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) 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

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?

• 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)

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)

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?)
• 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)

Comments 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.
• "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.
• "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.
• "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.

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

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

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)

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)

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?
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Why is the "Release" section placed before the "Music and lyrics" section? It seems out of order.
• The word "released" is repeated multiple times in the first paragraph of the "Release" section, and it would be good to add variety.
• 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.
• I would avoid the repetition in saying "sing the song".
• The following source (here) has credited authors that are not included in the citation.

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)

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)

Source review/Spotchecks by Lazman321

As you requested, I'll be conducting spotchecks soon here. Lazman321 (talk) 20:31, 20 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.
• 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?
• Do we know when the current box was added?
• 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.
• Is it elephant ivory?
• More later, I expect.

Johnbod (talk) 04:30, 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)

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)

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)

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)

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. 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)

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)

• 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: [1], [2]. 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)

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.

• 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.
• 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

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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.
• 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"
• 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.
• 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 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)
• 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 think

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)

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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Comments 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)

Older nominations

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)

• "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)

History of chocolate

Nominator(s): Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Chocolate today is a mix of cocoa powder, cocoa butter, milk solids and vanilla, lecithin and PGPR, perhaps some cheap fats depending on where you live. A few thousand years ago it was quite a bit different. This article has come about with the generous reviewing time of It is a wonderful world and Tim riley at GA and PR respectively, I hope it's an enjoyable read. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• Rollinginhisgrave Nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Passing comments only, but:

• FNs 80 and 88 throw up error messages for me
• "Today" as a section title fails MOS:RECENT

- SchroCat (talk) 07:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Should be resolved. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 08:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

I peer reviewed the article and raised a few points, all of which were dealt with satisfactorily. On rereading for FAC I have found nothing more to quibble about and am happy to support the elevation of this article to FA. It seems to me to meet all the criteria: well written, full without being overfull, evidently neutral and balanced, well and widely sourced and nicely illustrated. I enjoyed reviewing it, and I look forward to seeing it on our front page. Tim riley talk 14:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

It is a wonderful world

As mentioned, I passed it to GA. I am not familiar enough with the FA criteria to give a general support or oppose, but I will carry out the spot check:

Spot check

During this check I fixed some errors, and added some information to some of the references: Added first name of first author to one of the books Added location of publication to a few books which did not include it in the publisher name Fixed P/PP errors and hyphen/en dash formatting mistakes Added archive link to the web source this script is very good for identifying these fixes. It is a wonderful world (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC) Reference numbers refer to this version. [1]: no problems [4a, b]: no problems [5]: no problems [41]: no problems [58]: no problems [122]: no problems [125]: no problems [126a, b]: no problems [133]: no problems [137]: no problems [149]: no problems [150]: no problems [161]: no problems Short note on comprehensiveness: I see this source isn't referenced, have you sifted through it? It is a wonderful world (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I found no issues during the spot check, and very few in my recent more extensive spot check at GA. It is a wonderful world (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Support from NØ

Putting down a placeholder. I enjoyed reading White chocolate, so why not? :) My own FAC could use more reviews in case you are interested.--NØ 22:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• "It is unclear when what can strictly be considered chocolate was first drunk" - I found it a bit difficult to understand what is being said here upon first reading it. Is there a way to simplify?
  • I reworded the full sentence sentence: "Multiple cacao beverages were consumed, including an alcoholic beverage made by fermenting the pulp around cacao seeds, and it is unclear when a drink that can be strictly understood as chocolate originated."
    • Yep, that more than takes care of my concern. Thank you.
• Psychedelic drug might be worth linking to
• "Since World War I, chocolate has developed further, creating couverture and white chocolate" - Maybe add "been" between "has" and "developed". It reads a bit like the chocolate developed itself currently. It is also not clear who did the "creating" in the second part of this sentence, and it reads like the chocolate did it.
• "This is considered unlikely as there is no clear reason why the 'sh' sound represented by 'x' would change to 'ch', or why an 'l' would be added." - Unlikely according to whom? Since there is just one source cited, it might be worth attributing if there is no larger consensus.
  • I'll walk you through my thinking briefly. The Coes gave opinions on several etymologies, initially in 1996. One of these was pretty influential (on cacao). Kaufman and Justeson wrote a paper, which is a crazy read because at times it goes into polemic. In it, they criticize a few of the Coes etymologies, but not this one, implicitly endorsing it. Further to this, the xocatl is dropped from the literature, and a different etymology has some consensus. I've attributed for now.
    • I will trust your expertise on this. The topic is way out of my domain so feel free to consider my suggestion optional.
• "The decorations on these high-quality ceramics suggest that cocoa was a centerpiece to social gatherings among people of high social status." - "high-quality" seems to be in wikivoice currently
• "Both cocoa beans and the vessels and instruments used for preparing and serving chocolate were given as important gifts and tributes" - "important gifts" sounds a little bit redundant, since I am not sure what would qualify as an unimportant gift. Do you mean to say it was given as a gift to important people?
• "The Maya then removed the husks and pounded the nibs" - Is the plural "Mayans" or "the Maya"? There seem to be usages of both whereas it is probably best to be consistent. I am also seeing "The Maya peoples" used a few paragraphs below.
• "The bean was used as a symbol for the human heart removed in human sacrifice, possibly as they were both thought to be repositories of precious liquids—blood and chocolate." - Avoid repeating "human" in close proximity if possible.
• "It was served to human sacrifice victims before their execution." - Might be good to mention who was serving it
  • The source's source says "On the festival eve, cacao beverages were served to the individuals slated to be killed as sacrifices to the god to “comfort them”"
• "Spanish conquistador Hernán Cortés may have been the first European to encounter chocolate when he observed it in the court of Moctezuma II in 1520." - You later go on to say there is no evidence he was responsible for its introduction in Spain, so should this be attributed or has this fact been proven beyond doubt?
  • This is not contested. If you can find the energy to get access to it through the Wikipedia Library, there is a very romantic poem about chocolate by William Baer I love on JSTOR [3] which features this fact prominently, even if it gets (basically) all the history wrong.
• "Chocolate was an acquired taste for the Spanish living in the Americas" - "people" would make sense after "Spanish" in this case to avoid confusion with the language, although this suggestion is in nitpicky territory. There is also "Spaniards" a few sentences later so you may change it to be consistent.
• "Its earliest documented introduction to the Spanish court occurred in 1544 by Qʼeqchiʼ Mayan nobles brought to Spain by Dominican friars" - Did the Mayan nobles do the documentation or the introduction?
• "Coenraad Johannes van Houten received a patent for the manufacturing process for making Dutch cocoa." - Repetition of "for" seems avoidable as "of" works instead of the second one.
• "At the time however, there was no market for cocoa butter, and it took until the 1860s to be widely used." - Add a comma before however
• "Quakers were active in chocolate entrepreneurship in the Industrial Revolution, setting up J. S. Fry & Sons, Cadbury, and Rowntree's." - The names at the end could be introduced as "companies" or "firms", whichever is appropriate, just to avoid any confusion.
• "In the 2000s, consumption grew in Africa; in Nigeria for example" - Add a comma before "for example"
• "In 2013 there were at least 37 bean-to-bar producers in the United States, increasing from one in 1997." - Add a comma after "In 2013"
• "In 2005, a non-binding, voluntary industry agreement called the Harkin–Engel Protocol was created to address child and forced labor." - created by whom?
• The absence of a close-up picture of an actual chocolate bar in the article seems worth bringing up. Surely one is available?
  • Uploaded one, just the one from the dark chocolate article.

Nice and well-researched article. Who doesn't like chocolate? Could not be me...--NØ 11:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

MaranoFan, I believe everything has been addressed, hopefully to your satisfaction. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. Happy to support for promotion.--NØ 17:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Jens

• Just a drive-by comment: The history of chocolate dates back over 5,000 years – Is that really the case? This seems to equate chocolate with cacao, but, according to the article, the only evidence of actual chocolate is only in 600 BC? I was also wondering if the article title should be "history of cacao" instead, though I do like the current title. What is your stance here? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources describing a history of chocolate treat domestication as the first step in the history. This is because we can't know when "chocolate" consumption began, as researchers will distinguish chocolate from alcoholic cacao drinks, and when we scrape out pottery we are getting evidence such as theobromine, which looks the same whether consumption was alcoholic or not. So we just generally characterize the history as going back 5000 years, even if we acknowledge we may be referring to pre-cursors.

My personal view on this reflects Sampeck's; that it's more accurate to refer to "chocolate" as one "cacao drink" recipe among many, which would resolve this tension quite well, if only acknowledging chocolate as originating around the mid second millennium. She is prominent in the literature, but her critique doesn't seem to have been taken up too much. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. May I suggest to make it clear at the beginning of the lead when the oldest known consumption of actual chocolate was? Otherwise I fear it is just misleading, and readers think that chocolate was invented 5,000 years ago, which is what the lead literally says, but which is not necessarily true. Furthermore, the lead goes like this: The history of chocolate dates back over 5,000 years, when the cacao tree was first domesticated in present-day southeast Ecuador. Soon introduced to Mesoamerica, chocolate gained cultural significance as an elite drink among different cultures, including the Mayans and Aztecs. – So this says that "chocolate" was around "soon" after 3,000 years BC, which contradicts the article body saying that the evidence only supports 600 BC (which is very far from "soon"). Then, you have "Origin in South America", implying that chocolate was invented there, which is not necessarily the case. I think you should make this clearer so that it is not miss-interpreted. Maybe the section "Early pre-Columbian" could be renamed in "Early pre-Columbian cultivation of cacao", to make clear that this is not yet about chocolate sensu stricto. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe I've made these changes. I didn't rename the section "early pre-Columbian cultivation of cacao, as it isn't that it's not about chocolate in the strictest sense, but that it may not be. I did rename "Origin in South America" → "Cacao domestication in South America" as that's a better summary of Lanaud et al (2024). Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

That works well, thanks! Will try to do a prose review soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the diagram
  • Done by 35%

• File:Mujer_vertiendo_chocolate_-_Codex_Tudela.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Spanish-Unknown-A-Man-Scraping-Chocolate-69_20_1-739x1024.jpg, File:Cover_of_Philippe_Sylvestre_Dufour_book,_17th_century.png
  • Done

• File:Pre-1928_advertisement_for_Cadbury's_Dairy_Milk_Chocolate.png: why is this believed to be pre-1928? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Rereading the source, I can clarify it further to between 1905-1906. Dairy Milk Chocolate was released in 1905. On page 37 of the source (Cadbury's Purple Reign: The Story Behind Chocolate's Best-Loved Brand) is the relevant quote: "The box labels for Dairy Milk featured rosy-cheeked dairymaids ferrying gallons of creamy milk into the kitchen, but with the punch-line, 'Rich Nutty Flavour.' However, this was a temporary lapse from the key insight that it was all about the milk, so advertising for Cadbury's Dairy Milk from that point on was solely focused on reinforcing the brand's grip on milk credentials. A year after launch, the label and advertisements were featuring a pixie skimming the cream off containers of milk in a dairy with the punch-line amended to say, 'Rich in Cream.'" I can clarify why I initially wrote pre-1928 if you think it's a relevant consideration. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Llewee

Interesting article. This set of comments covers the early sections of the article (excluding the lead) up to the end of "spread".--Llewee (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• "Consumption was restricted to adult men, as the stimulating effects were considered unsuitable for women and children." - If this is based on the accounts and images that exist from the time, could that clarified? Giving that its unknown whether commoners were consuming chocolate it seems unlikely that we know for certain that no women and children were.
  • I've attributed, the source says "Furthermore, until the mid-16th century, chocolate was only consumed as a beverage by adult males, since Mayan and Mexica/Aztec traditions held that chocolate was too “ stimulating ” for adult females and children."
• "Chocolate was one of the two most important drinks to the Aztecs." - Could this be clarified? (e.g most valuable, most prestigious, healthiest)
  • I've added "It was a luxury," I'm not sure I can go much further from the sourcing.
• "Although chocolate was not consumed in the same way as the elite among commoners, it was widely available across Mesoamerica at the time of the conquest" - Could more detail be added about how commoners consumed it? My impression from the early part of the paragraph was that it was exclusive to the social elite with a few exceptions?
  • Yeah. This is a really good question. Given the tension is reflecting some disagreement in the literature, I've attributed each opinion.
• "An inferior gruel" - inferior to pure chocolate or inferior to other types of gruel?
  • To pure chocolate, clarified.
• "despite the spice only being introduced to Mesoamerica by the Spanish conquest" - the conquest is linked for the first time here though it and "Spanish invasion" have been mentioned previously
• "The primarily male Spanish population was systematically exposed to chocolate through the Aztec women they married or took as concubines" - The use of the word "systemically" creates the impression it was some kind of deliberate decision.--Llewee (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Removed.
• "Spaniards, casta and Afro-Guatemalan women who couldn't afford domestic servants likely learned to make chocolate from their neighbors" - This is partly a reiteration of an earlier point but we seem to have moved from chocolate being an elite food in south america to being a food of the masses without much explanation.
  • Tell me if above changes are adequate for this text.

• It is clearer. It would be good to know why the shift happened but I assume that isn't specified in the sources.--Llewee (talk) 11:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• "and only in extreme cases did a man prepare it" - I think "unusual" or "rare" would be a better word than "extreme" here.
• "there was controversy whether chocolate was both a food and a drink or just a drink" - The word "about" should appear between "controversy" and "whether".
• "When chocolate was introduced to France is therefore difficult to pinpoint," - it is unclear what reason "therefore" is referring to.
• "it would only be settled as beneficial by 1684" - who decided it was beneficial?
• "taken from the Spaniards in 1655" - I assume conquered?
• "in England chocolate was a commercial product" - was this different from elsewhere?
  • Yes, quite. Do I need to make this clearer, or were you just checking if I was implying something I didn't mean to?

• What does this mean in practice? I assume chocolate was also being bought and sold in other countries?--Llewee (talk) 11:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• The source: "England was a land of shopkeepers and enterprising private businessmen, while France was a highly centralized, authoritarian kingdom with vast, tightly regulated state monopolies. In France, chocolate was strictly for the aristocracy, while in England it was available to all those who had the money to pay for it, and it was on offer to all who patronized coffee-shops. Chocolate was becoming democratized." Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• "by the end of the 17th century it was compulsory to include it in British Navy rations" - While this was before the England and Scotland political union, it appears that the kingdoms' navies were integrated together in the 17th century so "British" is likely accurate. Perhaps link History of the Royal Navy (before 1707).
  • Oh, very good to know.
• "spread to the North American colonies by the late-17th century" - I'd suggest linking "North American colonies".
  • What is a good link here? This includes Canada.

• I think British America seems suitable.--Llewee (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• Done, thankyou. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• "was well established among the elite of late-17th-century Philippines" - I might be mistaken but I think there should be a "the" between "of" and "late".

Thankyou Llewee for these comments. I've actioned them unless noted above. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm going to be away from Wikipedia for a couple of days, I will answer these comments as soon as possible.--Llewee (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• Three "however"s in the etymology section. Often it can be cut without any change in meaning; I'd suggest eliminating or rephrasing to leave no more than one in the section. You might have a look at the other instances later in the article to see if any of them can be cut too.
• Evidence of cacao domestication exists as early as circa 3300 BC in the Amazon in southeast Ecuador by the Mayo-Chinchipe culture, before it was introduced to Mesoamerica. This emerged from research into residue in ceramics, which revealed starch grains specific to the cacao tree, residue of theobromine (a compound found in high levels in cacao), and fragments of ancient DNA with sequences unique to the cacao tree." Suggest "Cacao was domesticated as early as circa 3300 BC in the Amazon in southeast Ecuador by the Mayo-Chinchipe culture, before it was introduced to Mesoamerica. Archaeological evidence from residues on ceramics includes the discovery of starch grains specific to the cacao tree, theobromine (a compound found in high levels in cacao), and fragments of ancient DNA with sequences unique to the cacao tree." I'd like to avoid the current repetition of "residue", and bring the word "evidence" closer to what it's referring to.
• A general question, which may not have any relevance to this particular article: how does this article fit into the subject of cacao beverages? It's apparent there are other such drinks, and from the title of this article I assume they're not covered here. Are they covered anywhere? Or are they such a minor topic that the coverage should be just a paragraph in this article? Or in chocolate or cacao tree?
• "Inhabitants of ancient Mesoamerica created varietals of cacao": I think you want "varieties" here -- as a noun, "varietal" is used exclusively of wine, as far as I know.
• The word "cocoa" is introduced without definition. I think it should be defined, and it's also not clear to me whether you're using it in multiple senses -- sometimes it seems to refer to ground cacao beans, and sometimes as a synonym for cacao, meaning the plant generally.
• "was a centerpiece to social gatherings": suggest "was a central element [or important element] in social gatherings"; "centerpiece" has specific meanings which we don't want the connotations of here. I see "centerpiece" does have the meaning you give it here, though, so this might just be a BrEng perspective -- feel free to ignore this one.
• In the "Mayan" section we've switched to "chocolate" from "cacao" without explanation. The lead talks about "a drink strictly understood as chocolate", but we haven't yet told the reader what this strict definition consists of, so it's not clear why the change of terminology in this section.
• "There is uncertainty about how fresh cacao and its pulp were used in drinks": Does this refer specifically to tzune and saca? If so I think we should say so. If not I'm not sure what point is being made -- we apparently do have quite a bit of information about how cacao was used. Does this just mean there may have been other drinks about which less is known?
• "There is controversy among historians": is it actually controversy, rather than just disagreement? I think the weaker word would be better unless there's significant debate about it.
• "Through various eras": a bit vague -- can we make this more specific?
• "A gruel made by adding maize was held to be lower-quality than drinks without": earlier we refer to saca, which sounds similar to this, as not being chocolate, so now I wonder again about what the scope of this article is -- perhaps it should be "History of chocolate and cacao drinks"?
• "While the highest-quality chocolate was pure, additions were often made, requiring the removal and then replacement of the foam." I don't understand this. The method of making chocolate giving earlier is in the section about the Mayans, but assuming the Aztecs' method was similar, the additions happen long before the foam is created. And I can't visualize what is meant by "removal and replacement" -- perhaps they scooped the foam off the liquid, adding the dried chili, then poured the foam back on top?
• "Today, Aztec chocolate drinks are commonly understood to contain cinnamon": I don't know what "commonly understood" means -- is this a popular misconception? A scholarly error?
• "This cacao was argued to be inferior as it was not the same variety as the Criollo type grown in Mesoamerica: this was the Forastero, which was native to South America and although it yielded more fruit and was more disease resistant, it tasted dry and bitter." Suggest " ... which was native to South America and tasted dry and bitter, although it yielded more fruit and was more disease resistant."
• "Despite bans on importing this cacao around 1630, Guayaquil cacao continued to be exported by smugglers": this refers to imports but then to exports. I think I know the intended meaning, but could it be rephrased to be clearer?
• "the last change an application of the principles of humorism": in what way was this an application of these principles? What was thought to be achieved by warming it?
• "This habit of serving chocolate spiced to mimic the Mesoamerican flavorings had declined by the 18th century": but the mention of spicing it earlier in this paragraph refers to spicing it to suit Spanish, not Mesoamerican, tastes.
• "A fantastic 17th-century depiction ...": suggest "A 17th-century imagined scene of ..."
• "Tracing the spread of chocolate in Europe is complicated by the religious wars and shifting allegiances of the time, but it is understood that it was driven by cosmopolitanism and missionaries". Why would shifting allegiances making tracing the history harder? Presumably the wars are mentioned because they disrupted record-keeping or destroyed records, but more clarity would be good. The second half seems odd too -- cosmopolitanism refers to the vogue for chocolate drinking that appeared in the 17th century, at least in England? I think this could be said more directly if so. And the mention of missionaries is odd if we're talking about Europe.
• This last made me take a look at Reay Tannahill's Food in History, which I have a copy of. A couple of items from it might be worth mentioning (the book is online here), though how relevant some of these are depends on the question above about whether this article is strictly about chocolate or about cacao production and use. From pp. 241-242: There was a Spanish/Portuguese monopoly on cacao production for over a hundred years; Tannahill also says that consumption was "a jealously guarded monopoly", implying there was no desire to export it to elsewhere in Europe. The footnote about prostitutes being paid in cacao beans isn't directly relevant but supports the use of the beans as a substitute for money, which is interesting. The sequence of spread across Europe might be worth giving (though you do already have some of this sequence): Flanders and Italy, then Oxford and England, then France.
• "With the difficulty in tracing the spread of chocolate across Europe, it is difficult to pinpoint when chocolate was introduced to France. However, evidence suggests it was first introduced as medicine.": can we avoid having "difficulty" and "difficult" so close together, and the same goes for the two uses of "introduced"?
• I don't think the food safety laws in Britain are a result of chocolate adulteration particularly -- according to Tannahill (p. 294) chocolate was just one of many foods found to be dangerously adulterated, and it was the investigation by The Lancet that caused the new laws.
• "The process removed cocoa butter from chocolate liquor, the result of milling, by enough to create a cake that could be pulverized into a powder." The syntax is convoluted. If I understand the intended meaning, how about "The milling process removed enough cocoa butter from chocolate liquor to create a cake that could be pulverized into a powder"? And I'm not clear from this if it's the cocoa butter that is the cake or the remaining liquor. I would think it's the cocoa butter but the descriptions earlier in the article imply cocoa butter is what is removed in preparing chocolate.
• "This paternalistic concern was shared by other, irreligious chocolate manufacturers": is "irreligious" the right word here? Or were they simply Anglicans who paid less attention to their faith than the Quakers? And was this paternalism specific to chocolate manufacturing? That seems unlikely but if it's true it's so odd I think further comment is needed.
• "Milk had previously been added to chocolate, but it was expensive and difficult to keep fresh": what was expensive and difficult to keep fresh? Milk was presumably not expensive; was the process expensive? And was the result a chocolate bar or another form of the drink?

Leaning oppose. I'm going to stop there for now and wait till these comments are addressed before continuing. There's a lot of good material here, but a couple of paragraphs feel a bit choppy, as if you'd had difficulty figuring out how to integrate the information you'd dug up into a smooth narrative. For example, "In the 1980s, Indonesia increased production": OK, it's in the middle of a paragraph about production but it doesn't seem to be part of a narrative about chocolate production. And the article seems too short -- 1925 to the present-day is one screenful on my computer, but surely there is more that can be said about those hundred years. Have there been no innovations in chocolate manufacturing? More data about the growth in consumption, across various countries? And a third of that last page is the last three paragraphs, about very recent developments. I can see that as you get to the 20th century the boundaries between this article and one on chocolate itself, and perhaps another about chocolate manufacturing methods, become harder to define, but still it seems data-light. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Fearless (Taylor Swift song)

Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 02:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a song by Taylor Swift when she used to be a country musician. Sweet like American Pie, this song will make you jump off your seat and dance! I believe this article is comprehensive, well-written, and well-sourced for an FA :) Ippantekina (talk) 02:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Aoba47

Moved to Wikipedia:Peer review/Midnights/archive1

 – Aoba47 (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Aoba47: hey, thank you very much for the comments! I think this should go to Wikipedia:Peer review/Midnights/archive1 and not here. Ippantekina (talk) 04:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Apologies for that. I have never done that before. I feel quite foolish for it. I will move the comments over there, but I will make sure to comment on this FAC to make up for my mistake. I am leaving this up as a placeholder for that purpose. Aoba47 (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• I would mention the retrospective reviews and rankings in the lead.
• There is a bit of repetition in the first paragraph of the "Background and writing" section, specifically with these two parts, ("Taylor Swift wrote songs for her second studio album" and "Swift wrote songs about"). The second instance could be changed to something like "Swift based her songs on love and personal experiences", but that is just a rough idea so feel free to revise it in a different way.
• The last part of this sentence seems overly wordy to me: (She first conceived the track while touring, when she was unattached romantically: "I wasn't even in the beginning stages of dating anybody.") The "unattached romantically" word choice along with the quote seem like a lot to just saying that Swift was single at the time of writing this song. I think something along the lines of "She was single when she first conceived the track while touring." would be more concise with losing anything.
• I am uncertain on the information regarding the "best dress" lyric is organized in the "Music and lyrics" section. It is currently brought up at the end of the second paragraph and then discussed in different points in the third paragraph. When I first read this section, it came off as a bit unfocused and repetitive as the prose would bring up this lyric, seemingly move on from it, and then bring it up again. Why not discuss everything about this lyric together instead?
• I would avoid using "meanwhile" in this context, (Amanda Ash of the Edmonton Journal, meanwhile, thought). Meanwhile implies that two actions are happening at the same time, and this sentence is using a source from 2008 and the previous sentence is using a source from 2024. I would just avoid using this transition in general as I do not think it really fits when discussing critical commentary.
• For the "Release and commercial performance" section, why not put all of the chart information into its own paragraph? Right now, the U.S. charts are attached to the paragraph about the song's release as an official and full-fledged single and the international charts are put into their own paragraph.
• For this part, (She sang the song donning a silver sparkly cocktail dress), I think it is best to avoid the "sang the song" phrasing when possible as it does come off as unnecessarily repetitive. That being said, it is difficult to not make this section come off as repetitive when there are only so many ways you can say that an artist sang/perform something so it is not a major deal for me. It may be best to change this instance to "performed the song" and revise the previous sentence to "also sang it" to avoid this repetition.
• This is more of a nitpick-y so apologies in advance, but I am uncertain about the "On a less enthusiastic side" wording. I think that "In a less enthusiastic review" would read better.
• This is not a requirement for a FAC, but I would still encourage you to archive your web citations to avoid any potential headaches with link rot and death. I know from experience that it can be a real pain.

I hope that these comments are helpful. I do not notice anything major, and most of my comments above are minor and more nitpicks. Hopefully, this will inspire others to review this FAC. Once all of my comments are addressed, I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure I have not missed anything. Great work as always, and have a great rest of your week. Aoba47 (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Aoba47:, many thanks for taking time reviewing this article! Although it was not obligatory of you to make up for the Midnights PR, I really appreciate it :) I've addressed all of your points accordingly. Let me know if anything remains unresolved. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Media review and support from Crisco 1492

• Back when I was teaching, I'd usually use "When I was your age, Taylor Swift was country" as a joke. Happy to review

Media:

• File:Taylor Swift - Fearless (Single).png - Single cover is used with valid FU rationale.
• File:FearlessSample.ogg - Datestamp is... probably not correct. I'd use a less specific timestamp.
• File:Taylor Swift - Fearless Tour - Los Angeles 02 cropped.jpg - Licensing is good. ALT text is a full sentence, and should thus be followed by a period.

Prose:

• Generally songs and other media articles include year of release in the first sentence.

• done. Ippantekina (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• footage from the tour were - Footage uses "was", generally

• done. Ippantekina (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Is "character" the correct term when referring to something in a song? Persona is more commonly used in literary studies to discuss the narrative voice used in poetry, which seems like it would be more parallel to a song than the prose-oriented "character"

• Switched to "narrator". Ippantekina (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Fearless" a country pop and pop rock song. - Missing a verb

• done. Ippantekina (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• She pays attention to the details, such as how the pavement glistens in the moonlight after a rain, how her date "runs [his] hand through [his] hair", and how she gets excited and nervous anticipating a first kiss. - Is this the persona or Swift?

• done. Ippantekina (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• such as dancing in the rain in one's best costumes - Textually this is very similar to the song lyrics you just quoted. Perhaps a paraphrase?
• On the Billboard Hot 100 chart dated November 1, 2008, "Fearless" debuted and peaked at number nine on the Billboard Hot 100,

• done. Ippantekina (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Swift thereby became the first female artist since Madonna in 1998 to have two top-10 debuts in one calendar year - What was the first one?
• which evaluated the impact of Swift's songwriting. - Doesn't make sense to me
• Several critics have ranked the track highly among all songs in Swift's discography

• done. Ippantekina (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• tropes - Probably worth a link

• done. Ippantekina (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• to conjecture romantic whimsy - To "form an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information"? I'm not sure this is the correct term.

• Changed to "depict". Ippantekina (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• other dramatized Fearless songs - How are the other songs dramatized?

• done. Ippantekina (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• were used to comprise a music video - "to consist, make up" isn't quite the sense you're going for. Interestingly, searching for that phrase in Google gives almost exclusively forks of this page.

• fixed. Ippantekina (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• It intermingles Swift's performances of other songs and behind-the-scene footage. - The video or the footage? Also, intertwines with is probably the better phrase

• done. Ippantekina (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• I've made some edits. Please review. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the review! I've addressed your points accordingly. Let me know if anything remains unsatisfactory :) Ippantekina (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  Looks good. Happy to support.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Medxvo

• I think there is a MOS:PIPE issue with certified platinum and platinum certification. And why are we in prose wikilinking "It received a platinum certification in Australia" but not "The Recording Industry Association of America certified the single platinum"?
• "The song also charted in Canada and Spain" - what about the United Kingdom?
• "On the Billboard Hot 100 chart" - can we indicate that it's a US chart (and that the paragraph is mainly for the US charts)?
• "The Guardian's Alexis Petridis was not as welcoming" - perhaps we can add his singles ranking so the review's placement can be justified, otherwise it's kind of confusing
• "Jason Mraz's "I'm Yours" and Train's "Hey Soul Sister" - "Jason Mraz's "I'm Yours" (2008) and Train's "Hey, Soul Sister" (2009)" (why "Hey Soul Sister" instead of "Hey, Soul Sister"?)

That's all I've got, good work as always :) Medxvo (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the prose review! I've addressed your comments accordingly. Let me know if the pipes make sense now :) Ippantekina (talk) 04:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Medxvo (talk) 06:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Source review - pass

• Refs 9 and 77 are duplicated
• Ref 20 is still active for me (and seems to have a subscription access now)
• Ref 29; also subscription access
• Refs 14, 46, 61, and 65 can be archived
• Can we use the liner notes of Speak Now World Tour – Live instead of refs 57 and 58 for the mashup songs details?

Medxvo (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I've fixed some sources and run another IABot round so that's it... Ippantekina (talk) 04:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Query

• @FAC coordinators: can I nominate a second article at this point? Ippantekina (talk) 03:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

You may. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:34, 18 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)

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)

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)

Gusuku period

Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

The Gusuku period corresponds to the early protohistorical period of Ryuykyuan history. It features the sudden migration of Japonic-speaking peoples into the archipelago, displacing the previous inhabitants of the Shellmidden period, saw the construction of a bunch of castles everywhere, the growth of an agricultural society, pirates, endemic warfare, and eventually the formation of the Ryukyu Kingdom. Previously, articles on this period on-wiki have conflated archaeological and historical sources with the traditional mythical narrative. I hope you all enjoy reading about this obscure period of history as much as I enjoyed writing it! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

750h

Will review. Ping me if I don't get to this within seven days. 750h+ 08:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to refuse my suggestions with proper justification.

lead

• Directly following the Shellmidden "directly" is redundant.
  • Done. - G
• fortresses which this won't affect my vote since the other is still widely used, but it's generally preferable to add a coma before "which".
  • Done. - G
• which proliferated across the archipelago would change "proliferated" to "increased rapidly" or something similar. Best to use words more understandable to a broad audience rather than large ones
  • Done. - G

background

• capacity prior to the introduction ==> "capacity before the introduction" (conciseness)
  • Done. - G
• the Ryuykus prior to c. 800 CE ==> "the Ryuykus before c. 800 CE"
  • Done. - G
• agriculture in lieu of foraging ==> "agriculture instead foraging" (conciseness)
  • Done. - G
• endemic warfare prior to the ==> "endemic warfare before the" (conciseness)
  • Done. - G
• Due to their close proximity "close" is redundant. "proximity" does the work
  • Done. - G

emergence

• peoples settled the Ryukyus should this be "peoples settled in the Ryukyus"
• "Settling the Ryukyus" is grammatical; see constructions like to settle the Americas or to settle the British Isles in academic lit. -G
• followed by the Okinawa Islands, the Miyako Islands, and finally the Yaeyama Islands. "finally" is redundant
  • I think finally is important here to note that these were done in order, rather than all three at once. - G
• population of the Ryukyu Islands prior to the Gusuku "prior to" ==> "before"
  • Fixed. - G
• divergence prior to the Gusuku "prior to" ==> "before"
  • Fixed. - G
• or as evolution from a trade creole shouldn't it be "or as an evolution from a trade creole"
  • Fixed. - G

developments

• Archaeologial examinations of sites at "Archaeological" is spelt wrong
  • Fixed. - G
• period sociey is a topic "society" is spelt wrong
• attributing the growth of a nobility and state i don't think article "a" is needed
  • Makes it so it can't be read as (nobility and state polities) instead of (a nobility) (and state polities). - G
• You use "organization" (american english) in one part of the article but you use "metres" or "centimetres" (british english) in another part. you're going to need use you one type of english.
  • Fixed. - G
• generally to the southwest so as to maximize sunlight remove "so as"
  • Fixed. - G
• and surrounded with palisades. ==> "and surrounded by palisades."
  • Fixed. - G
• with major bases on Kyushu and ==> "with major bases in Kyushu and"
  • Kyushu is an island, shouldn't it be on here? - G
• port of call in the Ryukyus, and became a major center of piracy remove the comma

emergence of the Ryukyu Kingdom

No problems here.

histography

• mainly based off interviews ==> "mainly based on interviews"
  • Fixed. - G
• two early 18th century versions of needs a hyphen between "18th"
  • Fixed. - G
• dating to periods prior to the 16th and ==> "dating to periods before the 16th and"
  • Fixed. - G
• began the 17,000 year rule hyphen needed between "17,000" and "rule"
  • Fixed. - G
• Okinawa in name only, and that remove comma
  • Fixed. - G
• written documentation prior to the 17th century ==> "written documentation before the 17th century"
  • Fixed. - G

Great work @Generalissima:, thanks for the article. 750h+ 07:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• @750h+: Thank you very much! Responded and fixed stuff. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  Support. 750h+ 23:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Arconning - source review

Marking my name down here. Ping as well within seven days^. Arconning (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Arconning: Pinging! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks sources match what they are being cited for
• No further comments, everything looks nice
  • Support on source check, great work on the article! Arconning (talk) 09:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Support from Crisco

• Any reason for not including the image in the infobox, instead of below it?
• Following the Shellmidden period, the Gusuku is generally described as beginning in the 11th century, following a dramatic social and economic shift over the previous centuries. - Following ... following
  • Fixed. - G
• leading to endemic warfare and the construction of the namesake gusuku fortresses ... eventually leading to the construction of the namesake gusuku. - There is some very similar construction here in the lede, so some rework would probably not be amiss.
  • Fixed. - G
• mid-Shellmidden ... Late Shellmidden - Not consistent in capitalization. Other examples: Middle Yayoi period
  • Fixed. - G
• contemporary sources - Contemporary to whom? Perhaps clearer if there were a "since 19XX, sources have" phrasing.
  • Fixed. - G
• Rice and millet agriculture spread to Sakishima by the 12th century. - This is the first mention of rice and millet, but you don't link them until the next paragraph (WP:LINKFIRST)
  • Fixed. - G
• Do we have a lang template for the loanwords in this article? (I ask for compatibility with screenreaders)
  • Added these. - G
• slave trading - Is there a better link, focusing more on East Asia?
  • I was unable to find one.
• Sho En - You spell the others "Shō"; why is Sho En losing the diacritic?
  • Fixed. - G
• primary sources limited to foreign diplomatic and tribute records - tribute records were mentioned earlier; would be better to link there
  • Fixed. - G
• Japan to development in the Ryukyus was challenged in the 1980s and 1990s as Okinawa's domestic development was emphasized, with historians such as Takara Kurayoshi and Murai Shōsuke emphasizing - Two uses of development and two uses of emphasiz(e/ing), with another emphasized in the next sentence. Might be good to rework.
  • Fixed. - G
• the Gusuku Site is a specific archaeology site on Kikaijima. - You use a lower-case "s" in other uses
  • Fixed. - G
• Overall, feels like the article is slightly overillustrated. I do like the images... maybe a use of {{multiple image}} would work to combine some?  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Just going to cite a few examples, to give ideas: Chicago (band) and Xifeng concentration camp.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Generalissima, just pinging in case you missed my comments.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Crisco 1492: Okay! I think I got to everything. Tried to add a few multiple image templates and moved some around. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• Great. I made one small fix, but otherwise looks good. Happy to support.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Image review - pass

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

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Katsurenj%C3%B4_(16).jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Location_Ryukyu_Islands.PNG
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Turbo_marmoratus_light_2.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Japanese_Foxtail_millet_01.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Warehouse_at_Motobu.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nakagusuku_Castle02n2700.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:B-Qingbai-Kanne_mit_Deckel._Song._Museum_f%C3%BCr_Asiatische_Kunst._.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Naha_Shuri_Castle50s3s4500.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:King_Sho_Shin.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Book_from_the_Ryukyu_Kingdom_(ca._1600).jpg

Most are own works, with one from flickr and two with an expired copyright. They are all either in the public domain or published under some version of CC BY-SA. All images are relevant to the article and placed in appropriate locations.

All images have captions. The caption "Shells of Turbo snails were prominent trade goods during the period" is a full sentence and needs a period. I suggest adding alt texts to "Katsurenjô (16).jpg" and "Book from the Ryukyu Kingdom (ca. 1600).jpg". All the other images have alt texts.

I agree with Crisco that, to make it visually better organized, the lead image should be included the info box, unless there is a good reason otherwise. The article has many images, but I'm not sure that this is a problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@Phlsph7: Implemented all the requested changes; thank you! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes; that takes care of the concerns. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Support by Lee Vilenski

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede

• "era of the history" - I could be very off, but surely it's "era in the history".Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Checking Google Scholar, both are attested but "era in the history" is a lot more common; corrected. - G
• Can we split the opening sentence? In my eyes the first sentence should be succinct in explaining what the article is about. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Fixed. - G
• Otherwise, the lede is quite tight. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• c. 1050 CE–15th century - considering circa just means roughly, can we not give a rough end date too? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Sure, 1429 works for that. - G

Prose

• Reconstruction of an elevated storehouse, Ocean Expo Park, Okinawa - image caption. Might seem petty, but I'd have something after storehouse. Don't want someone to think storehouse is a place, or Ocean Expo is a hut. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Added an "at". - G
• I'm sure you use it elsewhere, but could we spell out "ha" in full.Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Done. - G

Additional comments

• I've left some bare comments above, but I'm not finding enough to slow a support from me. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you very much! Made this fixes. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "is an era in the history of the Ryukyu Islands". Could this roll into a brief explanation of what and/or where the Ryuku Islands are.
  • Done. - G
• "Shellmidden period". Why the upper-case S?
  • This follows the sources; I think it's to differentiate it as a proper name for the period. - G
• "Gusuku period". Why the upper-case G? If it is upper case, shouldn't the p be as well?
  • Hmm. Some sources do say "Gusuku period" (a la Yayoi period or Kofun period) but you're right that both words be capitalized is more common. Will adjust and move. - G
• "from the Dazaifu trade outpost on Kikaijima". This needs unpacking a little. At the moment it isn't comprehensible to a non-expert without diving into the links.
  • Unpacked. - G
• A map at the bottom of the infobox would be nice.
  • Done. - G
• "they were built in great numbers". Is it possible to give a number? I took "great numbers" to be several thousand.
  • Gave a rough number and elaborated in the body. - G
• "merged as tributary kingdoms". Tributary to what?
  • Elaborated. - G
• "The rise of the local aji nobility steadily ...". What is an aji?
  • Just used "lord" for the lede. - G
• "simply prestige labels under which they operated". I really don't understand this. What is the "they" that is being labelled? What is the label being applied? In what way is it prestigious?
  • Rephrased this. -G
• "to achieve political hegemony over the island". What is the difference between "political hegemony" and 'hegemony'?
  • rephrased. - G
• Could Shō Shin be introduced. It is not clear from the text if it refers to a person a tribe, a nation, or something else.
  • Introduced him. - G
• "organized a centralized kingdom at Shuri Castle". Erm, perhaps '... governed from Shuri Castle' or similar?
  • Rephrased. - G
• "ushering in the Ryukyu Kingdom." A tad flowery. Maybe 'marking the start of' or similar?
  • Rephrased. - G

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Intermittent human settlement of the land bridge". I can't see where the source suggests that human settlement is intermittent.
  • Rewrote this section.
• "although recent sites suggest possible initial dates of c. 7000 or c. 12,000 BCE." I am sure that what you mean is not what you have written.
  • Rephrased. - G
• "This repopulation began the Shellmound or Shellmidden period." Why "repopulation"? When and why were the islands depopulated?
  • Rewrote this section. - G
• "Complex hunter-gatherer societies emerged during the mid-Shellmidden, but polities such as chiefdoms did not emerge." "... emerged ... emerge ...": is it possible to rewrite to lose one of these?
• There are 19 cases of "emerged" or "emergence" which a reader starts to notice after a while. Synonym time?
  • De-emerged the article. - G
• "This is attributed to low populations and carrying capacity before the introduction of intensive agriculture." I don't think that most readers will understand "carrying capacity"; is it possible to rephrase this to be more generally comprehensible? (And is not " attributed to low populations and carrying capacity" having two bites at the same cherry?)
  • Rephrased. - G
• The "abandonment of agriculture instead of foraging." I don't understand what you trying to say here.
  • Rephrased. - G
• "evidenced by flotation samples dating to the 800s." I think "flotation samples" unnecessarily confuses a reader. It also reads as if it is the flotation samples which date to c. 800.
  • Rephrased. - G
• I am struggling to work out whether this paragraph is talking about cereal cultivation, per the first sentence, or agriculture more generally.

Having gone through just the lead and the first section I have come across a lot of instances where the meaning is either unclear or insufficiently explained. To the point that I am leaning oppose. I am going to take a break for a while and then have a look at a random section further down to see if things improve.

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Trade and foreign relations

• "Although trade links (mainly of shells)". This doesn't make grammatical sense. In so far as it does, it reads as if shells were being traded for other shells, which I assume is not the case.
  • Rephrased. - G
• "date to the Yayoi". It would be helpful to a reader if you gave the date, if only in parentheses.
  • Rephrased but added a date to the Yayoi earlier. - G
• "the transition into the Gusuku period saw the import of Chinese ceramics and Japanese soapstone cauldrons". What was imported previously?
  • clarified. - G
• "used alongside native earthenware" → 'which was used alongside native earthenware'.
• "iron knives and magatama from Japan." What are magatama? (See MOS:NOFORCELINK: "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links.")
  • Clarified. - G
• "formal tribute relations". These need explaining in line.
  • Clarified. - G
• "the establishment of formal tribute status during this period resulted in a much greater volume of trade". Could you give me the wording from the source which supports this.
  • "After the start of formal tribute relations with Ming China in 1372, the material wealth of several major gusuku sites such as Kumejima, Katsuren, Shuri, and Nakijin increased dramatically." - Smits, 2019, p. 35
• "the Ashikaga shogunate". Add 'Japanese', or better still say 'the feudal military government of Japan'.
  • Clarified. - G
• "Diplomatic relationships with the Ashikaga shogunate may have been opened by the Lord of Shuri in 1403." My understanding, which may be faulty, is that the Ashikaga shogunate came to power in 1336. If so, I don't see how a trading relationship could be opened 33 years earlier.
  • Rephrased this with a more general statement to avoid hedging bets on a potentially incorrect date or ruler. "Trading relations" here means formal recognition and management of trade as opposed to haphazard merchants - made this clearer in the text. - G
• "from the late 13th century onward to the end of the Gusuku period." Delete "onward".
  • Done. - G
• "the Southern Court during the Nanboku-chō period". What were both of these? And ideally give a time period.
  • Clarified. - G
• "Wokou": a section header in a foreign language, especially when it has not been previously introduced, is not helpful. Perhaps "Piracy"?
  • Renamed. -G
• "during the late Gusuku period". Give the dates.
  • Done. - G

Sadly I don't feel that this meets the FAC criteria, in particular 1a (its prose is engaging and of a professional standard) and 2 (It follows the style guidelines). Specifically MOS:NOFORCELINK, WP:TECHNICAL and WP:NOTHOW (scientific journal) issues come up frequently enough for me to feel that there are deeper issues here than can reasonably be settled at FAC and so I am regretfully opposing. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your thorough review. I will try to resolve this over the next couple days and hopefully bring the prose up to a higher standard. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: I locked in, went through, and gave the whole thing a prose refresh wherever I could see it. Don't feel obligated to do line by line suggestions or anything, but let me know if there's any areas that still need work. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

SC

Comments to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 05:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Paul Hunter

Nominator(s): Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most talented snooker players of all time, who died sadly far too young. The previous FAC closed due to lack of responses. As ever, I am happy to answer any questions you might have. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Paul_Hunter.jpg needs a more expansive FUR, and is the original source known? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't think so. We could probably replace it with something easier to track. I think the non-replaceable item tracks though as he is deceased Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose

I will try and do a fuller review later, but a few points for now. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Ref formatting is inconsistent, e.g. some newspapers linked, some not. Some names not in lastname, firstname format. Ref 42 is lacking most details and is in all caps.
  • I've removed the links in the sources. I'm not a fan of it. I'll see what I can do for the author names. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• The CueSport book pages cited are for Steve Davis, not Paul Hunter. Should be pages 555 to 557. The source only covers up to the end of 2003–04, not the 2004–05 or 2005–06 seasons.
  • Updated pages. Will have a look for a consistent source for the remaining years. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• We haven't always been consistent about whether to include qualifying tournament wins in "Career finals" sections. I'd lean towards omitting the Scottish Masters Qualifying Event.
  • Agreed. I barely ever touch these tables, but I think I've removed it suitably. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Unlike every other source, I think we avoid using "beat" (for defeated) in the text.
  • I do prefer "defeated", but I don't think there is anything specifically that says we can't use beat. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• "the eventual champion Stephen Hendry" - can be "the eventual champion Hendry".
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• "Mark Williams" - can be Williams after the first mention, and perhaps doesn't need the second wiki-link.
  • I couldn't find a second link, but I've made that change. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Other players also currently have their full name after the initial mention, e.g. Peter Ebdon, Matthew Stevens.
• "Hunter gained entry into the prestigious invitational Masters tournament." - I don't think "prestigious" is suported by the sources cited. Might be easier to find a source that says it is a "triple crown" event, instead.
  • I've just gone ahead and removed the word. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• "Fürth Grand Prix in 2004, which was later renamed in his honour, winning the final 4–2 over Matthew Stevens" - reorder to put the win before the renaming?
  • Makes a lot of sense. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• "in 2007, the amateur English Open tournament was renamed the Paul Hunter English Open" - looks from Turner's site like it was a pro-am tournament from 2007.
• Yeah, well the sentence says that the amateur English Open event was renamed (which happened in 2007). I think we'd be confusing the fact if we explained that it also became a pro-am. The important bit is that it wasn't a professional event that changed name in my eyes. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Isn't there more that can be said about his appeal to the public, public image, playing style etc? Looks like the broadsheet obituaries have some coverage of these kinds of aspects.
  • Ill see what I can find. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Lee, how are you doing with this? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi! So I did look through quite a few obituaries, and they seem to all just go through the paces of his career. Quite a few mention that he was popular by the media. The only thing that really stood out was a piece on him being caught running through Blackpool beach naked.

this source says he was snookers first 'pin-up'. the Guardian talks about his good looks the independent says about him being "snooker's answer to Posh and Becks" and this source says about his talent and that he "transcended his chosen pursuit to achieve celebrity status". I'm just struggling a bit to put this into a coherent section.

I can't find anything at all about his actual style of play. Most items just say about how talented he is, and how he made centuries, but not how he played. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Does any of this help? "With his easy. fluent style and ponytailed or braided blonde hair, it was easy to see him as Snooker's golden boy ... He became a hero for clubbers, carousers and ravers who recognised him as one of their own [although he realised] there was an imbalabce between his pursuit of pleasure and devotion to his craft" (Clive Everton, "Paul Hunter: Denied His Golden Future", Snooker Scene, November 2005, page 4). Willie Thorne said "He lit up the stage when he played. He was a very flamboyant player".("Tributes", Snooker Scene, November 2005, page 7) "Throughout his all-too-brief career, Hunter was defined by snooker and the manner in which he handled its inevitable ups and downs. ... Hunter never questioned a refereeing decision and he never publicly complained about playing conditions or his opponent's luck. He played the ball as it lay." (Phil Yates, "Heartfelt tributes as man with the golden smile is mourned", The Times, 10 October 2006, page 80). Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much for this. I've added a bit to the "legacy" section. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Rodney Baggins, I hope you don't mind a ping. As you've been heavily involved in getting snooker articles to FA status, I wondered if you had any views you could share on the Legacy section in particular or on the article in general. (I think the content of the Legacy section isn't far off but I feel like perhaps the prose could be omproved - as you know, that's not my forte! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

BennyOnTheLoose: No problem, thanks, I'm looking at the article now and will put some comments below for Lee Vilenski later today. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Lee, there's a page about Hunter in Brendan Cooper's Deep Pockets: Snooker and the Meaning of Life (2023) if you can get hold of it, but probably nothing essential that isn't already covered in the article. The 2001 Masters final and his 2003 Crucible semi-final are both included in David Hendon's Snooker Scene's 50 Classic Matches ebook with a bit of commentary, but again nothing that I'd say is a real omission. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Guided by Jimmy Michie and Johnson, Hunter made his professional debut in July 1995 at age 16" is a bit close to the source's "Guided by two seasoned snooker professionals — Jimmy Michie and the former world champion, Joe Johnson — young Paul made his professional debut in July 1995 when he was 16." but might be OK per WP:LIMITED
  • I've reworded this. I think my version is superior as well as it puts the important bit first. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• Refs 2 and 58: I can't see Sadie Gray as a byline for "Paul Hunter (obituary, page 1)". I can't see a byline on the scan of the printed version either.
  • Removed. I have no idea why it is there. It's possible it is indeed written by her, but I also couldn't find her name associated with it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• Ref 5: wouldn't we noramlly credit the interviewer (Donald McRae)
  • I have no issue putting it in, but we don't have anything that says they wrote the piece, there name is only in the tagline. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• I don't think that Hunter's middle name is referenced. The Telegraph obit would do for that.
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi BennyOnTheLoose, how is this looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I can still see several duplicate links which are probaly not required, and repeated full names rather than surname. (e.g. " Matthew Stevens" four times in the Masters champion (2001–2004) section. A couple more points below. I'll have a proper look after seeing what Rodney Baggins has to say below. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I've covered as many of the duplinks and over names as I could find. :) Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• Still lacking citations for the last two seasons in the Performance and rankings timeline.
  • I can't remember where we said was the suitable refs for this, let me take a look. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  Looks like it's covered by the snooker.org profile, so I've put that in there now. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• The title in in the Performance and rankings timeline could probably be "Professional career event results"
  • It's already career event results, which seems simple enough. I don't know if Pot Black for example was a professional event. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• At FA level I think we usually have citations against the table footnotes (e.g. "The event was also called the LG Cup (2001/2002-2003/2004)") - Chris Turner's site is useful for these. (See Ray Reardon for examples)
  • I'll take a look. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  I've done this. The only thing I can't seem to cite is the "new players don't have a ranking. I don't think it's ever actually been said (I looked at the official rules and a few sources about the system). Thoughts? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• "A spokesman for the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association (WPBSA)" - source does not specify it was a man, so I suggest rephrasing this.
  • Changed to person, which is probably better regardless. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Some of the citations are inconsistent (e.g. "Burnton, Simon (10 October 2006) "Paul Hunter loses battle with cancer aged 27" – via The Guardian." - why the via?; " "Brave Hunter is winner again". Daily Mirror on TheFreeLibrary.com." - probably should have a via; "Snooker.org: Regal Welsh Open 1998" - other citations don't include the site in the title.
  • These should be fixed now. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• There's quite a lot of reliance on snooker.org for results; looking at quality news sources rather than bare results might allow some interesting details to be added.
• Some citations are in the forms "author=Turner, Chris" or "author=Clive Jones" ratehr than first/last
  • Whilst I get there are some metadata issues with author=last, first, it's fine to do it that way. I'll see if I can fix them up when I get two minutes. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I have gone through these. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Refs 2, 14 and 84 are missing authors.
  • I've done the first two. I no longer have a BNA account to check what the author was for this page on 84. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
    • It's now #90; I added the author. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Refs 63 and 64 are the same source.
  • Good spot, combined. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• I don't think "cajt.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk." is needed in refs
  • Removed Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

EG

I'll leave some feedback later. Hopefully I'll have comments before the end of the week. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look :) Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Lead:

• Para 2: "In his memory, a tournament in Fürth, Germany, was renamed the Paul Hunter Classic and, in April 2016, the Masters trophy was renamed the Paul Hunter Trophy." - Not really an issue, but I find it interesting that you give the date when the Masters trophy was renamed, but not when the classic was renamed.

• • The masters is a significantly more important event. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Para 2: "Following his death, Hunter was posthumously awarded the BBC Sports Personality of the Year Helen Rollason Award." - Either "Following his death" or "posthumously" is redundant, since "posthumously" means "after death". (Also, the sentence repeats "award" twice; I'd probably just go with "Following his death, Hunter received the BBC Sports Personality of the Year Helen Rollason Award.")

• • Removed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Early life:

• "Leaving school at 14" - To further his career?

• • I'll see what the source says. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Hmm, this is what it says: Hunter admits that when he won 37 out of his first 38 matches as a teenage professional, he was "hungover every match. I wasn't drunk but I felt very rough. Part of the problem was that I was good enough to turn pro when I was 13 but you had to be 16. I used to see my older friends, professionals I practised with and beat regularly, playing in the qualifiers and it did my head in. So I left school at 14." I'm not really sure what the exact bit is. He didn't leave to play snooker professionally (you can't). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
      • this source mentions that he left school "to concentrate on playing". AFAIK you are not allowed to stop education at 14 in the UK but lots of other reliable sources report that he left school at 14. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

        I'm not entirely sure it was all that strict back then. The rules around fines for not going to school are a post-2010 thing I think. I can certainly add that source and the rationale. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

        • Looking at Raising of school leaving age in England and Wales seems like it should have been 16 for Hunter ... and it's on Wikipedia so must be true. I think it's one of those where the subject says it and reliable sources repeat the claim, Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

EG ? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot about this. I was really busy last week, and I have an eye doctor's appointment later today, so I will return for more comments tomorrow. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Early life:

• No comments here.

Early career (1995–2000)

• Para 1: "world number six" - I know this means the sixth-highest-ranked player in the world, but it sounds somewhat informal (especially if you're using this or similar terminology in the article for the first time). Is there a way to reword this?

• • I've reworded. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• Para 1: "the last 16" - Similarly, I would clarify what this means, since it's the first time you use this particular terminology.

• I don't think I can. This is the equivalent of "quarter-final" (the round before). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, I see. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• Para 1: "docked the entirety of the ranking points" - Why not just "docked all of the ranking points"?

• • Oh, because he also lost points for what he did in qualification. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• Para 3: "successfully qualifying by defeating Euan Henderson." - I think "successfully" may be unnecessary, unless it's possible for him to have unsuccessfully qualified.

• • Agreed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

More in a bit. Given what I've seen so far, the rest of the review shouldn't take too long, so I apologize for the delay thus far. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Cheers, I've covered the above. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

As promised, the rest of the review.

Masters champion (2001–2004):

• Para 1: "After winning the championship, Hunter claimed he had sex with his fiancée when he trailed 2–6 between sessions, which had caused him to play significantly better" - I know you definitely didn't mean this, but for some reason I imagined Hunter having sex with his fiancee while he was literally holding the cue and losing 2–6, rather than having sex between sessions. Perhaps this could be "he had sex with his fiancée between sessions when he trailed 2–6".

• • Changed. I do like to think he was indeed holding his cue. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Para 2: The second through fourth sentences all begin with the name "Hunter". I suggest changing at least one of these to a pronoun.

• • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

• Para 3: "The BBC later broadcast the highlights of the match in place of the 2020 World Snooker Championship when the event was postponed because of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom." - Presumably the 2020 championship was postponed, so I would instead say "that event".

• • Sure. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Para 5: "The event was later renamed in his honour" - Out of curiosity, was that event renamed posthumously?

• • It was. You wouldn't do it in someone's honour if they were alive (maybe that's a British-ism?), you might say you named something to honour a career if they were alive. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Para 5: You use both "2004–05 season" and "2004–2005 season". Could this be made consistent?

• • Yeah, I've fixed these. This is a holdover from a frankly stupid naming convention we have. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Later years and illness (2005–2006):

• Para 2: "which would be his last professional match" - I'd change "would be" to "was". Though WP:WOULDCHUCK is an essay, I would only use "would" if we were talking about a conditional statement (as I'm doing in this comment), or if the article briefly "jumps" to a future date before returning to the current timeline. Neither of these situations is the case here.

• • Agreed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Para 3: You use "2006/2007 rankings" and "2006–2007 season", which should probably be changed as well.

• • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Death:

• No comments.

Personal life:

• Para 2: Out of curiosity, when was that memoir published?

• • 2008, so not all that long after he passed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Legacy:

• Para 1: "then non-ranking" - This should be "then-non-ranking", as the word "then" modifies "non-ranking" and thus, is a single phrase that should be hyphenated. (This might even be appropriate as an en-dash per MOS:ENBETWEEN, i.e. "then–non-ranking", but I'm not going to split hairs over that.)

• • I'll take your word on it, I have no idea. We always hyphenate "non-ranking". Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Para 2: "In 2006, Hunter was posthumously awarded the BBC Sports Personality of the Year Helen Rollason Award – his widow Lindsey accepted the award on his behalf" - I think it may be more appropriate to use a semicolon instead of a dash, since these are two full clauses rather than an interruption of existing text, but that's just my preference and not a requirement.

• • Sure. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Para 3: "11 year" - Similarly that should be "11-year".

• • Ok. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

That's it on my end. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• • That's me done Epicgenius. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

    Support - Nice work. Epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator note

While I realise that this nomination has attracted a fair amount of commentary, it is more than three weeks old and is showing little sign of garnering a consensus to promote. Unless there is a significent change to this by the week four point I am afraid that the nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll have a word. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Serial

I'll look in in a couple of days if that's OK Gog. Although you might wax a little sardonic at my recent interpretation of 'a couple of days' ') SerialNumber54129^{A New Face in Hell} 20:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Moi! Sardonic? Surely some mistake. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Years later, the BBC later broadcast...". Don't needs both laters, and match is repeated unnecessarily. Since the year is also stated, "In 2020, the BBC broadcast the highlights alongside other memorable matches in place of that year's [[World Snooker Championship..." etc. SerialNumber54129^{A New Face in Hell} 13:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Prose review by Generalissima

• Lede: Solid, no comments.
• Early life: Also solid.
• Career also solid, I'm not finding much to comment on here.
• Personal life:
  • Why do we need to know how much his daughter weighed?
    • Probably overkill.Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Might be worth wikilinking Baize.
    • Sure. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

That's all from me! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Cheers Generalissima. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Support from Crisco

• Is Alan Hunter worth a redlink?
  • No, they simply aren't notable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• At a young age, Hunter played alongside his father, Alan, and won many amateur junior events including the England Doubles Championship aged 14 alongside Richard Brooke - Alongside ... alongside
  • Reworded Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• His form that season elevated him to 12th in the 1999–2000 world rankings resulting in automatic qualification into the final stages of ranking tournaments for the first time,[20][21] a position he retained for the 2000–01 season.[21] - Feels like there needs to be a comma after "rankings". Perhaps "His form that season elevated him to 12th in the 1999–2000 world rankings, resulting in automatic qualification into the final stages of ranking tournaments for the first time.[20][21] He retained this position for the 2000–01 season.[21]"
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}
• He reached the quarter-final stage or better in six tournaments the following season: he was a runner-up at the 2001 Welsh Open - Are these the 2001-2002 season? If the 2000-01 season, the sentence "He retained this position for the 2000–01 season." would actually work well as an opener here (with Hunter instead of He)
  • Yeah, that makes sense. I've moved and combined. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• Despite leading by six frames, he won only one of the remaining nine, and lost 16–17.[39] The BBC later broadcast the highlights of the match in place of the 2020 World Snooker Championship when that event was postponed because of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom.[40][41] Despite the loss, he earned a place in the world's top eight in the 2003–2004 world rankings for the first time in his career, having been ranked number nine for the previous two seasons.[21] - The sentence "The BBC later broadcast the highlights of the match in place of the 2020 World Snooker Championship when that event was postponed because of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom." comes across as a non-sequitur, since Hunter had died years before COVID. Also, I'm not sure this COVID reference is really WP:DUE for the body; feels like footnote material.
  • I think it really gets across that the match was relevant enough to be broadcast 17 years later on national TV. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• Making five century breaks in the match,[42][43] the match was voted as one of the best matches of all time by Eurosport in 2020.[44] - Hunter made the breaks, but the subject of this sentence is "the match". I'd recast this as "However, Hunter won the final three frames to win the match, making five century breaks in the match;[42][43] the match was voted one of the best of all time by Eurosport in 2020.[44]"
  • I've reworded. I also don't like how it was written before. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• On 6 April 2005, Hunter announced he was suffering from malignant neuroendocrine tumours in his stomach, a rare disease, the cause of which is unknown - Spotchecking this, I don't see Hunter and his announcement mentioned.
  • I also couldn't find an announcement. I've changed to that he was diagnosed at this time, which a source does agree with. Considering the press is talking about it days after, it clearly got out, I just couldn't find a source for the date. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Alright. That ref will still need to be formatted; right now it's a bare url. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

      Sure, I've made that change. Apologies. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• He slipped from 5th to 34th in the 2006‍–‍07 rankings.[21][55][59] Hunter admitted he played worse than the previous year and confirmed that he had been in continuous pain - Perhaps "Slipping from 5th to 34th in the 2006‍–‍07 rankings,[21][55][59] Hunter admitted he was playing worse than the previous year and confirmed that he had been in continuous pain."
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• On 27 July 2006, the WPBSA confirmed, following a members' vote, the organisation's rules would be changed to allow Hunter to sit out the entire 2006–2007 season with his world ranking frozen at 34 - You used "confirmed" in the previous sentence. Perhaps "Following a members' vote, on 27 July 2006 the WPBSA announced that its rules would be changed to allow Hunter to sit out the entire 2006–2007 season with his world ranking frozen at 34."
• He intended to devote the year to treatment for his cancer - The most recent subject was "WPBSA"
  • Changed to Hunter. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• On 26 December 2005, Lindsey gave birth to a daughter. - The phrasing makes it seem like Hunter wasn't involved. Unless there was questioned paternity, I'd make the familial relationship explicit. Also, two sentences does not generally a paragraph make... perhaps merge this with the following?
  • Merged. I've also changed the wording, not sure if it is better. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• Instead, the then-non-ranking German Open in Fürth was renamed the Paul Hunter Classic in his honour; a tournament first won by Hunter - "a tournament first won by Hunter" is not a full sentence. Perhaps "Instead, the then-non-ranking German Open in Fürth – a tournament first won by Hunter – was renamed the Paul Hunter Classic in his honour." — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I've reworded. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

    Thanks for the review! Crisco 1492, I have covered the above. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you! I am happy to support.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Rodney Baggins

Lee Vilenski, I've had a good look through this article today and have many comments. As usual, I've been very thorough (at best) and extremely picky (at worst). How do you want me to play this? Rather than throw everything at you, shall I just put my main concerns down first and then drip-feed other queries per section? I have several suggestions for improved wording – would you like me to run those past you or make direct copyedits for you to keep an eye on? Rodney Baggins (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I never have an issue with you (or anyone else) copyediting the articles. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

OK, here are my main points for you to address...

General:

• Short description is a bit long, fewer than 40 characters is recommended
  • Agreed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• In infobox, High ranking bracket: [[Snooker world rankings 2004/2005|2004/2005]] should be [[2004–05 snooker world rankings|2004–05]]
  • Yeah, that's a change in article title. Done. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Good idea to use {{nbnd}} in scores (as implemented in recent tournament articles), also in anything else that can break across lines, e.g. seasons
  • That's a new one, I might ask for a script to do this. Should be easy enough for someone who knows regex. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I seem to think it might've been User:AlH42 who first implemented this in world championship articles, but I could be wrong. I think it's a damn good idea! Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:53, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

      No, I mean you are right, it's just I haven't gotten used to it yet. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

No, I mean [User:AlH42] might have a script for it ;) Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

No need for a script. Just use search and replace.  Alan  (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• All pipes to world rankings (by season) are redirected. Obviously these still pipe to the right place, but there's no point piping to a redirect – if you're gonna pipe, at least pipe to the correct link, e.g. [[Snooker world rankings 2004/2005|ranking]] > [[2004–05 snooker world rankings|ranking]] in lead section. Also [[Snooker world rankings 1999/2000|1999–2000 world rankings]] > [[1999–2000 snooker world rankings|1999{{nbnd}}2000 world rankings]] in Early career section, plus a few others.
  • I'll see if I can get an AWB run on these as well at some point. Might be a good task. Nigej - I know you use AWB, is this something you'd be interested in doing (cleanup of the move of world rankings articles) across the snooker estate? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Benny has questioned whether to use the word 'beat' and I agree it's not a great word, but it's sometimes a useful alternative to 'defeated' to avoid repetition, also 'eliminated' is another one you can use.
  • Sure. I thought I'd already done this. I'll go through it now. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  I quite like "best(ing/ed)", they should all be gone now otherwise. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I hate "best(ing/ed)" but it's your call. Rodney Baggins (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• Convention for player names is to put the full name when player first appears in each NEW section, then just surname if it appears again in SAME section (where unambiguous). I noticed you've pulled out the full names in the legacy section, where I feel they should all be stated in full per this unwritten rule.
  • Ah yes, I was too heavy handed. I've put them back in. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Lead:

• I might have a go at tightening this up a bit myself if you don't mind.
  • No, of course! Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    • @Lee Vilenski: Done this. Please check! Rodney Baggins (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

      Sure, I'm very happy :). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Early Life:

• Ref.3 (Times obituary) does not verify his schooling.
  • No, but number four does. Ref three is for his date of birth. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• St Andrews Primary School is not mentioned in either of the given sources, and I can't find it in any of the obituaries cited.
  • I had assumed it was in the telegraph ref (I refuse to pay) Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• "playing with Richard Brooke" > "partnered with Richard Brooke"?
  • See an earlier comment where I changed away from partnered to avoid repetition. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

What earlier comment? Don't see any repetition. "playing with" has unwanted connotation. Rodney Baggins (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Leaving school at 14" > "After leaving school at 14"
  • Sure. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• "with help from mentors" > "with the help of his mentors"
  • Absolutely Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Early career (1995–2000):

• "Due in part to this performance" implies something else that's not mentioned – is it worth mentioning?
  • I don't know if sources would ever actually explain why a person got a wildcard. I suspect the age of the player made up quite a bit of the reason. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    • The Yates article has "Hunter was awarded the sponsor's discretionary wild-card invitation, largely on the basis of an appearance in the quarter-finals of the United Kingdom championship, where Hunter had led Hendry 5-3 but, faced with the prospect of claiming such a notable scalp, he froze and lost all six frames that were necessary during the concluding session." Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

      I suppose that covers "in part" for the purposes of our article. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• [[Snooker world rankings 1999/2000|1999–2000 world rankings]] > [[1999–2000 snooker world rankings|1999{{nbnd}}2000 world rankings]]
• 2000–01 season isn't linked in last para
  • Linked. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• "quarter-finalist at the Grand Prix and China Open" just has general tournament links – better link to the actual events? [[2000 Grand Prix (snooker)|Grand Prix]] and [[2000 China Open (snooker)|China Open]]
  • Sure. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Masters champion (2001–2004):

• Section title imples that he was Masters champion continuously through from 2001 to 2004, but he wasn't. Maybe should be "Three-time Masters champion (2001–2004)" ?
  • I've changed to "Masters winner" which could be any amount of wins. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• "defeated defending champion" > "eliminated the defending champion"
  • Changed Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• "Hunter claimed he had sex with his fiancée between sessions when he trailed 2–6" > "Hunter claimed that he and his fiancée had had sex during the mid-session interval when he was trailing 2–6"
  • Yeah, that's better. I think we've changed this a few times now.Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• "He was only the third player to retain the Masters" > "He was only the third player to successfully defend his first Masters title" (equivalent to Crucible Curse?)
  • Whilst what you've said is also true (well, he'd be the second - Thorburn won the title two years before he successfully defended it), the further implications is also true. Hendry and Thorburn were the only two to successfully defend the title before Hunter. The fact Hendry did it four times isn't the point! The only other person to defend it was O'Sullivan in 16/17. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I still think "retained the Masters" is ambiguous and needs clarifying. Are you just saying he's one of the only players that won it in consecutive years? Rodney Baggins (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

That's right (at the time at least). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Hunter lost to Quinten Hann" – which round and by how much?
  • First, I've changed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• "The 2002 British Open had Hunter defeat Ian McCulloch" is ugly wording, I might think of something better for this if you can't.
  • I've changed Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• "second round of the world championship for the first time at the 2003 World Snooker Championship" > "second round of the World Championship for the first time in 2003" with the link just on the year.
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• "a 15–9 overnight lead over opponent Doherty" > "an overnight lead of 15–9 over his opponent Doherty"
  • Changed Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• "The BBC later broadcast" > "Years later, the BBC broadcast" (and make it clear that there were other matches shown, not just the Hunter match)
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• "when that event was postponed" > "which was not staged at the usual time, having been postponed"
  • Does this not say the exact same thing, but in many more words? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. Rodney Baggins (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• [[Snooker world rankings 2003/2004|2003–2004 world rankings]] > [[2003–04 snooker world rankings|2003{{nbnd}}04 world rankings]]
  • Sure. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• "but lost 7–9 against White" > "but lost 7–9 against Jimmy White" (name in full first time it appears in new section, as mentioned above)
  • Ok, changed Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Is it convention to hyphenate "pro-am" as in "Hunter won the pro-am competition" even though it uses en dash in pro–am wiki article cos the dash stands for "and"?
  • I'm not sure what the actual correct way to do this is. Even we aren't internally consistent. See Amateur professional where we use the hyphen. The only source on that page also uses a hyphen [4]. We would also use semi-pro, so who knows? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Not a problem. Rodney Baggins (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Later years and illness (2005–2006):

• [[Snooker world rankings 2006/2007|2006{{nbnd}}07 rankings]] > [[2006–07 snooker world rankings|2006{{nbnd}}07 rankings]]
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• 2006–2007 season isn't linked and it should be 2006–07 season
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• [52][4] reverse tag order
  • We no longer change reference orders for numerical order. See WP:REFORDERLee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I'm just a bit anal about things like that! Rodney Baggins (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Death:

• Both sources for Kirkwood Hospice carry equal weight, so I'd prefer to see them in chronological order, i.e. [20][51]
  • See point above Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Why is Leeds Parish Church not linked? It's notable enough, now Leeds Minster.
  • Linked.Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• "Many players attended the ceremony" > "Many snooker players attended the ceremony"
  • Changed Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Personal life:

• "On 26 December 2005, the pair had a daughter." > "The couple had one daughter, born on 26 December 2005."
  • I've been trying to work out how to type this, this is much better. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• "covering his snooker career, life and death" > "which covered his snooker career, his personal life and his death."
  • Yeah, that's better Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Is it necessary to link Baize in his nickname? If you're a snooker fan you probably already know what baize is. If not, you won't care.
  • I was asked to link it in another support above. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's OK then. Rodney Baggins (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Legacy:

• Any particular logic to the order you've presented the fellow professionals? I'd like to see them in alphabetical order (per surname). Also, I tend to think their full names are needed here, more appropriate/formal in context, esp. as they are appearing for first time in new section (see above).
  • I've added the full names. I don't really see why it matters what order they are named in.Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, ok. Rodney Baggins (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• Ref.67 (BBC Phillips) fails verification for fellow players' calls for Masters trophy to be named after Hunter. It does say that he turned pro in 1995 aged 16 and won the 1998 Welsh Open aged 19, plus Hearn said Hunter's "mercurial talent" was a "sad loss" to the game. (might be useful for these points instead). But in any case, you need a new source for the first sentence of Legacy.
  • I'm not sure why it was removed. It was in [5].Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• [[German Open (snooker)|German Open]] – shouldn't this be Fürth German Open? It's not the same as the German Open (snooker) (also known as the German Masters) which is completely different tournament?
  • That is complicated. Id assume when it was written the link was at German Open, anyway, I've moved the link. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Noted for his "flamboyant" and "fluent" style... (by whom?)
  • Attributed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• "Hunter won a total prize money of £1.53 million in his 11-year career." > "Over his 11-year professional career, Hunter's total prize money was £1.53 million."
  • Done. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Total career prize money not verified by Independent obituary ref.2
  • It's in that guardian ref. I've removed the other one. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I think those are the main points (I can also make some minor edits/corrections of my own and tidy up the prose a bit for you). Plus, I've noticed a few ref errors, so I'll put my source review comments here tomorrow morning. Rodney Baggins (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Source review

• Refs 2 & 7 are dup cites (Independent obituary)
• Refs 6 & 30 are dup cites (Guardian interview)
• Refs 20 & 53 are dup cites (Guardian Burnton)
• Refs 61 & 75 are dup cites (Guardian Everton obituary)
• Refs 49 & 89 are dup cites (Global Snooker)
  • I've sorted these for you Lee. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you so much Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• Ref 5 needs archive (Argus)
• Some other missing archives, e.g. 50 and 51.
• Any way of archiving ref.44 (Eurosport) ?
  • Manually only (I think) due to GDPR. AlH42 Alan, I know you've been looking into this, so you know anything about Eurosport archiving? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• The Snooker.org citations have publisher instead of work, best use |website=Snooker.org
• Refs 58 and 64 are Daily Mirror, deprecated source – I take it you're OK with that?
  • The second one I've removed. The first one is literally just a score, so we can easily replace it if necessary. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Lindsey's book is cited twice, suggest an sfn link down to the Further reading entry, in place of ref.65.
  • Ok Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Refs 91, 93, 94, all need via param (British Newspaper Archive) and I tend to think the link is useless if you're not registered with BNA. Is there any other way of presenting these sources?
  • There is - but as WP:TWL no longer offers a subscription, I don't have access to present them that way. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I changed these to Newspapers.com so that clippings are accessible. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@BennyOnTheLoose: Thanks for that – is there any chance you could find a clipping for ref.11? Yates, Phil (4 February 1997). "O'Sullivan holds nerve for victory – Snooker". The Times. London. p. 49. Rodney Baggins (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• For the Chris Turner refs, best use 'website=Chris Turner's Snooker Archive' and don't bother with the additional author param, which just looks a bit longwinded and repetitive imo.
  • Yeah, I thought I'd cleaned up all of these. I'm pretty bad at getting them all on mobile. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Strangely, if you open up ref.55 (RTÉ cancer diagnosis) you see that the date is 14 June 2007 which is after he'd died. It's clearly been updated, so I think an orig-date param would be useful here to clarify. (orig-date=6 April 2005 |date=14 June 2007)
  • Done. I'm not convinced we should be continuously updating articles used as references. I really don't like the practice of altering news up to years after something happens. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

For Eurosport archiving I have been using Ghost Archive.  Alan  (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• Lots of other niggly little fixes I can do for you, such as making sure all refs have a work param, some missing params, etc.

Sorry for being late to the party and for putting extra work on you so close to Christmas... ;) Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

My Christmas! Nah, that's cool. I always appreciate your comments. If there's anything small, you can always clean up, but I'll address the above as soon as I can. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I've made a lot of replies above, but in short, I've covered all of the wording changes. I tend to need a bigger screen to make the remaining changes, so I'll do them as soon as I can. What's left: fixing duplicate links, changing to {{nbnd}} and the world rankings links, and a little bit of ref formatting. I think I've covered everything else Rodney Baggins. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, nearly there. I've been trying to tidy up the Legacy section a bit, still not sure about the first paragraph though (will dissect it tomorrow). In the meantime, I've noticed something weird with the section structuring. Death is not part of his career so should not be a subsection of it. Legacy is not really part of his Personal life. I know you're trying to layer it and make connections, but I think just have all three as separate sections (in the order: Death, Legacy, Personal life) unless you can think of any better way of structuring it? Or maybe, at a pinch, 3. Death (new section) and 3.1 Legacy (subsection) then 4. Personal life (new section)? Rodney Baggins (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

→ Lee, it appears that Death and Legacy used to be a combined section until Jan 2022, when an unregistered IP separated the two and was unchallenged (I might have challenged at the time if I'd noticed). See this diff. Suggest one section called 'Death and legacy' might solve this, followed by short Personal life section? Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that does make more sense. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski and Rodney Baggins: What's the current situation here? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Merchant's House Museum

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 15:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a historic house in New York City, built in the 1830s for the Tredwell family, at a time when the surrounding neighborhood was an upscale residential area. The house remained in the family for almost a century, even as most of the family's wealthy neighbors moved away. After the last child died, the house became a museum in 1936, narrowly avoiding demolition. Despite being a relatively low-profile museum even today, the Merchant's House Museum was one of NYC's first-ever official landmarks, and you can still see many of the family's possessions on display there. Amazingly, unlike literally every other 19th-century residence in NYC, the house still retains its original design as well.

This page became a Good Article this June after a GAN review by several editors, for which I am very grateful. After some recent copyedits by Mox Eden, which I greatly appreciate as well, I think the page is up to FA quality. I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 15:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Support from Crisco

• Several of the images could use a crop.
  • I was going to ask which images you recommended cropping, but I see which ones now. I'll do that shortly. Epicgenius (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• Is this biographic information on Tredwell best suited in its own section? Seems jarring to go from the site to biographic information.
  • I'm not sure. This paragraph is short because I wanted to provide only just enough context to introduce the house's original owner, since the article is about the house rather than Tredwell. I've reworded this to "The house was first occupied by Seabury Tredwell..." Epicgenius (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• photos of the interiors - Is "photos" used at this level, given its informality? Perhaps "images" or "depictions"?
  • Good point. I have changed this to "photographs". Epicgenius (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• 1930s to 1960s - Worth having an "adjusted for inflation" for the items in this section, given the years between each figure?
  • I agree. I have added some inflation figures and will add more later. Epicgenius (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• Staten Island - You link Manhattan and New York City, so I'd link Staten Island, The Christian Science Monitor, party wall, Chicago Tribune
  • I have added these links (except for the party wall link, which was already in the article). Thanks for pointing them out. Epicgenius (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• it distributed another matching grant of $12,000 in 1972. The trust provided another matching grant of $35,000 in 1975 - Worth combining as " it distributed matching grants of $12,000 in 1972 and $35,000 in 1975?
  • The 1975 grant was part of another sentence, but yes, that sounds better than the current wording. Epicgenius (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

More to follow — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments so far, @Crisco 1492. I'll work on your first point and have addressed the others. Epicgenius (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• To the west and east of the house are party walls made of brick; these party walls were originally shared by the houses on either side.[57] - Perhaps "To the west and east of the house are party walls made of brick, which were originally shared by the houses on either side.[57]
  • I have changed this. Epicgenius (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• 14-foot-tall (4.3 m) - would it not be 14-foot (4.3-m) tall?
  • Not really. The two are fairly similar, but the phrase "14-foot-tall" merely describes something that is 14 feet tall. By contrast, "14-foot tall" can mean that something is 14 feet and tall, but if taken literally, the 14-foot dimension might not necessarily be its height (most people would still understand it to mean "14-foot-tall", though). Epicgenius (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• The rooms are connected to each other by an arched partition
  • Oops. I have removed it. Epicgenius (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• ... an arched partition flanked by Ionic fluted columns, which shield a sliding mahogany door between the rooms.[76][124] The sliding door originally had silver-plated trim.[17] The bases of these columns are octagonal in shape, while the capitals are decorated with anthemia. - Seems strange to go columns, door, door, columns. Perhaps rephrase?
  • I have moved the sentences around a bit. Epicgenius (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• There is allegedly a secret passage in the wall between the two first-floor parlors, which leads up to a drawer between the second-story master bedrooms. - Seems like the rest of the paragraph confirms its existence.
  • I've removed "allegedly". Epicgenius (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• Is the attic one of those small, almost crawlspace deals, or is it a full storey (I've lived in an old Victorian where the attic was basically another storey, with the ceiling about 80% of the height of the other storeys, hence the question)
  • It's basically a half-story with a lower-than-normal ceiling, although it does have some windows. Unfortunately there are no reliable sources that confirm this, so that's why there isn't any more detail about the attic. Epicgenius (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• Old Merchant's House Inc. runs an online gift shop.[129] Old Merchant's House Inc. has an endowment fund - I'd recommend against repeating the name twice in succession
  • I changed the second "Old Merchant's House Inc." to "The organization". Epicgenius (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• The items were broadly split into three categories. - Were or are? Just because they're no longer exhibited doesn't mean they've been deaccessioned.
  • Oops, good point. They still are divided into three stories.
• The house also had a music box,[33][137] a grand piano made by Nunns & Fischer,[78] oil lamps,[35] cupboards with rare china, and brass doorknobs.[110] Toys and clothes are displayed on the upper floors.[123] - You jump from earlier collections/exhibitions to current ones and then back to the 1980s. Might be easier to follow if chronological. I'm also seeing a mix of current and previous exhibits in the next paragraph
  • Actually, all of these are objects are still in the museum's collection. Nonetheless, I've changed the order of some of the sentences for consistency. Epicgenius (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• In 1991, the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation and the Merchant's House Museum launched an educational program called Greenwich Village: History and Historic Preservation. The program ran through the end of the 1990s at the museum but eventually shifted its focus to the West Village.[140] - More repetition (program)
  • I've changed the second "program" to "initiative". Epicgenius (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• Several events are regularly hosted at the house.[81] The parlors regularly host music concerts - Regularly ... regularly
  • I changed the second "regularly" to "frequently". Epicgenius (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• Over the years, the house has also hosted other events. It hosted a 1946 benefit for the American Friends of France,[144] though in 1956, the museum's operators prevented Alfred Hitchcock from shooting a movie there.[145] - "Though" doesn't seem to work here. Ironically, the Hitchcock bit works better with the next sentence.
  • I moved the Hitchcock detail to the end of the paragraph, since it's talking about an event that didn't happen, as opposed to one that did. Epicgenius (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• Any dates on these plays? Terry died in 1928, and the title makes it sound like she was involved... but the house wasn't a museum yet.
  • They are all from the 1990s. I've added some dates now. Epicgenius (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• More potential links: Vogue, Los Angeles Times, American Heritage, The Village Voice
  • Good suggestions. I've linked them all. Epicgenius (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• The Christian Science Monitor - You use the Christian Science Monitor on first mention, and The Christian Science Monitor thereafter; I believe the second is correct.
  • You are correct. I've fixed this as part of your first round of comments. Epicgenius (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• "has been sadly altered" - Given the continued emphasis on the house's general intactness, are examples given?
  • I've reread this, and apparently this is missing some context. Meeker disapproved of the items shown in the museum; it wasn't that the interior architecture itself was modified. I've changed this a bit. Epicgenius (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Overall, article seems quite comprehensive.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492, thanks again for the comments. I've addressed all of the remaining issues now. Epicgenius (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• Excellent. Happy to support. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Support by Lee Vilenski

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede

• Fourth street pipes to a redirect Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I have fixed this. Epicgenius (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
• I thought facade had an accent in it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
  • This comes up on occasion. Basically, Merriam-Webster says that both the accented and unaccented versions are acceptable in American English, but the unaccented version is less common. That's why I've used the unaccented version here. Epicgenius (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
• Otherwise, lede looks clean to me. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Prose

• As always, everything is extremely well cited. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I appreciate it. Epicgenius (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
• Is there really a point to naming all of the children in the note? Seems like trivia. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I removed the birth dates, which really were trivial. I was thinking about retaining the note for clarity, but the children who lived in the house in the late 19th/early 20th century are introduced in the main prose anyway (e.g. "The unmarried sisters—Julia, Phebe, Sarah, and Gertrude"), so on second thought I removed it. Epicgenius (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
• Hatmaker pipes to a redirect Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Fixed, I think. Epicgenius (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
• The New York Times wrote - personal pet pieve is when this is written, but there is an author to the cited source. The Times didn't write this, a person did. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Good point, I've reworded it to "A reporter for The New York Times". Epicgenius (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
• museum's operators were able to match the donation, - the link here to me is a bit of an WP:EASTEREGG. If "match the donation" instead linked to the article, I wouldn't worry so much. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I've fixed this as well. Epicgenius (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
• midst of a severe fiscal crisis, - same for this. The link being for "fiscal crisis" suggests the link would be for the definition of what a fiscal crisis is. Maybe "midst of the 1975 fiscal crisis". Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I've also fixed this. Epicgenius (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
• The Merchant's House Museum is operated by Old Merchant's House Inc - is this really a suitable search term that it needs to be bolded in the body? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I've unbolded this. Epicgenius (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Additional comments

• One of the see also links has changed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Vilenski. I'll work on these shortly. (Also I forgot that I was going to review your FAC nomination, I'll probably do that tomorrow too.) – Epicgenius (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Thanks again for the comments. I think I've addressed or replied to all of them now. Epicgenius (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy to support. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments from PMC

I'll pop in here eventually. Give me a sharp poke if I don't get to it within the usual slightly-over-a-week. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Did Brewster build one house on the lot, or six? Site says it was one of six, but History seems to suggest it was just one?
  • Good catch - he built one house on this particular lot, but it was one of six houses he designed on the same street. Epicgenius (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• Only a mild objection, but is Tredwell's ancestor relevant to the house? I guess it tells you where his name came from, but still.
  • Yeah, I included Seabury's name because he was indeed Tredwell's namesake. (Also, the text mentions a "prominent Long Island family", and I wanted to give an example of a notable family member.) Epicgenius (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Fair enough
• "The architectural writer Donald Reynolds wrote..." is there much dispute about the following facts? If not, no real need to attribute in-text
  • There is not, so I removed it. Epicgenius (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• "They gradually upgraded..." sentence uses ref 15 twice. Also, suggest slight tweak to 'wished to retain the furnishings largely "as Papa wanted it"', because the fact that they did upgrade things seems to contradict strictly keeping to Papa's style.
  • I have fixed this. Epicgenius (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• "Burdened with severe financial hardship" Not sure you need "severe" when she's already "burdened"
  • Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• "Chapman's wife cleared out" normally when you clear out objects, it's to get rid of them. But these were cleared out then returned?
  • It seems so. I think the intention was to auction off the objects and sell or demolish the home, but then it was converted to a museum instead. Epicgenius (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Hm, okay. If the source doesn't clarify, it is what it is.
• First sentence under 1930s to 1960s uses "the museum" twice, and the next sentence opens with it. Can we write around this?
  • I have rephrased this. Thanks for the initial comments PMC. Epicgenius (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• "but its 50-cent admission fee" - I might say "and", because the clause is in agreement with the previous clause, not making an exception to it
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• " he managed to pay off the mortgage" do we know when and by what means?
  • The sources unfortunately don't indicate when the mortgage was paid off, but I assume it was paid off using cash. I've moved it up to the end of the sentence "George Chapman purchased the building, saving it from foreclosure and demolition". Epicgenius (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• First para in Architecture swings between past and present tense ("wrote" but also "writes"). Should be past, but with that note, you have three "write/wrote" very close to each other
  • I have changed all to present tense. Epicgenius (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• "mixture of the Empire and Victorian styles" are these linkable?
  • Yes. I've added two links. Epicgenius (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• You've got Ms. Huxtable full-named and full-linked thrice, twice with context. Do we need all that?
  • Nope, I consolidated two of the mentions and removed the duplicate link. Epicgenius (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• Para 2 in this section feels repetitive. We've got one dissenter, Vogue, who calls it something else, but everybody else is firmly saying it's Federal and Greek. Do we need to repeat each of them, or can we sum most of them up with something like "most critics describe the building as...something something" and then tack Vogue on to the end as having different ideas
  • I've condensed this a bit. From the looks of it, most of the sources describe the house as being Federal and Greek Revival, without specifying that the facade is one style and the interior is another. The sources even disagree over which style is more predominant; the National Park Service says it's the Greek Revival style, while the Chicago Tribune article seems to imply that it's the Federal style instead. Epicgenius (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Epicgenius. Have you addressed all of the comments? If so, could you ping PMC? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild, I have addressed all the comments. I didn't realize that I forgot to ping @Premeditated Chaos, so thanks for the reminder.

@Premeditated Chaos, thanks for the additional comments. I've addressed them now. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Image and source review

File:Historic American Buildings Survey, Arnold Moses, Photographer March 5, 1936, FRONT ELEVATION. - Seabury Tredwell House, 29 East Fourth Street, New York, New York County, NY HABS NY,31-NEYO,30-2 (cropped).tif, File:Historic American Buildings Survey, Wohlfahrt Studio, Photographer May 25, 1936, FIRST FLOOR HALL SHOWING STAIRS. - Seabury Tredwell House, 29 East Fourth Street, New York, New HABS NY,31-NEYO,30-10 (cropped).tif, File:Historic American Buildings Survey, Wohlfahrt Studio, Photographer May 25, 1936, KITCHEN FIREPLACE. - Seabury Tredwell House, 29 East Fourth Street, New York, New York County, NY HABS NY,31-NEYO,30-17 (cropped).tif and File:Historic American Buildings Survey, Wohlfahrt Studio, Photographer May 25, 1936, DRAPED WINDOWS AND BED - FRONT BEDROOM, SECOND FLOOR. - Seabury Tredwell House, 29 East Fourth HABS NY,31-NEYO,30-19 (cropped).tif have a bunch of bare URLs. ALT text is OK.

Don't think that The Christian Science Monitor, The New York Times, New York Herald Tribune, Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times get an ISSN. 'specially since The Atlanta Constitution doesn't get one either. I notice that New York Times sometimes links to articles and sometimes doesn't. What makes AmNY, Time Out, Conde Nest Traveller, guidestar.org, Playbill, rew-online.com, news.artnet.com/ and The Village Voice high-quality reliable sources? I am not saying they are necessarily unreliable, but I need more information. What's Town & Country and The Sun? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the source and image reviews, @Jo-Jo Eumerus. Here are my responses:

• I'm not sure what should be done with the URLs in these images. The images are hosted on Commons, and the URLs doesn't really affect the display of the article itself.
• AmNewYork Metro is NYC's main free daily newspaper. They have editorial oversight, and from the looks of it, this is a reliable source in its field.
• Time Out New York is part of the Time Out series of magazines. They also have editorial oversight, and although they do publish reviews of attractions such as bars and restaurants, their non-review content is generally reliable.
• Conde Nast Traveler is a travel magazine published by Condé Nast. They also have editorial oversight, but the only use of the CN Traveler in this article is for a review.
• GuideStar is a database of nonprofits operated by Candid (organization).
• Playbill is a theatre magazine. They do seem to have solid editorial oversight (and, unlike some other magazines, don't have freelancers).
• Real Estate Weekly is a real estate magazine. Their website seems to be down right now, but from what I can recall, they also have editorial oversight.
• Artnet is an art market website. This is probably the only source on the list that I don't have full confidence in, so I've removed it.
• The Village Voice is a weekly newspaper, which also seems to have editorial oversight. I've found them to be reliable for info regarding Manhattan (they don't really publish many articles about the outer boroughs).
• Town and Country (magazine) is a magazine, and The Sun is actually supposed to be The Baltimore Sun, Baltimore's newspaper of record.

I hope this helps. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd imagine you could go to Commons and edit them so that they have information that could help us restore them if the websites reorganize. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus, sounds good. I've formatted these bare URLs. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

OK, I guess. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

SC

Comments to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 10:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Lead

• "built the house as a speculative development and sold the house": "and sold it"?
  • Yes. I've done that. Epicgenius (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
• There are seven uses of "house" in the paragraph (as well as six in the first para and five in the third), and a couple of synonyms could be used. I think you can use "building" when talking about the building, particularly as it hasn't technically been a house since the 1930s ("the deteriorating house" ->"the deteriorating building", for example)
  • Thanks for pointing it out. Sometimes, when I expand an article like this, I sometimes repeat a word so often that I become numb to using it. I've gone through the article and replaced "house" with synonyms where applicable. Epicgenius (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Yeah, we've all done it at some point! - SchroCat (talk) 15:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Use as residence

• "Reynolds sold the house in 1835": Are you sure Reynolds did?
  • He most certainly wasn't alive back then. Oops. I've fixed that. Epicgenius (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Done to the start of the 1970s renovation; more to come. - SchroCat (talk) 10:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback so far SC. I've now addressed the issues you've raised. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

1970s renovation

• "project was Joseph Roberto's wife": why not just "Roberto's wife"?

Architecture

• You have Greek Revival linked twice in the same para

Operation

• "In addition, Old Merchant's House Inc. runs": You don't need the "In addition"
• Link for pie safe (it's not common outside the US, and I wonder just how well known the term is to most Americans)
• "shoot a movie": a bit slangy and informal. "produce a film" would work

That's my lot. - SchroCat (talk)

Thanks again @SC. I've fixed the additional issues you mentioned. (I don't have a pie safe, nor do I know anyone who still does, so I'm surprised that I hadn't linked it, but that's been fixed now.) – Epicgenius (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support. All good from me. - SchroCat (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• Erskine 1954 needs an OCLC (4870558) and a publisher location (London).
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
• Link hatter.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
• "museum officials fought the construction of a nearby hotel". Suggestion (only): "fought" → 'opposed'.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
• "retains its original exteriors and interiors. ... The building's facade and interior are". Singular or plural? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  • It is singular. In that first example, the verb "retains" refers to the singular "residence" (i.e. it's the residence that's doing the retaining, not that the exteriors and interiors are doing the retaining). I changed it to "The Merchant's House Museum is the only 19th-century residence in Manhattan with its original exteriors and interiors intact." Epicgenius (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Gog. I've responded to all of them now. Epicgenius (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

1920 Xalapa earthquake

Nominator(s): Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a deadly and destructive earthquake in Mexico, known for its devastating mudslides which contributed to the losses. It had an estimated magnitude of 6.3 to 6.4 and occurred within the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt, a region experiencing extensional tectonics, where normal faults produce seismic activity. This event may have been due to shallow normal faulting, the kind of faulting observed in other earthquakes along the belt. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size

• File:Templo_de_Teocelo,_Veracruz,_terremoto_1920.png: what is the author's date of death? Ditto File:Earthquake_Isoseismal_map_terremoto_1920_Xalapa_pdf.pdf, File:Saltillo_Lafragua_church,_terremoto_1920.png, File:Landslide_scars_on_Cerro_Colorado_in_Patlanalá,_Puebla.png, File:Enríquez_Street,_Xalapa,_terremoto_1920.png, File:Cosautlán,_Veracruz_1920_terremoto.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Note the original publication does not identify the authors in the front pages so I attributed to Instituto Geológico de México, 1922. They are in the public domain according to Alamy although the uploaded files are screenshots of the report. At least one of the authors I found via secondary source is Teodoro Flores d. 1955. The other may have been Horacio Camacho, d 2015.

Alamy entries:

• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]

Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 06:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

They are in the public domain in which country according to Alamy?

They are currently tagged as life+70 - if the likely authors died in 1955 and 2015, that tag wouldn't apply yet. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

That I'm unable to decipher, I'm checking with Alamy over the matter. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 00:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

There are seven other works uploaded by Panorami bot in 2010 and 2016 from the 1922 source under CC-BY-SA-3.0. More are found under this cat Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria have you concluded scrutinization? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 11:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

You had indicated you were checking with Alamy - did you hear back? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

They don't have any further information about the PD country. Past alamy works on Commons use the CC BY-SA 4.0 Int'l license. Anyways I'll just remove those images until it gets sorted out Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Support from Ganesha811

• Noting that I intend to review this and should have comments up in the next couple days. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• Not a full source review, but the vast majority of the sources appear to be reliable government reports or academic papers. Not seeing any red flags. The Catholic Telegraph and San Diego Union are both fine as generally reliable historic newspapers. I would recommend adding links to their articles in the citations. It's also usually worth checking if any of the academics have Wikipedia articles and linking those, they sometimes do.

Lead

• Why does the lead use moment magnitude instead of Richter? Is that now standard for seismology?

Moment magnitude has been the standard for earthquakes larger than magnitude 6.0 since its introduction. None of these sources provide a Richter magnitude estimate either.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough!

• I'd say some of the geology can be moved out of the first paragraph and shifted to the second, while some of the human impact can be moved up higher in the lead.

doneDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Some prose oddities in the lead:

• past seismic-hazard zoning projects have classified - past as of 1920 or past as of today? Should it be "had" instead?
• normal faulting which may have been identical to the one involved in 1920. The one what? A fault? Which fault? Not sure what this sentence is trying to say.

Clarified Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• accommodated by what does this mean, exactly?

Hopefully the wording is better, I've omitted the wordDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Any reason the cost of damage is given in US dollars rather than pesos?

US dollar comes from the Catholic Telegraph reflected in the bodyDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Meanwhile, the newspapers which newspapers? All newspapers? Seems a broad statement.

ClarifiedDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• more than N$300,000 N$ appears to be the usual symbol for the Namibian dollar, not the peso - why is it used here? Does the 300,000 include the previous mentioned 20,000?

N$ is the symbol of the new peso introduced in 1993 which the template appears to follow. N reflects the ISO 4217 code for new peso when MXN is injected into the template. A number of editors have been confused with the template output so I will manually key in Mex$ which they should be familiar with. The 300,000 and 20,000 come from separate sources that don't acknowledge each other so I don't know.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Follow-up, 20,000 has been omitted, it's a minor detail so that shouldn't be a problem Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Seems reasonable.

• were raised should be "was raised".

DoneDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Could you move/split up your reply to the locations of the relevant comments and note which prose issues have been addressed? Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful. Continuing on with the review later today! —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• a 2017 research remove "a" or add a following word like "study" or "project"
• assigned in the epicenter assigned to, not assigned in
• the mainshock originated within the Earth's crust where else would an earthquake originate?
• established communication services this fact doesn't appear to be mentioned later on in the article. What is it summarizing?
• through joining - recommend switching this to , joining for readability.
• The El Salvador and Honduras - recommend modifying to the Salvadoran and Honduran governments, as well as Pope Benedict XV and adding wikilinks to all 3.

Six points above this comment done. Some parts of the lede were modified following Mike's earlier comments.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 11:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Tectonic setting

• If I'm reading the map correctly, the Middle America Trench is southwest of Mexico. How can the two Pacific, oceanic plates subduct "northwestwards" - wouldn't it be northeast?

That's my typo. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• (slabs), dehydrate no comma needed

Fixed Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• subducts at 50 50 degrees from what baseline? How is this measured?

Earth's surface. Imaging the slab geometry requires seismic tomography and studying earthquakes within the slab to project a 3D image, which isn't relevant anymore if that's what you're asking. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Could you rephrase these sentences (and the one mentioned below) to make that clearer? Thanks. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Is it better now? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 00:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's more comprehensible, thanks. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• plunges to about 50-60 this is now as compared to the angle of the earth's surface, or something else?

above answered. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• Intraslab earthquakes within the Cocos plate occur at 60–100 km (37–62 mi) depth, but cease abruptly some 100 km (62 mi) south of the TMVB, possibly because the slab does not produce earthquakes in the north before plunging steeply to 120 km (75 mi) depth beneath the TMVB. I'm not sure what this sentence is trying to say. How does the second part relate to the first and what is the implication of either?

OmittedDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 12:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• cease should be "ceases"

Fixed. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• Am I reading correctly that it is impossible for an inactive fault to generate earthquakes?

An active fault is one that moves and could generate earthquake. Inactive faults don't move presently hence don't produce earthquakes. You're correct. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• What is that vertical white bar on File:Trans Mexican Volcanic Belt extension2.jpg? Why is extension shown going in both directions?

It's the line of section, I've added a text to indicate this. Because the crust the volcanic belt rest atop has to move apart, arrows would indicate that movement.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

FYI Ceranthor made new suggestions at PR 2 which I've tried to address. @Ceranthor use this space if you have to comment. Thanks for going through the article. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

But those volcanoes and faults on the diagram are purely hypothetical, and not intended to represent actual faults/mountains, right? So couldn't the line of section equally be anywhere along the TMVB from coast to coast? FWIW I agree with Ceranthor's grammar and other comments and will not duplicate them. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Hypothetically it could look like this all along the volcanic belt. There isn't enough research on every part of the belt to give an accurate picture of how the faults actually look like, it's currently a blank canvas with no right or wrong, Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 12:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Damage and casualties

• The earthquake killed 648 people why favor the source that says this over the other sources with widely varying estimates?

Reworded to "between 648 and 4,000", is that better? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 06:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, though I recommend also adding a phrase or a sentence explaining the widely varying estimates (i.e. which are contemporary vs modern reviews). —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do, currently on a 14 hr flight to SFO so i'll try with the slow onboard wifi Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Alright, running through the sources, most of them don't address the varying numbers but I've added a line about the origin of the lowest figure from the 1922 report while contemporary refs give higher numbers. Another line acknowledging the lack of clarification regarding this discrepancy. I think acknowledging we can't explain because there's no discussion about it should make up for it. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• earthquake in Mexico - change to "in Mexico's history"

Done

• building constructed should be "buildings constructed from" - also, attributed by who?

Reworded

• XI isoseismal band - might be more readable to just say "in the area of the most intense damage" or "in the area of the severest shaking"
• The section discussion landslides first covers many separate landslides, but then seems to describe one massive landslide in particular along the Huitzilapa. Could you rephrase to make the sequence of events clearer?

Reworded, hopefully it's better. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 06:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• there were only two residents survivors should be "only two residents survived." The second part of the sentence is not needed, seems obvious.

Done

• The section switches between using US dollars and pesos. Should be consistent throughout the article, preferably in pesos (with modern equivalents given).

I've adjusted all currencies to eflect the US dollar as of 1922, which is the earliest reliable conversion I could find from the fed reserve. Should the adjusted figures and ref for conversion stay in prose or do I leave it in a footnote? I have it in the prose just for now. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 06:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it's fine to keep it in the prose. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• Noting that some comments in the sections above have not yet been addressed.

Response

• resumed his position why was he not in office at the time of the quake? Would be good to have some context.
• refuge should be "refugee", I think
• requested for donations can just be "requested donations"
• Veracruz, coordinated should probably be ", also coordinated", unless he was the one coordinating the government relief also.
• The sentences about the newspapers' efforts can be moved so they don't split up the sentences about Guizar y Valencia's efforts.
• Any details available on the type of assistance that the USA or Germany provided?

Pts 2, 3 & 4 done. The current source doesn't elaborate pts 1 and 6. If I can find something about them, I'll add them Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 17:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ganesha811 I couldn't find anything about Aguilar's temporary departure from the position, so my guess was this is a very minor point. Perhaps ommitting it could be justified? Deschamps also isn't involved in the response. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 18:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Ganesha811 will you continue the review? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 22:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there are a number of points above you haven't yet responded to (including under 'Lead'). Please mark them off as you go or reply with a comment, thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Please check again I don't think I missed any as of comment Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 12:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ganesha811 all your points have been addressed. Please continue. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 20:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I will take another look, thanks. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• After another read-through, I'm able to support. Thanks for your changes to the article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Further comments

• wooden jacales generally performed well this detail, while interesting, can probably be removed from the lead and kept only in the body.

DoneDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 22:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• 2008 hazard zoning...risk is higher this phrase can also be removed from the lead to keep the focus on the 1920 quake

DoneDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 22:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Mexico is one of the world's...Venta de Bravo faults and Chapala graben This whole paragraph (with the exception of the first sentence) feels like it could be removed or reworked. Perhaps some of the information can be brought to the start of the section (or Tectonic Setting) to provide broad context, but we don't need too much here.

Reworded and moved to tectonic setting. I added further details initially concerned the original description was vague.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 22:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• The landslide began this paragraph still reads a little confusingly - are we talking about one landslide? Two (Huitzilapa and Patlanalá)? Many? Please rework a little more to clarify the number of distinct events and make the sequence clearer.

Reworded. Hopefully it's clear to you there were multiple small landslides along the Huitzilapa and its tributaries that later combined into a single mass that traveled further downstream and swept away these villages.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 19:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ganesha811 All points have been addressed Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 23:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ganesha811 follow up, please Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 22:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll take a look tomorrow and see if there's anything else. Your changes look good. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Mikenorton

• Hi Dora the Axe-plorer, finally got around to this.

• Comments will be on the Lead, Tectonic setting and Earthquake sections, possibly more to follow, I'll see how I go. Mikenorton (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks you for going through the technical details of this article. It's very helpful. All of the points have been addressed. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 04:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Lead

• affected the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt in the states of Puebla and Veracruz - Maybe say that it "affected parts of the states of Puebla and Veracruz towards the eastern end of the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt", as only a small part of the belt was affected and I don't think that the term is used for a well-defined geographic area.

• was assigned in the epicenter "was recorded at the epicenter", would be better.

• mainshock originated within the Earth's crust - the key here is that the data recorded showed that it must be in the continental crust of the overlying North American plate, rather than the oceanic crust of the subducting Cocos plate, so we need to say that.

Tectonic setting

• Benz et al. (2011) talks about three large plates, meaning the Pacific, Cocos and North American plates. The Rivera plate is not mentioned in the text and only appears in one of the maps as a microplate, so another source is probably needed.

• Two of the three plates listed, the Rivera and Cocos plates do not converge with each other, this needs rewording.

• The Mexican landmass rests atop the westward-moving North American plate - as we're calling it a "landmass", this would be better as "The Mexican landmass forms part of the westward-moving North American Plate". Another point is that we need to be a bit more specific about which landmass we're talking about - the Baja California peninsula lies on the Pacific plate - mainland Mexico is a term sometimes used for this.

• Some of the volcanic products in the TMVB reflect partial melting of the upper part of the subducting slab, but that is probably a detail too far for this article.

• It aligns obliquely along the trench where the Cocos and Rivera plates subduct at a different angle - This is unclear. "It aligns obliquely to the trend of the trench" is better I think. The change in subduction angle does not match the boundary between the Rivera and Cocos plates. That boundary runs SW-NE through the El Gordo Graben and the Colima Graben into the proposed slab-tear. Suarez et al. (2019) (the cited source) says that the "location of the TMVB is due to the geometry of the Cocos plate". This is the progressive change in dip towards the southeast along the slab, from constant dip in the northwest to flat-slab (plus very steep dip further away from the trench) to the southeast> I'll see if I can find a form of words to clarify this. Perhaps something like "The change in geometry of the Cocos plate from constant moderate dip in the northwest to flat-slab (plus very steep dip further away from the trench) to the southeast produces contours on the top of the slab at 100 km and deeper that trend roughly west-east, matching the trend of the TMVB."

• The slab is subhorizontal between Guerrero and Oaxaca, causing 250 km of flat slab subduction - "causing" is definitely the wrong word, perhaps "demonstrating" would be better. As to the distance, I checked back with the Pardo & Suarez (1995) source. Although they use 250 km in the abstract, in the main body of the paper they say "In Central Mexico, the geometry of the downgoing slab becomes almost subhorizontal between 110 km to 270 km from the trench", so that's actually 160 km extent, which matches nicely with the diagram that I recently added. I suggest that we base our text on Pardo & Suarez's formulation.

• As a result, the volcanic arc is further than typical - this seems a bit clipped, suggest "As a result, the volcanic arc is located further from than the trench than is typical".

• Some of these faults are visible for more than 50 km - to clarify suggest "Some of the scarps formed by these faults are mapped for up to 50 km", which also matches with the Viveros et al. (2017) source that is cited - adding "along their length" might help to make it clear that we're talking about horizontal extent.

Earthquake characteristics

• suggesting that the preceding mainshock was a shallow focal event - as in the lead section, should make it clear that this means in the North American plate crust

• Hi Mikenorton, 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) 13:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "The volcanic belt undergoes crustal extension which causes normal faults to form in response to the tectonic deformation." This is very obscure. "volcanic belt" should be linked and "crustal extension" and "tectonic deformation" are not explained in the articles they link to. I gather that it was a vertical slip outside a plate boundary, but I do not understand beyond that what you are saying. The lead should be easily understandable to non-expert readers.

Reworded and linked to rift which is a more specific example. Let me know if there still needs improvement.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 19:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• "These faults can produce earthquakes and pose a threat to highly populated towns due to their close proximity." What does this mean? You appear to be saying that the earthquakes are usually close to highly populated towns, which does not make sense. Maybe when they are in close proximity?

Yes, close proximity. Reworded.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 19:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• "The Bishop Rafael Guízar y Valencia". Why "The bishop"? I would delete "The".

OkDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 19:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Mexico lies at the convergence of three tectonic plates." The articles on the plates appear to say that the convergence is off the Mexican coast.

Amended to off the coastDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 19:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• "The changing geometry of the Cocos plate from constant moderate dip in the northwest to flat-slab in the southeast." This is ungrammtical.

  CE-edDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 19:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• "100 km (62 mi)" This conversion is false precision.

Added "about 100 km" unless you meant using Template:Cvt is FP which you will have to explain why.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 19:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I mean that an approximate figure like 100 km should be rounded to 60 miles. 62 is false precision. See Template:Convert#Default rounding. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't the same principle apply to measurements across the whole article then? Why is 62 mi singled out. I think adding "about" before these approx figures (and the mi conversion) would suffice. Though I would agree to apply sigfig=1 across all km measurements (and the article will still have to indicate they're approx.). Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 21:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

That would be fine. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Crustal deformation in the TMVB is characterized by extension." No change needed, but does this mean that the earthquake occurred in an area where the earth is being pulled apart, unlike the compression caused by the Pacific plates subducting under America?

YesDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 19:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• "The assessment was based on seismic records since 1912, excluding earthquakes dating back to 1568." "excluding"? This is an odd qualification. A search in the source for "1568" gave no hits.

Reworded with additional clarification on the earthquake records. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 19:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• "suggesting the mainshock likely have identical characteristics". Ungrammatical. "had"?

DoneDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• In contrast, intraslab earthquakes would be located further due to their deeper source." Further to what?

DoneDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• Last para of 'Earthquake characteristics' section. I find this confusing, although this may be due to my ignorance of the geography. You say that the last major TMVB earthquake was the 1920 one, and then mention deadly ones in 1959 and 1967. Below you say that the deadliest in Mexican history was in Mexico City in 1985, and several sources say the city is in the TMVB.

I should clarify I meant the source meant most recent M6+ earthquake was in 1920. The 1967 and 1959 events are unrelated to the belt. I don't see how the statement regarding 1985 ranking 1st and 1920 ranking 2nd in death toll contradicts anything said above, especially when figures are given.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I think I understand your comment now. "1985 Mexico City earthquake" is a descriptive title; the epicenter was 300 mi away in the Pacific. I'll rectify that. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 18:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• In the same para I would move the sentence about the Pacific coast to the end of the para, as it appears to be a separate point which interrupts the flow.

DoneDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• "However, contemporary studies reported larger figures without discussing the discrepancy." "contemporary" is the wrong word. It implies contemporary with the 1922 report, whereas you cite much later studies.

DoneDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• "The Francisco Verdad, a National Mexican Rite fraternal organization, requested donations from its members through the local newspaper, El Dictamen." This is not significant and I would delete. Similar organizations would contribute in any disaster. Most of the contributions in this and the following paragraph are too small to be worth mentioning.

Fair enoughDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• The last two sentences of the article are not relevant to the paragraph and might be moved to the first para of the section. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  Done Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Looks fine apart from listing relief contributions which are too small to be worth mentioning, and this is a minor point. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose from Graham Beards

I am not convinced the prose is FA level. I found the article a slog to read; a jumble of facts rather than a continuous narrative. Here are some specific examples:

• "There are normal faults in the volcanic belt that form because the underlying crust undergoes extension. Located near the center of maximum seismic intensity, it may represent the causative fault." This is from the Lead and I thought what volcanic belt?

Para 1 in the lede: "A moment magnitude 6.3–6.4 earthquake affected parts of Puebla and Veracruz towards the eastern end of the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt ..." Unless you are referring to something else I didn't catch.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Both are linked. How does this comply with WP:OVERLINK? Graham Beards (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

They link to different articles though TMVB is a specific example. I'll unlink the latter. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

There is more overlinking: Metamorphosis, Teocelo, Cosautlan, Ayahualuco and Oaxaca. (Please forgive any spelling mistakes). Graham Beards (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

PS. And they should be linked on their first occurrence in the article. Graham Beards (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Right. Done with that. And it doesn't apply to the lede–body duplicate wikilinks I assume? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 17:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

-Graham Beards (talk) 11:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• "However, a brief account in 1546 may be an earlier example." Brief account of what?

Clarified Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Seismicity in the TMVB is infrequent, with the most recent major earthquakes being the 1912 Acambay (Mw  6.9) and 1920 Xalapa events." This is an ugly fused participle. How about "...and the most recent major earthquakes were"?

RewordedDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Mountains in the area exhibited landslide scars which transported loose earth, vegetation and bedrock." This needs an article "The mountains..."
• "Similarly, wooden jacales performed well in Chilchotla" Performed? Perhaps "held up" or "resisted"?

Buildings are not meant to collapse onto the people living inside so performed, they did. Though I will agree with "resisted".Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

That was rather patronising. Graham Beards (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Explaining my word choices? "Performed" is a term commonly used in the engineering (I'm not an engineer but I've read papers) glossary which I also used. Your wording is more reader-friendly so thank you. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

No, telling me that buildings are not meant to collapse onto the people living inside. As if I didn't know. Graham Beards (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• "The hospital was so severely cracked that it was at risk of collapse, but was running at full capacity treating patients." What else do hospitals do apart from treat patients?

The fact that it was at risk of collapse but running at full cap describes the gravity and urgency in the aftermath. A rational human being would never think to step foot in a building that could seriously injure them if it collapsed. I think this statement should remain. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

You have missed the point entirely. Why add "treating patients"? Graham Beards (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Removed that bit Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• "At a performance theater" What other sorts of theaters are there in this context?

The performing arts kind as opposed to a movie theater Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

What difference does it make? It's this kind of trivia that spoils the prose. Why not just say "theater"? Graham Beards (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

You're right about that. Article suffers from my obsession with unvaluable detail Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• "In Teocelo, Guízar officiated a sermon and distributed" So what, he's a priest.

I noticed this article contains a number of non-notable additions which I've agreed to remove. This being one of them in an effort to trim the prose. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• "He also preached in other affected areas until 1921." So what?

Addressed in above comment Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Several Mexico City newspapers also wrote that Veracruz was destroyed, which its city officials refuted" Newspapers don't write, journalists do.

AddressedDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The two FAC reviewers before you took their time scrutinizing the article and typed out all their thoughts and confusion in a constructive manner. It's very helpful from my end observing and learning the process when I'm a first time nominator. They took of their time to reveal as many problems to me before closing with a decision, which I appreciate far more. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

You are unfamiliar with the FAC process. First, this is not peer review, articles are expected to be FA quality, or close to it, before nominating. And second, I haven't closed the discussion: far from it. I am sorry you do not find my comments constructive. They were meant to be so. I suggest you take a look at other nominations to see how things are done at FAC. A bit of advice, it is best to work with reviewers rather that taking umbrage. Graham Beards (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Great, I look forward to your further comments. I will reply to every comment you make above then. TY Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Note that Graham was giving examples ("Here are some specific examples:") not providing an exhaustive list. Graham, and the coordinators, will require reassurance that similar issues do not remain elsewhere, see eg WP:FIXLOOP. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:48, 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)

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?

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?

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)

Valhalla train crash

Nominator(s): Daniel Case (talk) 05:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the deadliest train crash in the 40-year history of New York's Metro-North Railroad. Five people on a Harlem Line train were killed during a winter evening rush hour in suburban Westchester County when a driver stopped her SUV on the tracks at a grade crossing near one of the largest cemeteries in the New York area. Almost ten years, an NTSB investigation and a lawsuit later, we still don't know why because she was killed as well. Daniel Case (talk) 05:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment

Overall in very fine shape, though there are 71 instances of the word 'accident' throughout while there are only a handful of uses of that word in RS. Should be switched to better words throughout (crash, fire, collision, incident, etc). I've been challenged in the aviation space for suggesting the same and have been told that MOS overrules RS, but I think this shouldn't be so contentious for this article Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we had this discussion last year, and then its sequel. All I can say is that, for the reasons I gave in the first discussion, I feel you, and that should consensus come around on this I would be the first to make that change. Daniel Case (talk) 02:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

TAOT

I will be reviewing this over the coming days. I will start at the lead and go in the order of the article's sections.

Lead and infobox

• On the evening of February 3, 2015, a commuter train on Metro-North Railroad's Harlem Line struck a passenger car at a grade crossing on Commerce Street near Valhalla, New York, United States, between the Valhalla and Mount Pleasant stations, killing six people and injuring 15 others, seven very seriously. This is 307 characters long; I recommend splitting it into two sentences.

I took the middle part about which two stations the crash was between out (more detail than the lede needs to have) and split the section about the fatalities and injuries into a separate sentence. Daniel Case (talk) 06:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• It is the deadliest crash in Metro-North's history, and at the time the deadliest rail accident in the United States "Is" and "and at the time" do not go together, because "at the time" refers to a past event but "is" refers to something in the present.

Done

• how the passengers were killed Suggest "how the train passengers were killed" since a car can also have passengers.

Done

• In 2024, a jury hearing one found the railroad and Brody liable for the accident. What is the meaning of "one" here? Hearing one what?

Added the words "of the suits".

• For the infobox, suggest specifying that one train car and the automobile were destroyed, and the other train car damaged. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Changed.

• This is minor, but the crossing signage should really be "the crossing signals" since this is a crossing with active warning devices, not just crossbucks.

Done.

• Suggesting linking NTSB in the infobox photo caption.

Done.

I will continue this review soon. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I have responded above. I will have limited ability to respond to comments here early this week because I am working at the polls on Tuesday (aaaallll day here in NY) Daniel Case (talk) 06:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Background

• Bombardier M7A electric multiple units is a MOS:SOB.

Fixed, although it made the sentence a little wordier.

• Suggest linking M7A in the image caption.

Did that too.

• I'm curious about the use of "boom barrier", as I'm pretty sure the standard terminology in the U.S. is crossing gate. I do see that crossing gate is also linked in the following section, though both links go to the same page.

I don't remember writing this ... might have been someone else shortly after the article was started. I have changed it to crossing gates since the cited Times article uses that term.

• Probably worth mentioning the M7As are in pairs, as otherwise the mentions of 8 cars and 4 M7As seem contradictory.

Done Daniel Case (talk) 06:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Are all these links and mentions of the counties locations are in really needed? Imho they are excessive and make the sentences too long.

I trimmed them. Writing both this and December 2013 Spuyten Duyvil derailment drew a lot on my experiences visiting various Metro-North stations with my son when he was younger so he could take pictures and video, and the understanding of Metro-North's operations I gained. So maybe I was still thinking that way at the time, but it's not that time anymore.

• It might be best to reorder the second and third paragraphs, as you switch topics to the train leaving GCT and then go back to the previous topic in the next paragraph.

Saw your point. Reads better now.

• I really think making a turn onto Lakeview Avenue from the northbound parkway is too much detail for this article. What's relevant is that the parkway was closed, I don't think this adds anything to understanding the topic.

Tightened that a bit.

• Lakeview Avenue crossed the two tracks using a grade crossing should be "crossed the two tracks at a grade crossing". Also, grade crossing can be linked.

I made it "crossed the tracks at grade" and linked the whole phrase.

• After a crash at the Commerce Street crossing in 1984 that had killed the driver of the van involved remove "had".

Done.

• The sentences discussing Commerce Street should be consistent in tense, you use both present and past tense here.

I changed that "next crossing was" to "is"; obviously it's still there. Daniel Case (talk) 07:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Crash

• Why is there a citation after the word "Alan"?

I haved moved it to the end of the sentence. I suppose I might have left it there for some reason, perhaps temporarily, when I converted the NTSB report ref to {{sfn}}. Or there could have more near the beginning of the sentence. Daniel Case (talk) 05:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• Not liking the organization of the first paragraph. You start with the driver going up Commerce Street, then backtrack to her being on the Taconic and having to divert due to the crash. Consider reworking this paragraph to put events in order.

This took more work than anything else so far that's come up in this FAC. But that's why we have them.

• The same issue is apparent in the next paragraph, where the phone call is said to have taken place before the driver left the parkway at all.

I wound up rewriting those three grafs so everything's more in order. Daniel Case (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Isn't it original research to say the claim of hearing a bell was wrong and sourcing it to the inspection report, a primary document? There's also nothing in the cited source to support in New York bells are only required for pedestrian crossings. Additionally, trains are often equipped with bells as a warning device. My advice here would be to simply say an inspection after the accident found the crossing was not equipped with a bell.

The NTSB report is clearer that there wasn't a bell at the crossing, and has a footnote explaining that this is not required. I have sourced that and limited the endnote wording to just what the sources say. (All the same, I don't know if the train bells would have been as audible as any crossing bells would have been had there been any).

• Hit the air brakes should be "applied the emergency brakes" as specified in the NTSB report.

Changed.

• Passengers in the first car recalled being thrown from their seats on impact as the fire started There hasn't been any mention of a fire until this point, so it should be "a fire".

Changed.

• until a manual override was sent Was this from dispatch at Grand Central? Can you specify who did the override?

The NTSB credits this to the office of Metro-North's power director. Absent another source saying that office is at Grand Central (which, of course, I wouldn't be surprised if it was), we can't say anything more than that. Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Pages 23-24 of the NTSB report say the power director's office is in Grand Central Terminal. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

It's on page 23. I have added it and appropriately amended the footnote. Daniel Case (talk) 06:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Link the first mention of third rail.

Done. Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Victims

• Equity analyst is another MOS:SOB issue, since the reader would expect an article at equity analyst.

Changed to that. Daniel Case (talk) 07:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• Will pick up from the end of the victims section. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Aftermath

• Can we have inflation templates for cost numbers? I've been victim to those requests many times at FAC, and now I get to inflict them on you (joking).

Oh, no problem. That hadn't occurred to me, actually, since it has been for most of the lifetime of this article so recent that one wouldn't think to include it. But, it has now been nearly ten years, so yes—and of course it's easy because I've done it on so many other articles.

• This is nitpicky, but I've never seen anyone use the spelling "high-rail" in the U.S., it's usually hi-rail or hirail.

I've always heard them called hi-los — the idea being that they're high relative to the tracks but low to the road. But ... that isn't in the lede of the linked article. So I went with hi-rail, which is.

• The interim pastor at Nadol's Church of St. Mary the Virgin, noted that communities like Chappaqua depend on commuter rail for economic and cultural reasons Is that comma necessary? It seems out of place to me but maybe there's some MOS thingy that says I'm wrong.

Took it out. I think at one point we had used his name, so his job description was an appositive phrase. Daniel Case (talk) 03:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Investigation

• Any chance we can say a bit more about the NTSB team? How many members, and how long did they ultimately stay?

I looked hard just now. All the NTSB's original press release says is that they're sending a "go-team" and who was heading it, but not exactly how many members. I suppose more detailed information might be in agency financial records, which although they're probably public are not the sort of thing routinely put online.

• If you can find room, it might be a good idea to show a photo of the contact shoe with the third rail to illustrate how it works. A photo showing how the third rails used by the MTA often have a cover might also be a good addition.

Hmm. I spent a lot of time considering how I might be able to do this after I first read this. I realized that it would be best to get such a shot—or even better, video—at a station with an adjacent grade crossing, of which of course there are several on the electrified portion of the Harlem Line vs. none on the shorter electrified portion of the Hudson Line. There, you can deal with the train slowing down and/or outright stopping to make it an easier shot.

Brewster seems like it would be ideal for this, as you've got the third rails on the outside and they run close to the crossing, and can be photographed or videoed from or through nearby fencing, particularly on the northeast and southwest corners. Plus it is conveniently the closest crossing/station pair to where I live (although still a bit of a drive).

I wish you'd raised this possibility a couple of weeks back, now that Metro-North has revived its annual Open House down at Croton-Harmon. It might have been easier to get this there.

Obviously, as you suggested, this doesn't have to be done now, but I like the idea and I think we can do it soon.

Success! I went to Brewster last weekend and took a short video clip (OK, it's not perfect but it gets the idea across). Daniel Case (talk) 06:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• reduce the possibility of inadvertent contact with the high-voltage rail Suggest making it clearer you are referring to contact of people (or wildlife or anything that isn't a train contact shoe) with the third rail, obviously you would want the contact shoe to make contact with the third rail. I understand what you're saying here, but it is kind of confusing when it comes immediately after the explanation that the under-running is meant to prevent ice from building up (and presumably causing problems for the contact shoes).

Added wording to that effect

• When listing the safety features in the second to last paragraph, you did not include the flashing lights though my understanding is they also worked correctly.

Added. Daniel Case (talk) 06:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Reports and conclusions

• It's the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, not Manual of. Easy mistake to make, I work with the MUTCD on a daily basis at my day job and if you told me it was "Manual of" I'd probably believe you. Probably why we all just call it the MUTCD at work.

Thanks! Changed.

• I looked through my copy of Train Wrecks by Robert C. Reed, and it does agree that collisions involving the rail coming through the bottom of a train car are very rare and have been since steel rails were widely adopted, but they were unfortunately a common occurrence when strap rail was used in the 1800s. He says the terminology for such an event in a train accident is a "snakehead". Not sure this means any changes are needed to the article but I figured you'd find it interesting.

I looked this up, thinking it might have made an interesting endnote. You can't cite Reed's book through Google Books, which of course doesn't mean you can't. However, in the process of looking for other mentions online, I came across this forum post, dated 1/26/21 04:35, which references a Railway Age article from 1900 which found these accidents to have been less common in the preceding century than believed, and faults first a Harper's article in the pre-Civil War era for creating a public hysteria about this, then the manufacturers of passenger cars for adroitly responding to this by putting steel plates below the floors of their cars but then furthering the hysteria by widely advertising that they did so.

• the third rails were designed to break up in accidents and fail to the side Should this be "fall"?

The NTSB report uses "fail" a lot in the cited passage, but yes, "fall" makes more sense to readers here so I changed it.

• You write But in this case, with only two exceptions, the third rail's 6-foot (2 m) sections had largely remained joined in larger sections averaging 39 feet (12 m) in length, weighing a ton (800 kg) each, as they accumulated in the first and second cars but the NTSB report says "Of the 11 sections of third rail recovered, five were about 39 feet in length" which seems to me to suggest something different.

I changed it to read as the report writes. Daniel Case (talk) 04:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Post-accident official responses

• The second sentence here is very long, I suggest splitting it into two.

Made three out of it

• Can the section about proposed closing be updated? It doesn't clearly indicate if the crossings were closed or not.

(clutches forehead) I have regularly looked to see whether the town has publicly revisited this. I have found no evidence that it has ... perhaps the public opposition documented in the article and sources was enough to dissuade them from doing so. I sometimes feel like adding a "and it has not been discussed since then" but I don't think the absence of any sources for such discussion by itself is something we would consider a source for the absence of discussion.

• Why is Operation Lifesaver abbreviated as OLI (as opposed to OL)? This is not done in the NTSB report.

Because they themselves use it. And our OLI page also includes Operation Lifesaver among its links. We should probably put that in the article, too. Daniel Case (talk) 04:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Litigation

• Most were from passengers injured or killed Suggest adding something along the lines of "or their surviving relatives".

Done.

Other

• There are two periods after the retrieval date for the external link, pretty sure there should only be one.
• That's about it for me. I'll do one more readthrough once you've responded to these comments and then I expect to be in support of promotion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Done! Looking forward to anything more you have to say. Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Having read through the article again I don't have any further comments. Happy to support. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• While I've already supported, I will make one more suggestion: the images are very front-loaded right now, and the article would in my opinion be improved by better distributing them across the sections. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I try generally to place images near where they're most relevant to the accompanying text, which has (I think) necessarily resulted in this. However, looking further I think maybe the interior view of the burned railcar could be moved. Daniel Case (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Generalissima

Very solid prose throughout. I took the liberty of fixing a few citation orders.

• In the paragraph beginning The call was dropped, you should say "Brody" instead of "she" for the first mention of her.

I went further. I changed it to "Alan's" per MOS:SAMESURNAME. Daniel Case (talk) 06:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• This also happens a couple times in the Driver's behavior.

Again per MOS:SAMESURNAME, I used "Allan" and "Ellen". Daniel Case (talk) 06:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• According to MOS:EMPHASIS, use em tags when italicizing for emphasis, like when you emphasize any under "Design of third rails".

Done. Daniel Case (talk) 06:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• I don't see any other problems. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Looks good to me - Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

EG

I will leave some comments later. I'm not sure if I can formally !vote on the nomination since I seem to have the second-most edits to this article, but I guess I'll ask the FAC coords when we reach that point. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I will just state for the record that I have no objections to you taking part. Daniel Case (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Lead:

• Para 2: "the first car" - More specifically, the first train car (since "car" can be misconstrued here for "private vehicle").

I went with "front car".

• Para 3: "Investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) focused on two issues in the accident: how the train passengers were killed, since that rarely occurs in grade crossing collisions; and why Brody went forward into the train's path." - I get why you used the semicolon; it may appear in lists with three or more items, where at least one item has a comma. However, it usually isn't used in lists with only two items. This would otherwise imply "and why Brody went forward into the train's path" is a standalone sentence, which it isn't. I suggest adding dashes, e.g. "how the train passengers were killed—since that rarely occurs in grade crossing collisions—and why Brody went forward into the train's path."
• Para 3: "town of Mount Pleasant, which maintains Commerce Street, Westchester County, the railroad, and the engineer" - Conversely, you can add semicolons here, e.g. "town of Mount Pleasant, which maintains Commerce Street; Westchester County; the railroad; and the engineer". This is because "which maintains Commerce Street" isn't a party to a lawsuit, but rather clarifying the town of Mount Pleasant's involvement in the lawsuit.

All done. Daniel Case (talk) 06:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Background:

• Para 1: "At about 5:30 p.m. on February 3, 2015, 14 minutes after sunset" - I'd change to "...fourteen minutes after sunset" or reword this to put more distance between "2015" and "14" per MOS:NUMNOTES, which advises to "avoid awkward juxtapositions" such as this one.
• Para 1: "both lanes of the southbound Taconic and one northbound lane" - How about "both southbound lanes and one northbound lane of the Taconic"?
• Para 2: " Bombardier M7A electric multiple units" - This is a pretty severe case of WP:SEAOFBLUE; there are three links in a row without any indicator that these links are separate. I would either put distance between these links (e.g. four M7A electric multiple units made by Bombardier) or remove two of them. Actually I see TAOT has mentioned this above.
• Para 3: "Lakeview Avenue crossed the two tracks using a grade crossing" - The wording "crossed...using a grade crossing" seems slightly repetitive. Is there a way to reword this?

I have addressed the first two; the latter were also pointed out by TAOT and I addressed them in response to his comments. And I want to thank you for refocusing my attention on this section, since looking at it while doing this brought to my attention not only a couple of minor copy errors but some awkwardness in the section as a whole (i.e., we mentioned Lakeview crossing "the tracks" well before we mentioned the train, and since we had said nothing about the line running parallel alongside the Taconic at that point a reader who, say, hasn't had the occasion in the years since the crash to go down to the site and walk around and take photographs, will have absolutely no understanding of this. Or, now, would have. Daniel Case (talk) 06:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

More tomorrow, probably. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Crash:

• Para 2, footnote [c]: In 2016, Alan agreed in a newspaper interview that she would have had to have driven over the Lakeview Avenue grade crossing to make the turn up Commerce Street and the accident site." - This seems to be missing a closing quotation mark.

I think that might have been a typo I made putting the source in. Removed.

• Para 3: "Both Hope and Brody had stopped for a few seconds at the grade crossing" - I don't think "had" is necessary here, unless this is a continuation of what Hope said. This sentence uses the past perfect tense, but the rest of the paragraph (except for the sentence about Hope's recollection to investigators) is in the simple past tense.

This might have been left over from an earlier version of the graf as, in response to TAOT's comments I rearranged this section of the narrative quite a bit. I am, as a result of having studied Russian and Polish very picky about the perfect aspect in English, so I would have used that for a reason. But you are correct in noting that it does not make sense here, so I took "had" out.

• Para 5: "He realized it was from a vehicle fouling the tracks, and immediately hit the emergency brakes and sounded the horn, earlier than he would have been required to take the latter action if the tracks appeared clear, in the hope that the vehicle would hear it and leave since he knew he could not stop the train in time" - This sentence is a bit convoluted, but as I understand it, Smalls hit the brakes, and he sounded the horn earlier than required. Regardless, I'd rephrase this, because "earlier than he would have been required to take the latter action if the tracks appeared clear" could probably throw off a reader.

Yes, ZKang had also pointed this out, so I reworded it when working through his comments. Daniel Case (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• Not strictly necessary, but I just realized that a map and/or further clarification of the directions may be helpful here. From what I can recall, the train was traveling northbound from Grand Central, and the SUV was heading northeast (which would mean that the passenger side of the SUV was facing south/southeast). Also, as the article says, the train was on the western track, which means it was actually running on the left-hand side of the line. However, this isn't spelled out in the article, which could confuse readers unfamiliar with the topic.

The map on Page 6 of the NTSB report looks like it would address this issue quite well. We could also add a bit to the photo cutline. Daniel Case (talk) 06:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Per discussions elsewhere here, I have added it. Daniel Case (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Collision:

• In this section (and elsewhere in the article), the word "car" seems to be used for both the SUV and the M7As. I would change each use of "car" in this section to clarify whether it's the SUV or the train car. For example:
  • Para 1: "Then the car moved forward" - which refers to the SUV
  • Para 3: "Passengers in the first car" - which refers to the first train car

Clarified.

• Para 3: "One said that moments after being thrown into the next seat, he saw a section of rail go through the seat he had just been in" - Is this the third rail mentioned in paragraph 4?

It is. And I checked to make sure that in the source, he said the third rail, which he did.

• Para 6: "Damage to a transition jumper isolated the rail on the east of the track, south of the intersection, from its counterpart west of the track and north of the intersection." - By "intersection" do you mean grade crossing?

Yes. I may have been unconsciously been echoing the NTSB's language. Daniel Case (talk) 07:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Rescue efforts:

• Para 1: "later it was reported" - I'd clarify that the NTSB reported this.

Done.

Victims:

• Para 3: "that exception was due to burns and other injuries" - Do the sources say who this passenger was?

No, they don't. At least not the NTSB report. I can see them deciding they didn't need to publicly say who.

Fair enough. I was wondering because, if we knew who this passenger was, we could have said "[Passenger's name] died from burns and other injuries" instead of using passive voice. Epicgenius (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Para 3: 'There were a total of six deaths and fifteen injuries" - Perhaps this sentence should be moved to the first paragraph instead, before the existing sentence, which already says there were six deaths.

Did that.

• Para 4: "At that time, it was the deadliest passenger train crash" - I don't think "at that time" is needed, since "It was the deadliest passenger train crash in the United States since the 2009 Washington Metro train collision" already implies that the crash was the deadliest in six years.

Good point. Changed.

Aftermath:

• Para 1: "The lead car caught fire and was eventually destroyed." - The sources are from the days after the crash. Do you know what ultimately happened to the lead car (e.g. was it scrapped)?

Nothing in the cited source says this ... the car was, as all the photos in the NTSB report suggest, pretty well gutted. So I would not be at all surprised if it was scrapped. But the sources don't say that it was (I get the feeling someone added something they just ... knew somewhere along the line), so I took that out.

• Para 2: "A crew of a hundred" - Minor pick, but personally I'd say "one hundred".

I decided to use a figure. Daniel Case (talk) 06:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Social and cultural commentary:

• Para 4: "Tanenhaus saw the car's collision with a commuter train as another indicator of the way in which Westchester had left the contradictions between its past and present unresolved." - I wouldn't characterize this as a contradiction so much as a holdover from a past era, but that could just be me.

Well, that usage is from the quoted text, where he talks about the "paradox" of Westchester, the way it still sells itself to people as offering a country life despite having grown increasingly suburbanized. Daniel Case (talk) 06:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• I did have a question about whether the brackets at the beginning of words were necessary, but apparently MOS:CONFORM allows it: "It is normally unnecessary to explicitly note changes in capitalization. However, for more precision, the altered letter may be put inside square brackets: "The" → "[t]he".
• I also noticed that most of this commentary is within a week of the accident. Is there any more-recent commentary?

If there had been, I'm sure I would have found it by now. I do check regularly. Daniel Case (talk) 06:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I see, and I wasn't trying to imply that you weren't being diligent - quite the opposite, as I wanted to confirm that there in fact really was nothing more recent. Yeah, it seems a bit strange that more recent commentary doesn't exist, though. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about that. No problem. Daniel Case (talk) 07:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Theories and issues:

• Para 1: Can some of these quotes be paraphrased? I'm not sure that all three quotes are necessary, since we can just say in wikivoice that "grade-crossing accidents typically don't kill passengers on the train". The same goes for the rest of this section, actually; there are a lot of quotes that can be rephrased of summarized

Trimmed them down.

• Para 2: "To facilitate this, the ends of the third rails adjacent to grade crossings have a slight upturn." - Is the implication that the ends of the third rails may have been jolted upward into the train cars as a result?

Yes, that's the theory. I am guessing you think it needs to be stated more explicitly? Daniel Case (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• Para 6: "While the crossing had undergone upgrades in recent years, including brighter lights and an additional sign warning passing drivers not to stop on the tracks, in 2009 another upgrade, which would have added a sign with flashing lights 100–200 feet (30–61 m) up the road west of the tracks was not installed." - Two things here.
  • First, I think this can be split into two sentences for readability.
  • Second, "in 2009 another upgrade ... was not installed" sounds strange. Usually, I'd say that upgrades weren't carried out, rather than that upgrades weren't installed (unless it's something like software). Also, do you know if the upgrade was proposed in 2009, canceled in 2009, or both?

More soon. Sorry for the delays, things have been pretty hectic for me in real life lately. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry again. I promise to finish this over the weekend. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

No worries ... this holiday weekend isn't exactly giving me a lot of spare time, either. Daniel Case (talk) 02:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Picking up from this version of this article.

Reports and conclusions:

• Para 1: "Two years after the accident, however, it had still not released its final report." - You mention in the second paragraph that the final report was mentioned in July 2017. Perhaps that detail could be mentioned earlier on?

OK ... that took some rewording, which should have frankly been done back after that report had come out since there was originally more complaining about how long the report was taking. Daniel Case (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• I notice that the word "car" is used in this section to refer both to railcars and to motor vehicles. Examples of the former include "They did not experience sufficient stress to break until the rail sections had already entered the car", while examples of the latter include "The investigators allowed, however, that their tests were done with the car's radio and heater off". I suggest clarifying each use of the word "car" to remove this ambiguity; this should probably be done throughout the article as well.

Alright, did this throughout the article, everywhere where (as far as I can see) whether the train or the SUV was meant is intended. Daniel Case (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Driver's behavior:

• Para 3: "The investigators allowed, however, that their tests were done with the car's radio and heater off," - Are you using the word "allowed" to mean "conceded", or "permitted", here?

Conceded. Do you think I should use that instead? In this context I don't see those two meanings being confused.

• Para 4: "Whether the train's lights were visible or not" - I'd remove "or not", as that is implied by the use of the word "whether".

Done. Yes, an overly common redundant usage that I have sometimes myself warned tutees/students about.

• Para 5: "While prior to purchasing the used[13] ML350 two months earlier she had driven a Honda with a shifter in the more common position between the front seats, Alan told the NTSB that she had not told him of any problems using the column-mounted shifter, which he had also used when driving her car and found easy to get used to." - I would split the sentence into two, as this sentence is so long that it's verging on a garden-path sentence, especially the first half.

Done

• Para 6: "Had she done so, it might have provided additional warning that a grade crossing was nearby." - Do we know if the NTSB investigated whether she was using a GPS on her phone or another device?

I checked. There's no mention of the possibility (and at that time it's entirely possible, I think, that someone that age might not yet have started using a smartphone, which if so would moot that possibility).

• Para 7: Most of this paragraph is quotes. I would recommend paraphrasing at least one of the quotes.

I got rid of one of the quotes entirely, as it was sort of redundant. But I do think it's important to read the NTSB's voice making its conclusion. Daniel Case (talk) 04:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Traffic signal preemption:

• No issues here.

Design of third rails:

• Para 2: "But in this case, with only two exceptions, the third rail's 6-foot (2 m) sections had largely remained joined in larger sections, five of the 11 recovered 39 feet (12 m) in length, weighing a ton (800 kg) each, as they accumulated in the first and second cars" - I recommend splitting this into two sentences as well, particularly after "largely remained joined in larger sections". In addition, the clause "five of the 11 recovered" seems like it may be missing a word, unless you're talking about five of the 11 sections that were recovered.

Done (broke it up and added a word for clarity.

• Para 5, note [i]: "In addition to Metro-North and the LIRR, those are Amtrak, the SEPTA and the Port Authority Trans-Hudson (PATH) trains between Manhattan and New Jersey" - If I'm not mistaken, the PATH does not have any grade crossings that are open to the public, while SEPTA uses overhead catenary exclusively. I think it would be better to clarify the note to say that the NTSB recommended that these systems be inspected. Currently, it reads like the note is saying that these systems use third rail and grade crossings.

Done. SEPTA, as noted in the article, does use third rail on its subways, including the only other underrunning third rail on one line outside of Metro-North. But while I would want to check on PATH, I do believe you're right given how little those trains run at grade in developed areas. This error wouldn't surprise me, however, given that the report also mistakenly states that the LIRR also uses underrunning third rails. Daniel Case (talk) 04:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Fire:

• Para 3: "but the testing carried out after the accident showed this to be no longer the case" - Presumably because the standards were updated?

The report doesn't say. It notes that flammability resistance can decrease over time as materials age and are exposed to environmental factors. I added another endnote to this effect. Daniel Case (talk) 06:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Concurrences:

• Para 1: " "I suspect some may have had the expectation that the NTSB would be able to explain with certainty why the driver of the SUV ended up on the tracks that fateful evening," Sumwalt began. But with Brody dead, that was impossible." - This could be summarized in one sentence. In fact, I don't think you even need a quote if you're just expressing the fact that no definite explanation for the car's presence on the tracks was readily available due to Brody's death.

Fixed. Daniel Case (talk) 06:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Dissent:

• There are a lot of quotes in this section. Could they be summarized or paraphrased?
• Para 3 includes two sentences that end in question marks. I suggest rephrasing to make it clear that these were issues that Weener brought up.

Addressed both of these. Daniel Case (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I won't be able to finish the entire thing this weekend, but hopefully I will be done by Monday. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Post-accident official responses:

• The MTA's full name should be spelled out the first time it's used, and the acronym should be placed in parentheses afterward (i.e. "Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA)"), per MOS:ACRO1STUSE.

Done. Daniel Case (talk) 06:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposed closure of crossing:

• Para 1: "to two within two miles (3.2 km) from four" - Two issues here.
  • Am I correct in understanding that there would be two crossings in a 2-mile stretch of track, rather than the previous four?

Yes.

• • The numbers here are arranged weirdly. You list a quantity, a distance, and another quantity. I would put the quantities together, though this might require a little rewording, e.g. "This would reduce the number of grade crossings along the line from four—the most of any town in the county—to two within a two-mile stretch".

I used that wording.

• Para 1: "high passenger train volume and speed, low road traffic volume, multiple tracks, a mere 82 feet (25 m) to a traffic signal, a poor approach angle (62°), poor visibility due to the substation, and the two fatal accidents in its history" - The clause "a mere 82 feet to a traffic signal" doesn't fit with the other terms in the list. Each term in the list is an adjective-plus-noun, except for this one, which is little more than a measurement. Perhaps this can be rephrased as "the mere 82-foot (25 m) distance to a traffic signal".

Put that in too.

• Para 4: "Cleveland street crossing" - "Street" should be capitalized.

Done.

MTA grade crossing safety campaign:

• Para 1: "went up in trains and at stations on the Metro-North, the LIRR, and the New York City Subway" - LIRR should also be spelled out on the first use.

Done. I also did it where I had used it earlier in note i. Daniel Case (talk) 06:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Safety improvements to Commerce Street crossing:

• Para 2: "Alan Brody, a former conductor in his native South Africa," - Since Brody is already introduced earlier in the article, should the clause "a former conductor in his native South Africa," be moved up? If not, I think it may be better to change this to "Alan Brody, who had been a former conductor in his native South Africa," since otherwise it sounds like we're introducing him for the first time.

I just took that out. It's not in either of the cited articles, and it probably reflects a time when we had some material from that Railway Age article by Brody that's in Further Reading now in the actual article where he does bring up his past experience.

• Para 2: "which would not have prevented the Valhalla accident anymore than the CCTV would" - This should be "any more". "Anymore" means "any longer"/"at present", but in this case "any more" isn't being used to refer to a time period (you could replace it with "any less" and it'd still make sense, which isn't the case if "anymore" really was meant).

Fixed.

• I take it that there's no further news on these upgrades?

Nope. Daniel Case (talk) 04:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Litigation:

• Para 1: "Most were from passengers injured or killed, or their surviving relatives, including the Brody family, all alleging negligence" - The Brodys weren't among the passengers or their families, so I'd just say "Most were from those injured or killed".

Done.

• Para 1: "Metro North" - The proper name "Metro-North" is hyphenated.

Done. I think someone else must have typed or retyped that.

• Para 1: "Smalls answered that he had been trained to use the horn first if the tracks were blocked at a crossing, and not immediately use the emergency brake until he was sure of what was blocking the tracks since that could cause a derailment and injure any standing passengers in the train" - I'd add a comma after "blocking the tracks".

Done.

• Para 2: Perhaps this could be split into two sentences (after "as the train approached"). As it is, it's fairly long, and this entire paragraph is one sentence as a result.

Done.

• Para 4: Out of curiosity, when was the suit filed? This may give some context as to why it took so long for the suit to go to trial.

One of the articles about the verdict explains that most of the passengers' suits were consolidated into one sometime between the time they were filed (within the deadline, I'm sure), but as that's a fairly routine judicial move there does not seem to be any independent news coverage of that (I suppose it would be in the docket but I don't know if you could find that online, and where that might be if you could). Daniel Case (talk) 06:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Case, these are the rest of my comments. Overall, though the article is fairly beefy, it's already in good shape, and many of these issues should be relatively easy to fix. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

All done! Daniel Case (talk) 06:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I will support this FAC. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

RoySmith

I reviewed this at PR I probably won't do another full review, but I'm happy to report that most of the issues I raised at that time, particularly those about going into excessive detail, have been addressed. I mentioned at PR my concern that an overwhelming number of the sources were from local news media immediately after the crash. I see that's still largely true. On the other hand for an article like this, that may simply be unavoidable; if those are the sources that exist, that's what we've got to use. I took the liberty of uploading a new version of the rail image, with some exposure adjustments which bring out the detail better.

Comments by ZKang123

Would give this a look.

Lead:

• Six people were killed and 15 others injured, seven very seriously. – The addition of the fact of "seven very seriously" sounds rather unencyclopedic and awkward. Might suggest rewording to: Six people were killed and 15 others injured, seven of whom sustained severe injuries.

I went with "severely injured"

• The sentences beginning with The crash occurred after traffic... and At the grade crossing, a sport utility vehicle (SUV) are quite wordy and could be broken up. Specifically, the first sentence took me some time to understand, that traffic from a certain road were rerouted to local roads following an incident.

I broke those up.

• Brody died when her vehicle was struck by the train; as her vehicle was pushed along the tracks it loosened more than 450 feet (140 m) of third rail, which broke into sections and went through the exterior of the train's front car, killing five passengers and starting a fire. – Also this sentence could be rewritten as Brody died when the train struck her vehicle and pushed it on the tracks. The collision damaged over 450 feet (140 m) of the third rail, which led to a fire and caused the deaths of five additional passengers. Or whichever else that retains the meaning.

Made those changes.

• With em-dashes it's not necessary for spaces—unless you're using en-dash.

Fixed. It used to be, and probably was at the time that this was written, that we didn't care whether you used the spaces or not as long you were consistent within an article. I see now that we've gotten off that fence.

• The board's 2017 final report found the driver of the SUV to be the cause of the accident. It found no defects with the vehicle, the crossing signals and associated traffic signal preemption, or the train engineer's performance. – The board's 2017 final report determined the driver of the SUV to be the cause of the accident, after finding no issues with the train engineer's performance or no defects with the vehicle, the crossing signals and associated traffic signal preemption.

Done.

• Remove the semi-colon and use a full-stop instead.

Done.

• I think in some way the board findings could be further summarised; not all the details need to be there. Especially when earlier you said the damaged third rail also killed the passengers.

I took that out.

• In 2024, a jury hearing one of the suits found the railroad and Brody liable for the accident. – I think "one of the suits" makes the sentence a bit confusing, and could be removed. I think the rewritten sentence In 2024, a jury hearing found the railroad... makes more sense.

Until about 2020 or so, we had a separate section on all the suits. Since they were largely consolidated into one, I just made it "a jury found ..." Daniel Case (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

More to come.--ZKang123 (talk) 04:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Giving a glance of the article, I felt the article could see more cleanups in the wording and be less chunkier at certain parts; some tend to use more complex sentence structures. Maybe I will wait for the others to give a copyedit of the article before I continue looking over.--ZKang123 (talk) 07:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi ZKang123. It is highly unlikely that much copy editing will take place at this stage in a FAC. Indeed, as a coordinator I would be concerned if it were to. If you believe that the prose is not engaging and/or not of a professional standard (ie that it does not meet FA criteria 1a) then it may be easier to just oppose. Regards. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

This is not to say that if ZKang is willing, as everyone else here has been and he has been previously, to provide specific examples, I would not be responsive. Daniel Case (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Continued:

• Investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) focused on two issues in the accident: how the train passengers were killed—since that rarely occurs in grade crossing collisions—and why Brody went forward into the train's path. – I might shorten to: An investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) was called to look into how the train passengers were killed and why Brody went forward into the train's path. I don't think saying the deaths are rare in such a collision is notable in the lead.

Fair enough. I kept the beginning of the sentence because investigations by the NTSB are automatic in these cases; i.e. they're not "called".

• The board's 2017 final report determined the driver of the SUV to be the cause of the accident, after finding no issues with the train engineer's performance or no defects with the vehicle, the crossing signals and associated traffic signal preemption. – The board's 2017 final report determined the driver of the SUV to be the cause of the accident, after finding no defects with the vehicle or crossing equipment, or issues with the train engineer's performance.

Done.

• which at this point is closely paralleled on its west by the two tracks of Metro-North Railroad's Harlem Line – where the highway closely parallels the two tracks of Metro-North Railroad's Harlem Line on its west.

Yes, thanks. This was added somewhat hastily during some revisions earlier in this process. Thank you for suggesting improved wording.

• Lakeview .[5] – something seems to be deleted here.

A bit of stray mess left over from those earlier revisions. Deleted.

• The next such crossing is Commerce Street, a lightly traveled local road to the north that intersects the tracks diagonally, also at grade. – The next at-grade crossing is Commerce Street, a lightly traveled local road to the north that intersects the tracks diagonally.

Done, although I used "grade crossing", as that's standard US English.

• It was an express train of eight cars,[9] formed by four paired electric multiple units (EMUs), all M7As made by Bombardier, bound for the Southeast station,[b] with Chappaqua its first scheduled stop. – This sentence should be further split up. Like It was an express train of eight cars,[9] formed by four paired electric multiple units (EMUs) – all M7As manufactured by Bombardier. The train was bound for the Southeast station...

Done

• with nine months as an engineer – who had been an engineer for nine months

Done

• She drove her 2011 Mercedes-Benz ML350 SUV south in order to meet a potential client for her bookkeeping business in Scarsdale, an appointment she had confirmed via text before leaving work, telling the client she had been running late and would be delayed. – Another chunky sentence, please split up.

Thank you. This is why we do this sort of thing. I wrote it so it takes someone else's eyes to make me see just how much that needlessly sprawls. I also fixed some other places in the surrounding text in the process.

• It was earlier than he would have been required to take the latter action if the tracks appeared clear. – I don't understand this sentence.

OK, this is in here primarily, but not exclusively, because when he blew the horn was an issue in the lawsuit. The point is that he technically didn't have to have blown it when he did, but, upon, seeing the car spoiling the tracks, went ahead and did it early. This is what he was trained to do, and that being so, the plaintiffs' lawyers argued, successfully at least for now, that the railroad was liable because if Smalls had hit the brake at that point instead of blowing the horn, the train could have stopped before hitting the SUV).

I am going to have to think for a bit about how better to word this—I agree as is it is not entirely clear.

OK, I came up with adding ", earlier than he would have had the tracks been clear" to the end of the sentence. Daniel Case (talk) 06:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• Then her car moved forward, 30 seconds after the gate had come down on her car, investigators determined later – why need to add "investigators determined later"? Is it exactly determining the duration?

You're probably right that this is not necessary. I think I added it because no one was really watching at the time since there were other things on the most likely witnesses' minds, and thus the timing, suggesting Brody had had ample warning of the oncoming train from the gate coming down on her car, is important. Daniel Case (talk) 05:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Shortened the sentence. Daniel Case (talk) 06:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• on the east of the track, south of the crossing – on the eastbound track south of the crossing. Similarly for the west of the track. I'm just trying to avoid too many commas here.

Done.

• While the former lost power within eight seconds of the collision, circuit breakers that had detected the loss in power to the former restored it to the last four cars of the train, which remained in contact with that rail, until a manual override was sent from the office of Metro-North's power director at GCT a minute and a half afterwards – Also split this

Done. Another one resulting from edits in response to earlier comments. Daniel Case (talk) 06:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

More to come.--ZKang123 (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

ZKang123 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Apologies; was revising for an exam and then also have work. Continued:

• In a text Brody sent to confirm the appointment before leaving work, she had told the client she was running late. – This is worded a little awkwardly. Might rewrite to: Before leaving work, she had told the client in a text/texted the client she was running late for their appointment.

Done.

• During the call he gave her directions to Scarsdale, telling her to get off the Saw Mill River Parkway, her usual route south from Chappaqua, at the exit with the Taconic and follow it to the Bronx River Parkway. – During the call, he gave her directions to Scarsdale, telling her to get off the Saw Mill River Parkway – her usual route south from Chappaqua – at the exit with the Taconic and follow it to the Bronx River Parkway.

Done

• which would have allowed her to keep both hands on the wheel, but according to Alan... – split such that on the wheel. According to Alan, however,...

Done

• Alan did not believe she was familiar with the area through which she was driving[13][15] or with grade crossings. – for "with grade crossings", does it mean she's unfamiliar on how to navigate grade crossings or unfamiliar with where the grade crossings are in the area?

I added "both" because he meant both.

• and took the detour for reasons unknown – actually how is it really unknown? LIke, isn't it because of the accident she has to reroute? Or is her choice of the reroute unusual that raised questions? Like is it out of the way to her intended destination?

Took that phrase out ... I think if we picked that language up from the source, it was referring to why she went forward into the train's path later.

• Hope says Brody's SUV – you mean "said" given he would have given his testimony in the past

Fixed. Daniel Case (talk) 06:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

(I just realised I was rereading what I have reviewed and actually forgot where I had left off. Oops. But still, those are my concerns upon rereading)

• head of Association of Commuter Rail Employees, the labor union which represents Metro-North workers. – consider using an en/em dash instead of the comma

This one I'm not as sure about. The phrase is in apposition to the one before it; I don't see what an em dash does there that a comma does not. Maybe it's an American English thing. But nothing in MOS:EMDASH supports this, as far as I can tell. Daniel Case (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• The firefighters were, however, able to suppress the fire before it had seriously affected the second car. – ...before it could spread to the second car.

Done.

• told The Journal News, Westchester County's main daily newspaper. – also consider an en/em-dash

Again, per above, I've never used an em dash in this situation, and don't recall ever seeing it used in written American English much. Daniel Case (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• But there were other exceptions to this pattern, such as the 2005 Glendale train crash in southern California, – another chunky sentence please split.

Done.

• Unlike other American commuter-rail agencies that operate trains powered by third rails, which have a contact shoe on top of their third rail, Metro-North trains' contact shoes draw current from the bottom of the third rail during operation.. – American commuter trains have their contact shoe above the third rail, but Metro-North trains' contact shoes draw current from the bottom of the third rail.

Reworded.

• The railroad's under-running third rails are designed in order to – This unique configuration prevents ice from...

Tightened. I didn't include "unique" because as the article points out this is also used on one Philadelphia subway line, and this configuration is more common in Europe. Daniel Case (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• as a consequence, they are much safer than the traditional over-running third rails – Is this the board's opinion or do other railway experts agree with this claim? Also would split this as a standalone sentence. "As a consequence" to "Consequently,..."

I just took the "safer" claim out as the unnamed "railway expert" quoted in the source does not make that claim. Daniel Case (talk) 03:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• The NTSB team theorized that the fire aboard the train might have been caused by gasoline from the SUV, ignited by a spark from the third rail, which had pierced the car's fuel tank,[60] and the force of impact. – Are you trying to say that the fire could be caused by both the SUV gasoline and the force of impact? Cos this part is rather verbose

Took that last part out, because while that's sort of implied, it's not really stated, and none of the other things really would have happened without an impact, so it's really superfluous to make it a cause anyway. Daniel Case (talk) 03:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• Some area residents suggested the crossing itself was the problem. – Some residents in the area...

Done, although I'm not sure what was causing enough confusion here to warrant additional wording.

• While the crossing had undergone upgrades in recent years, including brighter lights and an additional sign warning passing drivers not to stop on the tracks, in 2009 another upgrade, which would have added a sign with flashing lights 100–200 feet (30–61 m) up the road west of the tracks was not installed. – Again, split this up.

Done.

• Several weeks after the accident, the design of the ML350's gear shift lever, a small paddle that protrudes from the steering column, rather than the usual large lever between the seats, was suggested as a possible cause of the accident. – Could be reworded as: Several weeks after the accident, it was suggested that the design of the ML350's gear shift lever could have caused the incident. The gear shift lever was a small paddle that protrudes from the steering column, rather than the usual large lever between the seats.

Done, although I found a different way of splitting it up to avoid saying "gear shift lever" twice. Daniel Case (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

At this point I'm inclined to oppose based on 1a given a great deal of copyedits I have to point out. My principle for FACs is to try avoid writing very complex sentence structures, and I felt at times I have to struggle reading through as the various explanations (some rather technical in nature) are shoehorned into the prose. Or trying to wrap too many facts into one sentence, which can be confusing and harder to keep track. I might pass this up to GOCE for further clean-up of this article.

My added thoughts is also to add a map of Brody's route before the incident, because not everyone reading the article are from NYC nor familiar with the area. And also a photograph of the contact shoe below the third rail.--ZKang123 (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I actually don't have a problem with these requests ... the holiday period is over and I have time again to work on this when I'm not doing admin patrol work. And as I told TaoT I can get a picture or video of the underrunning shoe (might even try that this weekend). A route map? It's in the NTSB report (based on Google Maps, but we can always overlay a route on an OSM cap). Daniel Case (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not just about the requests. As Gog said, if I have to point out a lot of these edits, you edit, then I reread and still don't find it satisfactory, someone else also points out these issues, and then it continues on in a loop. The FAC stage shouldn't really be where we suggest thorough copyedits to keep this up to a readable professional standard.--ZKang123 (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Gog said that you can't just point out general issues, and I said that I'm willing to respond to your specific points. If you don't feel that anything I do in response could possibly even begin to address your concerns, then we're both better off if you don't express them and just leave things where they are. Daniel Case (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't recall saying that. Any chance of the diff to jog my memory? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

To me that's the gist of this comment. Daniel Case (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how you can read what you have into what I wrote. If you have, my apologies for not being clear enough. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the point is to avoid a WP:FIXLOOP, which is what I am sensing here: a reviewer gives examples of loose wording, which are then fixed, but it doesn't mean the entire article is 'fixed' - that may be something which is best done away from FAC, rather than draining reviewer time and goodwill. - SchroCat (talk) 09:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, it's not like I haven't done end-to-end proofreads/copy edits several times before this. And I do appreciate many of the changes he's suggested—like a lot of people, I have a tendency to write unwieldy sentences, and thanks to this a lot of them have been broken up. Daniel Case (talk) 06:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Source review: pass

To follow. - SchroCat (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Spot checks

• Spot checks not not done. If a coord wants them done, please ping me.

Hi SchroCat. Spot checks and a plagiarism check are needed, so if you felt up to doing them that would be most helpful. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Gog, No problems: leave it with me. - SchroCat (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Formatting

• You need to select a capitalisation scheme and stick to it. At the moment you've got a mix of sentence case and title case;

Do we have something in the MOS on which might be preferable? I generally just stick with whatever the source used as long as it's not all caps.

This will take some time ...

The MOS is flexible on the point, as long as it's consistent throughout, so your choice! (and no rush in getting it sorted - whenever you're ready, just ping me) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

OK, @SchroCat:, this is done now Daniel Case (talk) 07:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• FNs 28, 28, 34, 60, 63, 66, 67, 71-73 and 75-79 need to be "pp." not "p."

Working on this ... Daniel Case (talk) 07:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

OK ... now this is done. Moving to the footnote cases ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Sources

• All the sources used are reliable, according to our guidelines;
• A little heavy on local news sources, but that's to be expected for events like this;
• Some superficial searches did not show up any better or missing sources, so it looks like there has been a good review of all available literature

That's my lot. Just a bit of tidying up to do on the formatting side. - SchroCat (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• Source review is a pass. - SchroCat (talk) 07:57, 3 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:[12]
  • 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:[13]
  • 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."^[14] 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.[15][16][17] 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)

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)

Hurra-yi Khuttali

Nominator(s): Amir Ghandi (talk) 11:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I am renominating this article after it failed the first nomination only because of a lack of engagement from reviewers. This article is about a minor figure in the history of the Ghaznavid dynasty, the dynasty that ruled what is modern day Afghanistan and eastern Iran. Hurra-yi Khuttali was a princess from this dynasty and is regarded as the most politically active woman of her era because she interfered in the succession of her brother. Small details are known about her life, therefore the article itself is quite short. Amir Ghandi (talk) 11:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

ThaesOfereode

Hi Amir, it looks like you have Arabic transliterations in the {{Lang}} template. Unless the Arabic script is used, you should use {{translit}} instead. Other issues below:

• "free woman" → 'free woman' per MOS:SINGLE (also want single quotes around "agnomen").
  • Done
• Deitalicize established loan words like "amir", "harem", and "sultan". All of these are common enough terms in English that they don't need italics.
  • Done
• First instance of amir should be delinked to avoid a WP:SEAOFBLUE violation (i.e., before Mas'ud of Ghazna)
  • Done
• Any reason you picked the spelling "Seljuq" over the more common "Seljuk"?
  • Force of habit; changed it to Seljuk

More to follow later. ThaesOfereode (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @ThaesOfereode, would you be interested to continue this review? Amir Ghandi (talk) 14:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Amir. Yes, my personal life has become a little busy, but I should be able to get to this over the coming days. If I don't get to this by Wednesday, ping me again. In the meantime, it looks like your use of the {{lang}} template should be changed to the {{translit}} whenever the Arabic script is not used; as I understand, it will render oddly for screen readers. ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay; changed the templates. Amir Ghandi (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@ThaesOfereode Reminder. Amir Ghandi (talk) 13:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, some thoughts:

• You shouldn't replace hamzas/ayins with apostrophes; in names like Masʽud, it looks like you may have thought they should be straightened in accordance with MOS:CQ, but they should not be. Looks like the pipes can be easily removed. In other cases, the templates {{hamza}} and {{ayin}} can be added as appropriate for Arabic names.

• Fixed Mas'ud's name.

• Looks like the Maʾmunid page uses a hamza (not an ayin as in Masʽud; I've fixed this throughout as I may have been unclear), but I'm not sure that's correct; I don't speak Farsi, can you advise? If so we should expect it in Maʾmun's name as well. Same with Abuʾl-Fadl.

• Yes, all three use hamzas. I'll add them to the artilce

• Okay, done

• In footnote C, "Khatun" should be placed in a {{translit}} template. I'll let you decide whether it should be Farsi or something else.

• Done

• Consider a hatnote that says that the subject should be referred to as "Hurra" not "Hurra-yi" (my first guess) and that "Khuttali" should not be used as a surname. Thomas Aquinas's page has something similar for reference.

• Added

• For that matter, the name section should probably tell the reader what "-yi" means. Feminine suffix? Construct state?

• I don't have the source to add that unfortunately

• Bummer. No problem.

• Consider linking theology.

• Done

• which Ma'mun conceded to → to which Ma'mun conceded is more natural

• Done

• What is a "patriotic" rebellion? Aren't they all from the POV of the rebels? Unless there is compelling reason to keep it, I think the use of "patriotic" here should be removed.

• Deleted it

• Mahmud wished to retaliate the killing → Mahmud sought retribution for the killing is less awkward. (And remove the comma after "brother-in-law").

• Done

• Link concubines.

• Done

• "along with her younger brother"

• Done

• What Turkic military commanders? This alliance is not established for the reader. Did the Ghaznavids ally themselves with other Turkic tribes? Which? When? Why? Why did these leaders find themselves scheming (?) in the Ghaznavid court?

• I meant the commanders of Ghaznavid military who happened to be Turkic. Deleted it for clarity

• What was Masʽud "preoccupied" with in the west? Where in the west? Baghdad? Rome? Lisbon? Also, probably don't need the parentheses here.

• Added and deleted the parentheses

• In footnote E, {{translit}} for "vali ahd" should be Persian rather than Arabic, right? Is "b." short for "bin"? Not sure I understand the parenthetical about the passive voice; there are only two passive sentences. In any case, the parentheses can be dropped; they're not really doing anything.

• Added translit for vali ahd; changed b. to ibn. The passive voice is more present when you read the text in Farsi. I deleted the whole sentence for clarity.

• Mas'ud lacked political shrewdness, therefore, Hurra is suspected to have influenced [...] → Mas'ud lacked political shrewdness; Hurra is suspected to have influenced [...]

• Done

• Any reason footnote G is a footnote? Seems pertinent enough to Hurra's decision-making to include it in the prose. If so, recommend linking oases.

• Brought to the body

• No need for a comma after conquests in India. Delink India in favor of linking conquests in India with Ghaznavid campaigns in India unless I missed this link being made prior.

• Done

• WP:SEAOFBLUE violation with Oghuz Turkoman should be corrected.

• Deleted Oghuz

• Link caravans as appropriate (perhaps Camel train or Caravan (travellers)?)

• Done

• Why did you pipe Seljuk dynasty to Seljuk when dynasty is the very next word?

• Amended

• Comma after his other aunts.

• Done

• Footnote H should be prose.

• Can you explain what you mean? I'm not sure I understand

• Sorry, I mean bring this to the body rather than leave as a footnote.

• Might link India in the sentence following what is currently footnote H, provided you delinked it as per my previous comment.

• Done

• Remove comma after 1041.

• Done

• realis mood – Okay, so this is more of a category of moods rather than one mood. If you mean the indicative mood, this sentence doesn't make much sense. If you mean another (energetic mood?), it should be specified.

• Changed with imperative mood (per the source).

• contemporary historian – Can this just be historian or at least historian of [insert specific title of period studied]? My first thought upon reading was that Amirsoleimani was a contemporary of Hurra.

• Changed to modern historian

Good page all around, but there are some issues. Let me know what you think. Tremendously interesting topic. Looking forward to seeing more "women in bronze". ThaesOfereode (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Amir Ghandi. Have you addressed all of TO's comments? If so, could you ping them? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  Hi, @ThaesOfereode I've addressed all your comments Amir Ghandi (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yep, another quick read-through looks good to me so I'm happy to support on prose. Great work. ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Airship

As always, the following are suggestions, not demands:

• "considered the most prominent woman in Ghaznavid politics" this is not quite what the body says—that an action she took was the most prominent by a woman in Ghaznavid politics.
  • Changed it
• Not sure if "in modern Afghanistan" needs to be in the lead.
  • Deleted
• Two consecutive sentences starting "she was" could be combined.
  • Done
• "a direct cause for" "a direct cause of" sounds more natural.
  • Done
• "who was deemed unfit" this omits that she was one who deemed Muhammad unfit.
  • Deleted
• " Her letter was one of the main reasons for Mas'ud's usurpation of the throne." a bit vague, you could go into more detail about what actually happened.
  • Done
• "the Ghaznavid dynasty, who were a dynasty of Turkic origin" could be simplified to something like "the Ghaznavids, a dynasty of Turkic origin..."
  • Done
• "she sought to learn sciences" this is slightly ungrammatical, probably needing a "the", and also a little unclear—which sciences?
  • This was originally 'other sciences' beside theology, but one reviewer commented that theology is not a science, so I omited the 'other'. I'll add 'other' again since the source itself considers theology a science.
• The map provided is not that useful—a better one would show the Ghaznavid territories, which are referred to more often, instead of intricate details of Khwarazm. File:Ghaznavid Empire (map).jpg seems ideal, if you can find a source that verifies it.
  • Done
• "The latter" is unnecessary—it wouldn't be the person who's died, would it?
  • Replaced with 'He'.
• "patriotist" is not a word, is "patriotic" meant? If yes, I suggest "nationalist" instead as more suitable.
  • I myself prefer 'patriotic' since the source uses it
• "the rebels killed Ma'mun because of his submission" if the whole rebellion broke out because of the submission, I would suggest mentioning that at the start of the sentence, not the end.
  • I reworded the sentence. Thoughts?
• You could mention that Muhammad and his brother were twins.
  • Done
• "inviting him" is a bit oddly phrased, would suggest "encouraging him" or similar.
  • Done
• "Mas'ud marched east to claim the throne, and continued to receive letters from Hurra and his mother regarding the situation in Ghazna. On his arrival in 1030 in Ghazna, Mas'ud captured Muhammad and took the throne." these sentences are quite clunky; try to trim to reduce duplication.
  • Done
• "who had assumed total power in Ghazna after Muhammad's ascension to become the real power behind Muhammad's government" this also essentially says the same thing twice.
  • Amended
• The last paragraph of the "Biography" section needs a thorough copyedit—it really lacks clarity.
  • Done
• Too many commas in the last sentence of "Assessments".
  • Amended

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Amir Ghandi. Have you addressed all of Airship's comments? If so, could you ping them? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @AirshipJungleman29 I've addressed all your comments Amir Ghandi (talk) 14:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Support I especially like the new prose on the marriages—much clearer. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

FunkMonk

• Support - I seem to be the only one to have completed a review last time around, so here is my support again. FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

HF

• "Abu al-Hasan died at an uncertain date between 1006 to 1010 and was succeeded by his brother, Ma'mun II." - If I'm reading the source correctly, the source says The date of ʿAlī’s death and the accession of his brother Abu’l-ʿAbbās Maʾmūn II is not definitely known, but must have been ca. 399/1008-9
• "He, with the same intent as his brother, married Hurra in 1015" - source says 1015/1016 which doesn't seem to be quite the same as what's in the article?
  • When I was writing the article, I based the dated on the dates in the Encyclopaedia of the World of Islam article, which uses the Hijri calendar. I had to use an app that converts the dates, that is why the year is specified. For example, in the article the year of Hurra's second marriage is recorded as 406 AH, which in turn could be converted to 1015. I'll correct the date now.
• "a dynasty of Turkic origin whose realm included modern day Afghanistan, eastern Iran and northwestern India" - source specifies Baluchistan, rather than "eastern Iran"; is this really the best way to phrase this, as from what I can tell eastern Iran is more expansive than Baluchistan?
  • From the source: "GHAZNAVIDS, an Islamic dynasty of Turkish slave origin (366-582/977-1186), which in its heyday ruled in the eastern Iranian lands, briefly as far west as Ray and Jebāl; for a while in certain regions north of the Oxus, most notably, in Kᵛārazm; and in Baluchistan." The source doesn't single out Baluchistan, it is mentioned with other regions.

I was going to check Bosworth 1963 as well, but the Internet Archive is acting up again today. I'm a bit concerned about source-text after some issues came up at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sabuktigin/archive1. Hog Farm _Talk 02:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Hog Farm, would you be interested in doing a review? Amir Ghandi (talk) Amir Ghandi (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. I just keep getting busier and busier IRL. Hog Farm _Talk 16:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Amir Ghandi (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I hope to be able to restart a review this weekend. Hog Farm _Talk 14:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I've had a chance to read through this; I spot-checked a couple isntances and didn't have any significant concerns with that or with the read-through. Supporting contingent upon this passing the source review. Hog Farm _Talk 00:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Edwininlondon

Just a few drive-by comments from a complete lay person:

• would be nice if the opening sentence would mention which modern-day part of the world we're talking about
• ruler of Ghazna --> links to the city of Ghazni, or should it perhaps go to Ghazni Province?
  • I believe I've already linked Ghazna both in the lead and in the body
• She used two nisbas --> perhaps help the reader out a bit by explaining what directly in the textthat is, rather than forcing them to click through or guess that footnote c explains it
  • Done
• recorded by Shabankara'i --> add a description, just like British orientalist Clifford Edmund Bosworth
  • Done
• by Abu'l-Fadl Bayhaqi (d. 1077) a secretary --> comma missing
  • Done
• Amir Mas'ud of Ghazna --> 1) should Amir be linked? is it a title like emir? 2) am I right that this is the newphew? Better to say so, plus when the nephew is introduced I would refer to him by his full name and title
  • 1) to prevent WP:SEAOFBLUE, no, and yes it is the Persianized version of emir. 2) Yes, done
• since the Ma'amunids --> is there a stray "a" here, given that it is the Ma'munid dynasty?
  • Indeed, amended
• However, he was killed --> he is a bit ambiguous (and the subsequent his)
  • Mentioned the name
• Hurra, along with her younger brother, Yusuf ibn Sabuktigin --> is that the name of her brother or a different person? do we need some commas here?
  • Moved the comma to the end
• the Sultan --> the sultan (if I interpret MOS:JOBTITLE correctly)
  • Done
• the Seljuks --> who are they? what happened to the Turkomans?
  • My mistake, the Seljuks are a Turkoman dynasty that lead the other Turkomans. I replaced 'Seljuk tribes' with 'Seljuk dynasty.'
• footnote h: why not put this in the main text?
  • Its a hinderance to the flow of the text
• she is metaphorically covering their shame --> I would add attribution here
  • Done
• as it was Bayhaqi's intentions --> singular or plural? and did Bayyhaqi state this intention or is this an interpretation by Amirsoleimani?
  • Reworded the sentence
• Iranian historian, Shirin Bayani --> no comma here
  • Done
• The Boswell sources in ibliography should be order by time, not randomly
  • Done

That's all I have. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Amir Ghandi. Have you addressed all of Edwininlondon's comments? If so, could you ping them? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Edwininlondon I've addressed all your comments Amir Ghandi (talk) Amir Ghandi (talk) 14:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

All fine as far as prose is concerned, I Support on prose. I don't read Persian so can't do a spotcheck.Edwininlondon (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Borsoka

• It was most likely... Could you attribute this PoV to a scholar (and ideally explain it a bit)?
  • That makes two 'according to's in one paragraph. I don't think that's pleasing to read. Also, could not find anything to expand on that
• ...an honorific laqab 'agnomen'... I think the three non-cotidian terms are unneccessary; furthermore, the term "agnomen" is possibly misleading. Why not "a laqab (honorific)" with links? If you think all three terms are to be mentioned, the last term ("agnomen") should be enclosed in brackets.
  • Done
• ... and not her actual name Is this necessary? If not, delete it. If yes, could you add a link (because for me the laqab is also an "actual" name used in souces)?
  • Deleted
• Do we know what is the origin of her second nisba (Kaliji)? If we do not know it, we should make it clear.
  • No, and wouldn't that be an unsourced edition? None of the sources even mention that the origin of Kaliji is unknown.
• An explanation for khatun?
  • Done
• Could you expand the first section's second paragraph to avoid a one-sentence paragraph? For instance, it could be stated in a separate sentence that the only source contains only sparse references, and we could also be informed that it is reliable or unreliable. Based on section "Assessments and historiography", I understand one of her letters has also been preserved in a manuscript - is it the same source?
• Mention the period of reign of Mas'ud (as it is mentioned in the first sentence of the following section in connection with her father).
  • Done
• ...is a probable candidate Could you attribute this PoV to a scholar (and ideally explain it a bit)?
  • Done for the attribution, sadly can't expand it further
• This marriage would have secured an alliance... Why future-in-the-past?
• Hurra may have been taken hostage by them. Could you attribute this PoV to a scholar (and ideally explain it a bit)? Please also read my comment below.
• Hurra may have been taken hostage by them. Mahmud threatened the rebels with invasion unless they released Hurra. Contradiction? (The first sentence implies that she may have not been taken hostage, but the second sentence says that she had been seized.) Perhaps the two sentences could be rephrased to contain only facts ("Hurra was seized/imprisoned/prevented from returning to her homeland/...).
• ...after Mahmud's death, she was entrusted with the care of his wives... Why not widows?
  • Changed to widows
• ...who was crowned in Ghazna... Could you quote the text from the cited source verifying this statement?
  • Bosworth: "...Muhammad succeeded in Ghazna according to his father's will"
    • His coronation is not verified. I am not sure that Ghaznavids were indeed crowned.
      • Okay I'll delete it then
• ..., which was dependent on the powerful leadership of the sultan Could you quote the text from the cited source verifying this statement?
  • Bosworth: "...Ghaznavid empire was basically dependent on the military leadership and executive talent of its Sultan"
• ...encouraging him to take the throne while she and the other women of the court were confided in the Citadel of Ghazni I do not understand the relevance of the part beginning with "while she...".
  • Deleted
• He also imprisoned Ali b. Il-Arsalan Qarib, the al-hajib al-kabir (commander-in-chief) of the army, who had become the real power behind Muhammad's government. Is this relevant in the article's context? I would delete it.
  • Deleted
• ...Hurra is suspected to have influenced By whom?
• The region of Khorasan housed rich oases, centres of industry and crafts and important trade routes. Therefore it was an integral part of the empire. Therefore?
  • Deleted
• File:Ghaznavid Empire (map).jpg: 1. Explain that Mahmud was her brother in the caption (as you introduce similarly Mas'ud I in the other picture's caption). 2. What is the source of the map?
  • 1) done 2) map is compliant with the Cambridge History of Iran map of the Ghaznavids

Borsoka (talk) 11:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• I added the source to the file. Excellent article, so I support its promotion. Thank you for your work. Borsoka (talk) 07:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Image and source review

File:Mas'udIGhaznavidCoin.jpg has a few bare URLs as sources. ALT text could state a bit more what is being shown. File:Ghaznavid Empire (map).jpg ought to explain a bit more clearly where the map background is from. Clifford Edmund Bosworth is not consistently formatted in the sources section. Sources seem pretty good otherwise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Added a source to File:Mas'udIGhaznavidCoin.jpg and changed its ALT text. Clarified File:Ghaznavid Empire (map).jpg and changed the Bosworth sources for consistency. Thoughts? Amir Ghandi (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

That ALT is better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo, is that two passes? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Did some light spotchecking that raised no issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that Jo-Jo. As this is Amir Ghandi's first nomination at FAC the article needs a source to text integrity check and a check for plagiarism. Are these things which you may be able to do? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC) Or is that already covered in the above? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo, just checking if you have seen this? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Gog the Mild, is this good to go? Amir Ghandi (talk) 13:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Not until we hear from Edwininlondon and a sourcing spot check has happened. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Spot-check of this version:

• 8 This needs someone who a) can translate this language (Farsi or Arabic?) and b) has source access.
• 17 This needs someone who a) can translate this language (Farsi or Arabic?) and b) has source access
• 23 This needs someone who a) can translate this language (Farsi or Arabic?) and b) has source access

I must stress that I probably can't complete this spotcheck w/o someone who can read Farsi/Arabic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Seems like I need to be approved for these Google Drive links. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus Changed the access settings of the files; I believe you can see them now Amir Ghandi (talk) 11:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo, can you access them now? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, save for them in Farsi that I noted above. Struck out another item, but I am not sure that the formatting will work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Moved completed items to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Hurra-yi Khuttali/archive2 so that they aren't in the way. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• Citations: when a cite refers to more than a single page in a source, you should use 'pp', not "p".
• Bosworth (2020) does not seem to be used as a source.
• "She was married to two Maʽmunid rulers of the Khwarazm region" there is an ambiguity in this. So maybe follow it with 'first Abu Ali Hasan, and on his death his brother Maʽmun II'?
  • All Done
• Any reason why the infobox does not include Hurra's birth and death dates? And is the date of her first marriage known, or the date of her first husband's death?
  • All three are unknown

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:41, 1 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)

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 [18] 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)

[19] 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)