for ones I disagree with you on.
  • Starting with 'Internal anatomy', I heavily disagree with most of this. In an 'Internal anatomy' section for a crab, there's some expectation that anatomical terminology will be used as needed; as noted in WP:MTAU, the lead should always be as accessible as possible, but some sections beyond that simply can't trip over themselves to explain every bit of terminology without losing their usefulness: "Wikipedia strives to be a serious reference resource, and highly technical subject matter still belongs in some Wikipedia articles. Increasing the understandability of technical content is intended to be an improvement to the article for the benefit of the less knowledgeable readers, but this should be done without reducing the value to readers with more technical background." Plenty of our coverage of internal anatomy is inherently rooted in wikilinking to terminology, for example (I couldn't find any recent anatomy FAs): pancreas, lung, gallbladder, etc. If you take a look at our definition of osmoregulation, that's about as basic as it gets, and that already includes terminology like "osmotic pressure". The part about "phosphorylation of ADP" (something which, to my recollection, is already high school biology) is already a significant reduction from the jargon present in the paper which talks in-depth about RCR-1 ratios; that is, this is already significantly over-explained solely for accessibility, and it would effectively be a coatrack within a coatrack to try to explain this process.
  • Regarding external anatomy, "fingers" in the context of a crab means both the dactylus (movable, top) and the fixed finger (immobile, bottom); I think this should be clear, however, through basic context clues (we're talking about the pincer, everyone already knows "fingers" are those appendages on the tips of our hands, and we say "both"). What I've just given is the most barebones definition of what the fingers are, and so stopping to explain it would be a rhetorical brick wall. Likewise, a "rearward" tooth is simplified to the point where people using this as a serious resource now need to figure out what we mean by "rearward", reducing its value from "proximal" which is precisely understood.
• The "Taxonomy" and "Diet" sections seem to be shorter and less specific than other sections (particularly the description section).
  • The 'Taxonomy' section is short because that really is the extent of relevant taxonomic information I could find on O. catharus. Wear & Haddon 1987, Davidson 1986, and Davidson 1987 (master's thesis) are the only sources that really cover the diet as original research (and Davidson 1986 is mostly very niche information about how it selects mussels; I'll re-read it and see if there's anything else worth including). I think we adequately cover the relevant information in Wear & Haddon 1987, and Davidson 1987 inherently has a ton of overlap with Davidson 1986. It never hurts to double-check, though, and so I'll also re-read Wear & Haddon 1987. The 'Description' section is so long simply because there's a lot of relevant information from a comparatively wide variety of sources.

Looking at Wear & Haddon 1987, you cover the very basics, but there are specific details in their that readers might enjoy learning, for example that the bivalves it eats are usually very small (< 3–4 mm), and that the gut often contains remains from more than 100 individual bivales, and similar details. Not absolutely necessary to include such things, but there would be potential to further expand that section. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• The Diet section contains some general statements that are already covered in much greater detail in the "Description" (maybe it is worth to move those discussions down to "Diet")?
  • The only statements that overlap between 'Description' and 'Diet' are six words casually mentioning what the claws are used for (lit. "used for cutting" and "used for crushing") and a sentence about how its stenothermism applies to its eating habits (which is relevant to its internal digestive anatomy). Sometimes these tiny nuggets of information inherently overlap in different sections. I think enforcing a strict dichotomy here only hurts the reading experience.

Ok.

• Maybe rename the section to the more general "Feeding"?
  • I think 'Diet' is substantially more clearly understood, applicable, and widely used than 'Feeding'. I don't think it should be changed, but if it is, I think "Diet and foraging [behavior]" would be most appropriate.

Ok. I thought that "feeding" would be more inclusive, also covering feeding habits, while "diet" is only about the contents. But I'm fine with that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, I think I am happy going with 'Diet and foraging', since the second paragraph is explicitly about how they obtain the food rather than the food itself. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• Here you address the species in plural, elsewhere you use singular. That should be consistent (I think the convention is to use singular when talking about the species).
  • Yeah, in hindsight, I kind of just used "vibes" to determine when it would be plural and when it would be singular (for example, trying to describe it as singular for an anatomical description but pluralistically as a population). I'll have a go at singularizing it. This is probably the biggest extant flaw with the article.
• The "Taxonomy" should have a little bit on the classification of Ovalipes itself.
  • I thought about expanding this footnote out into the prose, but I didn't know if it'd be seen as too superfluous. I could expand it out, but I think a second opinion or a concrete argument is warranted here before changing it.

In other FAs, we usually provide a little bit about the family level for context. Maybe one general sentence about the family is something to think about. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• Also, it does not seem there is consensus that Ovalipes sits within Ovalipidae, as this study ([1]) proposes something else.
  • I think a single study contending that doesn't count as WP:DUE weight in what's already a minor explanatory footnote. This might later turn out to be correct, and it might deserve a mention in Ovalipidae, but all existing reliable sources I can find from 2018–2024 except this one by a single author place Ovalipes squarely within Ovalipidae (this includes WoRMS, extremely prolific carcinologists like G.C.B. Poore, S.T. Ahyong, and multiple peer-reviewed papers since Evans 2018). There's more than enough consensus for the purposes of the footnote, to my mind.

Ok if this is only a single opinion and the classification within Ovalipidae is still consensus. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• What is the "posterior border"? Doesn't that depend on posture?
  • The posterior border is the one facing the crab's cephalothorax if its chelipeds are parallel. However, while I know that from prior reading and can show that via several images such as this one, I feel replacing the terminology "posterior border" with something like this (which would itself sound bloated and awkward) strays too far into WP:OR.

OK.

• "also uncommon" somehow implies they are uncommon in New Zealand.
  • I've made it clearer.
• "a butterfly-shaped mark" – remove the link to "butterfly"? It does not help I think.
  • I can see it from the perspective of it being tangential; removed.
• A bit confusing, needed to read several times.
  • I'm trying but completely failing to see the confusion.

Confusion is here: You talk about parasites, then in the next two sentences introduce a symbiont, and after that talk about parasites again. I think it would be better to keep both categories separated. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean now. Similar to the carapace -> color -> carapace situation. I'll try to separate this out; I genuinely didn't see this. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• as a form of signalling – link to Animal communication?
  • I actually 100% forgot to link to signalling theory on this one!
• Is "hairy" refering to setae, too, or are these different structures?
  • Nah, and I agree it could be clearer. I would say "hirsute" which technically flows better but is something 95% of readers would need to look up; I'll try workshopping this one, because even though I'm not sure what I could do better, it feels wrong.

I see. A wikilink seems to be missing. You could still just gloss it, e.g. "the antennae is somewhat hirsute ("hairy")" or similar. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• I suggest to switch the order. Discuss the color (including the white underside, too), and then the carapace shape, or vice versa, but not carapace -> color -> carapace -> color as it is currently.
  • Fantastic call, and I've done something similar: carapace shape -> color.
• Can we add the etymology of "catharus".
  • Unfortunately, no. I really tried here. I mentioned this Talk:Ovalipes catharus#Etymology and discussed something similar here, but there's no concrete, reliable information that this is based on "καθαρός", and it'd therefore be WP:OR to do so.

Ok.

• Maybe there is something more to add on the research history? Circumstances of the 1843 description maybe? For example, was the description based on life specimens, or based on a collected one (holotype collected where?)
  • If you take a look at p. 265 of the source, you'll note there unfortunately really isn't anything there that isn't already addressed better in Stephenson & Rees 1968; functionally the only unique things it says are that it's called the "common crab" (I could find no other sources on this) and that it was collected by Andrew Sinclair and sent to the British Museum (seems too extraneous to the taxonomy).

Information like that (collected by Andrew Sinclair and sent to the British Museum) is what we usually include in other FAs, and I personally find such information quite interesting, but I won't insist of course. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• but it may exhibit negative allometry in males – add "(grows more slowely)"
  • "Grows more slowly" is essentially correct, but this phrasing to me implies that the growth just "takes longer" but eventually catches up at some point. I've added in parentheses "grow proportionally smaller".
• How many batches of eggs does a female produce per season?
  • My understanding of this is somewhat limited because I only corrected 'Mating and reproduction' rather than researching it fully, but the female is only inseminated once per season. Thus, the second section of 'Mating and reproduction' should apply here.
• It would help to add a bit of context here; what does it mean to reverse the ventilatory flow, and why are they doing that?
  • Since the paper addresses it, I've added the presumed reason for the reversed direction, and I've added "reverse the direction" for clarity. However, explaining the breathing process to give an understanding of what ventilatory flow is is likely more suited to decapod anatomy. Similar to above, there's only so much we can do for a reader choosing to read about a species of crab's internal anatomy without sacrificing quality as a serious resource.

Perfect now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• When O. punctatus is a synonym, why is that one still listed and appears as a separate species in the cladogram?
  • O. catharus and others were synonymised with O. punctatus, but that doesn't mean O. punctatus doesn't exist; it's just that O. catharus and others weren't identified as their own separate species from O. punctatus until 1968. You might be thinking of e.g. a junior synonym which completely obsoletes one of the taxa. It's the terminology Stephenson & Rees 1968 use, and I think it's the most elegant.

Per my comment above (Taxonomy is quite short), I personally think this is better spelled out. O. catharus was synonymised, by whom? When? And did subsequent publications simply not follow this synonymisation, or was the species re-established as a separate species at some point? Again, I am not insisting here if you really want to keep the taxonomy very short, but I found this synonymisation info a bit confusing without further context. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• the "relative" is redundant here, I propose to remove it.
  • I don't see this as redundant; the "relative length" is what's diminishing, and that's qualified with "compared to the length" (just "with respect to the length" but less verbose).

I thought you wouldn't loose anything if you just skip the first "relative"; e.g. "the length decreases relative to the width", but yeah, I guess your version works too. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• I recommend to rephrase this in your own words; I don't see why this should be quoted.
  • I'm not sure this specific series of actions can be paraphrased without making it extraordinarily awkward, potentially inaccurate, less informative, or all three. If the article covered this ritual more, then I could probably formulate something, but right now, this is literally all the article gives on the choreography.
• Also, if you quote, you would have to state the author of that quote in-text according to the WP guidelines, I believe.
  • Not true to my understanding per MOS:QUOTE. The direct inline citation is enough.

Ok.

• "Hands"? Are these the pincers?
  • Pretty much certainly, as that's how I've always seem this terminology used. I just didn't want to overstep into WP:OR by accident, but I can change it (unlike "posterior border" above, this one is probably common and understandable enough that I can translate with minimal OR).

Yes, always use the same term when referring to the same thing, otherwise readers will assume that you are talking about something else. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Frequently but generally" confuses me.
  • Yeah, I think the "but" was corrupting the readability of that sentence. I've lightly altered it to significantly aid comprehension.
• That does not belong under "Taxonomy" I think.
  • I was debating putting this in 'Description', 'Taxonomy', or splitting it between the two. I figured it was relevant to 'Taxonomy' because of the genetic isolation, but I agree in hindsight that it should be bumped up to the more relevant part about lifespans; done.
• The following cladogram – It would help to date this (e.g., "from a 1998 study") and indicate on what it is based on (molecular data?).
  • The "from a 1998 study" is inherently part of the footnote system that we use. There's really nothing that stands out to me about this specific piece of information that makes that redundancy useful; that's generally reserved for exceptional claims predicated on a single source, and I don't think this is especially exceptional. If this is about the paper being 26 years old, no new species have been added since this was published, and I've seen no evidence that it's become outdated or superseded. Thus, I don't think we need to qualify it based on the date (and if we did, we probably ought to not be using it anyway). However, I agree with your second point, especially because it's based on morphological rather than molecular; fixed.

In other FAC discussions, "it's in the footnote citation so we don't have to include it in-text" has been a weak argument, as we don't want the reader to chase links for such information. I personally think that, especially for cladograms, which become outdated very quickly, the year does matter, especially as "1998" is quite old. Again, I won't insist since the point is minor. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Sexual cannibalism" is cannibalism between mating partners, right? But the text goes on to talk about cannibalism by other males, which is confusing.
  • We do talk about cannibalization by her partner, but I agree it's treated as an afterthought in the next sentence. I've flipped the sentence and hopefully fixed that.
• The crabs are known to be a traditional food source – do we really need the "known to be" here?
  • I see where you're coming from, but I think this nicely complements the second half of the sentence which reads "but researchers in the early Colonial period did not record much about harvesting traditions" (i.e. "we know some basic things, but not a lot").
• This section has much stuff that's not anatomy, including the paragraph on biochemistry.
  • I don't fully see eye-to-eye on this. The first paragraph is about its respiration and how it works morphologically, the second is about the heart and circulation, the third (which I guess by a strict definition of "anatomy" could prompt a change to "Internal biology" or "Physiology") is about the functioning of its heart, respiration, and digestion in response to temperature, and the fourth is about both its mechanism for hearing as well as poorly understood (but still present) internal structures which produce sound. I've renamed the subsection to "Physiology and internal anatomy" to be more accurate with respect to the third paragraph. I've also moved it to its own section since it being in 'Description' has kind of been nagging at me anyway.

OK. Note that in other FAs, we often group sections like "Diet" and "Predators" in a "Biology and Ecology" section, and "Physiology" tends to be part of that, rather than description. But ok. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• How females release their larvae should come later in the text, after the more general information, no?
  • Agreed, and I think it reads better this way too; changed.
• What "group"? Are they gregarious?
  • I've changed this to "the females in an area" because I agree the source doesn't specifically define what a "group" here is except as the females in a specific area (I may have to check other sources to see if there's more information on that).
• There is a huge box in the talk page ("The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future") – has this been resolved, can it be removed?
  • Please see one of the disclaimers of this nom. I put all of those there (this is the template {{refideas}}), and they're there because someone more clever or knowledgeable than me might be able to incorporate them without being extraneous, but I don't know how to do that. Good to have them around, in my opinion. If you've never used this template, I highly recommend it. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok.

• @TheTechnician27:: Thanks. See a few replies from me below yours above. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Jens Lallensack: I've since fixed several issues (including ones I initially didn't see as issues). I've also greatly remixed the 'Mating and reproduction' section after going down a bit of a rabbit hole; I think it's a lot more comprehensible now. I really appreciate you giving such detailed feedback, because I know how much time this level of scrutiny takes. I think for right now, I'm satisfied with how I've responded to these points, but I'm going to continually revisit any I haven't addressed to see if more editing has changed my thoughts on them. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support, looks good to me now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "Ovalipes catharus has an oval-shaped, streamlined, and slightly grainy carapace with five large teeth to either side of the eyes and four teeth at the front.[1][14][20] The carapace has two large, maroon eye-spots at the rear". This is confusing. You start with the carapace, then go on to the eyes and teeth and go back to the carapace. I think you need to keep the carapace together and explain the eyes and teeth more clearly.
• "It is overall sandy grey with orange-red highlights and dotted with small, brown spots.[1][23] Its underside is white, and its rear legs – which are flattened and function as swimming paddles – have a purplish tinge." This is unclear. The first "It" appears to refer to the carapace so grammatically so should "Its" in the second sentence, but it appears to be about the whole animal.
• What is meant by "carapace teeth"?
• "It has a long period of larval development – about two months". Long compared with what?
• What is a megalopa? Is there an article you can link to?
• "similarly to the otolith in vertebrates.[62] They are known to be able". "They" grammatically refers to vertebrates.
• "Ovalipes catharus is colloquially known as the paddle crab, the common swimming crab,[7] or Māori: pāpaka.[8] They were described". You switch between singualr and plural. You should stick to one or the other.
• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• I don't start with the carapace and then go to the eyes and teeth. The carapace itself forms these teeth, which are shapes, not implements used for eating (see below). The eyespots are markings on the carapace. "The carapace has two large, maroon eyespots..." Thus, the first two sentences focus exclusively on the overall shape and distinguishing features of the carapace, akin to describing a circular sawblade as: "a metal disc with teeth around the outer edge and with a logo in the center". I've since wikilinked to 'eyespots' to avoid any confusion, as while these are very common features in nature to a point where I don't think they warrant an aside, I absolutely should have linked from the get-go.
• Good call; fixed.
• "Teeth" are used in the sense of the teeth of a sawblade. For the anteriolateral ones (the five to either side of the eyes), you can see them in the first image in the infobox (top-down) and in the third image of the crab's face (front-on). I don't think it would be WP:OR if I said "sawblade-like teeth" because it's unambiguously reminiscent of them, but I also don't know if that could alleviate confusion.
• Long compared to other decapods; I've now specified, as yes, that was ambiguous. (Note this adjective isn't WP:OR; the authors writing a monograph on the life histories of Decapoda call the period "exceptionally long".)
• I didn't initially wikilink because I have a strong aversion to double-dipping into a single wikilink in quick succession (same article, and the section Crustacean larva#Post-larva follows two sentences after Crustacean larva#Zoea), but I think you're correct that this is a suitable edge case; fixed.
• Yeah, another case of singular versus plural (see below). However, this one is just unambiguously my fault because I didn't stick to my personal rule of 'singular no matter what for the description and anatomy'. Fixed.
• Yup. I've been trying to think of what to do here, because sometimes I just have to talk about them as a population rather than as a singular entity. Sometimes it sounds natural to refer to them as singular, sometimes equally natural as plural. I kind of hate it. Haha TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Bejeweled (video game)

Nominator(s): Lazman321 (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Bejeweled is a 2000 match-three video game developed and published by PopCap Games. If you're even slightly interested in casual gaming, then even if you haven't heard of this game, you will most certainly recognize the ubiquitous match-three mechanic, which Bejeweled popularized. This passed a GA nomination back in October, and after several copyedits and a peer review, I believe it is ready for a FAC. Lazman321 (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Pinging the following reviewers: GAN reviewer @ProtoDrake: and peer reviewers @TrademarkedTWOrantula: and @Vacant0:. Lazman321 (talk) 07:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Ooh, thanks for pinging me! (Not sure if I'll have time to review; the holidays are coming up, and I need some time to relax.) TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 22:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

HF

I remember playing Bejeweled 3 on the Nintendo DS - I'll take a look at this. Hog Farm _Talk 14:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• For Foxy Poker - would Sexual content in video games be a better link that what is currently given? Per the Kotaku source, this was a strip poker video game, while the current link target is focused on the more standard online smut

• Done Lazman321 (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Astraware ported Bejeweled to Pocket PC on August 8, 2003,[21] and Windows Mobile on May 3, 2004.[22]" - any hope for a seconday source for this information?

• For the release dates, unfortunately no, my search turned up nothing. But thanks to my search, I did find a little more information about the PDA versions. Lazman321 (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• "such as over 2,200 match-three games on the Apple App Store" - I think this number here would be best with an as of date, since this is likely to change over time

• Done Lazman321 (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• " "Sprint PCS announces the launch of Multiplayer Bejeweled on Sprint Vision". DemiVision. May 13, 2003. Archived from the original on July 31, 2003. Retrieved September 23, 2024." - I'm unfamiliar with this source - is it a high-quality RS? This isn't on WP:VGRS, which tends to make me think this is a fairly obscure source

• DemiVision is a primary source; JAMDAT bought technology from DemiVision in order to achieve the multiplayer gameplay of Bejeweled Multiplayer. They also happened to be the only source I could find for Bejeweled Mutliplayer's release date. Lazman321 (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• This is in Category:Cancelled Game Boy Advance games but there isn't any reference in the article to the Game Boy Advance - is this appropriate categorization?

• GBA ports for Bejeweled and Bookworm were announced in January 2004 to be released by Majesco later that year. Although the Bookworm port was ultimately released, the Bejeweled port wasn't, and literally the only other information I can find of it was an entry on Kotaku claiming it was canceled, though it states the wrong year. Given how dubious and minimal the sourcing was, I chose not to include it in this article. For now, I'll remove the category, though would you prefer I include a mention of this unreleased port in the article? Lazman321 (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• Likewise, we've got Category:Video games scored by Peter Hajba, but not reference to Peter Hajba

• Removed the category. I removed Peter Hajba from the infobox because there was no secondary sourcing of his involvement in this particular game and he was credited under a pseudonym in the readme. Lazman321 (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• The above comment does make we wonder if there's anything to be said about the music of the game? I never played this version, but the music of Bejeweled 3 was definitely a part of the ambience of some modes of the game.

• While I myself do like the music for Bejeweled Deluxe, unfortunately, I couldn't find any information on it. I couldn't even find a soundtrack album. Lazman321 (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Good work here; only a few comments above. Hog Farm _Talk 00:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I have addressed your concerns above. Lazman321 (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Sorry, forgot to ping you. Lazman321 (talk) 01:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the decision to leave out the Game Boy Advance information due to the weak sourcing for it. Supporting. Hog Farm _Talk 02:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

BP!

This game makes me nostalgic. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 23:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• At References. Perhaps rename all PocketGamer.Biz into "Pocket Gamer" only?

• Although both have a similar name and are owned by the same company, PocketGamer.biz is a separate, more industry-focused site. I see no reason for the change. Lazman321 (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• Ref 8, GameSpot wasn't italicized

• Done: Good catch. Lazman321 (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• What makes GamesWelt and Wireless Gaming Review reliable?

• GamesWelt is considered reliable per WP:VG/S due to its editorial policies and extensive staff. As for Wireless Gaming Review, see my response to Vacant0's similar question here. Lazman321 (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• Maybe rename the section from "Sources" into "Bibliography"?

• As per MOS:REFERENCES, "Sources" is a valid name for the section. Lazman321 (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that's it. The article is obviously written very well. Btw, I was wondering if you're able to do spot chekcing/source integrity at Chris Redfield's FAC? Thanks! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Boneless Pizza!: Thanks, I have addressed your concerns. If I have time, I may be willing to do spotchecks for your FAC. Lazman321 (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks! I tried to read the entire article again to find any errors, but I couldn't. Thanks for addressing some of my concerns. I'll Support this FAC; looking forward to Tetris soon. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 00:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

TTWO

I have no recollection of this game. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 03:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• "with chain reactions potentially following" - Chain reactions (as far as I can see) aren't noted in the gameplay section.

• Done: Removed. Lazman321 (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• "JAMDAT's Bejeweled Multiplayer includes an additional multiplayer mode" - Is it the only version that does so?

• As far as I'm aware, yes. Lazman321 (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• I feel as though the term "simple video games" isn't precise enough. However, if you feel this term works, feel free to keep it in.

• Done Lazman321 (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• Lead says the team discovered Colors Game, while the gameplay section says, "Vechey discovered a match-three browser game titled Colors Game".

• Removing mention of who discovered the game in the lead.

• "...significant monetary revenue from that success." - Could cut "from that success"

• Done Lazman321 (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the Mac OS X release date come before the Windows Mobile release date? Normally, a release section is supposed to go in chronological order, but I get it if you want to leave this unchanged.

• I think I'll leave it unchanged for conciseness; I'd have to repeat that Astraware published a port otherwise. Lazman321 (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• "were developed for multiple years" - As in the code was updated for the game ports? Not sure what you mean here.

• It's not referring to ports or updates; the full sentence is "...games such as Bookworm, Peggle, and entries of the Bejeweled series were developed for multiple years." Lazman321 (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

That's all from me! TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 01:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@TrademarkedTWOrantula: Thank you, I have addressed your concerns above. Lazman321 (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Alright, looks like you've earned my support! TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 05:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Casliber

Loved this game and played it alot 20 years ago - I read this on the plane and honestly couldn't see any glaring errors on comprehensiveness and prose so consider this a tentative support pendign how others feel about it. 20:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Image review (passed)

• File:Bejeweled Deluxe cover art.jpg - Source is almost a bare url, which is subject to link rot. More comprehensive sourcing information will help ensure continued verifiability.
• File:Bejeweled deluxe sc1.jpg - FUR definitely needs to be beefed up more - for example, the C pathway indicated won't exist on most computers.
• File:John Vechey, Brian Fiete, and Jason Kapalka at the Bejeweled Twist launch, 2008.jpg - Source is a bare url, which is subject to link rot. More comprehensive sourcing information will help ensure continued verifiability.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Crisco 1492: Thank you for your image review. I think the screenshot originates from the game's files, though honestly, given how well-known the match-three concept is and how the gems are already illustrated by the cover art. As for your point on link rot, I've honestly never been asked to address this regarding images before, even in FACs, so I'm not sure how to address it. I've replaced the links with archived links so they're less likely to be impacted by link rot. Lazman321 (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  Generally it's better to have a bit more detail so that, if we have to go hunting, we know where to start. It still falls under Wikipedia:Verifiability, similar to the requirement to format references.

  As for File:Bejeweled deluxe sc1.jpg, you'll note a) the file path does not indicate whether this screenshot is something that came packaged with the game, or was taken by the user, and b) it simply says "add image" as the purpose; that is insufficient under WP:FUR, which stipulates that we must address "What purpose does the image serve in the article?" (i.e., we need to show why "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Crisco 1492: Oh, for clarification, I removed the screenshot; I don't think it's necessary given how well known match-three gameplay is and how the cover art already illustrates the gems. As for the other images: what? WP:V is the policy stipulating that information in an article must be attributable to a reliable source. The relevant policy for images would be WP:IUP, which says that the required information for uploaded images include "The copyright holder of the image or URL of the web page the image came from" (emphasis mine). This means a URL is all that is needed for sourcing an image; nothing else. Lazman321 (talk) 03:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  What is an image aside from a type of information? And flagging bare/near bare URLs is not new; Gao Qifeng had one marked at its FAC, for example. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  I've added more information about each source on each of the images. Is this sufficient? Lazman321 (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, that looks good. Thank you.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Prose comments

• The game was inspired by a similar match browser game, - Match was already used above, so similar covers it sufficiently here.
• At the time, the PopCap team consisted of John Vechey, Brian Fiete, and Jason Kapalka. - Reads as a non-sequitur, since the preceding and succeeding sentences both deal with the game.
• Bejeweled has since been ported to many platforms, particularly mobile platforms - Platforms ... platforms
• trial run - Why not link game demo instead of Wiktionary?
• and included the game in their Hall of Fame in 2005,[46] becoming the only puzzle game alongside Tetris to do so - "to do so" -> "to be inducted"
• Worth mentioning PopCap's use of Bejeweled mechanics in their other games? (Beghouled in Plants vs. Zombies comes to mind). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: I have addressed your requests. Lazman321 (talk) 03:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Men's T20 World Cup

Nominator(s): Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 03:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the T20I World Cup, one of the most watched cricket World Cups organized by ICC held biennially since 2007 along with the ODI World Cup which is being held since 1975. Although so far none is FA now (ODI WC was FA since 2007, but it was demoted 2 years ago). Now I want to make this an exemplary one for cricket tournaments... Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 03:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• There are lots of references in the lead. These are not needed if the facts are cited in the body (which I presume they are.....?)

  Done Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 16:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• " It is held every 2 years since its inauguration in 2007" => " It has been held every two years since its inauguration in 2007"
• "with the exception of 2011, 2018 and 2020" - this doesn't make sense, because the last two of those years are not a multiple of two years from 2007

  I did some re-wording to it. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 16:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  New version is not grammatically correct. "It was held on every odd year from 2007 to 2009, and then on it has been held on every even year " => "It was held in every odd year from 2007 to 2009, and since then it has been held in every even year " -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  Done Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 03:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• "The 2011 edition of the tournament was preponed" - "preponed" is a very obscure word (I had never seen it before and had to consult a dictionary to confirm that it actually existed). I would suggest "The 2011 edition of the tournament was brought forward"

  I have heard the word "prepone" times before, it's actually in Cambridge dictionary, Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com. It means to do something at an earlier time than was planned or is usual. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 16:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  I understand that, but as I mentioned, it's an incredibly obscure word. I had literally never seen/heard it in my life before today. I think a less obscure word would make things easier for readers, 90% of whom I believe will not be familiar with this word either -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  Done Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 03:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• "to 2010 due to its replacement with the ICC Champions Trophy 2010" - the 2011 event was moved to 2010 because it was replaced with a different event also happening in 2010? I don't understand this.....

  Done: It was supposed to mean, "the 2011 event was moved to 2010, to replace another event" Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 16:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• "was caused after the 5th Edition" - no reason for capital E, "edition" is not a proper noun
• "Champions Trophy, scheduled to be hosted by Pakistan in 2008 was delayed" => "Champions Trophy, scheduled to be hosted by Pakistan in 2008, was delayed"
• "busied with bilateral commitments in 2018." - what are "bilateral commitments"?

  Clarified it now. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 16:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  It now says "bilateral cricket events". What is a bilateral cricket event (as opposed to any other type of cricket event).....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  Tour matches between two nations (home and visitor); while Tri-nation series are played between three nations and others tournaments would feature at least five teams. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 02:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• "taking place 5 years after" => "taking place five years after"
• "Three teams, West Indies (2012, 2016), England (2010, 2022) and India (2007, 2024) have won" => "Three teams, West Indies (2012, 2016), England (2010, 2022) and India (2007, 2024), have won"
• That's what I got just on the lead. I'll come back and take a look at the body later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: all else done so far. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 16:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

More comments

• "sought another one-day competition to fill with the younger generation" - "to fill with the younger generation" doesn't make sense in English. I would suggest "to appeal to the younger generation"
• "proposed a 20-over per innings game" - wikilink over and innings
• "Soon after with the adoption of Twenty20 matches by other cricket boards, " => "Soon after, with the adoption of Twenty20 matches by other cricket boards, "
• "and Stanford 20/20 tournament" => "and the Stanford 20/20 tournament"
• "and the financial incentive in the format." - what was this financial incentive?

  It refers to getting more sponsorships etc. as opposed to the longer formats. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 07:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• "The West Indies regional teams competed in what was named the Stanford 20/20 tournament" - no need to relink the tournament, as you linked it in literally the previous sentence
• "before he was convicted of fraud for a massive Ponzi scheme" - can you link "Ponzi scheme"? I for one have absolutely no idea what this term means
• Thinking about it, do we really need that level of detail on the Stanford stuff? I feel like the whole of the second paragraph under "Domestic tournaments" could be condensed into a single sentence essentially saying "T20 tournaments were also created in other countries"

  I have now removed the additional content about Stanford 20/20. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 07:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• "showed him a mock Penalty card" - no reason for capital P on penalty
• "in which case it will be held the year before" => "in which case it would be held the year before"
• "The 2010 World Twenty20 tournament, which was brought forward from 2011 to replace the ICC Champions Trophy was held in West Indies" => "The 2010 World Twenty20 tournament, which was brought forward from 2011 to replace the ICC Champions Trophy, was held "
• In that same sentence, it should be "held in the West Indies"
• ", where England defeated Australia by 7 wickets" - in the final, presumably?
• "The 2012 World Twenty20 was won by the West-Indies" - there is no hyphen in West Indies
• "The 2012 edition was to be expanded into a 16 team format however this was reverted to 12" => "The 2012 edition was to be expanded into a 16-team format, however this was reverted to 12"
• "The 2014 tournament, held in Bangladesh was the first" => "The 2014 tournament, held in Bangladesh, was the first"
• "However the top eight full member teams in the Men's T20I Team rankings on 8 October 2012 were given a place in the Super 10 stage" - no need for the word "however" here
• "but was later dropped" => "but this was later dropped"
• "With Australian international travel restrictions not expected to be lifted until 2021" - if the tournament was scheduled for 2021 anyway, why would this prevent it being in Australia?

  @ChrisTheDude: it was before the tournament was postponed, given the re-opening of Australian travel restrictions were unsure, they rellocated the tournament to India. I also made a little change to the sentence, see if it makes sense now... Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 07:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• "although India (via BCCI) " - write the name in full
• "as well as the 2030 tournament in England, Ireland and Scotland following" => "and the 2030 tournament in England, Ireland and Scotland following"
• Back for more later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  All else done. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 07:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Even more comments

• "India won the hosting rights of 2021 edition" => "India won the hosting rights of the 2021 edition"
• "but due to COVID-19 pandemic" => "but due to the COVID-19 pandemic"
• "the 2030 edition is to be co-hosted by United Kingdom, Ireland and Scotland" - firstly, it should be the United Kingdom, secondly this does not make sense as written because Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, so you can't say "the United Kingdom and Scotland". It would be like saying "the event will be hosted by India and Gujarat"

  @ChrisTheDude: It was supposed to be: "England, Ireland and Scotland" which I have changed now. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 10:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• "and has been retained until 2022" => "and was retained until 2022"
• "The number of teams qualifying through the World Twenty20 Qualifier had varied" => "The number of teams qualifying through the World Twenty20 Qualifier varied"
• "The Preliminary stage or group stage" - no reason for capital P
• I don't understand the chronology of the manufacture of the trophy. You say "It was designed and manufactured by Links of London,", but then you list three different manufacturers, of which Links were the second.....
• England players image caption is not a sentence so should not have a full stop
• Ref for 2024 attendance is not correctly formatted

  It was just added a while ago, already fixed it. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 10:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• "As of the 2024 tournament, Twenty-four nations" - no reason for capital T
• "is the Super 8 appearance by United States" => "is the Super 8 appearance by the United States"
• "while the least result by a Test playing nation" => "while the worst result by a Test playing nation"
• "No teams have yet won the tournament as hosts, best performance by a host nation" => "No teams have yet won the tournament as hosts; the best performance by a host nation"
• "No title winners have yet defended their title in the following edition, best performance" => "No title winners have yet defended their title in the following edition; the best performance"
• "who made their debuts in 2009 and 2010 editions" => "who made their debuts in the2009 and 2010 editions"
• "while, MS Dhoni holds the record" => ", while MS Dhoni holds the record" (the comma should be before "while" not after)
• "while, Simon Taufel has" - same here
• "while, Chris Gayle of West Indies holds" - and here
• "while, Fazalhaq Farooqi of Afghanistan " - and here
• "while, Marlon Samuels holds" - and here

  Fixed the commas, will do the rest soon. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 10:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Pat Cummins is the only player to have taken more than one hat-tricks " => "Pat Cummins is the only player to have taken more than one hat-trick"
• "Former Indian captain Virat Kohli has scored the most runs (1,292), highest average (58.72) and Most 50+ scores (15) in the T20 World Cup." - no reason for capital M on the second "most"
• "Winning Captain" - no reason for capital C, "captain" is not a proper noun -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
• "Former West Indies' captain Daren Sammy" - no reason for apostrophe on West Indies

  @ChrisTheDude: All done. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 17:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  Also, I've added some new stuff over here; you might want to take a look at it as well. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 03:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Eternal Blue (album)

Nominator(s): mftp dan ^oops 14:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Greetings FAC, and happy holidays.

This article is about the debut studio album by Spiritbox, a work of musical art I consider to be a magnum opus of heavy metal. Spiritbox are groundbreakers in mixing metalcore with post-metal, and with this record they have become by far my favorite metalcore group from North America. I originally wrote this from spare parts on the band's page, and achieved good article status for it back in August 2023. I was left some helpful feedback by a reviewer who treated it in the style of a featured article, which I have since taken.

I attempted FAC for this last April, but it was closed in June as unsuccessful. I have expanded information of the album's content and promotion significantly since then and, after a copyedit, I am confident enough to go for another round. I'm really excited for this one, because I actually created this article and hope to reach the Four Award with it. mftp dan ^oops 14:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

3family6

• I've started reviewing this. I wouldn't fail the article for this, but could some more pictures be added? In relevant sections, such as personnel or touring. An in-depth review will be forthcoming.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'm sure I could manage something. If you had anything specific in mind, I'd love to hear it. mftp dan ^oops 18:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think these two images would work well: [4], [5]. They could go in the touring or personnel sections.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Prose and structure looks good! I still need to go through all of the references. There's two cases of over-citing: "critics have identified the album's style as metalcore,[18][19][20][21]" and "LaPlante both screams and sings throughout Eternal Blue.[2][19][33]". You only need one or two citations there. Potentially, if necessary, you could bundle the references into one citation, but I don't think that this is necessary. Just use one or two citations to make the point.-- 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Disclaimer before I act: I kept four next to metalcore because Spiritbox's genre has, in the past, been contentious, and this was precautionary to hopefully help ward off debates over how genres should be applied or even ordered in the infobox. At your insistence, I will proceed, but I just wanted to clarify it had an extra purpose. mftp dan ^oops 14:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I figured. Both from personal experience in genre wars and per WP:OVERCITE, that's typically why multiple citations are given. If you think it's necessary, again, you could bundle the citations, but I think if you have two separate sources calling the album metalcore, then that's a valid genre tag. If the genre is debated in sources, then that debate should be mentioned. If it's not contentious in reliable sources, then an editor disputing that needs to prove it with sources. And even then, that wouldn't justify removing the mention of metalcore.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Very well. I'll probably end up doing something similar to what the band's biography or Deftones does (though maybe not quite as heavily as the latter band does). The other overcite has been addressed. mftp dan ^oops 14:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Great!--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

How's it look, 3family6? Any further concerns? I'll be adding Courtney to the composition section. I used that photo of Josh in the band's biography and he joined the band after EB, and putting it in promotion would be too close to the Joshua Tree image in my own personal opinion, so I'll be commenting on her lyrical input in the caption. mftp dan ^oops 15:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

For images, it looks good. I just need to go through the sources.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@MFTP Dan

Ref 30 is a duplicate of ref 86. Merge those, please.

Done. mftp dan ^oops

Make sure the formatting and wikilinking of sources is consistent. For example, some Loudwire and Billboard references have wikilinks to the Loudwire and Billboard sites, some do not. Please go through and ensure that all wikilinks are given, if a source has a Wikipedia article. Same with the formatting. I don't think you need to list Townsquare Media as the publisher of Loudwire, but, if you do, make sure all the citations to Loudwire articles do that. I'd personally just take out that field as it's not necessary. Also, some website citations have the website italicized, some do not because the field is "publisher" rather than "website" (ref 100, for example). That needs to be consistent.

Will do. mftp dan ^oops 19:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Is Lambgoat.com considered a reliable source? I think for the usage here it's fine, since it's press release content being cited as primary sources. But I was wondering more generally. It has an editorial staff, so I'm thinking it's fine. I just was wondering if there's been any discussions about it.

It has a loose consensus for basic things like this that's about 10 years old, but I considered these circumstances before using it. mftp dan ^oops

This source I'm slightly concerned about for use supporting a BLP statement. The article is posted by the site owner/editor, so essentially a self-published source; and if used as a primary source, it's a statement from a different individual than the subject, albeit a member of the band. Realistically, it's probably fine, but I want to make sure that nothing here is running afoul of WP:BLPSPS.

I never thought about it being self-published from that angle. Do you think I could attribute the information to LaPlante in the text? Would that help? mftp dan ^oops

Other than those issues, everything looks great!--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@3family6: I've made an effort to address all of these statements; I went ahead and attributed LaPlante with the Wall of Sound ref, and axed one Lambgoat ref where it wasn't necessary. Is that enough for a support? mftp dan ^oops 23:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Re: the Wall of Sound interview, the issue with citing LaPlante for this is that she is making an essentially self-published statement about a living person. I'm going to go ahead and run this question by the BLP noticeboard.-- 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:03, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

How is taking her word and attributing it as such still self-published? I don't follow. I'd like to note that that's the only extant online source covering the information. mftp dan ^oops 13:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not technically "self-published", but it would be a primary source statement. The discussion at the noticeboard largely seems okay with it, although one editor did express that technically the source might fail BLPSPS and would therefore be a best source. I personally am ignoring the technicalities here, as I think inclusion improves the article and it's certainly not defamatory. All issues are resolved.-- 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, regarding Lambgoat.com, it was brought to RS/N today regarding an unrelated article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse - between my review and the one below, the article is now at a level I'd consider essentially perfect.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Image review and support from Crisco

Note for transparency: I am responding to a generalized request for reviews in Discord.

• File:Spiritbox EternalBlue.jpg - This is relatively sparse. I'd use the more fleshed out detail like you have in the alt image.
• File:Spiritbox EternalBlue Alt.jpg - Looks fairly solid.
• File:Spiritbox - Rock am Ring 2022-5163.jpg - Looks good (yet another image that makes me jealous of the Germans)
• File:JoshuaTree 20150911.jpg - Looks good.

Prose

• After revealing the project and releasing an extended play (EP) in 2017, development on Eternal Blue began in 2018. - Missing the subject; "development" was not the one revealing the project.
• which guitarist Stringer and former Volumes guitarist Daniel Braunstein produced - Any way to avoid repeating "guitarist"?
• LaPlante used both screamed and clean vocals on the album - Definitely feels like "scream" and "clean vocals" should be linked for non-genre fans.
• The project is the only studio album Spiritbox released while bassist Bill Crook was a member of the band, though he did not play any bass parts on the album. He left the band in May 2022. - Is this really lead worthy?
  • All addressed up to this point, except for the last one. I could be overruled and convinced to remove it, but as far as I'm aware, this is fairly routine practice for album articles, unless the band has an especially turbulent history, which Spiritbox is not. mftp dan ^oops 01:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
• LaPlante had joined the band in 2012 to replace the vocalist, who had departed mid-tour - I'd mention Krysta Cameron explicitly
• Stringer and LaPlante became uncomfortable with being replacements for the band's previous members and wanted to pursue a new personal and creative direction,[6] so they decided to quit the band in late 2015. - This can definitely be rewritten to be more professional. Something like "Uncomfortable with being replacement members and wanting to pursue a new personal and creative direction,[6] Stringer and LaPlante decided to quit the band in late 2015."
• Spititbox - Typo. Also, you mention Spiritbox three times in this paragraph; reworking to avoid mentioning the band as much would be good.
• shared - So they didn't release them through normal distribution channels? This implies to me that these were released gratis (similar to shareware)
• Paragraph 3 of #Background uses the word "singles" four times in three sentences.
• The section #Composition feels like it would flow more logically after #Recording; you've just spent four paragraphs talking about how they came to record the album, then you skip the recording process to talk about the album itself.
  • All issues addressed up to this point. mftp dan ^oops 02:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
• Continuing down, I'm seeing a lot of repetition of words (Spiritbox used several heavy metal-based musical styles on Eternal Blue; critics have identified the album's style as metalcore, progressive metal, djent, post-metal, and alternative metal, for example). Honestly, part of me wants to completely restructure the first paragraph in #Composition.
• mid 2019 - mid-2019
• "fluidity that is inherent in heavy music" - This opinion would be attributed
• "romantically sorrowful" - Same as above
• religious faith - Could probably be shortened
• catchy - Another opinion, this time using Wikipedia's voice
  • All have been addressed to this point. For "Halcyon", it really didn't occur to me at all that that wasn't objective considering how it was covered in the source. Good catch. mftp dan ^oops 02:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
• The songwriting for Eternal Blue commenced early - Early is quite subjective; a statement like "several years before release" would be more objective
• In September 2020, the band announced they had signed with Rise Records as part of the label's partnership with the band's vanity label Pale Chord Records - Both "label" and "band" are repeated in this sentence.
• in the following 24 hours, the band sold 6,500 vinyl pre-orders for the record
• Simon Crampton, in a summary of his review of the record, called it "one of the most self assured, emotionally enriching and musically diverse albums of the year",
• Top Album Sales - I'd mention that this is a chart.
• My basic impression is that the article is a bit too verbose, using more words than necessary to express its information. I've highlighted some examples above, but they aren't the only ones.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • All points that are here have been addressed, though now the placement of the Joshua Tree image is a little awkward. Shame, cause you're right about it not making organizational sense before. mftp dan ^oops 02:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I've fiddled with the article a bit further. Overall, the repetition is still giving me pause, so I'm going to hold on until there's a bit more feedback. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• Moving to support now. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

GL Mk. I radar

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a British radar system that aided the Army's anti-aircraft gunners. I think it's interesting because it was so low-tech that it helped convince the Germans that British radars were not very good (along with the similar MRU, an article I'll get to) and the amusing bit about it causing a nationwide shortage of chicken wire.

The article went through A-class some time ago, and it looks like I'll have some time to work it over the holidays, so here goes... Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• Don't use fixed px size

• Why are there two of File:GL_Mk._II_radar_transmitter.jpg?

• File:GL_Mk._II_radar_transmitter.jpg: source link is dead

• File:GL_Mk_IIIc_radar_Accurate_Position_Finder.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Queries: (1) what should I use instead of fixed px sizes? (2) should I use an archive URL for the dead link, or find another page with the same image? (3) There are two copies of the one image simply because we needed one to be in the lede for the DYK - I'm trolling the web looking for one to replace it at the bottom. (4) Canadian pic, what do I need in this case, a second tag for the US as well? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

(1) |upright=. (2) Either, as long as the latter would verify the information provided on the description page. (3) If no other image can be found, the duplicate should be removed, DYK or no. (4) Commons requires images to be free in both the US and their country of origin. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok all fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't look like the dead source link has changed? Where and when was File:GL_Mk_IIIc_radar_Accurate_Position_Finder.jpg first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, it seems to have saved the new URL this time, not sure what I did. The second was first published in 1942/3. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Where? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

NRC lab reports, Ottawa. They would have been available in the UK and US at the same time, and likely other Commonwhelth nations but I can't confirm that. The original image is now in the archives in Waterloo. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, to clarify, which part of that cannot be confirmed, and what do you mean by "available"? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I cannot confirm it was available in other commonwealth nations in the radar circles - namely Australia, NZ and South Africa, but I assume they did. The UK definitely got it, it's in Kew. By "available", the parties to the arrangement, which included at least the UK, US and Canada, sent copies of their research documents to the other parties when they were published. So in this case it would have arrived at the radlab within days of it being published in Canada. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Looking on Commons, it seems that there is a perfectly good alternative here, the Mk. IIIB image. Is this one perhaps more useful? Do UK images in PD also require a US tag? If so, would this one be easier to verify? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Graham Beards

• "Plans to introduce the Mk. II with accurate bearing and elevation were underway from the start" From the start of what?
• "1,679 Mk. IIs were ultimately produced." Can we avoid starting this sentence with numerals?
• "The GL effort was started very early during CH development, and like CH of that era, used relatively long wavelengths as these could be generated and detected easily using existing electronics from commercial shortwave radio systems". The lay reader might wonder how long wavelengths can be obtained with shortwave radios.
• "The antenna was only marginally directional, with the signal being sent out in a wide fan about 60 degrees on either side." There is a fused participle here. How about "and the signal was sent out in a wide fan about 60 degrees on either side." Or just drop the "with"?
• "A more serious limitation was the displays themselves" I think "themselves" is redundant.
• "As Mk. I arrived in the field, a number of improvements in the basic electronics were introduced." Perhaps "several improvements"?
• "To better study the AA problem" Are you happy with the split infinitive?
• "The separate range and bearing receiver units could operate on a number of frequency bands" Several ?
• "A common oscillator was used by both receivers, which was sent into the four-tube radio frequency (RF) section" Perhaps provide a link to Electronic oscillator?

That's it from me for now. Graham Beards (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

All of these are updated. Thanks! Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

I've copyedited a bit; revert anything you disagree with.

• "which provided both mobile early-warning service, as well as relocatable service in case a main CH station was knocked out". You don't need both "both" and "as well as"; either "both mobile early-warning service and relocatable service" or "mobile early-warning service, as well as relocatable service" would work. But it took me a second to understand the point of "relocatable". How about "which provided mobile early-warning service, and could also be relocated to replace a main CH station if one was knocked out"?
• I don't think any change is needed, but I'm curious as to how accuracy was measured. If the radar was accurate to 25 yds for an aircraft several miles away, how was this determined? Even at slow speeds an aircraft would cover that distance in less than a second, so any form of human-triggered measurement seems unlikely to be precise enough. Could tests be done against objects on the ground?
• "and produce a null on the display": what is a null? I understand the concept, but does this just mean that the display would be blank? And I see the word is used later in the article; it appears the display is not blank so I am unclear what is meant.
• I see there's an article on GL Mk. III radar, but not on GL Mk. II radar. If the Mk. II is covered in this article, shouldn't the title reflect that?
• "by sliding a copper ring along post on the core": presumably this should read "along a post"?
• I don't think we need the wikilink to ladder, unless you intended that to go to some technical article with a similar name.
• "Images exist that show both antennas combined on a single cabin": why is this worth mentioning? Surely images exist of many of these devices and their installations.
• For note c I think you need a source for the suggested explanations. Without one I think it would be best to cut the note.

I don't know enough about electronics to provide any subject matter feedback on the description section, and I struggled to understand some of it, but that's the nature of technical articles. I think the article does what it can reasonably do towards explaining the material as simply as possible. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

All updated. Some notes:

• The accuracy was a function of the pulse width. Back then you could only be sure the target was within the distance that the pulse covered at the speed of light. So you want as short a pulse as possible to get better range accuracy. But there's limits to how short you could get with their electronics and still have a solid signal. Today they use various tricks like pulse compression that allow you to use long pulses and then compress them on reception and ~1m is not an issue.
• I hear you on the title? I didn't like "Mk. I and Mk. II". For the AI radar I went with Mk. IV, as the vast majority were Mk. IV sets, but in this case it really is more mixed. But also two articles seemed wrong too. Suggestions?

• I have no idea who linked ladder!
• I trimmed C, but still worth mentioning that the sources don't say I think.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

For the title, maybe Early GL radar? Or failing that, GL Mk. I and Mk. II radar is at least accurate, if a bit clumsy. Whatever you pick, don't move the article till the FAC concludes as that would screw up the bot that handles closes. Looks like you skipped my second-to-last question? All your other responses look fine. I expect to support but would like to read through again first; please ping me once the other reviewers' comments are resolved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree this needs a better title. Early British radar systems perhaps? RoySmith (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

But this is one of several designs that would fall under that title. CH and MRU definitely do! I think Mike's second one works? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I did miss that one point. The issue here is that both Mk. I and Mk. II used two separate cabins for transmitter and receiver, but there are photographs showing both on a single cabin. There's really little information beyond that, but it seemed worth mentioning. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

RoySmith

I'm reading through this now. So far, looks pretty good. Note that I'm not into milhist; I approaching this from the engineering standpoint.

Development

• The first mention of radar in the UK was ... Do we really have a solid source for there being no earlier mentions? See User:RoySmith/essays/First is worst.
  • Still needs to be addressed.
• The GL effort was started very early during CH development, and like CH of that era, used relatively long wavelengths as these could be generated and detected easily using existing electronics from commercial shortwave radio systems I stumbled when reading this, because I remembered reading earlier about 600 MHz being used and didn't think there was any 600 MHz gear in commercial use back then. When I went back I saw that the 600 MHz was a different unit, but you might eliminate this confusion by saying up front something like "Despite Butement's earlier experiments with 50 cm technology, the CL used relatively long 50 meter wavelengths as these could be generated ..."
• antennas on the order of 25 m perhaps link to half-wave dipole here.
• Clearly, this was not practical is that you doing the editorializing ("clearly"), or does the source say that?
• produce a smoothly varying voltage, does the source say "smooth"? I assume "linear" would be a better word, or more likely Sawtooth wave.
• sent into the CRT's other channel, typically the Y-axis It took me a little bit to understand what you're getting at here, mostly because my familiarity with modern radar sets had me assuming it would be using a Plan position indicator, which these early radar sets didn't. It might be useful to mention that this is known as an A-scope display, and perhaps use the illustration at Radar display#A-Scope.
• For this role, the system used two receiver antennas mounted about one wavelength apart I'm having trouble visualizing this. One wavelength apart in what direction? Normal to the azimuth? Vertical? Horizontal? Drawing a diagram would help here.
• The transmitter, which had a power of about 20 kW is that 20 kW average continuous power, or peak power? I suspect the latter, but the source should say.
• Three antennas were mounted in a line down one of the long sides of the framework again, a diagram would be really helpful here.
• Behind the two bearing antennas were reflectors mounted about a wavelength away, which had the effect of narrowing their reception angle that sounds like you're describing a yagi. If so, link to that.
• it provided very accurate range measurements on the order of 50 yards does the source characterize it as "very accurate"?
• You've described a few different crew positions; people watching each of two different scopes, and "the range readers", which I suppose are the same people. It would be useful to give an exact rundown of how many people were in the crew and what each person did.
  • Still needs to be addressed.
• could be attained with these lobe switching systems. a reader who is familiar with antenna design will understand what you mean by "lobe", but most readers won't, so a short explanation (and, again, a diagram) would be useful here.
• It was found that in certain orientations of the transmitter and receiver, the small antenna used to trigger the time base would see too small a signal to work I'm confused. I think what's going on here is that the time base sync is sent from the transmitter shack to the receiver shack by radio, but that's not clear. Again (and I know I'm getting repetitious here) a diagram would help.
• By late 1939 became clear "IT became clear"?
• well into an effort to build an S-band GL radar system I know that S-band means a certain wavelength (although I had to go look up the exact number), but most readers won't have a clue what you're talking about. It's especially confusing since if you click on S-band you get to an article that's talking about frequencies, and most of this article has been talking about wavelengths. They're just two different ways to say the same thing, but most readers won't understand that. So a short explanation here would be useful.
• it combined scanning and tracking into a single unit with an internal generator set that touches on something I've been wondering about; where did the Mk I and II units get their power? I assume in addition to the receiver and transmitter shacks, there was a separate generator shack that came along with it? How many total vehicles did it take to move and set up one of these units?

At this point, I'm done with Development. I'll pick up again with the rest another day.

Many edits, I think I got everything on your list. Some notes:

• half-wave is already there, just above.
• sawtooth is definitely the correct term.
• a-scope is linked already just above.
• it's not a yagi. Similar, but different. It's actually built exactly like a modern UHF TV antenna, with dipoles in front of a passive rectangular reflector.
• I just removed the s-band, simply say "microwave" seems good enough in this article.
• I do NOT have a description of how this was hauled. This is actually a bit curious because all the other units I've worked on always go out of their way to describe this, right down the individual model of trucks. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Description

• In some places you talk about "wooden cabins", in other places, "wooden huts". I assume these two terms refer to the same thing, so it might be clearer if you just stuck to one consistently, or at least at the first usage, say something like "cabins or huts".
• I'm also curious (and I assume so will our readers be) why these were built of wood. Was it just a convenient material or was the fact that wood is not electrically conductive an important factor?
• mounted on AA gun carriages Readers who know about these things will know what AA means, but many won't. So you should define the term. I'm assuming these were used because they included the ability to support a great deal of weight while being able to be pointed accurately in any direction in addition to being towable behind a truck; if that is indeed the case, saying so will be valuable to our casual readers.
• with up to 50 kW of power again, needs to be clarified that this is (I assume) peak power.
• the entire area in front of the transmitter antenna's current bearing given the subject matter, when I see "current", I think Electric current, so could you pick a different word here to prevent confusion?
• the signal was even less directional vertically than horizontally it should be mentioned (obviously with a RS, not just my say-so) that the narrower horizontal beam width was a direct consequence of the antenna being wider horizontally than it was tall, and that the antenna was intentionally shaped like that to achieve this effect.
• potentiometer which exponentially increased the charge in a capacitor bank This is confusing. Earlier you said The system worked by charging a capacitor at a known rate until it reached a threshold that triggered the time base which makes sense (and is basically the same as the variable trigger delay in modern lab oscilloscopes, at least until the end of the analog scope days), and by "known rate", I assume "linear". But here you're talking about charging at an exponential rate, which I don't understand.
• for reasons that are not recorded in the references, this solution was not used we're supposed to be using WP:RS, so I'm unclear where this bit of information came from.

OK, that does it for a first pass from me. Overall, this was an enjoyable read. As noted in a few places, I think the addition of some explanatory diagrams would go a long way towards helping a non-expert reader understand how this all works. I know a fair bit about radar, so I was able to fill in a lot of the gaps from my personal knowledge. I suspect most people will just be lost, however.

Some other random thoughts...

• The introduction of the cavity magnetron in 1940 led to a new design effort using highly directional parabolic antennas to allow both ranging and accurate bearing measurements while being much more compact is a little deceptive. It's not the parabolic antennas that allowed it to be more compact, it's the fact that it used shorter wavelengths. The greater accuracy may have been due to the parabolic antennas, but the shorter wavelengths is what allowed them build build those antennas in practical sizes. So I would certainly mention that the cavity magnetron allowed them to operate at those wavelengths.
• You should tell the reader what "gun laying" means
  • Still needs to be addressed.

I think I have all of these as well.

As to the "exponential" bit, I have only this: "The design of the potentiometer is based on a time constant r = 167.1 microsec, the grading being exponential so that time-interval or range readings are linearly related to the angular settings of the potentiometer shaft." This is only used on the bearing display, the range display is different. Reading it now I'm not at all clear one what this accomplishes. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Most of your changes look good. I've noted a couple of items above which still need to be addressed. I know this may be going beyond the requirements of WP:FACR, but I'll repeat my suggestion that some good diagrams in a few places would go a long way towards making this approachable to a non-expert reader. I understand most of the technology here so I'm able to do a lot of imagining how things must be arranged and I'm really just filling in details as I read along. Most readers, not so much. I recognize that this is a highly technical subject so it's unreasonable to expect that somebody who knows nothing about electronics will be able to follow every detail, but I do think there's room to do better in this regard. RoySmith (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Older nominations

Battle of Morlaix

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Another in my long running Lance and Longbow series, this article is about the first significant clash on land of both the Hundred Years' War and the Breton Civil War. A large French army attacked a smaller, possibly much smaller, English force and it ended badly. I am much reminded of Wellington on British cavalry 500 years later.

Our officers of cavalry have acquired a trick of galloping at everything. They never consider the situation, never think of manoeuvring before an enemy, and never keep back or provide a reserve.

This has recently been much expanded by me and is fresh from a GAN review by Serial Number ^Redacted so thorough as to approach the rigorous. All comments, concerns and complaints are welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

HF

I'll review this soon. Hog Farm _Talk 18:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• "He was released in 1943 on condition that he gave up the struggle. " - Was he released by the Free French or the Vichy? The date appears to be wrong

Vichy. His goalers freed him in the chaos of the German take over. Clarified.

• " By July Joanna had been forced back to the far west of Brittany" - is this an alternate name of Jeanne of Flanders?

Sorry, as this is the English language Wikipedia they should be standardised as "Joanna". They are now.

• Is there a link for cog as referenced in the caption?

Linked.

• "Northampton's 1,350 men are described by the historian Jonathan Sumption as being half men-at-arms and half archers. while Kelly DeVries says most were archers" - comma after archers instead of the period, or were you intending this to be two sentences?

Whoops. Comma inserted. (Not something I type very often.)

The sources all look to be reliable from a quick glance. I don't think I have anything else to add to this. Hog Farm _Talk 20:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Hog Farm. Is that it? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Yep, looks good to me. The GA reviewer didn't leave much for later reviewer to complain about. Supporting. Hog Farm _Talk 21:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size

Hi Nikkimaria, can you confirm that you are referring to the infobox image? (As the other five images don't use px.) Thanks Gog the Mild (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Yep. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Ta, Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• File:CarlosIdebritania.jpg needs a US tag

Done.

• File:Miniatura_dei_Carmina_regia_02.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Swapped for another, similar, image.

Comments Support from Tim riley

Another clear, well sourced and highly readable article from Gog about the Hundred Years' War. I look forward to supporting its elevation to FA, but first a few quibbles and carps.

• "and was shot to pieces by the English archers using longbows, it then broke without making contact" – needs a stronger stop than a comma.

Replaced with a semi colon. That do?

Yup. Tim riley talk 17:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• "his younger half brother, John of Montfort, claiming the dukedom; Joan was married to Charles of Blois, a well connected and militarily orientated French nobleman" – and there will be fisticuffs if Gog again persists in forgetting my wise words about three missing hyphenations and, in "orientated", two superfluous letters.

Oh deary me. Clearly old - and incorrect - habits die hard. Fixed. Um; I can only fond two missing hyphens. Should "militarily oriented" be hyphenated?

You're right, I think that the last doesn't need a hyphen, and I withdraw.

• "Philip found the idea of having a relative as the duke attractive, it would bring the traditionally semi-autonomous province more firmly under royal control" – another comma splice that needs a stronger stop.

Semi coloned.

• "Their fleet of 260 ships, including an unknown number of galleys, took the Genoese by surprise and 11 of their ships were burnt" – 11 Genoese ships, I presume, but it isn't entirely clear. If my assumption is correct may I suggest "took the Genoese by surprise, burning 11 of their ships"?

Restructured to, hopefully be clearer.

• "a force far inferior to that of the French" – we've been here before, too. Numerically inferior no doubt, but let's not get judgemental here. Perhaps just "a force far smaller..."?

Tweaked.

• "Edward III was planning to follow on with a substantial force, so Northampton's first mission was..." – I write as an old codger, and many younger non-codgers may disagree, but I don't regard "so" as a proper conjunction in formal English prose. In my view you need "and so" here.

Humf I say, as an old codger myself. Now "proper".

• "Morlaix is approximately half way between Brest and Guingamp" – I was going to ask for a hyphen here, but to my surprise the OED renders "halfway" in this sense as a single, unhyphenated word, so there you are!

:-)

• "Charles left it well-provisioned and well-garrisoned" – neither hyphen is wanted.

SOme people are never happy. Repositione elsewhere in the article.

• "Charles' force greatly outnumbered the English" – we've been through this before: if Charles is to be pronounced à la française then plain ess-apostrophe is right, but as John isn't Jean in your text and Philip isn't Philippe I think we are firmly in the realm of anglicised renderings of French names, and so Charles would be pronounced with an "s" on the end and the possessive would be Charles's.

A barbarous usage. Reworded to avoid the necessity.

But there are still five incidences of Charles' without an ess-apostrophe-ess. Or are you saying that just ess-apostrophe is right? Tim riley talk 17:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, I pronounce it "charles" and struggle with the idea of it being pronounced "charleses", but I shall have a look at the others and see what might be done.

Hmm. I have cut it back to two cases, but we still have a disagreement as to whether even one is acceptable.

• "Even this was only sufficient for perhaps fifteen minutes continuous shooting" – either fifteen minutes' continuous shooting (with apostrophe) or fifteen minutes of continuous shooting.

Drat! Good spot.

• "although as the battle wore on the rate of fire would slow" – you and I are at one about eschewing superfluous commas, but I think a comma here would usefully break up "the battle wore on the rate"

I try hard not to argue with you over such things, if only because I usually lose. But for the life of me I cannot see where a comma might permissibly fit, much less improve the flow; although any possibility would certainly break up the flow. You have my permission to insert a comma into the sentence wherever you think best.

I'd put a comma after "on", but it's your text and I don't presume to pontificate. Tim riley talk 17:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Modern historians differ as to its composition." – This is the fourth "as to" in the text and one does begin to notice it. Perhaps just "about" here and there?
• "was made more difficult for the French by their mercenary crossbowmen having deserted" – have I bored you before about gerunds? Well I'm going to again. Grammatically this sentence should be " ... their mercenary crossbowmen's having..." but as that is a lumpen piece of prose, may I suggest "made more difficult for the French because their mercenary crossbowmen had deserted"?

You certainly may. (I am pleased to hear that your AI Gog is all but indistinguishable from the real one.) Changed.

• "the first time the English tactic of deploying their men-at-arms on foot with massed longbowmen on either flank was used outside Britain" – this is bound to pique your readers' interest, and it would be a kindness to add a footnote saying when and where it was used in these islands. And are you sure "Britain" rather than "England" is wanted here?

Re Britain, unless you wish to claim just outside Perth as English, which would be likely to pique some readers. I was considering adding a short paragraph to the main article about where historians consider Morlaix fits in the development of the English tactics. It seemed a bit of an overloaded, but this morning it seemed more reasonable. What do you think? Whatever it is I shall either footnote or main article the information, although it may not be for a couple of days due to social committments.

It was just a suggestion and I leave it in your hands. Tim riley talk 17:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

As a natural daredevil, and having been egged on by you, I am going for it. I shall ping you once it is done. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

That's all from me. I hope some or all is helpful. Tim riley talk 15:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

As ever, all of it is most helpful Tim. Thank you. Most comments actioned and all responded to. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

After final rereading I'm happy to sign on the dotted line and support the consecration of this article as an FA. Tim riley talk 19:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Source review

I wonder if the The Battle of Crécy, 1346 sauce should be sfn'ed not by year, but by chapter title. Looked through the sources and their reviews, seem OK (worst thing I read is "redundant") but I am beginning to wonder if the lack of French sources creates a reliability problem. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo and thanks for looking at this. Regarding your comments:

• BofC, I am not sure what you mean. Could you point me to an example of sfn'ing by chapter title? Thanks
• And for our purposes "redundant" means 'already well established in the literature', so good.
• There are, obviously, HQ RSs in French. I own some of them. I even accessed some when putting this article together. I could easily replace several of the existing cites with French language sources saying much the same thing. Which I assume would make you happy but would fail the FAC because WP:NOENG "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance" which is policy. I can confirm that I have checked the French-language sources, such as they are, and found nothing of note not covered by equal or better quality English-language sources; note that the French version of this article only uses English-language sources. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

OK. I must note though that NOENG does not say that it overrides DUE/UNDUE points, so I want the assurance that there aren't aspects covered better/differently in the non-English sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Iazyges

Claiming a spot. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• Brittany was a province of France but while the dukes of Brittany were vassals of the French kings they governed the duchy as independent rulers I think this could do with a bit of a re-organization, perhaps Brittany was a province of France, as the dukes of Brittany were vassals of the French kings, however they governed the duchy as independent rulers or something similar.

Well now. As it happens I prefer the first version, I find that your suggestion causes me to jump back and forth a little. More pertinently I used the same form of words for the opening sentence in my other current FAC after the wording was thrashed out with a couple of reviewers. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Breton Civil War, 1341/archive1#Support by Borsoka. UC raised much the same point as Borsoka in their earlier review. If you feel strongly about this I could ping both of them into this discussion to try and reach a consensus?

• There was a single usage of "Brittainy" here (and in the Breton Civil War article) that I assumed was supposed to be Brittany, and changed accordingly, but just wanted to double-check.

You are quite right, I just keep having a mental blip.

• John's wife, Joanna of Flanders, was in Rennes with her two-year-old son, also John and the ducal treasury when news of John's capture arrived for a bit of clarity, consider also named John; present sentence at first read to me as if John was a third person, not the son.

You are quite right. Changed as you suggest.

• (ie, very many) suggest just (very many)

Done.

• fifteen minutes' continuous shooting consider fifteen minutes of continuous shooting

Done.

• I did notice that there is inconsistent metric to imperial translation, sometimes from meters into feet, and other translating meters into yards. Suggest standardizing all to be meters translated to feet.

Done.

• That is all of my suggestions, a fascinating article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Iazyges, thanks for the review and I'm glad you liked it. All of your comments addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy to Support. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments Support by Constantine

Upon kind invitation, I will review in the next few days. Constantine ✍ 22:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Constantine, that's kind of you. I shall brace myself. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Lede

• had sided with John of Montfort's faction in the Breton Civil War might be useful to also specify when this conflict began? E.g. 'the recently erupted Breton Civil War' or something similar.

Done

• When the French sighted them they deployed 'they' is not entirely clear, perhaps 'When the French sighted the English position, they deployed...'?

That seems worse. I have gone with "When they sighted the English position, the French deployed", that work?

Much better indeed. Constantine ✍ 16:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

• first major land battle of the Hundred Years War for consistency, 'Hundred Year's War'

Done.

• This was the first major land battle of the Hundred Years War. I would also add that it set the tone for English encounters with the French in this conflict, as noted in the Historiography section.

Done.

Background

• Regnal years for Edward III?

If you mean either in the infobox or the lead, or both, I don't do them there, just at first mention in the main article.

• Just for clarity: was English support for John the result of the French backing for Charles? The sequence of statements currently suggests otherwise, or leaves the causal connection between the two unclear. It would help if This army overran all of eastern Brittany apart from Rennes and captured John were given a date.

Done.

No, the French backing for Charles was because John tried to insure his position by secretly negotiating with Edward.

Perhaps add 'In response' before The French declared Charles the rightful heir? Constantine ✍ 16:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Rejigged the paragraph to get that in in chronological order.

Thanks, IMO much improved. Constantine ✍ 16:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• as the faction's figurehead what was that faction? Put another way, were the Bretons divided in their allegiances, or did some of them support the Blois claim? Did these allegiances have a geographical variable (it is suggested thus further down)?

Added.

Background is possibly getting a bit bloated now. And whatever point one stops explaining the nuances is going to be a bit arbitrary

I agree, and am always prepared to accept a refusal to add more details on these grounds. However the conflict is not just an English-French one but also an internecine Breton one, so some context should be given. The additions are also more than sufficient for me. Constantine ✍ 16:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

English intervention

• arrived under Sir Walter Mauny in May add 1342 just for clarity

Done.

• Relink Genoese to Republic of Genoa? I also assume the first instance of galleys was left unlinked to avoid the sea of blue? Perhaps 'fourteen galleys, hired from Genoa,...' instead?

Good thinking, done.

• Do we know how large the French army besieging Brest was? There are mentions of the size disparity, but if any numbers (or estimates) are known, it would help. For example, Charles was now aware that his force greatly outnumbered the English, although not by as much as Charles had hoped is confusing for me: if the French army 'greatly' outnumbered the English, what does this mean? Going by the next section they were three or even more times as large, which is scarcely grounds for Charles to have hoped for an even more lopsided ratio. And if Charles was initially not aware that the English were numerically smaller, why did he hope to outnumber them by a wide margin in the first place?

Re Brest we have no clue. The modern sources have phrases such as "a vast host", "an enormous French army".

I can't help it if you're confused. Charles wanted more men than he had. He probably shared this with every military commander ever. Maybe he could then besiege some towns as well as attack the English Perhaps he realised how incompetent he was. Perhaps it was a status thing. (Yeah, I like that one too.) The sources don't say. They say Charles lost a lot of troops to the army in Picardy and wasn't happy about it. I have no objection to editing out Charles' unhappiness if that jars.

If it derives from the sources, that is fine to stay. Constantine ✍ 16:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

• the French mistakenly believed it would be used in northern France, probably disembarking in Calais. An army was gathered to confront this imagined threat So German WW2 generals were not the only ones to fall for that... More seriously, Calais was not in English hands then, was it? So the French feared that the English would seize Calais and not just disembark there?

Oh, very good point, I shall check. (Off hand Sluys seems more likely.) Nooo! My fault, the source says "Edward's real intention must be to land in the Pas-de-Calais" and I saw what I wanted to. Sorry. Changed.

Fine, but why the change to Picardy instead of Pas-de-Calais? Constantine ✍ 16:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

1. So as to avoid over-close paraphrasing. 2. Because the coast of Picardy is (more or less) the same as the French coast of the Pas-de-Calais.

Opposing forces

• The men-at-arms in the French army were equipped similarly to the English is that not redundant since The men-at-arms of both armies...?

Fixed.

The reference {{sfn|Prestwich|2007|p=155}} is now double and redundant. Constantine ✍ 16:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Ha, that may teach me not to do edits during the gaps in the Christmas festivities. Thanks for double checking. Fixed.

Battle

• decided to attempt to relieve Morlaix suggest 'decided to attempt to relieve Morlaix' as the decision was not to attempt, but to succeed.

Done.

• because their mercenary crossbowmen had deserted any indications as to why? Professional soldiers deserting after a lost battle is known, but here the outcome appears to still have been open...

Nope. Some of the modern sources don't mention crossbowmen at all. My guess is that they mean they fled after getting shot up in the first attack. But that is OR.

Aftermath

• when Edward III arrived at Brest on 26 October the siege was abandoned and Northampton marched to join him Why? This move seems illogical, since he was victorious and was about to receive even more reinforcements.

No source gives a reason. Almost certainly Edward pulling in his forces for his big push across Brittany to besiege Vannes. But that is OR.

• Link Edwardian phase to Hundred Years' War, 1337–1360?

Done.

Historiography

• Perhaps a mention of this battle being part of the broader "Infantry Revolution" in 14th-century warfare?

To my surprise, you are the second reviewer to ask for more in the Historiography section. I shall work something up.

I have added a fair bit on the English combining longbowmen and dismounted men-at-arms post Bannockburn, but don't think it appropriate to wade into the "infantry revolution", assuming it is still alive as a theory to be waded into. I think it is put well in Bachrach and Bachrach Warfare in Medieval Europe.

The regular deployment by English commanders of archers alongside dismounted men at arms who were positioned in a phalanx has been described by a number of military historians, including most prominently Clifford Rogers, as marking a revolution in military affairs. In numerous articles and books, Rogers has identified what he describes as a particularly English approach to combat in the field, whereby English commanders undertook the tactical defensive in battle while maintaining the strategic offensive in the various theatres of the Hundred Years’ War in Scotland, France, and in the Iberian Peninsula. English commanders, and particularly Edward III, inculcated the imperative among their subordinates that it was crucial to force the enemy to attack them, after the English army had established a sound defensive position. It certainly is appropriate to observe the enormous success enjoyed by the English armies during the course of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, however, it also is important to understand that Edward III was not the inventor of the tactical deployment of a phalanx supported by troops equipped with missile weapons.

They continue at chapter length - very readably IMO.

Fair enough. Constantine ✍ 16:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: That's it, the article is in great shape already, and as usual, written with clarity and care to provide context to its readers. Constantine ✍ 12:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

It's late. I shall try to wrap up what's left in the morning. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Constantine and thanks for the expert review. I have come back to all of your comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

A pleasure Gog the Mild, that's it from me. Well done and a happy New Year! Constantine ✍ 16:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Support on criterion #3

For now at least. SerialNumber54129^{A New Face in Hell} 12:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Request for the coordinators

Festive greetings to all @FAC coordinators: Given the progress of this - 3 supports, source and image passes, another review from Constantine pending - could I have permission to nominate another one? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Well why not, I can't think of anything better at Christmas than more medieval death and destruction... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Your wish is my command, oh mighty coordinator. Another slice of death and destruction coming up. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Belvidere Apollo Theatre collapse

Nominator(s): Departure– (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the collapse of a theater venue in Illinois which had been hosting a sold-out concert. This is my first FA nomination, and the article has been out for around a week; it was assessed as B class and I've significantly expanded it since then. I have around 98% authorship but from my spot checks everything's cited, no tags are present in the article, and it has a good mix of sources. I do cite a Facebook post but I believe it's acceptable as a matter-of-fact statement by the Belvidere Fire Department. Departure– (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments from EF5

I love to see this at FAC, and I'll neutrally give feedback:

• Images need alt texts.
• A second paragraph in the lede would be marvelous, or at least paragraph out the current one.
• NWS -> National Weather Service for consistency.
• Template:2023 tornado outbreaks should be added.

Will do a prose review soon, but these are my opening comments. :) E_F⁵ 16:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for the suggestions! Departure– (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Now that my anxiety is a little simmered down, a prose lede review:

• Lede:

• causing the ceiling of the theater to suffer a critical structural failure and collapse onto a sold-out concert headlined by the death metal band Morbid Angel. Although not required, I'd suggest rewording this to say "causing the ceiling of the theater to cave in and subsequently collapse onto a sold-out concert headlined by the death metal band Morbid Angel".
• with over 200 in attendance 200 what? "people" or "concertgoers" should go after the "200".
• and was determined to have had winds of 90–100 miles per hour (140–160 km/h) struck the theater, The "km/h)" should have a comma at the end and as a result the comma after the "theater" should be removed. While we're at this sentence, , causing the failure of the lower roof structure, with large amounts of debris falling into the venue should probably reworded to say ", causing the failure of the roof's lower structure; large amounts of debris fell into the venue as a result".
• Multiple people were buried by debris caused by the collapse How many? It's best to be specific where possible.
• which was met with a swift response per WP:PEACOCK, I'd remove the "swift", but that's just a suggestion.
• one was pronounced dead at the scene and 27 were taken to hospitals by ambulance, out of a total 48 that suffered non-fatal injuries. As above, one what? While I do know that it's referring to, some readers may not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by EF5 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

For the first claim, we have next to no detail surrounding the specific means of collapse, so saying that the ceiling caved in would come without RS media's support. The wind speed thing bypassed my spot checks when I rewrote the lede. Over 200 in attendance will be changed to over 200 in the venue; I'm using "multiple" because the figure was over 10 but was never specified and 48 injuries occurred. I believe the swift response thing is discussed in RS media, and it is known that debris from the collapse made it onto the stage so I can't say anything about specifics other than the fatality being a concertgoer. Departure– (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I've gotten the above claims adjusted but the swift response claim will have to be verified by me later on. I believe the speed of the response was emphasized in the press conference, but if you see it in the lede but not the article that means I'll have to add it in the prose with a citation. Departure– (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually, no, it's already cited. Comments on the response were in the article, and are cited to Alicia Tate-Nadeau who my work here and on the 2021 Naperville tornado gave her her first links related to actual disaster response. Speaking of, this should be added to the disaster response project. @EF5:, you're more familiar with the rating tool, could you do that for me? Cheers! Anyway the quote is [i]f it wasn't for the fast and coordinated efforts, on Friday night, we would have seen a more tragic outcome from events from today and it's cited to Pritzker's visit to Belvidere under the Aftermath section. Departure– (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Done, good job! I'll take one last look tomorrow, and apologies if I did something wrong as I've never really commented on an FAC before. :) E_F⁵ 21:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

It appears I've forgot. Anyways, great job on the article! Support, as I have nothing to add. E_F⁵ 18:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Borsoka

• This is my first review of an article of a catastrophe, so sorry if some of my comments would be amateurish.
• Was the district known as "North State Street Historic District" already in 1922?
• I would introduce Belvidere as a city in the state of Illinois in the USA in the first sentence.
• Could you add a background about tornadoes in Illinois or Belvidere (no more than two or three sentences)?
• In 2017, the venue was owned by Maria Martinez. Why is this relevant? In the previous sentence 2022 was mentioned, and the tornado struck the venue in 2023.
• Introduce Morbid Angel, and the other bands in the main text.
• Is spring the tornado season in the region? Either yes or not, this could be mentioned.
• EF3, EF4, EF1?
• Event coordinators recorded that 260 were inside the Apollo Theatre that night, including concertgoers, performers, and staff. ABC7 Chicago reported that the concert had been completely sold out. The concert begin at 7:00 pm. I would change the sequence of the three sentences: 3th, 2nd, 1st. What is ABC7 Chicago?
• ...the National Weather Service records...The National Weather Service damage survey determined ... Tenses should be used consequently.
• ...3 to 5 feet... Could you convert them to meters as well? Borsoka (talk) 10:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
• ...caused by the collapse Delete.
• Decode EMS.
• The United States Tour of Terror 2023 resumed with a performance in Hobart, Indiana on April 2. Is this necessary? If yes, one sentence cannot make a paragraph. (Perhaps this info could me mentioned in a note at the first sentence of the second paragraph of section "Response".
• ...six firefighters who assisted... Why not past perfect?
• ...six firefighters who assisted in the response to the collapse at the Annual Fallen Firefighter Memorial and Medal of Honor Ceremony in Springfield, Illinois. Rephrase to avoid misunderstanding (did the collapse happened at the annual ceremony?)
• Shortly following the collapse, the sole deceased victim had been identified as 51-year-old Frederick Livingston Jr. of Belvidere. Livingston had been at the concert with his son Alex, who survived the collapse despite standing nearby when debris from the roof crushed his father. Consolidate the two sentences to avoid repetition of information mentioned in section "Response". Perhaps, "The sole deceased victim, Livingstone had been at the concert ...."
• ...had been created to raise money... Why past perfect?
• ...following his death Delete.
• Introduce WLS-TV.
• By June 28, 2023, six lawsuits had been filed against the theater for failing to protect concertgoers from the risk of injury or death. Some more info to create a paragraph?
• ...the collapse, when Belvidere Fire Chief Shawn Schadle stated... I would split the long sentence into two: "...the collapse. Belvidere Fire Chief..."
• File:CollapsedApolloTheatreBelvidere.jpg: could the date/relative timeframe mentioned in the caption ("in an hour after the collapse" or "hours/days after the collapse")
• The lead needs a comprehensive copyedit because it contains repetitions and its chronology is unclear. Borsoka (talk) 11:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this interesting article. Borsoka (talk) 11:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about the North State Street Historic District; that'd require more research on my end.

• A referenced sentence in Belvidere North State Street Historic District says that it was recognised as such in 2012. So I think the sentence should be rephrased: "in the area now known as ..." or something similar.

• Adding mention of Belvidere being the largest city and seat of Boone County would require a citation that might be out of scope, but I could have it with the NSSHD above.

• I would not say that it is the largest city and the seat of Boone County. I would only introduce Belvidere because I doubt that all our readers have learnt of this city and the state of lllionis.

• I'll add a bit of background of tornadoes in Boone County. Belvidere was hit pretty bad in 1967.
• The owner was added there because I needed more for the background section but I'll get rid of it; they're re-introduced in the reaction section.

• My concern is that the sentence is out of context. It could be rephrased: "Since 2017, it has been owned by Maria Martinez./In 2017, Maria Martinez seized the property/...". Furthermore, this info is relevant before the venue's 2022 reconstruction is mentioned.

• Is the tour information not enough of an introduction?

• For me, not. :) Borsoka (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Not sure about tornado season, but maybe I'll find more about that.
• I'll substitute other tornadoes for the text-based "significant", "major" and "violent".
• I'll re-arrange that, but I just wanted to attribute the text to a source. ABC7 Chicago had the most indepth coverage of this event specifically.
• I'll reword attributions to the survey.
• 3 to 5 feet in a {{cvt}} tag incoming.
• Easy enough.
• The tour resuming was mentioned and I think it's important because one tour date was skipped; I can't say it directly because it wasn't easy to find in a source.
• For both firefighter parts, there might have actually been seven. I need to re-check that, but I know six of them were from BFD in particular.
• Lawsuits are currently pending, and the number might actually be up to eleven, but I'll have to re-check that.
• I believe the survey was on 1 April, so I'll recheck the DAT.
• Lede CE incoming. Departure– (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• FYI, per this, Maria Martinez was still the owner when the roof collapsed, along with her husband.
• Could you split up the Dan Zaccard et al. interview into multiple cites and give offsets for the approximate locations of the supporting clips? Twenty-two minutes is too long for a reader to be able to easily find the supporting material. {{Cite AV}} will let you cite a time offset.
• "A historic severe weather event occurred on March 31 across northern Illinois. Having anticipated the severe conditions in advance, the Storm Prediction Center outlined a rare high (5/5) risk convective outlook": "anticipated" is redundant with "in advance". "Outlined" seems an odd choice of words, and "convective outlook" is opaque to most readers, and I've no idea what "5/5" means, even after following the link. Giving the outcome in the first sentence means you have to go back in time for the forecast, which convolutes the syntax. Suggest "On the morning of March 31, 2023, the Storm Prediction Center forecasted a high risk of severe weather events for two areas ...", possibly adding whatever is intended to be conveyed by "5/5". I think we also need to explain "Enhanced (3/5) risk".
• You use the pluperfect a couple of times in the "Timeline" section, but I don't think there's a need to do so -- we're narrating a sequence of events so "An emergency operations center was established" and "a tornado watch was issued" seems fine. Searching for "had" finds quite a few more I think you could look at -- any reason not to just use simple past tense in the "Collapse" section, for example, and for most of the "Victims ..." section? There are certainly some cases where it's correct, such as in the "Response" section.
• "Also at this time, the National Weather Service records that the damage path of an EF1 tornado had begun": suggest "At about the same time, an EF1 tornado began southwest of ...". There's no need to give the source since it's cited and reliable.
• What makes the facebook post of the video of the tornado a reliable source?
• "During this time, one concertgoer stated they recalled the windows breaking due to high winds, which was followed by multiple audience members being led to the venue's basement, until the tornado approached the building": I don't see most of this in the cited source.
• Per MOS:ORDINAL, don't start a sentence with figures.
• Per MOS:RANGE don't use "between" with an en dash range.
• "which described the incident a mass casualty collapse": missing a word?
• "however allowed firefighters to enter the building": another missing word?
• Check for uses of "however" -- it's easy to overuse and can often be deleted, tightening the prose without changing the meaning.

At this point I started skipping further down the article to spotcheck for writing and grammar issues. A couple more:

• "who survived the collapse despite standing nearby when debris from the roof crushed his father": we've already said his father was the only fatality; we don't need to repeat that he survived.
• "Hopes for the Apollo Theatre's recovery began shortly after the collapse, when Belvidere Fire Chief Shawn Schadle stated that he believed the building would get remodelled after preliminary surveys by structural engineers indicated further collapse of the venue was unlikely and that repairs may be plausible." A long sentence that would benefit from splitting; and that's a misuse of "may" at the end -- it should be "might".
• "expressed interest in sharing resources for the Apollo Theatre's response to the collapse, with one architect also expressing that": avoid repeating unusual words like "express" in such a short span. I would just use "say" for the second one -- see MOS:SAID.

Weak oppose. Sorry, I don't think this is quite at featured level yet. I think the article would benefit from a copyedit to meet the "well-written" requirement of the criteria, and there are a couple of MoS issues. I've made this a weak oppose because it's a short article and I think can probably be fixed while still at FAC if you can find a good copyeditor to work with. The list of issues above is not long, but it's also not exhaustive; I only glanced through the second half of the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comments from Thebiguglyalien

At a quick glance, I'm not sure whether I'd consider the sourcing high quality here. If we use Wikipedia:Tiers of reliability as a reference, virtually all of the sources fall under the passable-but-not-great Tier 3. It also seems like there are some unnecessary minor details in here, such as the quotes from different figures that don't really say anything. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I suppose this is an effectively unfixable problem. This is an event from less than two years ago where coverage was thick locally but ultimately it hasn't received much followup beyond tier 3 of those yet. I hate to hear this but this is an unfixable problem for the time being. I've included nearly every source I could find that wasn't just regurgitating old information. Departure– (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't go quite that far. I expressed concern about one source, above, and I think a source reviewer might highlight others, so I'm not saying there are no issues with the sourcing, but newspaper coverage can be perfectly acceptable at FAC. It can introduce other problems -- for example a local paper might go into detail about something that might be undue emphasis from our point of view. Thebiguglyalien is correct that better sources would be an improvement if they can be found, but I don't think that's going to happen here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

1914–15 Gillingham F.C. season

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

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

NØ

• "Gillingham, founded in 1893 under the name New Brompton, had played in the Southern League since the competition's formation in 1894, gaining promotion from Division Two at the first attempt in 1895 and remaining in Division One ever since, albeit with little success." - Kind of long. How about something like "Founded in 1893 as New Brompton, Gillingham joined the Southern League in 1894. They gained promotion from Division Two at the first attempt in 1895 and have remained in Division One, though with limited success."?
• "Gilligan scored twice in a 4–0 victory for the home team, which The Sporting Life said was 'thoroughly deserved', but it would prove to the last game which Gillingham won for more than four months." => "Gilligan scored twice in a 4–0 victory, which The Sporting Life called 'thoroughly deserved', but it would be their last win for over four months."
• "Glen sought the permission of the club's board of directors to get married on Christmas Day and therefore miss the game that day; his request was refused." => "Glen asked the club's board for permission to miss the Christmas Day game to get married, but his request was refused."
• That's it from me!--NØ 18:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
  • @MaranoFan: - many thanks for your review, all addressed! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support--NØ 08:28, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

HF

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

@Hog Farm: - giving a very gentle nudge on this one. If you feel you no longer have the capacity to review the article, that's honestly not a problem -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll get to this by Sunday at the latest; it looked to be in very good shape based on my initial skim of the article. Hog Farm _Talk 15:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• " "Bee", a writer for the Liverpool Echo, described the signing as an "excellent capture",[15][16] " - a minor quibble, but this all seems to be in the first reference, with the second one not really adding anything. Is the Manchester Courier reference really supporting or adding anything? It's just a very brief annoucnment of the transaction
• I don't think Category:English football clubs 1913–14 season is the correct category; I've gone ahead and moved the article into the 1914-15 one.

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

• @Hog Farm: - thanks for fixing my dumb typo there. I don't recall why I added that second reg re: Hafekost so I just went ahead and removed it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Mike Christie

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

Image and source review

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

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: - source added for kit. Both the books you mention were not self-published but published by mainstream publishers with extensive catalogues. Pitch Publishing is one of the UK's leading publishers of sports books whose titles are carried by all major bookstores, and Meresborough Books, whilst now defunct, published over 300 books by various authors over its more than 20 years of existence. Not really sure what to say beyond that..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The Suicide of Rachel Foster

Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Image review and Support from Crisco

• Returning from the first go, prose seems to have been tightened a bit. I've made some edits; please review. Only concern right now is the sequel; it's standing on its own in a one-sentence section, which doesn't really say FA to me. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  Should I just remove the section and put the citation in the lede? PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  Might work under release, especially if the company cited commercial/critical success as a driving factor. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, outside of briefly mentioning that a sequel is in the works, nothing else is brought up in the source. Which is also the only one to even discuss the development of a sequel. PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  Alright. Maybe merge to "#Release"? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  Has been merged, per our discussion. I'm happy to reiterate my support for this article.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  Hiya, I saw you removed the contractions from the article and I was wondering why? I assume it is just less encyclopaedic but if there was any other reasoning I'd like to know so I can be better. Moritoriko (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  Hi Moritoriko. We are not supposed to use contractions in Wikipedia's voice, per MOS:CONTRACTIONS. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for the link to the relevant section of the MOS! It's It is so big that I am sure I have read that section before and then forgotten it. Cheers~ Moritoriko (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Image review - Nikkimaria's recommendations were implemented at the first nomination, and have been maintained here. Looks good. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments by and support from Jon698

• This is included in the release section: "The Suicide of Rachel Foster was developed by the Italian studio One-O-One Games—using Unreal Engine 4—and published by Daedalic Entertainment.[9][7] It was directed by Daniele Azara and the music was composed by Federico Landini.[8]" Wouldn't it be more fitting to have this at the beginning of the development section? Jon698 (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• I feel like the last sentence of the second paragraph in the lede would be better as the first sentence of the third paragraph. You could also change the current first sentence to "It received mixed reviews from critics." if you did that. Jon698 (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Jon698: Both done. PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@PanagiotisZois: Okay just answer these few questions and you will have my support.
1. Is "particularly" necessary for "The ending, particularly"?
2. Could "The Washington Post's Christopher Byrd described the mystery as apparent and lacking in scares." be changed to "The Washington Post's Christopher Byrd criticized the "lack of scares and the lack of mystery".? Jon698 (talk) 04:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jon698: Revised #2. I also removed the word "particularly" from #1, and also changed the sentence a little bit. If you think it was better as it was before, let me know and I'll change it back. PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@PanagiotisZois: Everything is on the up and up. I now support making this a FA. Jon698 (talk) 14:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

BP!

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

I don't have other issues at all, but I want to point out that the 2020 Screen Rant as a source and its content should be removed since it is considered "marginally reliable" starting 2021. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 10:28, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Boneless Pizza!:. I've removed the source. Thankfully, I only used it a few times throughout the "Reception" section and it was always at paragraphs that already had enough content. PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I found no issues so far and I would like to Support this nomination. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Source review and spotcheck

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

• 3 Where is radiotelephone or dialogue tree? Not sure I get "revealed at Gamescom" from this, rather than from #8 alone.
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Switched radiotelephone to mobile phone. The source also mentions "branching dialogue".--PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
• 4 Need some help with "simplistic" and "second half" and the voice actor bit.
  • In the review, Edwin Evans-Thirlwell brings up how the tasks in the game consist of an "undemanding to-do list" that mostly consists of going from Place A to Place B. He also acknowledges that there's a "lack of gamey elements" to the game's puzzles and tools Nicole picks up. I guess "simplistic" could be changed to "unengaging"?
  • Regarding the "second half" portion, it concerns the second-last and third-last paragraphs of his review. Having said that, rereading the article, Evans-Thirlwell doesn't actually split the game in half, so I could revise it to something like "Evans-Thirlwell enjoyed the earlier portions, but criticized the final chapters and ending as melodramatic". Or something like that.
  • Evans-Thirlwell states the game is "effectively written and acted". Granted, he could be referring to how Nicole and Irving act as participants in the story. What do you think?--PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
• 5 OK
• 7 OK given #9
• 8 OK
• 9 OK
• 10 OK
• 14 OK
• 16 OK
• 17 OK
• 18 OK but assuming that Google Translate isn't making errors.
• 20 Not sure that I get praise for the hotel design here. Nor "puzzles"
  • In the review, Bremicker says that he would have liked if the game had one or two puzzles, saying that the players are presented with "small problems", but those can't really be described as puzzles.
  • As for the hotel, he says "An sich gefällt uns die Spielwelt von The Suicide of Rachel Foster aber ganz gut. Das Hotel ist detailverliebt gestaltet".
• 21 One might prefer to say child abuse/exploitation here rather than paedophile. OK otherwise.
  • In the review, it say "not that he started shagging a 16 year old who he was teaching, for God's sake". Taking that into account, I changed it to say Leonard exploitating Rachel as you suggested.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
• 22 Where does it say the earlier characterization was contradicted?
  • Maybe I'm reading too much into Vikki Blake's quote @Jo-Jo Eumerus:, but concerning Nicole's suicide attempt at the end, she says "Beyond the fact I'm struggling to believe that the arsey, obnoxious but undeniably feisty woman I've just spent two and a half hours getting to know would do this, I'm furious [her emphasis]".--PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
• 23 OK
• 25 Says "won" not "nominated"?
  • Just checked again. It shows that Close to the Sun won, not Rachel Foster.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
• 26 OK
• 27 OK
• 28 OK
• 29 OK

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

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

• Apologies for intruding on this conversation, but I did the source review for the previous FAC. I thought that JeuxOnLine was an appropriate source for a FAC/FA in the context that it is a review and it being cited and used to support information directly from the game's creators. I saw it more as a primary source in that regard. I cannot speak for JeuxOnLine's relability as a whole, but from my understanding (and please correct me if I am wrong), it is not being used as a review or for anything beyond the interview. Apologies again. I just thought it might be helpful to share my perspective on it as I did the last source review. Aoba47 (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  OK, but even an interview needs to be run through a reliable source. Fake interviews and stuff aren't uncommon. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not 100% sure, but I think a few years ago I saw the official Facebook / Instagram account of the game share this interview (and a few others) so clearly the developers approved of them. PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  Mm, if you or someone else can find this account, we could link that instead. Official Insta or Facebook should be reliable enough for this type of information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Jo-Jo Eumerus: The Facebook account of One-O-One Games shared the interview here. I also looked into the 2 shares the post has, and one of them is from Daniel Azara. If you want, I could also try to find whether the Instagram or Twitter accounts of the developers / publisher posted about this interview. I'm still waiting to hear whether JeuxOnLine is treated as a reliable source or not from the WikiProject Video games. PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  Then it seems like the interview is reliable (for its own content) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Aoba47

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

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

@Aoba47: All right. I believe I'm done with almost everything. PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. Just a reminder that it is discouraged to use graphics, like the one for done, for the FACs as I think it messes with the loading time for the main FAC listing. Everything looks good to me, and I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Does the lead not count as "the article" for purposes of fully naming a character or having FEMA be written out? Moritoriko (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

No. It does not. The lead acts as an overview of the article and thus, it functions separately. It is similar to how items should be linked in the first instance in both the lead and the article itself. The lead should not have new or unique information that cannot be found in the rest of the article. Aoba47 (talk) 12:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

And if it does include new info, for whatever reason, it should be cited. PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Thank you for clarifying that for me. Aoba47 (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

PanagiotisZois, pls see para toward the top of the FAC instructions re. {{done}} templates and revise your replies accordingly. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Virtual Self (EP)

Nominator(s): Skyshiftertalk 21:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Third time's the charm!

Following the release of Worlds, Porter Robinson felt pressured to release a follow-up album with a similar sound, but couldn't come up with anything. His idea, then, was to break expectations and change his musical style completely, just as he had done with Worlds. This resulted in the Virtual Self alias and its self-titled EP, where he used the early 2000s as his main inspiration for visuals and sound. Following the recent promotion of Worlds, here is another article of a Robinson album that I believe is ready for FAC. Thank you! I'd like to invite the past nominations' and PR participants (LunaEclipse, Heartfox, Dylan620, and Dxneo) to participate in this nomination if they wish.

Skyshiftertalk 21:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Support from Dylan620

My concerns from the last nomination and the PR have been addressed, and I am happy to support this time around. Best of luck with the FAC! Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Aoba47

Apologies in advance as I will not be able to do a full review for this article, but I hope that these comments are helpful:

• This part, (releasing his debut studio album Worlds (2014), a deviation from his earlier sound), is unclear as there is not any context provided for this "earlier sound" or the sound for Worlds.
  • Fixed
• I am uncertain about this part, (The alias is represented by two characters created by Robinson). I understand that it is focused on the different tempos for the EP's songs and it does follow after sentences on the EP's genre and sounds, but the mention of the persona comes off rather abruptly. I wonder if there is a way to make this transition more smoothly.
  • Fixed
• Why is the persona used for this sentence, ( Virtual Self's visuals present cryptic messages and a mysterious atmosphere.), while throughout the earlier sentences reference Porter Robinson by his name?
  • This part describes Virtual Self's visuals, which are different than the ones Robinson uses for work under his own name.
    • I understand that, but I find the shift from Robinson to Virtual Self to being rather jarring. The alias is introduced at the end of the lead's first paragraph, then the second paragraph talks about Robinson and two different characters (Pathselector and Technic-Angel), and the alias is only brought up again at the end of that paragraph. To me at least, it does not feel cohesive. Aoba47 (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      • Fixed Skyshiftertalk 10:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
• For this part, (Porter Robinson was initially known for his "aggressive" electro and complextro sound), attribution would need to be provided in the prose to clearly identify who is saying this quote.
  • This is more of a general descriptor, so removed quotes.
• I do see a fair amount of repetition in the prose. For the first paragraph in the "Background" section, "released" is repeated for ("In 2012, he released 'Language', his first song" and "Two years later, Robinson released his"), and the first sentence from that section has "with releases such as", which adds to the repetition. The second paragraph from the same section has repetition with "follow-up" and there is repetition in this sentence, (Ultimately, Robinson resisted this idea, as he could not come up with new ideas or create anything he was satisfied with.) I would double-check the article for this type of repetition.
  • Fixed
• For this sentence, (It was acclaimed and had an impact on the electronic dance music scene.), I would clarify who is making these claims. Is it critics, fans, etc.? Clearer attribution would help, and it would avoid having this sentence be in passive voice.
  • Done
• I am uncertain about the use of the word "idea" in this part, (Ultimately, Robinson resisted this idea), as this is referencing something Robinson himself thought. I just do not think "idea" works for something that Robinson himself is describing about his own music.
  • Robinson resisted the idea of creating a similar sounding follow-up. Maybe it's because I'm not fluent in English, but I don't see the problem here. Could you suggest an alternative?
    • I could just being overly nitpick-y with this part. For me, when I read this part, I was initially unsure of what was meant by "idea", but it could just be me, and I cannot really think of a direct substiution at the moment. Aoba47 (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
• I am uncertain about this part, (Robinson realized that musical tropes from the early 2000s, albeit obsolete,). How can a "musical trope" become obsolete?
  • Fixed
• Going back to the repetition point from earlier, I would see if you could avoid saying Robinson's last name twice in this sentence: (In August 2016, Robinson released "Shelter", a collaboration with Madeon that Robinson believed to be successful.)
  • Fixed
• The last paragraph of the "Background" section comes off as a bit list-y with the dates, specifically with the repetition of the "In X year". I would see if there is a way to better and more cohesively represent this information.
  • Fixed

Best of luck with this FAC. I wanted to leave these comments as I do notice issues with the prose in the lead and the little bit of the actual article that I have read. Based on what I have read, I do not think the prose is on the level expected for a FA/FAC, but I am not going to oppose as I have not read the entire article. I hope that this is helpful, and I hope you have a great rest of weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Aoba47, "I am going to oppose"? Missing a "not" based on the context...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for catching that and notifying me about that. Apologies for missing that. I have revised my original comment to add that in. Aoba47 (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Aoba47: thank you for your comments! Sorry for the delay. Skyshiftertalk 23:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping and for the message. No need to apologize. I hope that my comments are helpful. I think that the overall prose in the article could use further work, but as I have said above, I will not oppose based on that. Apologies for not being able to do a full review at this time, but I hope that this FAC gets more attention in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

And just to be clear, I hope that this does not come across as too negative as I respect and value your work on this article. Aoba47 (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Pending comments by NegativeMP1

Hi, I'll try to take a look at this soon. I'm not sure what good my review only will be able to do at this point, but let's still see what we can do here. λ NegativeMP1 06:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Obsessed (Olivia Rodrigo song)

Nominator(s): NØ 11:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

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

NegativeMP1

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

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

Medxvo

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

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

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

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

Comments

• ""Obsessed" became Rodrigo's seventh song to reach the top 10 on the Pop Airplay chart and ninth on the Hot Rock & Alternative Songs chart. " - given that these charts don't have "country-specific" names and you just named a load of different countries, maybe specify that these two charts are American.....?
• "Dan Nigro produced every single track on it" - the word "single" is redundant and can be removed
• "12 of the 25 songs recorded made it onto the standard edition of Guts" - probably not technically wrong but I always think that a sentence starting with a number written in digit form doesn't look great. Any way to reword....?
• "St. Vincent played guitar" - link St. Vincent, who hasn't been mentioned at this point
• "It later incorporates ripped guitars, warped vocals" - not sure what either of these adjectives means in this context, is there a link or an alternative explanation?

• There is no relevant wiktionary entry on either, unfortunately. I have swapped out "warped vocals" for "distorted vocals", but replacing "ripped" with "shredded" like the Billboard Philippines source states might hurt rather than help so I have kept the current wording.

• "He and the Official Charts Company's George Griffiths described "Obsessed" as a "banger"" => "He and the Official Charts Company's George Griffiths both described "Obsessed" as a "banger""
• "it was a good song like Katy Perry's "I Kissed A Girl" (2008) and Charli XCX's album Sucker (2014)." - this wording is a little odd - the writer thought that "Sucker" (an album) was "a good song".....?
• Not critical to this review, but bear in mind that the various present tense verbs describing her performances on the Guts tour will need to be changed to past tense once the tour ends
• That is what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for the great review, as always, ChrisTheDude. All addressed!--NØ 07:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Image and source review

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

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

I guess it's OK then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Hotline Miami

Nominator(s): λ NegativeMP1 06:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

"No matter who you are, bearing too much weight... inevitably leads to the collapse of everything." - Don Juan

Hotline Miami is a lot of things. It's a highly influential and critically acclaimed indie game (considered one of the best games of all time, actually), a very successful title that put its publisher Devolver Digital on the map, a cult classic, a driving force being the rise of synthwave, and a lot more. It also happens to be my favorite video game of all time, which motivated me to put in the effort required to bring this article here today, starting back in April 2023. I've actually rewritten this article twice, once in 2023 (which led to a quickfailed GAN, not exactly my proudest moment) and again throughout this year. And this time around, I opted to use more high-quality sourcing, like academic sources and more retrospective articles commenting on all aspects of the game. And that time, it actually passed GAN (reviewed by Nub098765). Now, with the extra work I have done on the article since then, I believe that all high-quality sourcing about the game has been exhausted, creating what I believe to be the most comprehensive source of information on the game available. And with that, I believe that it should have little in its way from becoming a featured article. Its sequel passed FAC earlier this year, and I hope that here, the first game will be able to join it with a star of its own. I look forward to reading and addressing any comments. λ NegativeMP1 06:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Pokelego

Disclaimer: I am reviewing this as part of a review swap with the nominator. Not leaving comments on Lead and Gameplay among other areas because I did not find any noticeable problems with them.

Synopsis

-Looks very good, but I feel Richter needs some elaboration since he comes out of nowhere and I have no idea what his actual role in the story is.

Themes and analysis

-Again, very well-done. My only major gripe is, again, certain characters are only brought up here like they've been brought up before; I have no idea who Don Juan and Rasmus are because they haven't been acknowledged before now. While I can infer their significance, it would be good to clarify that they're the masked personas and that the personas have different tints before introducing them.

Reception

-Could the GameSpot source be more specific? What aspects of boss fights were irritating and where did the reviewer feel the game slipped up?

-"instead "serving as a mirror to the player." I feel this quote is very good, but at the same time could potentially be confusing on a first read. Maybe paraphrase this one, if possible?

Legacy

-"Many of these similar narrative themes, gameplay mechanics, or soundtracks to Hotline Miami" I assume this is meant to be "Many of these include similar narrative..."?

Overall this article is fantastically well-written and I have very few overall issues. Patch up the above and I'd be happy to Support. I will do a source check at some point in the upcoming days as well. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 14:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

All of the above should be addressed. Though with the GameSpot reviewer one, he himself was kinda vague, only pointing out the boss fights and something about the games dialogue that I don't think can be properly written into reception. Nevertheless, I've done what I could. λ NegativeMP1 16:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@NegativeMP1 Sorry about the delay. Beginning the source review.

-As a note, is there a reason only some sources (Like Game Informer and GamesRadar) have parent companies listed, while others (Including sources from the same source) don't? I'd try to make the citation style consistent here unless there's a reason why they don't have one listed (Such is if they're the parent company themselves).

-Some sources lack author names and publication dates entirely as well, so I'd add those where they're missing. Some sources also lack hyperlinks to the outlet writing them (For instance I saw a Vice source that wasn't linked).

-I can't verify some of the scholarly sources due to paywalls and other similar reasons. Due to the level of accuracy in other citations, and the fact some other citations in the article also verify this content, I assume good faith that these are covering what they're meant to.

Images:

Both fair use images have a valid usage criteria. I see nothing amiss with the usage of them, so that looks good.

Gameplay:

-Source 8 is tagged as Gamasutra, though it has now rebranded to Game Developer.

Intentional, this specific source was created in 2012 when the site was still named Gamasutra.

-Minor nitpick, but Source 10 does not specify that the dogs are guard dogs.

Fixed.

Themes and analysis:

-Section looks good

Development:

-Looks good

Marketing and release:

-The Steam update says the update was on September 9th, while the article says the 19th.

Fixed.

Reception:

-Looks good

Legacy:

-Any reason why Hotline Miami is bolded in Ref 99?

Markup error, fixed.

-Neither source used for the breakout game statement says Hotline was a breakout title, and instead only says the game was wildly successful for the company. While they can mean the same thing, in this case, it isn't really specified and just seems at a glance to be discussing its influence on the company more than it is a breakout title. I'd either clarify/reword this, or find another source that says this more clearly.

Reworded.

-Ref 128 is entirely italicized.

Fixed.

I'm admittedly a bit busy so I'll be getting to this throughout today. I will get to Development and Reception later today. I'll ping you once again once the whole thing is done. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• @NegativeMP1: the rest of the article looks good, and I'm not noticing any significant sourcing issues. Just patch up the ref formatting and the sourcing should have no further issues. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  I have gone through the articles citations several times now to make sure I didn't miss anything, and I now believe they should all have the necessary information. All of them should hate have dates, publishers (if that publisher has an article / the site isn't independent), and wikilinks to the sites themselves if they have articles. Let me know if I missed anything, but I think we should be good to go here. λ NegativeMP1 06:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  @NegativeMP1 Cites 19, 53, 54, 67, 86, 95, 96, 97 have unlinked site names when they have articles. Cite 44 needs the (website) removed. 67, 73, 74, 102, 114, 115, 116 are missing author's name. 76 is missing a publisher. I'd also make sure everything is archived, since I noticed a few without archives. Rest of the sources look fine at a glance. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  67's author website, Gematsu, does not have an article. 102 does not have one specific author, and I'm not sure if listing all of 114 and 116's authors is necessary. Everything else should be addressed. λ NegativeMP1 22:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  @NegativeMP1 Should be good to go then. Happy to Support. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

A Minor Point in Prose

I also agree with the other reviewers that this ready to be a FA, since I haven't found any issues in the article. One recommendation @NegativeMP1:

Footnote for Beard in Synopsis: I think defining "elsewhere" (could it be a manual? a trailer? or agreed upon by fans?) would be helpful for lay readers. RFNirmala (talk) 01:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I just removed the "elsewhere" bit because there are no sources that clearly say where he is referred to as "Beard". Obviously, reliable sources call him that, but I fear that clarifying "elsewhere" as just sources could possibly fall onto the lines of WP:SYNTH. So I think the way I've handled it for now is how to do it. λ NegativeMP1 04:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

EG

I plan to leave comments soon so this doesn't get archived. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Lead:

• Para 1: "Hotline Miami is a top-down shooter video game developed by Dennaton Games and published by Devolver Digital in 2012." - This is a bit ambiguous as one can interpret this as "developed in 2012 and published in 2012", or "developed at an earlier date and published in 2012". Anyway, I see that the next sentence says when exactly the game was released, so I'd get rid of "in 2012".

• Done.

• Para 1: "The game inspired other developers during the 2010s and has been attributed to the success of its publisher." - You mean, the game has been attributed as a reason for the publisher's success? Right now, the syntax is reversed (this phrasing basically says that "the success of its publisher is a reason for this game").

• Done.

• Para 3: "The game was the first release from Dennaton Games," - Should this be "the first released by..."?

• Yeah, changed.

• Para 3: "The game's soundtrack was contributed to by several different artists." - I suggest using active voice rather than passive voice.

• Adjusted.

More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Gameplay:

• Para 1: If there any articles for "melee" or "ranged weapons", it may be helpful to add links to these.

• I'm pretty sure those articles used to exist, but they're gone now.

• Para 1: "also knock out enemies with a door, using them as a human shield, or kick them against the wall" - I'm confused whether this is supposed to refer to two or three things, as "knock out" and "kick" use a different verb form from "using [as a human shield". Is it "(1) the player can also knock out enemies with a door, using them as a human shield, (2) kick them against the wall"? Or is it "(1) knock out enemies with a door, (2) use them as a human shield, (3) kick them against the wall"?

• The issues here seem to be caused by only one grammar mistake, so it should be fixed.

• Para 1: "perform a finishing move" - For the benefit of people who are unfamiliar with the game, it may be helpful to clarify what a "finishing move" is.

• Reworded to hopefully make it more apparent.

• Para 2: "Both the player and enemies can be felled by a single attack" - In other words, the same attack can kill both the enemies and the player?

• No, as in both the enemy and the player are extremely vulnerable, and can be killed immediately. I've tried to reword it to convey that meaning better.

• Para 2: "amount of enemies" - Since enemies are a countable quantity, this should be "number" rather than "amount".

• Done.

• Para 2: "On PlayStation Vita, the functions of the mouse are shifted over to the touch screen, with locking onto enemies requiring the player to touch them on-screen" - Should this be on the PlayStation Vita?

• Yes, fixed.

• Para 3: "which grant different abilities depending on the one chosen" - I think "depending on the one chosen" may be unnecessary, as readers may be able to reasonably infer this from the wording "can choose from a variety of animal masks, which grant different abilities".

• Done.

More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Red Phoenix

Per a request for feedback posted at WT:VG, I will review. Comments to come shortly. Red Phoenix ^talk 13:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• Several artists contributed to the games soundtrack - Presuming we're missing an apostrophe; shouldn't it be "game's"?
  • Fixed.
• The player can be felled by a single attack, as well as enemies - This reads ambiguously; either the player and enemies are both felled by one attack, or the player can be felled by an attack and by enemies. I'm presuming it's the former, and would suggest "Both the player and enemies can be felled by a single attack.", but if it's the latter, please clarify because don't attacks usually come from enemies in a video game?
  • I really don't know how to make this sentence read better without seeming wordy, but I've implemented a rewrite of this bit.
• Aiming is predominantly done via a computer mouse, though the player can lock onto an enemy and not have to aim. - Is locking on also done with the computer mouse? I ask because these two statements are combined but only aiming is highlighted as being done with a mouse, and locking on is spelled out as "not [having] to aim".
  • Adjusted.
• Before each chapter begins, the player can choose from a variety of animal masks - Is this something they wear? Or just a selection of a trait?
  • Specified.
• The game also supports achievements, which are obtained by doing specific challenges like killing two enemies with one brick throw - We haven't mentioned "brick throws" yet so this read a bit awkwardly to me. Might suggest "The game also supports achievements, which are obtained by doing specific challenges like killing two enemies by throwing one brick at them."
  • Done.
• The package contains instructions advising Jacket to retrieve a briefcase from the Russian mafia at a metro station using violence - Is the metro station using violence? Is "using violence" really part of the instructions, for that matter? Just seems odd; I might consider striking those last two words entirely to solve both issues unless it's a plot point worth emphasizing, then it should be reworded.
  • Done.
• I was confused by footnote [d]. Did they fight to the death twice at the same point in the plot with two different outcomes? That doesn't seem to make sense unless one is resurrected and they fight to the death again. If they fight the second time at a different point later, I'd point that out because it reads like this all happened about the same time.
  • I've tried to make this more clear.
• In one final encounter with Richard, he tells Jacket that he will "never see the full picture". The whole paragraph so far has been about Jacket and Richter; was this really Richard? Where did this encounter come from? It also reads awkwardly; I'd rephrase to "In one final encounter, Richard tells Jacket that he will "never see the full picture".
  • Yes, this was Richard. Implemented your suggestion.
• He then reveals to him that he was reliving the events of the past two months while comatose after being shot. - Stick to one person per sentence being referred to by the same pronoun. Who revealed to who? Who was reliving the events of the past? Yes there's one way to read it in context, but it can come across as ambiguous with potentially other meanings.
  • Fixed.
• Footnote [e] also appears to be missing an apostrophe for "game's"
  • Fixed.
• and steals the file on the police investigations of the killings before heading to a nightclub that the calls were tracked to - Usually you don't want to end a phrase with a preposition, consider "to where the calls were tracked".
  • Done.
• Afterwards, Jacket walks out onto a balcony, lights a cigarette, and throws a photo off of the balcony. - Whose photo?
  • The sequel strongly implies that it was a photo of Beard, but in the game itself it's unclear, and since no sources really discuss it I chose to leave it out.

That'll take me through the end of the plot so far. I'll pick up more in a bit. At the very least I'll plan to finish the prose, but I might also be willing to do an image and source review if no one gets to those first. Red Phoenix ^talk 14:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, let's carry on:

• Early on in Development, there's a link to Artificial intelligence. It would be better to change the link to Artificial intelligence in video games, which is more specific to what the developer had difficulty with. Specifically the latter article focuses on the behaviors of enemies and non-playable characters, not AI as a whole in every application worldwide.
  • Done.
• The two collaborated in making a promotional game based on the band - If the game was promoting the band, I'd just say "a promotional game for the band".
  • Done.
• Is there a reason given for why they changed the name of the game from Cocaine Cowboy to Hotline Miami? If this can't be explained, we've put the cart before the horse a bit in structure and the fact of its original name seems to stick out, but could be fixed by adding a "before changing the name" at the end of that sentence.
  • I don't really think they've ever explained a specific reason why, but I have added that bit. I'm not too sure how I feel about the wording there though, so I'm also open to removing the fact entirely.
• the game expanded after Vlambeer shared a demo with Devolver Digital, who then offered to publish it. - Who is Vlambeer? One could reason that Devolver Digital is a publisher based on the sentence, but this is the only mention in the whole article of a "Vlambeer". Is this a person? A business entity?
  • Specified, and also wikilinked.
• When designing the gameplay, Wedin stated that they were designing a game that they wanted to play, initially being unconcerned with what an average consumer or a critic would think of it. - Did he really say this while designing the gameplay, and not after the game was released? Because that's what the sentence suggests.
  • Reworded.
• The levels featuring the Biker were one of the last parts of the game to be developed, being created near the end of development. - We have a bit of singular-plural disagreement; either change to "some of the last parts" or just eliminate "one of" if it was the last set of parts.
  • Adjusted.
• The game's writing... You mean the plot, or the game code?
  • Replaced with plot.
• In a June 2012 post on his personal blog, Söderström said that he was wanted the project to have an interesting, but "unintrusive" story that players could skip through if they wanted to - Again, should not end on a preposition. I'd just remove the "to" at the end, and it works just fine as a sentence otherwise.
  • Done.
• a friend of the developers and owner of the apartment the two developed the game in - "in which the two developed the game".
  • Done.
• While the team felt that the game's violent nature could cause controversy, the team believed the decision to use pixel art would mediate any potential problems - This is an odd use of "mediate", in my opinion, which is usually to settle a difference between two parties. Based on the sentence, I think "mitigate" is a better word, which means to lessen or reduce the impact.
  • Done.
• I'll do a copyedit pass through the music section. There are several things that read awkwardly to me as I look through it, and I think it would just be quicker if I go through that paragraph. I'll just ask that after I'm done giving it a pass that you follow up with me if you feel any meaning has been lost and sort out what's been made incorrect while maintaining a professional standard of writing.
  • Addendum: I have two questions on the Music section I can't resolve.
    • Artists such as Åkerblad (under the alias "El Huervo") made direct contributions themselves. - This comes out of nowhere - what kind of "artists"? We already described how music artists contributed their work, then listed more contributors, then mention other artists such as the person who did the box art made direct contributions? It's not implied anywhere he contributed to the music and it feels very out of place, even if it was a musical contribution.
      • I've cut this sentence entirely and just incorporated the mention of Akerblad into the sentence before it.
    • "the aforementioned "Hydrogen"" - it's not mentioned anywhere in the prose above. The linked music sample above, whether it stays or not, cannot count for "aforementioned"; it would have to be mentioned in the prose elsewhere to be "aforementioned".
      • This is a problem that didn't exist before another editor came through and moved the Themes and analysis section further down in the article, where "Hydrogen" was actually discussed. Fixed.
• On that note, as I wrap up the development, I will respectfully decline to do an image review, at least. An image review should also evaluate the validity of the fair use claim of the music sample, and I will plead my ignorance that I am not qualified to evaluate whether the music sample has an appropriate claim of fair use in this instance, so I'll leave that to another reviewer.

More to come. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Let's keep going.

• Reception towards the game at A Maze was mixed, but was later praised by attendees at Rezzed. - The reception was praised?
  • Fixed.
• The game's soundtrack was released via Steam in January 2013; a physical release, with all of the tracks pressed across three vinyls, was released in 2016 through Laced Records. It was a limited release, with only 5,000 copies made, and was funded by a Kickstarter campaign that raised over $75,000. - How come the soundtrack and vinyl release are combined into one sentence when there's an additional full sentence about the vinyl release specifically?
  • I don't know why I worded it like that, split.
• Versions of Hotline Miami for PlayStation 3 and PlayStation Vita, developed by Abstraction Games, released on 25 July 2013 in North America, and a day later in Europe. - Were they developed or ported? Also, please use "was released" instead of released; it's a matter of transitivity.
  • Fixed.
• Further uses of "released" in the paragraph should be "was released".
• Footnotes f, g, h, and i all are unnecessary. If the following paragraph is going to use those sources to demonstrate the topic sentence's point, it's not necessary to say these sources are why this topic makes sense, and then spell it out with the same sources in the ensuing paragraph.
  • I'm pretty sure I've been previously told that you need to source topic sentences in reception sections. I've removed the notes for now, but I'm quite hesitant still.

• The Reception section otherwise reads well to me, but I will qualify that by saying engaging Reception sections are one of my biggest struggles personally as an editor, so other editors may disagree with me.
• At the end of the Sales section, I'd just replace the "it" with the title of the game to make sure people don't confuse it with the PlayStation Vita in which one sold 1.5 million units. As I read it, I got the clarification at the end but I didn't get it when I started the sentence.
  • Done.
• If you're going to list all the awards IGN nominated the game for, there's no reason to separate "Best Overall Game" from all the other awards in a different sentence.
  • Done.
• Best Overall Music",[79] It won the award for "Best PC Sound". - Comma makes this a run-on sentence and needs to be broken apart either by a semicolon or as a separate sentence.
  • Fixed.
• "Believed" is an odd term to use for something a reviewer said. It implies they thought something once and no longer do. Consider simply using "said", see MOS:SAID. This happens a couple of times in the Themes section.

• This type of character was compared... - by whom? Even if it's sourced, say "by Papale and Fazio". Don't make the reader look for it.
  • Fixed.
• Again, footnotes j and k aren't necessary if all of that is supported in the paragraph below. If they aren't, just cite the sources directly. There's not enough to worry about readability; it's more of an inconvenience to the reader to have to chase down the source.
  • I've kept the notes that serve as reference bundles, but the other ones are gone now.
• Don't use "titles" to refer to video games, see WP:ELEVAR
  • Fixed.
• The game is often attributed to the success of Devolver Digital, which has since become one of the most successful indie game publishers. - Wait, so this game is because Devolver Digital was successful?
  • Yeah, the sources say that. If there's a problem with this wording, I'm not sure how to really tweak it.
    • So that prompts another question: Does the game exist because Devolver Digital was successful? Or was Hotline Miami successful because Devolver Digital was successful? Or did Hotline Miami make Devolver Digital successful? There's some ambiguity here. Red Phoenix ^talk 13:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Stopping before I do the sequel section due to time constraints. Will finish in a bit. Red Phoenix ^talk 16:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Finishing up a first pass of the prose:

• Shortly after the games release - "game's"
  • Fixed.
• critic reviews being generally lower - What does this mean? Are the scores lower? Are the reviews "more negative"?
• Another use of "released" when it should be "was released"
  • Completely removed this bit and condensed it to "Due to differences in gameplay and level design, Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number was not received as well as the first game."
• Does the sales of the game series being five million across both games include the collection? How does that figure in?
  • I don't really know, and the source doesn't make it very clear. I'm open to removing this bit entirely.

@NegativeMP1: That'll do for a first pass of the prose. I also recommend after these fixes that you seek out a copyeditor to do a thorough pass as well; I don't mean to sound too critical but I think there is some miscellaneous tightening up of the prose that can be done to make it sound more professional. I can refer you to one if that person has the time, if you don't have one in mind. I'll also plan on a second pass after you have resolved the issues above, and I may return for a source review later if no one else picks it up; I won't lay claim to it at the moment. If you're interested in returning the favor, I'm looking for feedback at the FAC for James Scott, a professional boxer. Thank you; this article was a very interesting read. Red Phoenix ^talk 17:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Red Phoenix: I've addressed all of the comments you've left above, and I apologize for any inconveniences regarding the wording. I don't really have a specific copyeditor in mind either. A source review was already done by Pokelego above as well, so I think that should be covered. As for your FAC, I'll return the favor and take a look at it after I read through and leaves comments about Virtual Self (EP). λ NegativeMP1 05:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@NegativeMP1: Hi, thanks for getting right on this. A couple of comments for you: On topic sentences, a good way to think about this is that the topic sentence is the lead of the paragraph. We don't need to source lead sections in articles because the sourced body below supports everything stated in the lead. A topic sentence in a paragraph functions the same way: what comes in the same paragraph supports what is stated in the topic sentence.

As for a copyeditor, I personally recommend Popcornfud, if he is available and willing. He comes with my highest recommendation as a copyeditor, although as with anytime you have another person copyedit your work you'll want to go back and make sure nothing had its meaning changed or important context removed by accident.

On the topic of a source review, I had assumed that had not happened because I did look over the reception section and I saw numerous cites in violation of WP:WIAFA criterion 2c: consistent citations, which I would expect a proper source review to pick up. Essentially, the red flag I saw is that all sources of a specific type must have the same data or exclude it; i.e. either every web source has a publisher, or none of them do; every magazine has an ISSN, or none of them do, etc. I may insist on a pass through before I am willing to support, or I may possibly do it myself if I have time. I'll take a second pass in the next couple of days to follow up, but if Popcornfud or another copyeditor is willing to take a pass, I may wait until they are done to give it another look, simply so I'm reviewing the most final version at the time. Red Phoenix ^talk 13:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

How could I resist such flattery? I'll take a look at some point this week. Popcornfud (talk) 13:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Steele's Greenville expedition

Nominator(s): Hog Farm _Talk 19:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Support Comments from Graham Beards

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

• Here "The naval historian Myron J. Smith and the historians William L. Shea and Terrence J. Winschel state that around 1,000 slaves were freed, while the historian Timothy B. Smith states that estimates range to up to 2,000 or 3,000 slaves followed Steele's column back to Greenville." Why do our US contributors always have to write "state that" instead of the simpler "said" or "say"?
  • I've rephrased these; it's an Americanism but I'm not sure why. Hog Farm _Talk 16:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• Here "Both Sherman and Steele believed that Union troops had gone too far in behavior that affected civilians, rather than just targeted the Confederate war goals." Should this be "targeting"?
  • Yes, I've fixed this. Hog Farm _Talk 16:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• "Going forward" is such a cliche!
  • Rephrased this sentence. Hog Farm _Talk 16:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• Here "although other operations such as Grierson's Raid also played a role in that." I think the "in that" is redundant.
  • Removed. Hog Farm _Talk 16:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text
  • I've added alt text, although I would appreciate if someone checked what I used for the maps. Hog Farm _Talk 02:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
• Suggest scaling up the second map
  • I've scaled it up to upright=1.6; please feel free to adjust to a different scaling if you think it would be an improvement. Hog Farm _Talk 02:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
• File:Frederick_Steele.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: - Would this clear derivative of the photo published in 1893 be sufficient support for pre-1929 publication for a PD-US tag? Hog Farm _Talk 02:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Think so. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Support from Crisco

• The next morning, the boats reached Smith's Landing; Smith's was 20 miles (32 km) south of Greenville. - Smith's ... Smith's
  • Rephrased. Hog Farm _Talk 15:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
• the Lee - Either missing a word or one too many
  • Should have been "that"; corrected. Hog Farm _Talk 15:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
• as at least $3 million - Value today?
  • Have used {{inflation}}; let me know if you think there's a better way. Hog Farm _Talk 15:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I'd probably round to avoid being too specific. Adding |r=-3 to the template will round it to the thousands.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      • Thanks, done. I want to look to see what the source exactly says for the final point before making a rephrasing. Hog Farm _Talk 17:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
        • Thanks HF.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
• notes that estimates range to up to 2,000 or 3,000 slaves followed Steele's column back to Greenville - Maybe "notes that an estimated 2,000 to 3,000 slaves followed Steele's column back to Greenville"? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I prefer the current phrasing; the way the source is wording is that Smith is noting that these are estimates made by other people, but he does not endorse a specific estimate here. Hog Farm _Talk 02:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support on prose. Looks good.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your review! I would review your FAC but I think the images would be hard to explain to my wife if she walked by my computer while I was reviewing it. Hog Farm _Talk 02:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    • LOL, no worries. Thanks for the offer, though! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• "While much of Steele's force remained the Washington's Landing area": missing word?
  • Yes, fixed. Hog Farm _Talk 18:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
• "continued on inland": I think "on" is unnecessary.
  • Removed. Hog Farm _Talk 18:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
• "The presence of Lee's force became known to Steele": can we say how?
  • A scouting patrol; added. Hog Farm _Talk 02:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
• "While Ferguson had withdrawn his troops, the Union soldiers found large quantities of supplies and cattle, which they brought back to camp": suggest "Ferguson had withdrawn his troops, but left behind large quantities of supplies and cattle, which the Union soldiers found and brought back to camp". I misparsed "while" as "During" on first reading.
  • Done. Hog Farm _Talk 18:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
• "While the Union troops had been ordered to avoid disturbing local families who were peaceful and remained at home, these orders were ignored": suggest "The Union troops had been ordered to avoid disturbing local families who were peaceful and remained at home, but these orders were ignored".
  • Done. Hog Farm _Talk 18:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
• Do we need the corn volume in four different units?
  • Have reduced it to US bushels and liters Hog Farm _Talk 18:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
• "estimates range to up to 2,000 or 3,000 slaves followed Steele's column": missing word or some editing debris here?
  • Have rephrased this a bit, is it better now? Hog Farm _Talk 18:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    Tweaked it a bit more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• "rather than just targeting the Confederate war goals": is "goals" the word you want here? I would have expected something like "men and materiel".
  • I have rephrased this. Hog Farm _Talk 02:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Source review: Pass

• Will pick this up. - SchroCat (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Comments by Dudley

• "Major General William T. Sherman hoped that Steele might reach to where Deer Creek met Rolling Fork". You mention Sherman four times, but never explain his position and role. This needs clarification.
  • I have clarified this, although this adds a new source (pinging the source reviewer as a courtesy) although I don't expect Welcher to be controversial as a source. Hog Farm _Talk 00:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the ping. No issues with the new source - just a minor tweak on the formatting (which I sorted). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
• "any baled cotton marked with "CSA"". You should add "(for Confederate States of America).
  • I've added this. None of the sources directly say this, but it's fairly obvious so I think it's fine. Hog Farm _Talk 17:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
• "Steele's troops left the Young's Point, Louisiana, area late on April 2," The location needs more explanation than a red link.
  • I've put this as a footnote to keep the digression out of the main text - is this sufficient or do you think I ought to move this into the main article text? Hog Farm _Talk 17:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
• "Two regiments and the Union Navy tinclad steamer USS Prairie Bird were left at the landing point to guard it". As you have specified the strength of the expedition as 5600 men, I think it would be clearer to give the strenght of the guards in number of men rather than regiments.
  • I don't think this is possible. The closest I can find is Bearss calling the regiments "understrength"; I've tracked down the primary source that Bearss used and the relevant quote (from a document prepared by Steele on April 5) is "The gunboat Prairie Rose will remain there with the transports. I have left two small regiments as a guard, and have ordered six of the steamers back to report to Commander Graham". Hog Farm _Talk 17:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• How about a footnote giving the standard strength of a regiment and stating that they were understrength? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• @Dudley Miles: - well, this isn't the greatest solution either. The standard size of a regiment when the war started was 1,000 men, but that didn't hold up for very long due to disease, casualties, etc. There was no real standard strength by 1863. Bearss's listing of the units that accompanied Steele on this expedition includes 15 infantry regiments, two companies of cavalry, and two batteries of artillery. Even if you exclude the cavalry and artillery, that's less than 400 men per regiment on average. So the average unit of Steele's was at less than 40% of the nominal standard strength - the two understrength ones must have been particularly bad, but the 1,000 man standard strength would be a bit of a red herring here. Hog Farm _Talk 19:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• I think that what you say here is well worth inclusion in the main text. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• Let me think about the best way to accomplish this. I really don't want that 1,000 figure in there without significant context. Hog Farm _Talk 22:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Henry Halleck had written to Grant". You should state Halleck's position.
  • I have added some context for this. Hog Farm _Talk 00:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
• The article looks fine. Just a few nit picks. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  • @Dudley Miles: - Thanks for the review! How do the changes made look? Hog Farm _Talk 00:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I have made a suggestion above, but whether you adopt it does not affect my support. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

How You Get the Girl

Nominator(s): Medxvo (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a song from Taylor Swift's 2014 album 1989. It was used in a Diet Coke commercial that stars the second-richest cat in the world, Olivia Benson, and has been performed in Swift's world tours since 2015. Fun fact—the choreography of the 1989 World Tour's performance was compared by several publications to Singin' in the Rain (1952).

I would like to thank Ippantekina, Dxneo, Gained, Heartfox, Brachy0008, and MaranoFan for being generous enough to participate in the PR and provide some constructive and helpful comments. Following the peer review, I believe the article is ready to be a FA, and I would appreciate any comment from everyone including the peer reviewers. Medxvo (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

support. article looks really great and as a final note, im really proud of you (and how you've helped grown the article). thanks for everything. =D brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 10:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so so much, Brachy! This means a lot to me :)) Medxvo (talk) 13:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

ur welcome =D brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 12:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Heartfox

• "Some critics praised the song as catchy and energetic: they particularly highlighted the chorus and how the track combines acoustic and electronic elements" → maybe semicolon rather than colon? – the first statement doesn't really "introduce" the second
• "It incorporates" → The record incorporates
• "was produced by Swift and Christopher Rowe, who had produced her" → "was produced by Swift and Christopher Rowe; the pair had produced her"
• "Swift sings in the outro of the song, "And that's how it works / that's how you got the girl". The outro, which is written in past tense, suggests a reunion between the two lovers and a happy ending." → "The outro, which is written in past tense, suggests a reunion between the two lovers and a happy ending. Swift sings, "And that's how it works / that's how you got the girl"."
• "Reviewing "How You Get the Girl (Taylor's Version)", critics praised the song's production and energetic sound; The Atlantic's Spencer Kornhaber deemed it one of 1989 (Taylor's Version)'s adrenaline-pumping and centerpiece tracks and Slant Magazine's Jonathan Keefe commented that the production "packs even greater heft" on the new version and considered it one of the tracks that validates the re-recorded album" → too much for one sentence
• "reached number four on the Billboard Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles chart" → the date would be relevant
• ""How You Get the Girl (Taylor's Version) reached number 29" → missing last song title quote mark
• suggest replacing E! with a better source of possible

Best, Heartfox (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @Heartfox: Thanks for the comments! I believe I've addressed all of them, let me know if anything needs further adjustments. Hope you're doing well :) Medxvo (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Support, all addressed. Great work! If you are interested, I have a FAC currently open. Heartfox (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

NØ

Thanks for the ping! I will read through the article again during the weekend to make sure I did not miss anything at the PR. Just two comments for now.

• The names and locations of studios in the infobox seem to be separated by brackets instead of commas on the other 1989 articles.
• The sample caption does not need a period as there is no main verb.--NØ 19:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for noting these, should be done now :) Hope you're having a good day! Medxvo (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Support, all addressed. Great work! If you are interested, I have a FAC currently open. NØ 11:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Image and source review

Image use, placement and licence/rationale seem OK to me. Seems like source formatting and reliability are OK as well. Is 2023 Independent still reliable, though? Spot-check of this version:

• 12 OK
• 13 OK
• 17 OK
• 27 Need help with the first sentence about Marah Eakin. Not sure what it supports in the footnote.

• It should support the "with a midtempo rhythm" claim. Medxvo (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• 29 OK
• 33 This does not link shimmery and Gibson

• It says "'How You Get The Girl' has a Debbie Gibson sparkle to it"... I tried to paraphrase the "sparkle" thing to minimize the one-word quotes. Would it need to be "while Stereogum's Tom Breihan thought that it had the "sparkle" of Debbie Gibson's music" or is it okay as it is now? Medxvo (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• Ah, OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• 36 OK
• 46 OK, but might want to put a different source for "Several reviewers" as this one's only about one reviewer.

• Do you mean the "Some critics considered the lyrics straightforward and underwhelming" sentence? This should be the paragraph's topic sentence that summarizes the whole paragraph, as advised at WP:RECEPTION. Wood and Larocca both criticized the lyricism, as well as the other reviewers who criticized its poor quality. Medxvo (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• I think in this case, putting a separate footnote akin to the lettered ones is better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• 47 OK
• 50 Where's "centerpiece"? Also, the comment about #46 applies here too.

• It says "The heart of 1989 lay in adrenaline-shot anthems such as 'All You Had to Do Was Stay' and 'How You Get the Girl'". I think "the heart of the album lay in the track" means that it is a centerpiece track, no...? I've written the topic sentence as per WP:RECEPTION here as well, which should summarize the paragraph statements. Medxvo (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• 53 Where's "five worst"?

• The article is for the five best and the five worst songs from the album. Ahlgrim wrote the five best first ("Blank Space", "Style", "Wildest Dreams", "Clean", and "New Romantics"), then the five worst ("Welcome to New York", "Shake It Off", "Bad Blood", "How You Get the Girl", and "You Are in Love"). Medxvo (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• 54 OK
• 57 Where's 200,000?

• The certification details are viewed here, but we don't usually include a source for this in the template, we just include the certification source, looking at other FA articles, most recently the Bad Blood (Taylor Swift song) article. Medxvo (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• Eh, I think it's better if the template popped up a source. Or there was one manually added. Most readers aren't going to know where to look otherwise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• 61 Where does it specify female?

• The source says shat she is only behind Drake, who is a male artist.... Medxvo (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• 69 Don't see "singing in the rain"

• It says "And Tay herself lights up during the super-sweet Singin' in the Rain–esque 'How You Get the Girl'" -- which is the 2015 Vulture source, to confirm. Medxvo (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• 71 and 72 Only supports the first part of the sentence, as 72 doesn't mention "How You..."

• Ref 71 mentions that it is the second Dublin show (and that she sang "Mean" at the first Dublin show), and says that it was an acoustic performance. Ref 72 says that it was "night one in Sydney" and that it also was an acoustic guitar performance. Medxvo (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• 74 OK
• 76 OK
• 85 OK

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks so much for the review. I've replaced the 2023 Independent source with the Apple Music source which supports the provided information (the track's title and the release date). I've also left some comments above regarding your concerns, please let me know if anything remains unsatisfactory. Medxvo (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Replied. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus. The two remaining issues should be done with this edit. Is there any remaining issue or is everything OK now? I hope you're having a good day and thanks so much again for your help and your time :) Medxvo (talk) 12:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I think this is all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Aoba47

Just for clarification, I am working from this version of the article. My comments are below:

• I would simplify "has a balladic production" to "is a ballad" instead as it is more concise.

• Done

• For this part, "The lyrics see Swift", I would suggest using a different word than "see" as lyrics cannot really "see" anything.

• Changed to "find", feel free to tell me if you have a better option

• That seems like a better option to me. Aoba47 (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• Why not make a separate section for the re-recording as done for something like "Style" (Taylor Swift song)? There would appear to be enough information to support it as there is the background for the re-recording process, the release of 1989 (Taylor's Version), and the production credits for the new version, as well its critical and commercial reception. If you are worried about the "Background and releases" section being too short, you could move the chart information for the original version up there, like what is done for "Labyrinth" (Taylor Swift song). I was thinking that it would be more helpful to include all the information about the re-recording, infobox and all, in a single spot for readers to more easily access.

• Uhhh.... This is such a significant change, but it's done. I also think that it would be more helpful this way. Please let me know how it looks now...?

• It is more about restructuring the article and not about adding in new material so while it does make a significant change, I do not believe that this request would be considered too much for a FAC. Either way, I think the changes improve the article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• The re-recording infobox includes a link to the lyric video, but the original infobox does not have a link. To be consistent, it would be beneficial to link the music video there.

• I think it doesn't have neither a music video nor a lyric video

• Apologies for that. For whatever reason, I thought this was a single. That was my fault. Aoba47 (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• I believe the Red in Citation 5 should be italicized as it is a reference to the album title. I would double check all of the citation titles to make sure that the album titles are italicized.

• I have double checked multiple times before, but I didn't think that this one should be italicized because it's.. Red Alert which imo is a completely different thing...? It should be done anyways

• The article puts the word "Red" in single quotation marks to clearly set it up as a pun on the album name. Aoba47 (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• For the citations, be consistent on whether both work/website and publisher are being (as in Citation 5) or just the work or the publisher (as in Citation 2). I do not think that a publisher is necessary for well-known stuff, and it appears that Citation 5 may be an oddity in the regard, but I still want to point this out in case I missed other instances of this.

• I think only refs 5 and 11 have both of the website and publisher, and that's because their articles are being published by their parent company, NBC/The Recording Academy. Should the publisher parameter for these two citations be removed?

• I personally do not think the publisher parameter is required for either instance, but it is not a major sticking point for my review so I will leave that up to you. Aoba47 (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• The author for Citation 40 reads Tucker Ken, rather than Ken Tucker.

• Done

• David Browne should be linked in Citation 79.

• Done

• For the Communication, Culture and Critique citation, I would also include the publisher of the journal.

• Should be done

I hope that these comments are helpful for so far. I have not seen anything major. My comments are mostly nitpicks and clarification questions. I have only covered the lead and done a quick look at the citations, but I wanted to post at least a start for my review. I will try to post further comments over the weekend. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much for these helpful comments. I believe most of them are addressed now; I've left some comments above. Medxvo (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. Aoba47 (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• This is just a suggestion so feel free to disagree with it. It may be nice to link catchy to give readers a broader context for it, but I can also understand if you decide against this as it is a rather well-known idea. Again, this more of an idea than anything else.

• Done

• I think it would nice to expand on Courteney Larocca's criticism for the song. I was actually questioning if any of the reviewers criticized the song for providing a plan for a man to force his way back into a relationship after he was the one to ruin the relationship. I find the parts regarding Larocca's review to be rather vague, and it could benefit from some expansion, while still keep it brief.

• Should be done

• For this part, (who was in the audience watching the show), I do not think that the "watching the show" part is necessary as I think readers would already know that by him being in the audience, he is watching the performance.

• Should be done

• It may be good to position File:Taylor Swift 7 (18912291189).jpg to the left as I know that some editors do not like when a person in a photo looks away from the article or off the page. It is not a major deal in my opinion so feel free to disregard this point, but I still thought it was worth raising to your attention anyway.

• I didn't really like how it looks. It made the section look a bit disorganized

• That makes sense. Aoba47 (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• I would make the part on the Ryan Adams cover into its own paragraph as having it in the same paragraph with the Diet Coke advertisement leads to a more awkward transition in my opinion as they are both unrelated to one another.

• How does it look now? Should the Diet Coke part be moved after the live performances or is it OK now?

• It looks good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• It may be good to briefly include a part about the critical response to the re-recording in the lead.

• Should be done

• This is more of a nitpick, but I would avoid repeating "song" in this part, (likened the song's production to that of Radio Disney songs) if possible. An alternative idea could be "to music on Radio Disney".'

• Done

I believe that this should be it for my review. Wonderful work. I do not notice any major issues. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure that I have not missed anything. Aoba47 (talk) 02:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Aoba47: Thanks so much again for the helpful review. I believe the comments should be done, I've also left some comments above. Medxvo (talk) 07:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. Aoba47 (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Everything looks good to me. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with it! Aoba47 (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Query for the coordinators

@FAC coordinators: Greetings to you all. I would appreciate an update on this nomination, it has been open for 22 days with 4 supports and image/source passes, and the last comment was 2 weeks ago. Medxvo (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

It’s heading in the right direction but considering this is a first-time nomination that has only been open for a little over three weeks, I’d like to keep it open for a little longer to see if it attracts additional commentary. FrB.TG (talk) 10:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: Thanks so much, I appreciate the reply! Medxvo (talk) 10:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I am much the same, and would like to see a review by someone who knows nothing about popular music. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Vanishing (song)

Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

"Vanishing" is the first song that Mariah Carey ever produced. I started this article about a month ago and I really like how it turned out. Thanks in advance for your comments, Heartfox (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Ippantekina

Comments soon. Ippantekina (talk) 02:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comma after "debut studio album"

  Added

• This is kinda convoluted: "Vanishing is a torch song ... She wrote the ballad ...". I would suggest something like, introducing it as a song by Carey, and the second sentence elaborates on its nature ("It is a torch song with a balladic production")

  Reworded/moved "torch song" to second sentence and "ballad" to last sentence

• "Situated in the gospel and traditional pop music genres" I'm all for phrasing variations but this reads kinda flowery for an encyclopedic entry. Maybe something more straightforward like "Categorized in the gospel and traditional pop genres"?

  Changed to "categorized"

• I notice inconsistent usages of false titles throughout: "American singer Mariah Carey", "the drummer Ben Margulies", "the American television program Saturday Night Live". Please be consistent throughout.

  I think they're all there now

• "Rather than release it as a single" releasing?

  Changed to "releasing"

• "A blues-inspired[17] gospel[18] and traditional pop record" I think "record" is often used for albums and not tracks. Maybe "song" or "number"?

  Changed to "number"

• I'm not sure if citing album liner notes for lyrics is the best practice, unless that lyric has been specified in album reviews or analyses.

  Ugh I knowwww but "You're vanishing / Drifting away" is basically the entire chorus and the gist of the song. I think four words is okay to quote without specific secondary coverage.

• I'm not sure if the hyperlink to oscillate makes sense because the link leads to an article about physics.

  Removed link

• "Its straightforward composition" not sure what straightforward means in this context.

  Changed to "Its composition is straightforward". This is meant to introduce the statement following the semi-colon: "an acoustic piano played by Richard Tee is the sole instrumentation" (ie straightforward/little going on)

• Not sure if that's the correct lingo because I've seen something like "minimalist", "spare" but not "straightforward"... Ippantekina (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I just decided to remove the clause as "sole instrumentation" seems to get the point across okay

• "Patrick Dillett performed engineering and mixing" I know the issue with sea of blue but can one perform engineering and mixing?

  Added "the": "performed the engineering and mixing"

• I mean like "to perform engineering/mixing" reads award? Maybe some safe options like "The track was engineered and mixed by..." Ippantekina (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Added your suggestion

• "Unlike "Vision of Love", Richard T. Ryan of the Staten Island Advance said" wrong subject here

  Changed to "Richard T. Ryan of the Staten Island Advance said "Vanishing" demonstrated Carey could limit the use of her vocal range, unlike "Vision of Love"."

• "in which she exercised commendable discipline with her voice" err.. I get what this means but this reads lengthy. Can we make it more concise?

  Changed to "in which Carey used her voice judiciously"

• "Critics have viewed "Vanishing" as a standout track in Carey's discography throughout her career"

  Removed "throughout her career"

• "Courier-Post contributor Jeff Hall considered the song her best work in 1993" does this mean that the song was considered Carey's best among her 1993 songs?

  Changed to "in a 1993 article"

• Which makes me notice.. is there not a release date in the Infobox?

  I think there is a difference among editors of whether album tracks should get infobox release dates. I don't personally care either way, it just seems to be a thing so I wasn't sure and have not added it.

• I think it is necessary to include album release dates as well to indicate that the song has been released commercially. A short sentence in the prose would do (like, the album was released on XXX, "Vanishing" is track number X). If there are no release dates that it would be an unreleased song imo lol. Ippantekina (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• Added release date to prose and infobox

• The third paragraph of the "Critical reception" is full of "A said, B said, C said..." I suggest some more cohesion here

  Cut down on the paragraph length by converting three sentences to sfns of the opening sentence. Made several wording changes.

• "Entertainment Weekly writer Sydney Bucksbaum and Billboard's Gil Kaufman considered the performance impressive" this adds little value to prose imo.

  Cut

My review is exclusively on prose and that should be it :) Ippantekina (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ippantekina: Thank you for the very helpful comments, responded to all above. Heartfox (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing my comments! I've responded to a few remaining points above :) Ippantekina (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ippantekina: Responded above. Heartfox (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Support on prose — Ippantekina (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Medxvo

• I would be consistent with the WP:FALSETITLES. "recorded and produced by the American singer Mariah Carey" seems to be the only one with no false title

  Removed "the"

• "I enjoyed doing that because it gave me more freedom to sing" - enjoyed doing what?

  I thought it would be known that this is referring to "Vanishing" as this is preceded by the phrase "Carey described "Vanishing" as her favorite track on the album:"

  It was quite confusing to me so I checked the source and it seems like she's referring to the acoustic elements not the song as a whole, but even Carey's sentence structure is confusing to me so I guess that's fine. I suggest double-checking, though

• I think maxi single can be linked

  Linked

• "according to Stephen Holden" - a comma before according to?

  Added comma

• "in the book Soul Music A–Z" - "in the book Soul Music A–Z (1991)"?

  Added 1991

I believe that's all I've got. Best of luck with the FAC! Medxvo (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Medxvo: Thanks for your comments, I have responded above. Heartfox (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Support. Medxvo (talk) 07:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Aoba47

• Is Tatou notable enough to mention in the lead? I was wondering if this part could be shortened to "at a New York City club" with the specific name kept for the article itself.

  Changed to "at a New York City club"

• The Butterfly World Tour article claims that Carey performed this song at the second Sydney show. I would not be surprised if this type of detail did not receive any coverage, but I wanted to bring this up just in case. I believe this is the only other time she performed this.

  It didn't receive any coverage that I could find

  I thought that would be case, but I just wanted to double-check to make sure of this point. Aoba47 (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• This may just be a matter of personal preference, but I would not use a PhD thesis as a source for Wikipedia unless parts of it were published elsewhere or it became notable on its own for whatever reason. I am always weary from my own personal experience with theses as the amount of oversight that it receives can and does really vary. WP:SCHOLARSHIP says that while they can be used, this should be done with care and caution. Is there any evidence this thesis is notable enough? Like has it been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties?

  I think it being a humanities thesis this is a different situation than something like a science field where maybe there is more potential for controversy idk. All that the thesis supports is that Carey uses whispering in the song and that the writer thinks it contributed to her artistic identity on the album. The thesis had 3 people on the dissertation committee and 4 examiners. Personally I would consider this a step-up from most secondary sources. These are not bold claims.

  I do understand your point. Thank you for taking the time to explain. I respectfully disagree. I would have an issue with a thesis for both the humanities and for the sciences. That being said, my review is focused on the prose. The thesis is not used for anything controversial or contentious so I will leave that up to the source review. It will not affect my review and my likely support. I wanted to ask you about it as it did caught my eye. While we may disagree, I hope that this response comes across as collaborative as I do genuinely understand your perspective. Aoba47 (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• I am uncertain about this part, (the 2008 season of television program American Idol), as I have never really heard television seasons, at least in the US, referenced by the year of their release. I get that it makes things more concise, but it would just more natural to use seventh season and putting the year somewhere else in the same sentence.

  Converted to "seventh season", put "2008" at end of sentence

• Were there any reviews for Kelly Clarkson's covers? Based on the titles for the citations, there seem to be praise for it.

  Yes but Ippantekina thought they didn't add anything to the article

  That is fair. Apologies for that as I did not look at the previous reviews. I was trying to think of ways to revise the sentence to include that this performance was praised, but I can see why that would not be necessary and how it could come across as rather empty since there would not be further details about it. It is always best to keep things more concise so it is for the best. Aoba47 (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I hope that this review is helpful. Once all of my comments have been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure that I have not missed anything. Best of luck with the FAC, and I hope you are having a wonderful weekend so far! Aoba47 (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the review :) Heartfox (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I am glad that I could help. This is a great song. I will read through the article again later tonight. I do not imagine that I will find anything further, but I like to just make sure. Aoba47 (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I have read through the article again, and I could not find anything further to comment on. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current peer review, but I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. As always, I enjoy reading your work, and I look forward to review your FACs in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 00:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Source and image review

One citation spanning multiple pages is given in p; they need to be pp. Is Ashley S. Battel a prominent reviewer, or just the first person on AllMusic to comment on this work? What makes "Gregory, Hugh (1991). Soul Music A–Z. London: Blandford. ISBN 0-7137-2179-0. OL 1319820M." a reliable source? Also wonder about "Shapiro, Marc (2001). Mariah Carey: The Unauthorized Biography. Toronto: ECW Press. ISBN 978-1-55022-444-3." given some of the comments at Mariah Carey: Her Story. Is File:Vanishing Mariah Carey.ogg an important segment of the song? Is there an archived version of the source of File:Mariah Carey 1990 cropped.jpg? I notice the absence of an infobox image, like album cover or the like. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• "One citation spanning multiple pages is given in p; they need to be pp." → fixed
• "Is Ashley S. Battel a prominent reviewer, or just the first person on AllMusic to comment on this work?" → This is a reviewer working for AllMusic.
• "What makes "Gregory, Hugh (1991). Soul Music A–Z. London: Blandford. ISBN 0-7137-2179-0. OL 1319820M." a reliable source?" → Has been cited by University Press of Mississippi, Taylor & Francis, Arizona Republic
• Shapiro and Nickson are two different books and St. Martin's Griffin and ECW Press are well-known book publishers. The book's style according to what some critics thought doesn't impede its reliability for basic biographical details. The fact that Carey was uninvolved in both books could arguably strengthen their neutrality. These are the two main biographies on Carey. Mostly they just synthesize existing newspaper/magazine articles and it's better to use secondary sources than primary sources per WP:PSTS.
• "Is File:Vanishing Mariah Carey.ogg an important segment of the song?" → As per the file description, it is a "sample of the second chorus", "The section of the music used is discussed in the article in relation to the song (vocal range, vocal style, background vocals, piano, and lyrics) which received critical commentary." I think it is the most representative segment I could use.
• "Is there an archived version of the source of File:Mariah Carey 1990 cropped.jpg?" → Added archive link to the file
• "I notice the absence of an infobox image, like album cover or the like." → As the song wasn't released individually there isn't really an appropriate image that exists to use. Using the album cover would not align with NFCC.

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for doing these reviews. Heartfox (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I guess this is OK then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

James Scott (boxer)

Nominator(s): Red Phoenix ^talk 19:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

James Scott became the WBA's #2 ranked contender and defeated two #1 contenders for the Light Heavyweight Championship. He was named boxing magazine The Ring's light heavyweight champion. That's impressive enough as it is, but Scott did it while in prison.

Welcome to the bizarre story of a man convicted of armed robbery, and later of murder, who fought professional boxing matches inside the walls of Rahway State Prison in New Jersey. And make no mistake; he would likely have been a champion had the WBA not denied him the opportunity over his incarceration. James Scott's story is among the most unusual I've ever encountered, so much so it captivated me to leave my usual video game-related editing to research and tell this story. It speaks to the will of a prison inmate to stand out and show his talents, or as Scott called it, the "gold in the mud". Red Phoenix ^talk 19:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "After picking up boxing as an amateur" - I would personally say "After taking up boxing as an amateur"
• "This led to Scott being offered to be managed by an architect" - this reads slightly tortuously. I would try maybe "This led to Scott received an offer of management from an architect"
• Unless I am missing something, there's nothing to indicate when the whole thing with Russ happened. You say "While in New Jersey on a visit to the state on May 8, 1975, Scott was arrested and charged with murder and armed robbery." but had the murder only just happened? Or was it an earlier event which he was only arrested for in 1975?
• "In one account, he let Spinks borrow the car, and that Spinks partnered with someone" => "In one account, he stated that he let Spinks borrow the car, and that Spinks partnered with someone"
• "and called him "the Great Scott", his boxing nickname" - I think "and nicknamed him "the Great Scott"" is fine
• "Muhammad offered $15,000 to Gregory for the fight, while Scott was scheduled to make $2500" - inconsistent use of commas in the numbers (here and elsewhere)
• "However, he started to receive controversy on why he should be allowed to fight" - I think "However, he started to receive controversy surrounding whether he should be allowed to fight" would read better
• "According to boxing promoter Bob Arum, the WBA had only then found out " - when is "then"?
• "His next fight was against Jerry Celestine, who he defeated by decision " => "His next fight was against Jerry Celestine, whom he defeated by decision "
• " Scott was knocked down twice by Martin, once in the first round, and the second knockdown occurring late in the second round" => " Scott was knocked down twice by Martin, once in the first round and again late in the second round"
• "Scott also held an escrow account" - is there an appropriate link for whatever an "escrow account" is? I may be because I am not American but personally I have absolutely no idea what this term means
• "There, Scott worked with kids" => "There, Scott worked with children" ("kids" is too slangy)
• "after speaking with the trainers and kids from the boxing gym" - same here
• Opponent column in the table does not sort correctly (it should sort based on surname, not forename)
• That's what I got. An interesting read! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi ChrisTheDude, and thanks for your feedback! I've addressed all of your comments, with a couple of exceptions. I did see one use of "$7,000" with a comma and I removed the comma. Per MOS:DIGITS, four digit numbers are acceptable not to have a comma, so I did fix the one time it was inconsistent. I also did not change the comment Murad Muhammad made about Scott's nickname, since Muhammad doesn't actually directly say he gave Scott the nickname; he says "we" but doesn't identify who else, so he's a bit ambiguous here. Aside from that, I mostly used your wording and got the table corrected to sort by last name. Let me know if you have any more feedback, and I'm glad you enjoyed the read. Red Phoenix ^talk 18:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Image review - pass

Hi Red Phoenix, happy to do the image review. The article contains the following images:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JamesScottBoxer.jpg

  Non-free image with a valid non-free use rationale

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jackie_Gleason_Theater.jpg

  Own work published under CC BY-SA 3.0

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EastJerseyStatePrison.jpg

  Own work published under CC BY 3.0

All images are relevant to the article and placed in appropriate locations. They all have captions and alt-texts. I'm not sure that the building in the second image is "blue-colored". I think the alt-text should be changed to something like "A white and pale green theater building". Phlsph7 (talk) 10:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Updated per your suggestion. Thanks for the review! Red Phoenix ^talk 13:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks good. This takes care of the remaining concern. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• "the license plate number, which came back to Scott's car": suggest "which was that of Scott's car".
• "However, he started to receive controversy whether he should be allowed to fight and make money while incarcerated": suggest "However, controversy began over whether he should be allowed to fight and make money while incarcerated".
• "Although a prison guard told Family Weekly in 1980 that Scott was a changed man because of his passion for boxing, in 1981 a judge ordered Scott to stand trial again for the murder of Everett Russ." Why "although"? The two statements don't appear to be connected.

That's all I have; the article is in good shape. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Mike Christie:, thanks for your review! All comments addressed; mostly used your wording and did some sentence and paragraph restructure on the third comment. Red Phoenix ^talk 19:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Beverly White

Nominator(s): Jon698 (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

This article is about Beverly White, who was the longest serving woman in the Utah State Legislature. During her career she would sometimes be the only woman to chair a committee, held multiple leadership positions within the Democratic caucus, and was awarded as legislator of the year multiple times by multiple groups. She was also incredibly active in the Utah Democratic Party and the national party. Jon698 (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Steelkamp

As a biography and a politics article, I'm interested in reviewing this. Steelkamp (talk) 02:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Lead

• Three paragraphs in the lead start with the same word (White). Can this be reworded?
• (off topic comment: I am surprised that the districts of the Utah House of Representatives don't have Wikipedia articles)
• "She was educated at Tooele High School. She married Floyd White, who also became involved in politics. She entered politics with her involvement in the Tooele County Democratic Ladies Club and later became active in the Tooele County Democratic Party." This contains three sentences that start with the same word (she).
• I would link Tooele High School and Tooele County in the lead.
• "White first held office with her appointment to the Utah Board of Pardons by Governor Cal Rampton." I think a date for this should be mentioned.
• "She was on the board until Rampton appointed her to fill a vacancy in the state house created by Representative F. Chileon Halladay's death." I think a date for this should be mentioned too.
• I recommend linking whip (or a more specific link target if one exists).
• "She died in 2021." This sentence can be removed, as her lifespan is already mentioned in the first sentence of the lead.

• @Steelkamp: Done. Jon698 (talk) 03:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Can an image of White during her political career be used for the infobox instead.
  • I suggest adding a caption saying the year the image was taken, or published if the original date is not known.

Early life

• "Her husband was elected to the city council". Is this the Tooele city council? Probably best to specify in the article.

Career

• For both images in this section, I reckon the "upright" parameter should be used, otherwise the images are quite big. E.g. [[File:Calvin L. Rampton.jpg|thumb|right|upright|alt=Photograph of Governor Cal Rampton|White was appointed to serve on the Utah Board of Pardons and in the [[Utah House of Representatives]] by Governor [[Cal Rampton]].]]
• "She served as vice-chair of the Tooele County Democratic Party during the 1960s. She served as a delegate to the Utah Democratic Party's state convention multiple times.[3][4][5][6] She served as secretary of the Utah Democratic Party for sixteen years until she was defeated by D'Arcy Dixon in 1987." Should be reworded as that's three sentences in a row that start with the same word.
• "She was the secretary of the Utah delegation at the 1972 convention.[14] She served as an uncommitted alternate delegate to the 1976 convention.[15] She was a delegate for U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy at the 1980 convention." Same as above.
• "During the 1976 United States House of Representative election Representative Allan Turner Howe" -> "During the 1976 United States House of Representative election, Representative Allan Turner Howe"
• "as both of them were moved into the 21st district by redistricting." Is this strictly true that they were "moved into" the district, or did they both choose to contest the district? Would "as both of them moved into the 21st district due to redistricting" be better?

Political positions

• The problem with the abortion paragraph is that it starts by saying White was opposed to abortion but the rest of the paragraph outlines ways in which she is in favour of it. I think the change in her views should be more explicitly mentioned.
• "In 1977, the Utah state house voted 55 to 5, with White against, in favor of a resolution calling for a constitutional convention to amend the Constitution of the United States to ban abortion." I think this sentence is quite confusing. How about "In 1977, White voted against a resolution calling for a constitutional convention to amend the Constitution of the United States to ban abortion, while the state house voted in favour 55 to 5."
• "and that anyone who would send them through the mail would be arrested." -> "and that anyone who sent them through the mail would be arrested."
• "The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that capital punishment was unconstitutional in Furman v. Georgia ending the usage of capital punishment in the United States until the Gregg v. Georgia ruling." I think a comma should be added like so: "The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that capital punishment was unconstitutional in Furman v. Georgia, ending the usage of capital punishment in the United States until the Gregg v. Georgia ruling."

That's all for my first round of comments. Steelkamp (talk) 07:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• @Steelkamp: I have done all of your suggested edits except for three. I will have to look on Newspapers.com to see what specific city her husband was on the council and for a better image of White. White did change her political views over the course of her life. Would this be an acceptable changed? "During the 1970s White supported making abortion laws more restrictive, but was criticized by Nelson for her support of abortion rights during the 1990 election." Jon698 (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  What about something like this: "During the 1970s White supported making abortion laws more restrictive, but by 1990, she supported abortion rights". And then the thing about Nelson can be left chronologically. Steelkamp (talk) 08:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Steelkamp: Done. Jon698 (talk) 14:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Just did the image and added where her husband was a member of the city council. All I need is your thoughts on that change in the abortion segment. Jon698 (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• @Steelkamp: Any further comments or suggestions? Jon698 (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  I aim to do my second read through tomorrow, and will probably have comments from that. Steelkamp (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Second read through

• "who served in the Utah House of Representatives from the 57th, 64th, and 21st districts". Is this grammatically correct in American English? To me, it would sounder better as "who served in the Utah House of Representatives for the 57th, 64th, and 21st districts" but I would understand if the former is better in American English.
• " and as a delegate to every Democratic National Convention from 1964 to 2004" -> "and was a delegate to every Democratic National Convention from 1964 to 2004"
• "She lost reelection in the 1990 election to" -> "She lost reelection in 1990 to".
• "On April 8, 1947, she married Marion Floyd White, with whom she had five children, at the Salt Lake Temple and remained together until his death in 2004." -> "On April 8, 1947, she married Marion Floyd White, with whom she had five children, at the Salt Lake Temple. They remained together until his death in 2004."
• "Her husband was elected to the Tooele city council". Any idea what time period this was? Perhaps a year range.
• Her occupation before becoming a state representative is conspicuously absent.
• I think it should be said that although the election was in 1990, she lost her seat in 1991.
• "She served as secretary of the Tooele County Council of Governments and the Tooele County Planning Commission". Are these positions in the state legislature? Otherwise why is this in this section?

• @Steelkamp: I have done bullet points 1,2,3,4, and 7. I don't know if from or for is the proper term for representing a district, but it is a minor thing. As for her career there is not really a lot that can be said about it and she seemed to have been a stay-at-home mom. I don't know if I can find the exact years her husband served on the city council due to a lack of good coverage from Newspapers.com. For the "I think it should be said that although the election was in 1990, she lost her seat in 1991." comment would you like me to change the lede from "Following her tenure in the state house" to "After leaving the state house in 1991,"? Jon698 (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• Would "Her husband was elected to the Tooele city council in the 1950s" be acceptable? Jon698 (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

  That would be good. Regarding the 1990 election thing, I was more commenting on the Utah House of Representatives section rather than the lead. So the paragraph beginning with "During the 1990 election" should be changed. Steelkamp (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• @Steelkamp: Done. Jon698 (talk) 18:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Steelkamp, how is this looking now. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to support a biography with such an empty section on early life. There is very little info there about her pre-political life and career. I also think the prose could do with some improvement, as its choppy in parts. E.g. these are two very short sentences right next to each other: "She graduated from Tooele High School. Her father died on June 25, 1978." Another example is "During the 1976 United States House of Representatives election, Representative Allan Turner Howe was convicted of soliciting sex. White joined other leaders in the Democratic Party in calling for a resolution to ask Howe to withdraw from the election as he would hurt the chances of other candidates and so that a replacement appointment could be made." This could be reworded as "After Representative Allan Turner Howe was convicted of soliciting sex during the 1976 United States House of Representatives election, White and other Democratic Party leaders called for a resolution to ask Howe to withdraw from the election so as to not hurt the other candidates' chances and so a replacement appointment could be made." This sort of thing often appears throughout the article, where sentences could be combined to make the prose flow better. Sometimes, there are unrelated short sentences next to each other, which makes it hard to combine them, but this also is an indication that the article is not comprehensive. I understand it is really hard to research this as there is no comprehensive biography on Beverly White out there and you are reliant on newspaper sources, but I don't feel comfortable supporting based on comprehensiveness and prose issues. Steelkamp (talk) 07:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I have great news. I found a copy of Women Legislators of Utah, 1896–1993 and I hope that it can help me expand this article. Jon698 (talk) 09:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@Steelkamp: I was rather disappointed by the book. Her section is only two pages long, pages 165-166. Her autobiography only gives us at best two paragraphs for her early life. Could you take the rather limited information regarding her early life, especially from White herself, in consideration for the comprehensive nature of the article? Jon698 (talk) 09:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• I was able to add information about some of the jobs she held. I truly believe that this is the most information we can obtain for her early life without raising her from the dead. Jon698 (talk) 09:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  Can you send me an email of photos of the book pages for her section? I'd like to take a look myself. I've sent you an email so you can reply. Steelkamp (talk) 09:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  I will take another look at the article in a day or two. The material you have recently added to the early life helps, but there is still the prose issues outstanding. Steelkamp (talk) 10:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by Generalissima

Just a quick thought - if we're using a Fair Use image anyway, why not one of the much higher quality images from this article as opposed to a low-quality newspaper scan? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• (Unsolicited comment) When using non-free media, we have a responsibility to use the "least un-free" option available: WP:FREER is the relevant guideline. There is a good argument that a scan from an old newspaper is no longer of any commercial value -- the newspaper company is no longer selling that paper, and very few people can access it anyway, so no business or publicity is lost. On the other hand, if we co-opt an image from the Salt Lake Tribune, that might mean that some readers (for instance, using Google Image Search) end up here rather than the SLT website, or else that we push them down the search-engine rankings, which would have very obvious commercial, advertising and publicity implications. Whether that argument is definitive or convincing here, I will leave up to others. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• @Generalissima: Also all of those images are of her in her 80s-90s. The page was previously using one of the images from that article. Jon698 (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think that using an image from when she was active in politics is best, but it's unfortunate that the current image there is low quality and I encourage you to find a better quality image. Have you looked in Women Legislators of Utah, 1896–1993? Its possible that there is a better image of White there which could be scanned. Steelkamp (talk) 07:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• @Steelkamp: I do not have access to Women Legislators of Utah, 1896–1993 and WorldCat is not showing me any libraries that have copies of it. Jon698 (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Generalissima, any thoughts? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Support from Ganesha811

• I should have time to review this tomorrow - looking forward to reading over it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Her mother died - what about her father? Where was he?
• Her husband was elected... any information on the time period when they were elected?
• tenure as secretary what kind of position is secretary? Is it equivalent to chair, or was it a record-keeping position? Could clarify in text.
• Doing math, we can deduce she was elected as secretary in 1971 - is that correct? Should be mentioned in text. Is that four terms - how long were terms?
• Some description of where the 57th, 64th, and 21st districts are, geographically, would be helpful.
• Is there any more detail available about her 1970s elections? Why did she lose in 1990 after facing no opposition for 3 elections straight as Democrats gained? Noting that her position on abortion is mentioned later in the article as a possible factor - any others? That could be mentioned earlier.
• How many other women served in the state house at the same time she did? Any notable working relationships with other legislators, male or female?
• Any detail available about what she did to be named legislator of the year in 1987? Who gave the award?
• Any more detail about this controversial $50,000 debt? Held by who and owed to whom?
• In general, the article seems a bit thin on detail. There's not much on her early life, personal life, character/reputation. It's a bit better on legislative accomplishments, but still scant - much of the article just reads like a dry listing of positions run for and attained or denied. Anything notable in her role as chair of the Social Services Committee? Or as member of Management Committee? The political positions section only discusses 4 topics - any other areas to note?
• I know it might be tough to dig up this kind of detail on a state legislator as they don't tend to attract tons of individual attention, but I'm sure local newspapers will have had coverage and indeed the Salt Lake Tribune seems to be a major part of the sourcing. The more detail the better, this article isn't close to overdetailed yet. Overall a good read and few grammar or phrasing issues (seem to have been mostly addressed above). —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• @Ganesha811: I will work on your suggestions and concerns tomorrow when I have better access to the internet in a library. Jon698 (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• @Ganesha811: I added more details about her mother and the death date for her father. I was unable to find any newspaper sourcing for why her father decided to have her aunt and uncle raise her instead of himself. I'll be looking for geographic details of her districts and the 1970s elections stuff now. Jon698 (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• BTW could you use a strikethrough for the bulleted list stuff that I have completed? Jon698 (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  You can go ahead and strike them through yourself, and/or leave comments interposed between mine. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• @Ganesha811: I have added some material for why White might have lost the 1990 election. Her time with the hospital is listed as one of the reasons she lost and I'll be addressing the $50,000 issue soon. Is this added material suitable to address your concern? Jon698 (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• I also added a segment about a lawsuit against her that attempted to unseat her. It is in the tenure section. Jon698 (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  The additions are good - I made a couple tweaks to one of them. I'd move the sentence about Nelson being critical of her abortion position to the paragraph about the 1990 election earlier. I think with that the 1990 issue could definitely be crossed off. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• @Ganesha811: I have done what you asked. I have also added some information to the 1970s elections and expanded upon the hospital debt issue. May I cross those two off the list now? As for what she did as secretary of the Utah Democratic Party, it seems she did just perform secretarially duties like calling stuff to order. I also added a bit about her and the five other women that served with her in 1974. Jon698 (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• I added a line about her opposition to an income tax refund and eliminating the sales tax. I will try and find other economic issues she talked about or voted on. I also added a line about her being a member of the LDS Church. Jon698 (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Yep, I'd say just about everything I raised has been addressed, though the hospital debt thing could be rephrased to be a little clearer - I can take a swing at it, or you can if you'd like. Just be sure to scrub your additions for any grammatical errors. Thanks for the improvements! After you're done making changes I'll take a fresh look in a day or two. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

*Although more detail on the "legislator of the year" award would still be good to have. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• Done @Ganesha811: Jon698 (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Ganesha811 Ping! :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Should have time to look through today or tomorrow. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Second look from Ganesha811

• She was the longest-serving - is she still the longest-serving female member, or was this only applicable at the time?
• aunt Margret and uncle Dunn - is Dunn a first name? What was their last name?
• What year did her father marry Margaret Vernon? The specific dates of her father and mother-in-laws deaths are probably too much detail - the years are fine.
• "and remained married" inserted between the 5 children and the death date would help with flow, assuming it's true.
• add "at" or "for" before JCPenney
• Re: Howe, I think we could simply say that White and the other leaders called for Howe to withdraw, not that "they called for a resolution to ask Howe to withdraw", which complexifies matters.
• Hallady, who served add "had"
• "27-mile", not "27 mile"
• She defeated Smith add "once more" or "again" or similar
• her support for abortion rights add "for" before this phrase
• Central Women Club of Utah is there a typo here? Women's Club?
• it was debated This sentence should be swapped to move the phrase about Wilkinson to the start, making it less passive.
• When was Debbie Winn elected?
• equalized the amount equalized the amount or equalized the level/rate?

• @Ganesha811: I have address all of your comments except for points 2 and 11. You can see this edit, and the two after it, for the changes I made. The source only lists the first names of her uncle and aunt. Central Women Club of Utah is what the source calls it and I know of organizations in my area that use that phrasing as well so it is probably not a mistake. Jon698 (talk) 13:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, fair enough. Two final comments - are there any sources anywhere that discuss the fact that her father re-married only a month after her mother died? Secondly, the lead describes her as an "activist and politician", but reading through, I see a lot of politics and little to no activism. Are there any reliable sources which describe her as an activist? If not, I think the lead should just describe her as a politician. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• @Ganesha811: I looked closely for any newspaper coverage of it using many parameters while working on stuff from Steelkamp, but I found nothing discussing their marriage besides its announcement. I removed activist from the lede. Jon698 (talk) 14:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• Looks good, I am comfortable supporting. Nice article! —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Edwininlondon

Good to see more articles about women here at FAC. I have some minor comments:

• White married --> she married
• the whole article is still having a lot of "served" or "serve" sentences. Can we reword some?
• Howe did not withdraw ..--> and what happened to the other candidates? Did they indeed get affected by Howe?
• I am not sure about the sub-section titles: the 1st one is Politics, but the 2nd one is Utah House of Representatives, which is odd being of the smae level as Politics.
• White won reelection to the 64th district in the 1972 election --> is reelection technically correct if she was appointed without election in 1971?
• LDS Bishop --> probably better rendered as Latter Day Saints Bishop
• seventy-two --> I think as per MOS:NUM this is correct, but just checking if you deliberately chose not to use digits here. A little earlier there is 27 miles, and later we have "voted 51 to 20"
• Nelson criticized her for being the "most liberal" member of the state house, her support for abortion rights, and for the high number of legislative votes that she was absent for --> this doesn't seem to flow very well: the 2nd item in the list should probably in the same style as 1st and 3rd.
• White ran for the position of Minority Whip in 1984 --> repetition of sentence structure
• White also helped --> I would drop the also here
• She received the Eleanor Roosevelt Award in 1994 --> is it known for what?
• She aided in the --> repetition
• The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that capital punishment was unconstitutional --> when?
• In the Categories box there is a link to 20th-century members of the Connecticut General Assembly. Is that an error?

That's about it for the prose. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• @Edwininlondon: Thank you for your comments. I have already answered the easy ones, such as minor changes or errors, and will get to the bigger ones like points 2 and 3 later. For point 1, it is standard practice to have the first mention of the person in a paragraph be their name. Also do you have any suggestions for how I should reword for point 8? Jon698 (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• Point 1: The issue I have is that she should be referred to with her maiden name up until she changes her name. Point 8: I like how you fixed it. Edwininlondon (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• Done. I changed White in the second paragraph to Larson. Jon698 (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• BTW may I use strikethroughs on the comments that I have answered? Jon698 (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• Sure.Edwininlondon (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• I have lowered the number of "serve" results from 30 to 19. Is this an acceptable amount? Jon698 (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. I think it's more about density than count.Edwininlondon (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• @Edwininlondon: For the Howe point: State Treasurer David Duncan simply stated that Howe would "hurt the whole ticket". No specific candidates were listed in the source. Would you like for me to reword the sentence to "called for Howe to withdraw from the election in order to select a replacement candidate." Jon698 (talk) 13:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• No, it's fine. If extra info is not available, then so be it.Edwininlondon (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Aineta aryballos

Nominator(s): UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

This article is about one of my favourite objects, in one of my favourite rooms, in the British Museum. Gallery 69 is a bit of an oddball, collecting classical artefacts and grouping them by theme rather than by time, place or culture: this little pot sits unassumingly in the case on "writing", alongside an Athenian voting token and a piece of bone inscribed with lines from the Iliad. Almost nobody gives it a second thought, which is sad, given that is both a fascinating archaeological find and a memento of a particularly vicious archaeological quarrel. It was (probably) originally owned by a high-class prostitute, (probably) called Aineta, (probably) depicted on its handle, though scholars disagree about just about everything it is possible to dispute about it. It was also the subject of one of the first major Greek trials for antiquities crime, and played a major role in the unmasking of Athanasios Rhousopoulos -- then a pillar of the Greek archaeological establishment -- as one of the country's most prolific and shameless patrons of grave-robbers. As ever, all comments and suggestions will be most gratefully received. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Charles_Merlin_To_Asty.jpg needs an author date of death. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Nikki -- done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Iazyges

• Claiming a spot. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
• Lead: made in Corinth between approximately 625 and 570 BCE you may desire to explain to the reader where Corinth is (as ancient greek objects were not restricted to geographic Greece), perhaps made in Corinth (modern-day Greece) or made in Corinth (ancient Greece), whichever is preferred; since it has already been introduced as an ancient Greek object, the modern-day Greece option may be preferred.
  • Good point. I've clarified this as "southern Greece" (frustratingly, Corinth is right on the borderline between what's generally called "central" and what's generally called "southern" Greece, but it's just about in the Peloponnese and plenty of sources go for "southern". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
• Body: Rudolf Wachter concurs with Rhousopoulos's assessment that the vase was likely a "love-gift", while Matthias Steinhart and Eckhard Wirbelauer wrote in 2000 that it is universally considered to have been a gift of some nature. Highly semantic, but I would re-arrange this. For one, Steinhart and Wirbelauer appear to be offering support to a vaguer statement, rather than harshly disagreeing, and for two, the Wachter source appears to have been published after, so I would flip them. Suggest Matthias Steinhart and Eckhard Wirbelauer wrote in 2000 that it is universally considered to have been a gift of some nature, while Rudolf Wachter concurs with Rhousopoulos's assessment that the vase was likely a "love-gift".
  • Yes, good idea. Done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
• A secondary comment, Wachter is introduced by date in the "Decoration" section below; may wish to move the date introduction up here at the first mention, for consistency.
  • Done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
• often known as "grave-robbers" I would suggest often referred to as "grave-robbers"; the "known as" construct comes off as a little flippant to me, but perhaps that's a peculiarity of American English.
  • I'm not sure I see it, but the fact that you do means that at least some sensible and educated readers will too, so I've gone and made that change. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
• their owners secured the judgement of a state committee of three experts that the object was "useless" to Greek museums Since this is further mentioned below, I think a little more specificity on the committee could be helpful (here or in discussing Rhousopoulos's role in it). As it reads now, I think the average reader could draw three possible conclusions: 1) there were three sitting members of the committee (elected, selected, or appointed to terms), 2) many members of experts (and 3 would be randomly assigned to each case, such as judges in some legal systems), 3) or if you could collect any three experts you were good to go. I would presume the first is true, in which case I would add a short bit to explain the terms and system, such as perhaps their owners secured the judgement of a state committee of three experts, [appointed] on a [term] basis, that the object was "useless" to Greek museums, or something similar, swapping out appointed for whatever other method may have been used, and [term] for whatever their term was.
  • I'll have a look at what we can say from the sources: Greek archaeological law in this period is rather opaque and little published upon, especially in English. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

  OK, what I can draw is... not a lot. It sounds like what happened was that, whenever someone wanted to export an ancient object, the state (presumably via the Ministry of Education, which ultimately held the reins on archaeological matters) convened a fairly ad-hoc committee of three experts, who were not always necessarily the same people, and who themselves often called on other experts, to make the judgement. We're probably closer to (2) in your framing than (1), which I think is probably the surface reading of what we've got anyway? It's difficult to be too categoric here, as I can't find a source which really spells it out. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  This comment was more aspirational than anything; if there isn't more to say I don't think there is a problem, but it would have been nice; I am all too familiar with sources refusing to be specific. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• A neat little article! Thank you for your work. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
  • And thank you for your review: mostly straightforwardly done, one where I need to do a bit of reading. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
• Happy to support the nomination. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you -- and for your helpful comments above. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Choliamb

A few minor points:

Text

• The vase body, the neck and the handle were made separately and joined using a lathe. For "lathe" read "potter's wheel". (Tornio, the word used by Rhousopoulos's translator, is the normal term for this in Italian: see here, for example.) But even apart from that, the phrasing is a little odd. The pieces were not really "joined using a potter's wheel", which makes it sound as if the wheel was the tool with which the join was made; instead, the globular body and the disk-shaped mouth were each made separately on the potter's wheel and then the two pieces were joined together, presumably while still on the wheel, but not necessarily so. (The handle, of course, was also added separately, but it was just a strap of clay, not turned on the wheel.) What Rhousopoulos actually says is even less than this: he writes only that the body, the handle, and the neck with its disk were all made separately and then joined, and that traces of the wheel could be detected on the disk (sopra il quale si rintracciano vestigi del tornio, where the antecendent of il quale is disco).
  • Ah -- of course -- I thought that was a bit odd! I've rephrased, borrowing a bit of your phrasing here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• Nine men are named, each on an individual line.. "Each on an individual line" is a very generous way of describing the meandering layout of the four names on the right side of the handle.
  • This is true. Now "below the portrait". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• Is there some reason why the names of the men are not listed here? Yes, there's a drawing of the inscription, but even readers who know some Greek are likely to be baffled by the Archaic Corinthian alphabet, so providing the names (either transcriptions or transliterations) would be helpful.
  • I've stuck them in a footnote: none of the names other than Aineta and Menneas, as far as I can tell, have had more than a trivial discussion as to who these people might have been. There's also the question of the double consonants: see below. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• including a musician named Menneas. Just flagging this to be sure that Gallavotti really spells the name with two N's, since there's only one nu on the vase. (If he does, it's presumably because the form Μεννέας is well attested elsewhere: ca. 300 examples in the LGPN, vs. only 8 for Μενέας.)
  • I only have the citation at second hand (via Wachter), who writes it as "Men(n)eas", with a slightly opaque (to me) explanation: (or, again, 'expressive' Μεν(ν)εας: Bechtel, p. 312). Bechtel appears to be one of three 1920s German volumes about Greek dialects. He's earlier used this to argue that the name Dexilios could be Dexillios, so I assume his/Gallavotti's point is that there's a particular dialectical feature by which double consonants become/are written as single ones in particular contexts? From what I remember from a different source (Guarducci, possibly?), the argument is that Menneas (double n) is named as a musician on a different vase, and therefore that it might be the same guy. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
    • @Choliamb: Did you see this bit -- have I got the right end of the stick here with the bracketed double consonants? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
      • As I understand it (not really my field), the term "expressive" is used by linguists to describe certain morphological features, especially the doubling of consonants or entire syllables, that supposedly reflect the emotional state of the speaker. This is particularly common in nicknames (which linguists call hypocoristic names, because it sounds more fancy), and the idea is that they express affection or some other kind of intensification, rather than simply being the product of the regular processes of linguistic change. If you search for the phrase "expressive gemination" in Google Books, you'll find a lot of examples of doubled consonants explained in this way. The "expressive" explanation is not universally accepted; hence the scare quotes used by Wachter. The reference to Bechtel is not to Die griechischen Dialekte but to Die historischen Personennamen des Griechischen bis zur Kaiserzeit, which lists a bunch of names derived from the root μεν-, including both Μενέας and Μεννέας; it has nothing specific to say about expressive gemination. If you want my opinion, I don't think you need to mention the alternative forms with doubled consonants in the footnote at all, in parentheses or otherwise: just report the names as they are spelled on the vase. You don't need a source for this: simple transliteration is not OR, and your other Greek articles are full of transliterated words, phrases, and journal titles for which you cite no sources, which is perfectly fine. The fact that the spelling Menneas is generally more common across the Greek world than the spelling Meneas is irrelevant to this particular vase, as is the fact that the names on the vase have Doric spellings (to be expected in Corinth) rather than the more familiar Attic-Ionic spellings (e.g., Lysandridas and Kariklidas vs. Lysandrides and Kariklides). The only thing we know for sure is that these particular names with these particular spellings were expected to be intelligible to Corinthians of the late 7th–early 6th century BC, so in my opinion it's best to stick with what the vase-painter actually wrote rather than inserting hypothetical forms, however they might be explained. (But note that some of the transliterations currently in the footnote need to be corrected: for Eudokios read Eudikos, for Lysandrias read Lysandridas, and for Dexilios read Dexilos.) Choliamb (talk) 15:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

        Thanks, Choliamb. I've corrected those translations and removed Dexillos. I'll try and dig into the sources (possibly via an RX request for the original Gallavotti article): if he emphatically thinks the dancer was Menneas, then I think we do need to keep the doubled n as a possibility (otherwise, we're implicitly dismissing his argument, since Meneas is not Menneas); if he writes "Men(n)eas" or similar, we can content ourselves with a single nu. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:57, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• contrasted the vase with another excavated in Corinth in 1872, which showed three female names that she suggested were those of hetairai This is the pyxis 74.51.364 from the Cesnola collection, now in the Metropolitan Museum in New York. But do we know that it was "excavated in Corinth in 1872"? I don't think we do, and Milne herself does not make this claim. "Excavated" is a euphemism for "looted from a tomb", since there were no controlled excavations in Corinth at this date, and the pencilled notation "Corinth 1872" on the vase itself could mean no more than that it was acquired by Cesnola or an intermediary in Corinth in that year. Antiquities from throughout the Corinthia passed through Corinth (in part because it was easy to sell to foreign collectors on ships that stopped briefly at the Isthmus), and I don't think there's any way to know that this particular pyxis came from a tomb at Corinth itself rather than one of the other settlements nearby, or precisely when it was discovered.
  • All true: I've removed those details. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

References

• The way the five short articles published by Galanakis in 2012 are arranged here disgruntles me, for two reasons:

(1) They are referred to as Galanakis 2012a, 2012b, etc. in the notes, but in the bibliography they appear as Galanakis (17 October 2012), Galanakis (31 December 2012), etc. This seems needlessly confusing. You may reply that readers can always click on the link to discover that Galanakis 2012d in the note = Galanakis (30 November 2012) in the bibl, but that argument doesn't move the needle for me, and it's obviously irrelevant for anyone who makes the mistake of printing out the article to read later. In the author-year system of referencing, if something is cited as Galanakis 2012d in the notes, there should be a corresponding publication listed as Galanakis 2012d in the bibliography. I'm not saying the precise date should be removed, only that it should be placed later in the listing, not at the beginning.

I see the problem: the issue here is how the citation template works. "2012d" (for example) is listed in the citation, but the |year= parameter is overwritten by the template if the |date= parameter is also filled, and therefore not displayed. See reply on (2) below. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

(2) I understand that these five articles have been arranged alphabetically by title, but the result makes me seasick: the list starts in October, then jumps ahead to December, then back to November, and then back to October again. I'm willing to bet that most readers will not detect an alphabetized list here; they're just going to wonder why the principle of listing a given author's works by date of publication has been suddenly and conspicuously abandoned. Alphabetical order is conventional in such cases, but it did not come down the mountain with Moses: it's an arbitrary rule used when no other more rational sequence presents itself, and with a series of successive articles on related topics published by the same author in the same periodical in the same year, the most rational sequence is surely the order of publication. If you insist on alphabetical order no matter what, sooner or later you will end up with a situation in which Part Two of a two-part article is listed first while Part One of the same article, published six months earlier in the same journal, is listed second, simply because the titles of the two parts happen to be slightly different. That serves nobody's interest.

This actually becomes much easier if we implement the change I suggest above: rearranging which citation is 2012a, 2012b etc is a pain in the neck, but assigning them each to a specific date makes it a lot easier. I've gone and done that. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• It looks as if you have cited Lorber only at second hand, via Wachter. But Lorber's book is available at the Internet Archive and his discussion, although brief, is worth reading and citing independently, especially for his comments about the letter forms and date. Although it's true that he places this vase in his group of Early Corinthian inscriptions, most of the comparanda he cites, both for the letter forms and for other vases with women's heads on the handles and inscriptions of the names of presumed hetairai, are Middle Corinthian. The distance between Lorber and Amyx is less than the distance between either of them and Payne, and I would like to see Lorber get a little more credit for laying out some of the reasons why the date of ca. 625 proposed by both Payne and Jeffery is almost certainly too high. But you can read what he has to say and make up your own mind.
  • I've added something here. I'm a bit confused, reading Lorber: Wachter says he calls it EC, but I can only actually see in Lorber that he says that Payne went too early and the letter-forms look sixth-century to him: in other words, there's no necessary conflict with what Lorber says and Amyx/Wachter's MC date, though Wachter implies that there is. Between Wachter and me, one of us is missing something -- there's a clear balance of probability here, but any help in seeing it greatly appreciated. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC) It was me -- a wood/trees confusion: I had failed to see that the whole section was "transitional" (therefore could be no later than EC). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• For Rhousopoulos's article in the AdI it would be much more convenient to point readers to the Hathi Trust or the Internet Archive, where the article can be linked directly and read page by page, rather than forcing them to download a giant ZIP file containing an equally giant PDF file and then dig through it to find the right page themselves.
  • Absolutely; done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Regards, Choliamb (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for all these, Choliamb: sharp and well-taken as ever. I'm having a bit of difficulty reconciling Lorber with Wachter's citation of him: would you be able to throw me a rope on that one? The rest straightforwardly done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is genuinely confusing. The main reason Wachter says that Lorber assigns an EC date is because Lorber discusses this aryballos in the EC section of his book. (The heading for the section is on p. 18: "Die frühkorinthischen Vasen und Pinakes (Kat. Nr. 17–33)"; this includes Aineta, which is no. 28.) But since L. was chiefly concerned with pulling the date down from where Payne and Jeffery placed it, most of the parallels he cites, both epigraphical and iconographical, look ahead to the 6th century, and if you just read his discussion of the vase in isolation, with no knowledge of where in the book it appeared, you would naturally conclude that he considers it MC, not EC. The division between late EC and early MC is a judgment call, and while I don't have Amyx to hand, I doubt that he and Lorber would disagree very strenuously over where to place this vase stylistically. This is why I said that the distance between Payne and Lorber is more important than the distance between Lorber and Amyx. Putting the latter two into different periods and adding the corresponding date ranges (in Amyx's chronology) exaggerates a relatively small difference and makes it seem larger than it is.

I look forward to the next installment in your series on notable Corinthian aryballoi. The MacMillan has already been done, but the Pyrrias dance aryballos is still waiting for an article. It's a marvelous little vase, just as interesting as Aineta, and the inscription has generated a longer bibliography. Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 13:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks: I've adjusted the language a bit to soften that distinction. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Support — Choliamb (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

Not much from me. A few minor points on the prose:

• "and exposed the latter's widespread involvement in antiquities crime" – not sure why "the latter" as there isn't a former: wouldn't plain "his" do?
  • Yes, it would: done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
• "a relatively rare successful use" – relative to what?
  • Attempts to use these powers in general, which were generally not successful (see the bit on the Raftopoulos Affair in Panagiotis Kavvadias for what usually happened when the Ephor General tried to flex his muscles, particularly when the crimes crossed Greek borders). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
• "deposited as a grave good in her tomb" – I am, as ever, open to correction but I don't think there is a singular of "grave goods" (or any other kind of goods any more than you can have a trouser or a mump) and more to the point neither does the OED, which dates the term to 1883 and says: plural: valuables deposited with a corpse in the grave. Chambers likewise offers only the plural form.
  • It's used in archaeological HQRS: see here, here, here and here, for instance. The plural ("it was deposited as grave goods") feels very wrong indeed, and we can't say something like "it was deposited among the grave goods" because we have no idea what, if anything, was deposited alongside it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
• "the vase was likely a "love-gift" – unexpected Americanism: see current Fowler, p. 482, and these are the wise words of The Guardian style guide: In the UK, if not the US, using likely in such contexts as “they will likely win the game” sounds unnatural at best; there is no good reason to use it instead of probably. If you really must do so, however, just put very, quite or most in front of it and all will, very likely, be well.
  • Agh -- I normally catch that one! Now "probably". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
• "sold the aryballos to the British Museum for 1,000 drachmae" – giving a present-day equivalent of the sum would be helpful here, if possible.
  • Straight inflation calculations don't help very much from this period, given the change in the cost of living. There's an EFN immediately afterwards which contextualises this as three times an upper-middle-class salary (at least, that of a university professor), which is my go-to when ballparking smallish drachma amounts in this period. It's particularly relevant here, given that Rhousopoulos was the one being paid (and, later, paying) that amount. The elephant in the room is that his academic salary was trivial next to his ill-gotten gains from antiquities dealing, but that's somewhat beside the point here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
• "Efstratiadis had assumed the office in 1864, following the death of Kyriakos Pittakis" – "assumed" seems an odd word, suggesting some sort of coup. Presumably he was appointed to the office?
  • Perhaps: changed to "been appointed", though that calls for the question of "by whom", to which the answer is a definitive "dunno" (it would have been some mix of the King, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Education, but as far as I know the history of that decision is not recorded). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

That's my lot. Tim riley talk 12:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim. Replies above. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Fine. I'm not in the least persuaded about "grave good", but I don't press the point, and the article otherwise seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Happy to support. Tim riley talk 13:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Tim -- very gracious of you. Remind me of this one next time I'm trying to crowbar some postmodern literary criticism into one of your nominations. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Support Comments by Pendright

Lead

• The Aineta aryballos is an Ancient Greek aryballos, made between approximately 625 and 570 BCE in the city of Corinth in southern Greece .

Close the space after Greece

Good spot: done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Approximately 6.35 centimetres (2.50 in) in both height and diameter, it was intended to contain perfumed oil or unguent, and is likely to have been owned by a high-class courtesan (hetaira) by the name of Aineta, who may be portrayed in a drawing on its handle.

• portrayed in a drawing -> or portrayed in the drawing - seems specific enough

"A" is better here: if we say the, we're begging the question, since we haven't introduced to the reader that there is a drawing. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

<>Yes, but consider this: The body of the vase, its drawing, and its handle are a unit of one and are not severable. Pendright (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see the relevance. In any case, I think what we've got is perfectly grammatical and comprehensible, though of course individual preferences as to language will vary. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I concur with UC: the indefinite article is preferable here. Tim riley talk 09:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Description

• The vase body, the neck and the handle were made separately and joined using a lathe.[4]

Add a comma after neck

This article is written in British English, where serial commas are optional and generally discouraged when the items in the list are short (see MOS:COMMA). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

<>I'm aware with the British point of view on the use of serial commads. As for the MOS though, it says, in a list of three or more items but its examples favor your point of view. Pendright (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

All agreed that no Oxford comma is wanted, then. Tim riley talk 09:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Rhousopoulos believed that the vase may have been a gift from her lovers to a high-class courtesan (hetaira) named Aineta, or perhaps deposited as a grave good in her tomb.[a]

• lovers -> one of her lovers?
• or perhaps it was deposited?

There were multiple lovers (at least nine, to be exact). I don't see the improvement offered by the second, or the problem it's trying to fix: could you explain a bit more? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

<>The first clause, in part, says, Rhousopoulos believed that the vase may have been a gift from her lovers - literally, this says to me, that one gift was gifted by many, which is nether clear or concise - thus my comment. Pendright (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

That is absolutely correct: one gift was given by nine, according to Rhousopoulos (and many others). It's not uncommon for people to band together to get someone a present: think of a retirement gift at work, for example. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

<>The sentence has two clauses: the first clause is an indepemdemt one but the second one is a dependent clause. -> In British English, a comma is used to join an independent clause and a dependent clause when the dependent clause comes first in the sentence; if the independent clause comes first, a comma is not typically needed - my addition makes it a independemt clause. Pendright (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

That may be so, but what we have at the moment is perfectly grammatical: there's no rule that every clause should be an independent clause. Adding "it was" would break the grammar of the sentence and require a rewrite, which doesn't seem to be necessary here. As above, there may be individual preferences at work here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I should be sorry to see the superfluous "it was" added. There is no rule in the King's English that a comma is used to join an independent clause and a dependent clause when the dependent clause comes first (though I notice a couple of minor university sites advocating that American dogma). This spurious "rule" appears nowhere in Fowler (2015) or Gowers (2014).

'Decoration and date

• However, he contrasted this with the decoration of the vase body, where, he judged, "we immediately find ourselves in unknown regions of Asia: magnificent, ... but strange and exotic".[11][b]

Why the comma aftet where?

"Where" modifies we immediately find..., not he judged..., so needs a comma to separate it. Compare "Peru is a country where, I believe, bears live in the jungle": I believe that wherever I am, not only in Peru. Compare "Home is a place where I believe I am safe": there, I believe I'm safe specifically when I'm at home. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

<>>In British English, a comma precedes the word "where" when it introduces a non-restrictive clause, meaning it provides additional information that isn't essential to the sentence's core meaning. Pendright (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see. That's not really what's going on here: we simply have indirect/direct speech, where it's completely normal (indeed, required) to bracket off phrases like "he said" with commas when they interrupt the quoted material. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

In my view, people who pontificate about commas should refresh their memories of Gowers: The use of commas cannot be learned by rule. Not only does conventional practice vary from period to period, but good writers of the same period differ among themselves. ... The correct use of the comma – if there is such a thing as "correct" use – can only be acquired by common sense, observation and taste. Tim riley talk 09:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• In 1979, Fritz Lorber argued that Payne's date was too early: he discussed the vase among those of the Early Corinthian period (620/615–595/590 BCE),[17] and wrote that the letter-forms show features, such as the serpentine form of the letter iota, characteristic of sixth-century inscriptions.[12]

and he wrote that the letter

Not needed; we have a perfectly good grammatical subject ("he") in the previous clause, and I don't see any ambiguity: there's no other person mentioned here that it could have been. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

<>Correct, only if you drop the preceding comma— and wrote that the letter-forms show features clause can not stand on its own withou a subject noun or pronoun. Pendright (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

There's no need for every clause to be able to stand on its own: some do and some don't. Even then, "wrote" is syntactically part of the main clause: "he discussed the vase ... and wrote [subordinate clause]". That's perfectly standard English. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:57, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with UC on this, as my immediately preceding comment may illustrate. Tim riley talk 09:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Inscription

• The name Meneas (or Menneas) comes first in the list and is written slightly larger and more boldly than the others, and so seems to have been given particular prominence.[10]

and so it seems to have been given particular prominence.[10]

As with the Lorber comment, I don't see the problem or the improvement here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

<>Similar to the above Pendright (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Sale to the British Museum

• In 1865, Panagiotis Efstratiadis, the Ephor General in charge of the Greek Archaeological Service,[h] wrote in his diary of the size and richness of Rhousopoulos's antiquities collection, marking the first time that Rhousopoulos's activities had come to official attention.

marking it the first time that Rhousopoulos's activities had come to official attention.

That doesn't seem to be grammatical: have you read making where marking is written in the text? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

<> I have not, but I do believe I have a grasp of indepedent and dependent clauses whether in British or American English. Similar to the above Pendright (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

And see above: but here I don't see that "marking it the first time that..." actually makes sense. I've certainly never seen it or similar in print, whereas "marking the first time that..." is a common phrase. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

This is it - Pendright (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and your comments, Pendright. Replies inline above. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: I trust you'll not dismiss my responses without first consulting the related rules that apply - thank you. Pendright (talk) 03:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies. I'm afraid I've generally continued to disagree: in the cases we have left, I think we're dealing with matters of personal preference rather than anything grammatically wrong in a clear-cut way. The article has already been reviewed by Tim riley, who is a skilled and elegant writer of BrE: if you still think there are errors here, he might be a good person to weigh in as a third opinion? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

We are indeed dealing with matters of personal preference here. I started to add detailed comments on each of the above points but ran out of steam when I realised that no grammatical rules are at stake. What we have above is our old friend "I'd write it this way and so you must, too". A personal preference for grapes does not entitle one to forbid others to eat plums. I hope these few comments are helpful. Tim riley talk 09:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• I bow to your collective wisdom and support the nomination. Pendright (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• As a disinterested (but by no means uninterested) bystander I take my hat off to Pendright for that gracious response. Absolutely in the spirit of Wikipedia editing, if I may say so. Tim riley talk 16:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  Seconded: thank you, and for your time in reading, reviewing, commenting and discussing. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Doesn't seem like there is much to say here. Is "The Colors of Clay: Special Techniques in Athenian Vase Painting" a high-quality reliable source. Is it just the titles of the sources, or do they seem to cover the sale of the artifact much less than the article does? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus -- On The Colors of Clay, Beth Cohen is a grown-up archaeologist and it's a publication of a very reputable institution -- I think that's a HQRS by any of our normal standards? The Galanakis articles aren't specifically about this aryballos, but about archaeological crime and regulation in Greece more generally: one of the articles is largely focused on the Aineta vase, and it plays bit parts, along with Rhousopoulos and his antics, in the others. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  OK, I guess. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  Got a comment from an archaeologist in family who said that this article seems to cite all the important sources, and looks like it was written by a specialist. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 18:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  High praise indeed -- thank you! UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Ceoil

From the lead,.

• What is an Aryballos, and why is it referred to in many paragraphs as "the vase" without specifying which vase... to put it another way, it would be useful to explain early on what Aryballos and their elements are....especially before you detail the various dimensions in the opening praa in the "description" section, which are...a barrage and exhausting without a grounding on the these things structure. When you say vase later, do you mean a part of the object or are you referring shorthand for the object as a whole.
  • This is true: I've added a bit to the body on this. I don't see how "vase" could be anything other than the whole object -- what's your thinking here? When talking about the spherical bit, the word is "[spherical/globular] body" in this article and any other source. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
• illegal sale in 1865 can we say in lead why the sale was illegal and the grounds for Rhousopoulos prosuceation (rather than "an illegal sale
  • I'm not sure we can (or should), at least here. The reasoning is a bit complicated: it wasn't that selling it was illegal, but that selling it to someone outside Greece was illegal -- but not in itself, only if certain formalities hadn't been followed, and explaining those formalities itself requires us to sketch something of the complexities of C19th Greek archaeological law. What matters here (under WP:SUMMARYSTYLE) is that Rhousopoulos broke the law: interested readers can go to the body to find out precisely how he did that. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
• fined Rhousopoulos for selling the vase in contravention of Greek law - exporting the vase?
  • I'm not sure he strictly exported it (as in, loaded it on a ship and sent it to London), but he sold it to a buyer outside Greece without following the necessary procedures, and that was the crime. Compare "The singer was booed for singing a song against the audience's taste": we understand that singing that particular song was unwelcome, not that the audience disliked all songs. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
• Who is Yannis Galanakis.
  • Here, see User:Caeciliusinhorto/Context considered harmful: where the answer to that question is "a modern expert of the sort you'd expect to be cited here", I've made no introduction. As it happens, he was my teacher. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
• The Athenian art dealer and a professor at the University of Athens Athanasios Rhousopoulos,[5] made the first scholarly publication - "professor at the University of Athens" could just be "academic", and are publications "made"?
  • I'm not sure it can: Professor is a senior rank (Athens used a variation on the German system, where most academics were not professors), and it's relevant that Rhousopoulos was a prominent, respected and powerful figure. "Publication" here is a gerund rather than a concrete noun: compare "made the first ascent of Everest". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Later,

"provided their owners had secured the judgement of a state committee of three experts that the object was "useless" to Greek museums" - seems glib and a (frankly deliberate) misunderstanding/justification by an earlier British translator; can we give a definition of how "useless" was legally defined by the Greek courts. Ceoil (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it was defined, any more than the conventional meaning of the term. I would be utterly amazed, given the generally ad hoc nature of everything to do with archaeological legislation at the time, if a legal definition existed, and far more so if that definition was actually adhered to in practice. It's not a misunderstanding at all: the word in the Greek law is άχρηστον, which means 'useless' by any definition. The translator here, incidentally, is Greek. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Well its pleasingly odd language...adds colour and happy thus to keep. Ceoil (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Very interesting indeed, more later. Ceoil (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you, Ceoil. I note you've made a few edits, mostly very helpful: I've fiddled around with a few where grammar, EngVar, or sense required. Happy to discuss those if you feel the need. To get one thing in early: it's important to be clear when Rhousopoulos made the claims about the vase's provenance, as these predate his coming to the attention of the authorities as a likely criminal: if we just say "according to Rhousopoulos", we leave it possible that he made these claims after being required to prove that he acquired the thing legally. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Satisfied with responses. Support. Very nice work. Ceoil (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• "Aineta herself". Do we need "herself"? Is she likely to be anyone else?
  • I prevaricated on this one in the writing process. Have now taken it out: I don't think it's necessary for comprehension, but must admit I thought both sentences sounded better with it in. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
• Could Yannis Galanakis be introduced in the lead and at first mention in the main article.
  • See reply to Ceoil further up: I suppose I can see an argument here, since he gets a lot more mentions than any other modern expert (a reflection of the fact that he and I would probably comprise the entire membership in an Aineta-aryballos fan club), but we do have a lot of modern scholars name-dropped (Wachter, Amyx, Steinhart, Wirbelauer, Payne, Skaltsa, Guarducci, Gallavotti...), and I'm reluctant to give them all a variation on "the archaeologist/classicist/art historian" (slippery categories in this area anyway) for the reasons that Caeciliusinhorto so eloquently expressed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Take the lead, the lack of introduction leaves the following subjective judgement near meaningless to a reader. Who is Yannis Galanakis? Someone you met down the pub? A reader might surmise that they are someone whom the author believes is authoritative, but this is an encyclopedia, why should a reader have to surmise? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

(As it happens, that's not far from the truth...) There's a lot to that, and a big part of me is persuaded, but I am still unconvinced here. After all, just about every other encyclopaedia or scholarly source would simply say "Galanakis writes..." or just cite him. It's also a bit of a slippery one: Galanakis is a Mycenaean archaeologist by trade who, by virtue of a side interest, is also one of the leading experts on nineteenth-century archaeological crime and legislation in Greece. So "the archaeological historian YG" wouldn't quite be accurate, but "the archaeologist YG" wouldn't really establish any authority (a doctor wouldn't necessarily know anything about the history of medicine), and "the scholar YG" just sounds loose and a bit naff.

I do see the argument from both sides: most encyclopaedias and academic sources are writing for an "insider" audience, or at least one familiar with how scholarly works tend to sound, but we're not. I'll note that we (as an FAC community, rather than you and I) did have this debate at Beulé Gate with another case of an academic whose precise disciplinary position was ambiguous: see Choliamb's points in that FAC, which I think apply here as well. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, well I am not happy to promote it in its current state, and have arguably lent into this point enough that I should recuse, so I shall pass it by my coordinator colleagues. No doubt one of them will be along shortly. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Gog. I’m anticipation that we may end up trying to establish whether this style is in keeping with FAC practice and consensus, I went looking for other FAs that use it — I found, on a fairly cursory scan, Corinna and Brothers Poem in addition to my own Beulé Gate and Anactoria. FAC is not a common-law jurisdiction, of course — it may well be argued that this case is different. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Well Wikipedia is not a reliable source or precedent for anything of course. :-) But I am greatly concerned that there are four mentions of Galanakis, each time giving a firm opinion which a reader would take as read, twice being quoted in the article and once in the lead, and we know nothing about them beyond their name. Not even if they were they alive at the time or are these 20th or 21st century opinions. What are we to make of them contradicting themselves? Footnote f. If they are a lawyer or a judge this is one thing, if an academic specialising in 19th century archive interpretation it is another. I just can't reconcile this with "places the subject in context"; even "it neglects no major facts or details" seems a stretch. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

There might be another solution here — how about “Writing in 2018 on the history of archaeological crime in Greece, Yannis Galanakis called…” or something similar? That would solve the two problems I have — one that it’s hard to find a short, accurate, relevant introduction in this case, for the reasons I set out, and two that I’d rather not have to introduce all the other scholars, who are used much more briefly, because doing so would require either a lot of repetition or misleading variation (e.g. alternating “classicist”, “archaeologist” and “art historian” where there’s no meaningful distinction in practice). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• "the same as the price for which he had sold". There may be a touch of duplication between price and for which he had sold; maybe "price" → 'amount'.
  • I'm not sure I see that as a bad duplication: "price" is often used with the verb "sell" (e.g. "I bought the bike at a low price and sold it for a high one"). However, going for "amount" allows the trimming of a few more words, so done and trimmed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

One comeback above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Gog. For transparency, as I've now made a following edit, I reverted your cut of "in order to": it's quoted material, so I think it's a lesser evil to have a slightly verbose quote than to adulterate one, and adding "..." to remove two short words doesn't strike me as a good trade. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Very nice article indeed. The only very minorest of quibbles is wondering why the British Museum is linked twice in the IB, but that's about it and doesn't affect my support either way. - SchroCat (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Operation Matterhorn logistics

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Drive-by comment

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

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

Support from Serial B-29

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

Aaargh. The Center of Military History has been moving stuff around, and the URLs have changed slightly. I have corrected them. And added a sentence on the reopening of the Burma road. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Nice one. It's a really good read, and provides interesting background on why the US wanted the British Empire to disassemble after the war. Cheers! Tight faded male arse. Decadence and anarchy. A certain style. Smile. 10:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

UC

• The $3 billion cost of design and production (equivalent to $51 billion today),: why not use the inflation template to get a dynamically updating year? Would seem both more durable and would reassure readers that the information remained in date (some Wikipedia articles are twenty years old). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  Used the {{Inflation/year}} template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• The creation of bases for the B-29s in India, Ceylon and China and their maintenance: this is a little ambiguous: was it difficult to maintain the bases or the aircraft? The former seems more likely, so "creation and maintenance of..." would be better.

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• I think we should explain the term "staged" per WP:JARGON.

  Piped to staging area Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• I need some convincing that the design process for the B-29 is appropriate material (under DUEWEIGHT) in an article on a particular operation involving them. We don't start the article on the Battle of Agincourt with a description of the invention of the longbow. Was this the first use of B-29s in action, or some other milestone that obviously feeds in from their development?

  Rewritten the first paragraph to highlight the key points from a logistical point of view. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• the Netherlands East Indies, which were the source of ninety percent of Japan's oil supplies. : I understand the desire not to spend half the article explaining the fundamentals of the Second World War, but I think it's germane here to say that they were under Japanese occupation at the time, since the name gives the impression of their being under Dutch control.

  Deleted the bit about alternative basing in SWPA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Because the war against Germany had priority: link (and perhaps briefly explain) Europe first?

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• the only line of communications with China was over "the Hump", as the air ferry route to China over the Himalayas was called: could cut as indicated? Seems fairly obvious that a line of communication with China would end up in China.

  Deleted as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Until the Burma Road could be reopened by the ground forces, all the fuel, ammunition and supplies used by American forces in China had flown over the Hump.: were these American forces limited to the B-29s we just discussed? It sounds here like there was more involved. If this was the only American presence there, I think it would be good to explain that briefly when we talk about the decision to put the B-29s in China.

  It was not; added a bit about the Fourteenth Air Force. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• with a target date of 1 May 1944: as we have WP:TIES to the United States, the US date order is preferable.

  Per MOS:MILFORMAT: articles on the modern US military, including biographical articles related to the modern US military, should use day-before-month, in accordance with US military usage

• China-Burma-India Theater : dashes, not hyphens (or spaces?).

  It is the form used in all the sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• The Twentieth Air Force: can we introduce who these people were and what their stake in the operation was?

  Oops. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• No full stop needed on the "Black Jack" caption.

  deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• When US Army Engineers: engineers should be LC here.

  De-capped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• To save time and concrete, dispersal areas were omitted: not knowing much about the business of constructing airfields, this went completely over my head.
• Is it the US Army or the U.S. Army? The article varies.

  Used U.S. form consistently. The MOS favours inconsistency. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• a tank farm : What's one of those?

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• A Navy tanker delivers fuel. Master Sergeant Gerino Terenzi (right) is the section foreman, constantly checking his pumping stations and storage tanks.: Is this (and similar) the original caption? It reads a bit like a propaganda release, especially with the "constantly checking..." (and, honestly, naming the individual). This should be clarified if so; if not, we should rewrite with a more encyclopaedic tone.

  Yes, it is the original. Tweaked the caption a little. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• thin, light-weight, "invasion-weight" pipe: perhaps better as "thin, lightweight pipe, known as "invasion-weight", as "invasion-weight" doesn't add or change anything from "thin" and "lightweight" (is the hyphen normal in AmerE? It isn't in BrE).

  Changed to "lightweight", but the AmerEng sources use the hyphen. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• "And the contractors' personnel policies, if they can be so dignified, were blends of inefficiency and time-honored skulduggery.": this quote seems to come out of nowhere. Who said it?

  There is a footnore. Added that it was from the American official historians. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• leaking 100-octane gasoline could be dangerous: leaking any sort of gasoline is dangerous, isn't it?

  100-octane is more volatile than 80-octane. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  Right, but would it be safe to have a leak of 80-octane gasoline? We've implied that it would. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Five days later, a vapor explosion set fire to thatched houses in the village. Seventy-one people died in the ensuing conflagration.: conflagration may not be quite encyclopaedic in tone (sounds more like journalism to me): simply set fire to thatched houses in the village, killing seventy-one people?

  I think that is just too matter-of-fact. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• He personally reconoitered: reconnoitred, but I would also cut personally as potentially WP:PUFFERY.

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• on the black market an American dollar fetched up to 240 Chinese yuan: as phrased, it's difficult to see the comparison here. Suggest "at the official rate of one dollar to 20 yuan".

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Arthur N. Young, the American financial advisor to the Chinese government was critical: comma after government.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• averaged about 25 Chinese yuan per day (worth about $1 in 2023: this doesn't smell right: if the official exchange rate was $1 to 20 yuan, this implies that the US dollar is worth more now than it was in 1940.

  Ooops! Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Transliterated Chinese needs to be in a transliteration template, not a lang template (use that for writing in Chinese script).

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Men, women and children shaped them : this is the first time we've mentioned that the workforce included all three groups; I would have done so when we talked about the assembly of the workforce a few paragraphs ago.

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Neither was well-situated for the proposed B-29 missions: no hyphen in "well situated" here.

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• A sea-air service: endash needed here.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Cargo ships usually went to Calcutta and troop ships to Bombay, which was safer: what was safer, exactly -- was the crime rate in Bombay lower?

  Added "as Calcutta was within range of Japanese bombers". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Let's do a bit more:

• there remained critical shortages in some military occupational specialty codes,: This is slightly military-ese, I think: it's not the code that was in short supply as the people holding it. Suggest "shortages of certain specialist personnel", with a link to MOS if you wish.

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• moved from the port at Calcutta to Assam by rail and barge, from whence they had to be flown across the Hump: not ideal structure with the from whence, given that the antecedent (Assam) is on the other side of a big block of meaning ("by rail and barge"). Grammatically, at least, we could be implying that they were flown from the barges. Suggest "barge; from Asasm, they had to be flown..."

  Tweaked the wording slightly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• 90-days' temporary duty: no hyphen here.

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• that the temporary-duty ATC pilots continued to fly them until they had to return to the United States: the pilots or the aircraft?

  The pilots. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• would receive 1,650 tons out of the first 10,250 short tons: is tons different here to short tons? If not, would cut it: if so, would find a clearer way to say this.

  Added another conversion template. Short tons is an unusual unit, but was used by the ATC for convenience in calculation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• one crewman was wounded. In turn, they claimed to have shot him down, but all the aircraft involved landed safely: Would clarify they as the Japanese; it's a bit tricky in context.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• There were no supplementary rations, no additional personal or orginizational equipment, no clothing: typo. What do we mean by "personal or organizational equipment" -- anything that isn't strictly military? Would "personal or administrative" be clearer and accurate? I also have a slightly bizarre image in my head of these people working in the nude.

  Changed to "spare clothing" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• 2nd Air Transport Squadrons: typo in piped link.

  Looks okay to me. Oh, I see. The page was moved. It is not a typo though; just the official name, which in in American English, which we don't use on Wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• In late 1944, the Japanese Operation Ichi-Go offensive in China probed relentlessly toward the B–29 and ATC bases around Chengdu and Kunming.: not sure about this adverb: a probing action is, by definition, hesitant, at least by comparison with a regular offensive, while relentlessly implies a high level of pace and aggression.

  Changed to "advanced". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• That month, the Burma Road was reopened, and the inaugural convoy reached Kunming on 4 February 1945.: I'm not sure you can have an inaugural convoy on something that is being reopened.

  Changed to "first". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Chennault considered the Twentieth Air Force a liability: might consider reintroducing Chennault; it's been a while.

  Changed to "his Fourteenth Air Force". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• The final quotation is a long chunk of a non-free primary source: these are generally discouraged under a whole range of PAGs. How strong is the encyclopaedic argument for including all of it? It strikes me that most of it (from "Because Japan...") restates factual material that has already been stated in the article.

  Paraphrased it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Generalissima

• Lede solid throughout.
• The cumulative effect of so many advanced features was more than the usual number of problems and defects associated with a new aircraft Might just be me, but this sentence is a little confusingly worded. Maybe something like "The large number of advanced features resulted in more problems and defects than what was usually associated with a new aircraft"?

  Re-worded as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• The "shek" in Chiang Kai-shek is generally lowercased.

  Yes it is. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• Wikilink B-17 at first mention.

  Wikilinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• What was the 653rd Topographic Battalion under? Might be helpful to link.

  The 653rd Engineer Topographic Battalion was a mapmaking arm of the USAAF in CBI, stationed in India. The battalion produced maps for a host of military situations, including the major USAAAF activities in and around China. The battalion also produced "walk-out maps" for the Office of Strategic Service. Unfortunately, it has no article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• Luftwaffe Henschel Hs 293 radio-controlled, rocket-boosted glide bomb I feel this is excessive detail; you can just say a Luftwaffe bomb.

  Changed as suggested.

  • (also you should use the lang template as opposed to just italicizing Luftwaffe)

    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• I'm kinda confused if this uses American or British English; I'd swing towards the latter here, and if so it should be totaling, not totalling.

  American English. Corrected spelling of "totaling". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• Not a military nerd, but reconnoitered was a very unfamiliar term to me; maybe worth wikilinking (perhaps to wikitionary)

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• There were many double spaces and a couple typos - i went through and fixed these, but feel free to double-check.

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

Thanks for your review! And the corrections. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Support - Looks good to me. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Source and image review

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

I use zigzag placement in all my FAs, per MOS:SANDWICH: "Mul­ti­ple im­ages can be stag­gered right and left." Added URL to the map. Raw URLs are normal on commons because there are no citation templates there. I made use of Li, who uses many Chinese sources. One Indian source was used. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo, any come back? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be much more to add. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Tesla Model S

Nominator(s): 750h+ 07:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Second candidacy, following this one. About an electric sedan produced by Tesla, Inc.. Asking previous reviewers @Epicgenius, Femke, and UndercoverClassicist: for a second review on this one. 750h+ 07:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

EG

Thanks for the ping. I looked at these changes and have only one additional concern:

• Environmental impact, paragraph 2: "its 68 percent higher manufacturing emissions are offset within a few years of average driving" - Do we have a more specific time frame besides "a few years"?

This is not a major concern, so my support from the previous FAC still stands. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Not per the source, no. I'm assuming it means half-decade, but that's an assumption. Thanks for the support. 750h+ 14:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Femke and UndercoverClassicist: pinging in case. 750h+ 05:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed, but avoid sandwiching text between images. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by (sorry...) from UC

May not have time for a full review, at least not in the near future, though I note the article seems to be in pretty good nick following its last round at FAC.

In the footnote for "Rollover", we have This means it has a 5.7 percent chance of rolling over.. That needs some more context to me -- is that a 5.7% chance of rolling over while parked on your drive, or while taking a corner at speed? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: late response sorry. fixed the footnote. 750h+ 10:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Generalissima

Lede:

• • I don't think we need the month or location of the first fire for a lede level overview.
  • Should "Best 25 Inventions of the Year" be in quotes? (genuinely not sure here)
    • • bit confused here, since it was never in quotes
  • I feel we should mention the Model S Plaid at some point in the lede if its so important as to change critical opinion on the car.
    • don't really think so since it was one review.
    • Fair enough. - G

Development:

• • Wasn't the Roadster also electric? That should be mentioned for context.
  • Maybe a little bit about the state of electric cars at the time for context? I'm not a car nut, but I remember the Teslas being quite novel at the time.
  • You can combine the $50,000 and $70,000 figures into a single "$50,000–70,000" to avoid needing multiple parenthetical statements of the modern equivalents.
  • Shared a chassis design, or were they taking the same chassis off one car and placing it on the other? I'm assuming the former.
    • to be fair, it's both.
  • Did Franz von Holzhausen have any relevant experience beforehand?
  • I think you can shorten the background context about the Fremont plan - i don't think we need to know when it was built - and avoid having to jump back in time. Maybe something like "Toyota and Tesla announced a partnership and a transfer of an factory in Fremont, California, which had been abandoned by General Motors and Toyota during the Great Recession" — but like, better worded than that.

Design

• • Some stuff here is a bit technical. We don't need a crash course (heh) on all the parts, but if there's a simple way to explain the difference between an induction motor and a permanent magnet synchronous reluctance unit, and what that move accomplished, that'd be nice.
  • I think a portmanteau of "front" and "trunk" could be EFN'ed or even omitted

Models and updates

• • This is all quite solid, good job.
  • Lowest drag coefficient of any automobile or any consumer automobile? That seems crazy if true.
    • This was at the time
  • That bit on the restyled taillights drifts a bit into OR for my tastes; as its such a minor tweak, it might be best to just omit it until a magazine explicitly mentions that.

Technology

• • Also quite solid throughout.
  • What is a "yoke" steering wheel? That isn't really explained.
  • Entirely personal preference here, but I think an image that shows what the supercharger stations looks like would be good context for viewers - we already know what the car looks like by this point.

Environmental impact

• • Since we're citing a claim by Tesla directly in the image caption, it may be good to cite it.

Production and initial deliveries

• • Don't see any problems here.

Safety

• • Reception and legacy

It might be good to try to merge a bit more of these lesser known names and big quotes into general summaries of critical reception - obligatory plug for Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections.

750h+ That's all from me. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 07:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Generalissima: i think i've addressed these, but if you have anything let me know. 750h+ 08:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

BP!

I'm not really familiar with this or a car person, but I will try to read this article tomorrow. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• Ref 183, website isn't linked yet
• What makes CNET reliable? They are treated in WP:VP as low quality for FA.

🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 05:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:RSP CNET was a reliable source before 2020 when it was bought by Red Ventures. All of the sources are from 206 or before. I fixed the other concern, @Boneless Pizza!: 750h+ 20:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I tried to read the article, but I think I dont have any concerns left. So, I Support this FAC. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Source review: Pass

To follow. - SchroCat (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• FN206: Not sure why Emissions has a capital E
• FN273: Ditto the M in Most
• FN279: "Review, Pricing, & Pictures" should all be lower case
• The ISBNs should be formatted in a similar manner (XXX-X-XXXX-XXXX-X, for example)
• You don't need to link the publishers of the books (I'll lay money that someone will remove them at some point in the next year)
• The sources are all appropriate to their required goals.

That's my lot - SchroCat (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@SchroCat: all done. Thanks for the review. i'll try to get to one of yours hopefully within the week. 750h+ 17:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Mount Edziza

Nominator(s): Volcanoguy 17:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

This article is about one of the highest and most prominent volcanic peaks in Canada, as well as one of Canada's highest threat volcanoes. Like my previous FAC, Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex, it cites Jack Souther a lot because he was the only geologist to have studied the mountain in detail. The mountain has received some studies by other scientists since 1992, but they are small in comparison. With that being said, there doesn't seem to be much data regarding the retreat of Mount Edziza's glaciers. Volcanoguy 17:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Support by JJE

• "was likely destroyed by a violent, climactic eruption in the geologic past" climatic may need some explanation. And "likely" should be somewhere else - was it destroyed, or not?

  I don't see a problem where "likely" is; the source claims it was "probably destroyed" during a violent eruption. Volcanoguy 20:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• "that is characterized by" I dunno, are ice caps characterized by their outlet glaciers, or do they simply have them?

  Revised. Volcanoguy 19:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• Two "cover" in the first sentence of the glaciation subsection.

  I don't see a problem here; "covered" and "covers" are not the same words. Volcanoguy 19:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• "The present trend towards a more moderate climate put an end to the neoglacial period in the 19th century which has resulted in rapid glacial recession throughout the Mount Edziza volcanic complex" might warrant some subdivision.

  Subdivision? Volcanoguy 21:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  Splitting the sentence, it's quite long. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

  It's not much longer than previous sentences. Volcanoguy 20:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

  A bit over the line to "too long", in my opinion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  Added a semicolon. Volcanoguy 23:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• "in diameter " -> "wide"?

  Source uses in diameter. Volcanoguy 18:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Is this a high-quality reliable source?

  You tell me since you've used it in the Socompa article (i.e. Argentina and Chile North Ultra-Prominences"). Volcanoguy 20:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  Frankly, I have been looking for reasons to ditch it from there too b/c it doesn't seem to be that high-quality, but I am not the only editor there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  I've removed the peaklist source from the article. Volcanoguy 20:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• "its symmetry having been broken" can this be shortened.

  Current wording is to prevent close paraphrasing. Volcanoguy 18:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• "Inside the summit crater of the stratovolcano is a succession of at least four lava lakes that are exposed in the breached eastern crater rim" I figure this can be shortened somehow.

  Current wording is to prevent close paraphrasing. Volcanoguy 18:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• I kinda wonder if Mount Churchill should be mentioned in the Hazards section - while it isn't actually in Canada, it is probably the most significant volcano in/around the country.

  Source doesn't mention Churchill. Volcanoguy 20:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  It turns out Churchill has a hazard score similar to Cayley, Price and Edziza. Volcanoguy 17:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've mentioned Churchill in the hazards section. Volcanoguy 18:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• "In or before 1974, two Tahltan men named Johnny Edzerza and Hank " etc seems like it fits the etymology section better than here? Avalanches and natural disasters occur everywhere. Ditto the names section.

  I don't think so since the etymology section focuses on the origin of the name Edziza, not the history of the mountain. Volcanoguy 18:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  After thinking about it some more I agree the names section should be merged with the etymology section so that has been done. Volcanoguy 16:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Did these mineral explorations get to any point?

  Not that I know of. Volcanoguy 18:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• The caption of File:Tahltan dancers.jpg is kind of WP:SYNTH - there is a difference between the volcano providing resources for millennia to people who view it as sacred, and the volcano itself being sacred for millennia.

  WP:SYNTH doesn't mention captions but I've revised the caption of this image. Volcanoguy 19:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Are "The New B.C. Roadside Naturalist: A Guide to Nature along B.C. Highways" and "mam, Naiyar (2003). Dictionary of Geology and Mineralogy. McGraw–Hill Companies. ISBN 0-07-141044-9." high-quality reliable sources?

  Yes. Volcanoguy 20:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Did some plagiarism spotchecking, didn't notice anything.

Spot-checked a bit too. Going to qualify that prose is often not my strong suit in FAC work and some overcomplicated sentences need to be spotted and cleaned. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Adding support, although I may revisit depending on Eewilson's prose notes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Meaning? Volcanoguy 05:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Meaning that I don't trust my own assessment of prose quality as much as some other people's, so I might reconsider if they find significant issues. Don't think that's particularly likely, though. For the coordinators, that means that this is a support, not a weak support or anything. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Updated to reflect Eewilson's review. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Images

File:Tahltan dancers.jpg has a bare URL. Didn't notice anything else. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

A bare URL isn't a problem is it? Volcanoguy 15:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

It can become a problem when websites are redesigned. Which is a common occurrence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I've added "BC Archives" with the url but I wasn't able to archive the url. Volcanoguy 17:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

That works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Generalissima

I admire your dedication to this volcanic complex. I'm gonna do a prose readthrough.

• Lede is good. Only note is that you don't really give a description for what Ice Peak is, so it reads as an unrelated mountain rather than the southern peak of the mountain.

  Clarified. Volcanoguy 18:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Under etymology: I wouldn't call those "misspellings", since they seem to predate a standardized spelling. I'd say "obsolete spellings" or something of that ilk.

  Done. Volcanoguy 17:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Additionally, maybe we could move the native name of Ice Mountain/Tenh Dẕetle to this section, so all name-related stuff is right at front? I would rephrase this to something like "its Tahltan name Tenh Dẕetle, translating to "Ice Mountain" in English" rather than the reverse.

    Reworded. Volcanoguy 17:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Geography and geomorphology is solid. As a rock, you could say.
  • "only one worthy of note" I realize the source might not say, but I wouldn't know if there were actually other ice caps or not on the plateau.

    Actually, the source directly states "Although nearly the entire area was ice-covered during the Pleistocene, only the glacier complex on Edziza Peak is presently worthy of note." Volcanoguy 17:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  • I don't think we need the "respectively" after listing the names of two ridges and two identically named creeks.

    Removed. Volcanoguy 16:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Bit of sea of blue on "Drainage", where [Stikine River] [watershed] appears to be a single link [Stikine River watershed]. You could link watershed somewhere else, or create a Redirect with possibilities from "Stikine River watershed" -> "Stikine River".

    Created redirect. Volcanoguy 18:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• I'll admit my geology knowledge is limited, but this seems pretty intelligible to me; you do a good job explaining it.
  • Underlying -> Basement (geology) was a bit confusing at first to find out what I needed to click to get to the Basement (geology) page. Maybe rephrase so the first sentence contains the word "basement"?

    Maybe it doesn't need to be linked at all? Volcanoguy 18:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• The last paragraph of Hazards and monitoring seems to not match with the citations that well. For instance, the Canadian National Seismograph Network and its location is not mentioned at all, nor is the mountain itself! Is there any other sourcing we could use here?

  The source doesn't mention the name Canadian National Seismograph Network but it does mention the seismograph network in general. Also, the source claims no Canadian volcanoes are monitored sufficiently which means Edziza isn't monitored sufficiently either. I'm using common sense here. Volcanoguy 17:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Optionally, I'd advise linking Tahltan at the beginning of the human history section since its quite a ways from its first mention.
• Image captions which scan as full sentences should end in periods.

  I think I got them. Volcanoguy 18:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Accessibility is a bit hard to read due to an excessive amount of road and trail names (many of which are quite similar). Do we need to list all of the lakes and creeks these trails pass by?

  Without the names it would be unclear which is what. Volcanoguy 16:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Volcanoguy: That's my piece. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Generalissima: I've responded to all of your points. Volcanoguy 18:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me IMO, Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Eewilson

My review will be here, mostly source review. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

It turns out I'm doing a prose reading and review as well. I have my notes in progress offline. I won't be able to do anything on this Tuesday because I will be out of town. After the prose review, I will do a source review. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 05:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Support. My review is complete, and I support the Mount Edziza article becoming a Featured Article. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Prose review

• Infobox – Infobox looks good – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Need |map_alt=

    What should the alt text be? Volcanoguy 17:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  Make it say what someone who can't see would need to know. Your photos have good alt text. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 01:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Eewilson: Added alt text for the map. Volcanoguy 16:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

  Perfect! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• Lead – Lead looks good – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Mineral exploration just southeast of Mount Edziza commenced in at least the 1950s where gold, silver and other metals were discovered. This mineral exploration was conducted by several mineral exploration companies into the early 1990s. – maybe a few too many "mineral exploration"s?

    Replaced "mineral exploration companies" with "mining companies". Volcanoguy 22:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

    Much better. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• Location and climate – section looks good – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Mount Edziza rises from within the middle of the Big Raven Plateau, a barren plateau in Cassiar Land District bounded on the west by Mess Valley, on the north by Klastline Valley, on the east by Kakiddi Valley and on the south by Chakima and Walkout valleys, the latter two of which are separated by mountainous terrain. – Are the latter two Klastline Valley and Kakiddi Valley or Chakima Valley and Walkout Valley?

    Chakima Valley and Walkout Valley. Volcanoguy 17:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

    Do something to make that just a little clearer, even if you repeat the names or add a sentence. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

    I've just removed it since it's not important. Volcanoguy 17:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

    Okay, cool. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  • The following sentence seems out of scope of this article and can be removed: This complex of shield volcanoes, stratovolcanoes, lava domes, calderas and cinder cones forms a broad, intermontane plateau at the eastern edge of the Tahltan Highland, a southeast-trending upland area extending along the western side of the Stikine Plateau.

    It's not out of scope if Mount Edziza is a part of it, not to mention the Big Raven Plateau is mentioned in the article which is a subplateau of the intermontane plateau. Volcanoguy 17:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

    Yeah, it makes sense. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Instead of using "as well as" in consists of several upland summits as well as wide river valleys and deeply incised plateaus, replace it with a comma unless it changes the meaning.

    Done. Volcanoguy 17:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

    Okay, cool. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Next part of this paragraph needs to be in summary style to fit the scope of this article; in other words, pick out the parts relevant to Mount Edziza and remove the rest. It is one of seven ecosections comprising the Boreal Mountains and Plateaus Ecoregion, a large ecological region of northwestern British Columbia encompassing high plateaus and rugged mountains with intervening lowlands. Boreal forests of black and white spruce occur in the lowlands and valley bottoms of this ecoregion whereas birch, spruce and willow form forests on the mid-slopes. Extensive alpine altai fescue covers the upper slopes, but barren rock is abundant at higher elevations.

    It's all relevant since the geography and flora of this ecosection surrounds Mount Edziza. Volcanoguy 17:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

    I see it now. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 17:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• Glaciation – section looks good – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Several small outlet glaciers extending down to altitudes of 1,700 to 2,000 metres (5,600 to 6,600 feet) drain the ice cap. – "extending down to altitudes" is confusing. What does this mean?

    Changed "altitudes" to "elevations". Volcanoguy 18:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

    So clear. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• Satellitic features – okay, this section is fine; I guess there is no way around the overwhelming number of elevations. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • about 2,285 metres (7,497 feet) in elevation – those numbers seem precise to be considered "about".

    Not according to the source. Volcanoguy 16:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

    Ha ha okay. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  • The northeastern side of Mount Edziza contains The Pyramid – is this one of those situations where a proper name begins with "the" but we don't capitalize it unless it begins a sentence (E.g., "The Beatles" is "the Beatles", etc.)?

    No, sources capitalize it within sentences. Volcanoguy 17:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

    See MOS:THECAPS in general – the would not be capitalized in running text – but this is an exception in that it is a proper name of a geographical unit (MOS:GEOUNITS), so I believe the way you have it is correct per the MOS. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  • I'm wondering about the purpose of this section. Are all of the satellitic features a part of Mount Edziza? Or are they a part of Big Raven Plateau. Instead of a point on the map, is Mount Edziza actually identifiable by a large outline that would contain all of these features?

    They're all subfeatures of Mount Edziza, but since some of them are near the base of Mount Edziza instead of directly on it, they can be considered subfeatures of the Big Raven Plateau as well. Volcanoguy 16:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

    I've retitled this section to make it clearer that these are subfeatures. Volcanoguy 18:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC) 18:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

    I'm not aware of there being an outline for Mount Edziza. Volcanoguy 18:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

    I think Subfeatures does make it clearer. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  • The elevations of all of these features are exaustive and actually exhausting to read. Are they necessary? Are they necessary in the prose or could they be relegated to footnotes?

    I don't see why their elevations shouldn't be mentioned in the prose when the elevations of both Ice Peak and Mount Edziza's summit are previously mentioned in the article. Not mentioning their elevations brings up the question "how high are these features"? Volcanoguy 16:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

    I will look at it again tonight to see if it was just me last night, or if I have trouble with it tonight and can make suggestions. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• Composition – section looks good – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't the footnote for fractional crystallization be right next to it instead of at the end of the sentence?

    Yes, not sure how that happened. Volcanoguy 19:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

    Okay, cool. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• Hazards and monitoring – section looks good – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Seems like this should be a level-2 section instead of level-3 within Geology.

    Volcanic hazards and volcano monitoring are topics of geology; see geological hazard. Volcanoguy 17:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

    Okay, cool. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• Indigenous peoples – section looks good – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Most of this section is about the Tahltan people and the use of the volcano's obsidian. I'd like to see the term "Edziza obsidian" with wikilink used even earlier in the first paragraph, and for it to be more clear if "this obsidian", "this volcanic glass", "Pyramid obsidian", are all "Edziza obsidian" or just obsidian in general.

    I've mentioned Edziza obsidian a bit earlier in the paragraph but I don't see the need of making "Pyramid obsidian" more clear since The Pyramid is previously mentioned in the "Subfeatures" section and the Pyramid Formation is already described as a stratigraphic unit of Mount Edziza. Volcanoguy 18:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  I had not understood that Pyramid obsidian was from the Pyramid. See if you can clear all of this obsidian up so the reader knows what is what. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  The Pyramid is part of the Pyramid Formation (see Pyramid Formation section) and does state that two obsidian flows occur on The Pyramid. Volcanoguy 16:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  Changed "Pyramid obsidian" to "this obsidian". Volcanoguy 17:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• Mineral exploration – section looks good – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
  • This section begins with Just southeast of Mount Edziza was the Spectrum or Red Dog property, and the past tense isn't clarified in the section. Could you explain? Is the land gone? Is the "was" in reference to the "Spectrum or Red Dog property"?

    That's explained in the next section about protected areas. Volcanoguy 16:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

    "was an area once known as"? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

    Done. Volcanoguy 16:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  • I think there needs to be a bit of an explanation of what the "Spectrum or Red Dog property" is. Is this one property with two names or two properties? Should it be "Spectrum and Red Dog properties"? "Red Dog" is never used again in the article, so what is its significance?

    Red Dog was another name for the Spectrum property. Volcanoguy 16:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

    "also called Red Dog"? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

    I've just removed Red Dog since it's not needed. Volcanoguy 16:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Can "mineral claims" be wikilinked to something – perhaps Mineral rights?

    Done. Volcanoguy 17:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  • on the Spectrum property began in at least 1957 when Torbit Silver Mines – clarify "in at least"? Do you mean "as early as"?

    Done. Volcanoguy 16:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• Protected areas – section looks good – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
  • This small remnant of the recreation area lied east of Mount Edziza until 2003 when it was disestablished. – is "lied" correct grammar? Actually, I'm not sure you want any form of lay or lie here. Maybe just "was"? Also, "remnant" implies "small", and you already explained its size, so just remove the word "small".

    Done. Volcanoguy 19:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• Accessibility – section looks good – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Are Buckley Lake Trail, Klastline River Trail, and Buckley Lake to Mowdade Lake Route all horse trails?

    Don't know. Volcanoguy 16:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  Are any of the named trails in this section horse trails? The section talks about horse trails and doesn't clarify, so the reader is sort of led to believe that those trails are horse trails. If they are not, or if it's unknown, clarify these are two different topics: horse trails and other trails. Alternatively, find out if horses are allowed on those trails. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  Well, the Buckley Lake and Klastline River trails seem to be the only trails into Mount Edziza Provincial Park from surrounding roads so they most likely can be used for horseback riding. The BC Parks website claims horseback riding is promoted in Mount Edziza Provincial Park and those two trails enter the park. Volcanoguy 16:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I may have more for prose, but my brain is done for the day, and I wanted to get this out to you. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay on responding to your changes for my prose review. I want to get another good read in, checking off the things you've done and seeing if there is anything else. It's looking great! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I am fairly certain that WP:CITE says we need to stick to one citation style in an article (MOS:CITEVAR?). I believe this means that (in addition to being consistent with cs1, cs2, Chicago, ALA, etc.) you should not combine shortened footnotes with list-defined references in the same article. If this is the case, pick one and modify your references accordingly, or find something that says I am misinterpreting (I have searched). I personally prefer sfn, but it's your choice as long as it's consistent. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

My sense is that at FAC we accept such a style combination (sfn+list defined references) when some sources are paginated and others aren't. Whether we should accept it is a different question, of course. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen both used in FA articles. Volcanoguy 17:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

It does seem like if FAs are representing our best work, they should completely follow the guidelines. It seems like I have brought this up before in an FAC review.

Check out what I found yesterday: talk page templates created in March 2023 in Category:Sfn usage style notice templates. Does anyone know the history? All but {{Note short footnote style 3 in use}} seem to support what I am saying, and it seems to contradict the others. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Eewilson: I'm not familiar with converting website links to use the sfn format, only books, reports, journals, etc. Volcanoguy 15:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It's no different really, but let me get awake and think about our referencing options. I did some research into those templates late last night (really early this morning) and want to write up what I found (with hopefully only a minor tangent). – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

My main problem is that several of the website sources in this article use the same publisher (e.g. Government of British Columbia, BC Geographical Names, Global Volcanism Program, Natural Resources Canada, United States Geological Survey). Volcanoguy 16:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Let's look first at some that you have as list-defined but that could easily be converted to shortened footnotes because they are in author-date format. Here are the first few:

• Souther, J. G. (1988). "1623A" (Geologic map). Geology, Mount Edziza Volcanic Complex, British Columbia. 1:50,000. Cartography by M. Sigouin, Geological Survey of Canada. Energy, Mines and Resources Canada. doi:10.4095/133498.
• Holland, Stuart S. (1976). Landforms of British Columbia: A Physiographic Outline (PDF) (Report). Government of British Columbia. pp. 49, 50. ASIN B0006EB676. OCLC 601782234. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2018-11-14.
• D.R. Piteau and Associates (1988). Geochemistry and Isotope Hydrogeology of the Mount Edziza and Mess Creek Geothermal Waters, British Columbia (Report). Open File 1732. Geological Survey of Canada. pp. 3, 4. doi:10.4095/130715.
• Field, William O. (1975). "Coast Mountains: Boundary Ranges (Alaska, British Columbia, and Yukon Territory)". Mountain Glaciers of the Northern Hemisphere. Vol. 2. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. p. 43. Retrieved 2023-08-23.

and others. After these are dealt with, let's see what's left. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Eewilson: I've converted all the source to use sfn. Volcanoguy 02:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks great! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Eewilson, is that a pass for the source review? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

yes. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• There are two p/pp errors.

  Fixed. Volcanoguy 18:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• Denton 1975 needs a page range.

  Why? Volcanoguy 18:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:CITEHOW

That claims chapter number or page numbers for the chapter are optional. Volcanoguy 19:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Not, IMO, at FAC. ISBNs are also given as "(optional)", but try skipping those and see what reviewers and coordinators think.

Done. Volcanoguy 20:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• "outlet glaciers which stretch out to lower altitudes." "stretch out to" sounds a bit unencyclopedic to me. 'extend to'?

  Done. Volcanoguy 18:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• "and minor trachyte." This reads as if there is a word missing at the end.

  Added "ejecta" at the end. Volcanoguy 18:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Mineral exploration just southeast of Mount Edziza commenced in at least the 1950s" isn't grammatical. Maybe 'Mineral exploration just southeast of Mount Edziza had commenced by the 1950s at the latest' or similar.

  Done. Volcanoguy 18:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Teddy Wynyard

Nominator(s): AA (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Placeholder

• Putting my name down to review this one when I have sufficient time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
  • One drive-by comment - as per the footnote immediately below them, football stats shown in infoboxes are "Club domestic league appearances and goals" only. As his Corinthians appearances were in friendlies, these should not be shown (and for the other teams you can remove the ?s and simply show blanks as league football did not even exist in that time period) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

    @ChrisTheDude I have removed the football teams/stats from the infobox, as I don't think the other teams need to be shown as they were not league clubs, and they are mentioned in the prose. AA (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Teddy_Wynyard_c1900.jpg: when and where was this first published?
  • Comment. @Nikkimaria: so far, the only version of this photo I can find is on ESPNcricinfo here, which attributes it to Hampshire County Cricket Club. Will see if I can find a publishing date, though undoubtedly prior to 1908 as he is wearing a Hampshire county cap, and his playing career with Hampshire ended in 1908. AA (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• File:Teddy_Wynyard_Vanity_Fair_25_August_1898.jpg needs a US tag
  • Done. Tag added. AA (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• File:Old_carthusians_1881.jpg: source link is dead, when and where was this first published, and what research was undertaken to try to identify the author?
  • Comment. It would appear to be from this source using the Wayback machine. AA (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
    • Comment. I've conducted a reverse image search, which doesn't bring up anything not searchable through certain keywords in Google. I can drop a message on the WP:FOOTBALL talkpage and see if anyone knows if it might be from a book. AA (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
      • Comment. @Nikkimaria:. I have contacted Charterhouse School who have confirmed this picture comes from an album in the Charterhouse School archives, and have provided permission for the image to be used in the article. I have filled out a reproduction agreement form and sent this back to their archivist. How do I proceed from here in updating the Wikicommons page? AA (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
        • VRT would usually be the way to go for documenting permission. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

AA, have you resolved this? If so, could you ping Nikkimaria. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I have had no reply from Charterhouse with regard to the template VRT requires. AA (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild I have emailed them again. They are away until 8th January (and may periodically check emails, according to the out of office). Shall I remove the image for now, then re-add once the email template for release has been sent back to me? AA (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

That would seem sensible. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild done :) AA (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "The son of the soldier and judge William Wynyard, he was born" - I feel like the body should "start afresh" after the lead, so I would be tempted to say "The son of the soldier and judge William Wynyard, Edward George Wynyard was born"
  • Comment. Have gone with your suggestion, it reads much nicer and with a better flow. AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• "It was speculated, that had he not pursued a military career, he may have achieved" - comma is in the wrong place, it should be "It was speculated that, had he not pursued a military career, he may have achieved"
  • Comment. Comma moved about! AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• "His actions were praised by General's Sir Robert Low and Sir George White" - there should not be an apostrophe in the plural form of "general"
  • Done. I have removed the apostrophe. AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• "In recognition of his actions, he was appointed to command a company of the Welsh Regiment" - it was spelt "Welch" in the lead......?
  • Done. I have changed to Welsh in the lead as it wasn't known as the Welch Regiment until 1920. AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• "By the time he had returned home later in 1887, Hampshire had lost their first-class status since his departure for India, following a number of poor seasons." - I feel like the words "since his departure for India" are a bit redundant here
  • Done. Removed. I did toy with putting in "By the time he had returned home later in 1887, Hampshire had lost their first-class status in 1885, following a number of poor seasons", but it doesn't quite read right I don't think. AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• "who had noted that both Wynyard and fellow soldier Francis Quinton, had been missing" - that comma should not be there
  • Done. Nice spot on the rogue comma! AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• "With the outbreak of Second Boer War" => "With the outbreak of the Second Boer War"
  • Done. AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• "During the winter which proceeded the 1904 season" => "During the winter which preceded the 1904 season"
  • Comment. The final paragraph of the previous section talks briefly about the 1904 season. The section which follows begins by talking about his tour West Indies which happened in the winter which followed the 1904 season. AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
    • Gotcha. In that case I think it should simply say "the winter which followed the 1904 season". I'm not 100% sure that "proceeded" can be used as a transitive verb in the sense of "came after" (i.e. can you really say "Thursday was the day which proceeded Wednesday"......?) - if it can it must be an archaic/obscure usage and I cite myself as an example of it being confusing to readers ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
      • Comment. Yeah, I've always disliked using "proceeding", I'd prefer something more fancy! Have changed it :) AA (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• "with Wynyard heading the teams batting averages" => "with Wynyard heading the team's batting averages"
  • Done. AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• " she had become stuck under the ice following a mountain torrent.;" - there's a stray full stop before the semi-colon
  • Done. A good spot! AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• "forming his own club, "The Jokers" which was drawn" => "forming his own club, "The Jokers", which was drawn "
  • Done, comma inserted. AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• These very minor points are all I got - ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude:. Many thanks for your comments :) Please find my responses above. AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support on prose -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan

Hi AA, my comments:

• "played at domestic level": "played at the domestic level"?
  • Done. AA (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• Link "Warwick Militia" to Royal Warwickshire Regiment, both in the lead and body?
  • Done. Thanks for the suggestion, I was unsure as to their connection! AA (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• "he enrolled in the fee-paying Oxford Military College": what year?
  • Comment. I can't find a specific year(s) mentioned, nor do there appear to be any records available to view online from the college (it went bust in the mid-1890s). The 1885 book Oxford Military College looks like it might be a register, but the only UK copy is 200 miles away in North Wales!!! AA (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• Link "India General Service Medal" to India General Service Medal (1854–95)?
  • Done. I'll add the redlink the MILHIST article request page. AA (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  @AssociateAffiliate, the link here should actually be India General Service Medal (1854); I had transcribed the title improperly. Also, could you respond to points number 3, 6 and 10-12? Matarisvan (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment. I will amend, just working my way through them. Have been on a radiology reporting course most of the day, been taking one point at a time during breaks! AA (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Link "Thornhil" to Thornhill, Southampton in both lead and body?
  • Done AA (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• "1897 ... prestigious North v South fixture" and "1900 ... North v South fixture": who won, and what was Wynyard's score?
  • Done. "Prestigious"... North v South? Not how I would describe it... yikes, that should have been Gentlemen v Players! Amended, and summary of his performances commented on. Have double-checked the article, no other glaring mishaps from me :) AA (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• "alluded to be the": remove the "be"?
  • Done. AA (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• "heavy defeat on the Jamaicans": by how many runs/wickets?
  • Done. Victory margin added. AA (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• "though did earn selection": "though he did earn selection"?
  • Done. AA (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• "he struggled against the leg spin": what were his scores?
  • Done. Have given more of an overview of his struggles on the tour, mentioning his average and that he only passed fifty once in six matches. AA (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• "representative matches for London": What London FC was this? Consider linking if details available?
  • Comment. The source isn't specific. I would hazard a guess Warsop is referring to a London-wide county representative team (likely post-1889), similar to other county representative teams? AA (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• "captained Hampshire": was this Southampton F.C.?
  • Comment. The source is very specific that he captained Hampshire in three sports (cricket, football, hockey). There's no mention of Wynyard in any of the annals of Southampton F.C., so I am pretty certain it was for a representative county side; however, there is no mention of dates, but with the formal organisation of football in Hampshire occurring in 1889, I'd say it was probably after then. AA (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• "Wynyard was survived by his wife": do we have her name?
  • Done. We have her name and their year of marriage, and they had just one child. AA (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• Girdlestone, Hardman and Hay 1911; Humphris and Creagh 1924 need locations of publication, though for the first it would just be a formality.
  • Done. AA (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

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

@Matarisvan many thanks for your comments. Please find above my responses :) AA (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

AA, can support on prose. Will try to do spot checks soon. Btw, are your recent FACs part of a featured topic? Say cricketers and soldiers, or team members of Hampshire or the MCC during a particular year? Matarisvan (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan cheers! A lot of my recent expansions have been Hampshire cricketers who were also soldiers, the two are sort of where my interests lie. I have several more Hampshire cricketers who were soldiers lined up to bring to FAC in the near future! No such featured topic though! Doesn't a featured topic have to have a featured parent article for the other articles to branch from? AA (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Please note: I will be out of the UK from 19/11 to 24/11, so might not be able to respond during that time. AA (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

AA, if you are back, perhaps you could address these comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Done! AA (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Matarisvan, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Gog the Mild, I can support this nomination based on my prose review. Matarisvan (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Source review

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

• @Jo-Jo Eumerus: thanks for your comment. I consider the late 19th century newspapers to be reliable, none of them deviate from the narrative of the article. In fact, I'd consider them more reliable than modern-day cricket coverage, which is lacking and often shoddily written! CricketArchive is regarded as an authoritative source. It's run by the people from The Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians, who are trusted by the International Cricket Council to maintain and expand the statistical and biographical history of players, so it is a highly reliable source. AA (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Jo-Jo Eumerus just wondering where you might stand with your review? AA (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  Referencing this decade-old post here since it and what I've heard about British newspapers in other occasions (e.g Leveson Inquiry) are the reasons why I am so dubious about the British newspapers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  Admittedly, modern British media is "gutter", which is why I turned off long ago! But older newspapers and their editors arguably more integrity and less spin. In fairness to the BNA references used, they are all from reputable (per WP:SOURCE) Hampshire-based newspapers (with two in Buckinghamshire, who cover his life and death there, as that is where he retired to). None of them make any controversial or outlandish claims, simply backing up the chronology of events (such as him succeeding Russell Bencraft as captain in 1895 [ref 33], or being recruited by the South African Cricket Association in 1908 [ref 64]). AA (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Jo-Jo Eumerus any followup for this? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  I am not really sure. Perhaps this needs a second or third opinion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  Jo-Jo, the discussion you linked actually gives cricket facts as an example of the sort of thing British newspapers can be relied on for. Is there some usage in the article that you're doubtful about? If they are being used solely for straightforward and unsurprising facts I think they should be treated as reliable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

  No, it's a general concern I have whenever I see these newspapers mentioned. But if they can be relied on for cricket stuff, then I guess my question is answered. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Source review, 2nd or 3rd opinion

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

Coord note

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

Comments from Mike Christie

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

• "partaking as a tobogganist in the International Championship": I think "participating" is an apter word.
  • Done. Agree, "participating" is much better. AA (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• "As a career soldier, Wynyard was commissioned into the Warwick Militia in September 1879": I think this would read more naturally as just "A career soldier, Wynyard was ...".
  • Done. It does read more naturally, the "as" is unnecessary. AA (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• "Wynyard cleverly disguised himself": we shouldn't say "cleverly" in Wikipedia's voice. I'd just cut it -- the cleverness is apparent in the success of the disguise.
  • Done. He fooled them all! AA (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• "Wynyard retired in 1903": suggest "Wynyard retired from the army in 1903", since the previous sentences are about cricket rather than his military career.
  • Done. Per your suggestion, now makes it clearer to the reader. AA (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• Is the "[sic]" in "all round [sic]" because it's normally "all-round"? If so I don't think it's needed. Or are you concerned that someone will correct it, thinking it's a typo? A hidden comment would probably suffice for that".
  • Done. It should be "all-rounder", but I have no removed "[sic]" and inserted a hidden comment so nobody changes it! AA (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• The subsection is titled "Early first-class career", but some of these matches were not first-class -- some of the Hampshire matches, of course, as you state, and perhaps some of the ones in India? Could we make it clearer if any of the other matches were not first-class?
  • Done. I have expanded a sentence to make it clear the matches in India were not first-class. Haven't done that with the school matches, as I think that is more obvious! AA (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• "With his presence in the regimental team, it is believed they only lost one match between 1883 and 1890": this wording implies his presence is probably the reason they lost only one match; does the source make this assertion?
  • Comment. The source says: "...whilst he was with the 8th King's Regiment in India, we believe that they only lost one match between 1883-90, and this is easily understood when we learn that the Old Carthusian averaged 100 runs per innings to his own bat. I have taken that as the source making the assertion that it was his presence in the team which was largely to thank for that record. AA (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• " this had been alluded to the Hampshire committee in 1897": presumably this should read "alluded to by the"?
  • Done. Good spot! AA (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• "This was exemplified by the fact that he made just three appearances for the county ..." I don't think "exemplified" is quite right here. Suggest cutting this to just "He made just three ..." as the previous sentences have told the reader what is coming.
  • Done. Hmm, yes, it has already set the stage so this is unnecessary. AA (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• I copyedited a sentence in the last paragraph of the "Hampshire's return ..." section, starting "His retirement", but I think it's still not quite right. It was a long and complex sentence, and it's now two sentences, which I think is an improvement, but "Wynyard was assisting in running" is a bit ugly. I cut the mention of Lords as unnecessary but perhaps it should be returned?
  • Comment. Yeah, each time I convinced myself it was alright, it suddenly didn't look alright! Now reads "...which Wynyard assisted in running at Lord's". How does that read? AA (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• "though given his lack of appearances during the tour he was mostly utilised in the touring team as a reserve player": this doesn't make sense to me -- it seems to be saying that because he made few appearances he was used as a reserve player, but it would be logical the other way round. What does the source actually say?
  • Comment. The source says "It seems obvious that he was mainly selected as a reserve player, as he played in only two first-class matches..." I have reworded and shortened the sentence. AA (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• '... and "a fine, free hitter" who "used a great variety of strokes, especially those in front of the wicket".[68] It was noted that he was effective in utilising a number of different strokes ...': The second sentence repeats Wisden; I'd cut one or the other.
  • Done. Have cut the second mention and left the part which talks about his developing a method of hitting left-handed bowlers over cover-point. AA (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• "she had become stuck under the ice following a mountain torrent": I don't understand what happened to her -- "following" implies she was walking along beside a stream.
  • Comment. I have changed "stuck" → "drawn". The source and other reports of the time sadly are not specific as to what she was doing by the stream to end up in such a predicament! AA (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

History of infant schools in Great Britain

Nominator(s): Llewee (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

What if a history article but with cute pictures?

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

@Llewee: you're supposed to wait 2 weeks before starting another nominations. It's been five days. {{@FAC}} 750h+ 23:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

FrB.TG, said that doesn't apply in this case when they closed the last nomination--Llewee (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Just saw that. My bad 750h+ 02:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Support from Crisco 1492

• My support from the previous nomination still stands. I'm seeing that discussion of Ireland has been removed, and I think the change in scope has helped keep the article more specific.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

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

• "It was somewhat common for children" – you like the word "somewhat" somewhat: it crops up five times in your text. Like "however", "somewhat" is usually better omitted. I think the prose would be less woolly without any of the five here.

  reworded to take out the somewhats, in some cases I've tried to keep the meaning the somewhat was conveying--Llewee (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• "However, the societies did not aim to cater for the younger age group" – you are even keener on "however" than on "somewhat" – there are eight "however"s throughout the text, and you could, and I suggest should, lose at least the second, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh of them.

  I've gotten rid of most of them. I'm not sure if they are the ones you suggested as I lost count a bit.--Llewee (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• "Various other figures also established infant schools and wrote books about the subject. David Turner, an academic, wrote ..." – I think it would be helpful to your readers to make it clear that Turner was not one of those writing contemporary books about the subject but was writing in 1970.

  added "who studied 19th-century infant schools" after "an academic"--Llewee (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• "By the mid 1830's" – does the source really have the naff apostrophe?
• "some schools were too dominated by religion" – a bit judgemental without a citation.

  I have taken that bit out as the point is also said in more neutral way in the quote.--Llewee (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• "W. B. Stephens, an historian" – unless you are aged 90+ and cling to the pronunciations 'otel and 'istorian, I'd make "an" "a".
• "According to historians Helen May, Baljit Kaur and Larry Prochner" – clunky false title.

  dealt with in the same way to the David Turner issue--Llewee (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• "He was not primarily interested" – the last person mentioned was "the pupil", and it would be as well to replace the pronoun with the name.

  done--Llewee (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• "some of the questions indicate to desire to avoid rote learning –should the first "to" be "a"?

  done--Llewee (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• "The number of children under seven in schools ... In 1840 the Council on Education in England and Wales" – the whole of this paragraph is given a single citation. Does it cover all 196 words?

  I've broke this and other long chunks of text into multiple citations.--Llewee (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• "Many more of the less financially secure working classes" – is this a posh way of saying "poorer"?

  It is a bit jargony. I think I was trying to emphasise the distinction from the "skilled working classes" mentioned previously. I have changed it to "Many poorer families".--Llewee (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• "The expansion of young children attending school" – I take this is meant to mean that the numbers rather than the children expanded.

• I don't think child obesity was as much of an issue in those days. Changed to "rise of".--Llewee (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• "the under five's" – we could well do without the apostrophe.

Removed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• "More middle-class parents" – this is ambiguous: were the parents more middle class or were there more parents from the middle class?

  I have changed "more" to many" to clarify this point.--Llewee (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• "In the first year, the 'reception class', children" – any reason for ignoring the MoS's preference for double quotes?

  fixed--Llewee (talk) 22:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• "This method quickly became the principle method" – you mean "principal", I think.

  changed this--Llewee (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Afternoon Tim, how is it looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The amendment of principle/principal was the final change I was looking for. After a last read-through I am now happy to support the elevation of this article to FA. Tim riley talk 16:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, the 1830s thing is in the source sorry.--Llewee (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Image and source review

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

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

I guess this is OK, unless a spotcheck is needed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Support

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

Prose review by Generalissima

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

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

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

Llewee, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Comments from Gerda

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

Lead

• "The movement quickly spread across the British Empire, Europe and the United States. It was used by missionary groups in an effort to convert the empire's non-Christian subjects." - Besides that spreading seems not exactly "in GB", which empire?

  clarified British empire--Llewee (talk) 00:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Background

• Why a Boston illustration when the focus is GB?

  I chose that image because it shows a pre-industrial family business. It is quite hard to find relevant images on commons and my searches on the British Newspaper Archive didn't have much success. I've found a fairly relevant image which is meant to be depicting a British family now. But its not ideal as it was drawn much later in the early 1900s.--Llewee (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• "New, more punitive, forms of child labour", - more p. compared to what?

  clarified--Llewee (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• why Dame school capital?

  its after a full stop, unless I have missed something--Llewee (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Worldwide ...

• As said before, I wonder about the scope. Do we exclude Ireland, but include the World, or at least the Commonwealth?

Professionalisation and expansion

• This seems a too general header, followed by subheader Home and Colonial Infant School Society which seems too specific - I never heard that term. It seems about adopting Pestalozzi's concepts, no?

  I hope the new headings are an improvement--Llewee (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Edwardian ...

• Will the article for the longish red link be written soon?

  I added that link on the advice of another editor. I'd like to write an article on the subject at some stage but I haven't got any immediate plans to do so.--Llewee (talk) 00:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

See also

• I am not happy about the four articles, thinking, that the first should contain the later three, in which case the whole bunch could be replaced by one link to the first in the prose, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Donkey Kong

Nominator(s): JOEBRO⁶⁴ 13:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

FM

• Probably won't get to it soon, but marking my spot, because I have to read this! And I sure know the TV series, because it turns out I'm apparently one of the only people who recorded the Danish dub, which is commercially unavailable now... FunkMonk (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• At first glance I'm seeing a bunch of WP:duplinks, which can be highlighted with this script:[6]
  • I believe I've nuked all of 'em JOEBRO⁶⁴ 19:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• "and the success of Taito's Space Invaders (1978)" While most readers would know, could add "Taito's video game Space Invaders".
  • I added "arcade game" JOEBRO⁶⁴ 16:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• " The $280 million windfall" I had no idea what this meant, could add "gain" to the term, as in the linked article, so it's easier to deduct.
  • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 16:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• "Four programmers from Ikegami Tsushinki spent three months turning them into a finished game." A bit unclear what "them" refers to, as the preceding sentence is very long.
  • changed to "Miyamoto's design". This was the result of some sentences being shifted around due to me adding more info during the GA review JOEBRO⁶⁴ 16:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• "had won a lawsuit years prior" Perhaps more interesting and informative (and less wordy) to just give the date?
  • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 16:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• "Popeye became Mario" Perhaps worth stating in a footnote it was originally "Jumpman"? Here it makes it seem like if he had the Mario identity from the beginning.
  • This is actually a common misconception—he was always known as Mario, as evidenced by the sales brochure. The "Jumpman" name was only used in the instructions. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 16:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• "Donkey Kong's appearances in the years following Donkey Kong 3 were limited to cameos in unrelated games" Worth mentioning them in a footnote, or even in-text.
  • Unfortunately the sources don't elaborate and I wasn't able to find any that did JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• "It begins as a remake of the 1981 game before introducing over 100 puzzle-platforming levels that incorporate elements from Donkey Kong Jr. and Super Mario Bros. 2 (1988)." I think it's worth mentioning that Mario was again the protagonist.
  • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• "Miyamoto named "Beauty and the Beast" and the 1933 film King Kong as influences" Perhaps clarify "named the fairytale "Beauty and the Beast"", so readers don't assume the film.
  • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 16:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• "but the sprite was too big to easily maneuver" Perhaps add "the sprite graphic" or similar for clarity, as many readers might not understand what's implied.
  • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• "but was moved to the Wii with support for the peripheral dropped" should that be "when support for the peripheral dropped"?
  • I changed it to "moved to the Wii with no support for the peripheral"—the Wii does support the DK Bongos but for whatever reason Paon decided not to let you use them. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• "as closer in spirit to his work on Banjo-Kazooie than Wise's Country music" Maybe "than to Wise's Country music" for clarity?
  • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• "before it shifted to producing and importing anime" What is meant by "importing"?
  • distributing outside Japan, changed to "distributing" JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• "A Donkey Kong cartoon produced by Ruby-Spears aired as part of CBS's hour-long Saturday Supercade programming block in 1983" You give the number of episodes for the other series mentioned, why not for this one?
  • So it's two things. (1) It's not in the sources. (2) A lot of Saturday Supercade is considered lost media because rebroadcasts and rereleases are very rare and much of it was never recorded, I think it's possible that there were more episodes beyond the 13 ones listed at the Saturday Supercade article so that number could be inaccurate. Best to omit it if we don't have the sourcing. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• Eveline Novakovic's lastname was Fischer at the relevant period, would it make more sense to use the name she was credited as back then?
  • Done. (I think the only DK games she worked on under the name Novakovic were the GBA ones.) JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• The intro says "The franchise has pioneered or popularized concepts such as in-game storytelling" while the legacy section mentions "The franchise's lack of storytelling". Seems contradictory? I'm also not seeing the former explained in the article body.
  • It's discussed in the legacy section, under effect on the industry. The "lack of storytelling" was referring to the fact the franchise doesn't have a super deep official backstory so I've clarified that. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• "Some games without the Country branding" feels a bit convoluted, why not just "outside the Country series"?
  • I just removed it outright as it wasn't necessary. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• You provide a long list of characters in the Country section under gameplay, perhaps worth mentioning the new player characters in the DK 64 part?
  • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• "Other villains include" Could specify that these are all post-Rare?
  • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• "A model of an original Donkey Kong (1981) arcade cabinet" Why use a miniature model? While perhaps not as nice an image, I think it would be more authentic to show an actual machine, like this free image:[7]
  • I chose a model as that was the one that was already on Commons, haha. I'll look into replacing it shortly JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Having looked into replacements, I think the model is actually the way to go. It actually shows gameplay and the joystick and buttons are a lot more discernable. Seems like other cabinet pics have been deleted but this has been scrutinized and deemed ok for Commons as well. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 19:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Changes look good, I see four unaddressed points. FunkMonk (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah I'll be coming back to those shortly. I've been busy with school and work so my wiki-time's been a bit limited. I should have everything from everyone addressed by the weekend. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 14:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support - great to see this here, and hope to see more DK articles at FAC. I still think an authentic arcade machine would be better than the miniature, perhaps a suitable photo will turn up one day. FunkMonk (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you! I'm keeping my eyes peeled for a better arcade photo, might make a trip to a local arcade that I know has a cab if I get the chance JOEBRO⁶⁴ 01:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Fathoms Below

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

Update: working on comments right now! Fathoms Below (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Support from David Fuchs

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

• For the purposes of the lead, how important is it to list all of the supporting characters? I ask partially because the "Rare's games expanded the cast" sentence is trying to pack a lot of information in, is a bit confusing (when you get to the end and we're talking about antagonists instead) and hits you with a ton of names that most people are not necessarily going to know anyhow.
  • How's it now? I chopped it down to only the characters who have articles (e.g. Mario and Pauline). I think "friendly Kongs" should suffice for the supporting characters; I kept mention of the Kremlings since they're the only recurring antagonists. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 19:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• In both the lead and body, the text says "to provide a new game that could salvage the unsold Radar Scope cabinets", and I'm wondering if "salvage" makes sense here? They were taking the cabinets and putting a new game into them, correct, versus scrapping them for parts or the like, so "repurpose" maybe makes more sense?
  • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 19:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) I said the same thing here. You have disgraced the Kongs by not staying true. Panini! • 🥪 19:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
      • lol, since more than one person has now taken issue with it I determined it was best to change JOEBRO⁶⁴ 19:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• I get trying to show the variety of games with File:Donkey Kong Country Gameplay Elements.png, but from a practical standpoint, especially given that the core formula is unchanged between them in terms of platforming and with the limitations of non-free content, I think it would make sense to use a single, higher-resolution screenshot.
  • Looking for a decent screenshot right now, will update this when I get one JOEBRO⁶⁴ 19:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Replaced with a screenshot from DKCR that I think has every element that the three screenshots were trying to illustrate. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 19:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi David, anything you want to add at this time? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I've got more comments coming, I just decided to let everyone else get theirs in first :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

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

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

TheJoebro64 Nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: sorry for the wait, I believe I've addressed everything JOEBRO⁶⁴ 03:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Happy to support now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Vacant0

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

• What does make Ref 214 (Madison) reliable?
  • I actually removed it as part of addressing another reviewers' comments JOEBRO⁶⁴ 03:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• Other than that, I did not spot any issues with reliability of sources. Some sources are situational but do not have any issues upon checking them. I don't think that I'd have enough time to do a proper source spotcheck though.

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

• I did not spot any major issues in the lede. It reads to me quite well and covers important aspects of the franchise. Same goes for "1981–1982: Conception and first game" , 1995–2002: Franchise expansion", and "Original series".
• "IGN said that Donkey Kong Country's soundtrack contributed to an increased appreciation for video game music as an art form, and musicians such as Trent Reznor and Donald Glover have praised it." → "IGN said that Donkey Kong Country's soundtrack contributed to an increased appreciation for video game music as an art form; musicians such as Trent Reznor and Donald Glover have praised the soundtrack".
  • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 03:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• I did not spot any major issues in the Cultural impact section too.

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

@Vacant0: thank you for taking a look! Responded above JOEBRO⁶⁴ 03:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have another look at the article tomorrow. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Support I did not spot any major issues after having another look. Congrats and good job on the article! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment from Panini!

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

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

Support from Bowser

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

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

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

@Draken Bowser: thank you for taking a look! I believe I've addressed everything JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Nice! I stumbled over the answer to who the doubters were (FMs question) in: Wesley, David; Barczak, Gloria (2010). "Shigery Miyamoto and the Art of Donkey Kong". Innovation and Marketing in the Video Game Industry. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315588612. ISBN 978-1-317-11650-9. It seems the american marketing team had concerns (pages 11 & 13). I think it should be accessible through the wikimedia library, but otherwise I could share the pdf. Draken Bowser (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Draken Bowser: thank you! Can't seem to find it in the WP Library so if you can, I'd definitely be interested in reading that JOEBRO⁶⁴ 01:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Support from Rjjiii

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

• With regards to Popeye, the very next arcade game that Miyamoto does for Nintendo is the licensed Popeye game. Is there any connection here? For example, was code reused, do the cabinets share hardware, or did Donkey Kong play any role in Nintendo getting the Popeye rights?
  • My understanding of the situation is that Nintendo's inability to secure the Popeye license for what would become Donkey Kong was due to negotiations taking too long. I'm doing some research to see if there's any relation between the two games. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 16:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I added a few more details from Sheff's book in a footnote to clarify the relationship between the two. Couldn't find anything specific regarding the cabinets or code but it's mentioned it was produced under the production system Nintendo adopted following Donkey Kong. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• "Miyamoto named the fairy tale" I found the verb/phrasing confusing.
  • Changed to "cited" JOEBRO⁶⁴ 16:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
• "He placed an emphasis on jumping to avoid obstacles and cross gaps. Miyamoto's ideas were uncommon in contemporary arcade games," This also confuses me. Note "a" reads like this game introduced the mechanic, not that it was uncommon.
  • I did some rearranging to make it clearer. Let me know if that clears everything up JOEBRO⁶⁴ 03:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• "was told it would be a failure," Does the source say who told them this?
  • No JOEBRO⁶⁴ 16:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
• "Game & Watch version" Would "adaptation" be more accurate than "version" here?
  • yeah, done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 16:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
• "The victory helped cement Nintendo as a major force in the video game industry." I would cut this per WP:IMPARTIAL. If the sentence is making an objective statement about the court case, it's going over my head with the current wording.
  • Done. I guess what it was trying to say was that the case brought Nintendo, which was then basically an upstart, a lot of prestige in the entertainment industry because it was able to swat away a titan like Universal like it was nothing, but Nintendo becoming a big company after Donkey Kong is mentioned anyway both in the section and later in the article. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• "Nintendo wanted a game to compete with Sega's Aladdin (1993), which featured graphics by Disney animators,[34][35] when Lincoln learned of Rare's SGI experiments during a trip to Europe." This sentence is hard to parse. Is Lincoln the company's lawyer? "when" seems an odd way to connect these thoughts.
  • Lincoln became an NoA executive following the Universal suit. I clarified his position and split it into two sentences without the "when". JOEBRO⁶⁴ 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• The Mortal Kombat influence is unclear to me. Were they not already planning to do pre-rendered graphics with the SGI workstations they had bought?
  • Leftover from when I was integrating my research from DKC over here, haha. Mortal Kombat inspired the art direction Stamper wanted to go with. I just cut it since it's not important in terms of the larger franchise. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• How common was the usage of these high-end SGI workstations to do video game graphics? Beyond being "groundbreaking" was anyone else in the UK or in the industry doing this?
  • It was extremely uncommon—Rare was the first UK developer to get them, and it immediately made them the most technologically advanced developer in the UK according to the sources. I've clarified this. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• "and the designers could not replicate the detail of Country's pre-rendering with real-time graphics" I think this could be slightly expanded so that a less-technical reader could better understand it.
  • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• "to create a new experience" I'd consider removing or rephrasing this. In some sense, any new media is a new experience.
  • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• "but it sold poorly in comparison to Returns" Is this due to the smaller market for Wii U games?
  • Primarily yeah. It also came out at a terrible time (I think there was a massive storm in Japan the week of release) and had an awful marketing campaign, but the Wii U itself failing was definitely the big reason. Clarified within the article JOEBRO⁶⁴ 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• "was working on a Switch Donkey Kong game" Do we know if they still are?
  • No word on what's become of the project. I would imagine it's gotten moved to the Switch's successor if it's still a thing but that's all that can be said for now. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• That's it for "History", Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
• "characterize him as the descendant of the Donkey Kong character" I found this kind of hard to follow. In Rare's games, is the Donkey Kong character the son of the original Donkey Kong? If so that would be more clear than descendant. Also, regarding the organization of material, it would be more clear to me if Cranky Kong or Rare's Donkey Kong was introduced and then the other. That would allow for placing the explanation about whether he is Donkey Kong Jr. closer.
  • I did some rewriting and rearranging to try and make things clearer; let me know if you like how I reworked it. The problem boils down to the Rare games being inconsistent as to whether Donkey Kong is Cranky Kong's son (and thus the grown-up DK Jr.) or grandson (and thus the son of DK Jr. who's now MIA). And unfortunately for us, Nintendo has continued this inconsistency! (Super Smash Bros. Brawl's Snake dialogue refers to Cranky as DK's grandfather, whereas the movie last year refers to him as his father.) JOEBRO⁶⁴ 02:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• "Donkey Kong Country introduced Diddy Kong," ← this is really clear. No changes needed, just wanted to note that it does a good job of explaining his in-universe role and character background.
• "from a distance" This seems redundant to me. I would either cut it or specify the distance.
  • Cut. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 02:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• ", with the second increasing their health." I'm not sure that someone who had not played the games would understand what this means.
  • Changed to "acting as a second hit point." Is that any better? JOEBRO⁶⁴ 02:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• "and helped it avoid the video game crash of 1983" I checked the two end-of-sentence citations and the end-of-paragraph citation and they don't quite match this. TIME says, "Nintendo, powered up by Mario’s successes, largely managed to dodge the market’s profit-crushing projectiles."^[8] The Japanese source seems to talk about how the Famicom/NES was based on the Donkey Kong arcade hardware. This Guardian article talks about how Donkey Kong was "a key driver" for the design and launch of the Famicom in Japan. I think there a lot of sources out there to pick from that would say that Nintendo's success with the Famicom in Japan is how they weathered the 1983 crash (which most affected the North American market) so well. I realize that's kind of pedantic, but I do think the article should lay out the connections (Donkey Kong→Famicom→survive crash, instead of Donkey Kong→survive crash).
  • Done, just cut that clause. I can incorporate the Guardian article if you think the article should use it, though I think the sequence of events should be clearer now. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 02:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• Also, a few sources say that Gunpei Yokoi invented the cross-shaped d-pad for Nintendo's Game & Watch adaptation of the original game.[9][10][11] If sources about Donkey Kong mention this, it would be relevant to add somewhere. I haven't checked any longer sources though, so I'll leave it up to you if the inclusion is (un)due.
  • This is actually a common misconception—Yokoi was the head of the department that created Game & Watch games, but was relatively uninvolved with the individual games. Ichiro Shirai, one of Nintendo's hardware engineers, created the Donkey Kong D-pad and both filed and was awarded the patent for it. However, he did not create the D-pad! The D-pad was actually created by William F. Palisek for Tiger Electronics in 1979, and was awarded the patent for it in 1981, a year before the Game & Watch version of Donkey Kong came out. Nintendo's own patent for the Donkey Kong D-pad even mentions Palisek by name. (Sorry for the long-winded response, just felt this was worth clarifying!) JOEBRO⁶⁴ 14:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
    • Oh no, it's like when I found out that the sewer gators were an urban legend all over again! Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• Do the sources say if Nintendo has the trademark for "it's on like Donkey Kong" now?
  • No; according to Trademarkia, the trademark expired in 2020. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 02:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• And that's it for the page overall. Nice work; I was surprised at the music being so influential, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

TheJoebro64 Nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about the situation, and I hope things go relatively well. Real life comes first, of course. Take care, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Rjjiii: thank you for being patient, responded to everything above. Let me know if I need to do anything else. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 02:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

It's no problem at all. The article looks good. Describing the Rare version as a separate character is more clear. I don't think the the Guardian material needs to be added since there is already the clause beginning with "which rejuvenated..." addressing the NES and North American crash. Notes struck and heading changed to support, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Source review by LEvalyn - Support

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

• 19, 32, 66, and 69 check out, no comments. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• Source 39 says Lincoln was NOA's then president and CEO, which gives a slightly different impression than the article's gloss of a Nintendo of America executive. That's possibly a quibble so I don't insist on a change; otherwise, 39 checks out. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• I wasn't able to access 51, "The Making of: Donkey Kong Country 2" in Retro Gamer. No. 181. It looks totally plausible to me, but for thoroughness, can you share the quote from this source which supports the cited claims, or offer advice on accessing the original? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• 98: This is another quibble, but I'm not sure that this source strictly verifies that both games blend Country elements. Jungle Climber definitely does, but King of Swing is only mentioned in relationship to Country in order to contrast their graphics. Maybe just say that both games use DK characters/settings? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I added another IGN ref and tweaked the text accordingly. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 20:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

    • Thanks for revisiting this, but I don't see any prose changes for the specific sentence Meanwhile, Paon also developed DK: King of Swing (2005) for the GBA and DK: Jungle Climber (2007) for the DS, which blend Country elements with puzzle gameplay inspired by Clu Clu Land (1984). This is really splitting hairs, but that sentence makes it sound like King of Swing "blends Country elements", but the cited source only compares King of Swing to Country to say it has different graphics. I'd be happy with something like ...King of Swing (2005) for the GBA and DK: Jungle Climber (2007) for the DS, featuring puzzle gameplay inspired by Clu Clu Land (1984)., or you could throw in a clause about the pegboard navigation style which that source says is unique to these two games. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• 113, 115, 117, 121, and 130 check out. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• For 132, Milne's "The Evolution of Donkey Kong Country", again I haven't been able to access this issue of Retro Gamer. Can you share the relevant quote? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I'll send you the articles via email. I'll shoot you an email as soon as I finish everything; just respond and I'll send the screenshots. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 20:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• 133, 136, 140, and 147 all check out. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• For 150, the Nintendo Power article, this doesn't feel right. I found the article about DK in issue 66 of Nintendo Power here, but it's not called "Now Playing". And I don't think it verifies The player begins in a world map that tracks their progress and provides access to the themed worlds and their levels. I can't find any mention of the world map. I'm honestly not entirely sure it's kosher to use this for the second sentence either, They traverse the environment, jump between platforms, and avoid enemy and inanimate obstacles, since the source itself is just maps and guide tips which basically imply that the game consists of traversing, jumping, and obstacles. Is there a more traditional review, rather than a map guide, which could verify these simple basics? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Fixed, I think I made a mistake when condensing information / refs from other DK articles here. I replaced it with an already-present HG101 article and the GameSpot review of the GBC version of the first game. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 20:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

    I thought it might be a mistake like that! The new sources are great and clearly verify the info. Thanks for revisiting it. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• Just a note to counterbalance the quibbles that so far that this is a really "clean" article and extremely easy to source-check-- you've done a great job! I'm taking another break for now but will finish the check over the weekend. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I'm glad to hear! JOEBRO⁶⁴ 20:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• 181, 187, 188, 213, 214, 222, 224, 227, 233, and 269 all check out. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• I am not able to verify 232, 2021CESAゲーム白書 (2021 CESA Games White Papers), due to the language barrier. (I am not confident I can locate the right source.) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I have screenshots of the pages I can email to you! JOEBRO⁶⁴ 20:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• 255 is also in Japanese but since the link was provided, I used Google Translate and it appears to verify the content. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• All right, TheJoebro64, that concludes my source review! I raised a few clarification questions above, but my only real concern is source 150. I'd like to hear a defense of that source or see a different one provided, since I'm not convinced it verifies those sentences. I also had two pedantic quibbles and some sources I couldn't access, but those don't impede my support, since overall the quality was very high. Thanks for your hard work here! Please ping me in your response. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  @LEvalyn: thank you for the review! I should get around to addressing these within a few days. Just a bit chaotic right now with the holidays and school work. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 23:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  @LEvalyn and David Fuchs: just wanted to apologize I haven't finished addressing your comments; in addition to exams, I've been tied up with a family situation (my grandmother is on her deathbed), which has greatly limited my time on-wiki. I will aim to address them sometime this weekend; I just wanted to let you know that I haven't forgotten, real life just got in the way JOEBRO⁶⁴ 21:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  You have my sympathies! Of course "real life" must take priority over Wikipedia. You and your family have my best wishes, and just ping me whenever you do have a chance to turn your attention back to Donkey Kong. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

TheJoebro64, I have just seen this after giving you two nudges above. My sympathies regarding your situation and I shall try to be as flexible as I can re timescales. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding. I should have some time tomorrow and Monday to get everything done. Appreciate the well wishes. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 00:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@LEvalyn: Responded to everything above! I'm shooting you an email right now; just respond and I'll send the Retro Gamer / CESA pages for verification. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 20:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! I look forward to getting your full email for further verification, and anticipate finishing this source review soon with a very strong support. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@LEvalyn: sources sent. (Had to switch emails because Apple's having server issues rn, but managed to get them to you!) JOEBRO⁶⁴ 03:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Having looked through them, everything checks out. I also skimmed through the full list of references in case there were any questionable-reliability sources that didn't happen to hit my random sample, but no red flags. Overall, then, this looks like a meticulously-sourced article and I will happily support promotion! Well done pulling together an effective overview of so much information! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Image review

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

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've removed File:DK-Bongos.JPG just to be safe. I can move File:Donkey Kong 94 and 64 characters.png to list of Donkey Kong characters if you think it doesn't fit here. I think File:Donkey Kong Country Gameplay Elements.png should definitely stay as there's a fairly significant contrast between the original arcade gameplay and the Country gameplay; I can do some tweaking to strengthen the FUR if you think that's necessary. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 18:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Definitively need to strengthen the FUR for the second image. I am kinda doubtful that the 94 and 64 image would meet NFC criteria on the list article, but my question here is only about whether it fits on this article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've expanded the FURs for both images, let me know what you think JOEBRO⁶⁴ 14:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I think they need to discuss the importance vis-a-vis the article topic a bit more. Illustrating the subsection topic often isn't sufficient at FFD Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

TheJoebro64, how is this coming along? FrB.TG (talk) 12:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

(Sorry, Christmas/family stuff.) @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've just removed both images, the DK and Mario lists have images of the characters and the Country articles have screenshots of gameplay elements so I've concluded having them here isn't 100% necessary. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 00:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

That leaves File:DK-Bongos.JPG as the only question, perhaps commons:COM:VPC might help here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Metaphysics

Nominator(s): Phlsph7 (talk) 12:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Generalissima's comments

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

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

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

• Lede is very solid throughout.
• For ontology, in definitions, you need to italicize using the em template or em tags per MOS:EMPHASIS (I think this is for accessibility concerns.)
  • Same with bare particular, Haecceity, red, coming before, being next to, etc. later on. There's just a lot of these. The only time you shouldn't be using the em tags/template is for foreign language term, which should use the lang template.

    Done. I'm a little confused about which cases fall under MOS:EMPHASIS and which ones under MOS:WORDSASWORDS. For now, I used the em-template for all cases that do not use expressions like "the term...", "is called...", "means...", etc. I hope I got all. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• Should ontological deflationism be bolded, or redlinked? I feel if it's a possible split in its own right, itd be better to redlink it (especially as the bolding is a bit distracting so far into the article).

  You are right that having bold link target so far into the article can be confusing. I can't add a red link since we already have a redirect with that name. As an alternative, I put an anchor right to the paragraph where the bold terms appear and changed the redirect targets so they don't link to main section but right to the anchor. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• However, not really any prose issues through the thing. I wasn't confused at any points,
• Yay, a Deleuze mention. Love that guy.
• All images are properly licensed. They also have alt text which is nice to see.

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

Thanks a lot for reviewing the prose and the images! Phlsph7 (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me! Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Shapeyness

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

Hello Shapeyness, it has been a while. Thanks for reviewing the article! Phlsph7 (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• It is sometimes characterized as first philosophy to suggest that it is more fundamental than other forms of philosophical inquiry. It is probably best to attribute this idea, e.g. "Some philosophers, including Aristotle, designate metaphysics as first philosophy to suggest that it is more fundamental than other forms of philosophical inquiry."

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• Universals are general repeatable entities that characterize particulars, like the color red. Would suggest simplifying or rewording this sentence a bit for the general reader

  Done. It's probably still not ideal but I hope it's better now. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah that's better! :) Shapeyness (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• metaphysics was once declared meaningless, and then revived with various criticisms of earlier theories and new approaches to metaphysical inquiry. imo this is a bit vague and awkwardly worded

  Done. The new version is hopefull less awkwardly worded but I'm not sure I can do much about the vagueness without making it longer. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think that's clear enough now, don't need to make it any longer. Shapeyness (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Phillips 1967 and Haack 1979 are relatively old sources to be using for the sentence about Strawson

  I found a newer source to replace them. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks! Should the MacDonald source be citing page 18 instead? Shapeyness (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, page 18 supports our text more directly. I changed it. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Veldsman 2017 and Heidegger 1996 - are these appropriate for the etymology section? On that note, the sources for "Metaphysics got its name by a historical accident" could maybe be better, I would expect them to be from historians/historians of philosophy focusing on Aristotle or etymologists, but maybe I'm missing something?

  I removed Veldsman 2017 and Heidegger 1996 since the paragraph is already well-covered by the remaining sources. I found a source on the history of metaphysics for the part about the historical accident. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  Do you have the quote you are using from that source? Shapeyness (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  From Hamlyn 2005, p. 590: The term ‘metaphysics’ originated, however, as a title given to some of Aristotle’s works in the catalogue of the edition of them produced by Andronicus of Rhodes in the second half of the first century bc (although it may have come from an earlier library classification). It meant simply the works which followed those on physics in the catalogue. But those works, which were concerned with being, both as such and in respect of various categories of it, especially substance, contain discussions concerning matters which have an obvious continuity with later metaphysical theories. Hence it is reasonable to see Aristotle’s Metaphysics, untidy though it is in the form in which it has come down to us, as the first systematic treatise in metaphysics... Phlsph7 (talk) 09:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Ok I was wondering if it used the term historical accident. It doesn't use that phrase but paints the same picture as the other sources. Potentially could attribute "historical accident" phrasing but I'm not sure if that is necessary or not. Shapeyness (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  I weakened the claim about the historical accident. The exact term "historical accident" is found in the other sources. This became an issue during the DYK nomination since one of the suggested hooks used that expression. See Talk:Metaphysics#Did_you_know_nomination for the discussion and more quotes. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Metaphysicians often regard existence or being as one of the most basic and general concepts Very minor one but Gibson 1998 and Vallicella 2010 are slightly weaker inclusions in the citation here imo

  I removed them since the other references should be sufficient. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• exist outside space and time This is often used to get the idea across, but really "outside" is an inappropriate concept to use here as it is a spatial concept. The sentence is also quite long, although I didn't have any issue parsing it.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• The part on the problem of the many could do with some rewording so it's as clear as possible for the general reader

  Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  For instance, it raises the issue of whether a dust particle on a tabletop is part of the table. I think this could still do with some motivating, or the reader might just think "why would anyone think a dust particle is a part of the table?" I've not read the cited sources and whether they use particular examples, but could be worded in terms of atoms maybe, not sure what the best way to do it simply is. Shapeyness (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  I used a different example about a coffee cup and a printer. Another common example focuses on the boundary of a cloud and whether a cloud is one or many. We could also use something else if you have a different idea. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  I was trying to remember what example I'd heard before and it is the cloud one you mentioned. I think that is a more intuitive hook into the question because it it clear that the boundaries of the cloud are ambiguous, and hence that the question of which molecules of water it is that compose the cloud is also ambiguous. Shapeyness (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Done, I hope the cloud example is more accessible. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• They belong to modal metaphysics, which investigates the metaphysical principles underlying them This is a bit weirdly worded

  Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• A possible world is a complete and consistent way of how things could have been This is also a bit weirdly worded

  Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  I read through the sources and I think the wording I'm finding strange is "a way of how", but I guess this is an attempt to avoid close paraphrasing? I would word it A possible world is a complete and consistent way things could have been. I don't think "way things could have been" being a shared wording with some of the sources should be a problem per WP:LIMITED and the fact that a few different sources all seem to use the same wording as a kind of standard definition. Shapeyness (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  A possible world is a complete and consistent way the totality of things could have been might also work. Shapeyness (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  I used your second suggestion. I agree that for the short definition itself, WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE shouldn't be a problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• McLaughlin 1999 - should this have a chapter/entry?

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Züricher 2021 - is this a high quality source for metaphysics, it seems to be a psychotherapy handbook

  Replaced. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Imaguire 2018 - this is a bit more specific compared to the other sources in this citation, I think it isn't needed

  Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• For example, the statement "a tomato is red" is true because there exists a red tomato as its truthmaker - as far as I'm aware, truthmakers are generally not identified with ordinary objects like tomatoes, they are usually identified with facts, states of affairs or tropes. Slightly nitpicky but also quite important to the debate I think (I can provide sources if useful).

  I think you got a point that various truthmaker theories focus on facts. I tried to reformulate it in a way that leaves either option open so both thing ontologists and fact ontologists can read it the way they want. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Doesn't this still say that the red tomato is the truthmaker? A truthmaker of a statement is the entity whose existence makes the statement true. For example, the statement "a tomato is red" is true because of the existence of a red tomato as its truthmaker. The problem with the tomato being the truthmaker is that there is a possible world where the tomato is not red, so the tomato doesn't necessitate the truth of the statement. My understanding is that truthmaker theorists will generally say that the truthmaker is "the tomato's being red" or "the redness of the tomato" or "the fact that the tomato is red". Shapeyness (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Well, the expression "a red tomato" refers to a particular. The question is probably whether the expression "the existence of a red tomato" can refer to a fact.

  The issue of necessitation most likely also depends on how we interpret the expression. Interpreted in a simple manner, a red tomato can't be blue at the same time, so we would be on the safe side. However, if "a red tomato" means "a tomato that is red in the actual world" then the tomato could have a different color in another world.

  Our source, Tallant 2017 p. 1–2 (chapter 1. An introduction to truth-making), says: that ‘a tomato is red’ is true is due to there existing a red tomato. ... when we say that ‘ “the tomato is red” is true,’ we say this because there exists a red tomato.

  Some alternative formulations:

  • For example, the existence of a red tomato or the tomato's being red acts as a truthmaker for the statement "a tomato is red".

    This version covers several variations.

  • For example, the statement "a tomato is red" is true because of the fact that a tomato is red as its truthmaker.

    This version focuses on facts. It might sound too tautological to some readers.

  I'm also open to other suggestions. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  How about For example, the fact that a tomato exists and that it is red acts as a truthmaker for the statement "a tomato is red"? It mirrors the kind of language the Tallant source uses for other claims (except I explicitly added the word "fact"). I think maybe there isn't a perfect way to reflect the nuance here in a way that will be picked up on by the someone who doesn't know anything about the topic without being overlong. Fwiw I'm drawing from thoughts similar to those in these overviews:

  • Take an alleged contingent truth about a certain rose, say that <The rose is red>. Clearly, the rose itself cannot be the truthmaker for this proposition, since given that it is contingent that it is red, it is possible for the rose to be another colour. But if it is possible for the rose to be another colour, then the rose itself does not necessitate the truth of <The rose is red> and so it is not its truthmaker. (Rodriguez-Pereyra 2006)
  • The existence of such an object is not sufficient to satisfy [the truthmaker principle], however. The existence of something which happens to satisfy ‘x is a rose and x is red’ does not entail the truth of 〈The rose is red〉, since the object in question—a rose, which, as it happens, is red—might not have been red, and so there are possible worlds where that object exists yet 〈The rose is red〉 is false. (Beebee & Dodd 2005)

  —Shapeyness (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  Sounds good. I implemented the suggestion and added these two sources. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Ryckman 2005 - why is a book on philosophy of physics being used as a source on phenomenalism

  Replaced. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• The transcendental method is... do we need the sources other than Stern & Cheng 2023?

  I also kept Pihlström 2009 since it has a section explicitly dedicated to the transcendental method but I removed the others. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think we should label Hume a skeptic in Wikipedia's voice when that is a matter of controversy. According to the most recent philpapers survey only 37% of philosophers label Hume a skeptic vs 55% that call him a naturalist (when you filter by those specialising in 17th/18th century philosophy, that goes up to 63%)

  I think it uncontroversial that Hume has a skeptical outlook about metaphysical knowledge but I changed the term to "critical outlook" to avoid problems. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  I was thinking more about the discussion in the criticism section but I guess you're right that there's a difference between being skeptical of metaphysics and being a skeptic full stop. Do the sources generally phrase it using the term skepticism? If so then there's probably no problem. I don't have access to all of the sources used for those sentences. Shapeyness (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  From Rea 2021, pp. 210–211: A priori theorizing about the world ... has long been viewed with skepticism ... One of the most well-known expressions of this sort of negative attitude toward metaphysics comes from David Hume

  From Koons & Pickavance 2015, p. 4: A number of significant thinkers began to sound a new note in the late eighteenth century, raising doubts about the right of metaphysics to stand as a science among other fields of knowledge. David Hume, the great philosopher of Scotland, stands out as pre-eminent among these new antimetaphysicians.

  I can look for more, but I think they should be sufficient for the way it is currently worded. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yep they should be good. Shapeyness (talk) 10:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• New scientific discoveries have also influenced existing and inspired new metaphysical theories I think this should be something like "New scientific discoveries have also influenced existing metaphysical theories and inspired new ones."

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• History - do you think there is room for a sentence on Locke to fill out the major empiricist philosophers

  I found a way to mention him in relation to Hume. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• At the turn of the 20th century in analytic philosophy, philosophers such as Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) and G. E. Moore (1873–1958) led a "revolt against idealism" Maybe this can be explained slightly (e.g. why? how?), obviously we don't want lots of detail

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Shapeyness, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Have left some final comments below Shapeyness (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

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

• A related mereological problem is whether there are simple entities that have no parts, as atomists claim, or not, as continuum theorists contend. I think it would be clearer to list both options here, e.g. "A related mereological problem is whether there are simple entities that have no parts, as atomists claim, or whether everything can be endlessly subdivided into smaller parts, as continuum theorists contend."

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• The history of metaphysics examines how the inquiry into the basic structure of reality has evolved in the course of history. Imo this is redundant and the following sentence would be a stronger start

  Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• "The American Heritage Dictionary Entry: Existence" Believe the title should just be "Existence"

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Retrieved date seems to be used inconsistently unless I'm missing something, not sure if that needs to be consistent per 2c or not

  I removed them from all Google Book links, where they don't really belong. Did you spot other inconsistencies? Phlsph7 (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'm still not sure what the logic behind which have a retrieved date and which don't but this is such a minor point anyway. Shapeyness (talk) 13:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• A lot of the sources have urls linked from the book title that I think should be linked from the chapter title

  I think this happens for cite templates that use the parameter "url". For all templates that specify a chapter, I changed the parameter "url" to "chapter-url". I hope this solves the problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Chen 2023 - is this a high quality source for history of philosophy?

  This is one of the sources by a non-Western publisher. For them, I'm usually a little less strict since they can be hard to find. But let me know if you think otherwise. The sentence is covered by the remaining soures and this one could be removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Duignan 2009a - why is this 2009a and not just 2009?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Goffi & Roux 2011 - this is missing editors

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Kind 2018 - I think part of the book title should actually be the series title

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Macnamara 2009 - is this a hiqh quality source for philosophy?

  Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Mumford 2003 - this is missing editors

  Mumford is given as the editor in the template. I didn't add an author. The author would usually be Russell since the book is mostly a selection of Russell's writings but the passage in question is a comment by Mumford. I'm not sure if this is the best practice. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  Oops no that was a mistake from me. Shapeyness (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Poidevin et al. 2009 - this is an edited collection, should an individual chapter/chapters be cited?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Some more general comments: reading over the overview sources, there aren't any major areas that aren't covered although a few cover social metaphysics a bit more (having said that, some don't mention it at all). Also, the article mentions truthmakers, but it doesn't go much into theories of truth - a few of the overviews have truth as a high level section. Obviously there can never be a completely comprehensive article so fine to leave out if you think these would overexpand the article. This might be a reflection of the discipline across history, but I also can't see any philosophers mentioned that aren't men.

  I added a sentence on theories of truth. In principle, it could be expanded, but I'm not sure that we should. I found a way to mention Hypatia. I'm open to more suggestions. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  I don't have a broad enough knowledge of the history of philosophy to know which female philosophers would be the best to include sadly, but Anscombe might be worth a mention in relation to the idea that causation can be non-deterministic. Her SEP article has a good section if she isn't mentioned in any of the sources in that part already. Shapeyness (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

  I added a footnote to the section on causality. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support: While I think it would be nice for there to be more representation of philosophers who aren't men in the main body of the article, and perhaps more discussion of social metaphysics, I don't think either of these prevent the article from meeting the FA criteria. The article is as accessible as possible throughout, covers all major areas to at least some extent without delving into too much detail, and is well-structured, illustrated and cited. Shapeyness (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

750h

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

Hi 750, I think we are ready for you. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Oops, sorry will get to this 750h+ 13:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

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

lead

• have more recently also included ==> "have recently included"

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

definition

• Meta-metaphysics[d] is the this shouldn't be bolded (or would be preferable to mention/bold it in the lead)

  I removed the boldface. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

topics

• a table is made up of a tabletop would reduce number of words for conciseness (comprises, consists of)

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• a cloud is made up of many droplets ^^

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• numerical identity when the very same entity is involved is "very" required?

  Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• principle, known as identity of indiscernibles or Leibniz's Law ==> "principle, known as the identity of indiscernibles or Leibniz's Law"

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

methodology

• metaphysical systems by drawing conclusions from these ==> "metaphysical systems by concluding from these"

  I kept the original formulation to avoid misunderstandings since "concluding" can also mean "bring to an end". Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

criticism

• point is called metaphysical or ontological deflationism i don't think these should be bolded

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

relation to other disciplines

• often used by metaphysicians as a tool to engage "as a tool" seems redundant

  Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

history

No problems here.

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

Hi 750h+ and thanks for your help with the article both in this review and the earlier GA review! Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Happy to support. Thanks for the article. 750h+ 13:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Image review - Pass

• File:Aristotle, Metaphysics, Incunabulum.jpg: checks out (there is a more elegant way to display the licences -- see the Hume painting -- but the necessary information is all there)

  I simplified the license tags. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• File:Kant_gemaelde_1.jpg: likewise.

  I simplified the license tags. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• File:Dualism-vs-Monism.png: The licensing here is fine, but it includes statements of fact, and I don't see a citation on the image page for that information. If we wouldn't be able to write "Cartesian duality sees both matter and mind as fundamental" in the text without a citation, we can't write it in an image without one either.

  I added a source to the caption in the article and to the wiki commons page. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• File:Allan Ramsay - David Hume, 1711 - 1776. Historian and philosopher - Google Art Project.jpg: checks out.
• File:Yin yang.svg: checks out.
• File:Boethius.jpeg: really needs to be licensed as PD-Art (like the Hume painting etc).

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• File:ANWhitehead.jpg: I don't see any publication info for this one?

  I added the relevant information and an external link. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Hello UndercoverClassicist and thanks for the image review! I add some information to the alt texts but more could be added. I'm not sure what the right amount of detail is since the different aspects of body posture, dress, and background are not really relevant to the article. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I tend to try and think: "what do I expect a viewer to take away here?". After all, I included that image for a reason, not just to break up the text or to make the article look prettier. For Kant, for example, most readers will clock that this is an eighteenth-century, old-ish, posh, white guy, so I might write an alt text to that effect: "An oil painting of a European man in his seventies, wearing eighteenth-century formal dress, leaning on a table with pens and ink." UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I gave it one more try. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks good for the portraits, but doesn't seem to have been done for the other images. Same principle applies: what visual information (so: not the name of the artist, because you can't see that in the picture) should the reader take away from this image/diagram? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I expanded the alt-texts of the images of Aristotle's metaphysics, the dualism-monism diagram, and the yin-yang symbol. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:26, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Source review

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

Hello Jo-Jo Eumerus and thanks for doing the source review! I added retrieval dates for "cite web" templates. For the purpose of verification, this may be relevant in case the website changes so reviewers know which version to look for. Retrieval dates are also automatically added if an archive link is added to a template, which also makes sense so reviewers know which version is archived. I don't think there are any other templates in the article with retrieval dates but I may have missed some. As for the archives, InternetArchiveBot has not been working for me recently, so I can't add any new archives. One solution for consistency would be to just remove all archives. I'm not sure if that is desirable.

I usually link to Google Books pages if they provide a page preview to make it easier for reviewers to assess verifiability. However, not all Google Books pages offer page previews, so this is not always possible. The overrepresentation of sources by Western publishers in the article reflects the general prevalence of Western publishers regarding high-quality English-language sources on the subject. It can be challenging to track down sources from other regions that fulfill the FA high-quality requirements, but I could try to find some more if it is a problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind is that Google Books tends to be geolocked and personalized. So a link working for you doesn't mean that it will work for anyone else. Thus I generally don't think that putting links to Google Books pages is useful. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that these links are not ideal and that it is preferable to use non-commercial sources. However, other sources often do not provide page previews. Without simple previews, the problem is that running to a library or buying a book is a significant barrier to verification, especially if it's just about a single sentence. Clicking on a link to verify a sentence, on the other hand, requires very little work. Overall, I think the links are worth having in cases where no non-commercial alternatives are available. This matter is also discussed at Wikipedia:Google Books and Wikipedia. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus anything further to add to the source review? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that links that are only useful to a fraction of readers (unlike a paywalled link, I don't think there is a way for a Google Books link to be usable) are necessary, so I wouldn't keep the Google Books links. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that Google Books links are common in FA articles. For example, each of the most recent TFAs (Apollo 12, Jack the Ripper Stalks His Victims, Algebra, Len Deighton) has Google Books links. We could try to resolve at WT:FAC whether they are acceptable in principle. However, I presume there have already been various discussions without any consensus in favor of a hard rule against them. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Do you think that the article can pass the source review without removing the links to Google Books? If not, I would ask at WT:FAC whether their use is prohibited by the FA criteria. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

It certainly could. There are a fair amount of things I see in FAC that I don't like seeing in FAs but which I am unsure about challenging at FAC b/c it's not always clear what's just my preference and what's an actionable issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Query

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

Pulgasari

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

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

Support

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

Image review

• File:Pulgasari_poster_japan.jpg has a dead source link and incomplete FUR

• File:19660529申相玉.jpg has a dead source link and is missing info on first publication

• File:Pulgasary.png has an incomplete FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe I've fixed the link and FUR problems on File:Pulgasari_poster_japan.jpg and File:Pulgasary.png but there's not much I can do for File:19660529申相玉.jpg, as that one's source appears inaccessible, not dead. Could remove that and Kim's photo and replace them with a non-free one of Shin and Kim together. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I've just changed File:19660529申相玉.jpg to the Non-free use file File:Shin, Kim Il Sung, and Choi.png from the year of the film's production. I will remove it if its use is deemed unacceptable by anyone. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

See my comment about this file's non-free use at User talk:Eiga-Kevin2#File:Shin, Kim Il Sung, and Choi.png for more details, but I don't think this non-free use can be justified per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: @Marchjuly: My apologies for changing File:19660529申相玉.jpg to a non-free use file. I believe I have now done the right thing by replacing it with a fairly rare photo of Shin that is in the public domain in the United States and South Korea. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 07:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria, how is this now? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Shin_Sang-ok_(1964).png: when specifically did this become PD in South Korea? Did its publication include a copyright notice? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

It's publication did not include a copyright notice. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Is it known when it became PD in South Korea? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything else about the image, no republishing no nothing anywhere else. It's seemingly PD in the US regardless because it was published without copyright notice and outside the US. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 06:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Why would that make it PD in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Per the PD template: since it was first published outside the U.S. & "before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice or before 1964 without copyright renewal or before the source country established copyright relations with the United States." Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 07:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

That template requires that all three points be met, including the last: "it was in the public domain in its home country (South Korea) on the URAA date (1 January 1996)". Nikkimaria (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I've removed that image until I can find proof it was PD by 1996 in the US. Do you think all the other images' FUR are fine now by the way? Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

FURs are fine; Kim image is missing alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Thank you for the swift reply. I've now added the alt text. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

seefooddiet - support

• For romanizing South Korean author names in references, are you following the procedure in WP:KOREANNAME? Some of the romanizations are non-standard; e.g. "Kim, Joo-won" should be "Kim, Ju-won" per KOREANNAME. seefooddiet (talk) 09:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't look at KOREANNAME, I just went by consulted my Korean friend about the English spelling of them a few times and went by Google Translate elsewhere. I'll do my best to re-write the names based on WP:NCKOREAN henceforth but might need more assistance. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

You can try this automatic converter [12] to get the Revised Romanization spellings. The converter is sometimes incorrect though; if you give it your best effort I can go through later and correct mistakes seefooddiet (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Also note that Google Translate doesn't produce the romanizations we prefer for Korean; see MOS:KO-ROMAN, second row of the table seefooddiet (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

My apologies for not replying sooner, I've been quite busy lately. I'll fix any romanizations that are incorrect over the next few days. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 07:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I've fixed all of the romanizations now as far as I can tell. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 00:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Some possible mistakes in ref romanizations. What would make these not mistakes is if you've seen these specific people using this spelling for their surnames.

• "Moon" -> "Mun" for "Moon, Seok"
• "Noh" -> "No" for "Noh, Sun-dong"
• "Choi" -> "Choe" for "Choi, Yeong-chang"
• For the Kim, Jung-ki ref I'm not seeing the author's name given on the article website. Is his name spelled 김중키 or 김중기? I suspect it's the latter; former is uncommon. If so, it should be "Kim Jung-gi".

Other comment:

• Cast and production section also need to be romanized per WP:KOREANNAME. These spelling systems will unfortunately vary by person, depending on who is North Korean and who is South Korean. North Koreans use McCune–Reischauer, South Koreans Revised Romanization. If you don't know a person's nationality, I think assuming North Korean by default is fine.

seefooddiet (talk) 01:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Changed "Moon", "Noh", and "Choi" per your suggestions. Kim Jung-ki's name is spelled 金重基 in the source and I've found it hard to directly translate. And for the staff and cast, I've already done some research on most of them and it seems Shin is the only one whose nationality is confirmed to be South Korean (IMDb does claim the film's star, Chang Son-hui, was born in South Korea but I can't find their source for that and a source in this article indicates otherwise). So probably keeping their names as McCune–Reischauer translations would be fine I presume. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

[13] 基 -> "gi". Unfortunately "重" can be read either 중 (jung) or 동 (dong). I can't find for certain what his name is through googling, but I suspect it is "Jung-gi". Think it's minimally harmful to put that down.

The MR for the cast and production crew are incorrect; I'll fix them. I'll just leave Shin Sang-ok's name as it is. seefooddiet (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Gave it a pass; you'll need to verify that the new spellings are consistent throughout the article although I gave it a solid try.

Notes:

• I try to avoid putting Korean text glosses in infoboxes; some of the names in there are not in the body of the article and effectively unsourced I think. Once you also put them in the body, you should also move the glosses to the body too.
• It's possible that 유경애 (Yu Kyŏngae)'s surname should be changed. It's reasonably common for the surname 柳 to be written 류 (ryu) in North Korea and 유 (yu) in South Korea due to dialect (similar to how 李 is 리 (ri) in North Korea and 이 (i) in South Korea), although this is not universal practice. Some South Koreans use Ryu and probably vice versa. South Korean sources sometimes South Koreanize these surnames by default, regardless of the personal preference of the person, although they did give "리" consistently. Tl;dr to be extra correct this person's name could be researched; probably a North Korean poster with Korean writing would work.

seefooddiet (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

These translations seem mostly fine but I think Chŏng Kŏnjo should be changed back to Chong Gon-jo since that's what Satsuma and Western sources call him. Also, maybe we could hide the translations within the article's source (using the <!-- --> thing) and use those translations featured on the English-langauge poster instead? Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 01:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for long answer, romanizing Korean is complicated.

• Yes you can change back "Chong Gon-jo" if you have know of wide attestation to that spelling, per step #1 of WP:KOREANNAME.
• For your second use of "translations", do you mean the orig Hangul text? See here for an explanation of why we would want to display Hangul. Also few non-Wikipedians know about invisible comments (<!-- -->), which is why we generally display Korean text in article.
• It's nice that we have an English-language poster, but some complications. Korean romanization is such a mess that a single attestation is often not enough to be confident in what spelling to use. E.g. on that poster it says "Pulgasary" on top; do we use that spelling? Instead of using the ad-hoc romanizations on the poster and risking confusion, it's often safer to default to a systematic romanization. This is what the community has settled on so far.
• The above confusion is why we have the steps laid out in WP:KOREANNAME. Chong Gon-jo meets step #1, I'm not sure if the poster is sufficient evidence of step #2; it may be, but often enough romanizations for people names differ by appearance or even across time so it's hard to be sure.

seefooddiet (talk) 02:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Alright understood;

• I've changed the co-director's name back to Chong Gon-jo and added sources for this.
• Yes I meant the Hangul text. I think it's fine to have them on display, and was mostly asking because I'm just not a fan of them being in the infobox if the translations are mentioned elsewhere on the article.
• As for the poster text, it coincides with how some older sources give the film the English title of "Pulgasary" so I'm thinking of mentioning that in the note for the film's title. And I don't think the name spellings on the poster apply with step #2 of WP:KOREANNAME after checking.

Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 03:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good, thank you for working with me! Romanization of Korean is unfortunately complicated. If you ever run into a similar situation with Korean feel free to poke me.

On another note, I think the footnotes subsection and the citations subsection should possibly be merged; they're functionally the same thing. seefooddiet (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Will notify you if I experience any further problems romanizing Korean. And I've considered merging those sections btw, but the GA reviewer and a friend of mine seemed to like how the References section is formated (also it's something pages like Mission: Impossible – Fallout feature). Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 07:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Forgot to say—I support this article's FA nom. seefooddiet (talk) 06:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments by ZKang123

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

Lead:

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

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

Production:

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

Release:

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

Reception:

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

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

I've just revised everything here based on your suggestions, clarified that Kim's film collection was not just of Shin's movies, and specified what kind of company Twin is. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Happy to support. Additionally, I found another review by a freelance journalist on the film. --ZKang123 (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@ZKang123: Thanks! I've recently added that content from that review btw Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 03:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Source review and spotcheck

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

• 4 This needs a Japanese reader.
• 6 Why does our article say republished?

  OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• 10 This needs a Japanese reader.
• 12 Doesn't have that much to say about politics.
• 17 "Satsuma later said he adored Pulgasari and that he fondly remembered performing in it" doesn't show here. Everything else OK, but I note this source says that the film premiered in Osaka and Tokyo, not just Tokyo

  OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• 22 OK
• 23 OK
• 26 This needs a Japanese reader who has access to the book.
• 30 Assuming that Google Translate is translating this correctly: Doesn't mention Raging Thunder or the under-1000?
• 39 Doesn't say that Pulgasari was the seventh.

  OK now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• 40 OK
• 63 This one uses a different page number format than the other sources. OK assuming that Google Translate isn't making stuff up.
• 65 OK
• 67 OK
• 81 OK - I figure our article saying "controversial ideology" is a reasonable reading.
• 86 This needs a Japanese reader who has access to the book.
• 87 OK
• 90 OK I guess.
• 94 OK
• 95 OK

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

I'm sorting out most of these now. The main issue is most of the Japanese publications are out of print. That's why I decided to translate their contents from Google Books. I've been learning Japanese for a while now and tried my best to make these things as accurate as I could. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

For starters, "レイジング・サンダー・ホームページ" is Raging Thunder's official website; "大怪獣プルガサリ" is the PDF of the film's 1995 flyer available on the Japanese archival website for movie flyers; "북한영화를 아십니까" is an article from the magazine Cine21 (which is generally conisdered reliable); アジア映画にみる日本" is a book by Takashi Monma (who's a critic and professor at Meiji Gakuin University); many articles also use Incheon Ilbo and Maeil Shinmun as sources because these are major newspapers in South Korea; fromthefrontrow.net is by a freelance journalist and was suggested by @ZKang123: in their review here; and vantagepointinterviews.com is a nonprofit site by very prolific interviewer Brett Homenick. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I've also just added publisher info for the first few non-English sources. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Eiga-Kevin2, is this ready for Jo-Jo to relook at? If it is, could you ping them. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Yup. @Jo-Jo Eumerus please take a look over the references again and my remarks. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Marked some, but others still need review by someone who has source and language access. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I very much doubt that anyone will have physical access to all these sources tbh but ok. I just used Google Books for most of the non-English ones. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus do you suggest I go ahead and remove some of the non-English books I've cited but only could access via Google Books since we can't verify directly? Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd prefer if someone checked them directly. I don't think verification convenience is a good reason to exclude sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Eiga-Kevin2, if there are English language sources which cover much the same material as a foreign language source and are HQ RSs you are required to give preference to the English language source. See WP:NOENG "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance." Gog the Mild (talk) 17:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah that policy is what I had in mind when removing the non-English books yesterday Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Eiga-Kevin2 I think you need native or near-native speakers to endorse the non-English sources and translations to pass a source review. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• "that also depicts an eponymous creature from Korean folklore": the use of "eponymous" is not helpful here since the two films have slightly different names. Suggest "that also depicts the Pulgasari, a creature from Korean folklore".

  Pulgasari is used in North Korea to refer to the monster (based on how the cast pronounced the name within the film) and Bulgasari in the South. Sources on the creature's article suggest it is called Bulgasari. I think eponymous is fine since it isn't inaccurate. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  I now realize there are two romanizations used for transliterating Korean, and per Bulgasari (creature) the creature's name can be rendered in the Latin alphabet as Bulgasari or Pulgasari. Are we relying on the cast's speech to pick "Pulgasari" for this article, or does the film have a standard transliteration in reliable sources that uses the "P"? And re "eponymous", since it mean "giving its name to something", I think it's confusing because it's not yet clear to the reader that Bulgasari and Pulgasari are the same creature -- in fact that sentence is how we tell the reader that, but it relies on them understanding that "eponymous" refers to both. You're certainly right that it's not inaccurate, but I think it's not clear to the reader what is meant. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  It's not just the cast saying "Pulgasari" that I'm replying upon here. Western sources covering the film's plot and other details usually say Pulgasari when refering to the legendary creature the monster is based upon as well as the film's title. Sources just covering the legend of the creature itself call it "Bulgasari". I could write "that also depicts the Bulgasari/Pulgasari, a creature from Korean folklore" Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 22:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think that would be better than the current wording. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  Alright, done. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• "who brings to life a metal-eating monster her late father envisioned": judging from the plot summary, he didn't just envision it, he created a figurine of it.

  Changed "envisioned" to "created" Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Shin and his wife, Choi Eun-hee, were in captivity in North Korea since their kidnapping by Kim Jong Il in 1978.": Suggest "Shin and his wife, Choi Eun-hee, were kidnapped in 1978 by agents of Kim Jong Il, and held captive in North Korea." It wasn't Kim Jong Il who kidnapped them after all, and I think it's clearer to give the kidnapping and subsequent captivity in chronological order.

  Done. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Pulgasari was pitched in February 1985": "pitched" is a word from the film industry with the wrong connotations here -- it implies there was a pitch meeting at which a production company assessed the likely commercial success of the movie before deciding whether to make it. In fact it appears the movie was made under Kim Jong Il's direct orders, so there was no pitching involved. However, I do see further references to the pitch in the body of the article. If that's correct, who was it pitched to? Kim Jong Il?

  Changed "pitched" to "put forward" & the source directly says "The project was proposed in mid-February 1985" but never specifies who pitched it and who to. I could change it to say that's when development started. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• I think it would be worth mentioning in the lead that there are doubts over whether Chong Gon-Jo really did finish the film; currently you say "allegedly" but I think it would be better to make it clear that it's not definite.

  Added "some sources suggest" Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• "With an estimated ¥200–300 million ($2–3 million) budget": I think the "¥" sign is used for both yuan and yen, so I can't tell what currency this is in, but why isn't it in North Korean won? And is the dollar amount based on 1985 exchange rates or has it been inflated to give the current value? If not I think we should do that.

  Added link to the yen page; source never specifies if the $2-3m is based on contemporary exchange rates or inflated. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• "is imprisoned and forced to starve for defending his people": "forced to starve" is an odd thing to say: to force someone to do something implies they must actively do whatever they're being forced to do, but starving is not active. Suggest just "is imprisoned and starved to death for defending his people. Shortly before he dies, ...". That's assuming his death is from starvation, as seems to be the case.

  Ok I've changed that. Yes the character dies of starvation in the film. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Pulgasari shares a special bond with Ami; after eating a farmer's tools, it turns into a powerful figure." The first half of this sentence appears to be unconnected to the second half; any reason to put these two details in the same sentence?

  Fixed Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• "The peasants become fed up with being penurious and suffering": "penurious" is too formal a word for this context -- "... with their poverty and suffering" would do.

  Done Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• "The monster lets itself be trapped and is set ablaze to save Ami". The generals set it ablaze, and they don't do so to save Ami; the monster lets itself be trapped to save Ami.

  Changed to "The monster lets itself be trapped to save Ami and is set ablaze"

• "which its enemies readily provide for hostilities": odd phrasing -- I think you mean that the weapons are often made of metal.

  Changed to "The king runs into Pulgasari, who wins many battles against his army because it devours their metal weapons." Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• "After defeating the king, Pulgasari becomes problematic; it starts eating the rebels' weapons and farmers' tools": "problematic" is the wrong word here. It might be easiest to cut the descriptive phrase and just say it starts eating the rebels' weapons and the farmers' tools.

  Agreed, done. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Kim Jong Il, the heir apparent of North Korea": suggest "Kim Jong Il, the heir apparent to Kim Il Sung, the ruler of North Korea".

  Done Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Shin and Miyanishi stated that the film's story is based around Pulgasari or Bulgasari, a creature from Korean folklore." Do we need to attribute this inline? It's not as if there's any doubt about it, is it? Similarly, do we need "Furthermore, according to retrospective sources" in the next sentence? The titles alone and the existence of the folklore creature seem to make this clear enough.

  That's there because Shin nor anyone on the production team said anything about it being a remake, at least as far as I can find. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  But the sentence doesn't say anything about whether it's a remake; it only refers to the mythical creature, which (at least per our article on it) can be spelt either way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  Alright. I've removed the "Shin and Miyanishi stated that" bit Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 06:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

• Is there any coverage of why Toho decided to work on the film, despite Shin's involvement, or of the media reaction? I would have thought anyone apparently condoning Shin's kidnapping would be subject to a lot of media criticism.

  Can't find anything as to why they did but Satsuma seemed excited that he was going to work overseas. Nobody seemed to know Shin was kidnapped at the time. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  If there's nothing in the sources there's nothing you can do, but it's surprising. Particularly as I see that the announcement that Shin and his wife had been kidnapped (rather than were just missing) came less than a year earlier; you'd think South Koreans would have been very aware of the situation. Anyway, I've struck the point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• "The planning of Pulgasari was accredited to Shin": I think you just mean "credited".

  Done. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Shin showed no apparent interest": "showed" is redundant with "apparent"; you only need one or the other.

  Removed "apparent". Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• "to design the monster resembling a cow": poor syntax. Perhaps "to design the monster to resemble a cow", or "that the monster should resemble a cow".

  Went with the latter. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• "to set the film in China during the Three Kingdoms period if the historical research and costumes made it match": I don't know what "made it match" means. The Pulgasari is a folklore creature, so what historical research are we talking about? And what would the costumes have to match?

  Idk source spell that out. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• What does Shin mean by "ask the Chinese side to adjust it accordingly"?

  Source also doesn't spell that out. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  For both this and the point above I don't think we can use material we don't understand. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  Fair point. Removed them. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Through his Japanese office, Shin invited": but Shin was trapped in North Korea, so in what sense could he still be working with a Japanese office? And why "his" -- did he have an independent business in Japan that still existed?

  Shin was allowed to travel so long as he was supervised by North Korean bodyguards. He set up several offices (i.e. branchs of his North Korean company Shin Films that he and Kim set up) in other countries during his abduction. I've somewhat noted he had a branch in Vienna on the article already too. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Satsuma allegedly became the first foreigner to appear in a North Korean film." Why "allegedly"? Is there some doubt about the reliability of the source?

  Changed to "Satsuma believed that he became the first foreigner to appear in a North Korean film". Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• The body qualifies the 13,000 extras with "some sources" but the lead doesn't qualify the number. If there's genuinely some doubt about it I think the lead should reflect that, or the number should be removed from the lead. And the body sources the comment about the Korean People's Army and the number of extras separately, so can I just check that the source does say those 13,000 came from the army? I had a look via Google Translate and as far as I can tell it doesn't say that.

  The army contributing the extras was based on Satsuma's statement underneath that sentence. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  Struck, since you've cut it from the lead and changed it in the body, but I don't think Satsuma's comment does support it -- rather the reverse, in fact, since he says the army would go and get the people, implying the people they brought were not in the army. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• The 20,000 pyeong figure needs an inline equivalent in square yards or acres or something similar.

  Will sort that out shortly Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  Converted it to sq m & sq ft Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 21:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

• "filmed the Pulgasari suit wandering around a miniature village": the suit containing Satsuma? Or claymation or other animation?

  Unspecified in source Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• "which the Chinese crew had already been creating": we haven't been told about the Chinese before this -- is this Beijing Film Studio? What was their role?

  Just specified in the pre-production section Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• "due in part to electrical constraints and equipment theft": what were the electrical constraints? And more details about the problems with theft might be interesting, if the source says more about it.

  Electrical constraints aren't clear but one of those two sources mentions a power outage. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Satsuma named a scene in which Pulgasari rises over a hill while the rebels and king's army fight below the "Marusan", which he said is the name of the mound at which they filmed it." Why is this worth including? Is this just Satsuma's own name for the scene, or is it a famous scene in some way, with the name used by others?

  Not that notable so removed it altogether. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• "purportedly reluctant to publicize Shin was the director": I think you mean "reportedly", not "purportedly", and perhaps "reluctant for Shin to be acknowledged as" would be better.

  Done Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Understood. Many of sentences you've asked me to change I'd previously changed based on the suggestions of other reviewers here and they seemed fine with them btw. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

More comments from reading the remainder of the article:

• Did MBC broadcast Pulgasari on TV once the judge decided the broadcasting rights belonged to the production company? We don't actually say whether they did or not. And if they did so in 1999, that would have been before the ruling on whether the film contained Juche -- is that right? That is, the ministry has to rule on whether a film contains Juche before it can be distributed in theatres, but not before it airs on TV?

  No, I couldn't find anything to say they did show it on TV or not in the end. Seems like they gave up on that idea and decided to move on to try and show it in theaters. Yes, it all happened before the ruling anyway. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• "and was under consideration to acquire screen quotas": I don't follow this -- this was a proposal to have a minimum quota for North Korean films? That seems unlikely.

  Specified it was being considered for screen quotas benefits in case they decided to handle films from the North like something of a domestic release. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  I see. How about making it ".. was attracting controversy on whether films from North Korea should be handled as foreign or domestic distributions, and that it was being considered for classification as a domestic film, which would lead to it benefitting from the South Korean screen quota system"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

  Done Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• Is the Muju Film Festival worth a redlink? Currently it's an empty section in Muju County; probably not worth linking to that.

  Gave it a redlink for now. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• "the book was also published in April 1994": I would cut this unless you have a reason why the reader needs to know the book was reprinted.

  Rewrote and removed the date. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• "suggested that Pulgasari was more evocative of": I don't think you need "more".

  I think the fully sentence it's apart of [i.e. "Pulgasari was more evocative of The Golem: How He Came into the World (1920) than the Godzilla series, which it is commonly compared to"] won't make sense with "more" because the reviewer is saying they think it is more like that movie than Godzilla. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  You're right; I misread that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• Why do we can that Ryu Deok-hwan watched the film? We don't report his opinion of it.

  Source just says (per DeepL Translator): "To play Dong-gu, [Ryu] watched over 70 movies, including Billy Elliot and Hana and Alice [...] He even watched/studied the North Korean movie Pulgasari in case it would help." Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  Without that context the mention in the article seems random. Given that he watched scores of movies in preparation, and that there's no reason given as to why he thought this film would be helpful, I would just cut this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

  Alright, done. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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