🇮🇷 Iran Proxy | https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAC
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:FAC)

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.
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 normally allowed to be the sole nominator of one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. An editor may ask the approval of the coordinators to add a second sole nomination after the first has gained significant support. 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: Purge cache

Shortcut

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC):

Featured article review (FAR):

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating

[edit]

Commenting, etc

[edit]


FACs needing feedback
view • edit
Hundreds of Beavers Review it now
Phil Mead Review it now
2025 World Figure Skating Championships Review it now


Shortcut

Nominations

[edit]

Rain World

[edit]
Nominator(s): Toby (t)(c)(rw) 07:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I discovered this in early 2024. Alongside one other anomaly, this is my favorite video game of all time...

Rain World is a semi-obscure indie survival game developed mainly by two guys for six years. Players play as a cheeky little "slugcat" that must survive in a brutal, unforgiving, adaptive, and hugely unfair ecosystem. Though critics panned its frustrating gameplay, me and many other people found fascination with its ethereal and esoteric worldbuilding. Thus, I've made it my goal for many months now to get this GA to FA one day, and I think now is the time. I'm aware of the statistical disadvantage against me as a first-time nominator (I haven't even done any GAs!), so I hope I can pull this off.

I believe it is appropriate to ping those who've contributed to the peer review or those who I've personally requested to review the prose: @PresN, @Fathoms Below, @Vacant0, @NegativeMP1, @Masem, and the original author and GA nominator from over eight years ago, @Czar. Toby (t)(c)(rw) 07:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Funnily enough, I found people on the Rain World Discord server critiquing the plot section before I trimmed it. Haha.

Bridge

[edit]
Nominator(s): Noleander (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Level 3 Vital Article about bridges, important structures that many of us use every day. Thanks to reviewers: @Anne drew: @Epicgenius: @ErnestKrause: @Generalissima: @Sdkb: and @Simongraham:. Key resources were located by WP:RX volunteers User:Bruce1ee, User:RFNirmala, and User:Rollinginhisgrave. I made heavy use of the new Veracity citation management tool, developed by User:Anne drew. Noleander (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions would benefit from editing for style and grammar
Thanks for that advice: I went through all the captions and improved five of them. I believe they now all comply with the FA prose/MOS/grammar expectations. Noleander (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Pont_du_Gard_BLS.jpg: as France does not have freedom of panorama, this should include an explicit tag for the bridge
Done. I added the panorama template {{FoP-USonly|France}} to the version of the image in English WP at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pont_du_Gard_BLS.jpg That template says the image should not be hosted at WikiCommons, yet a copy of the image is in the Commmons at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pont_du_Gard_BLS.jpg. I'm not sure how it got there ... maybe it is because the bridge is 2,000 years old, so the panorama rules are relaxed in France? Regardless, the article is using the English WP version, and I added the Panorama template to that page. Noleander (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also noting that there appear to be a fair number of MOS issues throughout - would suggest taking a look at that before someone reviews the text. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria. Could you help me out by giving me hints on the MOS issues. I'm not aware of any, and I don't recall recent reviewers mentioning any. Noleander (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Examples: avoid placing links right next to each other; avoid repeating links in the same section; stick to one variety of English (eg there's currently both metres and meters). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria - Thanks for the feedback, I'm working on these MOS issues now. I've fixed the "metres" spelling, and the repeated links. Regarding the other issue "placing links right next to each other", are you referring to (a) two adjacent links like chess tournament (discouraged by MOS:SEAOFBLUE); or (b) adjacent links in a comma-separated list, such as ... viaducts, aqueducts, trestles, movable bridges, pontoons, and portable military bridges. I cannot find any (a) style consecutive links in the article (but maybe there is one or two somewhere?) As for comma-separated links: most of those are the first occurrence of the item in the section, and MOS:BUILD suggests that the first occurrence should be linked. But I can remove the links from those comma-separated lists, and instead link at the 2nd occurrence. Is the issue you saw (a) or (b) or both? Noleander (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(a) is the more significant issue, but fortunately less frequent. (b) is less problematic, although where these linklists can be reframed I would suggest doing so. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for the clarification. I found the one instance of (a) in the article and fixed it. Regarding (b), I'll take care of that also. Noleander (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meg White

[edit]
Nominator(s): Watagwaan (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Meg White, the drummer of the White Stripes. Watagwaan (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LastJabberwocky

[edit]

Hopefully, I would master a full review :)! For now I noticed that this file is sourced to a broken Flickr link and it is not archived by wayback machine. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 19:06, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's really strange, actually. It's been on the website for quite a while too, and was even used in her DYK… I'm not sure what happened there. It was supposedly reviewed and verified in 2007 though. Watagwaan (talk) 04:57, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ednyfed Fychan

[edit]
Nominator(s): Tipcake (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Ednyfed Fychan, the first important ancestor of the House of Tudor. He was the distain to the Welsh prince Llywelyn ab Iorwerth, and his tenure of the position coincided with the transformation of the role from that of apparently a chief domestic servant to the prince's right hand man. He was an invaluable asset for holding together Llywelyn's principality, whose efforts helped to lay the foundation for the Principality of Wales established by his liege's grandson, Llywelyn ap Gruffudd. He was richly rewarded for his service, allowing his descendants to remain important in Wales even after the Edwardian Conquest of 1282-3. I have exhausted every academic source mentioning the man, and thus feel this article is worthy of being an FA. Tipcake (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Wales_1234_(Marchia_Wallie_and_Pura_Wallia).svg: see MOS:COLOUR

Also noting that there appear to be a fair number of MOS issues throughout - would suggest taking a look at that before someone reviews the text. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Darger

[edit]
Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:16, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Darger was an American "outsider artist" - although whether this is a coherent term or applicable to Darger at all is highly debated. He was a poor street kid in Chicago, escaped from a youth asylum, and worked various menial gigs at Catholic hospitals for most of his long life. Just before his death, his landlords found out the massive cache of very strange art and writing he had made over his life. Thankfully, these landlords were artists themselves, and they went to the ends of the Earth to publicize his work posthumously (and got themselves some good money in the process.) His visual work was very creepy, very weird, and honestly very beautiful, all made through tracing figures from the books and magazines he collected. His written work is also something of a collage, but an absolute slog to get through; no one on Earth has read it all. I hope you enjoy reading this as much as I have enjoyed working on it - it's my longest article, although at least it's not 15,000 words, much less 15,000 pages. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:16, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

[edit]
  • I performed the GA review a couple of months ago, so I'll continue here with an FA review. The article is on a very unique individual!
  • Prose, overall, is professional quality and encyclopedic. There may be some isolated improvements that reviewers identify. I'll make a note of any I find.
  • Can the biography section be augmented with some brief mentions of when he was creating his major works? The article presently has two big sections in this order:
    1. Biography
    2. Art and literary work
As one reads the Biography section, which chronologically goes thru his life, there is no mention at all of when/where he was creating his major works. The " Art and literary work" section describes the works in detail, and states the years they were created. Example: the Biography section has During this time, he stayed with a German immigrant family, the Anschutzs, who operated a boarding house out of their home. Let say he created work ABC during that time. Readers will want this: During this time, he stayed with a German immigrant family, the Anschutzs, who operated a boarding house out of their home. In those years he painted ABC. [Work ABC is a made-up work, for illustrative purposes only.] Of course, duplicating material (the year/location of starting his major works) is not ideal, but a very brief mention of when he started his 4 or 5 most important works would really improve the Biography section. As the article stands now, it is practically impossible for readers to correlate the biographical events of his life with the creation of his works. The reader cannot figure out the timeline of his life & work.
  • I adopted the current structure for two main reasons. First, the main sources tend to follow it, or something very close to it. MacGregor 2002 and Bonesteel 2000 both summarize his life and then dive into his work. I think part of this is for a sort of literary device: since the 'boring' parts of his life were all anyone else knew about him, going into the story only once it was 'revealed' to the outside world chronologically makes it more interesting, and helps the reader share that sense of discovery. ::Now, this would be ultimately unhelpful in an encyclopedic sense if it were not for point two: we have no idea how to place much of his work. We have many termina post quem in the form of tracings of known cartoons, dated ledger books that were reused, newspapers used in bindings, etc. but since he was often reusing old materials taken from scrapbooks, the dating is all sorts of wack. We know he started writing what would become the Realms of the Unreal soon after he escaped from the asylum, but as for when he bound it, completed it, we only have vague guesses.
However, you're right that brief notes of when he started working on stuff could be helpful for placing it. I added a note to the first part of his later life. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 04:58, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another example of the above suggestion:: The Biography section has He stopped attending Mass, ... Let's say he then started work on work EFG that year; that would be of tremendous interest to readers. Not to say that the article should perform WP:OR by suggesting that his work start/stop dates are caused by his life events. But simply putting things in chronological order is not OR. To clarify: I'm not suggesting merging or interleaving the Biography section with the Works section. Merely suggesting that the article add a few artwork start/stop years/events into the Biography section.
  • Clarity? Initial critical analysis of him and his work incorporated psychobiography , often focused on his many depictions ... Virtually no readers will know what psychobiography means. Consider replacing the word "psychobiography" with a phrase (that means the same thing, i.e. almost a definition). The sentence will be more useful & understandable if it spells it out. E.g Initial critiques of Darger applied psychological analysis to his work, focusing on the many depictions... And a wikilink to psychobiography can be included.
  • Citations & sources: Layout & format look uniform, and consistent with WP MOS.
  • Wording: Bonesteel also theorized that Darger could have been sexually abused while institutionalized, although noted that much of Elledge's biography elaborated on spurious evidence and mixed fact with fiction. Grammar does not seem right. Is "although noted" supposed to be "although he noted"?
  • Citation for caption: The picture of the murder victim Elsie Paroubek in the May 9, 1911, edition of the Chicago Daily News, the loss of a clipping of which devastated Darger and greatly extended the length of In The Realms of the Unreal. I'm not sure if WP:V requires a cite in this situation (caption stating important facts). I suppose if the reader hunts for the text in the body, they can find a cite. Consider duplicating that body cite at the end of the caption. Probably not required for FA.
  • Link? He was a devotee of Saint Thérèse of Lisieux, a nineteenth-century nun ... Devotee is a rather obscure word ... if there was a WP article for devotee, then a link to it would certainly be used in this sentence. But there is not, so consider a link to wiktionary instead: [[Wiktionary:devotee|devotee]] Not a showstopper for FA.
  • Good to see an example of Darger's artwork in the article; the image details appear to contain proper "Fair use" justification, and the image is used in only one article.

Image review

Fixed this, thank you as always :) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 08:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

[edit]
Lead
  • You could add the "Use American English" template to the mainspace.

MSincccc (talk) 08:16, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 08:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Biography
Childhood
  • You could link to "Chicago" at least once in the article body.
  • In the image alt text: “pavillion” → “pavilion”.
Career and adulthood
  • In 1956, Darger's rooming house was sold to new owners, photographer Nathan Lerner and his wife Kiyoko Lerner.
    • "Kiyoko Lerner"→ “Kiyoko"
  • “would often spend times together” → “would often spend time together”
  • “He was initially tasked with instead washing pots” → “He was initially tasked with washing pots instead”.
Discovery and death
  • Could the sub-section heading be clarified? "Discovery of..."?
  • “paupers' grave” → “pauper’s grave”
  • they took the following month to survey the room, taking some pieces of his artwork home.
    • The prose has “took” and “taking” in the same clause.

MSincccc (talk) 08:47, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HAL

[edit]
  • "His art was discovered and popularized by his former landlords" - This is nitpicky but at the time of discovery they were still his landlords, right? The construction is slightly awkward. Can this be rephrased?
    • Well, when it was discovered I think he was in the care home, since they were cleaning it up for him during the move. They had to go into the care home to ask him what to do with it, so I think 'former' still works there.-G
  • Do we know what kind of disability his father had?
    • Sources don't seem to specify. Some sort of physical disability... MacGregor says "seriously crippled", the Intuit timeline says "lameness". I would assume that the specifics are not recorded.-G
  • "in such facilities would be expected" -> "in such facilities were expected" per WP:WOULDCHUCK
    • Fixed.-G
  • "frequently mocked by the hospital's nuns, his supervisors, who believed he was insane." - Reading this I assumed this was a serial list. I might place "his supervisors" within parentheses or em dashes instead
    • Fixed.-G
  • "quite unique" - 'quite' doesn't seem encyclopedic here
    • Reworded.-G

Nice work. That was a fascinating read on a character that I had never heard of before. ~ HAL333 14:30, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Santos Passos Church

[edit]
Nominator(s): V.B.Speranza (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 18th century church located on the Portuguese city of Guimarães. It has its roots on a small chapel, that due to its poor state was demolished so that the current one could be built. It also had its iconic bells towers constructed in the 1870s and its one of the main landmarks of the city. V.B.Speranza (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • File:Nossa_Senhora_dos_Santos_Passos.jpg: what is the source of the data presented in this image?
  • File:Igreja_dos_Santos_Passos_cerca_de_1864.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Vista_do_Campo_da_Feira,_Guimarães_1868-69_(cropped).jpg, File:Campo_da_Feira_no_século_XX_(cropped).jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@V.B.Speranza Have you addressed these issues? BorgQueen (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria@BorgQueen I have. I believe the source of the image is a photograph of the floor plan displayed inside the church. It doesn’t appear to be taken from the internet, it looks like a photo of the plan itself. I’m not sure how not to use the px size, and I’ve already added the alt text. V.B.Speranza (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a photo of the plan rather than an original diagram, the tagging will need to be changed to reflect that. For not using px size, see MOS:UPRIGHT. Looks like File:Campo_da_Feira_no_século_XX_(cropped).jpg is still missing a US tag. When and where was File:Vista_do_Campo_da_Feira,_Guimarães_1868-69_(cropped).jpg first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Coordinator note

[edit]
If I did you should still have a two-week wait until you could nominate any other article for FAC. Ok, so it was an innocent error caused by being new, so I will. But I anticipate getting grief from the nominators who have not been so favourably treated. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by SC

[edit]

The prose needs a bit of work before it gets to FAC standard, although this could be manageable within FAC. Consider the following:

  • "The church is located 571 metres (1,873 ft) above sea level[5] and has a longitudinal floor plan comprising a single nave with concave angles, a rectangular chancel and is set in a northeast-southeast direction."

Now this mammoth 37-word sentence is trying to do way too much. It covers sea level *and* floor plan *and* alignment, with additional details thrown in.

The second sentence is also 37 words long:

  • "The church features distinct roof styles for its various sections, the nave and chancel are topped with gable roofs,[4] which provide a traditional peaked appearance, while the side chapel and sacristy are covered with hipped roofs."

Again this is too long and involved and has a comma splice in there.

  • "The curves do not impact the internal spatiality of the church"

This is an opinion and should be preceded by "According to the [architect] [Joe Bloggs], ..." rather than saying it in Wiki voice

  • "On a slightly recessed level, there are two slender bell towers topped by pyramidal corbels. It stands on a terrace"

What stands on a terrace? I stumbled a bit on it being the singular it meaning the plural bell towers, so a bit of sharpening needed.

  • "It was described by architectural"

What is “it”? As this is at the start of a new paragraph, it’s not clear

Down to the start of "Gardens" and I'm sure there will be more to come. I think this would probably have benefited from a trip to PR before FAC. - SchroCat (talk) 19:31, 2 December 2025 (UTC) V.B.Speranza, just a nudge on the above. - SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat I believe I’ve fixed the issues pointed here. V.B.Speranza (talk) 14:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gardens
  • "and subsequently by roads": this isn't needed
  • "to mark the Lent" -> "to mark Lent"
  • ", once Easter is over, they are removed.": this makes the sentence ungrammatical. Turn it into a separate sentence
  • "The garden farthest from the church, previously a roundabout,[12] features a stone fountain at its front and the garden closest to the church featured four granite statues, one at each corner, with the two statues farthest from the church having small fountains incorporated in their pedestal.[13]": this is one sentence that needs to be at least two. Additionally, "the garden ... featured four granite statues": how many are there now?
  • "These statues were previously located": if you're talking about the statues in the previous paragraph, then merge the paragraph
  • "previously located next to the church, on the columns of the staircase leading up to it." -> previously located on the columns of the staircase leading up to the church
  • "are expected to be added soon": avoid using 'soon' or similar. Try something like "five more are planned to be added".

I'm going to stop now. There are too may problem areas in the grammar to fix as part of an FAC. I strongly advise you withdraw this and take it through PR (flagging it at the 'PR for FAC' list for extra emphasis. What is there is good in terms of content, but the prose needs extra work to get it to FA level, and FAC is not the place to do this. – SchroCat (talk) 08:44, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lavender Haze

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 12:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a song by Taylor Swift. I believe it satisfies FA criteria and am open to any comments regarding its candidature. Ippantekina (talk) 12:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cartoon network freak

[edit]
  • The first para in the lead contains the word "song" three times in a row
  • described the genre -> I would rather say "its genre"
  • interpreted the lyrics from a feminist perspective -> I would say "the lyrics as written from a..."
  • There's a little too much information on the album's release in the background section that is not necessarily vital to this topic. I would just mention when the album was released and who released it, not the way it was teased and announced
  • and Cook is credited as an additional producer -> and Cook as an additional producer
  • was a borderline imitation of Lorde and Lana Del Rey -> "... of works by Lorde..."
  • drums to Whitney Houston -> "drums to music by Whitney Houston"
  • The lyrics were inspired by the media scrutiny -> optional, but since this is the first sentence in the section, I'd say "The lyrics of 'Lavender Haze'..."
  • disregard of the gossip surrounding her past relationships -> "...relationships in the lines: ..."
  • I wouldn add no space when listing the lyrics; e.g.: "I've been under scrutiny/ You handle it beautifully" -> "I've been under scrutiny/You handle it beautifully"
  • Link gendered stereotypes
  • there are some reasons for this: the color lavender -> this is due to the use of the color lavender
  • Release and commercial performance: I would rename this section to just "Commercial performance", and split "Background and production" to "Background and release" and "Writing and production". Move the fitting bits of the article into the respective sections.
  • released Midnights on October 21, 2022;[41] "Lavender Haze" is the opening track. -> "...2022,[41] with "Lavender Haze" as the opening track."
  • Republic released the song -> say "issued" to not overuse the word "released"
  • Maybe include a summarizing sentence, such as "'Lavender Haze' was commercially successful."
  • It was one of the Midnights tracks that made Swift the first artist to chart in the top five the same week -> I don't quite get this sentence
  • Shift the info about the live performances in a new section titled "Live performances" after "Music video"
  • as the opening number of the Midnights act -> I would rather say "section"
  • set the sensual tone for the Midnights act, the final act -> "act" is used twice in the same sentence
  • many deemed it a strong opening track that sets the tone for Midnights.[13][24][28][32][34] -> avoid using too many citations placed one after another. I would rather use a note saying this fact is attributed to multiple sources
  • A lukewarm review was from Slant Magazine's Paul Attard, -> "...review came from..."
  • Rather than having its ownn section, I would include "Accolades" as a subsection to the "Critical reception" section
  • have the year centered in the accolades table and change the alt text of "Ref." to just "Reference" since there is only one each time
  • Personnel -> you could just say "Credits adapted..."
  • include captions to the chart tables and certifications table (like in "Dragostea din tei" for example)
  • References > Everything above the "Sources" need to be in their own subsection titled "Citations"
  • The sources are well-formatted and from established, reliable sources. Well done!

These were my comments. A well-written article and a good read. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:44, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nation of Islam

[edit]
Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:38, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an American new religious movement that emerged in the 1930s and which exerted a major impact in many African American communities during the 20th century. Over recent years, I have also brought three other articles on Black-oriented new religions of North America to FA status (Rastafari, Santería, and Palo (religion)), and I am hoping that this article, which was made a GA in November 2024, can now join them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:38, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Noleander

[edit]
  • Overall, the prose quality seems professional, encyclopedic, and meets WP FA standards. I'll see if I can find any sentences that could be improved.
  • Cite error: "Finley" here: Lee 1996, p. 30; Curtis IV 2016, p. 18; Potorti 2017, pp. 75, 85; Finley. Harv error: link from CITEREFFinley doesn't point to any citation. Harv error: link from CITEREFFinley doesn't point to any citation. Probably missing year 2022.
  • Reception: balance? The Reception/influence section has a subsection on Opposition, but no parallel section on Support/Positive reception. The sources certainly have a lot of material on criticism, but do the sources suggest a parallel section on Support? The article has these sentences in the "Reception and influence" intro: The Nation has cultivated a sense of pride among many African Americans,[502] and its role in confronting gang violence, drugs, and poverty within African American communities has earned it respect.[503] The sociologist A.A. Akom opined that the NOI had a reputation among African Americans of "speaking truth to power";[504] a 1994 Time/CNN poll found that two-thirds of African Americans who knew of Farrakhan viewed him favorably.[505] Similarly positive assessments of the Nation have been observed among black communities in Britain Should this material be in a "Support/Positive" subsection? As the article points out, Muhammad Ali and Malcolm X - two of the strongest advocates for African-Americans - were part of the Nation of Islam, and emphasizing Opposition over support seems to run afoul of WP:NPOV.
  • I have tried, always, to fairly represent the range of opinion about the NOI that is recorded in the WP:Reliable Sources (i.e. namely the writings of scholars). To that end, I believe that the article does represent the NOI's own perspectives, the opinions of those (especially African Americans) who have expressed positive views of the group while not becoming members, and those who are critics of the group. To that end, I don't think there is an underlying NPOV problem in the article.
However, I appreciate your point that having a sub-section explicitly titled "Opposition and criticisms", while not having a sub-section explicitly titled "Support", might be interpreted in such a manner. I am not sure how best to deal with this issue; positive perspectives on the NOI, as voiced by a range of individuals, are scattered throughout the article, at appropriate junctures (including in the opening part of the "Reception and influence" section). Pulling those bits and pieces out of their existing locations and assembling them together into a "Support" sub-section would look messy and haphazard. Moreover, I do think that there is a case for having a specific "Opposition" sub-section on the grounds that the NOI has been extraordinarily controversial and generated the sort of substantial criticism and organised opposition that certain other new religions have not. On these grounds, I would suggest leaving things as they are, but am also interested to hear what other editors have to say. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:26, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the positive information is spread around; but the same could be done with criticism. The WP:CRITICISM essay correctly suggests that "Criticism/Controversy" sections should be avoided. Concentrating the negative information into an "Opposition" section is an editorial choice. The very act of creating the Opposition section (without a balancing Support section) is steering readers into a certain viewpoint. Yes the NOI was controversial ... but African Americans are a minority, and any expression of power by them was treated as a threat by the white majority. MLK and Malcolm X articles do not have "Controversy" sections. In this article, each of the four paragraphs in the Opposition/Criticsm section could be easily moved into another topical section. Noleander (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the past, I had already attempted to shift some of the material out of the 'criticism/opposition' section (particularly regarding antisemitism) into other parts of the article. What I have now tried to do is restructure that closing "Reception and influence" so that the subsection within it is now titled "Cultural influence" and contains both positive and negative appraisals of the NOI from non-members. Hopefully that deals with the concerns that you raised. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that resolves any concerns I had. Noleander (talk) 16:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite error: Crawford 2015, p. ix. Harv error: link from CITEREFCrawford2015 doesn't point to any citation. Harv error: link from CITEREFCrawford2015 doesn't point to any citation.
  • ISBN uniformity: ISBN 9780739454954. Most of the ISBNs have dashes, but this one does not. Some reviewers say that all or none should use dashes.
  • Size: currently at 10,381 prose words. Over 15% beyond the 9,000 guidance from WP:SIZERULE. Perhaps okay given the notability of the subject. The FAC community doesn't have a strong consensus on that quasi-limit: some reviewers at Watergate scandal FA nomination are currently objecting to that article exceeding 9,000.
  • In my edits, I've already tried to cut this article down in size, while at the same time ensuring that no important area of the topic is left unexplored. I could create a separate article on the History of the Nation of Islam, transfer much of the material from the pertinent section of this article into that one, and then trim back the historical coverage here? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:26, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following on from my above comment, I have gone ahead and created the History of the Nation of Islam article and thus have been able to trim back the historical coverage in this main article. That has helped get the number of prose words down to 9818 words. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quote vs italics: The name "Nation of Islam" has represented two ... Doesn't the WP MOS say that quotes should not be used to highlight a term/phrase (that is not a quotation of a source), instead, italics are preferred? See MOS:WORDASWORD (italics) and MOS:QUOTEMARKS (list of uses of quotemarks: highlighting a term/phrase is not listed as a usage).
  • I ran the article thru the Earwig copyVio tool, and it reported no issues (all green).
  • The article does an excellent job of providing multiple sources to give various perspectives on a single sentence. E.g. the body text The Nation criticises birth control methods as the white establishment's attempt to lower the black birthrate is supported by four sources: Gardell 1996, p. 335; Gibson 2012, p. 103; Curtis IV 2016, p. 16; Finley 2022, p. 59. This gives readers (and future editors!) breadcrumbs to delve deeper.
  • Alternative text for images looks good: describes the visuals of the image (rather than restating the caption).
  • Idiomatic/slang? ... and help tackle African American unemployment. ESL readers may not grasp "tackle" here.
Yes, that is fine. Or "address". Noleander (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Address" works very well, I'll go with that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hyphen for adjective "African-American" - The article has chosen to not use the hyphen, which is fine, but the Short Description at top has African-American new religious movement
  • The article uses sfn template for the vast majority of sources, but chooses to use "ref" for newspapers, is that correct? Provided the treatment is consistent, that approach is not prohibited, of course. But using 100% sfn would make the "Citations" section look cleaner. Not an FA showstopper, simply an observation.
  • I had tried to go with a system of sfn for scholarly/academic sources, and ref for websites and media sources, but in practice it does look a bit messy and many readers may not be clear on the reasons for this distinction. As such, I have now standardised everything as sfn. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Semicolons: the article uses semicolons in a useful & appropriate manner. A welcome sight.
  • Ambiguity: The Nation provides conflicting statements about its theology;... Does that mean that the religious texts themselves contain contradictions; or that commentaries/press releases/speeches/informal docs contain contradictory statements? And if the latter: the contradictions are between the commentary and the texts? or between multiple commentaries?
  • My understanding is that the ambiguity comes from the NOI's broader discourse (i.e. the total collection of its publications and its leaders' public speeches). In that body of material, it repeatedly refers to "God" in the singular, much as mainstream Muslims or Christians would. However, when you actually examine the NOI's theology, it talks about a succession of (mortal) gods who have ruled the universe and the notion that black people are innately gods. This is the sort of semantic ambiguity that the article is referring to. Do you think that there is a better way of framing this? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quote vs enc voice: The Nation of Islam's theology is "completely divorced" from mainstream Islam... Consider either (a) replacing the quote with a paraphrase in encyclopedia's voice; or (b) attributing the quote. I cannot recommend one or the other, since I haven't read the source. It's particularly confusing here because above in this section David V. Barrett and Elijah M. and others are quoted, so reader wonders who said it.
  • The NOI promotes a story about a figure... Is there a more apt word than "promote"?
  • Manual of Style: Compliance with MOS is satisfactory, with a couple of minor issues noted above.
  • Sources and citations: I have not performed a source review, but the format and layout of the sourcing meets FA critera.
Many thanks for these comments, Noleander. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:26, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few final items:
  • Citation formatting error Barnard 2012. Harv error: link from CITEREFBarnard2012 doesn't point to any citation. Harv error: link from CITEREFBarnard2012 doesn't point to any citation.
  • The NOI says that its finances come primarily from donations and its businesses. The word "says" suggests that there is some dispute or skepticism about the source(s). If there is no dispute or skepticism, consider stating the sources as a plain fact. And consider "funding" rather than "finances". Funding for NOI's operations comes from ...
  • I've changed this to "Funding for the NOI's operations come primarily from donations and its businesses."
  • Re the image sandwiching issue: You can work that out with the image reviewer.
Support. Noleander (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Avoid sandwiching text between images
  • On my browser there isn't any sandwiching, but I appreciate that different users will have different sized browsers and devices. Is there a particular section where you feel that this sandwiching is an issue to address? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:45, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Midnightblueowl Sandwiching can happen (in certain devices/skins/browsers) in any section that contains both L and R aligned images, such as
  • Cosmogony and the Tribe of Shabazz
  • Elijah Muhammad's leadership
  • Services, prayer, and celebration
  • Gender and sexuality issues
To address the concerns of the image reviewer, in those sections you can either (a) put both images on same side; or (b) use template:multiple image Noleander (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've used this same approach (of one image to the right, and then, lower down, another to the left) on various articles in the past, including those that have reached FA status. Accordingly, I wouldn't have thought that this is an intrinsic problem. Surely, what matters is that there is a sufficient quantity of text between the two images, so as to prevent the sandwiching of text? I think that having two images to the right, one immediately below the other, really does look a bit messy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Moorish_Science_Temple_1928_Convention.jpg: source link is dead; when and where was this first published?
  • I've not been able to determine the first place of publication, so I shall go ahead and remove the image from the article. Hopefully, if information about its origins is forthcoming, the image can be restored. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:34, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:W.D._Fard_mugshot_Detroit_1933_(cropped2).jpg: when and where was this first published?
  • I have replaced the former of these images with File:Louis Farrakhan 2018.jpg, a more recent image of Farrakhan that seems to have a clearer and less ambiguous copyright status. As for the second image, the original link is dead, but there is the statement that "This file, which was originally posted to http://www.al-vefagh.com/File/File/110814, was reviewed on 24 May 2018 by reviewer Leoboudv, who confirmed that it was available there under the stated license on that date." Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hongwu Emperor

[edit]
Nominator(s): Min968 (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Hongwu Emperor, the first emperor of the Ming dynasty. I have tried to improve this article as well as the articles related to the Ming dynasty. Min968 (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Portrait_assis_de_l'empereur_Ming_Taizu.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Ming_Dynasty_eruptor_proto-cannon.jpg, File:X_Ming_Dynasty_Empress_Ma_of_Taizu.JPG
@Nikkimaria All done. Min968 (talk) 05:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The banknote is still mistagged - under US law reproduction of a 2D work doesn't garner a new copyright, so the uploader is not a potential copyright holder. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria Image removed. Min968 (talk) 06:19, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luisa Capetillo

[edit]
Nominator(s): Spookyaki (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Luisa Capetillo, Puerto Rican anarchist and feminist. She is a major figure in Puerto Rican working-class and women's history and an interesting example of a late-19th and early-20th century phenomenon: the cigar factory reader. This is my second FAC nomination after Rosa Parks earlier this year. I welcome any comments and feedback and hope we can get it to FA. Thank y'all for your time! Spookyaki (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Luisa_Capetillo_(Higher_resolution).jpg: since this is on Commons, it should include tagging for status in country of origin
  • File:A_"Reader"_in_cigar_factory,_Tampa,_Fl.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Luisa_Capetillo_wearing_Mens_Clothing.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:51, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reader photo was published in 1909 per the LOC. Unsure exactly where it was published, but the United States seems likely given that the photographer, Lewis Hine, was American and the photo was taken in Tampa.
The other photo I actually replaced with a slightly better crop, but based on this image, I believe it was published in a news story about her arrest in Cuba. I'm 99% sure that it was published in Cuba, since, per A Nation Of Women, it's held in the José Martí National Library of Cuba and the arrest happened there. Given that it's about her arrest, it seems likely that it was published around 1915. The text from the news story is difficult to make out, but it does refer to her as if she were alive, so the latest it could have been published is 1922. Spookyaki (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: Thank you for the image review, as always! Spookyaki (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The perpetual issue we run into with LOC records is that the date provided is "created/published", not just "published". Is it known that the date in this case is specifically "published"? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: Alright. Well, no, I can't find any more detailed information about the publication date. I would guess that it was published around the same time it was taken, since "his photographs were widely disseminated through newspapers, socially concerned publications, and posters", per the Smithsonian. It's part of the National Child Labor Committee collection. Per the research guide:

    In 1954 the Library received the records of the National Child Labor Committee, including approximately 5,000 photographs and 350 negatives by Lewis Hine. In giving the collection to the Library, the NCLC stipulated that "There will be no restrictions of any kind on your use of the Hine photographic material".

    LOC also says that there are "no known restrictions on publication". It does says, however, that reproduction of photos in the NCLC is "Permitted; subject to P&P policy on copying. This policy prohibits photocopying of the original photographs in this collection". Not really sure what to make of all that, but. That's what I have been able to find. Spookyaki (talk) 00:49, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ornithoprion

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gasmasque (talk) 13:50, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Ornithoprion, a genus of small shark-like fish from the Paleozoic era with an extremely strange skull and set of teeth. It would be the first featured article for a Paleozoic fish, and only the third for a prehistoric fish. The article was GA reviewed back in October 2024, and was taken to Wikiproject paleontology's article workshop several months ago for further corrections. In addition to writing I also illustrated the article, since Ornithoprion fossils are not available to photograph and their scientific description has a noncommercial license. Gasmasque (talk) 13:50, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith

[edit]
  • I'll do a deeper dive later, but my initial impression is there's so much blue, it impairs readability. I get that there's a lot of technical terms which need linking, but per MOS:OVERLINK, try to concentrate on the important things. I wouldn't link quarry, private collection, midwestern, seasonal (especially right next to marine, i.e. WP:SEAOFBLUE), zoologist, bone, sensory organs, joint (and many more but you can find them). Also, no need to individually link Wilmington and Illinois. The question to ask yourself is whether clicking through to the linked page will significantly add to the reader's understanding of the main subject.
I have unlinked the terms pointed out here, as well as several elsewhere in the article (e.g. paleontologist, Kansas, common name) that I felt were similarly unhelpful, and have corrected the link for Wilmington. Frankly I do not have a good grasp of what terms the average reader of an article like this does and does not know, so there may well be more links that should be trimmed. I've also removed some duplinks for terms like order or shale. Gasmasque (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Many of these are definitely judgement calls, so there really is no single correct answer. RoySmith (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • paleontologist Rainer Zangerl worth a WP:ILL to de:Rainer Zangerl
  • named and described a pet peeve of mine is that "described" means something specific to taxonomists, so I prefer to say "formally described".
  • You often have as many as three citations for fairly straightforward statements. I know this is commonly done in scientific writing, but I think part of the logic there is to 1) impress your peers that you've done your homework and 2) to give proper credit to prior work. In a wikipedia article, it's better to just give a single citation which supports the facts stated. Sometimes you need more, but usually one is enough and three is usually too much per WP:CITEKILL.
  • author Richard Ellis suggested ... in a 2003 book You could save few words by saying "In his 2003 book, Richard Ellis suggested ..." It's be obvious that he's an author.
  • While similar rostra are known in other eugeneodonts, explain what a eugeneodont is. Also, palatoquadrates, syphyseal, durophage.
  • In life, the mandibular rostrum was likely to have been cylindrical in cross section You can drop "in life"
  • They formed a "tooth pavement" The link to Pavers (flooring) isn't useful.
  • Zangerl, both in the taxon's initial description maybe "Zangirl, in both his initial description of the taxon and ..."
  • Svend Erik Bendix-Almgreen looks notable to deserve a link. Some people object to redlinks in FAs, but I think they're fine. Of course, you could always write a stub if you wanted to. In any case, just use his full name the first time, then just "Bendix-Almgreen" subsequently.
  • In a 1981 publication (and similar in a few places) this seems overly verbose. I'd just say "In 1981 ..." You could also say "paper" instead of "publication". Scientists like to use big words, but it's silly and pretentious.
  • although in different bedding planes and not directly associated an oddly worded sentence. Maybe "... not directly associated with the primary fossil"?
  • it is suggested that the unpreserved rear halves of the animals may have been severed by predators Not just "severed". If I sever a fish into two parts, I would expect both parts to be preserved. Probably more like "eaten and digested"?
  • You use the word "suggested" a lot. Perhaps that's unavoidable as it correctly relates the degree of uncertainty in the source, but it become repetitive to read. Are there some other words that could be used instead?

Overall, this is really nice: easy to read and for the most part written at a level approachable by non-experts. I am not an expert in this field, so I can't comment on accuracy or comprehensiveness. Most of my comments above are nits. I think the biggest chunk of work you have is to go through the citations and figure out which ones are essential and which can be dropped. As I noted above, in scientific writing, the goals are completeness and acknowledgement. In a wiki article, it's more about readability and verifiability. RoySmith (talk) 14:21, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I had considered trimming the citations where possible already to reduce the number of links back to the 1966 description, and if you think that would be beneficial for readability I can do that. Alternatively, I can try to keep the 1966 description and one secondary source, and reserve 3 citations for statements that have been explicitly questioned (in the GA review it was suggested that a claim about the paleoenvironment needed strong sourcing, for instance). Since the description is much more easily accessible online than the secondary works that cite it, I felt it was helpful for the reader to know where to find it in the source that they have easy access to as well as the reliable secondary sources.
  • Zangerl and Bendix-Almgreen were redlinked in the GA reviewed version of this article, alongside Roger S. Miles. I unlinked them specifically under the assumption that redlinks were frowned upon at FAC and that it was unlikely anyone would make articles for them, but since I kept the redlink for the fish scale Petrodus in this article that isn't terribly logical in retrospect. I can re-add the redlinks for the above authors, although since I'm very inexperienced with GNG and biographical articles I don't feel comfortable making them articles.
  • I say "in life" for the rostrum because the fossils are crushed, and as preserved the skeleton is flat.
  • Would it be best to swap out use of the term "eugeneodont" in this section for "close relatives" or "some closely related fish"? What a eugeneodont is is explained in the classification section, so it might be best to avoid defining it in the description section. I opted to try and explain palatoquadrate and pavement teeth as cleanly as I could in the text as "usually forms the upper jaws in cartilaginous fish" and "tightly-stacked crushing teeth". Pavement dentition or pavement teeth is a particularly frustrating bit of jargon in extinct shark science; it does literally mean "tightly packed brick-like teeth that look like paving stones" so I felt the link was actually helpful. Symphyseal can be glossed as "along the midline". Durophage means "diet of shelled prey", but if that doesn't sufficiently explain it I can rewrite that sentence.
  • I will try and find suitable, non-weasely synonyms for "suggested" where possible.
  • "Severed" is used because a couple later papers propose the apex predator of this environment had huge shears for teeth and literally sawed or split smaller fish in half down at their middle instead of "biting" onto them. Because the papers describing this animal don't mention Ornithoprion by name as prey in the text (only citing the 1966 paper to support their claim) I felt it was too synthy to say this fish was responsible, but decided to keep a vague "severed" instead of "partially eaten" since alternate means of fish-splitting have been proposed since.
  • I agree with the other suggested wording tweaks.
Gasmasque (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of the really frustrating parts of these kinds of reviews is when different reviewers give you conflicting advice! So, if you've got citations which were explicitly asked for by another review, then it's probably fine the way it is.
As for eugeneodont, my usual rule of thumb is if I have to stop and think about a word before going on, it probably needs explaining the first time. Sometimes I can get from the context what it probably means and not knowing the details isn't a hindrance to my continuing to read along. That happens (for me) a lot in articles about insects where it's obvious the word is some kind of body part ("the distal end of the frabnitz terminates in a pair of whosewhats") and not knowing exactly what part they're talking about isn't a blocker. In this case, it's a little less clear. It could be a body part (i.e. "the rostra is connected to the eugeneodont"), it could be a taxon, maybe something else. So I think worth a quick explanation, even if it's just to say "other members of order Eugeneodontida".
As for redlinks, in the early days of wikipedia (when I got my start), redlinks were actively encouraged as markers of where we were missing articles. Over the years, that's become somewhat less true, so yes, you will probably find reviewers who object to redlinks in FAs. In fact, @PCHS Pirate Alumnus recently commented on my own use of redlinks, so they may wish to offer an opinion here (see my comment above about the frustrations of conflicting opinions). RoySmith (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the time being I have added redlinks for the notable(?) researchers and have changed eugeneodont to "related fish" in that sentence. Regarding excessive citations, there are some seemingly simple statements that I think warrant 3 citations; jaw structure in some other related fish like Helicoprion had a lot of historic back-and-forth, including within sources used in the article, and the apparent presence of bone in Ornithoprion's armor and scales is a really odd interpretation that in my opinion warrants stronger sourcing. For the 1966 description, do you have a preference for more recent/secondary sources vs. accessibility? Both the 1981 and 2010 copies of Handbook of Paleoichthyology (widely cited reference texts) are not available online and are several hundred USD for physical copies, so even if they are totally usable sources it seems problematic to cite only them if an open access (albeit primary) source is also available. This dilemma is the main reason for the prevalent 2-3 sourcing for simple anatomical claims, as while I understand that digital sources are not at all "preferred" from a policy standpoint they sure are from a skeptical reader or reviewer standpoint. Gasmasque (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no requirement to use sources that are available on-line. Use whichever sources are the best for what you want to write. If they are on-line, great, that's certainly convenient. If not, you can make life easier on reviewers by scanning the pages you used and holding on to them for future reference. Even that is not strictly a requirement; I like to do it anyway with library material so I have it for my own future reference. You may find WP:SPOTCHECK of some value in this area. RoySmith (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the feedback. Do you think the best course of action is to trim citations to the 1966 description whenever a more recent source saying basically the same thing is available? Gasmasque (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I'm not an expert in the field. I believe that in general reviewers for scientific articles like this tend to prefer the newest literature, but I'm really not the right person to evaluate which of the sources are the best. RoySmith (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You stated For the time being I have added redlinks for the notable(?) researchers. The key here is that question mark at the end of notable. RoySmith is correct that there is utility in redlinks, but in my opinion they should be used sparingly and only in cases where we clearly should have an article but don't, because it's not good when a newbie tries to contribute to the project by creating an article only to be shot down by a deletionist. Now, I'm not attacking deletionists here per se, as they too serve an important purpose on the project, but must say from experience it is quite discouraging to put effort into creating an article only for it to get shot down at WP:AfD (or worse, WP:CSD). Beyond the utility aspect, I don't think an article with a ton of red links should be classified as a featured article because how are we sufficiently covering a topic if related topics worthy of being linked to aren't covered at all? Of course, that is only my opinion. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, Pirate's complaint did energize me to turn a few of those redlinks blue over the past few days. One of them, Julian P. Thomas, I just sent off to DYK. RoySmith (talk) 02:19, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a widely cited fossil genus Petrodus is pretty non-negotiable as a link (albeit a pretty uninteresting topic), and if it is needed I can make a start-class article for it myself as I did with Erikodus, Eugeneodus & Co. already. As for the two (three if R.S. Miles is considered, although he is the least prolific) Paleozoic fish scientists I think it would be worth getting third opinions, since again biographies are not an area I actively edit. I can ask if there are any paleontologist/biologist/geologist biography editors with better insight into gauging notability in that field, if that's helpful here. Gasmasque (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest adding alt text
I've added alt text for the images, please let me know if it is too vague or too specific to be helpful. Gasmasque (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't use fixed px size
I've set the images to default thumb size instead of giving them fixed sizes. Gasmasque (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stratigraphy would be better as a table rather than an image, per MOS:TEXTASIMAGES
Ideally a photograph of the Mecca, Logan, or Excello quarries would be used here, but as far as I know none are freely available. I feel like stratigraphic information is actually not terribly helpful here, and have opted to remove the image. Please let me know if you think this is a bad call and if I really should create and implement a table for stratigraphic information. Gasmasque (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment. I see this pattern a lot in reviews. Reviewer says "This image would be better if X", where it may be impractical to do X, so the image gets removed. That certainly resolves the immediate complaint, but removing the information completely is a net negative compared to presenting it in a sub-optimum way. If you think there's no real value in presenting this data, that's fine, I just don't want you to fall into the trap of taking the path of least resistance to resolve the reviewer's complaint.
Building large complex tables is non-trivial. We've got WP:Graphics Lab where highly skilled folks are willing to provide expert assistance preparing images. It's a wonderful resource which I've taken advantage of more than once (mostly to develop custom maps). I don't know if there's people there who are experts at building tables, but it might be worth asking. RoySmith (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think, even as a table, the stratigraphic information is somewhat obscure for a reader who is unfamiliar, and is only tangentially related to the discovery of the genus. Currently I am looking for free photos of either the Mecca or Logan fossil site, as I strongly believe those would be the best choice for this section, but I am only finding them in CC NC sources. I am not in a geographical position to collect any myself, and I'm not even sure if the quarries are still accessible. If no "ideal" images can be found I can ask on the graphics lab about a stratigraphic or geographic table, thank you for linking to that resource! Gasmasque (talk) 14:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The information is also potentially outdated I've found, as two papers published since the article's GA review apparently suggest disusing the Staunton Formation entirely and considering the Logan Quarry Shale a member of the Tradewater Formation. I've updated the text to accommodate that alternative view, but I think that has me solidly in the camp that stratigraphic information that may quickly become outdated is not a good fit for this section. Gasmasque (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Ornithoprion.png: has the accuracy of this image been assessed?
Both "Ornithoprion.png" and "Ornithoprion skeletal.png" (the taxobox image) were reviewed at [1] and no issues were pointed out. Other images used on the page were reviewed at [2] and the error was corrected. Gasmasque (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At least for the images I've drawn, would adding symbols or letters be sufficient for differentiation? I am not the artist for "Helicoprion_skull_diagram_(NP).png" so am reluctant to modify it, would it be better to trim it out entirely? Gasmasque (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Small source review in progress (Cremastra)

[edit]

This table checks 8 passages from throughout the article (6.7% of 120 total passages). These passages contain 10 inline citations (4.2% of 236 in the article). Generated with the Veracity user script. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 22:58, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reference # Letter Source Archive Status Notes
This description was based primarily on fossils that had been collected from the Mecca Quarry of Parke County, Indiana since the 1950s,
2 a biodiversitylibrary.org good
3 a biodiversitylibrary.org good
It also represented one of only a small number of holocephalans from the Paleozoic era in which the endoskeleton was known, and alongside the related Fadenia was the only one known to preserve the gills.
16 b Bendix-Almgreen, Svend Erik (1968). "The bradyodont elasmobranchs and their affinities; a discussio… archive.org ❓ {{rp}} would be nice here.
The palatoquadrates, which typically form the upper jaws in living cartilaginous fish, were greatly reduced,
1 p biodiversitylibrary.org good I wonder if some word other than "reduced" could be applied, given p. 6 also uses "greatly reduced". Possibly "shrunken" or (*pulls out thesaurus*) "diminished", "lessened" or "curtailed".
7 e Ginter, Michał; Hampe, Oliver; Duffin, Christopher J. (2010). Handbook of paleoichthyology: teeth. … AGF
and the structure of these teeth was directly compared with those of the related Erikodus in Zangerl's 1966 description.
1 v biodiversitylibrary.org good
The spinal cord of Ornithoprion was sheathed by a soft, flexible notochord in life.
21 m link.springer.com AGF
In his description of O. hertwigi, however, Zangerl suggested that it and other edestids were more likely elasmobranchs.
1 aj biodiversitylibrary.org good Quite interesting!
Despite the group's relation, the chimaeras are highly specialized deep-water fish that do not closely resemble the eugeneodonts, which instead developed a lifestyle and appearance much closer to sharks.
32 c search.worldcat.org ❓
Later work by Rainer Zangerl has suggested that many chondrichthyans of the Mecca fauna, namely the iniopterygians, eugeneodonts and cladodonts, were actually pelagic fishes. He suggested they were vagrants that had migrated into shallower waters and became trapped, rather than being native to these habitats.
47 c biodiversitylibrary.org ❓
Page numbers for Bendix-Almgreen (1968) have been added throughout the text, and I've slightly modified the claim to specify that it and Fadenia are the only genera to preserve the gills in detail, since the source notes faint, illegible traces of gills in a couple other genera in the same paragraph. As for the others:
  • Ginter et al. (2010) states on p. 118 that "The preserved remains of these small sharks display a greatly elongated neurocranium and a highly reduced palatoquadrate."
  • I've caught an error myself in the Erikodus quote. Zangerl (1966) states "... there can be little doubt but that the genus resembles forms with relatively generalized, globular symphyseal teeth, such as in the Upper Permian genus Erikodus." It seems this section got shuffled around when I changed the text to talk about the tooth whorl first and the pavement teeth second, I've corrected it now.
  • Moy-Thomas (1971) states that "the notochord was persistent" on p. 238, which means it was retained throughout life.
  • Zangerl calls edestids and Ornithoprion elasmobranchs repeatedly in his description, but because his arguments in favor of this aren't elaborated on until his 1981 publication I've adjusted the wording somewhat to avoid implying he laid out a detailed argument in his 1966 paper, which is not the intended reading.
  • The information comes from pp. 144-145 of Ewing (2017)'s ebook edition (which differs in page number from a physical copy, it's on pp. 210-212 there). The text is a bit hard to transcribe as bits and pieces of what is summarized in this article are given across multiple pages, which are themselves meant to summarize an email chain with paleoichthyologist Alan Pradel. If a copy of the book, online or otherwise, is not available I am more than happy to send the cited pages. It essentially boils down to a discussion about how Helicoprion and other eugeneodonts (including Ornithoprion by name, if that matters) were closer relatives to holocephalans, but their external physical features and lifestyle were essentially like sharks.
  • Zangerl (1995) states on p. 22 "It is thus entirely possible that the iniopterygians and some other cartilaginous fishes in the Mecca fauna (e.g., the caseodontoid and edestoid eugeneodontids) entered the epicontinental waters from deeper, oceanic realms during episodes of transgressive inundation, and were not denizens of the shallow basin provinces, but were members of the oceanic fish community of that time." On the previous p. 21 he lists off three species of cladodont as other examples of open ocean vagrants, and again notes his hypothesized process of predation-induced mass death.
Hope these quotes are helpful, although since I assume some sourcing problems actually did come up here more in-depth digging might unfortunately be needed. I will double check that there aren't any more citation errors resulting from blocks of text being moved/similar reshuffling. Gasmasque (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

USS Romeo

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 04:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another FAC for a tinclad warship, to follow USS Marmora (1862) from 2023. Marmora was possibly the best-documented of the tinclads so this article is correspondingly a bit shorter, but I think there is sufficient meat here for FAC. Hog Farm Talk 04:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Fritzmann

  • "the operations"
  • Not necessarily part of the FAC, but is there potential for a White River expedition article?
    • Possibly - there is a reliable secondary source here. Christ's Civil War Arkansas 1863 devotes a couple of pages to it if I recall correctly. There may be coverage is Volume I of Bearss' Vicksburg trilogy after the coverage of the Battle of Arkansas Post. I would need to do some further research here. Article titling might be tricky - the Encyclopedia of Arkansas has entries for White River expeditions in August 1862, December 1864, and two in February 1864 in addition to this one. The naval operations associated with the Battle of St. Charles in June/July 1862 are also known as the White River expedition. Hog Farm Talk 22:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yazoo Pass expedition, "expedition" is not capitalized in its own article. Recommend standardizing whether that sort of thing is capitalized, as it should at least be consistent in this article (later on, there is Little Rock campaign to the contrary)
  • Perhaps instead of "was part of an expedition" which is quite passive, "joined" might be better; would also convey that the expedition was already underway when Romeo met it
  • "but was in poor condition and required repairs, before a transfer to the Tennessee River" something here doesn't sound right. I think that is because it insinuates that the transfer was because of the ship's poor condition, which I don't think was the case if I'm reading correctly.
  • "Patrolling on the Mississippi River" ?
  • "By April and May 1865, the war was ending" I would suggest something like "With the war drawing to a close in spring 1865, Romeo was declared..."
  • I just wanted to say I appreciate how you use notes throughout the article; I think they are a greatly underutilized asset on Wikipedia, and here they make this a much smoother read
  • "tonnage was 175 tons" what kind of tonnage are we talking here? Gross, net, deadweight, or does the source not specify? It may also be an antiquated measure, which might necessitate a conversion into a unit in modern usage
    • Here's a quote from Silverstone 1989 p. xi "Tonnage: This figure is taken from various sources, many of which do not explain what formula of measurement was used. A merchant ship's measurement was usually expressed in "tons burden", a measurement of the carrying capacity of the ship, giving little guide to its size, and the rules for calculating this measurement varied widely." Silverstone identifies the various measurements used for ships with the legend of D for displacement, B for tons burden (old measurement) n/r for new register tonnage (a new measurement system was put into place in 1864) and GRT for British gross registered tonnage. Silverstone just uses "tons". Neither Smith nor Way's Packet Directory include a more specific measurement than "tons". Hog Farm Talk 00:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "metres" should probably be "meters" as the rest of the article looks like AE
  • Is there a reason for alternating from feet/inches to meters as the primary unit of measurement?
    • This is apparently the result of this 2023 edit by Fabvill citing MOS:NUM although the relevant text there appears to "In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United States, the primary units are US customary (pounds, miles, feet, inches, etc.)" which would support using feet/inches rather than the metric system. The US military did not use the metric system during the Civil War. Hog Farm Talk 00:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how it is reported in the source, but shouldn't knots be used as the primary unit for naval speed?
  • Is there a link for "Old River"? I'm assuming it's a tributary of the Yazoo but I'm not sure from the text
  • "as part of Union operations..." should there be a link to the battle here like in the lead?
  • "The next day, Des Arc was reached" very passive, also was this just by Romeo and the three other raiding vessels or the whole flotilla?
  • The sentence beginning "Romeo and the other tinclads..." could stand to be split in half for readability
  • "Vicksburg surrendered on July 4" seems quite abrupt. Perhaps just start the next paragraph with "Before the surrender of Vicksburg on July 4..."
  • I took the liberty of simplifying the sentence starting "Following an August revision..." feel free to edit further if it doesn't read well
  • Is there consensus on including "USS" on the first mention of every new ship?
    • I don't know if there's a specific standard or not for this. I've always done this in the past in articles I've worked on. Although usually there's been Confederate ships as well, but there aren't any Confederate warships mentioned in this article. Do you think it would read better if I ommitted this in all but the first instance for lists of ships like "that also included the tinclads USS Exchange, Marmora, USS Prairie Bird, and Petrel."? Hog Farm Talk 02:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That was where I saw it that seemed a bit odd, I think it's implied that they're all USS with the "tinclad" descriptor and the prefix can be omitted there Fritzmann (message me) 07:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Owen did not approve of Baldwin's handling of this situation" this surprised me, is there a reason for that? It seems like both rescues of the civilian craft went off just fine
    • Reading back through Owen's report, it looks like this is more a general disapproval of Baldwin's overall job performance than this specific incident. As the secondary sources aren't illuminating for this and I was rely on quoting from Owen's report, I've just cut the sentence Hog Farm Talk 02:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By April and May..." same critique of this sentence as the one in the lead
  • Would it make sense to put her civilian service in a dedicated subsection? That feels like a rather major delineation to me but I'm not sure of the convention

Thanks for your work. Please note this review was based on quality of prose and writing only; I did not assess referencing or evaluate broadness, but from my read the article seems to cover all the known facets of the ship's life quite well. Please drop me a ping once you've addressed my nitpicks! Fritzmann (message me) 11:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fritzmann2002: - Thank you for the review! I've replied to your comments as best as I can. Hog Farm Talk 02:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the quick and thorough response, I'm quite happy to support on prose! I do still think that the civilian career should be separated in its own section, but that's a matter of personal taste. Thanks again for an excellent article on the US Navy! Fritzmann (message me) 07:25, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from UC

[edit]

A few from me, mostly prose nitpicks. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:01, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And that's all done -- moving to support. Really nice piece of work on what looks like an underappreciated bit of US naval history. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • After this repairs were completed: "these repairs were" or "this repair was".
  • thin metal armor for protection: could cut for protection -- calling something armor implies that purpose.
  • Some of these civilian ships were converted into tinclad warships, a process that involved building a wooden casemate[a] and then at least partially covering it with thin metal armor for protection, reinforcing certain internal structures, removing the existing pilothouse and installing a new armored one, adding cannons as armament, and generally removing the texas (a structure used for crew housing not found on all steamboats). This is a pretty monstrously long sentence. Suggest splitting in two -- perhaps first talk about what they took out, and then what they put on in its place?
  • at a cost of $17,459 (equivalent to $550,000 in 2024): match the number of significant figures here.
    • I don't know that I agree with this. I think it's important to use the exact 1860s cost value since we have it, but these 1862 --> 2024 inflation conversion values are inherently an estimate, and I think that anything more exact than what's currently presented would be false precision. Hog Farm Talk 02:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy with that. Better to err in this direction than the other. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:22, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 154 feet 2 inches (46.99 m): on the other hand, this is false precision, since 47.00m would also round to 154 ft 2 in (it's 154' 2.4"). Ditto 4 feet 6 inches (1.37 m), except now we have an extra sig fig. Would go with 47.0m and 1.4m respectively.
  • Romeo was reported to have a speed of 5 miles per hour (8 km/h; 4 kn) when going upstream. We're missing a word here: maximum speed? Cruising speed?
  • against Confederate Fort Hindman in Arkansas.[: not "Confederate-held", like Vicksburg?
    • In mind the difference is a pre-existing feature which was held by the Confederates at the time (Vicksburg) and then a feature constructed by the Confederates (Fort Hindman). But if you don't think this is helpful I don't have any objections to switching to Confederate-held here. Hog Farm Talk 02:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt many readers will twig that that's the distinction you're making, but I don't have a major problem with it: either form is fine and there's not a pressing need to be consistent for its own sake. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:27, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Union flotilla ... ascended the White: not sure about the idiom here. At best it's specialist.
  • Baron de Kalb, Romeo, a loaded troop transport, and the tinclad USS Forest Rose continued upriver: to remove ambiguity, consider "Baron de Kalb and Romeo continued upriver with a loaded troop transport and the tinclad USS Forest Rose".
  • continued to Des Arc the next day and took prisoners, ammunition: something has dropped out here (I'm not sure you can "take" ammunition, so it's a bit more than the word "and").
  • Marmora, who was also a sternwheel tinclad: I'm happy to allow "she" for ships, but I think we draw the line at "who": "which".
  • clearing obstructions from Yazoo Pass: the Yazoo Pass?
  • Moving through the waterways was difficult. Some of the vessels were damaged by thick vegetation that lined the waterways: lined the [river]banks, to avoid repetition?
  • the fighting along the Fort Pemberton area: can you fight along an area -- especially an area of a point? In the area along the Tallahatchie River?
    • Went with "around". I could point to a number of attestations to "fighting along the ..." but I agree that it doesn't work when being used to refer to a specific point (Fort Pemberton). Hog Farm Talk 02:53, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Union infantry landing and assault was unsuccessful: two things, so were.
  • small arms fire: compound modifier, so small-arms fire.
    That's a general tendency in (esp. military) American English not to hyphenate compound modifiers, though, isn't it? Looking at the DoD style guide, for instance, they have (p. 27) a list of specified hyphenated modifiers (on which "small arms" is not included). This implies a general rule not to hyphenate by default, rather than a specific exemption to hyphenation for "small-arms". We have the opposite rule -- hyphenate unless there is a specific reason not to do so for this case (MOS:HYPHEN). Put another way, a DoD publication would also not hyphenate any of the examples given as good hyphenations in MOS:HYPHEN, so we probably shouldn't automatically follow them here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've implemented the change, but noting a moral protest here that our MOS tends to be excessively rigid with applying things that appear rather strange in practical American English (MOS:GEOCOMMA is another one) Hog Farm Talk 18:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the Meridian campaign drew Confederate troops away from the Yazoo City area, the Union forces occupied the place on February 9: simply occupied it?
  • On May 24, Confederate artillery under the command of Colonel Colton Greene[24] opened fire on the tinclad USS Curlew from the banks of the Mississippi River in Arkansas.[50]: not ideal to have a reference mid-sentence with no punctuation: better bundled at the end? See later On June 30, she was decommissioned[6] while stationed at Mound City, Illinois.
    • For the first one, the whole thing can be sourced to the second source so I've removed ref [24]. For the second one, the second ref was to support that the Mound City referenced by the first ref was Mound City, Illinois not any of the other Mound Cities in the US, so I've moved the first one to the end. Hog Farm Talk 01:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Together, the two tinclads would escort the transport Nicholas Longworth downriver. Curlew had a machinery failure on the way, and was left behind. WP:INTOTHEWOULDS? Does "on the way" mean on the way to the rendezvous before the mission, or while underway on the mission itself?
    • I've removed the "would". Have gone with "on the way downriver" which hopefully isn't too many "downriver"s in a short span. The source notes it was near Island Number 82 but we appear to have no content about this island on Wikipedia so including the geographic reference is not helpful. Hog Farm Talk 01:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Romeo returned to Columbia for repairs. Confederate artillery also returned to Columbia -- this doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Who was controlling the place at the time?
    • I've done some rephrasing and have added another sentence for context - Greene was using mobile artillery to move up and down the riverbank and shell Union shipping. This was possible because the ships had to go the long way around bends on the river, while the Confederates on land could just cut across the base of the neck of land. Hog Farm Talk 01:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parts of the article seem to fall into WP:PROSELINE: I noticed this particularly in the penultimate paragraph of "Later service".
    I've tried to rewrite that paragraph to remediate these issues. It's going to be difficult to completely avoid that with this topic given the nature of the naval patrolling the tinclads were doing - extended periods of unexceptional drudgery interrupted by brief flurries of activity. Hog Farm Talk 03:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • During her time in military service, she had required $11,524.98 in repair costs. That seems remarkably precise. Is it a lot? Can we inflate it to show?
    • I've removed this sentence. The precision is because this was being taken from a postwar government report which tracked this as part of ship data. I haven't seen a secondary source which presents this in context as to if this was a lot or a little or normal, so I've dropped this as largely meaningless. Hog Farm Talk 15:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • captained by J. Ham Throop; one George Throop was her clerk: The "one" seems a bit odd when we've had a whole lot of obscure and (presumably) otherwise unknown sailors and soldiers introduced throughout the article.
  • Ship names need italics even in work titles: see the various primary sources cited in the biblio.
  • Note: ISBN printed in book is 0-89029-516-3: this sticks out oddly. It breaks MOS:NOTE, most obviously. Is this simply a printing error -- and if so, is it common to all printings? If so, we probably need to include this comment somehow, but I wonder if an EFN would be less obtrusive.
    Perhaps one for Wikipedia Talk:CS1, if not WT:FAC? I don't want to "rule" unilaterally on it here, but I'm mindful that (as far as I can see) nobody has actually discussed it at all. I did run "0-89029-516-3" through ISBN search and it came up as invalid, so I'm not sure how much value there is to anyone in having it if it clearly wasn't actually allocated to the book. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:16, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This truly does appear to be an error in the printed copy - I've moved the note about the printed ISBN to a hidden comment. Hog Farm Talk 18:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll give it awhile to see if there's any objections to handling it this way and then make the change in the others articles this is used in. Hog Farm Talk 01:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hyphens wanted in ISBN of Tomblin 2016.
    UndercoverClassicist - Where would I find the formatting for this? I'm using the ebook version from Wikipedia Library Project MUSE which doesn't have the dashes in the ISBN on the publication data page. I've turned up online the ISBN presentation for a hardcover edition with a different ISBN, but not this version. Hog Farm Talk 01:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to use websites like this one or this one - plug in the ISBN with no dashes and it'll add them for you. You can then check it via a Google search. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should pick a lane on Roman versus Arabic numerals for volume numbers.
    Right, but then MOS:CONFORM/MOS:CONFORMTITLE surely applies: Formatting and other purely typographical elements of quoted text should be adapted to English Wikipedia's conventions without comment, provided that doing so will not change or obscure meaning or intent of the text. These are alterations which make no difference when the text is read aloud ... Generally, the guidelines on typographic conformity in quoted material also apply to titles of works. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone with the Roman numerals as the Bearss work is generally universally shown that way. Hog Farm Talk 18:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

[edit]
Lead
  • “she cleared naval mines on the Yazoo River” → "she cleared the Yazoo River of naval mines"

A single suggestion for now. MSincccc (talk) 10:06, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Construction and characteristics

MSincccc (talk) 10:16, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Hindman
Vicksburg and Yazoo City

A few more thoughts for you to ponder upon, Hog. MSincccc (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc: - Thanks for the review! I've replied above Hog Farm Talk 00:42, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Later service

That's all from me. MSincccc (talk) 08:59, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line

Hawkeye7

[edit]

Source review

[edit]

Is Smith, Myron J. a prominent naval historian? Search results suggest he might be. Source formatting is consistent and these seem like reliable sources for the topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He's pretty well cited. Tomblin has five of his books listed in her bibliography. The Project MUSE copy of Gudmestad's new book on the Mississippi River Squadron (the print copy I ordered has not arrived) has ten of Smith's books in the bibliography (but doesn't contain anything on Romeo not already included in this article). These are just examples; from what I've seen his stuff is quite widely cited. McFarland is less strong of a publisher than a university press. I've seen some complaints about him getting a little lazy with some of his referencing at times (citing low-quality web sources for basic facts about rivers) but his stuff is generally well-respected. Here and here are a couple reviews of his first book on the tinclads. Hog Farm Talk 02:16, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle Kraken

[edit]
Nominator(s): XR228 (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Seattle Kraken, the second-newest team in the National Hockey League. Over four seasons, they have reached the playoffs once. I've tried FA candidacy twice before, and neither review was able to reach consensus in the given amount of time, so please be quick in responding. Thank you. XR228 (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder

[edit]

Pretty sure I reviewed this at least once before and am happy to do so again...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:59, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MisawaSakura

[edit]
  • As soon as I saw this at FAC, I instantly thought "what on earth is a a Kraken? I suspect most people would be in the same boat. You don't explain this until the third major section. But then I'm not sure what the best way to deal with it is.
  • IMHO the intro is short for a 93K article.
MisawaSakura (talk) 03:02, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Downey Jr.

[edit]
Nominator(s): 750h+ 17:08, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the wonderful RDJ. He has gained critical acclaim for his roles across a versatile range of films. His meteoric comeback as Iron Man following a series of drug related issues has contributed to his status as one of the most well known actors of the 21st century, and I am excited to present this article to you all. Enjoy the read, and all comments are welcomed. If successful this will be my fourteenth FA. 750h+ 17:08, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

[edit]
Lead
  • All fine here except for that Known for portraying charismatic and intelligent characters over a versatile range of films,... sounds more British than American.
Early life and acting background
  • Link "addiction" and "marijuana"?
  • “Aged eleven and twelve” → “At ages eleven and twelve.”
    • The present one sounds more typical of British English.

MSincccc (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life
  • In the image caption alt text: “wift Susan” → “wife Susan”.
Artistry and public image
  • Early in his career, a Rolling Stone writer...
  • Stephen Schiff wrote...
    • You could mention "of Vanity Fair".

MSincccc (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc: thanks for these! I think i've addressed them 750h+ 15:48, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@750h+: Thank you for your cooperation. A few more below:
Acting credits and accolades
Other ventures
  • "On November 23, 2004, he released his only studio album, titled The Futurist." → "On November 23, 2004, he released his only studio album, The Futurist."
  • "Downey has repeatedly collaborated with English musician Sting." → "Downey has repeatedly collaborated with the English musician Sting."
    • Since you mention "English" rather than just "musician". When you add a descriptive adjective such as "English", the phrase behaves more like a specific identification.
  • “jazz pop” → “jazz-pop”
    • Hyphenation is more standard (not obligatory).
  • In a 2008 interview,...
    • You could consider mentioning who or which organisation conducted the interview.
  • "to promote" → "promoting"
  • "I have a really interesting political point of view, and it's not always something I say too loud at dinner tables here, but you can't go from a $2,000-a-night suite at La Mirage to a penitentiary and really understand it and come out a liberal. [...] [I]t was very, very, very educational for me and has informed my proclivities and politics ever since".
    • Is this entire quote necessary to the prose?
  • You could consider linking the Democratic Party and Nanotechnology.
    • Democratic party in already linked

MSincccc (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Career
(1983–1995) Early work and critical acclaim
  • "In 1985, Downey joined the new, younger cast of Saturday Night Live" → "In 1985, Downey joined the new, younger cast of Saturday Night Live (SNL)"
    • SNL doesn't need to be acronymized as it isn't said later in the text
  • You could link to the articles on promiscuity and teen drama
  • Link Oliver Stone?

MSincccc (talk) 07:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(1996–2001) Addiction-related setbacks and Ally McBeal
  • You could link to the article Ally McBeal season 4 in this sentence: Before the end of his first season on Ally McBeal,...

MSincccc (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(2001–2007) Recovery and comeback
  • “…a candid account his life and career.”

→ “…a candid account of his life and career.”

(2008–2019) Stardom with Iron Man
  • You could link to the article San Francisco Chronicle in the sentence: portraying San Francisco Chronicle journalist Paul Avery, who covered the Zodiac Killer case.
  • You could consider explaining briefly what a "Tesseract" is to the general audience.
  • “In a December 2000,” → should be “In December 2000,”
    • The article “a” is incorrect with a month + year.
  • “…making it fifth-highest-grossing film of all time…”

→ “making it the fifth-highest-grossing film of all time”

  • American English prefers “cesarean section” (no “ae”).
(2020–present) Oppenheimer and expansion
  • “an Primetime Emmy nomination” → “a Primetime Emmy nomination”

@750h+: That's all from me. I look forward to your response. MSincccc (talk) 03:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc: thanks for all the comments, all should be addressed (unless i left a comment). 750h+ 09:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bottom line
  • "Rotten Tomatoes" and "teen drama" were still unlinked in the prose (did that myself).
  • Overall, the article reads well and meets the prose standards. Hence support.
MSincccc (talk) 11:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steelkamp

[edit]

Lead

  • "over a versatile range of films" is a bit awkward. Would be better as "over a diverse range of films".

Early life and acting background

  • "and Greenwich Village." -> "and Greenwich Village in New York City."
  • Source 8, "Actor's toughest role" gives me a 502 bad gateway error.

Career

  • "Downey committed to appear in at least eight additional episodes of Ally McBeal." What is meant by "at least"? Is the exact number of episodes not known?
    • This means he committed to doing this (likely as per a contract), but as stated later, the producers cancelled him from the show soon after
      • I see now.
  • Source 78, "Robert Downey Jr.'s Drug 'Deal'" gives me a page not found error. URL status should be set to dead.

@Steelkamp: thoughts? 750h+ 15:52, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rollinginhisgrave

[edit]

Oppose from looking at Robert Downey Jr.#Artistry and public image onwards:

  • and has become one of Hollywood's most bankable stars. All the sources are from 10-15 years ago. The fact they all appear in close succession and not after that should indicate whether MOS:DATED applies.
    • All sources are newer.
      • I don't think any of these sources work:
        • The first is a fluffy republication from news.com.au, which is a News Corp outlet that has received a mixed reception at WP:RSN. Published before the flop of Doolittle, and hardly a HQRS.
        • A listicle from the Independent, says he went from his low point to being the most bankable, but does not speak to his current status. I understand that seems strict, but if I were writing this article I would not consider it adequate.
        • Same with the Vanity Fair piece, which merely describes him becoming bankable around the Iron Man era.
          • Can't find too many sources, so I've removed "bankable" entirely. Plus I think him being the highest-paid actor from 2013-2015 as well as being one of the highest-grossing actors ever does the job of explaining his success.
  • Downey is a self-described "incredibly gifted faker" who knows "very little about acting". We are putting in wikivoice that he is indeed an "incredibly gifted faker" and that he knows "very little about acting". RDJ is not an unbiased, credible source in such matters, and these claims should not be in wikivoice; you implicitly contradict them in the next sentences.
    • "is a" ==> "has described himself as an"
  • "He extensively rehearses and prepares for his film roles" is in no way verified by the source, which is a quote from Downey how 35 years ago he prepared intensely for one role, and is not verified by a short tangent by McBride when he says "Oh shit, I can hear what he's saying,'" McBride said. "He was talking to people, and he was in character the whole time. And then I even watched him walk back to his trailer and saw it from down there, and he was talking to himself." McBride said he heard Downey Jr. saying in character: "I'm gonna go drain the snake.""
    • I've rewritten this
      • I still take issue with the sourcing for the Tropic Thunder claims. A humorous anecdote from Danny McBride in a light GQ interview, relayed by Yahoo! Entertainment is not a HQRS or really due.
        • replaced with more reliable sources
          • I'm still not particularly pleased with the contents of these verifying "His preparation for specific roles has included... character immersion" when it is ambiguous whether this is all a joke and the provenance, but that probably goes into the territory of me being unfair.
  • "Keith Gordon, who directed Downey in The Singing Detective (2003), remarked..." hardly an independent, dispassionate comment to be quoting when it was made during the press cycle for the film.
    • I don't see too much of a probelm with this?
      • Director praising lead actor during a period while he is promoting the film is highly unlikely to be due.
        • Makes sense, I've removed this
  • "In a 2010 Rolling Stone article, Walter Kirn praised his ability to "refuse to follow any kind of script, never quite coming into focus, always in thrall to another idea"" again more inappropriate wikivoice. What we are saying here is that RDJ "refuses to follow any kind of script, never quite coming into focus, always in thrall to another idea", and that he received praise from Kirn for this.
    • "praised" ==> "noted"
      • MOS:SAID
        • Changing to analyzed has meant "essence of his mind and spirit, and, arguably, of his genius as an actor" is not in wikivoice, but we are still putting in wikivoice that [Robert Downey Jr. has an ability to] "refuse to follow any kind of script, never quite coming into focus, always in thrall to another idea". This is an opinion of Downey's acting, falling under WP:NPOV's requirement to "avoid stating opinions as facts". Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 16:03, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rollinginhisgrave: okay, with the current version, I've tried to make sure that all quote is stated as opinion rather than fact, attributed to Kirn entirely. What do we think? 750h+ 16:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, looks better than it was. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 16:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trying to verify "Grzymkowski 2011, p. 277.", I see this book only has 245 pages in the edition linked.
    • I changed the source entirely, the book was kind of annoying me
      • This is a small thing, but it is still there as [252]
  • "honoring his talent as an actor and career resurgence as Iron Man" the profile is written by his buddy, we can't say this stuff in wikivoice
    • Hopefully this is more neutral
      • Don't see why we care about Ben Stiller's opinion. "Friend thinks it's good that friend has had a career resurgence".
        • removed
  • "the forty-fourth-greatest actor of the 21st century" film actor.
    • added
      • ? Still there on my screen.
        • Oops, done
  • "According to Rotten Tomatoes, Downey's most critically acclaimed films include Tropic Thunder, Oppenheimer, the Sherlock Holmes film series" ??? Sorted by critics highest, his most critically acclaimed films on RT are "Sr.", True Believer, Richard III, Short Cuts, and Avengers: Endgame. Many of these films had Downey in leading roles.
    • Don't really know how that happened (must not have been looking from most high to least high), anyways I've fixed this.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 13:53, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rollinginhisgrave: I think a lot of these are really small problems, so hopefully I can get you to reconsider the oppose (I'll address these in a bit). 750h+ 14:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Always willing to reconsider an oppose, although I obviously disagree with the assessment that many of these are really small. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 14:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rollinginhisgrave: what are your thoughts? Hopefully most of these are fixed. 750h+ 15:24, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rollinginhisgrave: second wave of comments addressed. 750h+ 15:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Lloyd (coffee house owner)

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 17th century owner of a coffee shop. He would probably have faded into insignificance if it wasn't for his successors using his name to establish Lloyd's of London, Lloyd's List and the Lloyd's Register. This is a new article that has been through GAN recently and, although brief, it feels ready for FAC. All constructive comments are welcome. - SchroCat (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC

[edit]

Been a bit since I've commented at FAC, delighted to see this at the top of the list when I peeked today. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:03, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • "he opened his coffee house near the Port of London in 1685–1687." - he can't have opened it across a span of years. Suggest rephrasing to something like "sometime between 1685–1687" or "sometime from 1685–1687"
    I went with "around" instead - how does that look? - SchroCat (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Haha, I only suggested "sometime" because I thought BrEng didn't like "around" very much, so fine by me :)
  • "moved the coffee house to the larger premises" since you haven't yet mentioned the larger premises, I'd lose the referential "the"
    Yep, done - SchroCat (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The opening sentence of para 3 is confusing. We've spent all this time discussing him as a coffee shop owner, and now he's a lawman? Was that at the same time or before? Was he better known for this than being a coffee guy? If not, the connection between the two clauses doesn't seem to make sense - what does his overseas celebrity have to do with him being a lawman?
    I think at the same time, although the sources are all rather vague on the point. I would hazard a guess that policeman was more part-time community role, but there's nothing in the sources to say one way or the other - they certainly don't say he left the coffee shop, which seems to have been going great guns.
    Either way, I've reworked this a little to hopefully bring a little clarity. - SchroCat (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup works for me
  • "that his name was used as a reference" a reference to what?
    I suppose "as a referee" would have worked, although too many would have been confused by sporting referees rather than those who give references. I've changed it to quote the source directly, putting the vagueness onto them, rather than us. - SchroCat (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Lloyd wasn't an apprentice with the knitters, in what capacity was he "with" the company?
    Unfortunately the sources don't expand on the point. - SchroCat (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any details available about his activities as a lawman? Was this overlapping with his being a busy coffee shop owner?
    Again, the sources are a bit unclear. I think it was all at the same time (being a part-time community policeman but mostly running the shop), but that's me reading between the lines and isn't strongly enough supported by the text to even think about adding. - SchroCat (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any kids with the next wives after Abigail died?
    The sources don't say, so I presume not. - SchroCat (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have, cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as always PMC! All points addressed in this edit and/or commented on above. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for taking so long to reply, all looking good here. I'm happy to support. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

Images are appropriately licensed, but is no image of the subject available? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:16, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, Many thanks. The only one that comes close is this, of dubious provenance, doubtful identity and low quality. - SchroCat (talk) 07:34, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cartoon network freak

[edit]

Placeholder. Getting to this later this week or next week. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the first sentence of the article, I would already somehow state that the coffee house was well-known and located in London, as well as that Lloyd's of London is insurance market and that Lloyd's List was a journal
    Partly done. I've skipped "well-known", but all the rest is done - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)- SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lloyd was a churchwarden and a constable and questman, an early form of community policeman -> I would rather write something like: "Lloyd was a churchwarden, a constable and a questman, the latter being an early form of..."
    I'm not sure that's needed - the definition is not going to refer to something elsewhere in the sentence. I'm minded to leave it as it is for now, but to re-address it if others also comment on the point. - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • states that he was Welsh[6] -> refs are usually placed after a punctuation, so insert a comma after "Welsh"
    Not necessarily. They go after punctuation when it's appropriate, but the comma is superfluous here. - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • born to the couple, although only four daughters, survived -> the second comma seems unnecessary to me
    Quite right: removed. - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • an integral part of the Port of London;[5][12] Lloyd's clientele included merchants -> the semi-colon can be turned into a full stop so the sentence is more readable
    Then we're left with two short sentences (one very short); I think I'll leave it as it is for now and see if anyone else mentions the point. - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • an advertisement for information about five stolen watches could be left at the outlet -> This reads a little weird to me. I would rewrite to something like: "an advertisement calling for information about five stolen watches to be left at the outlet"
    I've tweaked this in a different way. - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • with a reward of one guinea.[12][1] -> make sure the references are in numerical order. Please check this throughout the article and fix if needed
    Done (although there's nothing in the MOS—or anywhere else—that suggests this is necessary or beneficial). - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note c mentiones CPI twice
    Oops - blitzed. - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • was also referenced in The Tatler in 1710[26] -> ref comes after a punctuation
    As above - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lloyd was a churchwarden and a constable and questman, an early form of community policeman -> same as in lead
    Explanation as above. - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • his death was announced in the Flying Post news-sheet as "Died Mr Lloyd the coffee man in Lombard Street" -> I find the quote slightly unnecessary since it doesn't state anything special or different than just the fact that he died
    It's not that special in itself, but this was a time when obituaries were rarely included in the newssheets of the time. I'll try and find an RS that makes that point to add in. - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. I don't have too much to say — a very tidy and well-written article. I enjoyed reading and commenting. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Cartoon network freak. All your points addressed in this edit, with most adopted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for implementing and commenting. A well-written and well-researched article — I am offering my support. Good luck! Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Happy to clock in again. On rereading for FAC my only comments are:

  • the OED makes "businesspeople" all one word.
  • "Neither Lloyd's marriage nor his son's birth were recorded …" – "were" should be "was"

Otherwise I have nothing to add to my comments at GAN and I am happy to add my support for the promotion of the article to FA. Brief it may be – and indeed is – but it seems to me to meet all the criteria. – Tim riley talk 20:03, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Tim, for your help at GAN and here: it's much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HAL

[edit]
  • "was a churchwarden and a constable and questman" --> to the less Hemingwayesque "was a churchwarden, constable, and questman" w/ or w/o Oxford comma
  • Minor but maybe shorten "from which Lloyd or his staff would make announcements" -> "from which Lloyd or his staff made announcements"
    Done - SchroCat (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "head waiter" one word? Or is that BrEng?
    It's two words in BrEng, per the OED - SchroCat (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one was placed for news of "one Obdilah, alias Abraham, a Moor, swarthy complexion, short frizzled black hair, a gold ring in his ear", who had run away from his master; one guinea was offered as a reward for his return" - how did this name Lloyd's coffee house? Was the reward to be given at the coffee house? Was the slave to be brought there?
    Brought there - now clarified. - SchroCat (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neither Lloyd's marriage nor his son's birth was recorded" -> "Neither Lloyd's marriage nor his son's birth were recorded"
    "Was" is correct (see above in Tim riley's comments) - SchroCat (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I got. ~ HAL333 14:53, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks HAL333; all sorted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zungeni Mountain skirmish

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dumelow (talk) 11:29, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A relatively minor engagement during the second British invasion of Zululand (the first having been abandoned after their defeat at the Battle of Isandlwana). A scouting party of irregular horse burnt some Zulu homesteads before withdrawing under fire from Zulu irregulars. The 17th Lancers, recently arrived in Zululand and keen to make their name, launched a gallant cavalry charge that had no effect except for the killing of their adjutant by a Zulu marksman and they were forced to withdraw. The action unnerved the British but had no effect on the outcome of the war, which ended with victory at the Battle of Ulundi the following month. The skirmish has held as an example of the effective tactics of Zulu irregular forces compared to the less flexible approach employed in the major engagements of the campaign by their royal army. I created this article in 2022 and it has recently passed a MILHIS A-class review - Dumelow (talk) 11:29, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TheNuggeteer

[edit]

Seems interesting. Will review in the following week. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 11:39, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed lead, Background, and images. Will continue tomorrow. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 13:01, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting to this so quickly, I will try to reply to your comments as they come - Dumelow (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added comments for the British invasions of Zululand section. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 09:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are there so many extra spaces between sentences in the lead?
I was taught to type with English spacing, a hangover from the typewriter era, I think. I've no objection if people want to go through and remove them but. per MOS:DOUBLESPACE. it makes no difference to how the page renders to the reader
  • Where and what is eZualneni? The only mention of this settlement is found in this article, and its mention here does not explain it.
It's explained a little more in the "British invasions of Zululand" section. Essentially it was a collection of Zulu homesteads, but seems to have been abandoned after the war; there's not much there now except a few homes along the road and a South African Army training centre. If you like I can add the explanation of what it is into a footnote and cite it here and at first mention in the main text?
  • "The horsemen charged and scattered" to clarify better, I suggest "charged towards" instead of just "charged".
Done
  • "return fire but again" -> "return fire, but again"
Done
  • "Aside from Frith the" -> "Aside from Frith, the"
Done
  • "two months after the battle the" -> "two months after battle, the"
Done
  • "The High Commissioner for Southern Africa, Sir Henry Bartle Frere, viewed the independent Zulu Kingdom, bordering the British colonies of Natal and Transvaal, as a possible threat" how did they view the kingdom as a threat?
Frere was an India hand and recently arrived, allowed himself to be persuaded that the Zulu posed an invasion threat to Natal and Transvaal, though the frontier had largely been peaceful for 30 years, and held influence over Africans in other parts of the region. Principally Frere's hope was that a short and successful war would send a message of British military power to Africans and Boers alike and convince them to support confederation. I was cautious of going into too much detail but I can expand on this if you like (note to self, ref: Knight 2008 pp21-22), let me know
  • "Frere seized upon a July 1878 legal dispute" -> "Frere seized upon a legal dispute in July 1878"
Done
  • "Two wives of the Zulu chief Sihayo kaXongo had fled to Natal, an armed band, led by his sons, entered the colony to retrieve them for execution." this sentence is confusing.
Have split it, but might still be a bit strange. Let me know your thoughts
  • "In December 1878 Frere" -> "In December 1878, Frere"
Done
  • "system of government; including" -> "system of government, including"
Done
  • "The ultimatum was harsh" possibly a MOS:LABEL violation
Removed and left as "The ultimatum demanded radical change in the Zulu way of life..."
  • "separated men into age-grouped regiments based in barracks spread across the country which" -> "separated men into age-grouped regiments based in barracks spread across the country, which"
Done
  • "In times of war they" -> " In times of war, they"
Done
  • "When these were rejected Cetshwayo" -> "When these were rejected, Cetshwayo"
Done
Image review
[edit]
  • File:Death of lt frith.png - Properly licensed, but the caption has a minor error: please change the second comma to a semi-colon.
Done
  • File:Second Invasion of Zululand.png - Properly licensed, yet there is another issue with the caption: please remove the comma present.
Done
  • File:Frontier Light Horse Zulu War.jpg - Properly licensed with a good caption
  • File:A-Zulu-regiment-attacking-at-iSandlwana.jpg - Properly licensed, albeit with a small caption issue: change the comma into a semi-colon.
Done
  • File:17th lancers at Ulundi.jpg - properly licensed with a good caption
British invasions of Zululand
[edit]
  • "On 22 January the" -> "On 22 January, the"
Done - Dumelow (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like this section should be incorporated to the Background section since it is not the skirmish yet. I also believe these two sections are too detailed for the article, probably a WP:COATRACK issue.
I originally had much less (see this version from June) but it was requested that I add more context during the A-class review. I am happy to trim down a bit again, perhaps there is a happy middle ground, but happy to hear more thoughts
  • "the vicinity of Kambula where" -> "the vicinity of Kambula, where"
done
Already linked previously (in Background). I have deleted "on the Zulu capital," as I had already introduced it at first mention
  • "into Zululand, simultaneously" kindly remove the comma.
Done
  • "On 1 June Napoléon, Prince Imperial of France" -> "On 1 June, Napoléon, Prince Imperial of France"
Done
  • "overrun by the Zulu" shouldn't "the Zulu" be plural when referencing the opposition; if you are referring to a single Zulu, please specify who they are.
Went with "by Zulus"
  • If there are reports from the Zulus' side, please add them.
Alas they are few and far between for this war, I have not seen any in the sources for this skirmish or the one on 4 June
  • "on 4 June Wood" -> "on 4 June, Wood"
Done
  • "a day's march" please change this to something else as this is not clearly stated, presumably "a day far".
It's meant to mean the distance a unit of men can march in a day. In Zululand this varied greatly for the British from around 20 miles downwards to a handful of miles in difficult country. Smith gives a distance here (3 mi) so I've switched it to that.
  • Baker's Horse is a red link; normally I would accept that, but this is vital to the sentence. Please specify what "Baker's Horse" is.
I should be able to whip an article up quickly on this, give me a day or two
  • I believe you should italicize "dongas" per WP:WAW; the following words describe it.
Done
  • "implying that this was the" -> "implying that this was a"
"this was the" reads right to me for a single event that was long anticipated; if fact does "the long-anticipated appearance" work better here? Collins has examples of the similar "the much-anticipated" from the Times
  • "laager" does not seem like a verb.
Collins and the Dictionary of South African English have it as a verb also (as do the sources), I've linked it to wagon fort to explain the unfamiliar term.
Hi TheNuggeteer, just wondered if you'd had chance to look at my responses above and had any further comments. I've also recently trimmed down the Background section, which you also mentioned above - Dumelow (talk) 18:50, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Much apologies for missing this; I have been busy these past days. I will continue reviewing this. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 04:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Skirmish

[edit]
  • "A reconnaissance force from the flying column was dispatched to eZulaneni at dawn on 5 June to confirm if the Zulus encountered the day before formed part of the royal army." This sentence seems too long, and parts of it are confusing.
  • I suggest you link "lancers".
  • "and 7 men" MOS:NUMERAL says to spell seven.
  • "Buller's men came into sight of" -> "Buller's men were seen by"
  • "eZulaneni, 300" change the comma to either a colon or semicolon.
  • "Buller's men" -> "his men" redundancy.
  • "by telescope" -> "by using a telescope"
  • "and killed" -> "and was killed"
  • "you are all right men" capitalize "You"
  • "determined the bullet that" -> "determined that the bullet which"
  • Frith's death has too much detail. I think you need to cut the paragraph down.
  • "exchanging fire, to" -> "exchanging fire to"
  • "that after the withdrawal" -> "that after the withdrawal,"
  • "to count the British dead, though" -> "to count the British deaths, yet"
  • "Zulus into the open ground" "Zulus to open ground"

HAL

[edit]
  • Would shortening "in what is now part of South Africa" to "in what is now South Africa" result in the loss of any meaning?
I don't think so, done.
  • "charged towards" -> "charged towards" - I think "towards" is implicit.
Did you mean just to omit the "towards"?
Yes, but it's ultimately nitpicky and up to you. ~ HAL333 00:00, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They were not able to close" -> "They could not close"
Done
  • The sentence "Drury-Lowe ordered some of his men to dismount and return fire, but again the Zulus threatened to outflank the British and Marshall ordered a withdrawal." has three independent clauses, i.e. is a run-on.
I have split this to "Drury-Lowe ordered some of his men to dismount and return fire. When the Zulus threatened to outflank the British, Marshall ordered a withdrawal." but happy to take other suggestions
  • "wholesale changes" - is "wholesale" needed? Does it suggest anything more than what "radical" does in the following sentence?
Removed "wholesale"
  • "be sent out from Britain" -> "be sent from Britain"
Done
  • Should "dongas" be italicized
Yes, TheNuggeteer also picked this up above so I'm definitely convinced! Done
  • The caption "British movements during the second invasion of Zululand on a contemporary military map." does not need a full stop
Removed
  • "Keen to confirm..., a reconnaissance force was sent" - Who was keen? The reconnaisance force itself? Or a specific officer? Rephrase/clarify
Yes that was weird, wasn't it? Rephrased to "A reconnaissance force from the flying column was sent dispatched to eZulaneni at dawn on 5 June to confirm if the Zulus encountered the day before formed part of a the royal army" but happy to take suggestions
  • "Lieutenant" is not wikilinked in its first use.
Good spot, I always miss at least one rank!
  • "Lancers" isn't always capitalized
I think it should only be so when I am referring to the regiment, have tried to make this change
  • "combat was not resumed" -> "did not resume combat" to avoid passive voice
Done
  • What is a mealie field?
It's a Southern African term for maize/corn, I have now linked it to maize at first use but happy to add a footnote and or italicise it.
  • Consider shortening "Prior had made a sketch of the moment" to "Prior sketched the moment"
I've changed it to "Prior had sketched the moment", I prefer it with the "had" in there as the rest of the text has moved on from the skirmish
  • "12 June and he was found guilty" - comma needed before "and"
Done
  • "they proved their worth" - is this encyclopedic in wikivoice?
I've amended this sentence to "On an open plain against a spent enemy they proved particularly effective, sweeping the battlefield clear to a distance of 3 miles (4.8 km) and killing 150 Zulus." but, again, happy to take suggestions

That's all I got. Solid work. ~ HAL333 16:15, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support. ~ HAL333 00:00, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prose Review by Fritz

[edit]
  • Highly recommend archiving the web sources if you have a chance
User:InternetArchiveBot is timing out for me at the moment. If I get time I will archive by hand.
  • "under fire from the Zulus who had threatened to surround them"
Agreed and done
  • "under the command of Major-General Frederick Marshall" was Marshall in charge of the irregulars and the regulars or just the regulars? The current construction is ambiguous
Just the regulars. I have added "the latter" here to clarify but open to other options.
  • "The British paused to fortify..." suggest adding something like "after the skirmish, the British..."
Agreed and changed as suggested
  • I think that the background section is somewhat too detailed for this article. Certain statements like "it became British policy to expand and consolidate their influence in the region" are overly broad and generalize quite a bit, when it would be better to lean on the main Anglo-Zulu War article to provide much of that sort of context. Are you able at all to cut down this section? The following one's length I think is more warranted to establish the place of the skirmish in the campaign, but it could stand to be shortened as well. I've presented a paragraph that's been cut down, but still presents what I as a layman believe to be necessary information to understand this article:
"When the ultimatum expired, British forces under Lieutenant-General Lord Chelmsford invaded Zululand in three columns. One of the first actions of the British Centre Column was to attack Sihayo's homestead near the Natal border on 12 January. Sihayo and the main bulk of his men had already left to join the royal army, but a party of old men and boys offered a determined resistance to the British attack from the cover of rocky and vegetated terrain. On 22 January, the royal army attacked the British camp at Isandlwana, effectively wiping it out and ending the first invasion. The British Right Column was afterwards besieged by the Zulu at Eshowe while the Left Column remained in the vicinity of Kambula, where it engaged local Zulu forces. Chelmsford requested that reinforcements be sent from Britain, including a cavalry brigade formed by the 1st King's Dragoon Guards and the 17th (The Duke of Cambridge's Own) Lancers under the command of Major-General Frederick Marshall." (163)
"When the ultimatum expired, British forces under Lieutenant-General Lord Chelmsford invaded Zululand in three columns. The British Centre Column atacked Sihayo's homestead near the Natal border on 12 January but faced determined resistance. On 22 January, the Zulu royal army attacked the British camp at Isandlwana, effectively wiping it out and ending the first invasion. With the Right Column besieged at Eshowe and the Left Column engaged near Kambula, Chelmsford requested reinforcements be sent from Britain..." (77)
Agreed and trimmed as you recommend
  • "and 300 of them formed" --> "300 of whom formed"
Done
  • "and the homesteads" what homesteads?
I've added "eZulaneni" here, they are described in the previous section.
  • "The Zulus broke their line" makes it sound to me like the Zulus broke the British line, perhaps "the Zulus broke formation"?
Good point, done
  • "noted in his journal that he was told that Marshall had fainted from excitement when Frith was shot" that seems like a few too many layers of hearsay for us to be recording
I've trimmed this down to "was told that Marshall had fainted..."
  • "After the Ulundi" perhaps "After Ulundi" or "After the battle at Ulundi"
Yes, I went with "after Ulundi".
  • "resident administrator" links to "resident minister", are these synonymous?
I've amended the link to point to the Resident_minister#Residents_in_Africa section which describes the occupants of the post.
  • Perhaps move the last paragraph ("Laband notes that the tactics...") up to follow after the first paragraph analyzing Zulu tactics? I think it makes sense to analyze each side separately, then have the overall impact of the skirmish to the war at the very end
Done

Overall, a very strong article. It is most strong in its sections focusing on the battle itself and the analysis. I do think that truncation of the background is necessary to keep the article focused. Please drop me a ping when you've responded to the points above, and thank you for your work! Fritzmann (message me) 12:07, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review and other improvements to the article Fritzmann, I have made the changes noted above. I agree about the background section and will look to trim this down shortly. Expansion of the background section to provide more context was a request I received at A-class review and I suspect I have gone too far the other way! - Dumelow (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a go a trimming the Background section to two paragraphs. Let me know what you think - Dumelow (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That looks much more appropriate and reads very well to me. Happy to support on prose and content! Fritzmann (message me) 03:35, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unser Mund sei voll Lachens, BWV 110

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a church cantata by J. S. Bach for Christmas Day, first performed on 25 December 1725. (I repeat the nomination for those new to it.) It would be great to have the article in best shape for the anniversary, ideally good enough for TFA that day. The last cantatas to become FA were Gott der Herr ist Sonn und Schild, BWV 79 and Easter Oratorio, this year. Bach composed several cantatas for this high holiday, including Jauchzet, frohlocket! Auf, preiset die Tage, BWV 248 I, the first part of his Christmas Oratorio. This one is unique, please find out why. Laughter is in the title, it comes from Psalm 126, which deals with captivity (remember: for Christmas), and Bach set the laughter to music. - The article received a GA review by Yash! in 2015. - Let's improve it.

In the first FAC, the article found support by several users, but four questions remained open when it was closed. I brought them to a peer review. I added more content on more sources: more detail in prose about recordings and their reviews, and about the sequence of cantatas for the 1725 Christmas season. I also tried to rephrase passages that could be misunderstood. Please check, or check again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
Nikkimaria and all: I replaced that image, unrelated to the cantata, by a page from the autograph score, and added one of the pastor and one of a natural trumpet, for more illustration of the period. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The pastor is missing a US tag and a complete source, trumpet has a dead source link and is missing evidence of permission. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jim

[edit]

I supported last time around, and having reviewed the changes since, I'm happy to do so again Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:10, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

[edit]
Lead
  • You could add the "Use British English" template.
    done --GA
  • Link "Leipzig" and "choral"?
    Leipzig is linked (the first time), I can't find choral but linked chorale. --GA
  • “When Bach wrote the music he was” → “When Bach wrote the music, he was”
    done --GA
  • Everyone might not be aware that "25 December" is Christmas Day. I think this suggestion was one which came up in a previous FAC for one of your articles.
    I feel no need as Christmas seems to be well-known and celebrated beyond Christianity. I hope that the few unaware inspite of advertisement may be able to find out ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
History
  • You could consider clarifying that Reformation Day is on 31 October.
    done --GA
  • “several day” → “several days”
    done --GA
  • “the training and education of boys singing” → “the training and education of the boys singing”.
    done --GA
  • “at the post” → “in the post”
    done --GA
  • “the different cantata was performed” → “a different cantata was performed”.
    done --GA
  • “a third performance there … is possible” → “was possible”.
    I don't think that it carries the same meaning. Should we rephrase. It is possible (but we don't know) that ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc (talk) 10:41, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Structure and scoring
  • “The outer movements, opening chorus and closing chorale” →

“The outer movements, the opening chorus and the closing chorale”

To be continued. MSincccc (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Movements
  • “consecretation” → “consecration”
  • “whic he” → “which he”
  • ref Netherlands Bach Society|2025 has been duplicated in the sentence According to Jos van Veldhoven, the conductor of the Netherlands Bach Society, the score is one of few where Bach marked ripieno himself, whic he may have used without marking it more often.
  • movemen's → movement’s

MSincccc (talk) 08:56, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your sharp eyes, all fixed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:10, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Recordings
  • Fritz Werner and the Heinrich-Schütz-Chor Heilbronn 1961 recording was as part of a series of more than 50 of Bach's works.
    • This avoids the slightly awkward “as part of …”.
    "as" dropped (which looks like a leftover from an earlier phrasing) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:58, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line
  • Well, nothing much here. The article's already high quality (as most of yours are). Hence, support.
MSincccc (talk) 14:19, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support by DWB

[edit]

I supported last time and am happy to support again but I think that this, "warm and intimate sound", should probably be attributed.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and I tried, please check. Her name is not on the individual page for that cantata, but here. I wonder if that should appear in the article and if yes, how? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you've already addressed it Gerda, good luck. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Octave

[edit]

Unfortunately, I think I must oppose this nomination for the time being under criteria 1a and 1b. I see grammatical errors in the prose unbecoming of a professional standard, as well as a worrying lack of context that renders some sentences incomprehensible without independent research. I have appended a non-exhaustive list of concerns up to the end of the History section; this is not to say I do not see similar issues in later sections. I am willing to reconsider, but I think that, at the very least, a thorough copyedit is needed before promotion. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 18:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • He used an earlier text published in 1711 by Georg Christian Lehms, which has no pairs of recitative and arias, as common in Baroque opera and contemporary Bach cantatas, but features in an older style three biblical quotations alternating with arias: verses from Psalm 126, a verse from the Book of Jeremiah about God's greatness, and the angels' song from the Nativity according to the Gospel of Luke. This sentence is rather long and gets a bit muddled in the middle. In particular, I'm not sure the colon construction works here as it seems to apply to the arias, not the biblical quotations. Could I suggest a split and some reshuffling, maybe "He used an earlier text published in 1711 by Georg Christian Lehms, which has no pairs of recitative and arias, as common in Baroque opera and contemporary Bach cantatas. Using an older style, it instead features three biblical quotations – verses from Psalm 126, a verse from the Book of Jeremiah about God's greatness, and the angels' song from the Nativity according to the Gospel of Luke – alternating with arias."?
    yes, taken --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bach composed a work in seven movements: surely this should be "composed the work"?
    Less "surely" for someone coming from German, - taken. More after rehearsal. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • which make the laughter audible which is mentioned in the psalm verse: correct grammar and provide attribution for what is actually a quote, maybe "which makes the laughter mentioned in the psalm verse "quite graphically audible" according to Alfred Dürr."?
    After rehearsal, but I need to pack and get ready for a trip. I may have internet on the train - or not. Brief replies only for the following, and I'll be back. --GA
    More than just Dürr noticed this, so why would we attribute it only to him? Or, if we attribute only to him, how can we clarify that he wasn't alone in seeing that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what you mean, apologies. Looking with a pair of fresh eyes, I see the whole sentence is quite long and has some repetition. How about a grammatical fix then, while also hitting three birds with one stone? I'm thinking something like "Bach derived the first chorus, which is in the style of a French overture, from the first movement of his fourth Orchestral Suite. He embedded vocal parts in its fast middle section, illustrating the laughter mentioned in the psalm verse."? UTO
    taken --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • of his Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a: "from his Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a"
    Please make such small corrections, - much easier than explaining. --GA
    done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are we shortening Trinity Sunday to Trinity? We shouldn't force readers to follow links to understand the article.
    Because in German it's simply "Trinitatis", - sorry about that, it still happens. In the list of Bach cantatas, it's skipped for brevity: a "Second Sunday after Trinity Sunday" becomes simply "Trinity 2". --GA
    Only now do I realise that we probably speak about the wording for "the xth Sunday after Trinity", which you'll find in all Bach cantata articles, because it avoids the repetition of "Sunday", and it's clear from the context that we mean Sundays and not the Trinity. Compare BWV 1, BWV 56, and every other one I know. There are up to 27 Sundays after Trinity, so it's frequent. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My main worry is that the average reader nowadays will likely have to follow the link to understand exactly what "Trinity" is. I don't think it's clear from the context that we're talking about a Sunday, as not all readers will be familiar with the liturgical calendar. Would a phrase like "a week after Trinity Sunday" work? This offers a compromise by providing accessibility for a layperson while avoiding repetition. UTO
    "a week" doesn't work, but I'll think of a different compromise and explain further. Heard a great concert (see my talk) - will do that after sleep. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I made it a link to the occasion rather than the feast's article. Bach was - for the 27 years in Leipzig - driven by the liturgical year, writing specifically meaningful cantatas for the first Sunday after Trinity in 1723, 1724 and 1726. just "a week" would be to weak. We can't teach about the many feasts of the the year in every cantatas, but connect to a work's occasion within the year's article. What do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • When Bach worked in Leipzig, Christmas, as also Easter and Pentecost,: simpler is often better, like "Christmas, Easter and Pentecost". The comma after "Pentecost" is also not needed, and a "with" is needed before "each day". With all these changes: "When Bach worked in Leipzig, Christmas, Easter and Pentecost were celebrated for three days, with each day requiring festive music for church services."
    taken, will change when I have more time (as for the other points here). --GA
    changed now - I thought before that, being under a header "Christmas", there should be some emphasis on "Christmas", but I agree that it's probably not needed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link vespers
    will do --GA
    now done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps make it clear that we are talking about Leipzig University
    will try (but thought it's redundant, and today's is highly different from the one back then) --GA
    I added Leipzig to University, and also added the Bach scholar who was the only one (other than for the audible laughter) who observed this possibility. It seems so unlikely - given the stress on the feast days even without it - that we could also eliminate the idea altogether. This answers the question below as well, I hope. Back to the university: the location of all this is Leipzig, and readers seem not likely to think of any different town for a performance in mid-morning and another in late morning. But as you wish. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • a third performance there of the cantata for the first day in the late morning is possible: what does "is possible" mean in this context?
    I don't know how else I could say that - we don't know, - the relation suggests that it may have been wanted, and the timing would not have been impossible. --GA
    replied in the context above, and rephrased as outlined, and open to be deleted altogether. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comma after In 1723
    That would be a US comma. --GA
    I added it anyway, for emphasis, as in the next paragraph. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • and setting a text of free poetry without any biblical text or chorale: again, what does this refer to?
    too complex for now --GA
    The typical Church cantata (Bach) contains both Bible quotations and at least one chorale stanza. For his first Christmas on the new post, and after having composed new works for almost all occasions of the church year (which wasn't in his contract but his own ambition), he not only wrote nothing new, but took a very old cantata without the usual features. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what you mean now. In that case, I think a construction like this might bring more clarity: "a work dating back possibly to 1713 that sets a text of free poetry without any biblical text or chorale."? UTO
    taken --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The librettist was librarian and court poet in Darmstadt: the link should only cover Darmstadt, and should refer to the city, not the state
    I will check for which area his ruler was responsible. --GA
    Looking closer: the link of where he was employed goes to Landgraviate of Hesse-Darmstadt, a rather small entity of some disconnected patches of land, with a residence in the town of Darmstadt. What we need to know is that he was a court poet (not a theologian, not a school teacher, not a poet), and the "where" actually doesn't matter much, - it's rather interesting though that he wasn't from Leipzig, like the other librettists with whom Bach has been connected, and with whom he collaborated on a personal basis. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Got you. I think it makes more sense to give the full name of the State then, to avoid confusion like my own. What do you think about "The librettist was librarian and court poet to the Landgraviate of Hesse-Darmstadt."? UTO
    taken --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do we sometimes use single quotes for translations of German titles, and sometimes none at all?
    We did "none at all" consistently until a reviewer wanted the single quotes. I could do all. Would it change the meaning? --GA
    I added the single quotes to the other translations, - hope that helps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • some of those already while he worked for the Weimar court: I'm not sure what this means?
    How would you say it? Bach set some texts by Lehms in Weimar, much earlier, and would set some later, such as for three more within the same Christmas period. He didn't discover Lehms in 1725, but knew and used his work much earlier. --GA
  • If we are using slash notation, I believe it should be "1725/1726"
    I am sure that for opera we say "2025/26 season", and I don't see what would be different here. --GA
    MOS:DATERANGE seems to use a yyyy/yyyy format. UTO
  • have a more unified texts: "have more unified texts"
    yes, thank you, will change --GA
    done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we introduce the list of cantatas more fluidly?
    I don't know if I could, knowing my limits. --GA
    I tried by getting the five entries closer to "The five cantatas", splitting the explanation into before and after the list. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prescribed readings for Christmas Day were from the Epistle of Titus, "God's mercy appeared" (Titus 2:11–14) or from the Book of Isaiah, "Unto us a child is born" (Isaiah 9:2–7), and from the Gospel of Luke, the Nativity, annunciation to the shepherds and the angels' song (Luke 2:1–14).: do we need to say the books and gospels when we give a reference?
    This is a standard for all Bach cantatas articles. Compare BWV 1. Some readers will notice immediately that Gospel of Luke is the one with the Nativity story. The template for Bible quotes renders the chapter name again, but I could probably pipe it to just the verses to avoid a repetition of "Luke". --GA
    My main reason for asking is that it would avoid having to reorder the list for grammatical reasons. I think the root problem could be sorted with some shuffling, what do you think about "The prescribed readings for Christmas Day were "God's mercy appeared" (Titus 2:11–14) from the Epistle of Titus or "Unto us a child is born" (Isaiah 9:2–7) from the Book of Isaiah, and the Nativity, annunciation to the shepherds, and the angels' song from the Gospel of Luke (Luke 2:1–14)."? UTO
    The idea is to first provide the book and then the verses, - to first give the verses seems strange, and not consistent with around 200 articles that seem to have been understood. --
  • began this text ... beginning: clunky repetition
    I will look, but now need to pack. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I split the sentences, rephased and quoted the full Bible text. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm on the train, there is a connection, but too slow to edit. Patience please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    replied now, please check, User:UpTheOctave! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for you replies, Gerda. I'll check through these and start work on the later sections soon. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 17:34, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Replies above. Will go on later tonight. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 18:14, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the promising replies. Travel - I will answer later, hopefully today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Hoop

[edit]
Nominator(s): TheBritinator (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the third and longest-serving prime minister of Liechtenstein, Josef Hoop. This is the first article that I contributed to significantly on Wikipedia in 2022 and have continued to improve and expand upon since, successfully bringing it to GA in July 2024. While it is not my first nomination of this article, there were concerns about the copyright status of the images in the US (URRA). I have now addressed this, including with meeting with the archives directly about the use of images in their collection, and I now believe those issues are solved. TheBritinator (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria @Toadspike May you please follow up with your respective reviews? Thanks. TheBritinator (talk) 02:06, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Both the lead image and the signature are repeated in the sidebar - would suggest removing the signature from the sidebar, and if possible replacing the image to avoid the immediate repetition
Is the status of the images in the US even relevant anymore? The archives stipulation should override that (even though it's PD in Liechtenstein). TheBritinator (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does Liechtenstein archival law apply worldwide? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am not sure what exactly you mean. The Liechtenstein National Archives, with some exceptions, owns the rights to the works in its collection. They are responsible for managing them and releasing them upon request, so in this case the Historisches Lexikon and book. I have done this myself several times to get things on commons, and this is pretty much the same. If the organization who holds the rights to the images say its okay to use them, then why does it matter about their status in the US? TheBritinator (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In order for an image to be on Commons, it has to be free/PD in both the country of origin (Liechtenstein) and the US. The Liechtenstein National Archives owns the rights to works in its collection per the Liechtenstein archival law - please correct me if I've misinterpreted that. Assuming that's correct, then we need to know whether that also makes them free/PD in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As long as there isn't any outgoing conditions (personal details, for example), they are allowed to be used for any purpose. So yes, they should be free in the US. TheBritinator (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does the condition of the protection period mentioned in the template apply based on creation or publication date? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Directly from the law (article 9):
1) Public archival material is subject to a protection period of 30 years, unless otherwise provided by law or it was already publicly accessible before its transfer.
2) The protection period begins on January 1st following the day the documents were last substantively processed. If the documents are compiled in a file, the protection period for the entire file begins on the date of the most recent entry. TheBritinator (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So when is that protection period believed to have expired for these? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:11, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toadspike (source review)

[edit]

I'll continue where I left off last time. Please ping me if I forget, been busy as of late. Toadspike [Talk] 15:34, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have adjusted the first one to better reflect what it actually says. TheBritinator (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the last review, I noted that I couldn't find the location in source 8 with the quote "one of the finest men to serve within Liechtenstein, for his long-term service in the country". Could you please let me know on which page it is? I suggested adding page numbers last time, which I still think would be a good idea. Everything else from last time looks to be done.
  • I think I'll spotcheck the citations to 1997b next, then check source formatting.
  • I've adjusted the volume formatting from "1st" and "2nd" to "1" and "2".

1997b:

  • 23, 26, 27, 34 good.
  • I find the wording of this sentence awkward, especially as the next sentence also begins with "As such". I suggest splitting it in two and describing the agreement more concisely: "However, Liechtenstein's desire to work with Germany independently contradicted the agreement with Switzerland to represent Liechtenstein where it did not hold representation in its own right, as such Switzerland expressed its desire for no independent meeting to be held between Liechtenstein and Germany to solve the issue." May I suggest something like: "As Switzerland represented Liechtenstein's interests abroad, it opposed Liechtenstein's desire to discuss the issue with Germany independently and requested a meeting between representatives from all three countries."

Comment from MisawaSakura

[edit]

Interesting article about something we see little coverage of. But I don't get why a pro-Nazi organization would burn their own flags. MisawaSakura (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding, it was to provoke a reaction from Nazi Germany, thus putting pressure on the government. TheBritinator (talk) 15:18, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Æthelred the Unready

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the latest in my nominations of later Anglo-Saxon kings, and the largest in terms of sources, with three academic biographies published in the twenty-first century. Æthelred the Unready is not a highly regarded king, as his nickname implies, and his reign ended in catastrophe with the country on the verge of Danish conquest. but historians have partly rehabilitated his reputation over the past fifty years. Pinging Tim riley. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

I gave this an exhaustive going-over at peer review and am happy to support its promotion to FA: after a final rereading it seems to me to meet all the criteria. Tim riley talk 22:41, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

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

The images are relevant to the article and placed in appropriate locations. They all have captions. Except for Aethelred charter 1003.jpg, all have alt-text, so I suggest adding an alt-text to this one as well. Some caption nitpicks:

  • The obverse has the Lamb of God and the reverse the Holy Spirit shown as a dove add a period since it is a full sentence
  • Drawing of the tombs of Kings Sæbbi of Essex and Æthelred in Old St Paul's Cathedral by Wenceslaus Hollar. remove the period since it is not a full sentence

Phlsph7 (talk) 11:02, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for ping.

The images have captions and alt-texts.

  • tenth-century Boswoth Psalter, I think it should be "Bosworth"
  • The images of the Ramsey Psalter and the Bosworth Psaler are each placed right at the end of a section, which is an odd position. It would suggest moving them somewhere to the start or middle of a section, ideally next to the text that is relevant to them. Not sure if their size should be reduced since they are quite big.
  • It's not clear to me and may not be clear to the reader why the Psychomachia image is included. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:52, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FM

[edit]
  • "and the Danish Viking conquest of England" Link it at first mention in the article body?
There is an article called Cnut's invasion of England. Danish conquest of England would be a better name in my opinion, but that's another subject. – Swa cwæð Ælfgar (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If that fits the bill, it should be definitely linked, and yeah, perhaps have its title changed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Viking itself at first mention outside the outro. It looks like maybe the background section was at some point moved down, hence many links are not at first mention?
  • Link Devon at first mention?
  • Irish Sea should also be linked at first mention instead of further down as it is now.
  • Link Anglo-Saxon?
  • Any images of relevant places or objects to show?
  • Norman conquest, Old English, and Battle of Assandun are duplinked. This script can help highlight duplinks:[3]
  • "the contemporary ASC A as well as ASC C" is the second one also contemporary? The "as well as" makes it ambiguous. If not, I'd state it explicitly that it isn't, or just say "and".
  • "which led to his being called "Æthelred the Unready"" but through this, did the general perception/knowledge of what his name meant also change/was lost to time, or was there an awareness of the original meaning? "Unready" has quite a different meaning...
  • "The medievalist Cyril Hart" you introduce this researcher by occupation, but not many others mentioned. Any reason for the inconsistency?
  • "but most historians think that his mother Æthelflæd was a wife of Edgar.[36] She was the first of Edgar's three consorts" any article to link to that goes into this sort of polygamy? Does not seem like a very Christian practice.
It seemed ambiguous when I read it, as there is no indication one replaced the other. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does not seem ambiguous to me, but how about replacing "She was the first of Edgar's three consorts, and by the second one, Wulfthryth, he had a daughter Edith" with "She was the first of Edgar's three consorts, and and she was followed by Wulfthryth, by whom he had a daughter Edith"? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, any elaboration is good. FunkMonk (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was only thirty-two when died" missing "he", I assume?
  • "The nobility seized the opportunity given by Edgar's removal" earlier you say he died unexpectedly, but this makes it seem like it was an action?
  • "Æthelred's father, King Edgar, was only thirty-two when died in July 975, and his death was probably unexpected." Do we have any more details about the circumstances? Coupled with the sentence above, seems confusing.
  • " and the attacks on the monasteries were halted" What attacks?
  • "and she probably brought up other sons before her death" clarify if grandsons are meant here?
  • "In Charter S 876 of 993 (see right)" I'm pretty sure such self-references are discouraged as, depending on what app Wikipedia is viewed from, it's not necessarily certain that an image is even placed where you state it is. For example, some web viewers show images always centred.
  • "and Norse (Norwegian) Vikings" Why is "Norse" even needed here? Norwegian Vikings are Norse by default.
  • "Æthelred in a mid-thirteenth century life of Edward the Confessor" what does "a" refer to? A copy? An edition?
  • This is how it is described in the file description. Unfortunately, the source is the British Library and the link is down due to the cyber attack. Other sources describe it as a genealogical roll. As I wrote above, I have consulted Johnbod on the images. I will add more in a few days when I receive a book he cited and it will probably be best to delete this image, particularly as the lead one is similar. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MS Royal 14 B VI is indeed a genealogical roll, not a life of Edward the Confessor. It has been reuploaded since the cyberattack and can be found here (Æthelred's portrait appears at the top of the fifth picture). – Swa cwæð Ælfgar (talk) 12:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think images that show different interpretations are interesting for the reader, so one image isn’t taken for granted as the "true" appearance, and since it simply breaks up the text for the reader, making it easier on the eyes to parse and read. FunkMonk (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where Æthelred died on 23 April 1016" I assume from his sickness, but are there any more details? Seems a bit like an unceremonious aside considering its the subject of the article.
  • "Drawing of the tombs of Kings Sæbbi" give an approximate date in caption?
  • "At the beginning of the eleventh century, a number of monks" Anglo-Saxon? Where they sent by the king? Could be good to specify, even if it may seem obvious, as this paragraph currently seems kind of detached from the surrounding text.
  • "The tomb (portrayed right)" same self-reference location issue as earlier.
  • "after Eadric and his men fled the field"
  • I'm surprised to see such lengthy quotes at the end of the article, as that's usually discouraged, but since no one else seems to have objected, I guess it's ok.
  • The Reputation section could perhaps benefit from having specific years listed in-text for the various publications mentioned/quoted, a bit hard to follow the chronology now.
  • Link Normandy in intro?

UC

[edit]

Will pop in here, probably after FM finishes above. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:40, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Æthelred came to the throne after the assassination of his older half-brother, King Edward the Martyr, a crime which deeply shocked people. : we're in the primest of real estate here in the first paragraph of the lead -- is this the best use of it? I can't imagine that the murder of a king would attract any other reaction, and we don't seem to go anywhere with how this shock was important for Aethelred's life.
  • How about expanding and rearranging for clarity as: "The epithet "Unready" is a pun on Æthelred's name in Old English, Æthel (noble) and ræd (counsel). He came to the throne after the assassination of his older half-brother, King Edward the Martyr, and as the beneificiary of a crime which deeply shocked people, Æthelred may have started his reign in a weak position." Dudley Miles (talk) 13:41, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's much better, and closer to what we have in the body. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor raids in the 980s escalated to large scale attacks from the 990s, and as the English were rarely victorious in battle the king and his advisers resorted to giving the Vikings tribute to leave England, payments which are often (incorrectly) called Danegeld: a long and slightly rambling sentence. Suggest a full stop after "990s".
  • With my linguist hat on: I'm not sure something can be "incorrectly" called Danegeld if that's what most people call it. However, that name might be anachronistic, which isn't quite the same thing.
  • they were hampered by suspicion between them, Eadric's treachery and Æthelred's poor health: as the list items are reasonably complex, this would be a good candidate for an oxford comma, or else "by Aethelred's...".
  • Cnut returned soon afterwards and Edmund and Æthelred tried to unite against him, but they were hampered by suspicion between them, Eadric's treachery and Æthelred's poor health. He died in April 1016 and Edmund carried on the war until he died in December 1016 and Cnut became king of all England.. I think this bolded "He" needs to be "Aethelred" for clarity.
  • Failure in war continued, and in 1002 he ordered the St Brice's Day massacre of Danes, which is seen by historians as a sign of his increasing paranoia, which culminated in the rise of Eadric Streona in about 1009.; another good candidate for a split: a relative clause on top of a relative clause is always going to be a bit unwieldy.
  • in the later Middle Ages he acquired his epithet "the Unready". this slightly contradicts the body (at least by omission): there, we said that he had "Unraed" by the early C13th, and "Unready" was an eggcorn from that.

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

[edit]
  • But skaldic poetry has been less influential in forming Æthelred's reputation. – Awkward to start a sentence with "But", suggest "However, "
  • a Viking king, but he recovered it when they expelled King Erik Bloodaxe – Is Bloodaxe this Viking king, or is it a different one?
  • Replaced with "accepted a Viking king, but he recovered it when they expelled the last one, Erik Bloodaxe". OK?
  • Eadwig had appointed Ælfhere to be ealdorman of Mercia, and he –who is "he", Eadwig or Ælfhere?
  • Ealdormen were the second rank of the lay aristocracy below the king. – This explanation comes a bit late, after the term already appeared in the text, and after which the reader would already have clicked on the wikilink to learn what it is.
  • opposition to Edward, a youth given to frequent outbursts of rage, was probably opposed – the opposition was opposed?
  • These pledges could only have been imposed on Æthelred because his rule was seen as having been both as an unjust ruler and a military failure – a very convoluted sentence, is it possible to word it more simply? Is there one "as" too much?
  • Still not convinced about that sentence. It basically says that "his rule" is "an unjust ruler", which makes no sense. Can't we put it more plainly, with less words, maybe because he was seen as an unjust ruler who failed militarily or something? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eadric Streona raised an army in the south and Edmund in the north, but Eadric then defected with forty ships and Wessex submitted to Cnut. In December 1015 Edmund raised an army – So Eadric raised two armies? What happened to the first one?
  • I read it like this: Eadric raised an army in the south and Edmund raised one in the north. Then, Eadric defected. Then, in December 1015, Edmund raised an army. If there is indeed only one army that Edmund raised, I think that the wording is misleading. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see what you mean now. I was confused by you saying originally that it was Eadric who raised two armies. Changed to "In December 1015 Edmund raised a new army" to clarify that the old one had dispersed. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • taken by meetings of ecclesiastical and lay magnates at meetings of the witan – the meetings took place during the meetings? That's a bit confusing; I don't think we lose much by removing the first "meetings"?
  • He and his advisers applied the system of frequent recoinages more effectively than it had been in the past, helping to create a system – By applying a system, he helped to create a system?
  • was produced much greater quantities – "in" missing?
  • It is possible that John of Worcester and Ailred of Rievaulx were referring to different wives – Shouldn't this come before the list of children, where the wives are discussed?
  • I think that discussing the two possible wives before a heading 'Known children of Æthelred and Ælfgifu' would be even more confusing. The two wives theory is a bit niche so how about making it a note rather than main text? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka

[edit]
  • ...which are all based on a version... I assume this is a lost version.
  • This is ambiguous. The original 'common stock' is a lost version as surviving versions differ from it substantially. The source does not spell out the status of the original source of Æthelred's reign, but I assume that the surviving texts are copies of uncertain reliabilty. I think it is safer to stick to the existing wording. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Danish Viking conquest... Do we need both adjectives?
  • Historians writing after the Norman Conquest... I would clarify that these are medieval historians.
  • But skaldic poetry has been less influential in forming Æthelred's reputation. Why? (Reliability or lack of knowledge?)
  • ...King Alfred the Great (871–899)... Æthelstan (reigned 924–939)... Be consequent.
  • ...he enriched Benedictine monasteries at the expense of lay landowners and secular (non-monastic) religious institutions I am not sure I understand it: did he expropriat laymen's property to grant it to the Benedictines or he preferred the Benedictines when granting lands?
  • The term is not recorded ... by Anglo-Norman historians, and is first recorded in the early thirteenth century. Contradiction? Do we know who was the first to use it or in which document was it first used?
  • The medievalist Cyril Hart...The historian Barbara Yorke... Scholars mentioned in previous sections are not introduced.
  • Scholars are not individually described when they are listed among historians, as when I wrote "Since the 1970s historians have become increasingly sceptical of the reliability of this account" and go on to list historians. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aetheling" is only italicised on its first mention.
  • ...his namesake... I would delete it.
  • After a generation of peace,... I would delete it.
  • ...one of the most famous... Is this text verified by the cited sources? Is it necessary?
  • ...the sacred apostle... Consider linking it to Andrew the Apostle to make the text clearer.
  • I feel that including the wikilink might be helpful, as there are no apostles mentioned in this section, while a church dedicated to Andrew the Apostle was mentioned earlier. Borsoka (talk) 10:30, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ..., and Æthelstan, who died two years before his father, left six pounds to "St Edward and Shaftesbury" in his will I would delete this text.
  • ... Æthelred's first wife... Who was she?
  • The order was probably popular, and there is evidence that it was carried out in Oxford. In 1004 Æthelred renewed the charter of the Oxford church of St Frideswide, which had been burnt down when Danes in the town had taken refuge in it during the massacre. I would consolidate and shorten the two sentences. Borsoka (talk) 12:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ..., after an absence of nearly ten years, most of which he had spent fighting, and finally defeating, Olaf Tryggvason's challenge to his position in Norway I would delete it as it is partly repetition, partly out of scope.
  • ...carried through changes at court described by historians as a "palace revolution" Some details? I assume the changes are detailed in the following sentences, but the reference to "court" makes me hesitant.
  • They were probably paid by the institution of a new tax called the heregeld (army tax), which was the basis of the post-Conquest tax called Danegeld. Note "d" contains the same information.
  • ...by her children Why not "their"?
  • It offered the stoutest resistance of any area to the Vikings and became his main base during the later stages of the war. Repetition of info mentioned previously.
  • ...based on dies... I do not understand it. A link?
  • The standard of purity of the silver was high... Some quantitive statement?

Ang Totoong Narcolist

[edit]
Nominator(s): 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 04:39, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a whistleblower YouTube channel which garnered major controversy nationwide. This article received a good article review by Grnrchst which was passed on August 14, 2025. Subsequently, I substantially expanded the article and opened a peer review for this article, which received no comments. Due to this, I asked HJ Mitchell for advice on how to improve the article for FAC as it endured a copyedit by Mox Eden. Just before nomination, I have attempted to fix the prose the best I can, and I believe the article is ready for FAC. All comments will be appreciated. Regards, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 04:39, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Suggest adding alt text
@Nikkimaria: I believe I have fixed everything. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 07:49, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alt texts generally shouldn't duplicate caption - they're meant to supplement it for those who can't see the image. And publications should be italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:53, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Fixed the latter, but do I write "see caption" if the captions already discuss what the picture shows? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 00:04, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See MOS:ALTINCAPTION, but only if there's nothing else to say. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: changed alt to "refer to caption", since the caption already describes the picture well. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 00:37, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case

[edit]

I will print this out, do any copyediting necessary, and then come back with my thoughts in a couple of days or so. Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing this! I admit, the prose is kind of bad, and I won't be surprised if you oppose this. I will try my best to fix the issues you give. Regards, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 23:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I think after reading and making whatever copyedits might be necessary. I don't think it's fair to oppose or fail a candidate for recognition purely on the basis of easily fixable copy errors. Daniel Case (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: It has nearly been a week. Any updates? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 13:19, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Thanksgiving got in the way. I am reading through it, though. Daniel Case (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 (GBA video game)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about...a handheld recreation of a console game. That's a pretty good boilerplate explanation! In my opinion, one of the more interesting recreations like it, and one of my first Game Boy Advance games (in fact, my first experience with the Tony Hawk's Pro Skater series). I have worked on a number of good articles and contributed to multiple featured article candidates, but I haven't actually created an FAC in more than a decade.

Courtesy ping for @David Fuchs:, the GA reviewer. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cukie Gherkin: Have you considered posting a message on WP:VG's talk page / Discord (#quality-articles, #wpvg) to get more reviews? QPQ could also help you get reviewers. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I asked another editor who indicated they would look into it as a QPQ, though I didn't think to ask in #wpvg. I'll do that Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vacant0

[edit]

Will review this, as promised. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggest wikilinking portable to porting as readers may not be familiar with the term.
  • "Quality assurance testers criticized the level design" why?
  • "It releasing..." shouldn't it be "It released..."?
  • "Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 uses an isometric camera perspective." → "A screenshot of Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2, showcasing the isometric camera perspective."
  • "and more" redundant
  • "The player is tasked with getting as high a score as they can in a limited span of time by doing skateboarding tricks." does not seem to be mentioned in the gameplay section
  • PlayStation currently redirects to the brand–It would make more sense to wikilink the console instead. This wikilink also appears twice in the same section, so I'd recommend removing the latter one in the "This version of Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2..." sentence.
  • Super Mario Advance redirects to a disambiguation page.
  • Reception reads well. I was not able to find any errors in that section.

I've addressed all of these except "The player is tasked with getting as high a score as they can in a limited span of time by doing skateboarding tricks". Will try to make that work in the gameplay section to convey that better. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the article another read and was not able to spot any issues. Support on prose and comprehensibility. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TGSC

[edit]

Feedback will be offered shortly. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 18:33, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I have some suggestions for certain words and phrases that may be helpful to link, especially for readers unfamiliar with video game terminology. What's necessary to link is entirely up to you; these are merely suggestions.

Found these to be valid links, implemented - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
[edit]
  • The player is tasked with getting as high a score as they can in a limited span of time by doing skateboarding tricks. Words like "do", "did", "does", "doing", etc. generally feel a bit empty and replaceable to me. How about performing skateboarding tricks?
  • Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 has been generally well received, identified as one of the best Game Boy Advance games by multiple critics. I would slightly prefer Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 has been generally well received, identified by multiple critics as one of the best Game Boy Advance games.
  • While some critics had difficulty with its perspective and controls, it has been identified as an exemplar of how to do a handheld conversion of a console game. See my first comment for this section; I would prefer something along the lines of how to port a console game to a handheld system.

Fixed all, how does it look now? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay
[edit]
  • It also features built-in cheats that allow the player to unlock multiple features, including disabling blood, selecting any level to play, and Spider-Man as a playable character. For parallelism, how about and unlocking Spider-Man as a playable character?

I tried "playing as Spider-Man". Is this acceptable? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Development and release
[edit]
  • Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 is already linked in the gameplay section.
  • The soundtrack was composed by Manfred Linzer, who was who was asked to create a pastiche of songs featured in the Tony Hawk games. → The soundtrack was composed by Manfred Linzer, who was asked to create a pastiche of songs featured in the Tony Hawk games.
  • Conte stated that in retrospect, their the levels failed to replicate the PlayStation version's attention to detail and rewarding skillful play. → Conte stated that in retrospect, their levels failed to replicate the PlayStation version's attention to detail and rewarding skillful play. or Conte stated that in retrospect, the levels failed to replicate the PlayStation version's attention to detail and rewarding skillful play.
  • It later released in Japan on December 14, 2001 as SK8: Tony Hawk no Pro Skater 2. → It later released in Japan on December 14, 2001, as SK8: Tony Hawk no Pro Skater 2, per MOS:DATECOMMA.
  • It ranked seventh overall in the following month and 14th in August, losing its second place Game Boy Advance ranking to Mario Kart: Super Circuit. I would prefer It ranked seventh overall in the following month and fourteenth in August, losing its second place Game Boy Advance ranking to Mario Kart: Super Circuit, per MOS:NUMNOTES.

Implemented suggested changes - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reception
[edit]
  • Gamekult writer Usul was disappointed by the lack of a multiplayer mode, feeling that this compounded with the lack of levels and limitations compared to the console versions made it an inferior experience despite still enjoying it. Reads a bit awkwardly for me. I recommend separating "compounded with the lack of levels and limitations compared to the console versions" with commas, em dashes, or en dashes.

Sorry, can you elaborate what you mean? Where specifically do you mean the breaks to go in this part? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example: Gamekult writer Usul was disappointed by the lack of a multiplayer mode, feeling that this—compounded with the lack of levels and limitations compared to the console versions—made it an inferior experience despite still enjoying it. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see now that all of my feedback has been addressed; thank you for being so open to my link suggestions. I'm happy to throw in my support now. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pokelego999

[edit]

Hi hi! I promised I'd take a look at this at some point. Gonna be busy for the next few days but I'll take a look when I get a free moment. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guyinblack25

[edit]

The article is in good shape. Still reviewing but below are some things that popped out to me for it to become Featured level.

  1. Images
    • The current image captions seem like missed opportunities to connect the visual information with the prose via good hooks. A signature aspect of this game and its series is the ability to do tricks. Both images depict tricks, something discussed in the article.
    • Not necessary but consider added some free images
  2. Gameplay
    • the seven levels - since all seven levels are described, switch to "comprised" as include implies that there are more than what is mentioned. "Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 features seven levels, comprising five based on console versions of the game, one from the first game, and a secret stage.
      • Also, I recommend wikilinking "first game" to Tony Hawk's Pro Skater to avoid the extra comma break in the middle of the serial list. This would make the sentence more readable.
  3. Development and release
    • A better writer can check my grammar, but I believe this comma should be removed because the second part after "but" is a dependent clause: "...a sprite-based game, but was changed after staff determined..."
    • Calling Alex Rybakov a programmer in the sentence saying he programmed seems redundant; plus I feel that using "program" in such quick succession reads awkwardly. Maybe try: "..., which Alex Rybakov programmed in a month and a half."
    • I'd wikilink cartidge to either Game Boy Game Pak or ROM cartridge.
    • The sentence about Shin'en Multimedia seem a little wordy. Maybe try: "Shin'en Multimedia implemented the music using its GAX sound engine."
    • Switch to active voice for the sentence about the quality assurance team. Maybe try: "When the game was sent to Activision's quality assurance department, the team devoted exclusively to the Tony Hawk series provided harsh feedback."
    • The sentence about development concluding is awkward, specifically the part about the cartridge space. Maybe try: "Development was concluded in less than a year in April 2001. The approved release version took a large majority of the cartridge's memory space ."
    • The last paragraph about the release has four of the five sentences start with "It". Change the terminology to reduce repetitiveness and make it flow a bit more: "The game" or maybe just "Pro Skater 2".
  4. Reception
    • Many of the attributions use [Publication] writer [Name] (e.g., Eurogamer writer Oli Welsh, Electronic Gaming Monthly writer Crispin Boyer, etc.). I recommend adding a little variance to reduce repetitiveness. Maybe try "Reviewing for [Publication], [Name] wrote..." or "[Name] of [Publication] stated...".
    • A BAFTA award is a big deal. Include this in the Awards section of Template:Video game reviews.

I'll post again after I finish reviewing the article. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 talk 05:08, 6 December 2025 (UTC))[reply]

KPop Demon Hunters

[edit]
Nominator(s): ErnestKrause (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2025 (UTC), Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the well-received popular culture and media arts film ‘’KPop Demon Hunters’’. It is a co-nomination with Jamie Eilat and Sariel Xilo. The editors have been maintaining the article over the last six months and 3-4 further subheadings were added over the last two months in contemplation of bringing the article up to FAC requirements. Two weeks ago the article was submitted for successful GA promotion with Noleander doing a full review. The article appears to be ready for further evaluation, and the editors are looking forward to seeing comments and critiques from other editors with an interest in contemporary popular culture and media arts films. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

[edit]
  • I did the GA review on this a couple of weeks ago. Caveat: I am not familiar with the WP film project conventions on film articles, so I cannot comment on consistency with those practices.
  • Many of the images are missing "alt" text, which is very helpful to visually impaired users of Wikipedia, who use apps that can read "alt" text and convey it to the user. The alt text should describe the visual content of the image, not restate the caption.
  • Is there a more appropriate word? On character design, Kang highlighted wanting to ..." I understand that English has only a few words for said/stated/commented/noted/remarked/etc. "Highlighted" doesnt sound too encyclopedic, but it might be perfect if the speaker was contrasting the following fact with other more plain facts.
  • Repetition? ... were modeled after K-pop girl groups like Itzy, Blackpink, and Twice. Kang commented that 2NE1 and Blackpink provided an early reference. Should Blackpink be mentioned twice there? Should those two sentences be combined?
  • Combined the sentences so that it now reads "The three members of Huntrix were modeled after K-pop girl groups like Itzy, Blackpink, Twice, and 2NE1", eliminating the doubled mention of Blackpink. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ran the copyvio tool on this, and it reported one warning; but examining the details showed it to be a false positive: article is quoting a movie reviewer.
  • I put two random paragraphs into an AI detector, and it said 99% confident human-written for both. Also, the article - as I read it - does not exhibit any AI "feel" to me.
  • Quote needed? ... the weapons Huntrix wields are rooted in "traditional Korean objects" Is it better to simply paraphrase those three words in the encyclopedia's voice? Quotes should be used for statements that are especially controversial, unique, poetic, peculiar, remarkable, or otherwise would should not be in the encyclopedia's voice.
  • Clarify? Appelhans further noted this usage of costuming as part of an effort to have the workings of K-pop be reflected within the film ... This sentence seems pretty interesting ... can more detail be added to explain "the workings of K-pop" to the reader? Does that mean the superficial aspect of costuming the Kpop singers in the real world? Or that Kpop singer's lives are so tightly regulated that they feel oppressed and unable to show their true character?
  • Why this individual? The film was animated by Sony Pictures Imageworks in both its Vancouver and Montreal facilities with Josh Beveridge as the head of character animation. Naming key figures is good, but why name the head of character animation, but not the head of overall animation?
  • The choreography for the animated dance sequences in ... is the word "animated" necessary?
  • More deets? These theatrical releases were ... not able to qualify the film for the BAFTA awards. If sources are available: are there any more details on why Netflix failed to meet the BAFTA in-theater screening requirements? A simple mistake by Netflix bureaucrats, or something more nefarious?
  • Punctuation inside quotes: —the members of Huntrix "wear 'norigae' pendants integrated into modern K-pop fashion, while Saja Boys perform in black hanbok and traditional horsehair hats for their song 'Your Idol,' evoking the image of the jeoseung saja". The inner quotes around 'Your Idol' are fine, but I believe MOS:CONFORM does not require quotes around norigae; instead, WP guidelines suggest that the WP editor can override minor stylistic/appearance choices of the author and use the WP convention instead. For the word norigae, the WP convention is to use italics rather than quotes, even tho the author being quoted used quotes.
  • Clarify ... highlighted shifting the characters' faces ... Can you clarify that "shifting" is not used here to mean (a) moving sideways; or (b) changing facial expression; but rather (c) changing the art style in which the faces are drawn?
  • Group appearing on music charts The BBC highlighted that Huntrix and the Saja Boys—with "Golden" and "Your Idol" respectively—topped the US Spotify chart with Huntrix hitting "number two ... I realize that fictional music groups (from movies) have recorded hits before, but are there any details of how that is treated in the music industry? E.g. there is no group named Saja Boys, so how can they appear in the music charts?
    • I'm not entirely sure why but fictional groups can appear in the charts (which has happened before) & seem to be treated as real groups. The soundtrack article might have some comparisons to older fictional groups which we can use as a starting point. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ✓ done - pulled two sources from the soundtrack article & added a new one. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add paragraph on "Reception in Korea"? I realize that the article already has a whole section KPop_Demon_Hunters#Fandom ... but are there sources that talk about how Korea(ns) felt about the tremendous success? Of course, Korea cinema has had Oldboy, Snowpiercer, and Parasites ... but are there any sources describing Korean views on having such a huge international hit? Any sources that characterize the film as an example of a successful Korean publication/cinema/international art/culture? Or an example of continued success of Korea's film industry?
    Ah, yes ... sorry about that. My eyes missed that section entirely. Noleander (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose: overall, the prose seems professional, and nearly at FA quality (see minor issues listed above).
  • MOS: overall, article conforms to MOS guidelines (see a few comments above).
  • I have not scrutinized the images or sources. But see note on "alt" text above.
  • Ping me when it is ready for a second pass. Noleander (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Noleander: I have a bit of time to get started on this today but just wanted to see if you'd like responses after each of your bullet points above or listed down here? Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I prefer responses posted above, interleaved with the comments. That keeps each discussion co-located and distinct. Noleander (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sariel Xilo - The article still has quite a few quotes (usually from critics) where the quoted material is plain facts, and perhaps could be paraphrased in the Enclclopedia's voice. e.g. the bold quotes here: Matthew Belloni of Puck wrote that while "Sony Pictures did make one of the biggest movie sensations of the summer—a project from its animation division that cost more than $100 million to produce and will likely become a billion-dollar franchise"—the majority of the film's "value has and will accrue to Netflix" since "Sony offloaded it rather than develop it solo and release it in theaters". Belloni wrote that "this is arguably Netflix's first animated megahit after many, many attempts" and for "film chief Dan Lin, this is a studio chairman's dream: a relatively cheap superhit with a clear runway for exploitation across many businesses", while Sony's film chief Tom Rothman "gotta be kicking himself over this one". I'm not an expert in film articles, but my impression is that quotations are only used when the critic says something rather peculiar or poetic or bizarre; and that plain facts or judgements can be written in the encyclopedia's voice. Suggest looking at other film articles (or WP MOS guidelines on quotations) and if they indicate that some quotes should be re-written in encyclopedia's voice (note just the Belloni quote above, but others like it). An example of a quote I would leave as a quote is "gotta be kicking himself over this one" Noleander (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll have time later this week to do a pass through on this but @ErnestKrause and Jamie Eilat might have time before me. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I plan on trying to do a pass on more of these short quotations in the reception section. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've started with some trims in that section of the number of quotations. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Noleander; I've gone ahead and reduced the size of the Reception section with several quote deletions as trims. Are there any further edits to the prose which the editors can offer to make in order to try to get your Support for this article? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @ErnestKrause - It is almost there :-) I'm looking at the "Critical Response" section, and it looks like there are about 40 quotes in that section, which feels like a lot. Scanning thru them, at least half are simple statements of fact, that (I believe) the WP MOS wants to see paraphrased in the encyclopedia's voice. I think quotations should be reserved for very unusual statements from critics that use words or phrases that are very unique/special/idiomatic/non-encyclopedic. Noleander (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Noleander: to give an update regarding this, the number of quotations in the Reception section has been brought down significantly in the time since your last comment. It's as of now been reduced from 49 all the way down to just 22, and multiple of the quotes that remain have also been trimmed & partially paraphrased. A substantial majority of the section's text is now written in wikivoice. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, that's good. But I still see plenty of unneeded quotations of plain facts in various parts of the article here's another example ... cultural elements or Koreans themselves" and that media "does not need to emulate American or any other pop culture to be successful." Michelle Yee Hee Lee of The Washington Post wrote that within South Korea, the film had taken the country "by storm," even embraced by businesses and governments, due to its "broad appeal" as an animated film, with products, art classes based around themes from the film, and "renewed interest" in the country's "history and heritage." Kao highlighted that not only does the film's "visual choices" reflect Korean culture but also the plot "honors Korean heritage and identity", noting "many of the songwriters ... I'm not planning on going through the entire article to find these, can you go through the entire article? It's not very efficient for me to identify the issue in one paragraph and you remedy 1 paragraph then I find a 2nd paragraph you remedy that paragraph and we continue one paragraph at a time. It's more efficient if you go through the entire article and let me know when the entire article is satisfactory Noleander (talk) 06:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll be sure to continue going through the article to try further combing out these types of quotes. (The Production section had this issue dealt with during the Good Article review, so it seems the remainder of the issue is now concentrated within the Impact & Sequel sections) — Jamie Eilat (talk) 06:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size

Nikkimaria (talk) 05:44, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria; That image discussion appears to have been closed on Nov 25 as a "keep". Does it look ok? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gommeh

[edit]

I'll mostly be checking on the prose here.

Images
[edit]
  • Glad to see you aren't using fixed px size for the images. I agree with Sariel that the image currently tagged for deletion should not be an issue because the consensus is leaning towards keeping it. However I'm not quite sure why the Tiger and Magpie image needs a US tag? (I'm not well-read on the relevant policies)
Plot
[edit]
Production
[edit]
  • Voice cast section looks good.
  • "Maggie Kang first pitched..." should be changed to "Director Maggie Kang..."
  • I know that Aron Warner is wikilinked, but I still think you should put in a one- or two-word description of who Warner is and why he is related to the film here.
  • "It was conceived by Kang who wanted to make a film utilizing..." sounds clunky, especially the first part. Would suggest rewording and changing "utilizing" to "about" instead.
  • "The character of Mira was inspired by Korean model Ahn So Yeon (professionally known as Ellis Ahn)" should be changed to "The character of Mira was inspired by Korean model Ellis Ahn." No reason to state the model's legal name here IMO.
  • "Baek Byung-yeul of The Korea Times stated the styling..." would this sentence work a little better in the reception section?
    • I think it works well as the introduction of the paragraph that is describing the visual look of the characters in the development section. The back-half of the paragraph is details from Kang & Appelhans on character design & visual storytelling. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Casting section looks good as is.
  • "with Josh Beveridge as animation director" - who is he?
    • Sony Pictures Imageworks lists him as "Head of Character Animation At Sony Pictures Imageworks". It seems a little clunky to include this, and Wikipedia does not have a page for him or his full name Joshua Beveridge. Do we need this formal title in the article? ErnestKrause (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The words taekwondo and chibi should not be capitalized.
  • I'd be cautious around using "highlighted", as that might not be seen as neutral.
  • "In an interview, Jo stated that she was inspired by "Golden" itself when developing the choreography for the song–" the dash at the end should be replaced with something else.
Music
[edit]
  • Looks good as is.
Themes
[edit]
  • I'm not too sure whether this section is entirely necessary. I think some of the information contained here could be used in the reception section though.
Do the sources use the word "theme" themselves? If so, it is probably a valid section. Many WP articles on films or books or poems have a Theme section. But the sources must say they are discussing themes; an editor cannot string together some source statements and declare them to be themes ... that would have WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues. Noleander (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of the sources used in the section do appear to be specifically referring to the 'theme' and 'message' of the film, yes. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reception, impact and future
[edit]
  • The reception section is appropriately long considering the film's cultural impact, and there are tons of reliable sources cited there. Writing is professional in quality and seems neutral. My only suggestion is to add introductory sentence(s) to summarize the key points made.
  • Maybe add an introductory sentence to the impact section that summarizes the key points?
  • The Korean Wave is appropriately wikilinked, but I still think a very brief explanation of what the Korean Wave is would be appropriate here. Additionally, the term should be capitalized in the header.
  • Otherwise, they all look good.

Gommeh 📖   🎮 15:10, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gommeh; I've gone ahead and reduced the size of the Reception section with several quote deletions as trims. Are there any further edits to the prose which the editors can offer to make in order to try to get your Support for this article? ErnestKrause (talk) 13:46, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. That's a support for me. Well done. Gommeh 📖   🎮 15:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pokelego999

[edit]

Hi hi, review time.

-"The film was animated by Sony Pictures Imageworks and was stylistically influenced by concert lighting, editorial photography, and music videos as well as anime and Korean dramas." I feel this should be split into two sentences, i.e: "...and was influenced by concert lighting, editorial photography, and music videos; it was also inspired by anime and Korean dramas." or something similar.

-Several vocal performances are uncited.

-I'd cut down on quotes in reception if possible since there a lot of them and I feel a lot of this can be easily paraphrased. The reception also feels incredibly long and isn't really saying a lot; I'd argue this could do with some shuffling to incorporate common criticisms or praises together in order to make the reception more concise. For instance, commentary on the music could be kept together, or commentary on characters could be. As of right now it's just listing review after review without much variation, and with only one quote cited per each section it's hard for me as a casual reader to tell what the film's major talking points were.

  • Jamie and Sariel are looking at this over the holiday week-end. More to come. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now re-arranged the reception section to try to be more organized how you have said: placing shared subjects of praise & criticism together rather than just listing review-after-review. I'm also actively working on trims & paraphrases to the quotations in that section, on top of the trimming & paraphrasing that ErnestKrause has worked on for it. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

-Additionally, I recall WP:FILM had some stipulations about using Collider a while back and advised against its use, though I'm not super familiar with specifics.

-Overall the article looks really good and is fantastically well-written; my main gripes are with Reception. Let me know if I can clarify any of my points more clearly in that regard. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:30, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've gone ahead and reduced the size of the Reception section with several quote deletions; does it look better. Are there any further edits which the editors can offer to make in order to try to get your Support for this article? ErnestKrause (talk) 13:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @ErnestKrause I'd address the Collider source you use in Reception, since even if it can be used it doesn't seem like a particularly high quality source I'd expect in an FA. I'd similarly drop the Screen Rant ref at 61, as well as the CBR ref at 10 since both are low quality, especially the latter since CBR is often considered outright unreliable for usage last I checked.
    In terms of reception, I'm still seeing a hefty quotes problem: Nearly every review is followed by a quote. There's hardly any original prose there, and original prose should be prioritized, even if it is just paraphrasing what the reviewers say in your own words. I'd only incorporate quotes if that truly is the only way the reviewer's thoughts could be encapsulated, but those instances should be few and far between, not every other line. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Pokelego999: I've removed the Collider cite and the other lower quality cite sources. Also, I've given a heavy trimming to the many quotations which you commented upon. Any better? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel as though the quotes are still excessive. Of 9 sources used for reception, nearly all of them have quotes attached, with some more than once. Quotes should only be used sparingly and I'm not seeing a really significant reduction in their overall commonality in this reception section. I quite like the way the IndieWire summary is done and I feel that should be applied if possible; not to say quotes can't be used of course, but not to the sheer extent they're being used right now. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done another pass of the "Reception" section, and have been able to further eliminate 9 quotes via paraphrasing and trimming, and have shortened the lengths of an additional 2. The current version of the "Reception" section is now overwhelmingly written in non-quote prose (about 90% by word count) rather than in quotes. I hope that "Reception" is at this point satisfactory, because I'm not sure that there is much room available for further quote reduction within that section. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 17:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    At a glance it looks good. One minor note, Wikipedia:PINKVILLA is considered generally unreliable, but given the one source you use from it in the article is just regurgitating a Cosmopolitan Korea interview (Which tmk is reliable) I'd just swap it with the source interview. That being said, this is a small thing, so just address this and my Support is yours. Fantastic job overall, apologies about being so insistent on the quotes lmao. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:28, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done — Jamie Eilat (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts from Lililolol

[edit]

Hi, here are some of my thoughts, feel free to disagree. Overall, the article looks great in my opinion, but I want to mention something about the sources in the lead, specifically: "American animated musical urban fantasy film [8][9][10]". You should add the information from these sources somewhere in the article and use them to expand certain sections. Here are my suggestions:

  • The film had a theatrical release; it is also available on Netflix, which is digital. So, under the "Box Office" subsection, add another subsection, maybe call it "Digital Performance" or something similar. Use Source 8: ChosunBiz because it provides information about how the film performed on Netflix in its second week. You can use that information to explain its digital success, and if more sources exist, you can add even more details. Also, some streaming-related information currently placed in the "Impact" section does not really belong there. For example: "On July 29, 2025, Netflix announced that KPop Demon Hunters had become the platform's ‘most watched original animated film of all time.’ … On August 26, the company said the film had been watched 236 million times…" These details, in my opinion, are not "impact" they look more like typical box office performance, just in digital form.
    This is a good point, and Wikipedia as a whole is not very consistent about how to treat films originating from streaming platforms, as opposed to old school Hollywood studio releases for theaters. For the present time, the emphasis here at the KPop article has been to deal with the two related issues by covering each one using its own RS to support it. On the one hand the streaming release along with the Oscar nominations screenings as required by the Oscar bylaws for qualification; and on the other hand to deal with the theater opening for the sing-along releases across the country separately. All of the RS seem to already be in the article for these items if you look for them. Does the coverage look reasonable from this standpoint. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Production section
[edit]
  • Good! But why not add an image of the director right after the "Development" header?
  • Some of the information currently in that section may fit better in a dedicated subsection. You could create a subsection titled "Character Design and Writing", or divide it into two separate subsections, one focusing on character design and another on writing and influences. The whole development subsection is long, so dividing it makes it easier to read, no?
    Character design section started; it looks like a good approach at present. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe divide the following paragraph from the Development section into that new subsection, starting from "The name Huntrix portmanteaus…" and ending with "in a way that also integrated with the film’s plot." You can also expand the discussion of how the film was influenced by X and Y, using the sources cited in the lead. For example, ChosunBiz: You can integrate this material to talk about the inspiration and genre. You may also use this ([1]) as well. Plus, in the ChosunBiz article, there is a paragraph mentioning concerns about "blending Korean and Japanese culture… " From source 10 (CBR), include the commentary: "KPop Demon Hunters takes a great deal of obvious inspiration from anime… seen in everything from the visual style to the resemblance between HUNTR/X and traditional magical girls."
    I'm following your paragraph breakdown. Basically the last 2 paragraphs of Development get their own subheading. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • From source 8, you can also add: "Korean details such as Namsan Tower, Korean cuisine, sign swords, and traditional tiger motifs… K-pop stage expressions were depicted very realistically." This material would fit well in the Animation subsection.
  • For source 10: The Express Tribune is somewhat redundant.
Themes section
[edit]
  • Themes section: shouldn't more be added?
  • The different FAC reviewers above have been goin one way and the other, as to more theme references or less theme references. There are also some academic journals that have started publishing articles which were not included here due to size issues. I'll look more closely at some of the ones you have listed below. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe add the theme of self-love from Gayety.
  • The main article for this regarding self-love, self-esteem, and self-acceptance so far has been the Mirza article in the 2nd paragraph of Themes; I could expand it if you like, though Mirza seems to be the recognized authority on this subject. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plus, what about the Korea JoongAng Daily article? ([2]) I think it has some interesting points (Maybe add it to the writing subsection?). Some can also be added to the Korean Wave subsection.
  • This theme of hybridity is also very significant; at the present this is represented in the section quote of the academic authority from Dartmouth college of the academic Kim Seong-kon in the 3rd paragraph. Is the second source needed for him. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this source were used, then I think it might be better suited for the Korean Wave subsection, since the idea of hybridity being discussed is in relation to creative production rather than narrative theme. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • And there is the Northwest Asian Weekly article ([3]) on female empowerment and stereotypes about Asian men? I feel it may be given undue weight, but it may be useful.
  • Academics Putu Marvitta Adira Prastiwi and Nissa Puspitaning Adni are included in paragraph 3 as authorities on female empowerment; let me know if the article needs more. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • As ErnestKrause mentioned above, themes surrounding female empowerment are well covered by the Prastiwi & Adni academic journal article source. It also doesn't seem like this particular opinion article would be very balanced of a source to use (so, ditto regarding concerns of undue weight). — Jamie Eilat (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Impact section
[edit]
  • Impact section: maybe add Suk-Young Kim's thoughts and others from this SBS News article ([4]). And ([5]) this Time article says "The animated film about a K-pop girl group that moonlights as a team of demon hunters blends comedy, action, music, and a dash of supernatural horror for a film" It can also be used in the new subsection about writing and influences. Lililolol (Talk) 4 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Both of the articles are nice to read and are RS. The article's Impact section and its Reception section have just gone through a significant trimming based on comments from the other reviewers. If you would like some specific insights added into the article from either SBS or the Time article then let me know. Some of the other FAC reviewers above have asked for the extensive coverage of even well-known RS to be trimmed, and they were trimmed or condensed. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
[edit]

@Lililolol: I hope you don't mind that I split up your feedback with some headings. I think it will be easier to respond to individual points this way. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Refs
[edit]
  1. ^ "Maggie Kang credits Bong Joon-ho as biggest influence behind 'KPop Demon Hunters' - The Korea Times". www.koreatimes.co.kr. 2025-09-22. Retrieved 2025-11-28.
  2. ^ "The power of hybridity behind 'KPop Demon Hunters' and 'King of Kings'". Korea JoongAng Daily. 2025-07-18. Retrieved 2025-11-28.
  3. ^ Admin (2025-07-22). "K-Pop Demon Hunters: Once again, Asian men get thrown under the bus". Northwest Asian Weekly. Retrieved 2025-11-28.
  4. ^ "The hit Korean show that's infiltrated schools and stereos around Australia". SBS News. 2025-08-24. Retrieved 2025-11-28.
  5. ^ Burt, Kayti. "How KPop Demon Hunters Conquered the World". TIME. Archived from the original on 2025-08-28. Retrieved 2025-11-28.

The Lion Sleeps Tonight

[edit]
Nominator(s): DannyRogers800 (talk) 12:31, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Following a successful GAN process thanks to Chiswick Chap, I feel this article is ready for featured article status. "The Lion Sleeps Tonight" has a troubled history and is not as shallow as the Tokens' lyrics suggest. Interestingly, lions neither sleep at night nor live in the jungle. DannyRogers800 (talk) 12:31, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First thing: While their first two records struggled, the third would bear fruit -- what first two records? I also feel "bear fruit" is too informal in tone. More to come. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:50, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten that sentence; see if it's to your liking. Look forward to hearing from you. DannyRogers800 (talk) 11:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that reads better now. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:38, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Avoid sandwiching text between images/templates
  • File:Solomon-linda.jpg: why specifically is this believed to be PD?
  • The article contains a large number of non-free media files - the more that are included, the stronger the rationale required for each. At the moment several files are claimed to be serving the same purpose and have essentially identical FURs
  • File:Mbube_(Singer_GE_829).jpg: what is the author's date of death?
  • File:Timon_and_Pumbaa_singing_"The_Lion_Sleeps_Tonight"_in_the_Lion_King.png: what is the benefit of this image?
Thank you @Nikkimaria for the rigorous review, as always. I'll go through these one by one.
1. The only image with a fixed size is the thumbnail, which I have enlargened as the original file is too small. Is there any way I can fix this without altering the px size?
2. I have aligned all media files to the right, so this should be fixed.
3. The original file, "Solomon Linda's Original Evening Birds (1941)" has an unknown author and is not copyrighted. Therefore, as it was published between 1930 and 1977, it should be free use.
4. I have altered many of the fair use rationales. Some are very similar precisely because they serve the same purpose: they are images of song sleeves included in infoboxes.
5. The image has been replaced.
6. The section on the song's legal issues is very wordy and I couldn't find any free helpful illustrations of the matter at hand. I figured including a frame of the scene of the Lion King film, which sparked much of the legal turmoil, would be suitable.
7. I have added some detail to the fair use rationale. DannyRogers800 (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(1) You can scale image size relative to user preferences using |upright= - see MOS:UPRIGHT. (3) How do you know it's not copyrighted? (4) The specific FUR that's being copied references the main infobox at the top of the article - these aren't that. (6) Particularly since this image is non-free, we'd be looking for a reason why the image contributes to reader understanding, not just that it illustrates the section. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1) Should be resolved: I've used the |upright template, which works fine.
4) I've altered them.
6) That image has been removed.
3) Left this for last because it's quite complicated. I don't think the image is copyrighted because all the sources I could find that use it don't indicate that it's copyrighted. A 2023 Guardian article does not credit the image to anyone, whereas it does so with another image. Similarly, a 2019 Rolling Stone article marks the image as public domain, and credits another one next to it. In his 1991 book African Stars (p. 166), Erlmann does not credit the image to anyone, while he does so with some other images (see, e.g., p. 144). However, in his later book Nightsong, he writes in the image caption, "Courtesy Veit Erlmann." He certainly did not compose the image, as he wasn't born yet, but he could have purchased the rights to it, although this is extremely unlikely. All in all, there are no probable signs of this image being owned by anyone or ever having been owned by anyone. DannyRogers800 (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cartoon network freak

[edit]

Placeholder. Will get to this next week. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • General note on ALT text: it should include actual descriptions of the covers and what is shown on them. To be consistent, also include alt texts to the other pictures in the article
  • in 1939; it was first published as "Mbube".[a] It made its way -> better flow: "in 1939. it was first published as "Mbube[a] and made its way"
  • Lead could use a brief info on which country the song was published in before it was available in the US
  • it became the subject of publicised -> it became the subject of a publicised
  • The lead seems a little unfocused to me. I would first mention everything about Linda's version (when it was composed, released and its background). Then I would mention its first crossover to the US via the Weavers. Then everything about the Tokens version. And then finally the bit about the lawsuit and the song's legacy.
  • Also, I would first refer to the song as "Mbube" in the lead. Then once we reach the bit where we discuss its crossover in the US, I would mention its new title, "The Lion Sleeps Tonight", and how this would become the predominant title used to refer to the song
  • "immortal pop epiphany" -> paraphrase this. Otherwise we would need a ref and it's generally not recommended to use refs in the lead.
  • Lead image > include (left) and (right) after Linda and the Tokens, respectively
  • quickly grew a following -> I would specify that it was a local following
  • they achieved their breakthrough -> I wouldn't use this wording. I would rather only say that that was the session that yielded "Mbube"
  • The melody contains three chords -> this is technically incorect since a melody cannot contain chords. Do you mean that the whole song is built over three chords?
  • The journalist Sharon LaFraniere -> "The" is superfluous
  • In the South African author Rian Malan's -> same as above
  • out into a brief howl, "a haunting skein of fifteen notes." -> a quote is always to be attributed to someone
  • This would later become the melodic basis for "The Lion Sleeps Tonight" -> briefly mention what "The Lion Sleeps Tonight" is (since every new concept needs to be introduced both in the lead and the article's body)
  • Audio samples are always to be used to show a specific detail of the song. Include in the sample description what the sample is supposed to show us about the song (same with the other audio sample in this article)
  • he chorus "wembube"[e] is repeated throughout -> "... throughout the song"
  • and the music historian Veit Erlmann goes as far as to imply that the main body "displays only a few features which can be said to be rooted in traditional performance practice." -> with music historian Veit Erlmann implying that the track's structure "displays..."
  • In fact, Linda had followed the American Virginia Jubilee Singers during his childhood.[31] -> Does the publication connect this fact to "Mbube" borrowing from Western influences?
  • argues the journalist Lior Phillips -> same as above. I will not mention cases like this one anymore, but I would recommend fixing the rest in the article.
  • stemming from "elements of Zulu traditional music … rehearsed and performed after hours in migrant workers' hostels" -> quote without attribution. As with the above point, please check yourself for other examples like this throughout the article.
  • "monumental" is a somewhat unencyclopedic word; maybe replace with "widespread"
  • a court would, by 2006, deem this deal unfair -> which court? where was it?
  • remaining prominent till their dying days -> an unecyclopedic wording. Do you mean until they disbanded?
  • Isicathamiya doesn't need to be in italics throughout the article. Genres are generally not italicized
  • What I notice is that the article is not quite following the traditional stucture of articles about songs and this needs some adjustment. First of all, the infobox of "Mbube" needs to be included in the lead (since this is the original recording). Remove the double picture of Linda and the Tokens from the lead and transfer each individual picture to the fitting place in the article.
  • The sections of this article need somewhat of a restructure (take my own "Dragostea din tei" as an example). What I would suggest is:
Lead
[edit]
Background and release
[edit]
  • all info about Linda's background (and life during and after the song's release and success), the song's recording and its release
Composition
[edit]
  • Everything about how critics described the song's composition
Reception
[edit]
  • Commercial success of the song
  • Critical commentary on the song
The Weavers version
[edit]
  • all info about their version
  • insert an infobox on their version here (including a cover artwork if it received a physical release)
Charts
[edit]
  • The chart table of their version
The Tokens version
[edit]
  • everything about their version is coming here plus the infobox on their version
Charts
[edit]
  • The chart table of their version
[edit]
  • Everything on other versions of the song released, as well as on these songs' usage in media
  • Each other cover that charted should receive its own subsection here
  • Also mention the song's usage in The Lion King, but spare the bit about legal conflicts for the following section
[edit]
  • Everything regarding the legal issues needs to go in here
Legacy
[edit]
  • Everything on the song's legacy should go in here

I have finished looking at this very interesting article. Sadly, I can't support its promotion to FA in this state. There are some bigger issues with its atypical structure compared to other articles about songs and with the way it is written, which comes across as a little unecyclopedic at times (I stopped commenting on wording after a certain point). However, please don't feel discouraged. I would get the article copy-edited and rewrite and restructure it in accordance to other music FAs, such as "S&M" or my own "Dragostea din tei". I'd be happy to comment on the article again once it gets a little more polished. Feel free to ask questions if you have any. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:53, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is a song with such an unconventional, complex history really comparable to the songs you link with a much more straight ahead history? Should be wiggle-room for structural differences accordingly either way. FunkMonk (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think yes. It still is a song with a huge legacy that received a conventional physical release and that inspired many covers. Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Cartoon network freak, thanks for your feedback. I have already begun reorganizing the article and rewriting some sections. More work needs to be done. However, for starters, do you think it's headed in the right direction? DannyRogers800 (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, totally. You've done a great job in adjusting the structure. Here are some other general fixes I think would be helpful:
  • The image captions don't necessarily need to be centered.
  • The articles included in "See also" should typically be relevant to the topic, however only [[4]], and they shouldn't things already widely discussed upon in the respective section. In "Background and release", I would remove "Solomon Linda§Life" and "Iscathamiya" since someone's life or a genre aren't things that are typically linked in "see also". The same goes for "The Weavers" and "The Tokens" in the sections about their covers, as well as for "A Lion's Trail" in "Reaction", "Copyright infringement" in "Early conflict", "The Lion King" in "The Lion King" and "Black Is King" in "Legacy".
  • The section "The Weavers' version" should be "The Weavers version", and the same goes for The Tokens
  • "Charts performance" should be just "Charts" and the Certifications should be their own subsection (fixed that throughout the article)
  • The certification tables also need to be adjusted (see "Dragostea din tei" as an example). I might help with this later if I find the time
  • The "Reaction" section doesn't fit in the section about the commercial use. I would rather rename the "Legal issues" section into "Controversies and legal issues" and include that bit there, after "Early conflict" into its separate subsection.
This is it for now. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:28, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyRogers800: I have updated the certification tables. For Karl Denver, The Hounds and R.E.M.'s covers of the song, I'd create an extra subsection called something like "Other" and insert a table like this one. Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was planning to do. As I've said, I have abandoned this FAC and will try again when the article is better organized. Thanks for your help. DannyRogers800 (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FM

[edit]
  • First batch of comments, will continue soon. FunkMonk (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your input, FunkMonk. Most issues should be resolved. Regarding the footnotes... they do seem to appear in alphabetical order, but some are duplicated, which causes the letter to remain unchanged. So, if footnote a (the first in the article) recurs after footnote c, it will still display as footnote a. As for your final point, we'll need secondary sources discussing the use of "Mbube" or "Lion" in films. Otherwise it would qualify as original research. That being said, I do agree that the use of "Mbube" in Coming to America is notable, but I haven't yet found a seconday source mentioning it. DannyRogers800 (talk) 22:03, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed the rest of the article. By the way, it is easier to follow what has been fixed and how if you reply under individual points and write "done" or similar. FunkMonk (talk) 01:44, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've carried out most of your proposed changes. However, in light of Cartoon network freak's suggestions, I think some work and reorganization best done outside FAC is required. Therefore, I would like to withdraw this article from FAC, for now. Thank you for your prose review. DannyRogers800 (talk) 07:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, just ping me when it's renominated! FunkMonk (talk) 08:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Thanks! DannyRogers800 (talk) 08:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a bunch of WP:duplinks which can be highlighted with this script:[5]
  • Link Solomon Linda and any other terms at first mention in the article body.
  • The footnotes strangely seem to be listed out of alphabetical order in the article, any reason for this? Otherwise it might be something to fix.
  • "a court would later deem this deal unfair" could we already here get the year for context?
  • '"before a Decca employee, Alan Lomax, salvaged them" perhaps worth noting Lomax was interested in ethnic music? Now it reads like he was any random employee, but this is actually what he's famous for.
  • "Gallo sold "Mbube" to The Richmond Organization" state the nationality of the company for context.
  • Perhaps mention a few of the films it was used in? I remember it from the beginning of Coming to America, for example...
  • "Miriam Makeba performed "Mbube" at President John F. Kennedy's birthday" give year?
  • "and produce many soundtrack CDs." Produced?
  • "had been sent made since the 1950s" something wrong here.
  • Link royalties at first mention in intro and article body.
  • Looks like the Karl Denver section is incomplete, as are some about The Hounds and R.E.M. versions? But that leads me to wonder on what basis some covers have been selected for elaboration and others not? Also, having maintenance tags like in the Karl Denver section is an instant fail criterion, so should be sorted out as quickly as possible.
  • "the rights to song reverted to" revert?
  • "covered in the 2019 Netflix film" should probably specify it's a documentary.
  • "More than thirteen movies sample it" and "had played a role in more than thirteen movies" repetition, could be consolidated.
  • "owner of his parent record company" WP:Easter egg links are discouraged, and it won't cost many extra letters to just spell out the company's name here.
  • "then long deceased" could we get the year? Won't cost extra letters.
  • It seems some of the reworking might have introduced some more unnecessary duplinks, including falsetto and doo-wop.

Mascarene teal

[edit]
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another Mascarene bird driven to extinction by human activities. This reuses some text from the 2021 FA Mauritius shelduck, as the two have many sources in common. Even less has been written about this species, and most of it is summarised here. FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Anas_theodori_bones.jpg: if the author is unknown, the image description should include details of what research was done to try to identify author... but the description already names authors?
Added details of research, the listed names were just the article's authors, which were rarely the draughtsmen. FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:LocationMascarene.svg: what is the source of the data underlying this map?
There isn't really any data other than the location of this island group itself, as it's not explicitly a species range map. What kind of source would you suggest? An atlas? FunkMonk (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:The_Farm_at_Foul_Bay.jpg: if this was published in 1995, that would mean it was published before 2003, so the tagging is incorrect
The tagging is the result of our last discussion when this image was used in Mauritius shelduck:[6] FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's because it's a plate in the appendix of the publication, here in the same PDF as the last article in the issue out of convenience. But it really belongs to another article earlier in the publication, clarified with this[7] edit. FunkMonk (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RIHG

[edit]

Some comments on a first readthrough below:

  • I find the IUCN ref in the infobox suboptimal, as the reference appears to be talking about just Mauritius when giving the 1696 extinction date, but no such elaboration is provided in the IB.
Yeah, that's our standard for taxobox conservation status entries, though, so not sure what else can be done than just mentioning the issue in the prose like now. FunkMonk (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel comfortable with that as I think the IB is actively misleading those readers appraising the article "at a glance", although I will defer to another reviewer if they think it is appropriate. - RIHG
Any suggestions for what to do are welcome. As far as I know, that parameter is specifically for IUCN statuses, so I can't really add another/an additional source. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jens Lallensack, I notice you raised the extinction comment in the GA review. Do you have any thoughts on whether anything should be changed, or is this okay for the purposes of FA? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 02:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jens Lallensack (fixing ping) Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 02:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would also be more comfortable if this would be changed. I do not think that the extinction date in the taxobox is IUCN-specific; according to the documentation (Template:Speciesbox#Extinct_species), the extinction date is an optional parameter, can be adjusted with text, and there is no connection to the IUCN. So you could either add both dates available, or at least add a footnote. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:20, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, assuming I can cite other sources than IUCN in that field, I tried with the less specific "extinct = by 1700 on Mauritius, by 1710 on Réunion" (cites Hume & Walters 2012). How is that? FunkMonk (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One contemporary account described it as gray." Earlier, you referenced descriptions of a small duck, appearing to intentionally imply it ambiguous whether this was the Mascarene teal. Here, you seem confident that it was.
The small duck is universally considered this species, the issue with the two species is just one source that uses two different names for ducks on Réunion (without mentioning size) specifically, so it wouldn't affect accounts mentioning the small duck only. FunkMonk (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you make it clearer in the first para of the lead that the small duck is universally considered the Mascarene teal? - RIHG
I added "which is thought to be this species". FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The British ornithologists Hywel Glyn Young" why is this plural>
Fixed to singular, there was another publication by Young and others from around the same time I think I had originally referred to. FunkMonk (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They suggested that though members of the same birds groups initially colonised both Mauritius and Réunion" what is being suggested? That they colonized? That they disappeared?
Both, they colonised, then disappeared due to the volcanic eruptions, and later the ancestors of the present species recolonised. Do you think this could be clearer? FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the volcanic eruption of Piton des Neiges between 300,000 and 180,000 years ago" The source is saying the volcano was active during this period, with several "explosive episodes" throughout.
Changed to plural "eruptions". FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thereafter the island would have been recolonised by flighted species" in the source "One may propose the hypothesis that the ancestral forms of these genera arrived on Reunion at a more ancient period and survived the holocaust" appears to contradict.
Your quote refers specifically to Mascarinus and Fregilupus, a parrot and a starling. The part about this duck says "The island was colonized again by forms from Africa or Madagascar, such as the ibis, Alopochen, falcon, and night heron, or by forms from Mauritius, such as Anas theodori and Fulica newtonii, and none of these forms had enough time to become flightless.". FunkMonk (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, makes sense. - RIHG
  • "Lastly, he identified a crow-like bird as a Mauritius bulbul." Why include this sentence?
Well, all the other birds he identified are listed, so would seem like an omission, as it's pretty conspicuous on the image which is shown after the text here. FunkMonk (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would you consider moving this to a footnote? The way it reads is a summary of the paper rather than specifically addressing the Mascarane teal. - RIHG
That bird specifically? Because the other birds are mentioned previously. I think for an article this short, relegating such context to footnotes is unnecessary. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course in the inverse, every word of off-topic material in a short article makes up a greater portion of the body. It may be able to be addressed by simple editing rather than putting it in a footnote, it just appears awkwardly tacked on to my eyes at the moment. - RIHG
I've shuffled it around so the bulbul isn't mentioned last, any better? FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. - RIHG
  • I am unsure of how things are typically done on these articles, but it strikes me as exceptionally precise to say the sternum of the duck was 27.7mm wide. Surely natural variation from duck to duck would render this inaccurate? The same goes for the other measurements described.
It refers to specific, few fossils, hence "Based on the known bones", but I've added a roundup parameter that might make some of the conversions seem less hyper specific. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The coracoid of the Mascarene teal is very similar to that of the Sunda teal." Confusingly, this follows a paragraph lead in which leads the reader to understand they will describing differences. The gloss of jargon over this and the next paragraph are useful, but break the flow. I'm not sure what the alternative is if any: omit jargon? Footnote? Labelled image accompanying text? I am honestly most inclined to a table best serving the reader since all the elements are being described with reference to the Sunda teal.
That's how the source phrases it, and generally what scientific descriptions do, mingle similarities with differences in a bone by bone description. In-text explanations in parenthesis are always recommended during technical FACs, to avoid "forcing the reader to chase links". For an article this short, where the subject is known from so little, relegating the crucial aspects to footnotes is missing the point, as the dry bone differences is really what defines the subject. It's basically the meat and potatoes of this kind of article. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reading this makes me sorry that you landed me as a first reviewer, although hopefully my perspective as someone outside the technical domain of this article provides some value. Footnotes are probably the worst option, although to be clear I was proposing a plain text description in the body and then the technical terms in footnotes. I would like to hear whether you think the flow is broken in this sequence from the repeated parentheses in close succession. - RIHG
Nah, getting "lay-reader" reviews is good, since it does give a more objective impression, and we are here to write for a general audience after all. The style used where parentheses occur in close succession is the result of so many terms being very technical in this case, but that's not necessarily unique for this article. Even when articles exist for a technical term, we are usually asked by reviewers to add an in-text gloss. But that is exactly to make the article easier to follow for lay-readers without having to look at multiple other articles, which is why I'm hesitant to "reinvent the wheel" here. For recent FAC examples with such glossing, see Heptamegacanthus and Alicella. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll defer to you on this. - RIHG
  • "indicating no reduction in flight capability" I naturally read this as a comparison with the Sunda teal.
Yeah, the Sunda teal is flighted, so similarity to that indicates the Mascarene species could also fly. Or is something unclear in the text? FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not as awkward on a second reading. - RIHG
  • In the lead you say it probably nested in tree holes, but in the body you say several times it possibly nested in tree holes.
Changed to possibly to be consistent, but the point is just that we don't know. Related ducks do that, but the sources about this duck don't say that explicitly, unfortunately, I guess because it's assumed specialist readers would know. FunkMonk (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many other endemic species..." the relevance of the digression into modern Mauritius and Réunion being difficult to conserve is confusing in the structure of the behaviour and ecology section. I believe it would fit better in extinction.
The extinction section is specifically about the extinction of this species, whereas the behaviour and ecology section takes a wider ecological look at its environment and coinhabitants. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll come back to this. - RIHG
I remain of the opinion that the better place to discuss the broader extinction context is in extinction rather than ecology. Are there other articles that make the same editorial decision you can link me to? - RIHG
All my other FAs about extinct Mascarene birds were promoted with this format without anyone ever bringing that up. Recent examples are Rodrigues night heron, Réunion swamphen, and Mauritius sheldgoose. No one else has written promoted articles about this fauna so far. FunkMonk (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the local subspecies of the echo parakeet," I think move this to the start of the list to avoid tripping the reader up on the possibility that this is a gloss of the Mascarene parrot.
I just removed it, as the species technically isn't extinct. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you only describe the extinct bird species it lived alongside in the ecology section? Are these all there were in the environment?
It's mainly to show how many species were lost to human activities and how diverse the fauna was. FunkMonk (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Expressing the first point seems tangential to a section on ecology. If you can find descriptions of other species I would support their inclusion. - RIHG
What do you mean by descriptions? Listing them is itself the point, to establish context, not necessarily to go in depth with each species. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes sorry, I mean listings rather than going in-depth. My point here being that the section on ecology would best serve the reader if it described the other species the Mascarene teal was living around, rather than just describing those that it was living around that have since gone extinct. - RIHG
Would it help if I added something like "Surviving species include x, y, and z"? FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. - RIHG
Added a line. FunkMonk (talk) 02:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cheke elaborated in 2013" I believe this should be Cheke & Hume elaborated in 2008. I also a bit unclear on why you say "predation by introduced animals, particularly cats" when the paper I am reading only references other species in terms of the Mascarene teal "surviving" them. This seems unclear as to the threat these other species posed.
That is Cheke, A. S. (2013), citation 16, which says "Primarily cats, hunting secondary; survived rats & pigs" on page 10. The paper is a direct response to Hume & Walters, which Cheke found needed some corrections. FunkMonk (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking at page 10, and "Anas theodori, Mauritius: Primarily cats, hunting secondary; survived rats and pigs" & "Anas theodori, Réunion: Cats + over-hunting; survived rats & pigs" are in a column labelled "Cause inferred by Cheke & Hume (2008) or (#) this paper". If it were appropriate to credit Cheke, A. S. (2013), it should be following a # like other entries in the table. - RIHG
The context and point of the Cheke 2013 paper is that it notes omissions about extinctions in the 2012 Hume/Walters book, which Cheke then "corrects" by listing what the 2008 book concluded. Hence it is the 2013 source that synthesises these subjects that should be cited, even if it uses the earlier source to back it up, and in the order of publication. The 2008 book could be added just for good measure behind the Cheke 2013 source, but that would be besides the point, as it is already cited chronologically before. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I agree but I am willing to concede that I may be missing something and will defer to you on this. - RIHG

Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 12:03, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Jim

[edit]

I linked sternum in the lead, and Cécile Mourer-Chauviré. In the lead, One contemporary account described it as gray should be One contemporary account described it as "gray", since you otherwise use BE spelling, and you are presumably quoting from great numbers of flamingoes and gray teal and geese. Otherwise, all looks good Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:25, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, didn't know she had an article, so I have a lot more of articles to link her in now! And fixed to "grey". FunkMonk (talk) 02:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I find these extinct bird articles to be very interesting, although I don't know that I'll have much to add with Jimfbleak already having taken a look here. Hog Farm Talk 03:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any comments are welcome! FunkMonk (talk) 02:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He also pointed out that two reports mention both sarcelles and canards in addition to geese on Réunion" - I think the meaning of the French(?) terms as relates to this needs to be glossed a little clearer. Are these two distinct terms for types of ducks?
Found a footnote in another source that translated it as "teals" and "wild ducks", added it here. FunkMonk (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • " to the extend that it can be detected in their skeletons." - should this be extent?
Yep, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 1681 ship's log of the British President mentioned gray teals on Mauritius, the only account that described its appearance" - I would drop the link to the President here. I was able to get ahold of the article via the Wikipedia Library (although the pagination is different) and the source doesn't seem to specify that this was a warship. It is also possible this is from the ship's log of a merchant vessel. In particular the Loe Bar Wreck is believed to have been a ship named President which journeyed between the British Isles and East India and which was in operation in the early 1680s
Oh, good catch, link removed... Will have to remove it from some related articles as well. FunkMonk (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is a reference to a "shelgoose" in the Behaviour and ecology an error for sheldgoose?
Yikes, yes, fixed! FunkMonk (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the Dutch governor of Mauritius Roelof Deodati declared them extinct in 1698. " - this appears to be drawn from "Like the ducks they were plentiful in 1681 but declined rapidly thereafter, Leguat (1708) listing them as rare in 1693, and Deodati stating categorically in 1698 that they were extinct (Barnwell 1948)" but that's in a paragraph about the sheldgoose and reads to me that the 1698 date is referring to the sheldgoose? The FA Mauritius sheldgoose is using the 1698 date to refer to the sheldgoose. The source here (Cheke) in the paragraph regarding the duck states "The last mention is by Governor Deodati in 1696 (Barnwell l948)."
Whoops, you are absolutely right, I was confused by a lot of repetition in the source (also solves an issue raised by others earlier), changed to "and the Dutch governor of Mauritius Roelof Deodati was the last to mention them in 1696", as well as related fixes. FunkMonk (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This overall is in quite good condition. Hog Farm Talk 03:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you found a lot of weird stuff everyone else overlooked! FunkMonk (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please verify that pp. 50-51 for Cheke 1987 is correct? I'm comparing to this where the p. 95 for the Cowles chapter matches. But pp. 50-51 is about the Réunion native fody and various passerines and swifts. In this copy, I'm seeing "Cheke added that since the number of men on these islands was low in the 1600s, it is unlikely they would have been responsible for the extinction of widespread animals, but those limited to certain habitats, like for example ducks and geese, may have been exterminated by hunting, though reduced breeding would probably be due to introduced animals." supported on p. 19 but everything else supported on pp. 34-35. The pagination at Mauritius sheldgoose matches what I would expect for this source based on the previously-noted findings. Hog Farm Talk 03:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, I'm at a loss for what went wrong there, but I've corrected it to the actual pages. The strange thing is I'd assume it was a mistake copied over from Mauritius sheldgoose, but that shows the correct pages already... FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"and the lower manubrial spine (a projection from the sternum) is narrow and elongated in the Sunda teal but more elongated in the Mascarene teal." from the article but in the source is "the carina projects further anteriorly and the ventral manubrial spine (spina externa of Newton and Gadow) is narrow and elongated in A. gibberifrons and is more elongated than in A. theodori." - so if I'm reading the source right, the ventral manubrial spine is more elongated in the Sunda teal than in A. theodori which is the opposite of what we have in the article?

Because of the issues noted above I checked all of the citations to Mourer-Chauvire 1999 except for the one where it is blended with the Hume & Walters book and noted only the above item. It's possible that I'm misreading the source regarding the ventral manubrial spine, but if not I'm a bit uncomfortable with the issue rate with the sources with this, the pagination item, and then the 1696 vs 1698 date issue. Hog Farm Talk 01:22, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are right with the manubrial spine issue, which I've changed to "is narrow and elongated in the Sunda teal, more elongated than in the Mascarene teal." I must have overlooked "than", but yeah, I am not happy with these errors, and I just noticed the earlier pagination error for the Cheke 1987 source was because I had accidentally added the relevant page range from Hume & Walters 2012 there when I added that source (I had replaced the 2017 edition of that book, as that's where its statements were first mentioned, to keep the chronological flow). As I see this article still needs a source review, I've called for a particularly detailed one to assure everyone:[8] Either way, many thanks for the close look! FunkMonk (talk) 02:52, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I'm happy with the article content itself barring any other needed changes coming up from the sourcing. Unfortunately, the local university library for me does not have The Lost Land of the Dodo on hand or I'd be able to check that, which would account for most of the sourcing with Mourer-Chauvire and Cheke already checked. Hog Farm Talk 03:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that can be arranged, if you send me an email? FunkMonk (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent an email. Hog Farm Talk 01:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review part #2

[edit]

Might want to check for additional sources. I don't have access to Extinct Birds but it's well cited. #2 doesn't show 1696? #3 backs some part of the text, but the other must be in #4 and I can't access that one. #4 seems a reliable source. I don't see palatable on the pages given for #6. Can't check 9-11; someone else will have to. Are #13 and #12 actually talking about this teal species? #15 might be a little too old to source a statement about today's situation from. None of the sources seem inappropriate to me, there might be some inconsistency in identifiers but that's for the bots to solve. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Palatable was to paraphrase lines like " They are good [to eat][" and "Early visitors to all three islands found the birds tame and easy to kill, and had no trouble rounding up the numerous tortoises; the accounts show that human predation was unrestrained", but perhaps too specific, so I've changed to "Travellers to Mauritius and Réunion considered the local birds tame and easy to kill, and ducks and geese were listed among the favourite prey of hunters there." FunkMonk (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 13 says "Ducks, geese and flamingos were abundant at certain times of the year", and Hume 2012 cites this paper in the section about Anas theodori to support it moving seasonally (both sources are by Hume). FunkMonk (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • While citation 15 is old, it still reflects the current situation, but I've now added this 1998 one that confirms it: "Protection from habitat destruction alone cannot guarantee its conservation and the damage already sustained is not fully reversible. Therefore, the ideal for conservation—maintenance or restoration of self-sustaining populations of all species in native ecosystems—is presently unattainable"[9] FunkMonk (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can provide additional sources via email. FunkMonk (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Funk has sent me copies of the relevant parts of [1] and [4]; I was able to get ahold of a copy of [9] myself. As noted above, I checked all usages of [9] (Mourer-Chauvire) except the paragraph shared with [1]; I've since been able to confirm that paragraph as well. I can confirm that all material cited individually to [1] is found in that source (the ebook version did not contain page numbers, but it's all in there within a two-page spread). Once I figure out how to open an epub file I'm confirm [4] (probably tomorrow). I have already verified the citations to the two chapters in the 1987 book. Hog Farm Talk 02:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hypericum iwatelittorale

[edit]
Nominator(s): Fritzmann (message me) 11:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while, but I'm back for round two. My first FA was Hypericum sechmenii, a niche plant species. Believe it or not, this one is even more niche and has even less available information. At just 841 words, I am aware the article is very short for an FAC; however, I'm confident that I have comprehensively collected all available information on the topic. As always, I greatly appreciate all input and your time! Fritzmann (message me) 11:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Drawers

[edit]

Cool article! Always glad to see quality articles in FAC, no matter the size. I plan to add comments throughout the week, but please ping me if I haven’t by Friday. One thing I notice is that some of the online sources aren't archived, it is best to archive them all to both keep consistency and ensure that the article will be adequately sourced in the future in the off chance that one of the sources is randomly deleted. Crystal Drawers (talk) 13:28, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Crystal Drawers, just dropping you a ping as requested. I've added archives for all the links that have them available, but unfortunately Internet Archive is down for the moment and I can't do anything more for the time being. Fritzmann (message me) 02:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the ping. I added some lead comments below earlier in the week, and it appears you have addressed them in another comment (though I wanted to clarify those are from me, not Nikkimaria). Will add more over the weekend Crystal Drawers (talk) 02:54, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

Overall, a good start, my only issues are things Im confused on. I don’t really know much about flowers, so please bear with me if any of my questions seem obvious

  • Just to clear things up, there are no images of the flower that could be used in the infobox, right?
  • Addressed below
  • "Described in 1937 by Japanese botanist Hideo Koidzumi" — what does it mean by “described”? Im assuming it’s similar to saying he discovered it/wrote about it, but, as someone not too familiar with plants, I just want to be sure
  • Addressed below


Description

  • "The flowers are 0.9–1.0 cm (0.35–0.39 in) wide" — bit of a short sentence, maybe it could be added to the previous or next sentence since it feels a bit awkward by itself? (There are a few more instances of this, but this example is the only that truly stood out)
  • Brought forward a clause about the petals and flower color to flesh out the sentence
  • Since this is only a prose review, I will not let the following affect whether I support or not, but I noticed that the section is only sourced to Norman Robson’s book, with two out of the three paragraphs having sources only to one page. I understand this is usually acceptable, and I think it is fine personally, but I’ve seen people have trouble with stuff like this, so I’d recommend maybe finding another source for at least a sentence or two just so it’s not too noticeable. But, like I said, I will not let it affect me supporting, so feel free to ignore
  • That's the only translated description available, and Robson is a very definitive source for the genus Hypericum

Taxonomy

  • "in reference to the tradition of hanging the plant over religious icons in the home" - consider changing to "in one's home"
  • Done

Distribution, habitat, and conservation

  • "still classified as having a "lack of information" (data deficient)" — I feel that the data deficient part is kind of implied, I think ending it on "lack of information" would work just fine
  • Done

And that’s my review! I really, really apologize for how it took me, Thanksgiving is always a busy time for me and this article just happened to slip my mind. The issues I gave are all very minor and can be fixed quickly, so I’m happy to give my support either way. Crystal Drawers (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, no worries at all about the delay! Happy holidays to you, Fritzmann (message me) 09:07, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review

[edit]

Image review: Map is appropriately licensed, but is there no image of the subject available? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:03, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, thank you for the review! There are no images of this flower unfortunately; the only way to have a chance to obtain one would be to look in the Iwataken collection and try to find a specimen, which I'm unable to do. I've linked "description" in the article, it is a taxonomic term that refers to a formal survey of the species' characteristics, establishing it as its own separate new taxon. Fritzmann (message me) 01:49, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Fritzmann. Just to clear up any confusion, the lead comments are from me, not Nikkmaria, I will put the comments into two different sections so it is easier to navigate Crystal Drawers (talk) 02:52, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, I've found a few images, see my response below for more info. Fritzmann (message me) 02:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AxonsArachnida

[edit]
  • More a question for the more seasoned FA reviewers: Is this not too small a subject to be a FA? I've always been under the impression that there needs to be a bit more published about it?
  • Possibly a bit beyond scope, but it would be great if in Wikidata this was referred to as Hypericum iwatelittorale instead of Hypericum iwate-littorale, which seems to be an old name. Just makes it a bit more consistent.
  • I'm not familiar enough with Wikidata to move a page there, so I'll leave this to someone more seasoned than myself
  • There should be more of an explanation for the cladogram ie how was it made? I just assumed it was a genetic tree, but looking through the paper you've cited, that doesn't seem to be the case.
  • It is based on the relational tree on page 63 of the cited paper
  • Where are the type specimens stored?
  • Added their storage at the Japanese National Museum of Nature and Science
  • Like the others have mentioned, it's a shame there are no images. Are any of the drawings from the revisions under an appropriate copyright license?
  • Great news!! I was combing through everything again and I think I found some images that can be used! here is the link to the three images I located. Unfortunately, they are copyrighted. In the Hypericum sechmenii review, it was established that as long as a plant is not extinct, it's not fair use to use copyrighted images of it because there is the theoretical possibility it could be photographed in the future. However, I have reaached out to the museum to request permission to use these three images. If they reply in the affirmative, I will include them
  • You've given most of the technical terms good explanations, but I think these need to be explained too: sepal, leaf node, corymb, pedical, bract.
  • Added for sepal, pedicel, and bract. Not sure how to do it for leaf node without being overly-clunky, and corymb is the base name of the shape so I can't really break that down more.

AxonsArachnida (talk) 05:55, 19 November 2025 (UTC) That's all from me. Nice work.[reply]

Images released & added

[edit]

AxonsArachnida and Nikkimaria, I've managed to secure the release of a couple of specimen images and have added them to the article! Please let me know if there are any other changes you'd like to see make. Fritzmann (message me) 09:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest adding alt texts for those. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Done, thanks Fritzmann (message me) 07:21, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

[edit]

Some comments: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:47, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • First off, I see "centimetre" and "color". AE or BE?
  • I always forget to change the unit conversion template, but it should be standardized to AE now
  • Perhaps a literal translation of シオカゼオトギリ? LLM says シオカゼ (shiokaze) → "sea breeze" or "salt wind" and オトギリ (otogiri) → refers to the plant Hypericum erectum (a type of St. John’s wort), "otogiri-sō" in Japanese.
  • I was able to find a translation in a Japanese-English dictionary and have added it. I'm hesitant to include the reconstructed "common name" to the lead, since it really isn't called that in English.

Please let me know if you have any additional comments, thank you for those you've left so far! Fritzmann (message me) 09:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should the end of Etymology read ...the common name "sea breeze St. John's wort". With quote marks? Either way, happy to support now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:19, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations

[edit]

2005–06 Gillingham F.C. season

[edit]
Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After quite a long break, I am back at FAC with another season from the history of the football club I support. The format is identical to the 40+ previous successful nominations, so hopefully all is good generally. Any feedback will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon. Oh, and I realise that I have not archived the references, but the IABot is playing up once again and just crashes every time I try to run it...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

[edit]
Background
Football League One (August- December)
  • "League One league table"→"League One table"
  • (Not a suggestion) By the way, we all know where Brentford, Forest and Bournemouth currently place among English football teams. Hopefully, Gillingham will reach that level in the years to come.

MSincccc (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Football League One (continued)
Cup matches

MSincccc (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

750h

[edit]

Leaving my mark! 750h+ 09:25, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

lead

No problems here. 750h+ 12:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

background and pre-season
  • 74th season playing in the maybe "playing" could be removed?
  • elected back into the League} ==> "re-elected to the League"
  • were injured during these matches, meaning that they missed the start of the league season ==> "were injured during these matches and missed the start of the league season"
football league one
  • The team remained unbeaten with draws against Port Vale and Scunthorpe United and a 1–0 victory over AFC Bournemouth;[18] Brent Sancho, a defender who had left Dundee at the end of the previous season,[21] made his debut against Bournemouth. should this be split into two sentences
  • Hessenthaler had been with the club since 1996 and made over 350 appearances, as well as serving as player-manager for much of the club's time in the second tier of English football. ==> "Hessenthaler joined the club since 1996, made over 350 appearances, and served as player-manager for much of the club's time in the second tier of English football."
cup matches
  • no problems here!
players
  • no problems here!

@ChrisTheDude: thanks for the article! I have an ongoing FAC if you'd like to check it out, no obligation though! Best, 750h+ 12:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@750h+: - many thanks for your review. All changes made, hopefully to your satisfaction (I worded the last one very slightly differently). I'll do my best to check out your FAC ASAP! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support! 750h+ 13:31, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HAL

[edit]
  • "a position which at the end of the season would result in relegation to Football League Two." -> "a position which at the end of the season resulted in relegation to Football League Two." per WP:WOULDCHUCK
  • Likewise for:
  • "It would prove to be the final appearance in the Gillingham" -> "It proved to be the final appearance in the Gillingham"
  • "and would be released from his contract" -> "and was released from his contract"
  • "he would be transferred to Barnet" -> "he was transferred to Barnet"
  • Absence of comma before "and + [independent clause]" in some sentences but not others:
  • "The team's results quickly improved and they had climbed to 17th place by the end of 2005."
  • "Wycombe won the shoot-out 3–1 and Gillingham were eliminated from the competition"
  • Oxford comma used inconsistently: "winning 19, drawing 13, and losing 20" vs "Crofts, Sancho and Ian Cox" or "Brown, Jarvis, Cox and Flynn"

That's all! ~ HAL333 15:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: - thanks for your review. All done except the first one. I don't believe that's a wouldchuck violation, as it's saying that Gillingham were in 22nd place in November and that they would be relegated if they were still there at the end of the season six months later (temporary jump into the future). I think under the terms of wouldchuck, this usage is permitted (I re-worded it slightly to match the usage in the body and make the intent totally clear)..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On second review I think you're right. And I only mention WOULDCHUCK issues when there's not much else to complain about, as is the case here. Happy to support. ~ HAL333 00:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Watergate scandal

[edit]
Nominator(s): ~ HAL333 21:46, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Watergate is the most convoluted and bizarre episode in presidential history. Preceded by covert, cowboy schemes—including burglarizing a psychiatrist's office and plotting firebombings and extrajudicial kidnappings—the scandal was triggered by a bungled break-in carried out mostly by Cuban exiles, for which there remains no consensus on its purpose or who ultimately ordered it. Theories range from an incompetent wiretapping job to a CIA operation or sex blackmail plot gone awry (no resemblance to current events intended). In an endless series of compounding lies, Watergate spiraled, resulting in the kidnapping of the former attorney general's wife, a disgruntled FBI associate director leaking under the moniker "Deep Throat", and ultimately the first and only resignation of an American president. ~ HAL333 21:46, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Avoid sandwiching text between images, or between images and quote boxes
  • @HAL333 - If images are located on both left and right sides, it can always yield ugly results on some platforms. It is difficult for editors to evaluate the issue, because the display layout varies widely based on:
  • Which WP skin the reader is using
  • The device (phone, tablet, desktop)
  • The software app (web browser vs WP app)
  • ... and other factors (e..g the GUI zoom factor).
  • My solution, as editor, is to put all images on the right side, so sandwiching can never happen. I've seen a couple reviewers say "all images on right is boring" - but using both L and R is not at all required by WP guidelines. Noleander (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just very fond of the look of alternating alternating images/quoteboxes. As it stands, making it "wide" with the smallest font size does not generate any sandwiching on my screen, which I think is acceptable. ~ HAL333 01:28, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Watergate_complex.jpg: source link is dead, tagged as lacking author info
  • File:NIXONcampaigns.jpg: source link is dead
  • File:E._Howard_Hunt_(cropped).jpg: the HSCA examined the images, but didn't create them, correct? Is there another reason to believe these were government works?
  • File:Interview_with_Atty._Gen._John_Mitchell_01_copy.jpg: tagging here is contradictory
  • File:MarkFelt.jpg: source link is dead; why is this believed to be a work of Congress?
  • File:United_Air_Lines_Flight_553_(3).jpg is tagged as having disputed licensing
  • File:ThompsonWatergate.jpg: source link is dead and information provided is contradictory. Is this a government work or is Smith the copyright holder?
@HAL333 Have you addressed the issues @Nikkimaria raised? BorgQueen (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notice: I've opened a deletion request for MarkFelt.jpg here. ―Howard • 🌽33 18:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Noleander

[edit]
  • Looks like an outstanding article!
  • Size is 10,131 prose words, a bit more than the 9,000 target value in WP:SIZERULE, but perhaps fits within the "... though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material" waiver.
  • The alphabetizing in the "New articles" list of sources is puzzling. It looks alphabetical up to Zimmer, then goes haywire. At first, I thought anonymous news articles followed Zimmer. But among the articles following Zimmer are Winer, Weinraub, Sullivan, Totenberg. If there were only a few sources, perhaps alphabetization could be ignored, but here we are expecting the reader who sees "491. Totenberg 2011" to scan down near the bottom and hunt for Totenberg, which is not easy with the current sequence. Unless I'm missing something.
  • Ah, I was interrupted during alphabetization - now finished. But the reader can also click the reference and it will lead them to the original source as well. ~ HAL333 16:22, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sic" necessary? During his 1962 gubernatorial campaign: "Rather than using a group of amateur Watergate bugglers [sic], burglars ... Is this quote from audio recordings of Nixon talking, and it is simply a mispronounced word that he immediately corrected? If so, consider replacing the "bugglers" with ellipses since it may confuse readers, and is not needed. The "sic" raises more questions than it answers. See MOS:SIC. On the other hand, if this was _written_ by Nixon then maybe keep it.
  • Ambiguity: The duo's role in Watergate is often exaggerated... There are four people named in the preceding two sentences. Not sure who the "duo" is: Woordword & Bernstein? or Woordword & Felt?
  • Consider using letters a,b,c for the footnotes, rather than numbers 1,2,3, ... May help readers keep them distinct from the citations.
  • Is this a typo in the soruces? Graff2, Garrett M. (February 17, 2022)
  • The issues is that Graff's book and the Vanity Fair article were both published in 2022. I decided to refer to the article as "Graff 2022a". Not sure if there's a better way to do it... ~ HAL333 23:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed.
  • More clarity possible? After the Supreme Court's ruling, Nixon told aide Chuck Colson to stop leaks by any means.[25] Nixon fixated on files at the Brookings Institution on the Chennault Affair, in which he had sabotaged 1968 Vietnam peace talks,[27] [note 1] and urged aides to "get in and get those files—blow the safe and get it". The "leadks In 1st sentence: at first I thought that was focused in the aforementioned Pentagon Papers; but I gather it means any leaks at all that may be damaging?
  • ... continuing the above: I had a hard time parsing the "Nixon fixated .. " sentence. At first I though "in which he had sabotaged" meant he performed the sabotage inside the files. It took a couple of re-reads to conclude that his sabatoge act was during his role in the Chennault Affair? And his role/sabotage is revealed in those files, correct? Can that be clarified?
  • Rephrased.
  • ... Also: How did a private institution like Brookings get those sensitive files? Are the files not classified? Or are the files classified, but Brookings workers had appropriate clearances?
  • Graff says that there's no evidence that Brookings even had the files. A White House aide (the same one who wrote the Huston Plan) wrote a report saying the files implicating Nixon were possessed by Johnson's defense secretary, another Pentagon official, and Brookings. The files supposedly ended up at Brookings through a staffer there who used to be an aide for the latter Pentagon official. I can put this in a note if you want. ~ HAL333 23:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section title? The subsection "Historical" within "Legacy" section seems to be a misc/other subsection, which is okay. I know it can be difficult to find more focused subsection titles sometimes.
  • Removed entirely.
  • Clarify? Felt was spurned after Hoover's 1972 death when Nixon selected L. Patrick Gray as acting director — avoiding a pre-election Senate confirmation. I don't see the connection between the spurning and the Senate confirmation. Confirmation of who?
  • The confirmation isn't connected to the spurning but the fact that Gray was merely acting director and not a confirmed director. I would remove it but it's needed to explain why Gray is still appearing before the Senate to be confirmed as director (when he fingers Dean as a liar). I've placed it in parantheses to distance it from the spurning, but let me know if it's still unclear. ~ HAL333 23:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article appears to have complete & broad coverage of the topic: I've wracked my brain, and cannot find any material that is missing.
  • Simplify? That month, Magruder pressed CRP treasurer Hugh Sloan—the "single greatest menace to the cover-up" per journalist J. Anthony Lukas—to fabricate a narrative of CRP payments to Liddy, suggesting perjury Is there a way to make this sentence (naming four people) a bit more digestible?
  • The very first image File:Watergate complex.jpg has some yellow stickers on it that many readers will be curious about. Consider adding words to the caption stating that the image is, e.g., a piece of evidence; or explaining the stickers specifically.
  • Simplify? After the counterprotest—at which they tried to attack the protesting Ellsberg—Barker's team may have committed two unsolved burglaries in Washington, those of the Chilean Embassy and of a major Democratic law firm within the Watergate Complex on May 16. Many readers will have a tough time grasping all that. Consider two sentences. E.g. In May, two unsolved burglaries occurred in DC at AAA and BBB. They may have been committed by CCC, after the counterprotest, in which CCC tried to attack ...
  • Punctuation? On May 27, a second DNC break-in failed after Gonzalez lacked proper tools for the DNC office's door: he flew back to Miami to retrieve them. Perhaps a semicolon is more appropriate than a colon there. [The prose of this article is so immaculate, I'm reduced to finding punctuation quibbles.]
  • Fixed!
  • Clearer section title? Term Kompromat Seems like a recentism, since often used in relation to 2020s US politics. Consider the plainer Compromising information or similar. Or, leave it alone.
  • Left alone.
  • Quote box: "Even if we should learn the Administration was victimized by a CIA plot—even if we should learn the motive for the burglary—that would change nothing regarding our understanding of John ..." historian Kuttler
    • See MOS:QUOTEBOX Did you choose this quote? Or is it a notable quote within the community of historians? It is okay if you picked it, but - like an image - it needs to be a quote that will not sway readers in an UNDUE fashion. I don't think this quote has that problem.
    • Is the key message of the quote also paraphrased in the body text? I ask because that is a rather verbose & convoluted quote. It looks like the historian is saying that "Identifying the motive for the breakins will not change the fundamental fact that major crimes were committed by the President & other high level officials". Maybe my interpretation is wrong: but whatever the interpretation is, consider stating it plainly in body text.
  • The general purpose of the quote is to convey that Watergate was effectively two major crimes: the break-in and the cover-up. This is touched on by investigators later on when they're considering how to impeach/indict Nixon, and I think it's also implicitly suggested by the structure of the article. ~ HAL333 23:53, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Graff 2022, pp. 234. P/PP error? pp. 234.
  • Graff 2022, p. 606-607. P/PP error? p. 606-607.; Hyphen in pg. range
  • Graff 2022, p. 302-303. P/PP error? p. 302-303.; Hyphen in pg. range;
  • Graff 2022, pp. 324. P/PP error? pp. 324.;
  • Consider including some "author-link" fields in the book sources, e.g. Stanley Kutler, Garrett Graff, etc. Maybe could omit for newspaper sources. Not required for FA, of course.
  • Added.
  • No "sister project" box at bottom of article for Wikidata, Wikiquotes, Wikisource, WikiCommons, etc?
  • Added.
  • Footnotes: Consider adding a few more wikilinks, especially for key people. e.g. Graff writes that other Washington Post journalists, like Simons and Sussman, are not given fair credit for their contributions to Watergate stories. because the footnotes are so far from the body text that the reader cannot readily find the blue link (i.e. why make the reader click the caret symbol to go back up to the body text, then back down to the footnote, etc). The footnotes already have several good wikilinks, but a few more would be helpful.
  • Manual of Style: Article appears to be in compliance with MOS guidelines. The box quote needs to be double-checked, see above.
  • Prose: Excellent quality. I'm struggling to find any issues (a few were noted above).
  • Sources: I have ask: Only eight book sources? Are they so comprehensive and objective that there was no need to reach-out to other books for minor facts or insights? I note that two of the books are recent:
    • Graff, Garret M. (2022). Watergate: A New History.
    • Dobbs, Michael (2021). King Richard: Nixon and Watergate, an American Tragedy.
That could explain the relatively few # of book sources: ofttimes a "second generation" historian will come in and sum-up all recent scholarship in a new book. Which is great, and can really reduce the workload for WP editors!
Yeah, Graff writes that one of the inspirations for his 2022 book was the Simon & Schuster editor telling him that there wasn't a great one-volume book on Watergate. I frankly think Lukas might qualify, but Graff does give an excellent and comprehensive account without getting lost in the weeds (which is easy to do with Watergate). ~ HAL333 00:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose and MOS. I have not checked images or sources. Noleander (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by from Crystal Drawers

[edit]

Very glad to see this here! I sadly don't have enough time to devote a full review, but I have a prose question. When it first mentions the "Plumbers" (when it was suggested by Young's grandmother), the term is used immediately after to refer to them. Is it safe to assume the Plumbers liked Young's grandmother's suggestion? Is there any information saying they did? Crystal Drawers (talk) 13:07, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They went so far as to put up a sign on their office saying "Plumbers", but more importantly it's the predominant, common name used to refer to the group in sources. ~ HAL333 15:20, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

[edit]
Prelude
  • You could mention the full form of "NYPD" on first mention.
  • Done.

I don't think I would be able to provide a full review due to time constraints. The article's in good shape; a single suggestion for the time being. MSincccc (talk) 14:27, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prelude (continued)
  • You could link White House Chief of Staff and National Security Advisor.
  • Liddy was tapped to head the project before it was scrapped.
    • Consider replacing "tapped" since the article is being considered for featured status on an encyclopedia?
  • Delink Las Vegas?

MSincccc (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All done. ~ HAL333 20:39, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Watergate break-ins
  • embarassing → embarrassing
  • Times should follow American style: a.m. / p.m. (e.g., "1 am" → 1 a.m.).
  • Pico and De Diego were dropped after McCord forgot two walkie-talkies.
    • Were they dropped because McCord forgot the walkie-talkies?
Motives
  • illict → illicit
  • profoud → profound

A few more. MSincccc (talk) 09:36, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • "reelection"→"re-election"
  • "front page story" → "front-page story"
    • Hyphenation required when used as a compound adjective.
  • The correct form is Eisenhower appointee.
    • No hyphen should be used unless the term is used attributively.
  • "pled" → "pleaded"
  • "god damn" → "goddamn"

MSincccc (talk) 10:52, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All done. ~ HAL333 14:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Impeachment and resignation process
  • Washinton → Washington
  • nightime → nighttime
  • subpoeaned → subpoenaed
  • Transcibing → Transcribing
  • fustrating → frustrating
  • foilage → foliage (alt text)
  • Jaworksi → Jaworski
  • Protestors → Protesters (alt text)

MSincccc (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath and Legacy sections
  • “Haldemann” → Haldeman
Bottom line

Comments from Penitentes

[edit]

This is great work; well done. A couple nitpicks:

  • Regardless, McCord rejoined the burglars, and Gonzalez repicked and retaped the door. Reaching the DNC office, the burglars abandoned picking the door ... I don't think you can pick a door, only a lock, so this reads a little confusingly.
  • The three Metropolitan officers—dressed undercover as hippies—sweeped the ninth floor ... "Sweep" as used here is a noun. You could either say they swept the floor or they conducted a sweep of it, whichever you prefer!
  • Fearing a "beserk" Nixon might unilaterally trigger nuclear armageddon ... I can't access the original source here on short notice but this looks it ought to be "berserk".

Penitentes (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All good catches and all fixed! ~ HAL333 22:59, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Dudley

[edit]
  • At 10123 words, the article is over the recommended size limit. See Wikipedia:Article size#Size guideline. You should consider hiving some of it off to separate articles. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The guideline permits articles on major topics to exceed the 9,000 word recommendation. Arguably the Watergate scandal is significant enough to deserve a small overage, based on the worldwide fame of the scandal plus the large number of sources available. The 9,000 figure is a probably firm limit for lesser topics like minor sports figures or minor pop songs etc. On the other hand, the 15,000 limit from that same guideline is a very hard limit that certainly would apply to this article. Noleander (talk) 06:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm persuaded by comments below that the topic may not be sufficiently noteworthy to waive the 9,000 word quasi-limit. Striking my note above. Noleander (talk)
HAL333 I intend reviewing this article but I want to review the stable version after you have completed trimming, so please ping me when the trimming is complete. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Borsoka

[edit]

I concur with Dudley's comment above. The article is in need of substantial pruning (by no less than 15%). A useful point of comparison is the entry on the Punic Wars, a sequence of events of unquestionable significance in ancient history spanning several centuries, and yet it manages to present its subject in fewer than 8,000 words. Borsoka (talk) 10:23, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped by to make a similar suggestion re rewriting in more summary style and/or hiving off some aspects before I noticed Borsoka using an article I recently took through FAC as an exemplar of good practice. Honest! But they raise a good point: 119 years of conflict, four major wars, the largest naval battle in history (still!), Hannibal crossing the Alps, the destruction of Carthage, the battle of Cannae - all in fewer than 8,000 words; while a little local difficulty for a shady politician needs more than 10,000. I think not. As for "the large number of sources available", I would be astonished if the Punic Wars didn't have far more than Watergate. George Washington is an example of a startlingly large number of sub-articles meaning that none get too bloated; his main article recently went through FAC and it was 7% shorter than this one. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Coincidentally, Punic Wars is one of the only FACs that I opposed (on both of its two candidacies) as I don't believe it to be properly comprehensive, but that's besides the point. The Punic Wars and Watergate are apples and oranges. Watergate is a document-heavy modern scandal with orders of magnitude more primary material, verifiable detail, and discrete and nuanced components than an ancient war. Also, the comparison of word counts here seems selective and arbitrary. I could also cite the FA Simon Cameron, which was recently promoted and clocks in at 10,256 words. Why does that FA—on a mere US cabinet member—get to be (as of this comment) 300 words longer than this convoluted, multi-year scandal — arguably the most famous and documented in American history? That being said, I'll try to trim this article but I don't think a 15% cut is realistic. ~ HAL333 13:39, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for more than three weeks and while attracting a fair bit of attention does not seem to be moving towards a consensus to promote. So a heads up that progress in that direction needs to happen if the nomination is not to time out. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SC

Aesthetics

[edit]
Nominator(s): Phlsph7 (talk) 14:53, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aesthetics is the branch of philosophy that studies beauty, taste, and art. It examines what makes something aesthetically valuable and how to interpret the meaning of artworks. This is a level 3 vital article with over 500.000 page views last year. Thanks to Aza24 for their in-depth GA review and to Johnbod for the helpful peer review. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:53, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you don't mention the peer review! Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I fixed it. I got the impression from your comments that you did not want to be further involved in the process. However, I would appreciate more feedback. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BorgQueen

[edit]
  • Nice work. I would like to raise one point, for now, regarding the See also section. MOS:SEEALSO states: Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous. […] If the linked article has a short description then you can use {{Annotated link}} to automatically generate an annotation. One of the links in that section of your nominated article, Theosophy and visual arts, appears to require such an annotation, as Theosophy is not a subject likely to be familiar to most readers and the topic is not mentioned or explained in the article body. In addition, could you please outline your rationale for its inclusion in the See also section? Thank you. BorgQueen (talk) 16:21, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi BorgQueen and thanks for your feedback! I'm not sure that there is a good rationale for including this link so I removed it. I found ways to include most of the other see-also links somewhere in the article text. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Medieval subsection of the History section, the image caption Al-Farabi envisioned beauty as a divine attribute of Allah. is potentially ambiguous, as it is not clear whether the image depicts Al-Farabi himself or an allegorical representation of the "divine attribute" mentioned. (At first glance, I took it to be the latter.) The caption could be revised to clarify that the image portrays Al-Farabi, and that it is only an artistic impression (likely one of those fictitious woodcut portraits popular in early modern Europe, I suppose). BorgQueen (talk) 10:20, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I adjusted the caption. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:57, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Definition section: The term aesthetics was coined by the German philosopher Alexander Baumgarten in 1735, initially defined as the study of sensibility or sensations of beautiful objects. It would be more technically precise to state that Alexander Baumgarten coined the German term Ästhetik. While the following passages do note that the term was later introduced into English through translation, the current wording may momentarily give the impression that Baumgarten somehow coined the English word itself. BorgQueen (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that he used the spelling "Ästhetik" in 1735 since the corresponding book was written in Latin as far as I'm aware. I tried to come up with a formulation that leaves the precise spelling open. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Phlsph7 I stand corrected. I checked out Baumgarten's Meditationes philosophicae de Nunullis ad poema pertinentibus on the Internet Archive and located the relevant passage: § CXVI. Exsistente definitione, terminus definitus excogitari facile potest; graeci iam philosophi & patres inter αἰσθητα & νοητα sedulo semper distinxerunt, satisque apparet αἰσθητα iis non solis aequipollere sensualibus, quum absentia etiam sensa (ergo phantasmata) hoc nomine honoretur. Sint ergo νοητα cognoscenda facultate superiore obiectum Logices, αἰσθητα epistemes αἰσθητικης siue AESTHETICAE. So Baumgarten coined the Latin term aesthetica (In the quoted passage, you see it appear as aestheticae due to syntax; it's the genitive form of aesthetica.) Perhaps you could be more specific about the word now? BorgQueen (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for looking this up, I added the Latin term. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:43, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Aesthetic experiences, attitude, and pleasure" subsection, third paragraph: A central aspect of aesthetic experience is the aesthetic attitude—a special way of observing or engaging with art and nature. This attitude involves a form of pure appreciation of perceptual qualities detached from personal desires and practical concerns. It is disinterested in this sense by engaging with an object for its own sake without ulterior motives or practical consequences. The word "disinterested" is currently linked to Aesthetic distance, which seems to contravene MOS:EGG, as it hides the actual concept under a (somewhat) unexpected link. It would be preferable to rephrase so that "Aesthetic distance" is explicitly mentioned and linked by name, I believe. BorgQueen (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the link instead since "disinterested" is the standard term in this context but "aesthetic distance" isn't. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey BorgQueen, just checking whether you have more comments. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:58, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Phlsph7 Nope. Support, if that's what you wanted. :D BorgQueen (talk) 11:03, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the insightful feedback and the support! Phlsph7 (talk) 11:57, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

[edit]
Basic concepts
  • “Aesthetic properties of an object are features that shape its appeal...” → “Aesthetic properties are features of an object that shape its appeal"

One more for the time being. MSincccc (talk) 10:38, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Basic concepts (continued)

MSincccc (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Art

A single suggestion for this section. MSincccc (talk) 05:03, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In various fields

MSincccc (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History
  • The Heidegger idea is discussed twice in this section (once in the image caption; once in the prose). You can consider trimming one instance so it doesn’t feel redundant.
    Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:52, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc (talk) 06:02, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line

An excellent prose and so no more from me, until errors creep in. Support. MSincccc (talk) 10:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the helpful comments and the support! Phlsph7 (talk) 11:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

HSL

[edit]

Will try to find time to read review the article- article looks great at always! HSLover/DWF (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I'm looking forward to your comments! Phlsph7 (talk) 10:58, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Celestica (song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Skyshiftertalk 01:22, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Celestica" was the first Crystal Castles song to differ from their usual aggressive noisy sound. It is definitely one of the most, if not the most beautifully sounding track by the band, and also a fan favorite. It is also one of the best songs of all time in my very non-biased opinion. Skyshiftertalk 01:22, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TheNuggeteer

[edit]

Will review this sometime this week. The song has a nice cover by the way. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 13:09, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • "According to a press release, the album was recorded at "an Icelandic church, a Canadian cabin, and a Detroit garage." Any more context?
    • Not much other than that. This is also just to contextualize where the album (and therefore its tracks) was recorded. Too much context would make it more about the album than the song.
      • Yes, but the only mention of the place the song was created should not be in this context. The version in the album article "Crystal Castles was recorded by Ethan Kath in a variety of locations including an abandoned church in Iceland, a self-built cabin in northern Ontario, a garage behind an abandoned drug store in Detroit, as well as Paul Epworth's London studio" is much better and should be used, albeit trimmed down.
        • The source in the album article is unreliable (a forum).
  • "rumoured to be still used" to "rumoured to still be used"
    • Fixed
  • "Pitchfork's Ian Cohen and Jay Hill of Tiny Mix Tapes said that the track resembled shoegaze," I believe you should also add source 11 after this.
    • Fixed
  • The composition contains reviews, which I believe should be put in reception.
    • Composition containing reviews is normal when the content used is related to the song's composition. If you mean that there are some inclusions that are too opinionated that should be moved to Reception, let me know. Reviews often mix together content related to composition and reception, and sometimes it is not clear in what section the content should be included.
      • I think most of the paragraph "Multiple reviewers highlighted the melody of "Celestica"; Rebecca Schiller of.." should be moved.
        • I think most of what's included fits better in composition. Melody is part of the composition, even if calling the song "melodic" may seem like opinionated. I believe it is even more important with the context that this is one of the first more melodic songs of the band.
  • I assume you need to add extra context to "glides sensitively" and "coos seductively".
    • This is related to vocals; clarified.
  • Please italicize AllMusic per WP:ITALICWEBSITE
    • ITALICWEBSITE says that it is to be decided "case by case", and the standard with AllMusic is to not italicize it as it is a music database and not a magazine or other type of publication.
  • ""sounds approachable—innocent, even", this being a "disarming moment"" "this being" sounds wrong; maybe "calling it"?
    • Fixed
  • "Crystal Castles' ten best songs until then" until when?
    • Until 2014; clarified.

This is my review; kindly address my concerns. This is a very nice article, and good luck on your future projects! 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 04:36, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheNuggeteer: All responded, thank you :) Skyshiftertalk 12:43, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TenPoundHammer

[edit]

First thought: any sources on the song's key, BPM, etc.? That seems integral to writing about a song. I'm also concerned about the article's length. I don't know if this would be considered long and extensive enough to clear an FA, but I'm not as well versed in FAC. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: I don't think there are reliable sources talking about the song's key or BPM. The length of an article is also not an FA criteria; instead, completeness is a criteria, which the article complies to. Skyshiftertalk 20:16, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that not mentioning the key or BPM is detrimental to the comprehensiveness, as they are a part of literally every song that has ever existed. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:17, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not all song FAs include that information, though. It is not a requirement. Skyshiftertalk 21:46, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria which need to be met are "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context" and "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". Gog the Mild (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Despre tine

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:14, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2003 song "Despre tine" by Moldovan band O-Zone. Reissued in Europe in 2004 after the massive international success of "Dragostea din tei", it managed to chart within the top 10 in several countries. The article is well-written and well-sourced, modelled after the FA "Dragostea din tei". It is a topic that sits close to my heart because of its showcase of Romanian language. Feel free to leave feedback. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:14, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Skyshifter

[edit]
  • Image review pass, the only image in the article contains a valid free-use rationale.
  • Source review (quality-only, no spotcheck), is a pass for me. The article uses many non-English sources, however, they are all by well-established newspapers and magazines in their countries, some were already used in the "Dragostea din tei" FA.
  • The awards mentioned only in the lead should definitely be added to the body text.
  • There is a contradiction between note A ("the song opened on the Romanian Top 100 chart in October 2002") and the article ("the track debuted on the Romanian Top 100 chart in December 2002").
    • I also believe this is WP:OR, especially with the way it is written, and that the release date should be simplified to 2002 only.

Skyshiftertalk 01:57, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyshifter: Hi and thank you for your review. I have added the awards to the section "Commercial performance", which I renamed to "Reception". As for the release date—there was a mix-up between October and December. The correct month is, of course, December. I have fixed that in the article. I think it is okay to use that as an approximation for the song's release date, just like it was used in "Dragostea din tei". Let me know what your thoughts are. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:14, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyshifter: Hi there. I don't want to seem intrusive, but kindly asking if there is any update on your review? Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TheNuggeteer

[edit]

Will review this tomorrow or in the following days. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 12:57, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheNuggeteer: Any updates on this? Greetings; Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not noticing this. Will review. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 01:22, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kindly add more information of the recording process in the lead.
  • Also add when the music video was produced to the lead.
  • I believe Romania should be linked as it is not a widely known country.
This policy reads to me as being against linking countries. I have also never linked Romania in any of my previous articles, so rather wouldn't do that.
  • "Moldova had been part of Romania until World War II, and its population remains Romanian to a significant extent, fostering a sense of unity between the two countries" WP:OFFTOPIC
This sentence, along with the previous one, explains why the group chose to relocate to Romania. This "friendship" between Romania and Moldova is something widely noted and is a common reasoning behind Moldovan artists moving to Romania (which there are plenty of). I would keep this in here, like in "Dragostea din tei", as it's something relevant for the background.
This sentence can be shortened and merged to the previous sentence.
Done
  • What is "The Unu'"?
This is what this remix is called ― "Despre tine (Unu' in the Mix)"
You haven't even mentioned the remix before, please explain this more in the prose.
Rewrote the way I introduce the remix
  • "took place at MOF" -> "took place at the MOF"
  • "According to Popoiag, work on the track spanned three weeks in September 2002. He later claimed that he had made substantial contributions to the track's composition that remained uncredited." These two sentences can easily be merged.
  • "and identified the lyric "Nu-mi răspunzi la SMS" (English: "You don't answer my SMS") as a recognizable line from the track" How does he recognize it? How is it notable to him?
The source says "Mai tineti minte celebrul 'Nu-mi raspunzi la SMS'?"(English: "Do you still remember the famous 'You don't answer my SMS'?. What the author is trying to say is that this line from the song is something that the general public knows — a recognizable lyric.
Then kindly add the line's relatability to the prose.
Done
  • Are you sure there are no reviews of the song?
The coverage on this is sadly very limited compared to "Dragostea din tei".
  • Reception needs a mention of how "Dragostea din tei" helped popularize the track if there are sources describing it.
I sadly couldn't find anything. Sources state that it was re-released after the success of "Dragostea din tei", but not that it was popularized by it.
  • "eight consecutive ones at number one" what do you mean by this?
"ones" is a substitute for "weeks", which is mentioned just a few words prior. I don't want to repeat the same word twice in a sentence.
  • "replacing "Dragostea din tei" at the summit" where is the summit?
"summit" is used to describe the number-one position of a music chart, much like "top" (but I already have the word "chart-topping" in the same sentence).
  • "2004 at the latest" what do you mean by "at the latest"?
It means the music video was released no later than 2004. We don't have an exact release date, but we know it was featured on a 2004 CD.
  • "emit a wave that causes a nearby dancing woman to collapse" how?
The scene is at 2:45 in the music video. I don't know how better to describe this. Have a suggestion?
I watched the portion and it does not seem evident in the video. I assume this is not that important to be included in the summary.
Removed.
  • If you can, add "YouTube" to the "Published via" parameter in "Cat Music" source.
YouTube was already added to the music video source. Or do you mean something else?

@TheNuggeteer: Thank you for your review! I have solved your comments and added additional ones. Please let me know your thoughts. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to some of the comments. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 09:05, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TheNuggeteer: Thank you! I have solved your remaining comments. Please let me know your thoughts. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will support the promotion of this article for FA. Great job on this article, and good luck on your future endeavors! 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 01:54, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DannyRogers800

[edit]

Good work. I'll leave some general suggestions here, most of which are trivial.

  • Include a definite article before Moldovan group O-Zone; see false title.
  • There should be a comma after "and" in Work on "Despre tine" spanned three weeks in September 2003 and its recording took place at the MOF Records studio with the assistance of Bogdan Popoiag., as there are two independent clauses.
  • I would place Musically, it is a dance-pop track performed in Romanian. at the beginning of the paragraph, before info about the song's release. I suggest removing musically; it's redundant.
Information about a song's genre, style and lyrical content is typically placed at the end of the first paragraph. Also, I think "Musically" serves as a needed transition from talking about the song's release in the previous sentence. Removing it might make the info about the genre come too abruptly.
I removed the source from the article.
  • Include a semicolon instead of a comma before however in The album found success in Moldova, however, Jelihovschi subsequently departed the project to pursue a career in television., as the sentence should be broken in two. Otherwise, replace however with but and remove the comma before Jelihovschi.
  • I would rewrite The move was facilitated by the absence of a language barrier, as Romanian is spoken in both countries, as well as by their sense of unity due to their shared history. in the active voice, so, into something like this: The absence of a language barrier and the two countries' sense of unity, resulting from their shared history, helped this move.
  • Add the before Label Media Services; again, see false title.
  • Remove release in While the precise release date remains unclear: it's redundant.
  • Is suggesting that it had received radio airplay by that time original research? I don't think the cited source explicitly mentions this.
The Romanian Top 100 was a chart ranking songs that were played by radio stations. The presence of "Despre tine" in this ranking in December 2002 shows that the song had received radio airplay by that date. This is the earliest we know the song to be in circulation, hence why this date is used as the release date (though with a note).
  • Include a comma before produced in "Despre tine" was written, composed and produced by Balan. since you use the serial comma throughout the article.
  • I think a comma before according to in Work on the track spanned three weeks in September 2002 according to Popoiag works better.
  • I would split the paragraph in "Recording and composition" in two after … the track's composition that remained uncredited. since there is a clear divide between the content describing the song's recording and the content describing its composition.
  • Wikilink English in English: "You don't answer my SMS", as you link Romanian.
I think this would count as overlinking. The English language has to be known by most of the readers here. The Romanian language might not, hence why it's linked.
  • I would remove of Curentul in though Vulpescu of Curentul considered its impact less substantial than that of "Dragostea din tei". as Vulpescu is already mentioned by then. Maybe writing his full name instead would suffice.
  • Replace the hyphens in Throughout September 2004, "Despre tine" reached number two in France―remaining in the top 10 for 11 consecutive weeks[27]—as well as number nine in Wallonia and number four in Spain. with commas for consistency.
  • Add the serial comma before Switzerland in and entered the top 10 in all DACH countries (Germany, Austria and Switzerland)..
  • Add the serial comma before Balan in It starts with Sîrbu, Todiraș and Balan.
  • Perhaps blazer in Each band member is dressed in a black shirt paired with a white blazer and trousers. should be wikilinked, but I'm not sure.
I think this would also be overlinking since it's an everyday word.
  • Remove also in The bystanders from earlier also join the trio and dance alongside them.; it's not needed.
  • The source "'Jahreshitparade Singles 2004' [Year-End Singles Chart 2004] (in German)" appears to be unused.
Thank you for picking up on this. I have now included it in the article.

That's about it. The article is clear and straightforward, even if somewhat dry (then again, there isn't too much to say about this song), and I'll therefore offer my support on prose. DannyRogers800 (talk) 13:41, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyRogers800: Thank you very much for your review and your support! I have implemented all your comments, except for some where I answered. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! I'm sure the article will continue to fare well. DannyRogers800 (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Misti

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully second time's the charm. Misti is one of the more notable volcanoes of Peru, towering high and close above the city of Arequipa. It hasn't featured much historical activity but future eruptions could be a threat to the city of Arequipa. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BorgQueen

[edit]
  • Mummies section: The mummies were of children, mostly boys around six years old.[337] They included infants and children, which were sometimes buried one on top of the other.[338] — 1. You say "children" twice here: First as "the mummies were of children", then again "included infants and children". It sounds repetitive. 2. The mummies were children, and infants are a subset of children. Saying "infants and children" implies infants are not children, which is inaccurate. I suggest: The mummies were of children, mostly boys around six years old, though some infants were also found. In some cases, the bodies were buried one on top of another. BorgQueen (talk) 14:43, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Rewrote this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Human geography subsection: Italian geographer Gustavo Cumin [it] in 1925 noted that three small man-made structures in the crater were known since 1677 AD, but noted that their origin was unknown. — 1. "noted" appears twice in quick succession, which sounds repetitive. 2. Tense issue; "the crater were known since 1677 AD" should be "the crater had been known since 1677 AD". I suggest: Italian geographer Gustavo Cumin [it] in 1925 noted that three small man-made structures in the crater had been known since 1677, though their origin remained unknown. BorgQueen (talk) 09:31, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jo-Jo Eumerus In addition, I don't think "AD" is needed after 1677 in this sentence, since "in 1925" at the beginning already makes it clear that the reference is to the past — i.e. it's obvious that 1677 refers to a year. BorgQueen (talk) 09:41, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the opening sentence of the Regional setting subsection: Off the western coast of Peru, the Nazca Plate subducts (goes under) under South America at a rate of 5–6 centimetres per year (2.0–2.4 in/year). — The parenthetical gloss creates awkward repetition ("under […] under"). If you're concerned that "subducts" may be too technical a term, you might consider rephrasing it for smoother readability—perhaps along the lines of: subducts beneath (that is, moves under) South America, to avoid redundancy. BorgQueen (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think "descends" works, so I put that in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:03, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jo-Jo Eumerus Okay. BTW, isn't "the South American Plate" a more precise term than just "South America" in this context? I’m not familiar with the topic, so this is a genuine question rather than a suggestion. BorgQueen (talk) 11:07, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is, but I am not sure that it matters overmuch in this context. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:31, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jo-Jo Eumerus Thanks for the clarification. I only raised the question because the surrounding text uses precise geological terminology, so I wondered whether "the South American Plate" might align better with that level of precision. BorgQueen (talk) 14:18, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, not much to add since the image review of the last nomination: there seem to be no significant image-relevant changes to the article. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

[edit]

Interesting topic but there is a bit of work to do; see below:

You can surely explain what it is, as required by WP:MTAU, and this article should not be written just for geochemists? Alternatively, simplifying/trimming/removing is also an option, we do not have to cover each technical detail. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That guideline also includes things like " For example, a topic in advanced mathematics, specialist law, or industrial engineering may contain material that only knowledgeable readers can appreciate or even understand. " That said, I think one could find a more general synonym of "suite" - "rock chemistry" is the closest but doesn't quite convey that it refers to a grouping of rocks by chemistry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:28, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But this is an article about a charismatic volcano that will be read by the broadest imaginable readership (see WP:ONEDOWN). What precisely is the key information you aim to bring across here; once we figure that out, it would certainly be possible to rewrite it. Alternatively, add an explanation, or simply remove it. But it can't stay like this. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but WP:TECH-CONTENT also applies and is relevant to this bit of information. I put a footnote in, sadly the term is not very precisely defined. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You now explain what alkaline rocks are, but the meaning of the phrase is still unclear; what does it mean to "define a suite", and what's the significance? Is this suite only defined at Misti? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have recast it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • resemble adakite, an unusual kind of volcanic rock formed by the direct melting of a subducting plate – why is this relevant? Does it imply that the Misti rocks are also formed by direct melting? On another note, a rock is not formed by melting (which would create a magma, not a rock), it is formed by crystallisation.
    It's apparently interesting to geologists. I dunno about a synonym of "rock" that would cover the melt aspect, since it doesn't actually matter whether the rock is molten or solid. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per rock (geology), magma is not rock, although your sentence implies that it is. Again, I am not convinced that this sentence is relevant; there is no point in providing this information and leaving the reader wondering about it. I think that we either need to provide the necessary context (what's the implication, what's the point), or we should remove it. Without context, this sentence is simply not informative. Just because a geologist found this comparison to be interesting doesn't mean we have to make that comparison as well. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I must disagree per WP:TECH-CONTENT again. I put some context regarding adakite in but re: rock, I still need a synonym and while Wikipedia defines rock in a particular way, wiktionary:rock isn't limited to solid ones. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your changes are sufficient, I think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • fractional crystallization – important concept but neither linked nor explained
    Good illustration why replacing (instead of footnoting) technical terms is not a good way to handle jargon - the jargon term may be necessary in more than one place. Added a footnote elsewhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the south-southwestern collapse – was this particular collapse mentioned before?
    Some collapses were mentioned, but the sources often aren't clear which one they mean. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but by referring to it as "the collapse", you are implying that you already introduced it. So instead I would write "After a collapse of the south-southwestern flank" or something. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because I did, in the section about collapses. I rewrote this to make this clearer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the list in "Eruption history", I think you need to start the entries with "The" (one does that, the other's do not, which also is inconsistent at present).
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last major explosive eruption–which took place in one or multiple events–took place about 2,000 years ago – De-convolute into The last major explosive eruption took place about 2,000 years ago in one or multiple events. This also avoids the double "took place".
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • expelled part of the hydrothermal system – technical jargon again
    I am not sure that this can be avoided, either, especially given that the sorce doesn't specify what it means. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If not even you understand it, nobody will, so what is the point of keeping it then? Again, we do not have to cover all possible details, especially not when they are vague. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, scratch that - the source is actually clearer than I remember. I expanded this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:28, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, but then, the sentence not related to volcanic activity is misleading (at least it misled me). The entire volcano is obviously related to volcanic activity, so everything related to the mountain is too. You write elsewhere that floods can be caused very directly by damning of the river during an eruption. Maybe write "indirectly related to volcanic activity" instead. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would be misleading too - yes, volcanism built the mountain, but that's not what one typically thinks of when saying "indirectly related to volcanic activity". The point to distinguish is that earthquakes can occur everywhere and thus don't need to be mentioned here, while floods are influenced by the existence of the mountain. I am not sure that the current formulation is as misleading. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about Other hazards related to Misti include …? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That might be too broad. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well you can solve it whatever way you like, but the current wording Hazards at Misti not related to volcanic activity does include earthquakes, as they occur at Misti. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It currently doesn't? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I mean: You have "south and southwest" twice, before and after the list. Just remove one instance. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, got it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I looked up the source, and it refers to mean wind speeds, while you are saying can reach, implying a maximum value. That's a big difference. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The snow cover rapidly melts away during the dry season – how does it melt if it is almost always below freezing? Maybe it sublimates instead?
    I don't think that sources, other than specialized researchers, would differentiate. Also, even if the air is below freezing, sunlight can warm surfaces until above freezing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:28, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Insects are the most important animals in the Peruvian mountains – this doesn't make much sense. How do you define what's "important"? Does this imply that they are not necessarily the most important animals in other terrestrial ecosystems? I don't get the point.
    That's something you'd have to ask the authors, but my take is that they are the most frequent animals there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:28, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again here, if we don't know how to interpret a statement, we shouldn't include it in a Wikipedia article. It has no information value. (I doubt it means "most frequent"; I would guess it means either that insects are the most fundamental for the ecosystem or that they are the most important by biomass, but without specification this information is kind of useless, and if the reader guesses they are most likely going to get it wrong). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Generalized this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • to calm a volcano Putina close to Arequipa (probably Misti) – can't follow; do you possibly mean "named Putina"?
    Yes, added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:28, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This description most likely refers to the 1600 eruption of Huaynaputina, rather than of eruptions at Misti. – "refers to", not "of".
    Did a correction. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:28, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's it from me. I will add more follow-ups to your responses when time allows. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Insects in the Peruvian mountains include beetles and hymenopterans (ants, bees, sawflies and wasps). Birds include the Andean condor. – I propose to remove this sentence. It is extremely general, being on Peruvian mountains, an extremely biodiverse region, and these few examples you give seem arbitrary and pointless.
    Took the insects part out, but left the condor in because it's a pretty well-known bird for the region. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 358 plant, 37 mammal and 158 bird species have been recorded[ad] in the region, including alpacas, guanacos, llamas and vicuñas. – State what this "region" is. You could swap with the last sentence of the paragraph, and then just say "in the reserve".
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a footnote The Bolivian grass mouse[308] and two plant species, the stonecrop Sedum ignescens[309] and Cantua volcanica, were discovered at Misti; the latter was named after where it was found. – Since this seems to be specifically about Misti, I suggest to include that in the article directly. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Might be a bit too much detail for an in-article mention; the footnote is a better compromise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You have quite some obscure information in the article, such as Geologists are known to offer objects to the volcano before carrying out investigations or the observations of physics phenomena. But you don't mention that there was a new species discovered on the slopes of the volcano that was named after Misti? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I know it's a bit arbitrary, but the species part would distract a little bit more from the flow and is a little bit longer. That's why I decided to footnote it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I am almost ready to support this article. The last issue that makes me feel uncomfortable is the missing biological info that just appears in the footnote. I fear that this is WP:UNDUE: A general article about a mountain should not just be about geology. Biology is obviously a very important aspect, too, and I cannot endorse covering relevant geological details while not covering relevant biological ones. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:07, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jens Lallensack I tend to agree. BorgQueen (talk) 08:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

[edit]
  • Note: I know nothing about geography or volcanoes, so I'm reviewing this mostly from a layman's perspective.
  • Author name spelling: two sources use Ward, Robert DeC and Ward, R. DeC. ... should they use the same spelling?
    Probably, did so in this case. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not many author links? I see Reinhard, Johan has a link, but can others be supplied? Not required for FA.
    You'll be amazed, but I don't usually focus on authors much. Nor do I follow which authors get articles created on them and which not. So I'll let others add the links. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the distinction between "Further reading" and "External links" sections? The article seems to be using "Further reading" for book(s), and "External links" for websites & journal articles. That distinction does not seem very logical. Can sections be merged? All the sources in both those sections can be "read" by the user. For this article, "External links" should probably be reserved for YouTube videos, Guinness world records; commercial websites; websites with controversial stances; and non RS sources. But all the sources in this article's "External links" section are RS and can be read. Consider merging all into "Further reading" ; or alternatively, define "External links" to be non-academic sources, and move the journal articles from "External links" into "Further reading" (leave the two non-academic sources in External Links).
    Merged the sections. Some are sources of unclear reliability and some sources that I just don't have access to. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider putting this fact into a footnote: ... the others are the Northern Volcanic Zone, the Southern Volcanic Zone and the Austral Volcanic Zone But, it is also fine where it is.
    Eh, I think that one is fine where it is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give a number? Misti is a young volcano. Can the article give the reader a number of years old here? (even if it is given later in the article)
    Don't think that the age of a volcano is usually a fixed number. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider breaking into 2 sentences? It developed in four stages, numbered 1 through 4; a pre-Misti volcano may have formed the southwestern debris avalanche and the older volcanic structures lie mainly in the western sector of Misti.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good use of semicolons: I think the article uses semicolons in a proper and useful manner, e.g. The inner crater cuts through metre-thick ash, scoria deposits and historical lava domes; it is rimmed by scoria.
  • Sources/citations: they seem top-quality; formats look uniform; titles are all using Sentence case (but one, which is justified)
  • Prose: seems professional quality & encyclopedic. I'm sure anyone could find a few phrasings to quibble about, but it seems to meet FA criteria now.
  • Prose: The article has a few short, declaratory sentences (e.g. Misti is part of the Andean Western Cordillera.) but that is acceptable and helpful in scientific/technical articles. I've seen articles where the editors felt compelled to create longer, more elaborate sentences, and the article was the worse for it.
  • Bullets vs table: ... several eruption deposits from this time have been named:... Consider using a table to format that bulleted data. My eyes want an "age" column that so they can scan down the column. Likewise for the names: would be nice to see them all in a column ... easier to digest the data. Not required for FA, just a suggestion.
    I admit the main reason for using bullets is that table formatting is fiendish to remember. If anyone adds it, I won't complain. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ran the copyright violation tool, and it reported one yellow warning. I looked at the data and it is a false positive... so no issues there.
  • Significance? Some Spanish chroniclers have confused it with other volcanoes like Ubinas and Huaynaputina. If this is significant (e.g. related to politics or a boundary dispute) add more details; if not significant, consider demoting into a footnote. As it is, some readers may be confused about what information it is trying to convey.
    The main significance is that when reading some older sources on the volcano, one must be certain they are talking about the right one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • More precise wording? In 1893, professor Solon Irving Bailey from the Harvard College Observatory installed what was then the world's highest weather station on Misti. The Misti site was in its time the highest permanently inhabited location on Earth. The phrase "in its time" is a bit unclear... what is "it"? The mountain? or the weather station? or the "Inca ceremonial platforms" mentioned in the prior sentence? Consider The weather station was the highest permanently .... Also consider changing "permanent" to "continuously", which may be more precise (to me, "permanent" means forever; "continuously" means they did not abandon the station for vacations).
    The observatory/weather station, I thought it was clear enough that the "it" refers to the site. I put "continuously" though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1893[c],[32] professor Solon Irving Bailey from... I've never seen two superscripts with one on each side of a comma like that. My eyes want both of them to be to the right of the comma. Not a showstopper for FA; it just caught my eye.
    I moved this footnote. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not reviewed the images or done a source review.

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for nearly four weeks and despite attracting a fair bit of attention has yet to pick up a support, and has stalled entirely over the past week. Unless there is considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Sigh. Given that all the participants in the previous FAC were/are busy elsewhere, I am not sure where else to ask for comments, do you have an idea? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 World Figure Skating Championships

[edit]
Nominator(s): Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2022 World Figure Skating Championships is well on its way to Featured Article. This is the most recent event, and I was lucky enough to attend in person. The competition results are all sourced and documented, the tables are properly formatted, the background and history have been extensively re-written, the sources are properly formatted and archived where possible, and relevant photographs are used. Please let me know if you have any suggestions or comments, and I look forward to any constructive input. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder

[edit]

Comments

[edit]
  • The lead seems a bit short. Is there more that can be added to it?
  • "the loss of friends and training partners who had died on American Airlines Flight 5342" - this is a bit of an Easter Egg link as it isn't immediately clear that it refers to the same crash as the one mentioned in the previous paragraph
  • Okay, I clarified in the earlier paragraph that it was American Airlines Flight 5342 that was downed in the crash.
  • "Yuma Kagiyama of Japan entered the World Championships after a shocking loss to Cha Jun-hwan of South Korea at the 2025 Asian Winter Games" => "Yuma Kagiyama of Japan entered the World Championships after a loss to Cha Jun-hwan of South Korea at the 2025 Asian Winter Games which was considered shocking by [whoever]"
  • Removed "shocking" altogether. This whole section was originally written by someone else and read like it came straight from a fan blog. I tried to clean it up.
  • "Additionally, Shaidorov became the first skater to land a difficult triple Axel-quadruple toe loop jump combination earlier in the season" => "Additionally, Shaidorov had become the first skater to land a difficult triple Axel-quadruple toe loop jump combination earlier in the season"
  • Done.
  • "she expressed her challenges and enjoyments of returning to competitive skating" - this doesn't really work grammatically. I would suggest "she expressed the challenges she had faced and the enjoyment she had experienced in returning to competitive skating"
  • I reworded it.
  • That's what I got as far as the end of section 1.3. I'll return to look at some more later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while winning the 2024 Skate Canada International, they had lost at the 2024 Finlandia Trophy to Fear and Gibson." => "although they won the 2024 Skate Canada International, they had lost at the 2024 Finlandia Trophy to Fear and Gibson."
  • "with a shocking loss to Fear and Gibson" - same comment as above - who considered in shocking?
  • "moved on to the free skating component [singular], which were [plural]"
  • "of which one has to be a twist lift" => "of which one had to be a twist lift"
  • "His short program became the highest scoring of his career.[5] His short program featured" => "His short program became the highest scoring of his career.[5] It featured" (avoids starting two consecutive sentences with the same three words)
  • "A fall on his quadruple Salchow, as well as a flawed triple Axel, dropped him to tenth place in the free skate, but finished overall with the bronze medal" => "A fall on his quadruple Salchow, as well as a flawed triple Axel, dropped him to tenth place in the free skate, but he finished overall with the bronze medal"
  • "Her free skate to Donna Summer's "MacArthur Park" received a standing ovation from the audience, set another personal best score, with a shocked Liu exclaiming "What the hell?" as she finished her program and received her scores" => "Her free skate to Donna Summer's "MacArthur Park" received a standing ovation from the audience and set another personal best score, with a shocked Liu exclaiming "What the hell?" as she finished her program and received her scores"
  • "and didn't skate as close together" => "and did not skate as close together"
  • That's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:ChrisTheDude: All of the above issues have been addressed. Let me know if you have anything else, and thank you! Bgsu98 (Talk) 07:22, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Pass

[edit]

This table checks 19 passages from throughout the article (15.3% of 124 total passages). These passages contain 23 inline citations (14.6% of 157 in the article). Generated with the Veracity user script. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 18:22, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source # Letter Link Archive Status Notes
The World Figure Skating Championships are considered the most prestigious event in figure skating.
1 isu-skating.com web.archive.org ❌ Fails WP:ABOUTSELF – Replaced with better source
Additionally, Shaidorov had become the first skater to land a difficult triple Axel-quadruple toe loop jump combination earlier in the season.
11 a syracuse.com web.archive.org ✅
Additionally, she had beaten Kaori Sakamoto at the Asian Winter Games.
15 goldenskate.com web.archive.org ⚠️ Partially verified - source doesn't mention Sakamoto – Rewrote sentence
She had finished in second place at the 2025 U.S. Championships and fourth at the Four Continents Championships.
6 e espn.com web.archive.org ✅
Minerva Fabienne Hase and Nikita Volodin of Germany continued to maintain the momentum that had begun last season by winning both the Grand Prix Final and the 2025 European Championships.
17 c cbc.ca web.archive.org ✅
20 goldenskate.com web.archive.org ✅
The reigning silver medalists, Piper Gilles and Paul Poirier of Canada, had had a disappointing Grand Prix season; although they won the 2024 Skate Canada International, they had lost at the 2024 Finlandia Trophy to Fear and Gibson. Their struggles continued at the Grand Prix Final, where they finished in fifth place after a fall in the rhythm dance.
22 b theguardian.com ❌ Failed to verify "Skate Canada International", "Finlandia", the fall in the rythm dance, etc. – Replaced with better sources
17 d cbc.ca web.archive.org ❌ Same as above – Ditto
Women competing in single skating first performed their short programs on Wednesday, March 26, while men performed theirs on Thursday, March 27.
35 a isudam.blob.core.windows.net web.archive.org ✅
Couples competing in pair skating also first performed their short programs on Wednesday, March 26.
35 c isudam.blob.core.windows.net web.archive.org ✅
the short program had to include the following elements: one pair lift, one double or triple twist lift, one double or triple throw jump, one double or triple solo jump, one solo spin combination with a change of foot, one death spiral, and a step sequence using the full ice surface.
40 International Skating Union 2024, p. 119. ✅
and had to include the following: three dance lifts or one dance lift and one combination lift, one dance spin, one set of synchronized twizzles, one step sequence in hold, one step sequence while on one skate and not touching, and three choreographic elements.
42 c usfigureskating.org web.archive.org ✅
At the same time, judges evaluated each performance based on three program components – skating skills, presentation, and composition – and assigned a score from .25 to 10 in .25 point increments.
45 International Skating Union 2024, pp. 84–85. ✅
His free skate featured all six jumps – toe loop, Salchow, loop, flip, Lutz, and Axel – as quadruples,
51 a nbcsports.com web.archive.org ✅
A personal best in his free skate, which included four quadruple jumps, moved him up to second place overall.
53 a theguardian.com web.archive.org ✅
51 c nbcsports.com web.archive.org ✅
About her win after returning from a two-year retirement, Liu stated, "I’m not going to lie, this is an insane story. I don’t know how I came back to be World Champion".
59 b theguardian.com web.archive.org ✅
Her disco-themed short program received a warm reception from the crowd.
16 c forbes.com web.archive.org ✅
Miura and Kihara's margin of victory was the second shortest margin in the history of the pairs event, behind only Aljona Savchenko and Robin Szolkowy of Germany in 2012.
64 b nbcsports.com web.archive.org ✅
Defending World Champions, Deanna Stellato-Dudek and Maxime Deschamps of Canada, finished in fifth place overall. After a disappointing seventh place finish in the short program, their free skate moved them up, with Stellato-Dudek admitting that they had nothing to lose: "We were so far behind after the short program, all we could do was give it our all and that’s what we did.”
67 skatecanada.ca web.archive.org ✅
68 a cbc.ca web.archive.org ✅
Their jazz-themed free dance was nearly perfect, receiving their only deduction for their choreographic twizzles.
72 goldenskate.com web.archive.org ✅ The source says they "lost a level on the stationary lift" - I don't know much about skating, but isn't that a deduction?
Guignard noticed that unlike their competitors, the crowd did not enjoy their free dance, which she said might have affected their scores.
75 b goldenskate.com web.archive.org ✅

Hi Bgsu98, I've done a spot check of the sources above. They are mostly passing, but there are a few passages I failed to verify. I recommend double checking the article's sourcing, and then let me know when you want me to do another spot check. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 19:24, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anne drew: Thank you so much for taking the time to do this review. I will take a look at all of the issues you've brought up, but with regards to the last one: no, "losing a level" is not a deduction. It means that instead of receiving credit for a level 4 lift (for example), the team received credit for a level 3 lift. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:48, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No prob, happy to help! I stand corrected on the point deduction - review updated. As an aside, if you have some time to do a source review on my FA nomination, I'd really appreciate it. No obligation of course! Cheers, Anne drew (talk · contribs) 19:56, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Anne drew: I believe I have addressed all of your concerns. Please let me know if you have anything else, and thank you! Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:15, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up source spot check

This table checks 19 passages from throughout the article (15.1% of 126 total passages). These passages contain 27 inline citations (17.1% of 158 in the article). Generated with the Veracity user script. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 16:16, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reference # Letter Source Archive Status Notes
The ceremony was attended by family members of the victims and alumni of the Skating Club of Boston, as well as Maura Healey, governor of Massachusetts, and Michelle Wu, mayor of Boston.
3 olympics.com ✅
Mikhail Shaidorov of Kazakhstan, who had replaced Siao Him Fa at the Grand Prix Final and ultimately finished there in fourth place, had also recently won the 2025 Four Continents Championships by a margin of 20 points.
6 c rockerskating.com web.archive.org ✅
9 skatingscores.com web.archive.org ✅
7 b olympics.com web.archive.org ✅
At the Olympic test event in Milan, she admitted she was still not completely fit and did a watered-down layout of her usual program, and there were concerns as to how she would do at the World Championships.
11 b rockerskating.com web.archive.org ❌ Couldn't verify some of this
Reigning silver medalists and 2023 World Champions Riku Miura and Ryuichi Kihara of Japan chose to switch choreographers at the start of the season due to feedback given by the skating community after losing their World title to Stellato-Dudek and Deschamps in 2024. Their consistency became a struggle, as multiple issues with their side-by-side jumps throughout the season led to losses at competitions throughout the season, notably at the Grand Prix Final.
18 a rockerskating.com web.archive.org ❌ Failed to verify
After a difficult season both personally and professionally, Sara Conti and Niccolò Macii of Italy returned to form throughout the season, winning the 2024 Cup of China and finishing second at the 2024 Grand Prix de France.
20 olympics.com web.archive.org ✅
Their momentum had shifted by February, when they won the 2025 Four Continents Championships.
21 b theguardian.com ✅
16 d cbc.ca web.archive.org ✅
The reigning bronze medalists, Charlène Guignard and Marco Fabbri of Italy, had the most polarizing free dance of the season, where the two portrayed robots.
26 b rockerskating.com web.archive.org ⚠️ Not clear what this is verifying
29 a skate-info-glace.com web.archive.org ✅
30 olympics.com web.archive.org ✅
The top 24 skaters after completion of their short programs moved on to the free skating component. Women performed their free skates on Friday, March 28, while men performed theirs on Sunday, March 30.
37 b isudam.blob.core.windows.net web.archive.org ✅
Lasting no more than 2 minutes 40 seconds,
40 b International Skating Union 2024, p. 82. ✅
and had to include the following: three dance lifts or one dance lift and one combination lift, one dance spin, one set of synchronized twizzles, one step sequence in hold, one step sequence while on one skate and not touching, and three choreographic elements.
44 c usfigureskating.org web.archive.org ✅
For the 2024–25 season, all of the technical elements in any figure skating performance – such as jumps and spins – were assigned a predetermined base point value and were then scored by a panel of seven or nine judges on a scale from -5 to 5 based on their quality of execution.
45 International Skating Union 2024, pp. 83–84. ✅
His free skate featured all six jumps – toe loop, Salchow, loop, flip, Lutz, and Axel – as quadruples,
53 a nbcsports.com web.archive.org ✅
Kagiyama stated: "I feel like his skating and his artistry, his expression is getting better year by year."
56 nbcsports.com web.archive.org ✅
Her free skate to Donna Summer's "MacArthur Park" received a standing ovation from the audience and set another personal best score, with a shocked Liu exclaiming "What the hell?" as she finished her program and received her scores.
61 a theguardian.com web.archive.org ✅
62 people.com web.archive.org ✅
Her free skate also received a standing ovation from the crowd, and Sakamoto finished overall with the silver medal.
61 d theguardian.com web.archive.org ✅
Isabeau Levito of the United States finished third in the short program, putting to rest any question whether her foot injury was healed or not, although Levito admitted that she was still feeling sore.
59 b usatoday.com web.archive.org ✅
15 d forbes.com web.archive.org ✅
After the free skate, Hase stated, "For one second, we hoped it would be enough, but we did everything in this free skate, and we cannot be ashamed or regret that we held back."
66 d nbcsports.com web.archive.org ✅
Their jazz-themed free dance was nearly perfect, receiving their only deduction for their choreographic twizzles.
74 goldenskate.com web.archive.org ✅
On joining Torvill and Dean as British ice dance World Championship medalists, Gibson said, "we’ve been compared to them a lot, and I love it every time. It’s such an honor. I was inspired by them, and I hope so much that there are little kids out there in Great Britain seeing this and wanting to put their skates on as well.”
77 a goldenskate.com web.archive.org ✅
78 a theguardian.com web.archive.org ✅

Overall the sourcing seems strong. There were a couple incidental failed verifications, but no systemic issues that should result a spot check failure per WP:SPOTCHECK. And importantly, no outright falsehoods or copyright issues. Nicely done with this article and best of luck with your FA nomination! Anne drew (talk · contribs) 16:50, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anne drew: I have addressed the concerns you identified on your second table. Also, I have the following articles at FLC if you are so inclined: Hungarian Figure Skating Championships and Grand Prix of Figure Skating Final. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:21, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Figureskatingfan comments

[edit]

Hi, sorry it's taken me a bit to get to this review; thanks for the ping below. This is an excellent treatment of 2025 Worlds. The comprehensiveness is exceptional. The sources are beyond reproach. The prose shines. This article about a major figure skating competition should be the gold standard. The only negative thing to say is that ref38 has a harv error. Could it be the ISU source?

I also have a few comments, mostly observations:

  • Speaking of the ISU source, I notice that you've nicknamed it "International Skating Union 2024," probably because the ISU is the author. That's fine, but I tend to call it "S&P/ID 2024" because it's a version of the title, shorter, and "S&P/ID" is the ISU's title for the document. BTW, good choice; I contribute to a lot of articles about figure skating elements, and it's the best resource available.
  • I don't know why the one was labeled "U.S. Figure Skating"; I have fixed them all.
  • I didn't mean to direct you to make the change; I was just telling you what *I* do! But you changed them anyway; you're so hilarious. All that matters is consistency, duh. The document only goes up to p. 160, so I corrected the page numbers.
  • I notice that you follow your sources' title capitalization, which means that it isn't consistent. Not sure that matters in FAC.
  • At Featured List, we explicitly do not require adherence to that.
  • I notice that you have just one image gallery, exactly like in 2022 World Figure Skating Championships, mentioned above, so I'm sure this won't affect this FAC, either. However, I wonder if adding a few more images, like of the other medalists, would make a difference?
  • You know how I like consistency. ;)
  • Reading this makes me mad because my life situation didn't allow me to attend 2025 Worlds, even though I reside in the U.S. My only consolation is that I am attending 2026 U.S. Nationals in St. Louis. I tell people that I don't get to attend the Olympics this year, but I'm not mad about it because the skating's gonna be better in St. Louis, anyway. Thanks for letting me share. ;)
  • Alysa Liu's winning performance was the craziest thing I've ever seen, because unlike with Ilia Malinin, her victory was not assured ahead of time. So, she was just delivering, and the audience could track the scores on the overhead monitors, so we knew when she surpassed Kaori Sakamoto. The result was a standing O and raucous applause, coupled with Alysa's total "what the hell?" reaction. Early in that event, the Polish skater, Ekaterina Kurakova, had performed a very lovely routine to "Memory" from Cats, and she also got a standing ovation. She was genuinely shocked when she saw the audience out of our seats, because I don't think she's used to that kind of reaction. If you haven't seen that routine, you owe it to yourself. She was wearing cat ears; it was really very cute.
  • Well, now I'm even madder. Rub it in, why doncha? ;) I'm such a fan of Alysa; I created her WP bio, and she's the reason I edit figure skating articles. Plus, her story about coming back after retiring is so inspirational. I feel so maternal towards her, Nathan Chen as well. She's awesome.
  • I met her at Stars on Ice. I was like, "I love how you were like, this isn't fun anymore; I quit. And then you were like, I miss it, I think I'll come back and win the World Championships." She was sharing a table with Amber Glenn, who, as you know, won the U.S. Championships, so I could compliment them both. I've got a picture of the three of us. :) Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great job, as always. Fix that one piddly little error mentioned above, and I'll support. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Figureskatingfan: Thank you so much! Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:48, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, always a pleasure. Change to enthusiastic SUPPORT. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it shows significant signs of moving towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is going to time out. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild: There is one support above, plus the source review. I will try to wrangle more eyes. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:28, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, for some reason I missed CtD's support; while one is better than none the main point still stands. Image and source reviews - being a little nit picky - attract passes or fails, not supports or opposes (even if a reviewer uses those words). I have no desire to archive this nom, which looks broadly sound to me, but it does need to show a bit more progress. In the light of the support as well as source review pass I shall add it to Urgents. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:37, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Figureskatingfan: I'm sorry to intrude on your Thanksgiving! I just got a "the clock is ticking" warning on this FAC in case you might be able to take a look in the next few days. Of course, I would be happy to assist with anything you might need with your projects as well! Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:30, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Olliefant

[edit]
  • Under "Judging", "scale from -5 to 5 based" has an MOS:DASH error
  • Are you saying the -5 should be –5?
No. it should be − , the minus sign. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's what I thought. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under "Required performance elements" in "Ice Dance",[Competition elements in ice dance] is linked three times, once as a "see also" and then twice in both paragraphs.
  • Those links go to different anchors in the article where those specific elements are discussed.
  • Under "Required performance elements" in "Ice Dance", I think "Disco" is a well known enough term that it might be overlinking
  • I disagree; plus, it would look awkward to have every dance style wikilinked except that one.
  • I would recommend sourcing the "Medals by country" section just to be safe, this is optional since it arguably falls under WP:CALC
  • Done.
That's what I found, ping me when done. Olliefant (she/her) 02:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Olliefant: Let me know what you think. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:45, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Olliefant (she/her) 21:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 United States drone sightings

[edit]
Nominator(s): Anne drew (talk · contribs) 16:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the so called "New Jersey drone sightings", a fascinating recent event at the intersection of technology, social psychology, and national security. In late 2024, thousands of reports of "mysterious drones" flooded in, only for investigators and experts to conclude the phenomenon was largely caused by the misidentification of everyday aircraft and celestial objects.

As the topic is recent, it naturally lacks a deep well of scholarly sources, but the article is built upon the highest-quality sources currently available. The article itself is stable; the core events are firmly rooted in 2024, with an "Aftermath" section covering the subsequent fallout and legislative responses in 2025.

I received an extremely helpful GA review from Viriditas and a comprehensive peer review from Noleander, both of whom provided invaluable feedback to get it to this point. I am ready to address any and all further comments. It would be great if this could appear as Today's Featured Article in December to mark the one-year anniversary of the sightings, but one step at a time! Anne drew (talk · contribs) 16:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by from UC

[edit]

I intend to come back for a proper review later, but for now: Gatwick Airport in London. Although it's called "London Gatwick" as a marketing exercise, Gatwick is well outside London. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:55, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch - thank you! Fixed. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 00:22, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Federal authorities have acknowledged these and other incidents both domestically and internationally: is this quite what is meant? What's the difference between acknowledging an event domestically and acknowledging it internationally?
  • We could do with some context on a few places and things. For example, Plant 42, a US Air Force facility in California -- it's not just a facility; it's a classified aircraft manufacturing plant. Similarly, most readers won't understand why NASA aircraft were involved at Langley Air Force Base, until they Google around to find that it's right next to a major NASA centre.
  • Related to this, we have a few short paragraphs which are also short on information. Take for example:

Unidentified drones were reported over US bases in the United Kingdom in November 2024, followed by sightings over Ramstein Air Base and arms factories in Germany in December 2024. Major General Patrick S. Ryder commented that while private drones periodically fly over military bases, most are not considered threats and do not affect operations.

Who is this guy? We've just talked about the US, Britain and Germany, so it's not obvious which country he's from, and Major General is a relatively junior rank in the grand scheme of things -- why do we have a pronouncement from him displayed so prominently? The answer becomes clear when you find out that he was the Pentagon press secretary at the time.
  • More generally on short paragraphs -- we have a lot of sections and sometimes it gets hard to see the logic and structure. We have a map in the lead which shows sightings across the United States, but very few states are named outside New Jersey (we don't mention, for example, that Camp Pendleton is in California, as is Vandenberg AFB). I think it would be clearer if paragraphs and sections could be closed up and the writing could give more sense of the threads through the story.
    • Thanks, this is valuable feedback. The article definitely appeared a bit fragmented with so many short sections and paragraphs. I've gone through and combined related paragraphs, removed unnecessary section headings, and kept things organized topically. I also added location information where it was missing. Please let me know if this addresses your concerns. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 19:14, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I spotted a couple of minor typos and grammatical errors reading through: see in particular MOS:GEOCOMMA.

I'll stop there for now -- it's an interesting topic and I'm enjoying the article, but I think the prose and organisation need a bit of work to bring it to FA level. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:07, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Captions could use editing for grammar
Thanks for the image review! I've added alt text and improved the captions. I removed that Boeing 747 image since it was only marginally relevant. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 14:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Noleander

[edit]
  • Alternate wording? By Christmas Eve, reports in northern New Jersey ... I suppose most readers of WP, of all religions, are aware that Xmas is near the end of the calendar year, but still it seems odd to mention a religious holiday instead of saying "late December" or "Dec 25th". Unless the sources tie the reduced sightings to Xmas (implying that they were falsehoods, and people got busy with Xmas celebrations, and were too busy to fabricate sightings) consider rewording.
  • Provocative phrase needs attribution ... TSA .. investigators concluded the so-called "swarms" were commercial jets executing S-shaped ... Use of "so-called" here requires special justification. Who used that phrase? The TSA? or the WP editor? If from TSA, probably "so called" should be in quotes. If WP editor, probably should be reworded or removed.
  • Another thing with that same sentence: ... TSA .. investigators concluded the so-called "swarms" were commercial jets executing S-shaped ... , "Swarms" is in quotes. This is the first occurance of that word in the article. I gather it is from the TSA report, but the context needs to be presented as either (a) The TSA is seriously calling them "swarms" as a legit/accurate descriptor; or (b) the people reporting the sightings were calling them "swarms", and the TSA is merely repeating that word (perhaps skeptically). In either case, the article should add words to help reader know who first used the word "swarm" and what the TSA thinks of the accuracy of that word.
  • "However" needs justification: RVCC security supervisor Brian Serge commented, "We never found out what the actual drones were." However, the TSA later released documents showing that three commercial aircraft approaching... Some readers may conclude that word "however" suggests that the statement by Serge was a lie (or he was ignorant) and was exposed by the TSA. Did Serge know about the commercial aircraft facts when he said "we never found out ..."? But maybe it is simply the WP editor indicating that there were two opposing stmts on the same event? Suggest removing "however"; or if keep it: clarify if Serge was being (deliberately?) corrected.
  • The Proposed Explanations section has several subsections, each one discussing a potential explanation. I'm not sure what the sequence of those subsections is. It seems like they should be either (a) chronological based on when they were first proposed. Or (b) in a descending series based on plausibility. Obviously we editors cannot perform original research and determine the measure of possibility, but since the sequence of sections is within our jurisdiction we should be able to sequence them in a way that puts the least likely or most irrelevant proposals near the bottom. Consider making the topmost explanations the normal drones and psychological explanations. Likewise, the bottom most proposed explanations would be the foreign drones and the nuclear materials.
    • That's fair. Currently it's arranged alphabetically, but organizing the sections by their support in the literature seems like a good approach aligned with WP:DUE. I've arranged it thusly: Misidentified objects (consensus expert view), Ordinary drones (one of the official explanations), Psychological and social explanations (second order explanation for the widespread reactions to routine aerial objects), Foreign drones (disputed explanation), and Nuclear material search (disfavoured, fringe explanation). Anne drew (talk · contribs) 16:49, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HAL

[edit]

That's all I got. I will say that I was fascinated by this episode when it happened, but after moving to the city and having a view of New Jersey and the non-stop air traffic, it's pretty clear that most if not all sightings were just planes. ~ HAL333 01:12, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (11/15/25)

[edit]

This table checks 44 passages from throughout the article (20.1% of 219 total passages). These passages contain 72 inline citations (21.2% of 339 in the article). Generated with the Veracity user script. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:53, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source # Letter Link Archive Status Notes
London Gatwick Airport was forced to cancel flights for several days in December 2018 due to drone reports near its runways.
6 archive.today Good
7 archive.today Good
In August 2024, sightings over Plant 42, a classified aircraft manufacturing plant of the US Air Force in California, were confirmed by the Air Force and led to new FAA airspace restrictions.
9 c nj.com web.archive.org Good
15 twz.com Good
The sightings, initially concentrating around the Raritan River corridor,
4 a nbcwashington.com web.archive.org Good
25 a apnews.com web.archive.org Good
26 a app.com Good I'm not sure you need three sources for this one statement, but that's up to you.
soon spread across New Jersey.
27 nj.com web.archive.org Good
28 a cbsnews.com web.archive.org Good
Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
2 a nbcboston.com web.archive.org Good
and Virginia.
4 b nbcwashington.com web.archive.org Good
or flew without navigation lights.
39 a apnews.com web.archive.org Good
That day, a contractor at Picatinny Arsenal reported seeing "a light rising straight up from the tree line and toward the arsenal."
21 b nytimes.com web.archive.org Good
Coast Guard officer Luke Pinneo stated that "multiple low-altitude aircraft were observed in the vicinity" of one of their vessels.
30 b northjersey.com web.archive.org Fail Removed! Anne drew (talk · contribs) 16:01, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
39 b apnews.com web.archive.org Fail The source contains:

Coast Guard Lt. Luke Pinneo told The Associated Press Wednesday “that multiple low-altitude aircraft were observed in vicinity of one of our vessels near Island Beach State Park.” Anne drew (talk · contribs) 16:01, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

54 cnn.com web.archive.org Good Source no. 54 verifies the quote; I would remove the other two.
The aircraft made S-shaped maneuvers while approaching the airport, creating an illusion of hovering when viewed from certain perspectives.
57 b reason.com Good
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio experienced airspace closures in mid-December due to incursions by small drones.
63 cnn.com web.archive.org Good
64 wcpo.com web.archive.org Good
65 wcpo.com web.archive.org Good
The TSA later released documents showing that three commercial aircraft approaching Solberg Airport (N51) near the school had been misidentified as drones. The TSA's analysis concluded that because the aircraft were flying directly towards the observers on the ground, they appeared to hover.
57 d reason.com Good
United States Senator Andy Kim reported observing drones near the Round Valley Reservoir during a December 12 patrol with Clinton Township Police. He later acknowledged that the majority of the suspected drones were probably airplanes.
70 wfmz.com web.archive.org Fail Only verifies first sentence
71 thehill.com web.archive.org Good Verifies both sentences; I would remove the other two sources as unnecessary.
72 thehill.com web.archive.org Fail Only verifies first sentence
On the same day, Stewart International Airport (SWF) in Orange County, New York, shut down for an hour due to drone activity, an event subsequently confirmed by Governor Hochul.
80 abcnews.go.com web.archive.org Good
22 c cnn.com web.archive.org Fail This source does not refer to this airport incident, nor Governor Hochul's confirmation. Since the first source verifies this statement, I would remove this one.
Police located two of the men on an island in Boston Harbor and arrested them.
81 b nbcnews.com web.archive.org Good
82 a suffolkdistrictattorney.com web.archive.org Good
The FBI initiated its investigation on December 3, 2024, by requesting that the public report any sightings of suspected drones near the Raritan River in New Jersey.
49 c abcnews.go.com web.archive.org Good
90 abcnews.go.com web.archive.org ? This one is iffy. Since the other two sources confirm this statement, I recommend removing this one.
25 c apnews.com web.archive.org Good
Her summary also said the drones seemed to "operate in a coordinated manner", evaded typical means of detection, and did not appear to be flown by hobbyists.
39 e apnews.com web.archive.org ? I do not see the statement "operate in a coordinated manner" in either source; if I have missed it, please let me know. The other elements of the statement are sourced.
94 b bbc.com web.archive.org ? See above.
New Jersey assemblymen Paul Kanitra and Greg Myhre said that Kirby's statements seemed to contradict the briefing that happened a day prior.
53 b usatoday.com web.archive.org Good
The statement noted that sightings over restricted military airspace were "not new" and that the DoD considers unauthorized incursions a serious matter.
104 b dhs.gov web.archive.org ? Personally, I would go with source no. 106 as it fully supports the statement.
106 b nbcnews.com web.archive.org Good
TSA documents revealed that by December 17, 2024—the day before the FAA imposed flight restrictions—the agency had already internally debunked several high-profile drone incidents as misidentified phenomena. The TSA did not initially share the findings with the public; they were only released later through a Freedom of Information Act request. Reason magazine suggested that withholding this evidence prolonged public concern while helping justify calls for expanded counter-drone governmental powers.
57 g reason.com Good
In response to these events, New York Governor Kathy Hochul announced on December 15 that the federal government would provide New York with a drone detection system.
109 a bbc.com web.archive.org Good
110 abcnews.go.com Good
Governors Maura Healey of Massachusetts and Glenn Youngkin of Virginia confirmed state investigations into the increasing sightings on December 14, with Youngkin citing concerns over national security and critical infrastructure.
22 e cnn.com web.archive.org Fail I am not seeing this statement from Glenn Youngkin. If I have missed it, please let me know.
  • It's in the archive link but not the live link. I would change the citation status to 'deviated', but there are also some statements in the article that are verified by the live version and not the archived version. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 16:01, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Federal Aviation Administration banned the use of drones in multiple areas in New Jersey and New York State. On November 22, 2024, they issued a two-week flight restriction over Donald Trump's Bedminster golf club and, days later, a month-long restriction over Picatinny Arsenal.
35 g nytimes.com Fail This source does not specify the timeline or arsenal, and since source no. 116 verifies everything in this statement, I would remove this source.
116 nj.com web.archive.org Good
The FAA said the restrictions were due to "special security reasons" and were requested by other federal authorities.
118 c nytimes.com web.archive.org Good
119 c abcnews.go.com web.archive.org Good
In mid-December, several United States Senators formally requested federal support and transparency regarding the sightings. Senators Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Andy Kim, and Chuck Schumer, sent a letter to the FBI, DHS and FAA on December 12, requesting briefings on their efforts to address the situation.
49 h abcnews.go.com web.archive.org Good
122 booker.senate.gov web.archive.org Good
Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas called on Congress to extend and expand existing authority to conduct drone oversight, which were provided by the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 and neared expiration.
102 b npr.org web.archive.org Good
103 b nj.com web.archive.org Good
A congressional subcommittee held a December hearing on the bipartisan "Counter-UAS Authority Security, Safety, and Reauthorization Act", which would expand federal drone-countering powers.
102 c npr.org web.archive.org Good
and H.R. 9949, which would have directed the FAA to establish temporary flight restrictions over outdoor music festivals.
123 g dronelife.com web.archive.org ? The name DRONELIFE should not be in all caps in the citation.
A social media post by Doug Mastriano included an image of a "crashed drone", which was actually a replica of a TIE fighter from the Star Wars franchise.
132 independent.co.uk web.archive.org Good
133 snopes.com web.archive.org Good
Then President-elect Donald Trump suggested on December 13 that the US military should shoot down unidentified drones.
135 politico.com web.archive.org Good
Drone expert William Austin analyzed imagery and reports, concluding that many "large drones" were likely misidentified manned aircraft, cell tower lights, or smaller drones.
139 dronelife.com web.archive.org Good
140 ocregister.com web.archive.org Fail Does not mention cell towers. Since the first source verifies the entire statement, I would remove this one.
Skeptic Mick West proposed that many sightings were likely misidentifications and that videos purportedly showing unusual objects could be explained by the limitations of smartphone cameras.
145 livescience.com web.archive.org Good
Similarly, Tom Adams, a counter-drone defense consultant and former FBI agent, blamed "hysteria" for manned aircraft being mistaken for drones. According to Adams, nighttime observers frequently confuse objects like manned aircraft, planets, satellites, and the International Space Station with drones.
147 theguardian.com Good
148 6abc.com web.archive.org Good
The FAA estimated that 2.8 million drones would operate in the United States in 2024,
14 b scientificamerican.com web.archive.org Fail Source actually states 1.8 million.
Sociologist Robert Bartholomew characterized the 2024 sightings as a social panic,
157 a michaelshermer.substack.com web.archive.org Good
He argued that media coverage prompted people to pay closer attention to the sky, noticing conventional air traffic they would normally ignore.
157 c michaelshermer.substack.com web.archive.org Good
158 b psychologytoday.com Good
Space photographer Andrew McCarthy asserted that all the videos he reviewed showed only ordinary helicopters or planes. He proposed that the sightings were a "social contagion", where people were simply noticing and misinterpreting regular air traffic.
163 thespectator.com web.archive.org ? Unable to verify source as it requires a subscription/registration; this needs to be marked in the citation via |source-access=
New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy also questioned Iran's capability for such a mission.
166 politico.com web.archive.org Good Kind of.
Congressman Michael McCaul, chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in mid-December that he believed some of the unidentified aircraft were "spy drones" from China.
167 news10.com Good
On January 1, 2025, Matthew Livelsberger, a soldier and drone warfare specialist, committed suicide in a car bombing in Las Vegas.
170 archive.today Good Just as an aside, I'm not sure what this paragraph has to do with unidentified drone sightings.
The mayor of Belleville, New Jersey, suggested the widely seen drones were government-operated, searching for the missing object.
173 c abcnews.go.com web.archive.org Good
On January 28, 2025, the new White House Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt, conveyed an update from President Trump regarding the drone sightings. She explained that following an investigation, it was determined that the aircraft were primarily FAA-authorized research drones and those operated by hobbyists and private individuals. Leavitt noted that public curiosity contributed to the increase in sightings and affirmed that the drones did not represent a threat.
153 b abcnews.go.com web.archive.org Good
175 bbc.com web.archive.org Good
176 usatoday.com web.archive.org Good
The force was developed using lessons learned from incursions over military bases, including those part of the 2024 sightings.
177 c twz.com web.archive.org Good
This bill also remains in committee as of November 2025.
179 b congress.gov Good

User:Anne drew: I have performed your source review. Please let me know if you have any questions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:01, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith

[edit]
Background
[edit]
  • This section starts rather abruptly with a statement about London Gatwick Airport, which is kind of odd for an article about an event in the United States. I would begin by introducing the reader to the subject. First, tell them what a drone is; many people may not have any idea. Or think we're talking about these things or perhaps these. Once you've done all then, then dive into the list of examples.
  • Significant drone incursions occurred over Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, in December 2023, prompting a response involving US government aircraft.[9][12][13] You've got three citations for a single sentence (WP:OVERCITE). The last one covers everything so the first two are just clutter.
  • Why is TWZ a WP:HQRS? I'm not seeing anything on https://www.twz.com/about which convinces me that they are. Some quick googling of the editorial staff shows that most of them are mostly known for working at TWZ. Their mission statement ("Recurrent is a digital media company whose content from trusted brands aims to foster generations of passionate audiences across enthusiast verticals ...") sounds more like the "We publish click bait" end of the spectrum than "We do serious investigative journalism".
Reported sightings
[edit]
  • The first reported sighting occurred at Picatinny Arsenal in Morris County, New Jersey, on November 13, 2024.[21] There's no context here. The first reported sighting of what? I'm guessing a drone (or suspected drone) in the US, but that contradicts what we were told in the previous section.
  • By November 18, additional sightings were reported in Morris County and the neighboring Somerset County.[22][23][24] from what I can see in the source (nj.com), the Somerset sightings weren't until November 26.
  • The sightings, initially concentrating around the Raritan River corridor,[4][25][26] Why does it take three citations to back up that the sightings were along the Raritan River, i.e. OVERCITE again?
  • were as large as cars,[33][37][38] only one of these three sources mentions cars.
  • Legislators Chris Smith and Paul Kanitra claimed that multiple drones followed a United States Coast Guard 47-foot Motor Lifeboat.[26][52][53] Again, why three citations for this one simple statement? The USA Today article contains all the support that's necessary.
  • Coast Guard officer Luke Pinneo stated that "multiple low-altitude aircraft were observed in the vicinity" of one of their vessels.[39][54] Same story, why do you need two citations here? The AP story gives the quote and attribution, which is all you need. The CNN story doesn't add anything new, and in fact just refers to the AP as their source, so doubly nothing new.
  • White House spokesperson John Kirby said the reported aircraft were commercial flights approaching John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), not drones, based on forensic analysis.[55][56] More of the same. You don't need two citations for this one simple attributed statement. In fact, looking at the bylines of the two articles, they're actually both the same item, with USA today picking up a syndicated story from the Asbury Park Press.

I'm going to stop here. I'm finding problems in almost every sentence. This needs a lot of work to clean up extensive WP:OVERCITE issues. I've only read the first couple of sections, but I'm assuming the rest of the article will be more of the same. So my suggestion is to work on that and then if you want, ping me and I'll come back and take another look. RoySmith (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the OVERCITE essay, I believe it only discourages multiple citations if they're virtually identical. There's nothing wrong with having two or three citations for a sentence provided they each provide a unique insight. Citations serve a couple of purposes, not only to help reviewers validate the material, they also provide opportunities for readers to explore the topic. Supplying two or three citations may help the reader if each offers unique information. When two citations are virtually identical, then I agree that one of them should be deleted.
I have not scrutinized the multiple citations that are identified here, so a question to the nominator is: Do the citations have virtually identical content? Or do they each provide a unique insight? Noleander (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Every citation incurs a readability cost (it's easier to read a paragraph that's not interrupted by floating blue numbers; it's easier to read a paragraph that's interrupted by a smaller chunk of them than a larger one) -- so if the entire statement can be supported from one and isn't particularly controversial, I'd agree with Roy that the additional citations should go. Readability and comprehensibility are FAC criteria; giving lots of interesting external links is not. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:18, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the goal is readability, and if two different citations give each give unique insights to the reader, then bundling the cites (so only a single superscript number is visible) would be a technique that might achieve both goals.
For this article, isn't the real issue the frequency? Certainly a large portion of featured articles have two or three superscripts for many sentences. I'm sensing that the real objection to this article is the fact that the vast majority of sentences have two or three superscripts, correct?
I think we're all in agreement that if there are two citations that are virtually identical then one should be deleted. And I think we all agree that lots of consecutive superscripts are ugly and impede the reader. But I believe there's nothing wrong with providing the reader with two or three cites if they each provide a unique insight (and in that case the nominator should consider using bundling to keep the number of superscripts down to one). Noleander (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a drive-by comment, readability is a criterion, but I wouldn't count "having two citations when one works just fine" to be as significant a part of that criterion as other aspects, such as the prose and the section hierarchy. Some mirrors of Wikipedia may omit the brackets or the citations altogether. Of course, the more citations one adds to a single passage, the more unwieldy it gets; three is usually the maximum I would suggest, but up to four is acceptable in a few edge cases.
That being said, I will say that it may be helpful for @Anne drew to bundle some of the citations for the more uncontroversial statements. I'll bring up as an example a GA where Roy raised similar issues; I resolved the issue by combining sources that talked about similar topics. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback, RoySmith. I appreciate you taking a look. Regarding the multiple citations, that's a fair point from both you and UndercoverClassicist. You're right that some statements are genuinely uncontroversial and don't need multiple sources. I will go through the article and remove those citations to improve readability.
You are totally correct that some of those citations are extraneous, and I'll happily clean them up. And your other points are well-taken. I just wanted to lay out the full reasoning for this article's general approach to sourcing since I understand it diverges from the typical featured article. Thanks again for the review! Anne drew (talk · contribs) 21:29, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As another example, Multiple drone sightings were reported over Picatinny Arsenal and Naval Weapons Station Earle in New Jersey,[45][46][47]. All three sources mention both Picatinny and Earle, but it's all basically the same information. All three include the same quotes from William Addison, and two of them include the same quotes from Craig A. Bonham.
And the next bit says with some accounts coming from what military officials described as highly trained security personnel. If you're concerned with "speculation and public distrust", a second-hand report by anonymous officials telling us what anonymous security personnel saw isn't what we need to dispel that. RoySmith (talk) 12:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another citation oddity (from "Responses"):

On December 18, the FAA issued a one-month ban on drone operations near 22 communities in New Jersey, including Camden, Elizabeth, and Jersey City.[116][117] The next day, they issued a ban on drone flights over parts of New York State, including Brooklyn, Queens, and communities in Long Island.[116][117] The FAA said the restrictions were due to "special security reasons" and were requested by other federal authorities.[116][117] New York Governor Kathy Hochul said that the restricted areas include "critical infrastructure sites" and that the action was precautionary.[116][117]

I haven't looked at the sources, but for sure those four pairs of identical citations could be collected into a single pair at the end of the whole passage. RoySmith (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I already raised a question about TWZ vis-a-vis it being a WP:HQRS. Looking at some others:

  • defensescoop.com? The about page says "DefenseScoop is the premier community-driven news source with more than 8.1M monthly unique engagements...", which raises two questions. One, "community-driven" sure sounds like WP:UGC. Two, the fact that they focus on how many "monthly unique engagements" they have and don't say anything about their editoral review process doesn't scream HQRS to me.
  • dronexl.com? Looks more like a blog than a HQRS.
Updates
[edit]

Hi RoySmith, I have now gone through the article and believe I have addressed all the outstanding points you raised, as well as the feedback from Noleander, UndercoverClassicist, and Epicgenius.

First, regarding your primary concern about WP:OVERCITE: I have completed a full pass of the article to improve readability. I removed many unnecessary citations (see log here) and bundled citations together where possible. I've also retracted my earlier comment regarding "credibility via volume". After reviewing featured articles on similar topics, I realized that my approach was pretty unconventional and ultimately detrimental to the reading experience.

Regarding the specialist sources, I appreciate the scrutiny. I have removed the citations to DroneXL as you suggested. However, I have retained The War Zone (TWZ) and DefenseScoop, as I believe they are high-quality reliable sources under WP:RS:

  • The War Zone (TWZ): This is a dedicated defense journalism outlet led by Editor-in-Chief Tyler Rogoway, a specialized aviation journalist with over a decade of experience, and supported by veteran editors like Thomas Newdick (20+ years in defense media).[1][2] The site is known for long-form investigative pieces and is treated as a reliable source by "blue chip" media. For instance, the Associated Press directly cited TWZ for an exclusive interview with Ukraine's intelligence chief in late 2024.[3]
  • DefenseScoop: I can clarify the "community-driven" language. In the B2B media industry, this refers to serving a specific professional community (DoD leadership) - it does not refer to user-generated content. Their "About" page explicitly defines their mission as engaging "Pentagon and service senior leaders".[4] The outlet is staffed by respected defense journalists: Managing Editor Jon Harper was previously at National Defense Magazine and Stars and Stripes,[5][6][7] while Pentagon Correspondent Brandi Vincent is a recipient of the Jesse H. Neal Award (the "Pulitzer of B2B journalism"),[8] and her coverage of the NJ drone sightings was recognized with a 2025 ASBPE Award, confirming the outlet's reputation for accuracy.[9]

References

  1. ^ "About TWZ". The War Zone.
  2. ^ "The Team". The War Zone.
  3. ^ Novikov, Illia (18 October 2024). "Russia returns 500 dead soldiers to Ukraine as world leaders mull next steps". AP News.
  4. ^ "About Us". DefenseScoop.
  5. ^ "Jon Harper Archives". DefenseScoop.
  6. ^ "National Defense magazine nets two Defence Media Awards" (Press release). National Defense Industrial Association. 22 October 2019.
  7. ^ "Pentagon Press Briefing by Commander, U.S. Pacific Command". U.S. Indo-Pacific Command. 29 July 2014. Q: Hi, Admiral. Jon Harper with Stars and Stripes.
  8. ^ "Brandi Vincent". FedScoop.
  9. ^ "2025 Azbee Awards of Excellence Mid Atlantic Region Award Winners" (PDF). ASBPE. p. 6.

On the matters of prose and accuracy, I have added introductory sentences to various sections, including "Background" and "Reported sightings", to add clarity and make them feel less abrupt. I also fixed the source-text mismatch regarding the date of the Somerset County sightings. Regarding the descriptions of the drones being "as large as cars", I reviewed the source material again; since the reports vary between "cars" and "SUVs", I have retained "cars" as a reasonable paraphrase.

Finally, I have kept the reference to "highly trained security personnel". While I understand your concern that these are second-hand accounts, I believe the context is important. It distinguishes these specific reports from casual sightings and helps explain why authorities and the media gave them such significant weight.

I believe these changes and explanations resolve the outstanding concerns. Thank you again for your time and feedback. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 23:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RoySmith, just a polite follow-up on my reply above. I believe I've addressed the citation density issues and the source reliability concerns. If you have a moment, I'd appreciate you taking another look at the article. Thanks, Anne drew (talk · contribs) 03:16, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anne, my apologies for not responding earlier. My wiki time has been rather limited of late, but I'll try to get back to this in the next few days. I may not have time to do a full review, however. RoySmith (talk) 04:24, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saxe–Goldstein hypothesis

[edit]
Nominator(s): UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a (relatively) big hit in the field of archaeological theory, and an interesting snapshot of the science-loving processual trend in the archaeology of the 1970s and '80s. In 1970, a graduate student named Art Saxe came up with a set of eight ideas about how a society's funerary practices might tell us interesting things about its social organisation. Numbers one through seven were barely noticed, but the eighth was adopted by another young scholar, Lynne Goldstein, and turned into a sharp if controversial tool for reading the archaeological record. Essentially, Saxe and Goldstein argued that cemeteries are really about competition over resources, and a society's use of formal cemeteries is a good indication that people in that society are fighting over something.

This is probably the most technical article I've written, and certainly the most arcane I've taken to FAC. In a university course, its subject would probably be first encountered towards the end of undergraduate study, or in postgraduate work. Archaeological theory by its nature is not an everyday topic, and archaeological theoreticians are not known for being concise or comprehensible in their writing style. It's also the sort of topic that's rarely fully discussed in itself, which made some of the article quite tricky to pull together. It received an extremely helpful (and unwittingly consequential) Good Article nomination from Femke, and a PR (also extremely helpful) from Mike Christie and MSincccc. In both of these, a key item of discussion was the balance between detail and comprehensibility, with WP:MTAU and WP:ONEDOWN making several appearances. I think I've managed to thread the needle reasonably well, but quibbles and advice on improving accessibility would be most gratefully received. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Kerameikos,_Athens_-_51036694153.jpg should include an explicit tag for the original work
    • This one's a bit tricky. The gravestones in the image are replicas (plaster casts), and I can find no specific information on when they were made. The Cambridge University Cast Gallery mentions when a few of the originals were moved -- that the Dexileos stele in the image was "in situ until the Second World War" (so 1940 in Greece), for example, which makes it reasonably likely that the first cast was installed at the same time (though it may have been older: it was common for museums to use such casts in the early C20th). In that case it would probably be PD in Greece (as an anonymous work, copyright expires 70 years after publication) but I'm not sure that it would be in the United States (which would need it to have been PD in Greece in 1996, so made prior to 1926, which is possible but unproveable). Even then, we have no way of knowing that these plaster casts are the originals. That would point towards a swap -- unless we say that a plaster cast doesn't meet the US threshold of originality for a new copyright? UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a PD original from which a replica was made, the replica is PD per commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Replicas_of_PD_artworks. Is it known that the original is/was PD? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes — the originals are over 2000 years old! I’ll link that Commons page – unless there’s a nice template for this purpose? UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:18, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now done. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:34, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flyby from RoySmith

[edit]

I'm not sure this is in-scope for FAC, but I'm wondering if "Saxe–Goldstein hypothesis" is a good title for the article. The problem is, it doesn't give any hint what the topic is. It could be a hypothesis about anything from biblical studies to quantum mechanics. But maybe that's just the nature of titles and I see we have lots like that, so take this for whatever it's worth. RoySmith (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. I think the relevant policy here is WP:CONCISION: specifically The goal of concision is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area. (emphasis mine). So we could have e.g. "Saxe--Goldstein hypothesis (archaeological theory)", but that wouldn't be needed for someone familiar with the general subject area (archaeological theory?), and there's no other S-G hypothesis with which it might be confused. Without wishing to go all WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, we have plenty of existing FAs with potentially opaque titles: Weise's law, Greek case, Quine–Putnam indispensability argument and WINC (AM), for instance. Did you have a specific suggestion in mind? UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no better suggestion. As a wikipedian, it is my inalienable right to complain about something without actually having a clue how it could be improved :-) RoySmith (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Entering the pattern for a few touch-and-goes...

  • The Saxe–Goldstein hypothesis is a middle-range theory... I'd start at the very beginning. The reader at this point doesn't even have a clue what the topic is, so, borrowing some text from Middle-range theory (archaeology) maybe something like "The Saxe-Goldstein hypothesis is a theory in archeology which attempts to link human behavior and natural processes to the physical remains in the archeological record". You could then go on with "As such, it is a middle-range theory ..." You do this better in the lead with the "In archeology ..." introduction, but the body should be able to stand alone.
    • I think this needs to get a bit more complicated, unfortunately, as I'm no longer convinced you can use "middle-range theory" as a countable noun: we need "an example of middle-range theory". Not insurmountable by any means, though: I'll get to this one have now got to this. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:02, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saxe developed this hypothesis from the work of Mervyn Meggitt, who found (based on anthropological observations between 1933 and the early 1960s) that the Mae Enga people of Papua New Guinea determined the legitimate ownership of land through claims of lineal descent from ancestors who had once settled it.[9] A rather long and complex sentence that could be split up.
  • In a 1962 article, Binford had called on archaeologists to make greater use of ethnographic parallels, as Saxe later did it might be worth doing a more chronological thing and mentioning this first, before you get into Saxe's work. There's also an unfortunate repetition of the word "parallel". In the section heading, you're using parallel to mean Saxe and Binford's efforts were going on at the same time. Here you use it in a totally different sense (ethnographic parallels), which might be confusing to readers.
  • In a 1971 article titled "Mortuary Practices: Their Study and Their Potential", Binford argued that funerary practices should be understood as reflections of the social organization of the people who carry them out, rather than as consequences of the ancestry of different cultural groups or of contacts between them (the cultural diffusionist or culture-historical model then prevalent in archaeology) another overly-complex sentence.
  • As a general comment (triggered by the next two immediately following sentences), I think you lean towards these long sentences too much. Periods, when purchased in bulk at the punctuation store, can be had for attractive prices so you can afford to sprinkle them about more liberally than you do.
  • You use the term "funerary practices", which I'm sure is the correct term in the scientific literature, but could it be replaced with the more familiar (and thus more accessible to non-expert readers) "funeral practices" without loss of precision? You also talk about "mortuary practice". Is that the same thing as "funerary practice"? If so, then sticking to a single term would reduce confusion. If not, then explain how they differ.
    • "Funerary" is better than "funeral", I think, since it encompasses what's done to "process" the dead body more widely than "funeral", which really refers to a single event. "Mortuary" is broader still: it covers the treatment of the dead, which might include (for example) digging them up and doing things with their remains long after the funeral, continued rituals involving the graves, and so on. I'll have a think on this: it might be simplest just to define the two terms, but there may well be opportunities to clarify the language in places. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:02, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Binford investigated a sample of 40 societies does that mean he started with 40 and took a sub-sampling of those? If you mean he studied 40 societies, I'd drop the "sample of".
  • more and more abstract degrees of differentiation why "more and more" instead of just "more"?
  • Saxe's Hypothesis 8 was widely adopted MOS:SPELLNUM argues for spelling out "eight", but maybe 8 is standard practice in the literature, in which case I guess that overrides the MOS?
  • a corporate group structure I suspect "corporate" is a term of art here, with a meaning distinct from Corporation, in which case a brief explanation would help.

I only skimmed the rest of this. My general comment is that it's a bit dense and probably not as accessible to inexpert lay readers as WP:TECHNICAL would like. Some of it is vocabulary. Terms like funerary, lineal descent, corporate, hypothesis, ethnographic, swidden, megalithic, neolithic, mesolithic, mesoamerican, agency, disjunction, methodological, reductionist, deterministic may not all be hard-core technical terms, but many of them will be unfamiliar to our general readership. This is compounded by an overly academic writing style with long and complex sentences. This would be a much better article if the overall reading level could be brought down a bit. RoySmith (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these, Roy. I think your diagnosis is good: there's a bit of a tension here between the inherently arcane nature of the subject matter, or at least the scholarship on it, and our desire to write for a general audience (from sources which are uniformly written for a specialist one). I've had a look back over Quine–Putnam indispensability argument (as a complete non-mathematician) and I'm going to try to use that as my yardstick: yes, there's some vocabulary there that's indispensible (sorry...) and perhaps opaque ("epistemological", "semantics", "ontological" etc), but overall it does a really good job of explaining most of that vocabulary in context, and the overall flow is clear. It won't be a quick fix but I've made a start above. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:02, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood about the vocabulary. Even if we can't get this down to Archeology For Dummies level, hopefully we can move it in that direction. And if you ask nicely, I'm sure the guy who runs the punctuation store will slip you a box of recycled periods still in perfectly usable shape (a little old lady only drove them to grammar school on Sundays) for no charge. RoySmith (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: I've done a bit of work here, mostly focusing on the body, and with particular focus on clarifying the inescapable archaeological jargon. I think the trickiest bit remaining is Lynne Goldstein's big blockquotes, but I'm reluctant to replace those with paraphrases -- yes, readability is important, but it's also important that the article actually contains the precise formulation of what the hypothesis actually is. We go on to explain the upshot of Goldstein's contribution in the "one-way argument" paragraph. Still WIP, but I'd be grateful for a temperature check and any further thoughts at this stage. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:38, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Just a quick note to acknowledge that I've seen this. I will try to get back here, but can't commit to when. RoySmith (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's the better part of a week later and I haven't managed to get back here yet. I'm afraid I may have done you a disservice by starting a review which I'm not finding time to carry through to its conclusion. I may still get back here, but I don't want to make any promises I may not be able to deliver on. RoySmith (talk) 14:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back to look at this again...

  • Specifically, it argues that societies in which corporate groups (that is, groups of people that share a common identity) legitimize their claims to important, restricted resources by claiming ties to ancestors will be more likely to use formal areas for the disposal of their dead, and that societies using such areas would be more likely to contain such corporate groups.[3] there's got to be some simpler way to say this. I get up to about "by claiming ties" and start to get lost. Maybe:

    The Saxe–Goldstein hypothesis argues that using formal areas to dispose of the dead correlates with certain other cultural features. Specifically, it focuses on corporate groups (people sharing a common identity) which legitimize their claims to restricted resources by claiming ties to ancestors. Societies with these corporate groups will be more likely to use such areas; conversely, societies using such areas would be more likely to contain such corporate groups.[3]

That works: I've added with slight variation. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:23, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I keep reading, I'm still finding it slow going. I think it's a combination of the unfamiliar vocabulary and the complex sentence structure. Looking at, for example, the three sub-hypotheses, as framed by Goldstein bullet list, I wonder of this complexity is just reflecting Goldstein's original overly-complicated language. For example, she talks about a permanent, specialized, bounded area for the exclusive disposal of their dead. After reading that a few times, I finally realized she's talking about a cemetery. I imagine that to a professional archeologist, "cemetery" is probably not the right word for some reason that makes sense to archeologists. But to much of our intended WP:AUDIENCE, it's a concept they will immediately understand rather than some complicated description they need to carefully parse. I get tht we can't do anything about Goldstein's academic (i.e. obfuscatory) style of writing, but our job here is to take that and make it more accessible to our lay readership. I see you do switch to using the word "cemetery" later on (in the Application section), but I suspect few readers will make it that far.

This bit is quoting Goldstein, and I think that's a good thing (for the reasons I've said above) -- perhaps it could be made more obvious that it is a quotation. The paragraph before is the condensed summary. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:49, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished reading the entire article. Starting with the Application section, I found it much easier going. Part of that may be that by the time I got there, I'd become familiar with the basic concepts and things just fell into place better. But I think that a big part is that in these later sections you've gotten further away from what I earlier called an obfuscatory style of writing. Academics tend to use a very formal style. Some of this is legitimate: fields invent their own terminology to describe specific concepts in an exact and precise way. But I also suspect it's a mix of this being what they're used to seeing in the literature and wanting to impress their mentors, peers, granting agencies, thesis committees, etc. Unfortunately, that often leads to a style of writing which is difficult to understand if you're not already an expert in the field.

I think at this point I get the gist of the hypothesis. Some societies have a concept of inherited wealth (power, stature, etc): "This is my land because it was my father's land, and his father's land before that". And if you're going to base your society around that, what better way to justify those claims of ownership than to bury your dead in a way that makes it easy to identify that inheritance chain, i.e. put them in a special place, and mark the spot with a stone. But it took me a while to get there. And now that I am there, I can go back and re-read the earlier sections with much greater comprehension.

When I review articles, I tend to skip the lead, and indeed that's what I did in this case. Going back and reading it now, I see that a lot of the missing background is covered in the lead. Had I read it first, I suspect I would have had an easier time with the early sections of the main body. But I think the body should be better able to stand on its own as far as comprehensibility by a non-expert reader goes.

Well, anyway, that's it for me. I hope some of this was of use. And, to forestall coordinator queries, I'm going to leave this here rather than offering a binary support/oppose opinion. RoySmith (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Roy -- it definitely was. If I'm understanding you above, I think the main "obfuscatory style" bit is Goldstein's own words. I think it's important that we do include those: "scientific" laws are phrased precisely and I don't think we'd be covering the major aspects of the topic, much less giving a comprehensive overview, if the article didn't say exactly how Goldstein phrased the hypothesis (I note that Newton's laws of motion not only has Newton's original wording in English, but transmits it to the reader in the original Latin as well). If you think of specific bits in the early sections that are (still) difficult outside the blockquote, let me know. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:57, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For sure, you want to include her exact words in the quotes. But hopefully you can find a way to turn that into something more accessible in the discussion. Maybe present the quotes and then have some sort of "In more common parlance, what Goldstein refers to as "a permanent, specialized, bounded area for the exclusive disposal of their dead" might be a cemetery". Or, perhaps even better, start out with (roughly), "some societies developed the concept of a dedicated cemetery to bury their dead", and then go on with "Or, as Goldstein described it ...". RoySmith (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or, perhaps even better, start out with (roughly), "some societies developed the concept of a dedicated cemetery to bury their dead", and then go on with "Or, as Goldstein described it ...". -- this is pretty much what (I thought/think) we have. The paragraph starting Goldstein reframed Saxe's single hypothesis as three related sub-hypotheses... is the "layman's terms" explanation: we then have The three sub-hypotheses, in Goldstein's phrasing, were.... I've done a bit of work to that first paragraph, clarifying "formal disposal areas for the dead" and then using "disposal areas" throughout the paragraph (which is better than "burial areas" or "cemeteries", since some disposal areas are neither). Is that what you meant? UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:50, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

[edit]
Lead

That's all that I have to say about the lead. More on the article later, if time permits. MSincccc (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prose (general)

An initial read which pointed out the following errors:

  • “Carla Antonnacio” → should be “Carla Antonaccio”
    • Misspelling of the archaeologist’s surname.
  • “Criticisms levelled by Morris” → in American English, it should be “leveled"
  • “(in particular) American archaeology” → stray parentheses; should be “particularly American archaeology” or “in particular American archaeology” (without both).

MSincccc (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MSincccc: done the two spelling fixes. Not sure about those two links -- they're general topics and the whole of (e.g.) ancient Rome isn't particularly relevant to the specific context of cemeteries and funerals. The passage is pretty dense with blue and I think we'd be in danger of overlinking. The parentheses are intentional rather than stray, and within normal usage in AmerE. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Application
  • “towards” → “toward”
  • “north-west Europe” → “northwest Europe”
Reception
  • In 2012, André Strauss wrote that the hypothesis was of limited interpretative value for Brazilian sites of the Archaic period, particularly due to the difficulty of precisely defining a "formal disposal area" within the terms of the prediction.
    • Use "interpretive" since the article is written in American English?
  • You could link to Stephen Shennan.
Bottom line
  • A thorough article and well presented. There isn't really much for me to post here except for a few stylistic revisions, which I'll leave as they are. Congratulations on another high-quality article (despite it being your most technical article yet). Support. MSincccc (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, MSincccc: done those four. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:38, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
  • "a middle-range theory is one which attempts…" → "a middle-range theory that attempts…"
  • "model archaeology upon the scientific method" → "model archaeology on the scientific method"
  • "centering the agency of material objects" → "centering on the agency of material objects"
"center" in this sense is intransitive and requires "on" to indicate what is being focused on.
  • "due both to cultural changes and to methodological difficulties with its study" → "because of both cultural changes and methodological difficulties with its study"
I leave this to you; in American English, "because of" is preferred over "due to" when indicating the cause of a situation.

A few more suggestions above after taking a further look at this article. Cheers. MSincccc (talk) 13:35, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MSincccc -- I don't know if you saw Tim's review below, but most of the points you raise here are included and have been handled (one way or the other) there. I think all we really have left is the first, which I think would be a step in the wrong direction: it would turn a definition of an unfamiliar term into an opaque use of it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:15, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist I hadn’t done so before, but I have now. Good luck with your nomination, and I’ll move on to other articles I’m currently working on. MSincccc (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Booking a space for comments to come. I'm too punch-drunk after a first read-through to comment cogently just yet. Tim riley talk 12:36, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A few minor points, which don't affect my support:

  • "a body of theory which sought to bring archaeology closer" – as we're in AmE I'm not sure you have the same leeway as one has in BrE to use "which" interchangeably with "that" in a restrictive clause, here and later in the text. It doesn't bother me but I wonder what an American reviewer would think. I merely mention it.
  • "important but archaeologically invisible means of funerary differentiation" – I cannot work out what this means. A word of explanation of what might be both important and yet archaeologically invisible would be helpful
  • I noted "crucial" in the lead and main text, and it struck a slightly false note. I grant you that the Chambers Dictionary includes "important" as one of its definitions, but the OED calls this a trivial use. To me "crucial" indicates a crossroads where the path followed will be one of two options (crux, crucis anyone?). I think perhaps "essential" would be preferable.
  • "to model archaeology upon the scientific method" – this is the first of six instances of "upon" in the article, and I just wonder what "upon" has got that a plain "on" hasn't, apart from two extra letters.
  • "In 1981, Brown described the methods of Saxe and Binford" – I got lost during this sentence, and I think it would be clearer if you moved its last three words to follow "applying".
  • "alongside explanations centering the agency of material objects" – is there a preposition missing here – centering on the agency? I don't think I've ever seen the verb used transitively, as if meaning "giving centre stage to".
  • "due both to cultural changes and to methodological difficulties with its study" – I'm sure I've bored you before with my old-codgerly contention that "owing to" or "because of" is preferable to "due to" in such uses. Admittedly, using "due to" as a compound preposition is not taboo in AmE, but I am told by an American editor who knows of what he speaks, "Because of" is much better in AmE too".
  • In your bibliography it wouldn't, I think, do any harm to give Goldstein's and Kerber's theses their OCLCs (which according to WorldCat are, respectively 3175396 and 1194781816)

That's all from me. The article is widely sourced, with plenty of recent publications on the list, there are ample and appropriate pictures, the structure of the text is cogent and sensible, the prose is well up to UC's usual standard. I think the article meets all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 10:21, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Anne drew

[edit]

Saxe's formulation

  • ...which aimed to model archaeology on the scientific method of the natural sciences. Processual archaeology emphasized... Why is this past tense?
  • The anthropologist Arthur Saxe, Could drop the 'the' for brevity. There are a few examples of this throughout the article.
  • In a 1962 article, Binford had called on archaeologists to make greater use of ethnographic parallels, as Saxe later did, to draw conclusions about past societies, adapting an earlier comment by the archaeologists Gordon Willey and Philip Phillips to write that "archaeology is anthropology or it is nothing". Consider breaking up this long sentence.
    • Again, we could, but I don't think that it's unclear as written, and breaking at e.g. "He adapted..." would make it less clear that all of this is talking about the same article. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:09, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it's possible, e.g. In a 1962 article, Binford had called on archaeologists to make greater use of ethnographic parallels, as Saxe later did, to draw conclusions about past societies. In the article, he adapted an earlier comment by the archaeologists Gordon Willey and Philip Phillips, writing that "archaeology is anthropology or it is nothing".
      • Not a critical issue, I just try to be mindful of the readability of our articles, in which sentence length is a key factor. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 21:57, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Application

  • In collaboration with L. P. Gall... Maybe it's obvious, but we should probably say who L. P. Gall is. Another anthropologist presumably?

Reception

  • In 2002, William Rathje, Vincent Lamotta, and William Longacre used the Saxe–Goldstein hypothesis as an example of what they called the "black hole" of archaeological explanation, suggesting that its poor fit with burial practices in the contemporary United States illustrated the unwillingness of archaeologists to incorporate observations from their own societies into supposedly general models of human behavior. Long sentence; consider splitting it up. Also I think the "black hole" label needs a bit more explanation.
    • The explanation is the second part of the sentence, which is why I'm reluctant to split: suggesting that its poor fit with burial practices in the contemporary United States illustrated the unwillingness of archaeologists to incorporate observations from their own societies into supposedly general models of human behavior. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:09, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Touché, I see why the sentence is structured like this. As a side note, I'm glad this information was included; I was curious about the implications of this hypothesis with regards to contemporary western societies. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 21:57, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

  • Brown wrote in 2007 that it was the "most enduring accomplishment" of the processual approach to mortuary studies, and that it had remained useful into the present. Slight MOS:NOW issue here with the "into the present". Consider rephrasing to "...and that it remained useful."
    • I think that's a slightly different emphasis/meaning, and we have the date of 2007, so MOS:NOW isn't a problem -- we're talking about the narrative present rather than the literal present, and this sentence will never become outdated. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:09, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • I still think it's a little strange to refer to 2007 as the present when it would be easy to rephrase to avoid that, but you're right, it's not strictly a Manual of Style issue. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 21:57, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        We quite often quote people talking about the present of their time -- we wouldn't quote Churchill saying "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." and add (as of 1940). To me, there's a difference between "it has remained useful into the present" and "it remains useful" -- the first is a much more hesitant endorsement, as I read it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Review in progress... Anne drew (talk · contribs) 15:53, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these, Anne drew -- replies to your first batch above, and looking forward to the next set. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:09, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After reading through it a couple more times, I'm struggling to come up with anything else. Besides a couple stylistic quibbles (which reasonable people can disagree on), the article reads beautifully and seems to meet all the FA criteria. Nicely done! Anne drew (talk · contribs) 20:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these comments -- I really appreciated them, and it's always useful to rethink carefully how an article has gone about things. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:56, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

I commented at the PR, and have read through the comments above. I am particularly interested in Roy's comments about whether the article is written as clearly as it can be for a non-expert audience. To position my comments I should say that I have had no archaeological training since participating in a dig in my teens, but have had a good deal of exposure to academic archaeology in various ways, so I don't qualify as a naive lay audience.

Re-reading, I think a possible source of difficulty is that the body starts with a definition of the hypothesis. It might sound odd to say this, but I suspect it would be better to delay the definition for a while because understanding it requires two separate strands of information: one is the archaeological terminology, which as Roy says can be a little hard to parse; the other is the sequence of development, from Binford through Saxe and then Goldstein. For example, at the moment the body starts with "The Saxe–Goldstein hypothesis argues that ... societies with these corporate groups are more likely to use such areas; conversely, societies using such areas are more likely to contain corporate groups using ancestral ties in this way." But this statement doesn't include Goldstein's restriction of the hypothesis: she only endorses one of these two directions. Unless I'm misunderstanding the article, this is actually a definition of hypothesis eight.

What would you think of starting the body with a section that gives some background on Binford's related work, and then having a subsection on Saxe that starts with explaining Megitt's work on the Mae Enga? That would give a basis for stating Saxe's formulation, and incidentally would also make it clear that it was an anthrolopogical rather than an archaeological hypothesis. Then cover Goldstein's work, using the existing text of that section (though I did see Roy's comments about the block quotes there and will look at that later). The definitions of Saxe–Goldstein hypothesis, Saxe–Binford program, and Hypothesis Eight would emerge naturally during that sequence. At that point the reader should understand the overall sequence of development of the ideas, and a section summarizing the three terms and their definitions might be titled "Statement of the hypothesis". Such a restructuring might not mean much more than moving the first two paragraphs of "The hypothesis" to after the section on Lynne Goldstein.

I'll read through the whole article and comment, later, but I gather from Roy's comments above that most of his concerns relate to the sections before "Applications" so I wanted to make this suggestion first and see what you think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:41, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike: I think "The Saxe–Goldstein hypothesis argues that ... societies with these corporate groups are more likely to use such areas; conversely, societies using such areas are more likely to contain corporate groups using ancestral ties in this way." still holds for Goldstein's formulation, with emphasis on more likely rather than certain -- she says that if there are ancestor-using corporate groups, one way they might legitimise their status is through formal disposal areas (and so it's more likely that they'll exist in these societies than in societies without such groups). You're right that she puts much more emphasis on the other direction: if you see formal cemeteries, you can probably infer ancestor-using corporate groups, but if you don't see cemeteries, you can't necessarily say the opposite. Put another way, if there's smoke, there's fire, and if there's fire, there's probably smoke, but even if you can't see the smoke, you can't definitely say nothing's on fire.
If I understand you right: are you essentially suggesting shifting the first two paragraphs of "the hypothesis" to come at the end of the current section, and then reordering so that Megitt comes before Saxe?
My thinking in the current formulation was that it helps to explain what something is before talking about where it came from -- the sooner readers can have a basic grasp of what we're talking about, the better. So I'd expect an article on Einstein's theory of relativity to tell me (roughly) what Einstein says before going into Newton and all the ways that his theories become tricky at very high speeds. On the other hand, I can see an argument that starting with Newton might better allow me to see the negative space, as it were, into which Einstein's theory fits. Have I got you right here? UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, essentially. Often I would start with a definition in a STEM or STEM-adjacent subject like this, but it's also common to start with a "Background" section. Here that background is the evolution of the hypothesis. The article has to (and does) cover that evolution anyway. If the evolution is covered first, it naturally introduces terminology and concepts that make the statement of the hypothesis easier to understand. If the definition is given first, it has to be done using academic terminology that has not yet been explained. You could get around that by giving a vague and imprecise statement to start with (i.e. the "roughly" in your Einstein example) but personally I don't think that's the best solution. Roy, not sure if you're still watching this, but I'd be interested in your take on this suggestion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:06, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, still watching, thanks for the ping. I agree with @Mike Christie. You really need to lay the groundwork first and build up to the punchline. To use the example above, nobody teaches physics by presenting relativity and quantum mechanics first, and then saying, "And for the rest of the semester, we'll go back and show you where all that came from". You start with the simple stuff and take that as far as you can. At some point you get to, "But look at the data from this experiment; using what I've taught you so far, it doesn't make any sense, so let me show you a more advanced theory that can explain what's going on here". RoySmith (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've done that -- so far mostly by moving things around. How are we looking now? UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:51, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good to me. A couple of suggestions:
  • The last sentence of "Background" mentions Saxe. I agree with keeping Binford's 1971 article in this section, but that means we're a bit out of sync with the chronology as we have to go back to 1970 for Saxe's dissertation. How about moving this sentence to somewhere in the "Saxe's formulation ..." section, perhaps expanding it slightly to point out the parallels that explain the name? I thought about whether this could be addressed by adding a clause at the end of the sentence in its current position to say why Saxe is included in the name "Saxe-Binford", but that seems needlessly complicated.
  • "...Arthur Saxe, then a graduate student...": can we work the date into this sentence somehow? The most recent date given is 1971 which is after Saxe's time as a graduate student.
I gather the blockquotes from Goldstein have been broken up since Roy's comments? I think they are fine as they are. I'll read through the rest of the article when I have a bit more time, later today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:04, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mike -- both done. Yes, I've broken the blockquotes up since Roy's review -- I think it's an improvement (since each one now has a simplified paraphrase to introduce it), but it does make the visual experience more choppy. I'm chewing over whether it's worth using |source= to add a citation to the bottom of each and break the screen up a bit more. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I agree that the original formatting of the Goldstein quotes was visually better (i.e. less choppy) than what we have now. Perhaps what we need is some (encyclopedic) way to say, "Hey, reader, here's what Goldstein said. Don't get hung up on trying to understand it on the first reading; we're going to dissect it in great detail in the following sections"? RoySmith (talk) 15:15, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hm -- not sure how we'd do that without falling foul of e.g. WP:EDITORIALISING or MOS:NOTE. But very happy to take suggestions. It may be we're in a "lesser of two evils" situation -- given a fairly length and fairly opaque bit of academic prose that has to be in the article verbatim, we can either present it all together and sacrifice comprehensibility, or present it in chunks and sacrifice coherency/visual appeal. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:34, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any sources which talk about the complexities of Goldstein's statements? In my imaginary perfect world, Fred Foobar would have written a critique of Goldstein in some academic paper or book, and then we could say, "In Lynn Goldstein's 1976 thesis, she put forth a hypothesis, which was criticized in 19xx by Fred Foobar as being excessively difficult for mere mortals to parse. As stated by Goldstein: ...." I'm being a little silly here, but perhaps there is something like that which we can lean on to fend off the slings and arrows of the Defenders of the MOS? I will point out that the introduction to WP:MOS says Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. If slavishly following MOS:NOTE is preventing us from presenting the subject matter to our readers in the best way, then we should ignore it. RoySmith (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a good thing. I haven't come across any, and (honestly) wouldn't expect to -- in the world of archaeological theory, Goldstein's level of opacity is probably slightly below average. I've just opened up a random PDF in my "Archaeological theory" folder and been confronted with this:

In contrast to a long scholarly tradition in which the symbol consists of the unity of referent and meaning, our folk model regards symbols as material "containers" that convey tidy "packages" of information. The material/meaning dichotomy is further conflated with folk distinctions between a visible, tangible material world and invisible ideas and feelings ... The effect is a theoretical sleight of hand transmuting methodological materialism into a theoretical materialism in which signs speak for themselves to the degree that we think they are purely material.

We also don't have secondary sources (at least not that I've found) dissecting the individual sub-hypotheses in great detail, or at least in greater detail than we already do with the introductory paragraph that explains the overall thrust and importance of Goldstein's adjustment. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've read through the whole article a couple more times, and I think it meets the criteria. I don't think anything has to be done about the organization of the Goldstein's quotes, though if Roy is able to come up with a better approach I'd have no objections. The current approach, splitting the quote to interpolate explanatory text, seems a reasonable way to satisfy the demands of WP:TECHNICAL. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 05:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blackstar (album)

[edit]
Nominator(s): – zmbro (talk) (cont) 18:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... David Bowie's final studio album Blackstar. Released on Bowie's 69th birthday, January 8, 2016, this album's themes of death became poignant after the star's unexpected passing only two days later. It went on to become one of his most celebrated releases, both critically and commercially. Even if he hadn't necessarily intended it to be his final album, he recorded it after being diagnosed with liver cancer, and its lyrics blatantly hint at his upcoming demise. I had originally expanded this article years ago, and that revision became a GA. Over time, though, I realized the article was missing a lot, so I rewrote the entire thing and it's this revision I believe is worthy of the star. I'm looking forward to any comments or concerns. It would be nice to have it featured by its 10th anniversary on January 8, 2026, but I'm not getting my hopes up. It's also on me for taking ten months to write it. :-) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 18:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]

I notice that the article does not really use scholarly references. I did a search on Google Scholar, and I was wondering if something like this journal article from Celebrity Studies or this chapter from a Springer book were considered? I have not read either of these sources, so I cannot say with 100% certainty that these would be helpful in particularly, but I am curious if academic citations were looked at and considered while working on this article? Apologies in advance if this is an obvious question. I will try to do a full prose review in the future, but this part caught my attention. I hope that you are doing well and having a good week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had searched for some awhile back but wasn't able to find anything of use. I'll check those out and report back if I'm able to use those! – zmbro (talk) (cont) 19:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. It may be worthwhile to go through Google Scholar or something similar to see if there is any further academic coverage on this album. I have only included two examples that I have found, but it is by no means exhaustive. I just wanted to clarify that. I trust your judgement, as you know more about this album and about David Bowie in general than I do. Aoba47 (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aoba47 I was able to add two scholarly articles but unfortunately I don't have access to the ones you posted through my institution, so I can't use those. It's a shame as I'm sure they contained great info, but the article is already pretty in-depth as it is. If you could possibly access them and send them my way, I'd appreciate it! Otherwise, it's no biggie. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:57, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the ping and for the message. I did a small edit (here) to link Continuum in the citation. I have sent you an email about the above article and chapter. I do not think that I can send attachments directly with the Email this user feature, but apologies if I overlooked this. Both of these references can be access through the Wikipedia Library, but I would be more than happy to email them to you. Just send me a reply, and I will attach the files to my reply.
I trust your judgement when it comes to the scholarly coverage. I agree that this article is already in-depth. I was just making sure that there was not a gap in the coverage and that scholarly and academic publications were considered (and just to be completely transparent, I am not saying that any of these sources have to be used for the article). Aoba47 (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would make sure that album titles are consistently italicized in citation titles per WP:CONFORMTITLE. It is done in several instances, but I see some cases in which Blackstar is not in italics, such as Citation 18.
  • I thought I got them all. Hopefully fixed now.
  • This is admittedly more of a nitpick, but I believe that the citation titles should be consistently in title case.
  • Template is changed
  • I would recommend adding English translations for the titles of non-English sources.
  • Citation 165 (here) is missing the author (Andy McFarlane). Citation 53 (here) is also missing the author (Adam Budofsky). On a related note, I would not use Staff as an author for citations in which a named author is not credited in the source.
  • Fixed
  • The lead includes Visconti's description that Bowie intentionally made Blackstar as a final album for his fans prior to his death, but the article itself points out that Bowie has plans for further music. Highlighting Visconti's statement in the lead seems misleading, as when I first read the lead, I was under the assumption that this was true. I would recommend removing this sentence.
  • Cut
  • I would add clear attribution to the following sentence: (Blackstar has since been described as one of Bowie's best albums, a perfect farewell to his fans and one of the best final albums ever.) It is currently unclear who is doing the describing in this part.
  • Done
  • Since studio album is linked in the lead, I would recommend linking it in the article as well for consistency. On a separate linking-related note, I would recommend linking demo to help readers who may be less familiar with music jargon.
  • Both links added
  • I question if one-word quotes like "affirming" and "refreshing" in the "Recording" section are truly necessary, especially when other more impactful quotes are already being used. I have been told in the past to be cautious with one-word quotes as they can take away from the impact of other, longer quotes. That and I could see a potential concern with using too many quotes, particularly in the second paragraph of this section. I wonder if some of these one-word quotes could be paraphrased instead.
  • Aoba47 I've done some paraphrasing throughout. I get what you're saying about the one-word quotes. My main concern is that different words could miscontrue the ideas of the sentences. For instance, Murphy had been slated to co-produce Blackstar but backed out due to feeling "overwhelmed". I'm unsure what word to put in place of "overwhelmed", because Thesaurus is giving me words that don't fully encapsulate the feeling of the quoted word, you know? I agree sthat some of them should be changed, but I don't want the meaning to get lost in translation. What do you think? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 19:42, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your response and ping. That makes sense to me. I would keep the "overwhelmed" quote for now. I think that since you have already paraphrased other instances of these quotes, it should be okay that this one is kept. Aoba47 (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Aoba47 I've taken care of the rest of your comments, this is the only one I'd consider "outstanding". Could you help me out with some of the one-word quotes, please? I was able to change ones like "affirming" but ones like "refreshing" I feel would be better with another set of eyes and minds :-) If not it's no biggie, thanks. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 19:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the ping. I have to tried to think of ways to paraphrase "refreshing", but I am at a loss for that, so it should be okay. I actually think that the quotes should be fine now, so I would consider this point to be resolved. Aoba47 (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am uncertain if the "Happy Birthday" performance for Iman is entirely necessary. It is sweet, but it reads more as trivial to me. Just because something happened in the studio and with the band, it does not mean that it relates to the album.
  • Removed
  • Not to be morbid, but for the following sentence, (He kept the illness private, only discussing it when it affected his work), I was wondering if there were any examples of how this affected his work? I can imagine how this would happen, but I was wondering if this could be slightly expanded upon?
  • Fixed
  • I do not believe this is necessary for a FAC/FA, but I have noticed that there are a few spots in which citations are not organized in numeric order. Is there a reason for doing this?
  • I am not sure of the value of the link for "A New Career in a New Town", which is a redirect to Low. That album is already linked directly in front of this song link.
  • In the "Artwork and packaging" section, I think that it would be helpful to include a link for sleeve if possible for readers who may not be as familiar with vinyl and the terminology around vinyl.
  • Added link
  • There is an instance in which four citations are used in the "Post-death analysis" subsection, which I would consider citation overkill. I would recommend citation bundling to avoid this.

I hope that these comments are helpful. For clarification, I based my review on this version of the article. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article again. Let me know if you have received my email about sending you the sources. Aoba47 (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 Apologies for the delay. Yes I received your email and if you could send me those through email I'd appreciate it :-) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 18:10, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No apologies are necessary. Thank you for addressing everything so far. When you respond to my email, I will be able to send you the files that way. I am not sure how to send files directly through email on here. I am guessing there is a way, but I have not done it before. I will read through the article again over the next few days, although I do not think that I will find any substantial to bring up here. Aoba47 (talk) 00:33, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sending those. I've added a paragraph to post-death analysis using scholar articles. Please look at it and let me know if it's too much or too little :-) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:02, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing this point! This looks good to me. Let me know when everything in my review has been addressed, and I will go through the article again just to make sure that I have not missed anything (although I doubt that I will find anything substantial). Aoba47 (talk) 01:47, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your patience with my review. I really enjoy reading through this article. I really appreciate your work on Bowie articles in general. I found this article to be very engaging, even with the heavier focus on death. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Anne drew

[edit]

Background

  • Between May and July 2014, Bowie collaborated with the bandleader and composer Maria Schneider on "Sue (Or in a Season of Crime)", an experimental jazz song featuring Schneider's orchestra and an ensemble including the saxophonist Donny McCaslin and the drummer Mark Guiliana. Consider breaking this up into two sentences - it's quite long.
  • Done

Recording

  • Monder described the environment as "really, really positive", saying that Bowie "truly respected what other people [had] to offer" and "really wanted to work with his collaborators". Maybe slightly overusing direct quotes here. Can any of this be paraphrased?
  • Removed the second quote and reworded the first.
  • The final master mix was done by the English engineer Could wikilink Mastering (audio) here
  • Done

Music and lyrics

  • "Blackstar uses music as staging and scenery, placing [Bowie's] dynamic voice in the context of noir atmosphere." Consider wikilinking Noir fiction here
  • Done
  • Uncut's Michael Bonner argued that the album has "a less obvious thematic thread" due to the seven tracks originating from different sources. Slightly unclear. Less obvious than what, exactly?
  • Changed "less obvious" to "an unclear"
  • Bowie's vocals are also less subdued and more "gregarious". Unclear who this quote is from.
  • Changed to "sociable" (Thesaurus)
  • for his novel A Clockwork Orange (1962),[g][49][69][48] Lots of footnotes here. Are they all needed?
  • Removed one

Artwork and packaging

  • Barnbrook got the idea from a conversation with the writer William S. Burroughs and compared the use of the star symbol to Egyptian hieroglyphs and emojis, believing that the latter were becoming more common in everyday communication and with "people creating whole narratives out of them". Long sentence - consider breaking it up.
  • Done
  • matt black Should be "matte black" I think?
  • Looking back at the source, I actually failed to reword properly. The source is actually: On both CD and vinyl formats, the lyrics and liner notes are rendered in gloss black on matte black. Do you know a better way to word this? It's definitely a WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE situation... – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:28, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reworded it a little bit that I think gets away from close paraphrasing, hopefully.
– zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:21, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Release

  • Its music video We could link out to the music videos mentioned in this section using the {{External media}} template. Just a thought!
  • Eh, that's not usually done in-line.

Critical reception

  • Blackstar was positively compared to The Next Day, with Q magazine's Tom Doyle describing the former as "more concise" and "a far, far more intriguing" musical statement than the latter. This is a little bit ambiguous. "Former" and "latter" could be taken to refer to the order in which the albums were released.
  • Clarified
  • Rosen wrote that with the band, Bowie and Visconti give Blackstar a "distinctively eerie, muscular stamp". Might just be a me problem, but I have no idea what "muscular stamp" is supposed to mean.

Commercial performance

  • As of April 2017, Blackstar has sold more than 1,900,000 copies. Can/should we get an updated figure as of 2025?

Legacy

  • Mojo magazine's Martin Aston argued that the message on "I Can't Give Everything Away" was "as pointed" to Bowie's audience as "Rock 'n' Roll Suicide" on Ziggy Stardust (1972). I feel like this prose, particularly the was "as pointed" to Bowie's audience as bit, can be made more readable.
  • The two musicians also shared the same birthday. Is this significant to the album's meaning or just trivia?
  • Trivial, removed

Track listing

  • music by Bowie, Maria Schneider, Paul Bateman and Bob Bhamra Should this be capitalized?
  • Yes, fixed

Lead

  • The album's lyrics feature themes of death throughout Can we wikilink Death?
  • Done
  • Visconti described the album as Bowie's intended swan song and a "parting gift" for his fans before his death. I wonder if we should qualify this by saying he hoped to live long enough to create more music after this album.
  • I removed it per above.
  • Blackstar received universal acclaim Obviously it was received extremely well as an album, but it seems weird to use the term "universal acclaim" in the lead when there are some lukewarm reviews mentioned in the body. This seems to be a Metacritic designation, and the body properly attributes it rather than using Wikipedia's voice. Consider rephrasing to Blackstar received widespread acclaim as, Blackstar was acclaimed as, or similar.
  • Fixed

Overall review

Overall, this is an exceptional article. It's comprehensive, nicely written, and well-sourced. I've called out a few minor issues above, and would be happy to support this nomination once addressed. Fair warning: some of my feedback may be incorrect. I am new to this process, so feel free to let me know if I got something wrong. Thanks, Anne drew (talk · contribs) 17:42, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Skyshifter

[edit]

Source review (quality-only, no spotcheck)

  • Would it possible to find the exact Q issue and reference it for 128? While it was posted by David Bowie's official account, it is still a Facebook post with a magazine screenshot (not even posted by Q; the reference formatting is even misleading as one may expect something posted by Q, and not David Bowie's account). I believe it would be much more appropriate to reference the magazine itself.
  • I have found no problems with other sources, which appear to be all reliable and well-establish for music-related FAs.

Skyshiftertalk 02:09, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appellate Division Courthouse of New York State

[edit]
Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a historic building in Manhattan, New York City, erected in the 1890s. The Appellate Division Courthouse of New York State is noted for the two dozen detailed sculptures on its facade, along with a mural-encrusted lobby and courtroom. It's easy to miss amid the skyscrapers that surround it, but the architecture has earned the courthouse city, state, and national landmark designations. Unlike counterparts such as the Tweed Courthouse and Surrogate's Courthouse downtown, the Appellate Division Courthouse has had a relatively uneventful existence and continues to operate as a courthouse.

This page was promoted as a Good Article nearly two years ago, for which I am very grateful. After some copyedits, I think it's up to FA quality, and I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

[edit]
Lead
  • Delink "New York City".
  • Link "Façade"?
  • You could link "25th Street" in the lead.
  • The Appellate Division Courthouse is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and its facade and interior are both New York City designated landmarks.
    • Do we need the comma in this sentence?
Site
  • You could change The Appellate Division Courthouse occupies the northeast corner of the intersection of Madison Avenue and 25th Street in the Flatiron District neighborhood of Manhattan in New York City, New York, U.S.

to The Appellate Division Courthouse occupies the northeast corner of the intersection of Madison Avenue and 25th Street in the Flatiron District neighborhood of Manhattan in New York City.

  • Delink "New York City" in the above sentence.
  • “occupies a site directly to the north” → “occupies the site directly to the north”

MSincccc (talk) 14:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the initial comments. I've done most of these, except "The Appellate Division Courthouse is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and its facade and interior are both New York City designated landmarks." Per the essay WP:CINS, I think a comma there is preferable. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Architecture
  • The facade is made almost entirely of marble.
    • Why link "facade" to the article "Fonho"?
  • Link "New York Times" on first mention?
  • Link "Alabama marble" to Sylacauga marble?

MSincccc (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I fixed all of these. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Architecture (continued)
  • Link The Baltimore Sun?
  • During the 20th century, the lobby had busts of lawyers Charles O'Conor and Bernard Botein, but O'Conor's bust was removed in 1982.
    • Is the reason for the removal known?
  • "Charles Yardley Turner designed two figures"→"Turner designed two figures"
    • Since the article doesn't say "The north wall contains Henry Siddons Mowbray 's mural Transmission of the Law,..."
  • "Robert Reid's artwork of justice"→"Reid's artwork of justice"

"William Metcalf's"→"Metcalf's"

    • Same as the previous point.
  • You could link "anteroom" to Vestibule (architecture).
  • "Mowbray's figures are painted in green, yellow, and blue and are superimposed on a blue background."→"Mowbray's figures, painted in green, yellow, and blue, are superimposed on a blue background."
    • Avoids using two "and"'s in close proximity.

MSincccc (talk) 10:07, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All done, except for the removal of O'Conor's bust. The explanation for that is in the History section: "A bust of 19th-century lawyer Charles O'Conor was moved from the courthouse's lobby to its basement in 1982 after the First Department's chief justice, Francis T. Murphy, learned that O'Conor had actively opposed freeing black slaves in New York state." – Epicgenius (talk) 14:43, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
History

MSincccc (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've done all of these, except "the Bronx". I'd note that, while some people do capitalize "The Bronx" mid-sentence, it is inconsistent; according to MOS:THECAPS, lowercase is correct in that situation. – Epicgenius (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
General
Reception
  • You could link to New-York Tribune, New York World and Scientific American.
  • "The same publication described the murals as merit-worthy but too "abstract and philosophical" for an American courthouse."→"SciAm/SA described the murals as merit-worthy but too "abstract and philosophical" for an American courthouse."
    • Similarly you could also mention within brackets that the Scientific American was also abbreviated as SciAm or SA (as you wish).
  • Eric P. Nash wrote in the Times in 1994 that...
    • Since you use The New York Times on four other instances in the article, using only the Times in this singular instance might lead the reader to confuse it with The Times, a British publication, without looking at the reference.
  • You could link to Progressive Era in the last sentence of this section.

Well, that's all from me. I hope my suggestions have been helpful. MSincccc (talk) 08:45, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments @MSincccc. I've done all of these where they appear in the text. For the citations, though, I prefer not to link the publications to reduce clutter. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bottom line

SC

[edit]

Comments to follow - SchroCat (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think I'm right in saying the "First Department" shouldn't be bolded as it's not part of the title

(although I'm always happy to be proved wrong)

  • "A six-story annex next to the original building on Madison Avenue was designed by Rogers &

Butler in 1952": as this is the architecture section, is there anything to be added here about the architecture of the annex - even in a few words?

  • "statues measured 12 feet": have they changed?
  • ”the Hebrew lawman Moses”: short-changing him a little here! Maybe ”the Hebrew prophet and lawman Moses” - although I don’t press the point

Done to the start of the Courtroom: more to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the initial comments SC. I've fixed all of these. For your second point, it was a plain marble facade with a few windows; it was detailed further down, but I've also summarized it further up. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple more comments from the rest:

  • "Civil Law" -> "Civil law"
  • "All of these panels": as there are only three, just "These panels..." will suffice.

That's my lot and I'm happy to support on the back this. Cheers - SchroCat (talk)

Thanks SC, I appreciate it. I've fixed both of these. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anne drew

[edit]

Site

  • ...with a frontage of 98.5 feet (30.0 m) on Madison Avenue to the west and 150 feet (46 m) on 25th Street to the south. "Frontage" wasn't a familiar term for me. Consider adding a brief explanation of the term per MOS:JARGON.
    • I've glossed this term. - EG

Architecture

  • The original marble was quarried from North Adams, Massachusetts, except for small portions quarried from Proctor, Vermont; this was replaced in 1954 with Alabama marble. Not entirely clear - was the Proctor-sourced marble replaced in 1954, or all the marble?
    • Actually, it was the North Adams marble. I fixed that. - EG
  • there were originally 21 sculptures, but one was removed in 1955 Interesting - any idea why?
    • People objected to the Muhammad statue (it is explained in a little more detail below). - EG
  • A low marble parapet, also installed in 1954, is placed in front of the building at street level. It contains white marble sculptures depicting subjects related to law... the statues on the Appellate Division Courthouse were a focal point of the building upon its completion in 1899. I'm confused. Is this saying that the parapet installed in 1954 contains statues? Are these different than the ones included in the initial construction? More generally, the chronology is a bit scattered in this section. It goes from 1954 to 1899 to 1935; perhaps this can be reorganized.
    • The parapet was replaced, not installed, in 1954, so that was an error; I've fixed it. I also should note that the section isn't meant to be chronological, since these sentences are describing the architecture and not the history. I've moved some of the date-specific info to the History section and removed the dates from other places where the exact date didn't matter. - EG
  • the artists were against the idea of "a number of pants statues, which at a distance would have looked alike" I'm not clear what a "pants statue" is (a statue with pants?). Maybe paraphrase this using more common English.
    • Reworded. - EG
  • Each of the columns rises above a pedestal and is fluted, with capitals in the Corinthian order. Same jargon concern - the second half is meaningless to a lay reader. But since this is the "Architecture" section, maybe technical terms are expected here. Consider whether sentences like this could be more accessible without sacrificing meaning or readability - perhaps they can't be.
    • I've glossed "capitals", but to address the jargon concerns, there are links so people may be able to read in more detail about these specific features. As far as architectural terms are concerned, there isn't really a way to rephrase or gloss some of these without altering the meaning. - EG
  • The six-story annex north of the original building is made of Alabama marble and was intended to relate to the original courthouse. The annex was intended to relate to the original courthouse? This is kind of vague. Does this mean it was intended to resemble the original courthouse? Or "visually relate" perhaps?
    • Yep, it was meant to resemble the original courthouse - I fixed it. - EG
  • In addition, there is a belt course and cornice above the annex's sixth floor. Should we wikilink belt course?
    • Done. - EG
  • Between Confucius and Moses is Karl Bitter's sculptural group Peace,[39][41][43] which consists of a central figure with uplifted arms, flanked by a female and a male.[34][43][47] Channelling my inner RoySmith, we might have a bit of an WP:OVERCITE issue here ;)
    • Yeah, I see what you mean. Ironic since I just commented in a discussion about this not too long ago, on your FAC actually ;) I think I've gotten all of the most blatant ones. - EG
  • Alfred Collins had also been hired... John La Farge was also hired... It's a little repetitive with the "also" phrasing. Consider varying the wording.
    • Done. - EG
  • Specially-designed furniture was made by the Herter Brothers. This is a bit of an abrupt and short sentence about furniture at the end of all this artwork discussion. I wonder if we can say any more about this?
    • I added an example of what furniture they designed. Unfortunately, the furniture is given little to no attention in sources about the courthouse. - EG
  • Above the stained-glass windows on the south wall is a Latin inscription that translates to "Civil law should be neither influenced by good nature, nor broken down by power, nor debased by money." Any more info on this? Was this formulated for the courtroom or was it an existing Latin phrase?
    • Unfortunately, the sources do not say anything further about the quote. - EG
  • The circumference of the dome contains wrought letters spelling out the names... Wikilink wrought iron? (I assume that's what this means?)
    • Done. - EG
  • The basement, accessed directly from the street, had attendants' rooms, as well as an engine room and a public bathroom. Sorry, an engine room in a courthouse?
    • Yeah. It was not uncommon in the 1890s/1900s for non-residential buildings, such as courthouses, to have such rooms. - EG

History

  • At the time of the new courthouse's opening, Midtown Manhattan was growing into a business center. Shortly after the Appellate Division Courthouse opened, the lawyer Austen George Fox said that the Appellate Division's relocation had been a "wise move". A wise move because midtown was becoming a business center? Can we make clearer what was wise about the move?
    • I reworded this to make it more clear that these are related. - EG
  • The courthouse was also used to conduct examinations of the "character and fitness" of prospective lawyers. Is this redundant with the fact that it hosted bar examinations as mentioned earlier? Maybe these statements should be combined?
    • I reworded this to make it more clear that these are related. - EG
  • By 1936, there were plans to relocate the Appellate Division's First Department... This paragraph talks about various plans to repurpose the courthouse as an art center or museum. It sounds like all those plans were abandoned, but can we make that clearer/more explicit? Also what was the motivation for these ideas - a lack of space in the courthouse for legal proceedings? If so, maybe this can dovetail more smoothly into the following section discussing the six-story annex.
    • I rephrased this to make it clear that these plans were abandoned, and I added the motivation for the replacement proposal. As for the section arrangement, I think it's fine where it is now, since it isn't explicitly related to the annex's construction. The planned relocation and the annex's construction were proposed for similar reasons, but these were two separate projects. - EG
  • A restoration expert had estimated that the cost of replacing the works would be similar to the cost of the building's renovation, which was expected to range from $1.2 million to $1.4 million; restoring the sculptures was planned to cost even more... That March, Zurmuhlen announced that the city would spend $8,500 to restore the sculptures. Something doesn't add up here. How did the cost of restoration go from over $1 million to just $8,500? Did the department survey result in a reduced cost estimate?
    • According to Gray (1999), this was an excuse Zurmuhlen made up in order to justify not restoring the sculptures. This is actually not that atypical in NYC politics. Whenever officials don't want to do something, they just cite an astronomically high cost estimate, even if the real cost estimate is lower (but this is from personal experience, so saying so in the article would be OR). - EG
  • All of the statues were restored and reinstalled, except for Mohammed, which ended up in a field in New Jersey. Any more info on the final location of this statue? Is it near a city or something, or is it truly just out in a random field somewhere?
    • Unfortunately, not much is known beyond that. The source says: "Responding to a newspaper article reporting the statue's destruction, an anonymous correspondent informed the court that he had the figure, enclosed two photographs of it (lying on its side in the grass) and offered to give it back - turban, scimitar, beard and all." The NYT does not cite where the anonymous correspondent was located, and it's likely they didn't know the whereabouts either. - EG
  • The courthouse continues to house the Appellate Division's First Department in the 21st century, although the department had expanded to 16 judges by the 2000s. Possible MOS:NOW issue here - consider adding "as of 2025" somewhere.
    • I changed the next sentence to "The Village Voice wrote in 2007 that, since the department did not hear any jury trials, only judges, their staff, and lawyers were allowed into the courthouse." Even though nothing has changed since then, I don't know if we can add "as of 2025" if that's not cited in the source. - EG
  • The department does not hear any jury trials, so only judges, their staff, and lawyers are allowed into the courthouse. What about defendants, witnesses, non-legal staff, or the general public (as an audience to proceedings)?
    • There are no jury trials, so these proceedings do not involve defendants, witnesses, or other non-legal figures. The public is not invited to these proceedings; access is strictly limited to the people mentioned in that sentence. - EG

Reception

  • The World article likened the courthouse to non-municipal buildings such as the New York Public Library Main Branch and U.S. Custom House, rather than to municipal buildings like the Tweed Courthouse and the City Hall Post Office. Okay, why though? How is it more similar to the former than the latter?
    • Clarified a bit. - EG
  • General comment on this section: there are many direct quotes, some of which add nice color, but also others which could be paraphrased.
    • Rephrased some of these. - EG

Lead

  • The far northern end of the annex's facade contains a Holocaust Memorial by Harriet Feigenbaum. Total nit, but can we make the link "a Holocaust Memorial" to make the link target more predictable? I assumed this was linking Holocaust memorial. Also should "Memorial" really be capitalized?
    • Done. - EG
  • General comment: There's no mention of the "NOW" installation. Might be worth including since that's a significant recent addition to the courthouse.
    • Done. - EG

Review in progress... Anne drew (talk · contribs) 18:32, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anne drew, thanks for the initial comments. I've now addressed them. Epicgenius (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I got! This is an excellent article which largely meets the FA criteria. Just a few minor issues noted above. Nice work! Anne drew (talk · contribs) 21:24, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anne drew, thanks. It took me the better part of an hour, but I think I got all of these now. I appreciate the review. Epicgenius (talk) 00:48, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changes look great! I'm happy to support this nomination. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 03:02, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review

[edit]

Source wise, the main question I have is my perennial "do we need ISSNs for prominent newspapers?" and what makes https://www.amny.com/ a reliable source - does it have an editorial board? Image placement seems fine but most images don't have an ALT text. Probably a pedantic note since commons:Template:PD-US-expired would still apply (and commons:Template:PD-old-70 to Ruckstull's statues), but I question whether the commons:Template:PD-US-architecture applies to the statues (File:2010 Appellate courthouse Frederick Ruckstuhl Force.jpg, File:2010 Appellate courthouse Frederick Ruckstuhl Force.jpg, File:Caryatids representing the seasons.jpg, File:2010 Appellate courthouse Daniel Chester French Justice.jpg). File:Review of reviews and world's work (1890) (14597387119).jpg however probably needs a better copyright tag. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review @Jo-Jo Eumerus. A few responses:
  • I've removed all the ISSNs, since only two sources have them.
  • AM New York does have an editorial policy in their printed version (though it seems I can't find it on their website). However, this source is only being used for a quote in the "Reception" section.
  • I've added alt text.
  • For c:Template:PD-US-architecture, the Commons page on the subject (c:COM:FOP US) says that the freedom of panorama for buildings includes style elements such as gargoyles and pillars, which are protected only from three-dimensional reproduction (Leicester v. Warner Bros.). Since the building and the sculptures themselves are already in the public domain due to their age, though, this may not matter.
  • For c:File:Review of reviews and world's work (1890) (14597387119).jpg, I've added a better tag.
– Epicgenius (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History of penicillin

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about penicillin, one of the earliest antibiotics, once considered a wonder drug. Considerable confusion was created by the juice of the mould that produced it and its active ingredient both being called "penicillin" (today only the latter is). The article chronicles its trajectory from research to development to mass production. Today, most is fed to animals in North America to improve their productivity. This article was well-received at DYK, prompting me to nominate it here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment by Noleander

[edit]

RoySmith

[edit]

This is a long article, so I'll poke at the review bit by bit over the next bunch of days.

(that takes me through the end of Discovery, I'll pick up again another time).

  • In 1939, at the Sir William Dunn School of Pathology ... might be a fruitful avenue of research.[49][50] overly-complex sentence could be broken up into smaller chunks.
    Split sentence in twain. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Howard Florey led an interdisciplinary research team ... Generally, use the full name the first time (i.e. in the previous sentence), then just the surname (here).
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Howard Florey approached the MRC in September 1939 Spell out Medical Research Council the first time and link to Medical Research Council (United Kingdom)
    Spelt out and linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • allocating £250 (equivalent to £20,000 in 2023) to launch the project, with £300 for salaries (equivalent to £23,000 in 2023) and £100 for expenses (equivalent to £8,000 in 2023) Maybe just say £1450 (equiv to ...) over three years for easier reading with no significant loss of information for this article's purposes.
    £250 + £300 + £100 = £650. I like the breakdown though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Florey wrote in the application letter, "in addition to its theoretical importance, may have practical value for therapeutic purposes."[59] In the last paragraph, you said they didn't think it had any clinical application. I'm curious what changed their mind about this.
    Mellanby. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding £300 (equivalent to £21,000 in 2023), what I've done in the past is to use that construct the first time, then switch to the less verbose "$2 million ($70 million in 2024)" which is produced by $2{{nbsp}}million (${{format price|{{inflation|US|2000000|1908}}}} in {{Inflation/year|US}}). It's absurdly complicated in the source, but I think makes for easier reading in the end result. Just a suggestion.
    While working on Manned Orbiting Laboratory, where every sum was in the millions, I proposed enhancing the inflation template, but my proposal was rejected in favour of the cumbersome formula you describe. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pH was lowered by the addition of phosphoric acid and the resulting liquid was cooled.[72] Chain determined that penicillin was stable only with a pH of between 5 and 8, but the process required one lower than that. This is confusing. If adding the phosphoric acid brought the solution out of the stable range, why was it done?
    Re-worded . Linked Dissociation (chemistry). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It occurs to me that all the things described here (adjusting ph, temp, solvents, filtration, etc) are standard tools for doing chemical separations. I know that because I still have some dim memory of doing these things in organic chem lab, but to many of our readers it will probably totally mysterious why they tried these things. So, it might be worth a brief mention that these were common techniques and link to some article which talks about extraction/separation.
    Yes, totally routine for any chemist. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Short glass cylinders containing the penicillin-bearing fluid to be tested were then placed on them Unclear what "them" is referring to.
    Sigh. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • By then the fluid would have disappeared where did it go? Evaporated? Consumed?
    The source says:

    By the end of incubation most of the fluid in the cylinders has disappeared and each cylinder is surrounded by a circular zone where no bacterial growth has occurred.

    Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • fifty mice, half of whom received penicillin. All fifty of the control mice I assume either 100 mice total, or 25 controls?
    Oops. Should be 25, not 50. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • doses of penicillin were administered to two patients at the Presbyterian Hospital in New York City, Aaron Alston and Charles Aronson. what disease did they have?
    Bacterial endocarditis. Added and provided a link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Penicillin was recovered from his urine as they say on the ISS, "Yesterday's Penicillin is tomorrow's Penicillin" :-)
    That it is excreted in this manner became important for the treatment of urinary tract infections. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kembel, Bishop and Company delivered its first batch of 910 litres how many doses that that yield?
    Source doesn't say. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • a byproduct of the corn industry that the NRRL routinely tried in the hope of finding more uses for it. And here we are, 80 years later, still looking for ways to subsidise the corn industry.
  • 300 milligrams of penicillin per litre of mould per "liter of mould culture" perhaps?
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (image caption) A 1957 fermentor used to grow Penicillium mould in the Science Museum, London clarify that it's just on display at the museum, not that they are growing mould in the museum. Or are they?
    Good question. They have a huge collection of moulds. (video) Re-worded to avoid confusion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • By 1944, CSL was producing 400 million Oxford units per week Enough for how many doses, and/or to treat how many people?
    About 400. It takes about a million per treatment. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two 23,000-litre (5,000 imp gal) tanks became operational in 1948, followed by eight more what year did the other eight appear?
    Source doesn't say. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • and Glaxo ceased production in 1975 and CSL in 1980 the double "and" is awkward.
    Reworded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Likewise with and one was sent to Heinz Öppinger at Hoechst in Frankfurt, and he began conducting experiments with moulds ... and Öppinger developed a rotating drum
    Tweaked working. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fragner Pharmaceutical Company might be worth mentioning "Now Zentiva".
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • with plant and expertise from Canada it's not clear what "with plant" means in this context.
    Changed to physical plant and linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • to be built in Rome near the Sapienza University of Rome I'd drop the "of Rome"
    Deleted "in Rome". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • production shifted thereafter to a new plant that produced 300 million units per week.[151][152] In 1947 ICI decided to construct a new plant to produce 32,000 litres (7,000 imp gal) of penicillin per day by the deep submergence method.[153] Again, it's unclear how units and liters should be compared to each other. How many units in a litre? How many doses that that produce? I'll stop bugging you about that, but take a look at the whole article to see if there's other place this could apply to.
    It sort of depends on the purity. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • t in September 1943 it switch to using corn steep liquor switched (past tense)?
  • US penicillin production rose from 21.192 billion units in 1943, to 1,663 billion units in 1944, and an estimated 6,852 billion units in 1945 even if reporting production to five significant digits is justifed in the literature, I'd shy away from it here. It's just noise. 21 billion, 1.7 billion, 6.9 billion seems more user-friendly.

(I'll pick up with "In the field" next time)

OK, that does it for me. This is an exceptional article and it was a pleasure to read. All of the points noted above are really nits and I see no reason to hold up my Support waiting for you to address them. RoySmith (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little surprised this hasn't attracted more attention. @Femke I thought you might find this interesting, so taking the liberty of pinging you. RoySmith (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sailing moose

[edit]

I am a microbiologist who studied antibiotic resistance for many years. This is a fantastic article explained at a level a non-specialist can understand. My only quibble: the following sentence with references to penicillins K and G comes out of nowhere; the different penicillins aren't discussed until much later in the article. "This produced more than twice the penicillin of X-1612, but in the form of the less desirable penicillin K.[c] Phenylacetic acid was added to switch it to producing the highly potent penicillin G. This strain could produce up to 550 milligrams of penicillin per litre.[126][120]"

I had trouble with this too, so I added footnote d, which says: "See § Chemical analysis for the different forms of penicillin" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Beards

[edit]

There is a contradiction in the lead we have:

  • They derived penicillin's chemical structure and determined how it works.

and then we have

  • Dorothy Hodgkin determined its chemical structure

I think it should be "chemical formula" and then "chemical structure".

Yes, it should be. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:43, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here "In 1876, German biologist Robert Koch discovered that a bacterium (Bacillus anthracis) was the causative pathogen of anthrax, which became the first demonstration that a specific bacterium caused a specific disease and the first direct evidence of germ theory of diseases.

I don't see the relevance of this sentence.

Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:43, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Swiss physician Carl Garré developed a test method"

I think "test method" is tautology. Perhaps just "test" or just "method"?

Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:43, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • because penicillin is only effective on bacteria when they are reproducing.

The wikilink to bacteriostatic agent is wrong. The penicillins (and all the beta-lactam antibiotics) are bacteriocidal.

Linked as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:43, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although he intended that penicillin be used to treat the seriously wounded, there were large numbers of bacterial venereal disease cases

"Venereal disease" is terrible archaic (and stigmatising). Can we just use the direct link to sexually transmitted infections?

I was following the sources. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:43, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- Graham Beards (talk) 10:19, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support on the prose and the bacteriology. This contribution has got this, occasionally debated history of the subject spot on. I am particularly impressed how the nominator has described the importance of Fleming's paper, but has shown that Florey and his colleague's contribution was paramount to the success of this, our first antibiotic. Thank you Hawkeye7 for another first class contribution. Graham Beards (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Femke

[edit]

That is an impressive piece of research. Don't have the energy to read the entire article (which stands at 11,550 words, longer than I'd like to see at FAC). There is some potential to be more ruthless in applying summary style.

  • Why use phial rather than vial? I believe phial is archaic and I needed to click the link to confirm what it was
    I was following the image caption. Both spelligs are equally old. It appears that in British English the "phial" was the more popular spelling until the late 20th century. Changed to "vial". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:47, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I always thought phials are what held magic potions used to blind giant spiders in caves. RoySmith (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence doesn't flow that well, with the double instances of both 'of' and 'that'. Alternative phrasing:
    • The history of penicillin traces how observations of antibiotic activity in the mould Penicillium led to the development of penicillins, the first antibiotics to be widely used.
    • The history of penicillin trace how evidence of antibiotic activity in the mould Penicillium led to the development of penicillins, which became the first widely used antibiotics.
      Re-worded as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:47, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Naturally-derived is semi-redundant. I would omit it to make the first sentence punchier. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ancient societies used moulds to treat infections, and in the following centuries many people observed the inhibition of bacterial growth by moulds. --> With the word 'ancient' not having a specified century, the phrase 'the following centuries' feels off.
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:47, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • While Fleming himself would continue to send his research to those seeking to isolate it, these requests slowly waned --> I'm not sure what 'those requests' refer to
    Samples of the mould, not his autograph. Changed to "While Fleming continued to send samples to researchers, the requests for samples tapered off."
  • Each member of the team tackled a particular aspect of the problem in their own manner, with simultaneous research along different lines building up a complete picture. -> in their own manner feels unnecessary
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:47, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The MRC agreed to Florey's request for £300 (equivalent to £21,000 in 2023) and £2 each per week (equivalent to £138 in 2023) for two (later) women factory hands. -> I don't understand the (later) in this sentence. The hyphens make it tough to read
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:47, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • that was effective against both Gram-negative and Gram-positive organisms. It was more advantageous than the original penicillin as it offered a broader spectrum of activity against both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, whereas the original was only effective against Gram-positive --> Surely, this can be worded more concisely. Somewhat repetitive
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:47, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment - It said that Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin won the Nobel prize for the discovery of the structure of penicillin, but I believe she won it for her X-ray techniques that discovered many molecules. Penicillin isn't even mentioned: [11]. Mattximus (talk) 14:31, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The main ones were penicillin and vitamin B12. [12] Clarified this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey Kong (character)

[edit]
Nominator(s): JOEBRO64 10:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of the video game industry's oldest mascots, who's gone from a construction-site menace to a banana-obsessed oaf to a... professional boxer. Though he's frequently overshadowed by his frenemy, Donkey Kong still manages to steal the spotlight from time to time (most recently, this past July, when I coincidentally brought the article to GA). I brought the franchise article to FA at the beginning of the year, so I think it'd be fitting to cap it off with the character himself. Hope you enjoy! JOEBRO64 10:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cukie Gherkin, FunkMonk, Pokelego999, and Gommeh: thanks for the comments. A bit busy irl but I should reply/address all points by the end of Saturday. JOEBRO64 20:59, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Here shall be an image review from me! Arconning (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • File:Donkey Kong character.png - Fair use
  • File:Cranky Kong.jpg - Fair use
  • File:Shigeru Miyamoto at E3 2013 1 (cropped).JPG - CC BY-SA 3.0 de
  • File:Donkey Kong design evolution.png - Fair use
  • File:Grant Kirkhope by Gage Skidmore.jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0
  • File:Seth Rogen at Collision 2019 - SM0 1823 (47106936404) (cropped).jpg - CC BY 2.0
  • File:King Kong 1933 Promotional Image.png - Public Domain
  • File:Monster Jam - 2008 - Tacoma, Wa (3453973810).jpg - CC BY-SA 2.0
  • All of the images have appropriate alt-text for accessibility, all have proper captioning and are relevant to the article.
    • Happy to give a pass for the image review!

Source review (172/172 reviewed)

[edit]

Starting a source review. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citation checking

  1. [25], [26], and [27] redirect to Gamesbeat
  2. [28] redirects to AV Club

Not sure how FACs handle page redirects like this. Anyway, I've looked through, and I didn't see any citation mismatches.

Valnet

Per WP:VALNET, sources published by Valnet should be met with heightened scrutiny, although they have been found to be acceptable on a case-by-case basis in past FACs. In the article, three Valnet sources are used, all from the website "TheGamer". Analyzing the three used, I've been able to identify that they are written before AI concerns regarding Valnet websites emerged, and all authors have been published in sources that we consider reliable (Adam Starkey: Rolling Stone UK, Stacey Henley: The Guardian, George Foster: RPGSite). As such, while non-Valnet sources are preferred and thus they are all at best situational, I find that these are acceptable articles to cite in an FAC. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

  • While this is typically being followed, one sentence has the refs in the wrong order: "Miyamoto provided some suggestions"
  • Strongly recommend running the IABot to archive, as many are not archived.
I took care of the archiving :) ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was the PopMatters article that had the author changed to PopMatters staff; I can't recall if any other articles are attributed to just staff off the top of my head, but if there are, double check that they weren't formerly attributed to one or more specific people.

Review by User:Cukie Gherkin

[edit]

Planting this here - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Character

  • "Country recast Donkey Kong as the protagonist.[1] He has been portrayed as heroic since, though he occasionally appears as an antagonist, such as in Mario vs. Donkey Kong (2004).[11]" I feel like this could be made into one sentence for better flow? Maybe something like "He was recast as a protagonist starting with Country, though he occasionally appears as an antagonist, such as in Mario vs. Donkey Kong.

So, by and large, on doing my source review and reading through the article, any points I may have are points brought up and addressed in other reviews. I'm comfortable supporting it being a featured article. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Pokelego999

[edit]

I will leave comments here sometime within the week, hopefully shortly. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:25, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I feel it would be helpful to clarify that Cranky is in fact the Arcade DK in the lead since otherwise Cranky's presence in the lead may be confusing.
    • I'm willing to make an effort but I think it's a little too much detail for the lede. The lede's supposed to be a more generalized overview, so I think that Cranky is an alternate DK is all that needs to be there JOEBRO64 20:29, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after Nintendo was unable to obtain the license" Clarify this was for the 1981 DK game.
  • Is there anything relevant on Donkey Kong 3? It seems odd that that game in particular is skipped in the "Appearances" section.
    • There's not really much to say about it other than that DK is the antagonist again. It had very little impact on the character/franchise so sources don't discuss it much JOEBRO64 20:29, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Donkey Kong franchise was mostly limited to spin-offs such as Donkey Konga and Mario vs. Donkey Kong." This sentence feels a bit out of place in comparison to the other sentences in the paragraph, especially since the following one talks about Donkey Kong's various main series roles. I'd either specify a timeframe or place this more toward the end.
  • The development section feels like it would be better framed chronologically, since many aspects of the sections keep hopping back to particular time periods that feel like they'd be more helpful to address chronologically. For example, all of the DKC stuff feels like it'd make more sense to discuss together rather than jumping back to it across multiple sub-sections.
    • I don't agree. Donkey Kong's game appearances and his design are largely discussed separately in sources and I don't think it'd make sense to mash the different focuses of each section together. JOEBRO64 20:29, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "although Hardcore Gaming 101's David DiRienzo found their differences mostly superficial" Could you clarify what this means? I'm not sure what's being meant here. Physical superficiality? Gameplay superficiality?
  • There are two paragraphs discussing how DK's standing fell post-Country, with one focused on design and the other focused on the reputation. Perhaps this could be altered to refocus to their particular focuses?

Overall a strong article. Let me know when the above are addressed. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999: thank you for reviewing! I've replied above. I didn't reply to the last point because I'm not sure exactly what you mean so I'd appreciate some clarification. JOEBRO64 21:09, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]

@FunkMonk: apologies for the wait, always a pleasure to see you review! I responded to everything above JOEBRO64 21:01, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gommeh

[edit]
  • This is my first time participating at FAC, but I'll do my best to help out.
  • There's a link to Shigeru Miyamoto twice early in the conception section - once in the first paragraph and again in the image.
  • Not really sure what else to be looking for.

Gommeh 📖   🎮 23:22, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's of course helpful to familiarise yourself with the WP:FA criteria when doing a full review. FunkMonk (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Second look through
[edit]

Intro

  • Not sure why but I'm not sure if the last sentence in the first paragraph works well. Then again I haven't played any of the Donkey Kong games so IDK if I can really say much else here in that regard.
  • the Country series of side-scrolling plaform games seems a little off to me. I'd say the full name of the series "Donkey Kong Country".
  • The third paragraph doesn't sufficiently (in my view) explain the connection to Bluto. This may be done in the body, but I'm not quite sure if it's necessary for the lead. I'd either expand on it a little bit or cut it out.
  • Wording issue at Donkey Kong has been listed among the greatest video game characters. Grammatically it's fine, but it sounds a little subjective. I'd say reword it to say "critics have rated him as [...]" or something similar.

Character

  • Donkey Kong first appeared as the antagonist of Donkey Kong, a 1981 arcade game; he is Mario's rebellious pet gorilla who kidnaps his girlfriend Pauline and climbs a construction site. The second part of this sentence is worded awkwardly in a few places. However I think this can be fixed by changing it to "[...] a 1981 arcade game. In the game, he is [...]". Overall though, this is relatively minor.
  • Just to make sure I understand correctly, is it true that Rare developed Donkey Kong at first? If so, make sure this is clear - most modern readers associate him with Nintendo for obvious reasons.
    • Rare developed Donkey Kong games from Donkey Kong Country's release in 1994 until they were acquired by Microsoft in 2002. I think the article makes this pretty clear JOEBRO64 21:47, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usage of the word "simians" feels a little too erudite - maybe substitute it for a layman's term that means the same thing?
  • Why is the sentence about his weight - 800 pounds (360 kg) - relevant? If so, consider using {{Convert}} to also display this in kilograms.
  • Why was he cast as a protagonist sometimes and an antagonist other times? Was there any reasoning to this?
  • he rides vehicles such as minecarts and barrel-shaped rockets. Not sure why, but I think this could be reworded.
  • I know you wrote that the Crystal Coconut in the Donkey Kong Country sitcom was a magical artifact, but is there any more information that the reader should know about it? This is minor though.

Development

  • In the second paragraph, there should be a space in between the citation to source #66 and the em dash. It looks a little weird the way it currently is.
  • "Beauty and the Beast" and King Kong influenced the choice. Why is "Beauty and the Beast" in quotes? I think it should be italicized. Also, both of these should be wikilinked.

Appearances

  • Do the sources discuss why he was not playable in Donkey Kong Country 2 and Donkey Kong Country 3?

@Gommeh: greatly appreciate you reviewing! I think you did a great job for your first FAC review. I responded to everything above (except the one point about the vehicles he rides, I don't see how it needs to be reworded) JOEBRO64 21:07, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TGSC

[edit]

I'll try to throw in my two cents (coins? bananas? banana coins?) next week. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
[edit]
Character
[edit]
Development
[edit]
Reception and legacy
[edit]
References
[edit]
Miscellaneous
[edit]

That's all I really have for you; everything else has already been covered by others' feedback. All the best! ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Green Star Collector: responded above! Thanks for your patience and taking the time to review! JOEBRO64 20:57, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I'm happy to throw in my support now. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

This has been open for four weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it shows considerable signs of moving towards a consensus to promote over the next day or two I am afraid that it is going to time out. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just need a couple of replies, then I can support. FunkMonk (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. Gommeh 📖   🎮 16:19, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support since all my concerns are addressed. Gommeh 📖   🎮 21:47, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog, sorry, real life got in the way! Getting around to addressing the remaining points right now JOEBRO64 20:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and education of Donald Trump

[edit]
Nominator(s): elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:36, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the life of Donald Trump from 1946 to 1968. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:36, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TheNuggeteer

[edit]

I am new to the process of FA reviewing, so I might make some errors.

  • "where he became a corporal his sophomore year and a supply sergeant the following year." I believe you need to link "corporal" and "supply sergeant".
  • Kindly link "battalion training officer".
  • "A daughter of a rural fisherman-farmer in Stornoway, of the Outer Hebrides, Scotland, at eighteen Mary Anne emigrated to the United States." This sentence seems confusing.
  • "Fred indoctrinated Donald by repeating to him, "You are a king...You are a killer."" How is this relevant and is there any more context about this?
  • "The Trumps moved into the nine-room, Colonial-style mansion in 1948" I assume you need to uncapitalize "Colonial-style".
  • "but he was ornery and bored" who are you referring to: Freddy or Donald?
  • "Trump had a poor batting average of .056 in his final year, according to box scores" can you add how this is poor?
  • "Division III football club as a punter, but quit" kindly remove comma.
  • "notes in class, but" same with this.
  • "He participated in Fordham's Reserve Officers' Training Corps program, but" same with this.
  • "often elevated their grades ensure" to "often elevated their grades to ensure"
  • "insistent that his son graduate" to "insistent that his son had graduated"

This is my full prose review. This is a nice article, yet some issues remain. Regards, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 00:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In order:
  1. I did not intentionally link "corporal" and "supply sergeant" because those are military ranks. The New York Military Academy used those ranks for their own purposes, but Trump was not actually in the military.
  2. There is no page for "battalion training officer".
  3. I did not write this and I went ahead and reworded it.
  4. I did not write this and I went ahead and reworded it.
  5. As far as I know, "Colonial" is capitalized when referring to Colonial America—a proper noun—and lowercase when it is used generally.
  6. I did not write this and I went ahead and reworded it. There was an aspect that you had missed, because "but" implies that he should not have been "ornery and bored".
  7. I'm not sure what you mean by this. It was a poor average.
  8. Fixed.
  9. Fixed.
  10. Fixed.
  11. Fixed.
  12. Not a mistake. Fred sought to it that his sons attend an Ivy League institution. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:05, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since you addressed all of the issues as well as another editor supporting the article, I will support this for FA. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 03:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MisawaSakura

[edit]
Fixed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SusanLesch

[edit]

Thank you, this article is needed. The main Donald Trump biography where I have been contributing perennially runs into Wikipedia's WP:PEIS limit (tracking). It's nigh impossible to add much there.

Only one thing missing here that I know of. Biographers Kranish and Fisher write (p. 81) that Trump considered two people to be his mentors: his father and Norman Vincent Peale. Haberman and O'Brien and maybe Blair are additional sources for Peale. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall something in Craig and Buettner about Peale's book, but perhaps I'm confusing it with Haberman. I'll take a look at some of the literature there. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:44, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Good work! -SusanLesch (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

:Hold until unorthodox citation scheme is resolved. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:02, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing against using shortened footnotes for all references, and it is necessary. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:09, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just an observer here, but I wanted to say that I’m confused as to why you’re holding your support, I have seen many recent featured articles use that citation scheme, it’s a way to simplify it and make it easier on the eyes. There is nothing unorthodox about it Crystal Drawers (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Crystal Drawers. We're off topic here. The nominator brushed aside dissent from seven editors on his talk page.-SusanLesch (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • All images are public domain (published in the US between 1930 and 1977 without a copyright notice). All have sufficient alt text.
  • Donald Trump NYMA.jpg
  • Donald Trump playing baseball (cropped) (cropped).jpg
  • 1964 NYMA - 5 students in uniform.jpg

Pass. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Pass

[edit]
Formatting
  • Is there a reason ref 68 (The Fordham Ram) is formatted differently to the rest?
Someone else added that. Fixed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:44, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Books - Craig & Buettner: "Created The": lower case T
Fixed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:44, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Books - Any reason for wikilinking the publishers? It's not a common practice and isn't terribly helpful to readers (although I don't push the point)
I have been doing that for years and it is not against the MOS. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:44, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles - the titles have inconsistent capitalisation
Fixed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:44, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside from the above, the references and sources are formatted appropriately.
Range and reliability
  • To follow shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 11:26, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the sources used are reliable and appropriate for a BLP at FAC.
  • Having waded through a morass of sources that deal with or claim to deal with Trump's early years, there are no obvious gaps from high-quality sources.

Source review is therefore a pass. - SchroCat (talk) 08:23, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Borsoka

[edit]

Do the following publishers produce peer-reviewed books: Regan Arts, Simon & Schuster, Penguin Random House, Thomas Dunne Books, Penguin Press, W. W. Norton & Company, and Warner Books? My concern is that the somewhat click-baity titles of the cited books suggest a more tabloid-style approach. I am not convinced that a Featured Article could be written about a living person on the basis of sources with this level of reliability. To me, these seem more like primary sources that present material gathered from people closely involved in Trump's life, such as family members, former colleagues, or business competitors. Perhaps we should wait until academic publishers have produced peer-reviewed, thoroughly researched studies on Trump's early life before attempting to complete an FA on this topic. Borsoka (talk) 11:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources used are all of high quality and from reliable publishers - and that's what is required at FAC. I see no reason to add a higher level of sourcing requirements compared to other articles. - SchroCat (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that our respective standards for what constitutes a high-quality source differ rather markedly. Publications with overtly sensationalist titles—such as Trump: The Greatest Show on Earth, Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father's Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success, and Trump Revealed: The Definitive Biography of the 45th President—as well as media reports based on Michael Cohen's statements, signal from the outset that they are unlikely to meet the standard of reliability expected in an encyclopaedic context. This is not simply a matter of subjective preference: our relevant policy explicitly emphasises that academic and peer-reviewed works should be preferred whenever available, especially in relation to historical topics. Wikipedia is not intended to serve as a venue for the original compilation of unreviewed material or of sources grounded primarily in oral history, particularly when dealing with living individuals. Borsoka (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't judge a book by its title is good piece of advice. Either way, the works used here all fall within out WP:SOURCE, despite your attempt to somehow insist that this article should need a different level of sources to any other FA. There is no difference—in quality terms—between the sources used in this article and others that have progressed through FAC in recent years, such as Liz Truss, to give one recent example. - SchroCat (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously missed my point, but I will not repeat my arguments. Thank you for referring to the Truss article - yes, we need that quality of peer reviewed sources: academic journals, books published by CUP, etc. Borsoka (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've not missed your point at all and I'll say again, you can't demand a different level of sourcing for this one article above others. The sources used in this article are fully within WP:SOURCE and their use is within 1c. of WP:WIAFA. That is what is required for an FA and this article meets those demands. - SchroCat (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You again missed my point: I request the same quality of sourcing as the souces based on which the Tuss article was completed. I do not demand more. Sorry, I think there is no point in continuing this quite absurd discussion. Borsoka (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're right: your oppose is absurd and I'm delighted that you will no longer be pushing this rather pointless discussion. WP:SOURCE and 1c. of WP:WIAFA are passed comfortably with this article, despite your attempts to base a 'review' on the book titles. - SchroCat (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make it clear for those who only read your last comment: I do not oppose the article's promotion because of the titles of the cited sources. Borsoka (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Trump is unusual and book titles reflect his personality. Borsoka, I suggest you ask your favorite search engine "what adjectives would describe the life of young donald trump?" I have worked on this period of Trump's life for several months and find these sources to be excellent. Among the eight book sources, five authors have received the Pulitzer Prize. One other was an editor at a New York City tabloid, The Village Voice. He was a subject matter expert who I don't think anyone would wish to have to argue with. Another is a journalism professor at the Columbia University graduate school. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly do not question their competence as journalists. However, it remains the case that none of the cited sources appears to have been subject to peer review, which is a substantive issue in this context. In my view, the FA on Liz Truss, cited above, has already established a reasonable precedent for the level of sourcing expected in biographies of living individuals. Borsoka (talk) 06:00, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except the Truss article is a full biography encompassing her premiership and all her political activity, something that will obviously have academic scrutiny. This article covers only Trump’s early life and education. I will remind you of the wording of WP:SOURCES regarding the use academic and peer-reviewed works: it’s that they should be used “If available”. And this is an area which has not been the subject of academic scrutiny. - SchroCat (talk) 06:23, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I do not quite follow your remark above. You were the one who cited the Liz Truss article as a model FA ([29]). In any case, Wikipedia is not the place to advance our own ideas about Trump's early life on the basis of high-quality journalism alone. An FA must be grounded in peer-reviewed academic scholarship; otherwise, we are not presenting the scholarly consensus (or acknowledging the absence of one), but simply offering our own interpretation. Once academic sources on Trump's early life are published, the article can of course be developed further with a view to achieving FA status. Borsoka (talk) 07:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, that's disingenuous of you. No-one has advanced their "own ideas about Trump's early life on the basis of high-quality journalism alone". It is going beyond constructive to try and create a false narrative about what an FA "must" be built on. You've left your oppose—one I disagree with and which is not backed up by policies or guidelines—and it's time to move on. - SchroCat (talk) 07:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me underline your own words from your 06:32 remark above: "this is an area which has not been the subject of academic scrutiny". When presenting information on highly sensitive issues, such as the life of living persons and healthcare, we need to be extremly careful. Borsoka (talk) 07:53, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The editors involved have been careful, as far as my review is concerned. All their sources fall squarely within the requirements of WP:SOURCE. If you think this article in any way breaches the BLP guidelines in relation to the sourcing then please outline it here, otherwise I think we're done. - SchroCat (talk) 08:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The books I have purchased and included in this article are esteemed biographies on Trump. I believe Wayne Barrett's book was originally published as Trump: The Deals and the Downfall. Regardless, these are not sensationalist books. Barrett worked for The Village Voice for 37 years and was one of the most prominent investigative journalists. Lucky Loser was written by two journalists for The New York Times who have investigated Trump's tax returns for over a decade, both of whom won a Pulitzer in 2019. Trump Revealed is analogous to Out of the Blue, which is used on Truss' article heavily; in other words, it is a comprehensive and well-researched biography. There is no requirement that peer-reviewed articles be used exclusively when there is high-quality reporting out there. As SchroCat alluded to, if you cannot prove that each of the books you mentioned is actually a violation of policy, then this is a voided point. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who regards them as esteemed? Are there academic sources that cite these works? If so, could you please provide those references? Borsoka (talk) 03:15, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You might also like to consider the following peer reviewed, academic studies, as they offer substantial discussion of the article's subject and may be of help in meeting FACR1c:
Thanks. I didn't get much out of it (this Wikipedia article offers more insight) but because it relates to Trump's early life, I added the Clio's Psyche article to a new §Further reading. And I ordered Trump and Us for another article. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. McAdams is listed but you might want to add Campbell and Hart to Bibliography of Donald Trump. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
P.P.S. Re:Are there academic sources that cite these works? Did you look? Petschauer and Fuchs cite Blair, Kranish, and D’Antonio. I'm done addressing this endless opposition. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit I find this line of reasoning rather difficult to reconcile with our own policies. To quote the relevant provision once more: "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources on topics such as history, medicine, and science". If that is the standard, then it is hard to see how merely placing an academic, peer-reviewed study in the "Further reading" section could be said to satisfy it. The assertion that "this Wikipedia article offers more insight" ([30]) than peer-reviewed research is, frankly, quite troubling, particularly given that the subject of the article is a living individual. Moreover, a brief search on my part produced several academically published works, whereas the reviewer upheld a claim that "this is an area which has not been the subject of academic scrutiny" ([31]). Given this discrepancy, I struggle to see how such a source review can be considered adequate when we are assessing whether the article represents "Wikipedia's very best work" and meets the FA criteria, as explicitly required by the second sentence of WP:FAC. Borsoka (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

El Alma al Aire

[edit]
Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My last nomination for this article failed due to Commercial Performance being too list-y, so I brought it up for peer review and had it revamped thanks to a reviewer's input. This is part of my personal project of working Latin pop and tropical albums that either reached #1 or won a Grammy/Latin Grammy Award. I look forward to your comments. Erick (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IanTEB

[edit]

I'll focus my review on the prose, but will point out other issues I find, if any.

Lead and infobox
  • sixth studio album recorded by Spanish singer-songwriter - is 'recorded' required here? I know its not uncommon usage (e.g. 'List of songs recorded by Artist' articles) but it seems a little redundant.
  • Latin Grammy Awards for Album of the Year and Best Male Pop Vocal Album and a Grammy nomination for Best Latin Pop Album in 2001 - there should be a comma after 'Best Male Pop Vocal Album' since 'and' to better distinguish the Latin Grammy and Grammies.
  • with music videos accompanying all three singles - we already know these are singles; 'all three.' is still understandable and prevents repetetion.
  • A special edition of the record was launched on 11 June 2001 - I've never seen 'launched' use for an album release before. It makes sense, but 'released' would be more simple and direct.
  • To further promote the album, Sanz embarked on El Alma al Aire Tour in 2001, where he performed in Latin America, Spain, and the US - I think '[...] in 2001, which spanned (or visited) Latin America, Spain, and the US' would flow better
  • El Alma al Aire has been regarded as one of Sanz's important works by music journalists. - 'Important' in what way? Influential? Impactful on his career?
Background and recording
  • It sold over six million copies and would eventually become the best-selling record of all time in Spain - this sentence makes it seems as if the album initially sold six million, and subsequently continued moving copies until it became the most sold record in Spain. My alternative would be: 'It sold over six million copies internationally and became the best-selling record of all time in Spain.'
  • Ruffinengo's comment in the second paragraph feels very PR-y. There's probably feel differently, but I would usually leave out comments like this if they don't elaborate on any particular detail of the recording/production process.
  • Sanz's quote at the start of the third paragraph should be paraphrased. As a rule of thumb, quotes should only be used if they help visualize the process, not only explain it. Since this quote is basically 'we had multiple studios', the quote itself does not create a mental image that cannot be achieved by paraphrasing.
Composition
  • El Alma al Aire is a pop album and consists of ten tracks - change the 'and' to 'that' for better flow, in my opinion. Also, the quote in source [15] should replace the quotation marks around Mas with apostrophes.
  • What is 'shared celebration'? I don't speak Spanish - and neither of the attached sources can be fully translated - so I can't view the original text, but do you mean, for example, festivities?
  • "Me Iré", with the latter described as "nostalgic" by - I would change ', with' to a semicolon. I also think 'lattermost' is more appropriate when there are more than two articles mentioned, but the text is still perfectly understandable regardless.
  • The audio sample includes a quote not found anywhere else in the article. Regardless, the audio file does not help illustrate the reviewers' point since its unclear what element of the song is supposed to be 'adult' or 'modest', so the usage fails WP:FAIRUSE.
Release and promotion
  • El Alma al Aire was re-released in 2007 and includes demos of - replace 'and includes' with 'with'
  • released on 14 September 2000 and directed by Sebastien Grousset - the 'and' is a little awkward here. I'd prefer something like 'The music video for "Cuando Nadie Me Ve", directed by Sebastien Grousset, was released on 14 September 2000.'
  • Several Spanish celebrities appear in the video, including Miguel Bosé, Santiago Segura, José Coronado, and Gabino Diego - I would at least introduce these people's occupations
  • A music video was released for the latter promotional single and filmed in the Iberian Peninsula - sort of the same advice as above, but I'd change this to something like: "A music video was released for the latter, filmed in the Iberian Peninsula."
  • I'd personally prefer if the Tour section was merged to below the first paragraph and the re-releases moved into their own sub-section, to help with chronology.
Critical reception
  • generally positive reactions is original research. Summary of reviewers require either an aggregator such as Metacritic or second-hand analysis of reception.
  • Maybe I'm misinterpreting this, but it feels a little weird to open a three/four star review with a negative comment (saying that songs either seem borrowed from an earlier work or are 'cautious baby steps' sounds like the reviewer is calling the album uninventive).
  • "some of the most beautiful songs of his career", citing songs such as "Cuando Nadie Me Ve" as a "sincere track" and the title track for its poetry and music - repetive usage of 'songs' and 'tracks'. Try to find replacements or rework the sentence
  • This section includes way to many quotations. Try to paraphrase where possible.
  • In 2021, Argentina website La Coope - Argentinian. Also italicize the website name, unless there is some specific reason not to
  • Why is the information of fusing pop, rock, and flamenco not mentioned in the Composition section?
  • In Sanz's native Spain the album achieved its greatest success, where it debuted atop... - Change to 'The album achieved its greatest success in Sanz's native Spain, where it debuted atop...'
  • Comma after 'shipping over 1.3 million copies'
  • Across Europe, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI)[77] certified the album had gone platinum after recognizing sales of over one million copies across the continent - repetetive usage of 'across'; you can open with just 'In Europe'. It could be further simplified by changing 'certified the album had gone platinum' to just 'certified the album platinum'.
Tables
  • Please add translations somewhere in the article. This could be in the body or the track listing section. Knowing the meaning of the titles would greatly help my understanding
  • There seems to be some odd dead space at the bottom of the Personnel and Charts sections.
  • Spanish guitar in "Quisiera Ser" - change to 'Spanish guitar on...' and do the same for all other instances of such wording

Those are my comments. Most are rather minor fixes that I hope won't take much time. The biggest issue would probably be paraphrasing quotations in the reception section. IanTEB (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IanTEB Thank you so much! I think I got most, if not, all of them. I don't know how to fix the dead space at the Personnel and Charts sections. Erick (talk) 04:37, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Magiciandude: Thank you for the reply and apologizes for the time it took me to get back to you. I've read through the article again and will leave a few more comments below (I've taken the liberty to fix a few minor quibbles, to prevent the review from nagging on):
  • I still think chronology can be improved in the release section by placing Re-releases at the bottom, since the tour and all singles came before any re-issue.
  • You could add an image of the National Auditorium in the Tour section with a caption like "The album's tour included nine shows at the National Auditorium" since its quite interesting, but that's just a suggestion.
  • an immortal man played by Sanz who, throughout history, falls in love with a woman belonging to another - I don't really understand what this means. Is 'woman' supposed to be singular? Does 'throughout history' mean several time periods or something specific?
  • Is the Nielsen SoundScan's reported sales needed if the RIAA certified a greater number?
Good work so far! IanTEB (talk) 10:13, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments.I will get to work on this on sunday or monday Erick (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IanTEB Sorry about the wait, I got everything, especially changing "history" to "different time periods". I left the sales as is since Nielsen deals with pure sales while the RIAA at the time dealt with shipments only. Erick (talk) 14:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Magiciandude: Thanks for the response! I made some small touches but feel happy to support now. IanTEB (talk) 12:50, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cartoon network freak

[edit]

Supporting this nomination as per my older review the first time around. Great job! I would kindly appreciate some thoughts on my own FAC, "Despre tine". Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

More than a month in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next day or two I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:27, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Hawke

[edit]
Nominator(s): 750h+ 14:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the American actor Ethan Hawke. This article used to be an FA, but it was demoted less than two years ago due to lack of information, which I believe i've addressed. All comments are welcome and appreciated; if successful this will be my 13th FA. 750h+ 14:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]

Ref 193 Yu, Brandon (October 16, 2025) and 208 have an error. Ref 147 (Collider) is a Valnet source so I'd suggest finding a replacement. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vacant0:, thanks for these, should be fixed. 750h+ 14:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

[edit]
Lead
  • “acheived” → “achieved”
    • Typo.
  • He earned critical acclaim and a nomination for Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor for portraying an amateur police officer
    • Hawke's character is a rookie cop, not an “amateur".

Read upto the end of the Early life section. MSincccc (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Career
  • Robert Ebert→ Roger Ebert
  • one of the survivors of Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571
    • Missing the definite article before "Uruguayan".
  • A New York Times writer observed→ Caryn James...
    • Since we know the author, who is notable enough.
  • Entertainment Weekly is linked twice in the same subsection.

MSincccc (talk) 10:26, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc thanks for these. 750h+ 12:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Career (continued)
  • while The New York Times noted that Hawke showed "a novelist's innate gifts...
    • Even this review was written by Caryn James.
  • with one from New York Daily News stating that Hawke and co-star Laurence Fishburne made the film work, "supported by a mostly strong cast".
    • Jami Bernard, of the New York Daily News, has a Wikipedia article and could be named here.
  • while Peter Travers, writing for Rolling Stone,...
    • Link "Rolling Stone"?
  • including New York Daily News reviewer
    • As a matter of fact, only "Daily News" is italicised in the article's title.
  • Replace "garnered" with "received"?

MSincccc (talk) 14:06, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc: mostly done. Nothing wrong with ‘garnered’ I don’t think, adds a bit of variety. 750h+ 15:15, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since it is an encyclopedia (more that it is a potential FA-in-the making) I thought "received" fits in more than "garnered" does even though I leave it for you to decide. MSincccc (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Career (continued)
  • “he and Delpy's character” → “his and Delpy’s characters”
  • “universal acclaim from critics” → “critical acclaim”
    • So as to keep it simple and encyclopediac.
  • "A writer for The Hollywood Reporter" → "The Hollywood Reporter"
    • Since the article has not been attributed to a specific individual.
  • "His role as abolitionist John Brown" → "His role as the abolitionist John Brown"
    • It would be better to avoid the false title here, though I leave it to you.
  • Collider said that Hawke played "at his best as the Grabber"
    • Link "collider"?
  • “writin in” → “writing in”

MSincccc (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc: thanks for these! 750h+ 02:56, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Artistry and screen technique
  • You could link to "Esquire" magazine and "blockbuster".

A solitary suggestion for this section. MSincccc (talk) 06:19, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc: done. 750h+ 10:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personal life and other ventures
  • “A caucasian woman” → “A Caucasian woman”

MSincccc (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc: done. 750h+ 01:45, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a support from me. By the way, I have a GA nomination which has been open for quite some time now; you could take a look if interested. MSincccc (talk) 13:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Poirot09

[edit]

Just a few suggestions, since I'm not familiar with FAC.

  • I would remove the first quote box, since it feels a little like a pull quote. The tangible impact of Dead Poets Society on his career is already illustrated with a quote in the body (the one about offers).
  • I think a few more roles might be relevant to the lead—he got a lot of award wins for First Reformed and a few for Maudie; also The Magnificent Seven is one of his biggest box office hits as a lead actor (here).
  • Hawke has made nine films with Linklater and has often talked about their collaboration, so I feel that more info about that might be included in the Artistry and screen technique section. A few sources, for example, are: 1, 2, 3. I found the first two by searching on Google Scholar, there might be more.
  • I would incorporate in the lead the most important points of the Artistry and screen technique section, since the lead should be a summary of all main sections of the article (maybe about his versatility and the fact that he stars in both blockbusters and independent films).

Aside from those things, great article! Poirot09 (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Poirot09: thanks for the comments. thoughts? 750h+ 11:04, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had a quick look at the references and those also seem to be good, so I support. Poirot09 (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gommeh

[edit]
  • Can you put some more of his roles in the lead?
    • there's quite a lot already; we don't need to mention all
  • Not sure his full name needs to be stated in "Early life and education".
    • this is a pretty common thing in bios
  • I'm also not sure the image of the Packer Collegiate Institute is necessary here.
  • Do any of the sources go into detail as to why he developed an interest in acting? Did he ever give any interviews with respect to this?
    • Not really, even when I was researching I couldn't find too much on this
  • Are the high school productions of Meet Me in St. Louis and You Can't Take It with You needed? I feel like they aren't too important.
    • I think they are for an early life section
  • He later appeared in his high school's productions of Meet Me in St. Louis and You Can't Take It with You. While attending the Hun School, he took acting classes at the McCarter Theatre on the Princeton University campus. Sounds clunky to me, consider rewording.
  • The New York Times thought Hawke did "a fine job of showing what it's like to be young and full of confusion" Name who said this. Same at with Entertainment Weekly commenting that "Hawke scrunches himself into such a dark knot that we have no idea who [his character] Ishmael is or why he acts as he does"..
  • A writer for The Oregonian: name the writer.
    • ^
  • Are there any more SIGCOV reviews of Hawke's performances that we've overlooked? I feel like there should be more.
    • What do you mean?
  • according to The Hollywood Reporter, Hawke portrayed a drone pilot grappling with a troubled conscience. Name the critic ("according to Rooney" since he is named earlier).
  • Conceived after a dinner party attended by both Hawke and its subject, classical pianist Seymour Bernstein, the film is a profile of Bernstein, who later said that, although he was normally a private person, he was unable to decline Hawke's request to make the film because the actor was "so endearing". This seems clunky, but I can't think of a way to reword it.
  • An Empire writer praised him... name the writer. Same with A critic for the Houston Chronicle praised his performance as one of the year's best, while NBC News described it as a career highlight. and Collider said that Hawke played "at his best as the Grabber", while The New York Times said that his performance "create[d] a more cohesive picture than the original".
    • ^
  • I added "Hawke is a staunch supporter of the Democratic Party." in the personal life section as an introductory sentence to the paragraph.
  • I'm not sure if the discography section is needed here, as he's not known for his music and there's only one entry in the table anyway.

That should be all from me. Most of these are minor however, so I'll go ahead and give this a (slightly premature, but only slightly) support. I have quite a few articles up for GA status at the moment; they are linked on my userpage if you want to take a look at them. Gommeh 📖   🎮 20:53, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gommeh: thanks for the comments, I did leave some responses; also I do think I am reviewing one of your GANs atm so I'll get tot hat. 750h+ 11:01, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Octave

[edit]

I'll do the source review for this one. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 00:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed Special:Diff/1323899040

Reliability

  • What makes ref 24 a high-quality source?
  • What makes ref 205 a high-quality reliable source?
    • I think it'd be fine here given that it's sourcing a review

Consistency

  • Inconsistent casing of reference titles, suggest standardsing to either title or sentence cases.
  • Inconsistent linking of authors and work titles
  • Inconsistent use of archive links, consider running IA bot
  • Inconsistent use of the url access parameter for paywalled or subscription-only articles

Other comments

  • Work titles should always be in italics per MOS:CONFORM, regardless of the original source title
  • Is it common practice to use the date of the film as the date for review aggregators and box office info (e.g. Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, Box Office Mojo, The Numbers, etc.)? I've never seen this method before; should there be a date at all?
  • The website in refs 31, 35, 36, 50, and 193 should point to the more specific RogerEbert.com
  • Refs 3, 63, 70, 116, 138, 139, and 237 are dead
  • Ref 8 is a CS2 reference, please convert to CS1 per the overall citestyle
  • Refs 19 and 221 are duplicate
  • Ref 32: is BBC Culture part of BBC News, or is it seperate?
  • The identifiers for ref 217 are incorrect and point to an unrelated article in Nature

That's all for just now. I took the liberty of spot-checking a few sources: no red flags there. Please ping me when you are done, or if you need any clarification. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 00:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@UpTheOctave!: much thanks for the source review, I believe I've addressed all of these (except archive links, which does take a while to do). 750h+ 06:14, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability looks fine now. For reference casing, I don't think the converter works on bundles: these will have to be done manually. There is still inconsistent linking; a non-exhaustive list of inconsistencies include the linking of Roger Ebert, The New York Times, Rotten Tomatoes, etc.. Please look through again. Similarly, many of the articles for the NYT still have no url-access parameter. The duplicate citation issue remains, as does several of the dead URLs, which should be switched to the archives using the url-status parameter. Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8va? 19:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UpTheOctave!: hopefully I've fixed this, what are your thoughts? 750h+ 12:50, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the whole, I think this looks fine now. Support on sourcing. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 13:38, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

I presume we don't have an archive of File:Ethan Hawke 66ème Festival de Venise (Mostra) 6.jpg's and File:Ethan Hawke Festival de Venise (Mostra) (cropped).png Flickr account? What does "self-photographed" mean in File:RobertdeNiro26.JPG? Image placement seems OK. ALT text too unless someone thinks "Caucasian" is too technical. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:09, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I don't believe so, so both images removed. If i'm correct 'self-photographed' means the user is the one who took it. 750h+ 14:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: ? 750h+ 11:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, got some real life work going the first part of any week. I asked fr:Discussion utilisateur:Teddyyy about the photo. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

query

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: can i start a new nom? All that we're waiting for is Jo-Jo's passing of the image review, but everything else has been completed. If we have to wait for Jo-Jo then that's fine by me. 750h+ 14:48, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exile (American band)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:19, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think a lot of 70s rock fans know Exile for "Kiss You All Over". It's definitely one I've heard countless times on oldies stations. But how many know of that band's early years on the rock and roll circuit, or their ten #1 hits on the country charts, or the fact that they're still recording to this day?

The band's history stretches back to the 60s, with a great deal of information coming from 50 Years of Exile alongside a mix of contemporary news and music magazine articles. I feel this is one of my most substantial articles especially compared to the GA-class Nitty Gritty Dirt Band, another band of similar vintage. Maybe they're not as well known as the subjects of other FA-class country music articles such as Randy Travis, but if something as obscure within the genre as 3 of Hearts (album) can be FA-class, then I think Exile should have a relatively easy path to FA.

Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:19, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • File:Dick_Clark_(cropped).JPG: source link is dead
@Nikkimaria and MisawaSakura: Is this at or close to a pass for images? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this: File:Dick_Clark_(cropped).JPG is the best free one on Commons. If the blurred one can be changed to the new suggestion, I'll pass for images. The one that's in there is amateurish, which in IMHO is not acceptable when there are good free ones available. MisawaSakura (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted it to the cropped image. I'm a game show fan, so I like that the image shows him on The $10,000 Pyramid. Just one of those little subtle TPH touches. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:57, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pass on the images. MisawaSakura (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I'll take a look this weekend. Hog Farm Talk 01:15, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why exactly did Caldwell request the move to NYC?
  • "The band also produced a music video for "She's a Miracle", one of the first to be aired on the television network CMT" - this seems to be overstating the earliness a bit. The source just says that it was part of the early CMT rotation, which is a bit broader than just the immediate early days. CMT was launched in 1983 and the Kentucky Hearts album was released in 1984, so clearly there were quite a few videos shown on CMT before "She's a Miracle"
  • "Roger BonDurant briefly joined their touring band in late 1989 as a backing vocalist and rhythm guitarist, but was not considered an official member." - I can't access the source but it has a date of February 1989 so how can it support something happening in late 1989?
  • ", the fourth single, "There You Go", under-performed on the charts" - isn't it a bit more useful to tell the reader where the single charted rather than being a bit euphemistic like this? "under-performed" could mean anywhere down to barely charting. And it's not like this was a part of the band's career where they could expect every single to be top-5 or anything
  • "were unsuccessful due to radio backlash against Exile in the intervening years" - what exactly was Exile doing to create "radio backlash"?
  • "Despite this, the band's tour bus was robbed after a concert in 1993, " - the use of "despite this" seems odd to me. It suggests that this would be unexpected given the prior-discussed information, but there's no real contrast there between the events. Touring more as a late-career band doesn't make the bus less likely to be robbed
  • Some of the dates noted in the members section do not appear to be sourced directly in the article - for instance, the exact dates of Salyer
  • What's Westbrook's credentials? I'm not familiar with Acclaim Press, although it doesn't appear to be part of the tier of publishers that anything published by them could be presumed to be a high-quality RS as required by the FA criteria. The Acclaim author page for Westbrook doesn't appear to contain an actual bio. I don't think I would question this source for GA, but FA requires a higher standard.

This is my first batch of thoughts. Hog Farm Talk 21:13, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Sorry for not responding sooner. My modem died and I only got it back last night, and I've also been battling severe allergies. I think I've taken care of most of your issues to this point. I always mess up timelines when I try to edit them, so I'll try to corroborate the dates and then someone else can fix the timeline graphic. (Actually, given that some of the shorter-lived members' tenures are unknown, would removing the timeline entirely be acceptable?)
Randy Westbrook is a music professor with a Ph.D in musicology. This is corroborated by this independent source, and further searching yielded even more sources corroborating his credentials. I admit I'm not well-versed on this level of source quality when it comes to FAs, but I would think a Ph.D in a topically relevant field lends credibility to the book. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For history books, we'd generally expect something more than just a Ph.D but admittedly music criticism is not an area that I am familiar with. My inclination is to hold off on a decision regarding the suitability of Westbrook until we can get a more familiar source reviewer there. The dates for members issue involves more than just the timeline - there are dates in the member section that aren't directly supported (again, Salyers is an example). It's also not immediately clear what the black lines in the timeline chart are intended to represent - are those albums the band put out? Hog Farm Talk 20:44, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope it is acceptable, because it'll kill like the entire first four paragraphs otherwise. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:44, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ETA: Usually when timelines are involved, the black lines do indicate album releases. That said, since some members are relatively unknown, I felt a timeline was too complicated. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hog Farm, is there more to come n this? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When was Wrapped Up In Your Arms for Christmas released? The discography section lists it as 2016 but the article body includes the statement "First was a Christmas album titled Wrapped Up in Your Arms for Christmas in 2017.".
Is the album title properly Heart & Soul (per the article body) or Heart and Soul (per the discography)?

That's the further comments I have to add. Gog the Mild - I don't feel comfortable placing a formal support until there is additional input on if Westbrook is a high-quality source. Hog Farm Talk 02:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Opinion on the quality of the Westbrook book? As stated above, the author is a Ph.D in musicology. The book also features direct quotes from band members throughout for that WP:ABOUTSELF action.
Hog Farm, I can see the issue. Given what reviewers would want for the sort of topic areas where I typically work I am not thrilled by this one. However, given some of the material accepted as HQ RSs in music articles generally I feel that a book by a music professor can be assumed to reach this level - bar any wildly outrageous or inherently unlikely claims. That said, the richmondregister site is blocked to me "for legal reasons". TenPoundHammer, any chance of accessible evidence of Westbrook's PhD, ideally including when it was earned and just what it was in. Plus, evidence of what institution he is a professor and the dates of his term. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding Westbrook's cred:
    • This source dated 2014 has Westbrook, a professor at Eastern Kentucky University and Bluegrass Community and Technical College...
    • This source dated 2018 has Randy Westbrook, RAAC director and adjunct professor of musicology at EKU...
    • LinkedIn confirms a Ph.D in Musicology in 2006, and service as professor at Eastern Kentucky University from 2006-2020. The latter is consistent with the previous claims of serving as a professor at EKU.
    • Eastern Kentucky University lists his book among books published by faculty and staff, for further corroboration of his tenure at EKU.
    • Rocket Reach also corroborates the dates of his Ph.D and tenure as professor from LinkedIn, but it contains personal info as well so I'm not linking it.
    • I wasn't able to fully recover the Richmond Register source, but I was able to cheat the paywall enough to find the text at the University of Memphis and completing a Ph.D in musicology.
    • This source has Westbrook, a keyboard player with a Ph.D. in musicology from the University of Memphis, who will be not just the organizer but one of the performers.
So far, every source I was able to find is consistent regarding Westbrook's credentials. I didn't find any "wildly outrageous or inherently unlikely claims" in the book that made me even remotely doubt its reputability. Band members are quoted consistently throughout, and everything I fact-checked -- their tenure in Caravan of Stars, spin-off acts like Hazard and Rockland Road, chart positions, album release years, involved producers, etc. -- passed with flying colors. (As an aside, I also like that he avoids the common music bio pitfall of padding out the accolades with minor non-Billboard charts or trivial awards by non-noteworthy organizations.) As was the case in the Randy Travis FA, I can provide snippets of the Westbrook book and/or other offline sources if needed. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:56, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: inconsistencies on album titles/releases fixed. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:01, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good job. As a coordinator I am happy with Westbrook as a source. Hi Hog Farm, you solicited my opinion and so given, but you need not necessarily agree with it. In any case, back to you. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hog Farm Talk 19:47, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ippantekina

[edit]

Prose review coming soon. I don't know much about this band, so my review should be NPOV. Ippantekina (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ippantekina: any progress here? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:57, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay, my preliminary comments are below.
  • "in the state of Kentucky"
  • "Exile began a transition to country music" can be just transitioned to country music
  • "the beginning of the 21st century" early 2000s decade makes more sense to me
  • "Exile has continued to tour and record independent albums under this lineup in the 2010s and 2020s." what does "independent" mean in this context?
  • "Songs of theirs have also been covered by Alabama, Huey Lewis and the News, Dave & Sugar, and the Forester Sisters. Additionally, LeMaire has written songs for Restless Heart, Diamond Rio, and Clay Walker." not sure if this is significant... Ippantekina (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't like using "early 2000s" because it's ambiguous. Compare Randy Travis, where I opted for "21st century's first decade" to seemingly no objection. I also feel at least the coverage by other artist is relevant to show the band's impact and legacy spreading to other artists and prevent the last paragraph of the lead from being too short relative to the others. I did tend to the other suggestions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:23, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, Idk because "beginning of the 21st century" can be any range from 2001 till even 2020s. I understand that "2000s" alone is ambiguous, hence I suggested "early 2000s decade". Ippantekina (talk) 13:37, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TenPoundHammer, are you intending to address this point? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I already changed it to "early 2000s decade" a while ago. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:32, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for almost a month and still hasn't attracted a support. Unless there's notable progress toward a consensus for promotion within the next three or four days, I'm afraid it will be archived. FrB.TG (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild:, @Hog Farm:, @Ippantekina:, any feedback? Why did all three of you go silent? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:17, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am silent because I am acting as a coordinator here, not a reviewer. I was asked to opine on one point, which I have done. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FrB.TG: Just so it's not missed, Hog Farm gave a support up above. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:44, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MisawaSakura: @Nikkimaria: Any further input here? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:46, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ping @David Fuchs:. Also ping @ChrisTofu11961:, @Caldorwards4:, @Sammi Brie: for their interests in related topics. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:58, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re-pinging @David Fuchs:, @Ippantekina:. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:44, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support Exile as a featured article. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ChrisTofu11961 and thanks for the indication of support. However, such drive-by supports are given minimal weight by the coordinators when reaching decisions; as the instructions for reviewers state "To support a nomination, write *Support, followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text." Cheers Gog the Mild (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

High and Low (1963 film)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Plifal (talk) 07:50, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The suspense is killing! This article is about the classic 1963 film High and Low by Akira Kurosawa. This is my first FAC, and my first major Wikipedia project. I started editing this article back in January/February of 2024, and have been scouring flea markets and book stores for any information on Kurosawa. With luck, this will be the first of many films by the master to grace this page. Please be ruthless but encouraging!

Courtesy pings to TompaDompa and David Fuchs for their invaluable help at peer review; LastJabberwocky for their thorough GAR; BigChrisKenney for their copyedit; and Eiga-Kevin2 and ErnestKrause who expressed interest at some point at looking over this article.--Plifal (talk) 07:50, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Valuable context, my only experience with FA reviewing process is a review of Tomorrow's Pioneers, where I'm the only person who voted for promotion :). BUT based on my assessment and, most importantly for me, great improvement of "Themes"—the article is almost flawless, where the word "almost" is just formality because nothing can be perfect. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 08:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thank you kindly!--Plifal (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am impressed, considering this is your first nomination. My only critique is the "Further reading section", most Featured articles do without them and I myself have learned to just incorporate them into the main body of sources if I have access and can cite them. Paleface Jack (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Paleface Jack, thank you very much! all credit to everyone who looked over the article (most especially TompaDompa). the further reading section in this article contains two books and an article, all of which either don't mention high and low, or only mention it in passing. bock (1991) mentions it but all information contained within it (a couple of sentences) is found more extensively in other works. kurosawa (1983) is included for being the director's autobiography, but the biography ends in 1950, after information pertaining to the creation of rashomon. nogami (2001) is included as the english translation of nogami's original work detailing her life as a production assistant for kurosawa; the revised version which includes an extensive piece on high and low has only been published in japanese and is cited in the article.
it was my understanding that further readings don't necessarily have to pertain precisely to the topic, rather they can exist as supplemental materials for people to read around the topic to gain a greater understanding of it, which was the aim of inclusion here. i hope this makes sense! if you feel it should be excised though i have no issue with that.--Plifal (talk) 09:45, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We shall see if others agree, for the moment, keep it. Paleface Jack (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, looking over how this has progressed, and how I was not clear, this shall be a great addition to FA. Paleface Jack (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thank you!!--Plifal (talk) 06:21, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i do apologise for disturbing and likely placing pressure on you both, but just in case this fell off your "to-do" lists, TechnoSquirrel69 and Generalissima, i have responded and have some queries still. if you have the time i would very much appreciate more guidance; otherwise please let me know if you are too busy at the moment!--Plifal (talk) 13:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, Plifal, I had indeed let this slip my mind. You've done really good work addressing my concerns, and I've responded on the couple of questions you had. I don't think at this point that I'll be able to commit to any further comments, but good luck with the rest of the candidacy! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:47, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TechnoSquirrel69, no worries!! thank you kindly for looking over the article!!! i should have fixed most of the sourcing, i hope! best wishes.--Plifal (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:HIGH_AND_LOW_JP_.jpg needs a more expansive FUR
  • given the lack of concrete authorship i have been unable to ascertain whether this has been published in the usa, but i would hazard a guess that according to the hirtle chart it probably isn't in copyright for quite a while yet. i've replaced the image with a picture of the kodama express train, hopefully this should be ok and not in contravention of japanese panorama laws?--Plifal (talk) 13:41, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, apologies, forgot to ping you initially.--Plifal (talk) 14:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Purely utilitarian objects don't generally get copyright protection so the train is fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TechnoSquirrel69

[edit]

Excited to see this here! I'd be more than happy to put down a few comments in the next week. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:07, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for all your help and guidance to this point!!! you've been an excellent shadow contributor to this. i look forward to working with you again!!--Plifal (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And here we go! Here's a few prose comments to get us started. Please keep in mind that these are all suggestions; you very well may have reasons not to implement some of my comments (I'm no expert on this film), so please feel free to do so if that's the case. Citation numbers from this revision.

Prose comments
[edit]
  • "the studio bought the rights ..." does not follow from "Produced by Toho". Maybe "The film was produced by Toho Studios, who bought the rights ..."?
  • done.
  • 2 September 1962, and took place → 2 September 1962, taking place (to reduce the and repetition in that sentence)
  • done.
  • Is the sentence about the single-shot sequence a significant enough detail to mention in the lead?
  • i decided to include a brief sentence highlighting this scene because every major source that talks about the film's production dedicates ~half of its content to this scene, the article dedicates a paragraph to this relatively short section of the film, and most other details are not generally so specific, so i don't think it's undue.
  • under a month, and after → under a month and, after
  • done.
  • I might swap the places of the "received generally positive reviews" and "highest-grossing film" bits for flow. I can elaborate if necessary.
  • done, i think, but if i misunderstood, please do elaborate!
  • A couple issues with the parenthetical inflation calculations: first, they should probably be in footnotes (you do this further down); second, they present an accessibility issue since the tooltips over the years cannot be seen by mobile readers. I realize the latter is actually a problem with the template, but I would recommend replacing instances of it for those reasons.
  • done.
  • I find § Themes to have quite a lot of technical jargon. For example, "Film scholar David Desser refers to High and Low as containing three chronological planes of action that "reveals Kurosawa's fascination with process". He notes this attention to process as part of a tension that occurs between Kurosawa's humanistic sentiment and formalistic tendencies." It's difficult for me to glean what Desser's argument is here. I know academics tend to use a lot of jargon, but it's our job to parse it and present it for a general audience. I would take a closer look through this section for issues like this.
  • should hopefully have fixed this specific instance, but i don't think i'm very good at doing this, either i overestimate or badly explain, and this is the fourth time someone's brought this up. i need more concrete examples and fixes i think. now reads: "Film scholar David Desser divides High and Low into three sections, describing the shift from Gondo's home, to the detectives investigating, and the kidnapper's world as "planes of action" that follow a chronology, moving from 'high' to 'low'. He notes the process of the police investigation as a thematic tension between Kurosawa's humanistic sentiment and formalistic tendencies." but i recognise this is still somewhat imperfect.
  • "have been analogised" in the image caption sounds weaselly. I would attribute the argument to Richie as in the prose.
  • done.
  • Mifune's Gondo
  • done.
  • Dante himself
  • done.
  • Is the reportedly in "kidnappings in Japan reportedly increased" supported by the source? We don't want to be casting doubt on something the source says explicitly.
  • wild says: "an apparent increase in the crime in Japan in the months following the film’s release." which i don't think is misrepresented by the use of "reportedly", but galbraith is more assertive, so i've axed the use of wild here and removed the word.
  • "In emphasising the lenient sentencing of Japanese kidnapping laws" reads like this detail was already mentioned earlier in the article, but I don't think it was.
  • changed to: "Kurosawa had intended to inspire harsher punishments by emphasising the crime's lenient sentencing, but was instead blamed for an increase in kidnapping cases."
  • "but was instead blamed" by whom?
  • unfortunately, galbraith doesn't elaborate.
  • sentences—but → sentences, but
  • done.
  • Considering "the Kurosawa household" is already mentioned, "director's daughter, Kazuko Kurosawa" could be "director's daughter Kazuko".
  • done.
  • Maybe we could use a different word than grounded , to avoid the implication that she was punished for whatever reason?
  • changed to: "forbidden from leaving the house"
  • 35mm prints → [[35 mm movie film|35 mm prints]]
  • done.
  • "Awards and accolades" These are basically synonymous, so I would pick just one.
  • done, chosen 'awards'.
  • done.
  • The inflation calculations in the footnotes need citations. (I did similar digging for Princess Mononoke — maybe that source would be helpful here?) Lose the periods per MOS:CAPFRAG.
  • done.
  • Italicize the names of works in the citations per MOS:WEBITALICS — this also works inside {{sfn}}s.
  • done. i have left rotten tomatoes, golden globes, and edgar awards unitalicised though, since that seems generally consistent with their usage. i was also wondering about italicising BFI, which i have italicised, but wouldn't normally expect to see as such.
  • Slant Magazine seems to be the proper name of that publication, so use that in the {{sfn}}.
  • done.
  • Make sure titles of works (mostly just High and Low) are italicized in the citation titles and aren't inside quotes.
  • done.
  • I would suggest making the casing of the citation titles consistent.
    • (on this point i have a query: i write the titles as they're presented on the website/book. in this respect they're consistent? unless you mean in title case, for example.)
      This RfC recently established that following the casing used by sources individually was not considered a consistent citation style by the community. I would go with either sentence or title case. —TS
      • done i think!
  • The book citations mention the publication location inconsistently.
  • done.
  • The works are linked to their Wikipedia articles inconsistently (for example, Rotten Tomatoes isn't).
  • as with above, i will probably miss some of these last few on the point of standardising citations, but will do my best!

A few more comments as I go through my source checks:

  • Consider mentioning JFK's title; I'm unsure if that is common knowledge outside the Western world (or even outside the US).
    • done.
  • the viewers sense → the viewers' sense (it's in the source, but it can be silently corrected)
    • done, good catch!
Source review
[edit]

Citation numbers from this revision.

  • Spot-checks completed without issue: 62, 67, 84, 91, 117, 132.
  • Citation 88 does not verify the DVD's release date. The source was published on March 26, but I don't believe anything can be inferred from that.
    • since the source says: "out to buy on dvd" could the year be considered verified from that, or would it be better to cut the date entirely?
  • Spot-checked a couple of box-office numbers from footnote d; I trust that due diligence was done with the addition, which is an acceptable simple calculation.
    • if my maths is ok!
  • Does "Variety Inc." need to be red-linked per the guideline? The CS1 template documentation also discourages adding publisher information when the company name is similar to the name of the work, but I understand if you want to keep that for consistency.
    • i would prefer to keep them in both cases for consistency, though if you think it's better to de-link remove i won't fight it. honestly i was quite surprised that variety inc. was a redlink in the first place.
  • This Link Dispenser report lets you filter all of the sources that already have an archive link; every one of the sources that report a 200 OK code will need a |url-status=live if they don't have one already.
    • hopefully should have done!
  • Is there a reason those Criterion Collection essays are in § External links instead of § Further reading, and in a different citation style?
    • moved.
  • Can the copies of Variety that are available on the Internet Archive be linked from their citations, instead of separate links in § External links? It would be helpful to get the URLs for those specific pages to save readers from some flipping through the archives.
    • done.
Discussion
[edit]

I'm considering doing a source review, but not sure if I'll have the time this week — I'll let you know, of course. Please let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:24, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you so far! i have a few questions, and i need to still go through the inflation calculators, but i've gone through most of these.--Plifal (talk) 11:56, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TechnoSquirrel69, responses above.--Plifal (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Generalissima

[edit]

I plan to get to this sometime in the next week! Great seeing a new face around :) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i look forward to working with you!! i've long seen you around wikipedia and have so much respect and admiration for your contributions (especially to chinese and japanese history), so thank you kindly for looking over this!!!--Plifal (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:21, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima, nosorry!! thank you so much! my responses are below.--Plifal (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lede is good, appreciate the use of interlanguage links. There's a bit of 'sea of blue' with all the actors listed. I don't edit film articles usually, so I'm unsure if its convention, but do we need to list a bunch of them at once, esp. if the infobox already includes them?
  • Official Selection is fine in the lede, but it isn't defined in the body, and I'm unsure what this actually means. Are only some Venice Film Festival films Official Selections?
  • yes. because the venice biennale is technically an exhibition, some films are shown in competition and some films are shown out of it. any film that's shown in competition is part of the official selection and nominated for any of the awards (unlike e.g. the oscars, where certain films are only eligible in certain categories via a nomination process). of these, the golden lion is the highest reward. i used the golden lion as a stand-in to indicate that it received the honour of being selected, but did not win anything. is there a better way to indicate this?
      • Hmm.. Maybe a parenthetical (allowing it to be shown in the competition) or something like that? Just for those unaware of how the festival works.-G
        • now reads: "In August 1963, the film was entered into the Venice Film Festival as part of the Official Selection (placing it competition for the festival's awards)."
  • No comments on plot
  • "Credited as Ed McBain" without the context that its his pen name makes it sound like they just got his name wrong lol
  • added.
  • Had Kurosawa worked with those co-screenwriters before?
  • yes, but i was under the impression it's not normal to mention it unless the sources make a point of it.
  • Also, how did he encounter this novel? Was it translated, or did he just read English? (I understand this may not be known)
  • kurosawa couldn't speak english (at least in his public appearances in america he used a translator). likely he read a translated version, but the sources don't say. i also added some clarifying information to this section in order to further elucidate other information given later.
  • This is legitimately so well written, I'm finding it hard to even nitpick.
  • i'm very glad to hear it!! all credit to others who have looked over it!

Source formatting nitpicks:

  • ISBNs are not consistent, but should be made so (some are 13 digit, some are 9. Several books lack ISBNs at all)
  • in all cases that the 13 digit isbn is available to me i've used it. otherwise i've used the 9 digit isbn. other books with no isbn identifier (as far as i can see ito 1976 and bock 1991) don't have one, ito in particular was really difficult to track down.
  • you're totally right about deleuze, completely missed that! hopefully should have got to these. i didn't know about worldcat!—but after checking both it and google books i have to conclude that bock (1991) and ito (1976) don't have clear isbns (though i did find an oclc for ito).
  • Burch 1979 has a sentence case title for some reason
  • i used the title as seen in the source, but switched to title case.
  • This is a common way of formatting it, but the MoS specifically says titles have to be made consistent across your bibliography (MOS:TITLECAPS)
  • fixed.
  • You include the publisher for the Kinema Junpo and Sight and Sound, but not any of the other magazines
  • done.
  • done.
  • Is The Illuminerdi a reliable source?
  • for factual reporting, no, but i'm using it here as a primary source for an interview, which i think should be ok.
    • Ah, i missed that. Go ahead.-G
  • Spotlight appears to be a journal (an undergrad journal, but its used sparingly enough I'd accept it)
  • yes i was a little unsure about this, but the fact that it had academic oversight from an associate professor led me to accept it. should i move it to the books and journals subsection?
      • Yeah, that'd probably be a good idea-G
        • re. this and the comment below, i realise now this is what you were referring to? i checked issn portal and couldn't find it. it appears that the original website has gone offline too, so i decided to just axe the source, it wasn't the highest quality and for the claim its making i'm confident in the two already there.
  • At least one journal and many newspapers are missing ISSNs
  • i apologise but i'm unsure which journal you're referring to. i hopefully should have fixed the newspapers.
  • Should the newspapers be under web, actually? They feel like their own thing
  • i categorised it based on how i found the information, which may not be correct but which made sense to me. all the references in news & magazines are either print copies i have in my possession or archive scans of print documents. everything in web is based on readily-accessible website links. the other thing that would confuse me is where to put articles from, e.g. filmmaker magazine, the a.v. club or slant magazine? these are online magazines, or articles which may only appear online even if there's a print version; i'm not sure i'd be able to verify whether the article was included in a print copy.
  • done.
  • done.
  • Just link Holt McDougal for " Holt, Rinehart and Winston of Canada"
  • done.

Comments from TompaDompa

[edit]

As noted in the nomination, I looked at this when it was at WP:Peer review/High and Low (1963 film)/archive1. I'll try to find the time to take another look at it here at WP:FAC, but I think I'll wait until the fresh sets of eyes from the reviewers above have gone over it—if I haven't weighed in when a week has passed since the others finished their reviews, feel free to ping me anew. My impression from PR is that this should not be very far off from WP:FA quality and, given the nominator's clear willingness and ability to collaborate productively with reviewers as well as their apparent in-depth familiarity with the sources, getting it that final stretch towards meeting all the WP:Featured article criteria should not be too much of a hassle. TompaDompa (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

again, thank you kindly!! your comments were such a help, and i do so appreciate your commitment. please take as long as you need!!--Plifal (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My initial comments follow. More to come later. TompaDompa (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TompaDompa, responses below.--Plifal (talk) 04:31, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
  • For the record, I changed an instance where there were duplicate footnotes into a single reused one.
  • thank you!
Lead
  • Would it be possible to get an appropriate currency conversion for the budget? I understand if it might not be, given the intricacies of currency conversions and inflation adjustments (we would ideally want present-day USD, which could be too tall of an order).
    • i'm reluctant to do this for the reasons discussed below (i.e. adhering to the currencies used by the sources with additional messiness in footnotes and body). unless you think it's necessary, i think it makes more sense for people to check the modern exchange rate themselves if they're interested, considering that information is already provided.
  • "Only one attempt could be made to film the ransom exchange, because of the number of cameramen required, all other productions had to shut down for the day." – this is an anacoluthon: does the middle clause explain the first clause or the last clause?
    • changed to, "Only one attempt could be made to film the ransom exchange, on that day all other productions had to shut down due to the number of cameramen required."
      • That's a WP:COMMASPLICE, and it doesn't explain the situation particularly well. If I understand the body correctly, the reason only one attempt was possible was the use of the train, and the reason all other productions at Toho had to shut down was that all the cameramen were busy shooting this scene. TompaDompa (talk) 11:10, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • how about, "Only one attempt could be made to film the ransom exchange. The shoot required multiple camermen, leading to all other film productions to be shut down for the day."?
  • "High and Low was released in Japan on 1 March 1963 and became the highest-grossing film at the Japanese domestic box office that year." – this is ambiguous: did it become the highest-grossing film of 1963 or did it set the all-time record in 1963?
    • changed to, "box office for that year"
  • "The film premiered overseas as part of the Official Selection for the Venice Film Festival" – if it premiered overseas there, that means that the first showing outside of Japan was at Venice. If this is correct, the date should be given—especially considering the US release in late November has already been mentioned in the WP:LEAD. I might suggest restructuring this slightly to put the events in chronological order.
    • done.
  • I would link humanism here, since it is a word with a specific meaning that is nonetheless taken by people unfamiliar with the term to mean the same thing as humaneness or humanitarianism with some regularity.
    • done.
Plot
  • "The kidnapper relates that he has no regrets for his actions" – "tells Gondo" would seem more natural than "relates". It also has less of a connotation of truthfulness, which would be an improvement in this case.
    • done.
Production
  • "after seeing Tsutomu Yamazaki portray the kidnapper with such passion" – Hm. That's putting a subjective assessment in WP:WikiVoice. Try to rephrase it so Wikipedia isn't saying that the performance was passionate.
  • "he described wanting to stress the leniency of Japanese kidnapping laws, as he felt the police did not adequately care for the life of the victim" – I'm not entirely clear on how these two things (the leniency of the laws and the police's insufficient care) are connected. Does the source make it clearer?
    • not especially. re-reading the source, it appears more likely that he's referring to the laws themselves not caring for the lives of the victims, but that he chose to represent this by focusing on the ruthlessness of the police pursuit in the film. changed to, "he described wanting to stress the leniency of Japanese kidnapping laws and their inadequate attention to the suffering of the victims."
  • "Even though he was shocked at the brazenness and cruelty of the crime depicted, Kurosawa felt that his criminal deserved sympathy in tandem with the sadistic impulses he was subjected to." – is "his" criminal here Hunter's or Kurosawa's?
  • "Kurosawa felt that his criminal deserved sympathy in tandem with the sadistic impulses he was subjected to" – is "in tandem with" really the right way of putting it?
  • "the sadistic impulses he was subjected to" – "subjected to"?
    • regarding the sympathetic portrayal of yamazaki's character, kurosawa said, "Well, if you try to be sadistic towards this man, you really cannot help being also a little bit sympathetic. I simply couldn't help it." also, see above.
  • "The film secured a budget of ¥230 million." – "secured"?
  • "who directed Yamazaki" – shouldn't that be "had directed" (or even "had just directed", considering the timeline)?
  • "starring in the popular TV series" – is there a strong reason to refer to it as "popular"?
    • only to emphasise the extent of the success the role opened him to. excised the word.
  • "blocking the view of Shinichi" – I would gloss Shinichi here, as it has been a while since he was last mentioned and the reader might not immediately recall whether this is the name of an actor or a character.
    • changed to, "blocking the view of the kidnapped child Shinichi"
  • "Kurosawa had originally wanted to use [...] but could not buy the rights." – do the sources say whether it would have been too expensive or if the rights-holders refused? I also think (but I could be mistaken) that the usual phrase is "obtain the rights".
    • to me "obtain" implies some kind of contractual difficulty, but kobayashi 2025 writes: 「ヒットしていた。だが、著作権使用が莫大なために断念。」 著作権使用 referring to "the use of copyright" and 莫大な in context referring to "enormous [cost]". additionally, nogami 2014 specifically uses the formation 「買えなかった」meaning "could not buy [it]". to me it reads as though it was genuinely a matter of money, not any other difficulty, but if you think it should be changed please tell me.
  • "jazz music is often heard, all of which are Satō's original compositions" – this gets a bit strange with the grammatical number. I might change "all of which are Satō's original compositions" to "all of it Satō's original compositions", but I think rephrasing it more heavily would probably be even better.
    • apologies but i don't understand the issue here. at least in british english a grouping is referred to using the plural form of the verb to be. "all of it Satō's original compositions" reads clunky to me. if i rephrase it as, "Jazz music is often heard around the city, all of which are Satō's original compositions." is that better?
Themes
  • "Donald Richie, a scholar and acquaintance of Kurosawa" – I know this was brought up by Jon698 below, but I think it is still ambiguous. I would swap the order to either "an acquaintance of Kurosawa and scholar" (if Richie is an acquaintance of Kurosawa but not a scholar of Kurosawa) or "an acquaintance and scholar of Kurosawa" (if Richie is both an acquaintance of Kurosawa and a scholar of Kurosawa).
  • "Dante Alighieri's Divine Comedy" – I would gloss this (e.g. as "Dante Alighieri's c. 1320 narrative poem the Divine Comedy"), but that's optional.
  • "Mitsuhiro Yoshimoto considers its class commentary reactionary for de-emphasising Gondō's class status by sympathising with him in favour of promoting a humanistic ideal." – I was quite tripped up by "in favour of" and had to re-read the sentence several times to be able to parse it correctly (at least I think I finally parsed it correctly). I think the problem I had with it is that "in favour of" usually follows a negation ("avoiding/refraining from/not doing X in favour of Y" ≈ "doing Y instead of X"), but here it follows a positive statement ("de-emphasising" is not just "not emphasising", and there is also the intervening "by sympathising with him"). Could this be rephrased? I think everything before "in favour of" in this sentence works well.
    • hmmm. how about, "Mitsuhiro Yoshimoto considers its class commentary reactionary for de-emphasising Gondō's class status by sympathising with him to promote a humanistic ideal instead."?
  • "The historian David Conrad comments a reversal of the usual association of Kurosawa's films with humanism; that the film ends by condoning capital punishment as an acceptable outcome of the justice system." – I feel like one or more words is missing after "comments" (perhaps "upon" or "that there is"), and the semicolon seems like it should be a regular colon.
    • done.
  • As in the peer review, I feel that "weakens the audience's belief in the investigation's success" is not quite right, though I don't have any good suggestion about how to rephrase it.
    • i don't personally see an issue with it, but how about "weakens the audience's confidence in the outcome of the investigation"? or "weakens the audience's faith in the police's success"? implemented the former, pending.
      • Hm. What I get from the source's "If this event does not suggest that the police are as ruthless as the kidnapper, it slightly undermines the viewers sense of their unalloyed triumph in capturing him." is that the audience might not necessarily see the outcome as a moral victory for the police (or at least not entirely so), even if the investigation is successful in the literal sense that the crime is solved and the culprit apprehended. I think the moral victory aspect is what is important to convey. TompaDompa (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Film scholar Mike Phillips identifies the film with a form of remediation: which acts as a criticism of early financialisation (a change in economies that places more emphasis on financial services rather than material goods) through the absorption of popular and consumer culture in society." – this is very dense and difficult to decipher for the general reader. What does "remediation" mean in this context? I don't quite understand the use of the colon. Is "the absorption of popular and consumer culture in society" part of "early financialisation" or the "criticism" thereof? This is an instance where more needs to be done to Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable (though I will note that this section has improved a lot in this regard compared to when it was first brought to WP:Peer review).
    • i apologise!! i really should have defined remediation as he's using an uncommon understanding (perhaps better transcribed as re-mediation) i.e. the process of incorporating and integrating various mass media and forms of communication within a new text. phillips' writing is probably the most difficult to parse of everyone cited here, so i've tried to keep to the 'one level down' rule. how does this read to you, "Film scholar Mike Phillips identifies in the film a critique of early financialisation (a change in economies that places more emphasis on financial services rather than material goods). He sees High and Low as encouraging a material culture by referencing and incoporating the contemporary growth in consumerism and popular culture—symbols of financialisation as undesireable aspects of the new society—onto the film itself."?
      • That's quite an improvement, though it's still a bit difficult to follow Phillips's argument (and I fixed a typo or two, for the record). If I understand the first part correctly, Phillips is saying that the film suggests that an economy focused on material goods is a good thing while an economy focused on financial services is a bad thing (in relative terms, at least). Where it loses me is "referencing and incorporating the contemporary growth in consumerism and popular culture—symbols of financialisation as undesirable aspects of the new society". It is not clear to me either how these are symbols of financialisation (surely consumerism could at least equally well reflect an excessive focus on material goods?) or how they are depicted as undesirable. My confusion is increased further by the next sentence: "He sees the Old West outfits worn by Jun and Shin'ichi as embodying this material culture which links TV westerns with an 'ephemerality' that allows the kidnapper to treat the children as interchangeable commodities."—surely the children being treated as interchangeable commodities is both a "material goods" thing (as opposed to a "financial services" thing) and a bad thing? I feel like there is something (perhaps a whole bunch of things) I'm missing. TompaDompa (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • phillips's argument basically is that what you see in the film is a fight between 'material' and 'ephemeral' aspects of economy (material vs financial capital) with the film stock itself being a medium to express the fight between these media. things like the old west cowboy outfits and gondo's reflection in the glass being like an off tv screen are meant to be aspects of financialising economies, i.e. just because something is materialistic =/= materialism. the former is an undesirable symptom of late-capitalism post-industrial society etc. i've chosen to focus on the example of jun and shin'ichi because it was one that came up a couple of times, but i've left out a lot of context to try and simplify (even in this example), so please forgive me! "To Phillips, the Old West outfits worn by Jun and Shin'ichi embody this shift from a material, manufacturing culture, to a consumerist culture. TV westerns are understood as aspects of an "ephemerality" that allows the kidnapper to treat the children as interchangeable commodities that have value without producing anything himself.[1] To Phillips the film's final scene presents a dialectic relationship between Gondō and the kidnapper wherein Gondō's reflection in the window embodies a material rejection of television as a symbol of this cultural commodification.[2]"
  • "the situation-action paradigm" – I'm not familiar with the paradigm, but is the hyphen correct here or should it be an en dash? I would expect the "situation-action paradigm" with a hyphen to be a paradigm where "situation" modifies "action" (e.g. "action of the situation kind") and the "situation–action paradigm" with an en dash to be a paradigm where "situation" and "action" are separate elements (see MOS:HYPHEN and MOS:ENBETWEEN). The rest of the paragraph seems to suggest that it should be an en dash.
    • you're correct. changed to en dash.
  • "situation-action is a structural formula, it refers to an understanding" – for grammar, the comma should either (1) be replaced with a semicolon, or (2) removed and "it" replaced with "that".
    • done the latter.
  • "in the film's frame" – is that "frame" as in the literal film frame or as in a figurative framework? The context would seem to suggest the latter.
    • as i understand it, it's the former, but that he's not referring to a frame of film stock quite so literally as much as he is whatever is seen within a frame (i.e. the film's canvas) at whatever moment one pauses. bluelinked.
  • "the Kurosawan hero crosses through that expanded space laterally by acting" – that's "acting" in the sense of "taking action", right? I would use that phrasing to avoid readers interpreting it as "performing a role as an actor" (which is the usual sense in film contexts).
    • that's correct. done.
Release
  • I feel like the age of Kurosawa's daughter at the time is an important detail to include for context.
    • given we don't know when the calls started ("one day") and kazuko's birthday was about two months after the japanese release date, i'm somewhat reluctant to give a definitive age, but she would have been eight or nine (actually around the age of jun/shin'ichi), so is there a good way to express that?
      • I might simply state "8- or 9-year-old". There are other ways of phrasing it, but I think that's the best option. "Pre-teen" is strictly speaking accurate but would make me think more like 11 or 12 years of age, and "tween" is too informal. There are possible ways to phrase it based on school, but that differs depending on country and whatnot and so is not the best option. I think it makes a pretty big difference that she was not, for instance, 14 at the time. TompaDompa (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(placing it competition for the festival's awards)" – placing it in competition, right?
    • yes... i'm embarrassed at all of these errors...
Reception
  • "becoming the highest grossing domestic film that year" – as with the lead, that should be "of that year" (or similar).
    • done.
  • "The re-release of High and Low in 2002 as part of a multi-title film festival accrued $561,692 in total." – this should say "for all twelve films in total" for clarity and context.
    • done.
  • "but did not think the source content was worthy of the art" – this refers to King's Ransom, right? I've always heard "source material" in the context of film adaptations.
    • done.
  • "A negative review in Cahiers du Cinéma [...]" – going by the source date, this was also a review from the Venice Film Festival, right? Since this sentence comes after a sentence describing a 1967 review, I would have expected it to be a review from 1967 or later (i.e. my intuition would be to assume that this paragraph is in chronological order).
    • rearranged.
  • "dismissed the film's modern context and its "metaphysics and morality [...] taking precedence over suspense", despite praising the train scene as beautiful, it further criticised the film for police apologia and having sympathy for its rich protagonist" – the structure here is not quite right. For instance, it is unclear whether "despite" is meant to contrast with the preceding or subsequent clause.
    • changed to, "At the Venice Film Festival, a negative review in Cahiers du Cinéma dismissed the film's modern context and its "metaphysics and morality [...] taking precedence over suspense". It further criticised the film for police apologia and having sympathy for its rich protagonist, but considered the train sequence beautiful."
  • "cringed upon seeing his own acting" – is this worth noting? My impression is that this is rather common for actors—kind of like hearing a recording of one's own voice—and does not necessarily reflect passing any kind of judgment on the acting quality as such.
    • i would say so, from the source it sounds as though he thought it was genuinely bad, not necessarily that he just didn't like to see himself on screen. changed to, "considered his performance substandard"
  • New comment: "Tsutomu Yamazaki [...] considered his performance substandard. Meanwhile, Yutaka Sada considered it his best performance" – do both of these refer to Yamazaki's performance, or does the latter refer to Sada's? If the former, I would change "his performance" to "his own performance" and "his best performance" to "Yamazaki's best performance". If the latter, I think it needs to be rephrased a bit more to resolve the ambiguity. TompaDompa (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "game designer Hideo Kojima" – should probably specify video game (as opposed to e.g. board games).
    • done.
  • "Prior to the 1986 American re-release" – the word choice "prior" here led me to expect a contrast to what was said after the re-release to follow. "Shortly before" or "In the lead-up to" would be better.
    • done.
  • "In 2024, Slant Magazine named the film the 42nd best film noir" – the cited source states that it was originally published in 2019, but more importantly this does not seem to be WP:DUE. Being the 42nd best in a relatively narrow field is pretty unremarkable, after all. If there are high-quality sources that discuss the film as part of the film noir genre, that would on the other hand be worth covering.
    • excised.
  • "Paste magazine ranked it as Kurosawa's 5th best film" – this likewise does not appear to be WP:DUE. Kurosawa's filmography is not that extensive, so being the 5th best in it is fairly unremarkable.
    • excised.
  • "Writing for The Guardian in 2025, Peter Bradshaw rated High and Low five stars out of five, praising the film's storytelling and moral dilemma, he refers to Gondō as [...]" – "rated" and "refers" mismatch in terms of verb tense. Furthermore, the punctuation and/or word choice is off: either the sentence should be split in two by turning the second comma into a semicolon or period ("[...] five stars out of five; praising [...]" or "[...] five stars out of five. Praising [...]") or the part with "[...] moral dilemma, he refers to [...]" needs to be changed as the comma followed by an independent clause (without any conjunction or whatnot) doesn't work.
Legacy
  • "comparatively less acclaim than his films in the 1950s" – than his films did in the 1950s, or than his films of the 1950s do (now)?
  • "in The Batman (2022)" – this should probably be glossed as Matt Reeves's, lest readers mistake it for a film by Bong Joon Ho or David Fincher based on their mentions earlier in the paragraph.
    • done.
  • "The Indian film Inkaar (1977) is a Bollywood remake of High and Low." – do we know if it was authorized or unauthorized?
    • the article refers to the film as a remake and a naql reproduction, the latter of which is a term i hadn't heard before and we don't have an article on. it seems to me that it was an unauthorised form of cinematic borrowing, from the source: "Indian filmmakers can turn a blind eye to fact that they are actually performing (no matter how creatively) an act of cinematic plagiarism." so, i've added this detail.

Support This appears well-researched and comprehensive, with the caveat that I am by no means an expert and have no real familiarity with the relevant sources. I look forward to seeing more of the nominator's contributions here at FAC. TompaDompa (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jon698

[edit]
  • Link Yokohama in the lede
  • done.
  • "The film secured a budget of ¥230 million." -> Is it possible to add a yen to USD conversion with Template:JPYConvert?
  • not done, i think this would clutter the information and complicate the conversions. to me it makes more sense to adjust for inflation via its own currency unless stated by the source.
  • However film critic Atsushi Kobayashi -> Add comma after However
  • done.
  • done.
  • I think the Music section could be reworked for readability. I made an edit here to turn the single paragraph into three different ones. Please review this.
  • done something similar, kept the stuff related to Sato in one paragraph before splitting the information to talk about the use of music more generally.
  • Donald Richie, scholar and acquaintance of Kurosawa -> Is Richie a scholar of Kurosawa or he is just a scholar? If he is just a scholar then you should add "a" before scholar.
  • done.
  • In January and February 2023, the BFI -> Use the full name British Film Institute and then use the initials for "The British Film Institute released a DVD" later in the article
  • done.
  • High and Low's screenplay was co-written by Akira Kurosawa, Hideo Oguni, Eijiro Hisaita, and Ryūzō Kikushima. -> Link to Eijiro Hisaita's Japanese page as you did in the lede
  • done.
  • Include a wikilink to Evan Hunter in the photo description in the development section
  • done.
Jon698, addressed your concerns above. thank you for taking the time to review!! just fyi though, the {{xt|}} template shouldn't be used.--Plifal (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no further comments. Jon698 (talk) 14:51, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jon698, thanks again! do you support or oppose at this time, or reserve judgement?--Plifal (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon698 (talk) 01:50, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thank you very much!!--Plifal (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by David Fuchs

[edit]
  • Lead:
    • I know Tompa brought up the third sentence of the lead, but I think it's still got issues. I think it might make more sense to cut it, since it's the only scene being discussed and unless it's got a large amount of critical commentary on it, I'm not sure it's important enough to single out in the lead.
      • actually it's for that reason that i chose to include it. every account of the production has a large portion of the material focused on this one five minute sequence, and it's also a recurring subject in reviews and analyses.
    • "The limited American release of the film in late November coincided with the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and as such the initial box office takings were low."
      • ah sorry, not quite sure what the point is here.
        • Sorry, must have cut off my explanation. The statement unequivocally says that the JFK assassination was the reason for the low box office, which feels like reaching, without seeing what the source says, versus something more like the initial box office was low, impacted by the JFK assassination. Otherwise it sounds like had he not died it would have been some success, which you can't really prove. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:01, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
          • David Fuchs, ah i see! hmmm. perhaps, "The limited American release of the film in late November coincided with the assassination of John F. Kennedy, this event led to a depression in initial box office takings."? the assassination did cause a dip in the box office among all films, but the "as such" made it sound as though the causal link is trying to prove a negative. how is this revision?--Plifal (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Production:
    • "The original script ended with Inspector Tokura and Gondo having a conversation, but Kurosawa changed his mind while editing the film after seeing Tsutomu Yamazaki's performance." I'm getting that this means that Kurosawa cut the ending because he liked ending it with the kidnapper, but is there a way to express this more clearly? I'm also wondering if it makes sense to mention here at all, considering it's much more elaborated on in the editing section.
      • well, it made sense to me to include discussion about the original script-as-written, but if you think it should be cut i understand why. in the meantime, i've rewritten it as follows so that it focuses on the script itself, "The script was written with an ending that depicted Inspector Tokura and Gondo having a conversation."
    • "An additional large set was made for the original final conversation scene to take place in." I assume this refers to the above scene, but should probably be clarified since that's discussed only once and a long time before it.
      • like so, "An additional large set was made for the original final scene that depicted a conversation between Gondo and Inspector Tokura."? done this pending clarification.
    • "The crew spent two weeks filming the original ending scene " at this point it should probably just be "filming the scene" since at this point it's still referring to the previous scene which has already clarified it was the original and changed ending.
      • if i recall correctly, this was changed as part of the peer review process, but switched back for now.
  • Themes:
    • I had a hard time with the Stephen Price paragraph, especially "the social structure is never reconciled ..." thought to Goodwin's input. (I wanted to look at the original book but unfortunately I don't have access to JSTOR for a spell. I can check next week.)
      • as noted above, i'm not good at determining what is and is not accessible, so i would benefit from more specific advice when it comes to the themes section especially, but hopefully this rephrasing should assist in understanding, "According to Stephen Prince, the film creates a false reality via images and technologies (such as radios, cameras, telephones, and tape recorders). The perspective mediated by these technologies conceals the social tensions between the lives of Gondo and Takeuchi.[3] He underscores this by focusing on how Kurosawa's use of blocking positions the characters to create and reflect different social and moral relationships.[4] The social divisions are never reconciled and synthesised, but remain hidden by Gondo's appeal to humanism to overcome these divisions in his final confrontation with the kidnapper.[5]"
  • Release:
    • "Ticket sales during the film's opening week at the Toho Cinema in New York were dampened by the assassination of John F. Kennedy four days prior." — it's unclear where this is cited to.
      • should have fixed this. it's declared in variety magazine, which is primary, but should be ok for use here.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 00:45, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • David Fuchs, responses above.--Plifal (talk) 09:33, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further:
    • "and underlines that by comparing Yokohama to Dante Alighieri's narrative poem the Divine Comedy " — is he comparing the setting of Yokohama to The Divine Comedy, or the film overall?
      • well, kind of both, but he's specifically uses spatial analogies within the city to dante's depiction of heven and hell, so i've added "the depiction of Yokohama".
    • "the film creates a false reality via images" — this is what any film does, so I'm struggling to figure out exactly what he's saying here.
      • clarified that he's talking about the use of images within the narrative.
    • "The film was conceived and released as part of a series of commemorative films marking Toho's thirtieth anniversary the previous year" it's weird that if this film was specifically created to celebrate Toho's anniversary, that's not mentioned before now.
      • checking the source, "conceived" doesn't seem to be right so i've excised it.
    • I think the reception section leaves a little to be desired. Right now it's mostly just a bunch of individual critics' opinions, one after another, rather than synthesizing them into discussing the film's parts. I think an approach of organizing it by element rather than critic (a la the advice at WP:RECEPTION) seems warranted. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:31, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • i think it works better to organise them as such in the 'retrospective opinion' subsection (i.e. influence among industry people + the perspectives of the actors in the films followed by publication reviews) but have rejiggered the 'contemporary opinion' subsection. i've kept cahiers du cinéma and sight and sound together as they bleed well into each other, but have broadly separated the paragraphs into direction + structure > technical elements > morality + genre.
  • David Fuchs, responses above.--Plifal (talk) 10:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Phillips 2021, pp. 21–22, 24–25.
  2. ^ Phillips 2021, pp. 28–29.
  3. ^ Prince 1999, pp. 188–189, 196.
  4. ^ Prince 1999, pp. 190–191.
  5. ^ Prince 1999, p. 198.

Hundreds of Beavers

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jon698 (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the plot, production, release, and reception of the film Hundreds of Beavers. It was upgraded to GA status by me back in February. It is comparable in length to some other FA-class film articles. I have done intense research for this article since May 2024. I have used every possible news article or web page and created a Google alert solely for subjects related to this. Jon698 (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator discussion

[edit]

@Gog the Mild: It appears that once again this might not receive enough discussion to pass. I sent a message out to the three participants of the prior discussions. Would November 18 be a good deadline to archive the discussion if no further comments are made? Jon698 (talk) 01:05, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, let's wait until then and see what is happening before thinking about closing. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:20, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Paleface Jack

[edit]
Emerging from my place in the void to offer my comments on this second nomination. My only concern here and advice would be to split the awards and nominations of the film into its own article. This is due to the length, and there is a significant amount of accolades and nominations for the film, which takes away from the article. Paleface Jack (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was initially concerned about the total number of awards not being enough to justify a page, but Hundreds of Beavers won or received nominations from 15 festivals/organizations while The Sixth Sense received it from 20. I will be making a page soon. Jon698 (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done List of accolades received by Hundreds of Beavers Jon698 (talk) 03:33, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Paleface Jack: Making sure you are notified. Jon698 (talk) 03:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Paleface Jack (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "created by Sherlock and Watson beavers" => "created by the Sherlock and Watson beavers"
  • "The merchant's shop was noted by GameSpot to operate like those in the The Legend of Zelda and how the video game features in the film were not used as a joke...." - this doesn't make grammatical sense. I suggest "GameSpot noted that the merchant's shop operated like those in the The Legend of Zelda and that the video game features in the film were not used as a joke"
  • "It was also shown at the Library of Congress on July 27, 2024,[24] Quentin Tarantino's New Beverly Cinema for two weeks,[25] and the Sitges Film Festival in Spain" => "It was also shown at the Library of Congress on July 27, 2024,[24] at Quentin Tarantino's New Beverly Cinema for two weeks,[25] and at the Sitges Film Festival in Spain"
  • "Dennis Harvey, writing for Variety, praised the film's editing as it could "milk every gag without belaboring it," the soundtrack was "equal to the visual imagination on display," and that the "ingeniously home-made lark never runs out of steam."" => "Dennis Harvey, writing for Variety, praised the film's editing as it could "milk every gag without belaboring it," and said that the soundtrack was "equal to the visual imagination on display," and that the "ingeniously home-made lark never runs out of steam."" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: I have done all of your requested comments in this edit. Jon698 (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First Jewish–Roman War

[edit]
Nominator(s): Mariamnei (talk) 07:14, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers the first revolt in Judaea against Roman rule, one of the best-documented wars of antiquity. The conflict had a lasting impact on Jewish history, the development of Judaism and Christianity, the history of the Levant, and Roman politics. The article achieved GA status last May after a comprehensive review by @Borsoka:, and received more feedback from the Military History A-Class review by @Hawkeye7: and @Hog Farm:.

This is my first FA nomination, and I'm looking forward to learning from the process. After extensive trimming and refinement, it still runs about 10.7k words, a bit above the recommended 9k mark, but I think the depth of historical research and the scope of the topic justify the length. Comparable FAs on other classical period subjects, such as Augustus (12.6k) and Cleopatra (13.2k), follow a similar scale. I've worked carefully to ensure the article meets FA criteria for accuracy, balance, and comprehensiveness, and I hope it will be considered worthy of FA status. Mariamnei (talk) 07:14, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith

[edit]

I made a few minor copyedits.

Ante bellum
[edit]
  • Under Pilate (c. 26–36 CE), incidents such as "Under Pilate's reign ..." to make it clear that the dates are when he ruled, not birth/death).
  • once ruled by his grandfather, Herod, as a client king clarify if it was the grandfather or the grandson who was the client king
  • but after his death in 44 CE. Who's death? Claudius or Herod Agrippa?\
  • The second provincial era began stably but soon fell into disorder I think "second provincial era" is referring back to "Judaea reverted to direct Roman rule" from the previous paragraph, but not 100% sure of that, so clarify.
  • This desire was partially fueled by memories of the successful Maccabean revolt against the Seleucids If I'm following the chronology correctly, that was 200 years earlier, so certainly beyond any person's memory. Maybe there's some better way to phrase that?

(will pick up with Initial stages of war another time)

Initial stages of war
[edit]
  • When young Jews resisted, Florus backed the Greek I don't understand what they were "resisting". Also, the last time you talked about Florus was the previous section and I had to search backwards to remember who that was. So perhaps re-introduce him here?
  • Prominent Jews paid Florus eight talents as is common with these types of article, I have no clue if eight talents is a lot of money or not. If you could put this into some familiar context (is it, say, a week's wages for a typical person?) that would be helpful.
  • On Shabbat, a Greek desecrated the synagogue many readers may be unfamiliar with the term "Shabbat", so explain what it is.
  • sacrificing a bird on a chamber pot Huh? Are we talking Chamber pot as in toilet?
  • Local cavalry failed to intervene What does "cavalry" mean in this context? I'm used to Cavalry meaning soldiers on hoseback, but I suspect that's not what you mean here.
  • Agrippa II hurried from Alexandria to calm the unrest,[96][97][92] this is just one example of where you have three or even four citations for a sentence. Why do you need three sources to back up the simple statement that "Agrippa II hurried from Alexandria to calm the unrest" See WP:OVERCITE.

(next up, Vespasian's campaigns)

Vespasian's campaigns
[edit]
  • Left among the last two, Josephus chose to surrender rather than die you should mention that this story gave rise to the Josephus problem.
Siege of Jerusalem and conclusion of the war
[edit]
  • You've used the word "scourged" a couple of time. I don't know what that means. I suggest you define it the first time you use it.
  • in 72/73 or 73/74 CE this is confusing. If you're not sure what year, why not just "circa 73 CE"?
Aftermath
[edit]
  • Titus faced demands to expel the Jews but refused who was making these demands?
Legacy
[edit]
  • The causes were rooted in the Temple's destruction and the Jewish Tax why is Jewish Tax capitalized?

OK, that's a full read-through. Overall, I like it. The prose is well written (if somewhat long). There's a few general comments I'll make, however:

  • The last section, "Sources" is interesting, but perhaps oddly named. Going into it, I assumed it was an analysis of the sources used to write this article. Maybe "Historical treatments" or "Analysis of historical literature", or something along those lines?
  • As I mentioned above, the use of multiple citations in many places is distracting. You have many places where you cite three or even four sources for what appears to be a single uncontroversial fact. Is this necessary?
  • There's a few places where you use Jewish terms (I think I mentioned Shabbat above) which may be unfamiliar to many readers, so consider giving them a short in-line explanation. You do a good job of explaining that Mishnah and Talmud are religious texts, but leave the reader wondering what a mitzvah is. Torah could use explaning. There's probably others. There's some Roman terms like legion that likewise could use explaination. When I read "military standards" I assumed that meant Standard operating procedure, not Roman military standards, which had me confused for a little while.

Three comments by Choliamb about the arches of Titus in Rome

[edit]

I don't have the knowledge to comment on the blow-by-blow account of the war itself, but I did spot a few minor inaccuracies in the descriptions of the two commemorative arches erected in Rome in the aftermath of the war (in the section "Roman commemoration of the victory"):

  • the Arch of Titus in the Forum, completed after his death in 81 CE. The surviving Arch of Titus referred to here, and shown in one of the photos in the article, is not "in the Forum", but a short distance up the slope to the southeast of the Forum, on the Velia, a low saddle of land between the Palatine and Oppian hills. The arch spanned the Sacra Via, the road that ran down from the Velia to the Forum, at its highest point, an area sometimes called the summa Sacra via ("the highest point on the Sacred Way") in literary sources. It's not far from the Forum (and it falls right on the edge of the modern Forum excavation zone), but it is emphatically not part of the Forum itself as the Romans defined it.
  • The first, still standing ... was dedicated by the Senate and People of Rome to the divine Vespasian and Titus. This is not true, at least not according to the dedicatory inscription (CIL VI 945; photo here), which states that the arch was dedicated to Titus alone, not to Titus and Vespasian. Vespasian is not mentioned in the inscription except as Titus's father. (The translation in the Arch of Titus article is correct.)
  • another at the Circus Maximus ... The second arch's inscription proclaims ..." The wording and the present tense of the verb "proclaims" make it sound as if the location of this arch is certain and the inscription can still be read, but that's not the case. Nothing at all remains of the arch, and the inscription (CIL VI 944) survives only in a mediaeval copy included in the Einsiedeln codex, probably written near the end of the 8th century, which may or may not be accurate. The inscription was said to have been seen near the Circus Maximus, and most scholars assume that the arch stood there, but it's an assumption, not a fact. Perhaps add "probably" here to hedge your bets, and change "proclaims" to past tense?

Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Choliamb, I've made the important corrections you suggested, all three are now done. Thank you! Mariamnei (talk) 07:46, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for more than three weeks and has picked up just a single support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild, I've asked a few more people to provide feedback (tagging here too @Hawkeye7, @Hog Farm, @UndercoverClassicist). Hopefully, this will help generate some more movement in the next few days. Thanks again for all your help! Mariamnei (talk) 11:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild Just a quick update: the nomination has now received four supports after detailed reviews, and I've addressed all the issues raised by reviewers. If you spot anything else that needs work, I'm happy to take care of it. Mariamnei (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was actually on my list as the next FAC to review - after the one I'm currently doing. So far something odd I should be back to you soon. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. It needs source and image reviews. I shall put in a request. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka

[edit]

I rarely submit FAC reviews for articles I have already passed at GAN, but I am making an exception this time. This article covers a topic that attracts over 800 pageviews a day (around 280,000 a year) and was nominated by a new contributor. It would be a real shame if the nomination were archived simply due to a lack of FAC reviewer activity. If we want to remain competitive with AI-generated encyclopedias, we need to be more inclusive. Borsoka (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern is still the article's length, so I will suggest some ways to make it more concise.

  • ..., who vied for the throne after the death of their mother, Queen Salome Alexandra Delete, and introduce his sons in the previous text as "brothers" or "brother-kings".
  • Recognizing the nationalist character of Hasmonean rule, the Romans sought to suppress it by instituting a new, loyal dynasty. Delete, because this is clearly a scholarly PoV and the subsequent sentences explain neutrally the circumstances of the emergence of a new dynasty. A short reference to the end of Hasmoneans would be sufficient.
  • I would add the full name of Pilate (Pontius Pilate) or refer to his governorship ("During Pilate's governorship,...").
  • ...was initially stable under restored Roman rule but... Delete.
  • I would name Poppaea Sabina.
  • ..., a rare instance of indigenous sovereignty in this period,... Delete.
  • ...their adoption of the "freedom of Israel" era... I am not sure I understand.
  • They symbolically adopted a new era, using it as a form of ideological calendar, to mark and celebrate their struggle for independence, similar to the French Republican calendar or the Juche calendar. I've changed the text to say: Historian David Goodblatt points to similarities between the rebels' actions and ideology and those of modern national liberation movements, citing the rebels' struggle to free Judaea, their minting of coins inscribed with "Israel", and their adoption of a new symbolic era, called the "freedom of Israel," as examples. Mariamnei (talk) 08:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ..., first manifested by Judas' "Fourth Philosophy" Delete.
  • ...he departed for Sebaste without intervening... Rephrase to avoid unnecessary reference to his departure for Sebaste ("...he failed to intervene...").
  • ...a Greek desecrated the synagogue entrance by sacrificing birds on an upturned pot... Rephrase to make clear the statement and avoid unnecessary reference to the pot (...a Greek desecrated the synagogue by sacrificing birds at the entrance...).
  • A link to "legionaries"?
  • A second massacre occurred when Jews greeting two arriving cohorts were met with silence. I do not understand.
  • Now changed to A second massacre occurred when two cohorts (cavalry squadrons) arrived in the city. The Jews went to greet them peacefully, but were met with silence. Hope that's clearer now. Mariamnei (talk) 08:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A link to "wood-gathering festival"? Make it clear that this is a Jewish festival.
  • After appearing in royal attire in public, Menahem was captured, tortured, and executed by Eleazar ben Hanania's faction... I would rephrase: "Menahem appeared in royal attire in public, but he was soon captured, tortured, and executed by Eleazar ben hanania's faction..." or something similar.
  • Thanks so much, @Borsoka:! I really appreciate all your work. You'll find my responses above. Mariamnei (talk) 08:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...two to three legions from vassal kings... Can we call them "legions"? I would shorten the sentence, stating that the (named) vassal king sent thousands of troops (both infantry and cavalry)
  • ... the Galilee... I would delete the definite article.
  • ...to have assembled 100,000 men... Who?
    • That was not my problem. I referred to the subject of the article. Josephus? In what capacity?
      • That's clarified earlier in the article, five paragraphs up, where the provisional government's appointments are outlined: Josephus was appointed commander of Galilee and Gaulanitis, with an efn adding that At the time, Josephus was a 30-year-old priest and had no prior military experience. Mariamnei (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Galilee's capital and the second-largest Jewish city in the country after Jerusalem... I would only say that it was the second-largest Jewish city after Jerusalem.
  • ...the Romans faced a significant challenge, as... I would delete.
  • ...—reportedly out of animosity toward the Jews and in retaliation for Gallus' defeat I would delete.
  • ...(Yodefat/Iotapata)...(Panias)... Are these useful/necessary?
  • With the conclusion of the Galilee campaign... I would say "With the conclusion of Vespasian's campaign..."
  • I get the instinct, but that would be misleading here: Vespasian kept campaigning afterward, just in other regions: Judea, Idumaea, and so on. "Galilee campaign" is more precise for this point in the narrative. Mariamnei (talk) 09:02, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • High Priest or high priest?
    Let's stick with High Priest, for consistency with Emperor and other capitalized offices in the article. I've standardized the instances. Mariamnei (talk) 09:02, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...they summoned the Idumaeans... Who are the Idumaeans? Why did they ally with the Zealots?
    There's an efn on first mention, which say they "were a people south of Judea, converted to Judaism under John Hyrcanus after his 2nd-century BCE conquest." The Idumaeans were summoned by the Zealots through a letter claiming that Ananus had betrayed Jerusalem to Rome and portraying themselves as the city's last defenders, and this message persuaded the Idumaeans to intervene. Do you think that should be added to the article? Mariamnei (talk) 09:02, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...others went on to join Simon bar Giora Where?
    In the following section I lay out Bar Giora's operations and campaigns. Mariamnei (talk) 09:02, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ..., holding tribunals and murdering moderates, including Niger the Perean and Joseph ben Gurion I would delete.
  • Since both are introduced earlier, I prefer keeping this, since this is where their deaths occur, and it helps readers track the story.
  • ...that the God of the Jews was delivering them into Roman hands without any effort, and... I would delete.
  • ...Legio V... I assume this is Legio V Macedonica.
  • ...and tested its buoyancy by throwing bound non-swimmers into the water... I would delete it.
  • Following this, commander Lucius Annius was sent to Gerasa (likely a textual error for Gezer), where after capturing the city, he executed many young men, enslaved women and children, plundered and burned the homes, and destroyed surrounding villages, slaughtering those who could not escape. I would drastically shorten this long sentence. Borsoka (talk) 11:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revised: Commander Lucius Annius then took Gerasa (likely a textual error for Gezer), executing many young men, enslaving women and children, burning homes, and razing nearby villages, killing those who could not flee. Mariamnei (talk) 09:02, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "auxiliary" to Auxilia when the term is first mentioned in section "Vespasian's Galilee campaign".
  • On 14 Nisan, with the onset of Passover, the Romans exploited a halt in Jewish attacks to position their siege forces. I would rephrase it to clarify that the Jews stopped their attacks in observance of Passover.
  • Meanwhile, John's faction... Could the timeframe be more specific? Do we know why they could overcame the Zealots?
  • Rogers writes: "On the first night of the Passover festival Eleazar and his followers had opened the gates of the Temple, which they still controlled, permitting citizens to worship within the building during the commemorative celebration of the Jews’ liberation and exodus from Egypt. Taking advantage of Eleazar’s pious gesture, John managed to insinuate some of his supporters among the worshippers who were admitted into the Temple. These men carried concealed weapons. ... John offered a truce to the Zealots who had taken refuge within the vaults. The Zealots accepted." Revised: That night, as the sanctuary’s inner gates were opened to worshippers, John's faction infiltrated the inner court, concealing their weapons, and overpowered the Zealots, who then accepted a truce. I hope that's clearer now! Mariamnei (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...while searching for hidden valuables I would delete it.
  • ...when it caught fire, he reportedly rushed from a nap and... I would delete it.
  • ..., including tapestries, gemstones, statues, and animals I would delete it.
  • ...Jewish captives were paraded "to display their own destruction" Who is quoted? (Name the author in the text, alternatively rephrase the quote.)
  • ..., including ruined cities, destroyed fortresses, and defeated enemies I would delete it.
  • ...the new legate of Judaea... No legate is mentioned in the previous sentences. A link to "legate"?
  • ..., with Josephus offering only a brief mention of its surrender I would delete it.
  • The rebels capitulated after Eleazar, a young man from a prominent Jewish family who had ventured outside the fort, was captured, stripped, and scourged in full view of the defenders in preparation for crucifixion. The insurgents then negotiated their surrender, securing assurances of safe passage for the Jewish defenders. I would radically shorten the text. Borsoka (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, shortened to The rebels capitulated after witnessing the Romans prepare Eleazar, a well-born young man who had ventured outside the fort, for crucifixion. They then negotiated terms, securing assurances of safe passage for the Jewish defenders. Mariamnei (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...due to warfare, civil strife, famine, disease and massacres in the mixed cities Delete (the sectio's first sentence summarises the same causes).
  • ...the toparchy of Orine Some explanation for the name or a link?
  • ...enforcement worsened Worsened? Was more or less tax collected?
  • ...Jerusalem's ruins were garrisoned by Legio X Fretensis, which remained stationed there for nearly two centuries I would delete the reference to the ruins because it raises the question why the ruins were protected by a whole legion for two centuries.
  • ...in diaspora communities... Delete.
  • Introduce Judah ha-Nasi with one or two words.
  • Appointed commander of Galilee in 66 CE, he was tasked with preparing the region for the revolt but surrendered after the siege of Yodfat in 67 CE. Escaping a suicide pact, he saved his life by prophesying Vespasian's rise to emperor. Held captive for two years, he later gained freedom after Vespasian's accession in 69 CE, and accompanied Titus during the siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE. In 71 CE, he moved to Rome, where he received Roman citizenship and the name Flavius Josephus. Shorten radically to avoid repetition of info mentioned in previous sections.
  • The first volume covers events in the two centuries preceding the revolt, while the rest detail the war and its aftermath. Delete.
  • Delete notes d, e, l, y, the second sentence from note ac.
  • Introduce Nathanael Andrade with one or two words.

I am glad to support the promotion of this professionally written and comprehensive article. Borsoka (talk) 01:48, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

[edit]

Will take a look. Having reviewed other articles of the author at GAN, I do not expect to find many issues here.

  • Herod ruled Judaea as a client kingdom,[17] taxed heavily, murdered family members, controlled Jewish institutions, and fueled resentment – Isn't this a unilaterally negative description of Herod? Does that reflect scholarly consensus? He is also called "Herod the Great", so there must have been positive attributes as well? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:45, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • You raise a fair point. Absolutely, Herod is known for major achievements, most notably his grand architectural program (including Caesarea Maritima and its harbor, Masada, Herodium, and perhaps most famously, the rebuilding of the Temple and expansion of the Temple Mount). Politically, many scholars note his skill in navigating Roman politics to preserve a measure of autonomy (perhaps as opposed to his descendants: the epithet "the Great" primarily distinguishes him from later Herodian rulers, most of whom governed smaller territories, maybe besides Herod Agrippa, often as tetrarchs rather than kings, and held shorter or lesser reigns). That said, this background section has a narrower aim: it summarizes factors relevant to the outbreak of the First Jewish–Roman War, focusing on interactions between Rome and its representatives vis-à-vis the Jewish population, rather than assessing Herod's reign in full. We can change the text to say something like Herod ruled Judaea as a client kingdom. While renowned for large-scale building projects and political acumen, his heavy taxation, harsh repression—including executions of family members—and control over Jewish institutions fostered deep resentment. What do you think? Mariamnei (talk) 07:10, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about Herod ruled Judaea as a client kingdom. Although he succeeded in preserving a measure of autonomy, his heavy taxation, harsh repression—including executions of family members—and control over Jewish institutions fostered deep resentment to mention only what is relevant for this article? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:19, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, adding this to the article! Mariamnei (talk) 07:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • News of the massacre promted Jewish groups … – You are still referring to the Garrison massacre, right? That could be clarified (by simply specifying "Garrison massacre")
  • while extremists destroyed the porticoes – What "extremists" is this talking about? The Sicarii?
  • The primary source, Josephus, doesn't name a specific faction, just "the seditious" (i.e., those stirring up rebellion). Smallwood says "extremists", and Rogers uses "rebels". I’ve changed it to "rebels" now, let me know if you have any other thought. Mariamnei (talk) 07:38, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the violence of 66 CE was a consequence of rising tensions rather than the root cause of the revolt. – it is the first time that the article mentioned "The violence of 66 CE" so you could briefly clarify maybe; reading the article from top to bottom I could not follow here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:19, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • That refers to the ethnic violence in Caesarea and other mixed cities at the start of the revolt. I've changed it to: the ethnic violence that erupted in these cities in 66 CE" to make it clearer. Mariamnei (talk) 07:38, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In spring, during the Passover feast, the Sicarii descended from Masada and raided the wealthy village of Ein Gedi on the southwestern shore of the Dead Sea. – I can't quite follow: Why does a Jewish group attack a Jewish village?
  • You're absolutely right to be surprised, it probably shocked ancient readers too. Rogers writes: Josephus provides little information about what motivated the dagger-men to carry out their raids. His readers are left with the impression that murdering women and children was simply what the sicarii did; the nature of their crime against fellow Jews, not their putative Roman enemies, is made even more grave by its timing. It took place during Passover. But as the later parts of the article show, things eventually escalated into this kind of a civil war between different Jewish factions, most dramatically in Jerusalem before the Romans even arrived. The Sicarii in particular were an extremist group who, as you'll see, weren't willing to call the emperor "lord" even under torture since it violated their view that the only lord is God. So it's actually not very surprising that they were also willing to target other, more moderate Jews, especially once they'd been drawn by the town's wealth and were looking for crops they could seize from their isolated stronghold in the middle of the desert. Mariamnei (talk) 08:14, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you could add that their motivation is unclear? Otherwise a reader (like me) thinks that they misunderstood something. Not sure, I will leave it to you. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Mariamnei (talk) 08:10, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • John of Gischala negotiated a surrender at Gush Halav, but fled with his followers during a Shabbat truce offered by Titus. The city capitulated upon Titus's return. The Romans also captured the fortress on Mount Tabor[232] and, in a separate campaign, recaptured Jaffa, ending rebel piracy that had disrupted naval routes and grain supplies; a storm helped by destroying the rebel fleet. – This paragraph might lack a bit of context; I found it pretty hard to understand. Titus's return, but from where did he return? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’m starting to think I may have trimmed that section a bit too hard! I'd like to suggest a hybrid of the previous version and what we have now, with a small clarification about where Titus went in between. Something like: In Gush Halav, rebel leader John of Gischala opened surrender talks but used a brief Shabbat respite granted by Titus to flee with his followers. Titus encamped a few miles away at Kedasa, and when he returned, the city surrendered.[245] The Romans also captured the fortress on Mount Tabor.[243] Another Roman force retook Jaffa, ending rebel piracy that had disrupted naval routes and grain supplies; a storm helped by destroying the rebel fleet.[246] Does that read better to you? If so, I'm happy to update the article to match this wording. Mariamnei (talk) 08:14, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Now added to the article. Mariamnei (talk) 08:11, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would work. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • The treatment of ancient sources is unsatisfactory. They should not be listed in the bibliography as links to Wikipedia articles. You do not indicate which edition you are using or use dated 19C ones which are not reliable sources. You should cite modern scholarly editions with full bibliographic details and page numbers in the citations.
  • I've now added full bibliographic details for all the ancient sources cited in the article (and also removed the link to Tacitus' 19C translation, using Loeb's edition instead). Thanks for flagging that. As for page numbers: for Josephus and the other classical Greco-Roman authors, I've followed the usual convention in the scholarship of citing book and section numbers rather than page numbers. In fact, I don't recall seeing page numbers used for Josephus at all in the modern works I consulted, since the standardized passage numbers function much like chapter and verse for the Bible and are independent of any particular edition (for example, Rogers 2022, Yale, uses exactly this system). For modern secondary literature, of course, I always gave page numbers. Mariamnei (talk) 07:51, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • You link, archive and provide access dates to a random selection of book titles. I do not remember seeing this done before and I do not think it is necessary, but you should be consistent and do it for all or none.
  • I've gone ahead and removed the access dates for all the book citations. That said, I'm pretty sure some of the archive links were added by a bot rather than by me. If that is indeed correct, and bots will probably re add them on their next pass, I honestly don't think there's much point in trying to remove them all out. Mariamnei (talk) 07:51, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mop-up operations" is too colloquial. Reliable sources such as the Cambridge History of Christianity and Beard's SPQR just show the dates of the war as 66 to 73, and I think this is much better.
  • That wording looks like a recent addition from another editor. I agree there's no need for it! the revolt is usually described as running from 66 to 73/74 CE (depending on the source's dating of the siege of Masada). I've changed the text to say that instead. Mariamnei (talk) 10:29, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • " In 67 CE, commander Vespasian was sent to suppress the revolt". "commander" sounds like a title. I would delete as command is implied in the sentence.
  • "they celebrated a triumph in Rome". Who is "they"?
  • "The sages emerged as leading figure". "sages" needs some words of explanation. An article should be clear without following links.
  • "Roman policy in Judaea underwent a brief disruption". I am not sure what you mean here. Your account suggests continued problems but not a major change.
  • What I meant by a "brief disruption" (the source uses "short-lived change") is that, before Caligula, most crises in Judaea were more localized: a governor making an insensitive decision or a soldier doing something offensive, which then sparked unrest, but with the emperors themselves generally tolerating Jewish practices and treating Judaism as a tolerated religion. By contrast, Caligula personally pushed for acts of imperial cult in Judaea, which Jews saw as outright blasphemy, and that was a sharp break from earlier imperial behaviour. Changed this in the article to imperial policy in Judaea briefly broke with earlier, more tolerant practice: his efforts to impose the imperial cult provoked crises, hope it's clearer. Mariamnei (talk) 10:29, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was executed by procurator Fadus". What does "procurator" mean here? You should clarify. You describe him as a governor below.
  • In this context, "procurator" refers to the Roman imperial official governing Judaea at the time. These officials are often called governors in modern writing. I agree we should stick to one term throughout the article, but I'm a bit torn on which. My inclination would be to use "governor" in the main text for readability, and introduce the more precise term once as "Roman governor (procurator)" near the first mention. What do you think? Mariamnei (talk) 10:29, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would prefer governor. I understand procurator to mean the chief financial official and it is defined that way in Procurator (ancient Rome). Was there a different terminology in Judea? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:16, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you read the article on Procurator (ancient Rome) more carefully, you'll see that it also features another definition alongside the financial one: "imperial governor of a minor province", which is how it applies in Judaea. In current scholarship, the Roman officials in Judaea are usually distinguished as follows: those before the brief reign of Agrippa I (r. 41–44 CE) (notably Pontius Pilate), are defined as prefects; those from 44 CE until the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE are usually called procurators; and from 70 CE until the end of the Bar Kokhba revolt (c. 135/136) the governors are legates (after that, the province was renamed Syria Palaestina). There's a useful overview at Roman administration of Judaea (AD 6–135). Given that, I'm happy to go with "governor" as the main term for readability. I'll adjust the article accordingly! Mariamnei (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Causes and motivations' section. You start by saying that the causes were purely nationalistic and then go on to discuss other explanations. It would be helpful to clarify at the start that nationalism is only one theory.
  • I don't think there's really a contradiction here. The wording Most scholars regard the Jewish War as a prime example of ancient Jewish nationalism is meant to signal that this is a dominant view in the scholarship, not the only explanation. It also doesn't imply that scholars who emphasize nationalism ignore other causes; as in many historical cases, a (proto-)nationalistic drive often sits alongside other motivations (such as resentment of imperial oppression). I'd argue that "most scholars" already indicates this is one major interpretive framework among several, not a sole cause, and also allows support for multiple options, but I'm happy to tweak the lead sentence if you think a brief clarification would make that clearer. Mariamnei (talk) 11:39, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the fall of the fourth imperial power, which people believed was Rome". Which people?
  • I agree that's too vague. It refers to the readers of the Book of Daniel (composed a few centuries before, under Hellenistic rule), which at this point in history were predominantly Jews. I've changed it to "which some Jews identified with Rome" to make it clear we're talking about (part of) a Jewish readership, not "people" in general. Mariamnei (talk) 11:39, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Archaeological evidence confirms destruction in Gerasa and Gadara,[119] while Josephus describes Sebaste, Ashkelon, Anthedon, and Gaza as destroyed by fire, this account may be exaggerated." This is ungrammatical and unclear
  • Maybe as two separate sentences, with the second rephrased? Archaeological evidence confirms destruction in Gerasa and Gadara.[119] Josephus also describes Sebaste, Ashkelon, Anthedon, and Gaza as destroyed by fire, although this may be an exaggeration.
  • 'Judean provisional government' section. I find this confusing. You refer to the provisional government, the priestly leadership and the rebels. It is unclear what the relationship was between the government and the priests, and with the rebels. You imply that the government was against rebellion, yet you say they took actions such as minting their own coins which are a declaration of independence. Were the rebels one faction or several, or just the followers of individual leaders? If they were factions, what were they called? Were they fighting the Romans or the provisional govt, and if so why? (Some of these points are clarified below, but it would be helpful to explain the basics in this section.)
  • When first describing the provisional government, I added a clarification that it was dominated by members of the priestly elite, hence the term "priestly leadership," which is sometimes used for this group. Before mentioning their minting of coins, the article now explains that they may have only feigned full support for the revolt. This helps account for why they carried out symbolic acts (probably under public pressure) while still trying to restrain an all-out war. I also added a sentence noting that rival factions soon emerged, fighting the Romans but also one another (The provisional government lacked broad support, and rival factions soon formed. Some rallied around distinct ideologies, others around powerful leaders, and they turned their weapons not only against Rome but also against each other.), which should help clarify the situation. Mariamnei (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "marched XV Apollinaris from Alexandria to Akko-Ptolemais". This conveys nothing to the reader as Akko-Ptolemais is not linked and there is no aricle on it.
  • Is there any estimate of the size of Vespasian's forces?
  • Vespasian was presumably attacking the the area governed by Josephus, and this should be spelled out.
  • "he was left among the last two,[209] a scenario that later inspired the well-known "Josephus problem" in mathematics and computer science". This should be either explained or deleted. I would delete as not relevant.
  • If explaining it would require adding a sentence or two, I'm not sure this is the right place to get into it. I'm pinging @RoySmith:, who suggested adding it in his own review; perhaps mentioning it under "see also" would be a good solution (the Josephus problem already appears in the template covering the revolt and related articles). That way it's included somewhere without bringing a modern mathematical topic into the main historical narrative. Mariamnei (talk) 10:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Afterward, Vespasian separated local prisoners from "foreign instigators"," Presuambly the instigators were treated worse than the locals, but you should clarify.
  • That's right. I've restored an older version that worded it more clearly: Afterward, Vespasian separated the local prisoners from the "foreigners" blamed for instigating the revolt; the latter were forced to travel along a guarded route to Tiberias, where, in the city's stadium, 1,200 were executed.[220] Six thousand young men were reportedly sent to work on the Corinth Canal in Greece,[220][221] others were given to Agrippa II, and 30,400 were sold into slavery. I feel this version does a better job showing how the "foreigners" fared. Mariamnei (talk) 09:51, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Simon bar Giora gained strength outside Jerusalem, extending his influence over Judea. He plundered the wealthy, freed slaves, and promised gifts to his followers.[268] After defeating a Zealot army". Maybe I have missed it, but I do not understand why Simon was fighting the Zealots. Was he a leader of a named faction or just an individual with a personal following? Did the threat to destroy Jerusalem's walls mean that he was willing to hand it to the Romans?
  • Simon headed an independent faction that he built up in the countryside by freeing slaves and attracting followers. There's no specific name for his group (I've seen "peasantry" used in an old version of this article, but it's not really common). His rapid rise and military successes alarmed the Zealots because they saw the size of his following as a direct threat to their own power, and that's why they sent forces against him. The episode where he threatened to tear down the walls of Jerusalem wasn't a pro-Roman move but part of the internal civil war, basically an attempt to pressure the Zealots into releasing his captured wife. Nothing suggests he intended to surrender the city to the Romans, quite the opposite, he became one of the main leaders resisting Titus during the siege, and he's the only one known to have been executed ceremonially in Rome, which shows the Romans regarded him as the revolt's primary leader. I've rewritten this part in the article, hope that's clearer! Mariamnei (talk) 11:53, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By the winter of 69/70 AD". Why By? You have said that Titus spent the winter with Vespasian. Also, there is no reason to suddenly start using AD whereas elsewhere you just use the number.
  • Removed "AD" (and just as a note, until a few days ago the article used BCE/CE, so I’m restoring the long-standing style here). I've also changed the wording so they're described as staying there together "during the winter," and Titus as arriving in Judaea "later in the winter of …". Mariamnei (talk) 09:51, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 14 Nisan". Many readers will not understand this (including me). I think it is better to stick to the usual dating system rather than switching apparently randomly between the systems.
  • Josephus uses the Hebrew calendar here, and in cases like this it matters because the event runs in parallel with the Jewish festival cycle; 14 Nisan is still the starting point of Passover today. As earlier reviewers requested, whenever I mention a Hebrew month I give the equivalent Gregorian months on first occurrence, since a Hebrew month usually spans two of them. Mariamnei (talk) 09:51, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Strong young men were sent into gladiatorial combat across the empire; others were sold into slavery or sent to brothels, with the majority exiled abroad." You imply that all strong young men became glaiators. Is this correct? Presumably only young women were sent to brothels? This sentence needs clarifying.
  • Males were also sent to brothels, and not all strong young men became gladiators, as noted elsewhere in the article, about 700 were taken to be paraded in the triumph, and many many others (perhaps around a hundred thousand if all of Josephus's references to enslaved captives are combined and his numbers are taken at face value) were taken as captives and sold into slavery. I rewrote the section to make this clearer: Many faced harsh treatment, execution, or forced labor. Some strong young men were sent into gladiatorial combat across the empire. Youths of both sexes were sent to brothels. Many were sold into slavery, most of them exiled abroad. Mariamnei (talk) 11:16, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jews remained a relative majority in the region". What is a relative majority? This needs clarifying.
  • That means Jews were the largest single group compared to any other group, but not necessarily more than 50% of the total population. Changed to Jews remained the largest population group in the region. Mariamnei (talk) 08:31, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "led to the disappearance of Jewish sectarianism". So all Jews were united from then on?
  • I think that's clarified in the following sentences, which note that the Sadducees and Essenes disappeared, while the third group, the Pharisees, continued and rose to prominence. 'United' is too strong here. Earlier, these three sects had been the dominant organized groups, although most Jews weren't formal members of any of them. Josephus does suggest, however, that the Pharisees already enjoyed the broadest popular support. As note ae here further explains: the Yavneh center—composed mainly of Pharisees but functioning as a coalition of various groups — fostered a model that tolerated divergent opinions Mariamnei (talk) 08:31, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Moshe and David Aberbac". Who are they? You need to explain. Ditto Adrian Hastings and Jonathan Price, Louis Feldman, Shaye J. D. Cohen.
  • "Moshe and David Aberbach argued". "Adrian Hastings writes". You aree inconsistent whether to use the past or present tense for scholars' views. The present tense is usual, but you should be consistent whichever you use.
  • I switched every of the scholar opinions presented here to past tense (unfortunately many of the mentioned scholars many are no longer with us, so it feels more natural and appropriate this way). Mariamnei (talk) 08:31, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Epistle of Barnabas attributes the destruction to the Jews' role in bringing about the war". Barnabas is one of the Biblical apocrypha, not a canonical book of the New Testament. This should be made clear or maybe delete.
  • 'Historical sources' section. This is usually at the beginning of articles as an aid to interpretation.
  • I know that's usually the right approach (and I've done it in other articles in the Jewish–Roman Wars series, like the Bar Kokhba revolt and the Diaspora Revolt). But in this case it's tricky to introduce the sources first, because explaining Josephus as the main source really depends on understanding the course of the war. Since he's already briefly introduced in the background section, I think that covers it, and the current structure works fine. Mariamnei (talk) 08:31, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note i "Rogers" is a note to a note which does not make sense.
  • "James, the brother of Jesus" is a red link.
  • "Josephus reports that Ananus ordered the stoning of James, the brother of Jesus, prompting complaints from Jerusalem's citizens. A delegation met governor Lucceius Albinus, who rebuked Ananus for convening the Sanhedrin without authorization, leading King Agrippa II to depose him." The connection between the stoning and the convening is unexplained.
  • Rewrote this to say Josephus reports that Ananus, exploiting the gap between Roman governors, illegally convened the Sanhedrin to issue a capital verdict against James, the brother of Jesus, who was then stoned. Because such trials required both royal and Roman authorization, Jerusalem's leading citizens protested to Agrippa II and informed governor Lucceius Albinus, who rebuked Ananus for acting without his approval. Consequently, Agrippa deposed him. Hope that's clearer! Mariamnei (talk) 08:31, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to legend, Ben Zakkai quoted a prophecy". What legend? This is too vague.
    The legend is the rabbinic story I mentioned earlier about smuggling Ben Zakkai out of Jerusalem's walls. To make the connection clearer, I have changed the note to say "according to this rabbinic legend". Mariamnei (talk) 08:31, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Epiphanius goes to a disambiguation page.
  • The older source have a date incompatibility error message because they are too early for isbn. They should have an oclc.
  • There are several cs1 error messages for inactive web pages. The archives and error messages were no doubt added by a bot as you say above, but the original links for books were added by you. This is not usual and in my opinion not helpful. Readers can easily find books on Amazon etc without a link. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added those links mainly to help readers pin down the exact editions I used, since a lot of these books have multiple printings with different pagination. And with publishers like Brill or De Gruyter, the URLs don't just lead to the book, they go straight to the specific chapter, which can be super helpful for anyone who has institutional access through a university. I totally get why you'd find the links unnecessary, and for readers without access they don't really change anything. That said, the fact that they can be genuinely useful for some people makes me lean toward keeping them. And of course, anyone who isn't interested simply won't click them. Mariamnei (talk) 12:19, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Dudley Miles! I believe I've now gone through all of your points. I've addressed the vast majority directly in the article, and for the few where I had some reservations, I've explained my reasoning above. Please let me know if anything still needs clarification. Thanks so much for the time you put into this review and for all the helpful feedback, I really appreciate it! Mariamnei (talk) 12:22, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Dudley Miles, just following up in case you missed my earlier message. Please let me know if there's anything further you think needs attention. If everything looks good on your end, I'd appreciate hearing if you are satisfied with the changes. Mariamnei (talk) 07:52, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments on rereading the article.

  • "From his staging camp in Teqoa, he attempted to capture Herodium but failed: after his envoy was discovered, he was chased from the fortress and died by throwing himself from the walls." I do not understand this. What was the envoy doing and why is it worth mentioning?
  • "Later, at Alurus an Idumaean officer betrayed his army; he returned from scouting Simon's forces with wildly exaggerated reports of Simon's strength, convincing the leaders to submit without a fight." This is unclear. Do you mean that a zealot officer betrayed his own army? If so, you should clarify.
  • "ex-praetorian rank". What does this mean?
  • You are inconsistent in how you show dates. You use BCE and AD, and sometimes neither. The dating system should be consistent.
  • "The Essenes, including the community of Qumran, also vanished." I think you are too definite here as you say in note z that there is no evidence linking the disappearance to the war. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:26, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dudley Miles The envoy story really isn't important for the narrative, so I've trimmed it to: From his staging camp in Teqoa, he attempted to capture Herodium but failed. Mariamnei (talk) 08:57, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope — it was an Idumaean force betrayed by one of its own officers. I've rewritten it for better clarity: Later, at Alurus, an Idumaean officer betrayed his own army by returning from a reconnaissance mission with exaggerated reports of Simon’s strength, prompting the commanders to surrender without resistance.
  • "Ex-praetorian rank" refers to a certain Roman office, so I've added a link to praetor (that's not the place in my opinion to present the full definition of the office).
  • The article has historically used the BCE/CE system, and that’s the convention I've followed. Some recent IP edits (for example: [32]) tried to switch parts of it to BC/AD. We probably need to standardize this more firmly so the article doesn't keep flipping back and forth. Meanwhile fixed whatever issues I found (generally dropping the dating system during the description of the revolt - as opposed to the background – since it is supposed to be pretty clear that we are discussing the first century CE).
  • I've changed the Essenes line to: The Essenes too disappeared from the historical record. — which is more precise and avoids overstating the evidence (the destruction of Qumran was already mentioned above). Mariamnei (talk) 08:57, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A query on some of the sources

[edit]

All of the works listed under "Ancient sources" seem to me to be primary sources. Given what WP:PRIMARY says about using primary sources, and given the known PoVs of some of their authors, what makes - each of them individually (sorry) - high quality reliable sources as required by the FAC criteria. (Lest you consider this to mean that an article such as this one can never aspire to FA, I will point out that many editors have managed it with many articles. I have myself taken 29 articles on aspects of the classical period through FAC - without once citing to a primary source.) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild In this article, the works listed under "Ancient sources" are treated purely as primary sources, not as high-quality reliable sources in the interpretive sense required by the FAC criteria. In the body of the article, wherever an ancient author is cited for a historical statement, that citation is paired with a modern secondary academic source; the primary citation is there only to indicate the underlying text that the scholarship is analysing, not to stand on its own. I have been careful not to base any interpretive claim solely on a primary source, in line with WP:PRIMARY (if you find a place where it isn't the case, I will fix it immediately).
If you feel that listing the ancient works under "Sources" is potentially misleading, I can re label or re structure that section (for example as "Primary texts") to make their role as primary material explicit. To be clear, the article's content is wholly supported by modern academic sources; the ancient works are included only so that readers can see the original textual loci (sometimes using quotes) that those modern sources interpret. Mariamnei (talk) 06:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. What you have done is a wonderful piece of scholarship, but unfortunately it gives the impression that the primary sources are being directly used to support the text. I think that we are agreed that none of them are reliable sources, and certainly that they are not high quality, so using them in a way which looks like a citation, or is in fact a citation, is not permitted. Sadly you will need to remove all of the cites which led to them. It would probably then be wise to then double check that all of the text from which they were removed is fully supported by the secondary sources remaining. If you could then ping Jo-Jo to continue their spot check I would be grateful.
If you would like to retain the primary sources then listing them under Further Reading - similar to how I did with Battle of Crecy - is one option - a direct link - as with Polybius in Second Punic War - is another. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that I'd agree with blanket qualifying ancient sources as "not high quality", especially not when they are used for non-analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis statements. Granted that articles about ancient Greece/Rome often have an issue that they uncritically use them, but I wouldn't generalize from that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do think those refs to primary sources are extremely useful to readers, and it would be a shame to lose them. Can't we simply convert them to footnotes (so that they would show up in the "Notes" section rather than the "References" section)? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are hankering after something which is not an encyclopedia article. This suggestion might bypass WP:PRIMARY, but would equally mislead readers as to the veracity of deeply flawed sources. And in any case would inevitably get opposed for a hopeless overload of footnotes. As I say above, including the primary sources "is a wonderful piece of scholarship", but it is not compatible with a reliable encyclopedia article. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite evidently an encyclopaedic article, with every statement supported by at least one high-quality secondary source. I fail to see how the addition of a small number of references to primary sources could possibly compromise its integrity. I fully concur with the observation above that "those refs to primary sources are extremely useful to readers", though I do not believe there is any necessity to convert them to footnotes. If we are to remain competitive with AI-generated encyclopaedias, we must produce more articles of this calibre — and this one is, by any measure, a work of high quality. Borsoka (talk) 04:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have been thinking quite a bit about this. Here my thoughts, and another possible solution at the end.
  1. I personally do not see how the article is incompatible with WP:PRIMARY; this policy only demands that primary sources should be used with great care and only for uncontroversial information, which is the case here.
  2. Whether a source is reliable or not obviously depends on what the source is cited for; in this case, every claim is fully supported by a secondary source, and the primary sources are only cited in addition. Therefore, the article is entirely based on high-quality reliable sources.
  3. The question is, should we cite a primary source when the information is already fully supported by a secondary one? My take is that an author does not have to, but should be allowed to. In many cases, this makes a lot of sense. For example, it's the way we have always written our dinosaur FAs: Whenever we report what individual publications had to say, we always cite the papers that we discuss even when everything is readily covered by our secondary source.
  4. I do see the issue that a reader might falsely assume that the content of the article is partly based on direct interpretations of ancient sources, and that this use of sources is therefore misleading. However, this also reflects a fundamental limitation of our citation system: We have no way to show what precisely a given source is supposed to cover. If we use a primary source for uncontroversial information (which is explicitly permitted by WP:PRIMARY), and that primary source is only one of several at the end of a sentence, the reader may not know what the primary source is for. This is a problem, though I believe that the positives of keeping the primary sources outweigh the negatives in our case.
  5. Another possible solution for the issue might be to combine references. For example, "Gabba 1999, p. 143" (the scholarly source) and "Antiquities of the Jews, XX, 102" (the primary source) are used to cite the same sentence. We could maybe combine both into "Gabba 1999, p. 143, citing Antiquities of the Jews, XX, 102". I am not convinced that this is strictly necessary and it would be a lot of work, but it would solve the issue. As a much easier (though admittedly non-standard) alternative, maybe a disclaimer directly under the heading "Ancient sources", explaining how ancient sources are used and cited in this article, could also do? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • As we may conclude from the evidence available that the citations in the article are fully in line with our relevant policies, there is, in this regard, no need to make any changes. While only a small number of readers are likely to examine the citations in detail, those who do will clearly see that there is no issue at all. Rather than diverting effort to concerns that, on closer consideration, seem not to be substantiated by our policies, we should focus on ensuring that the article as a whole complies with all our policies and meets every FA criterion. Borsoka (talk) 10:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review

[edit]

Image placement and licencing seems OK, not all images have ALT text. Source formatting seems largely consistent, but I wonder why some pages are linked to Google Books and others aren't and Rappaport sometimes has his first name spelled out and sometimes not. Generally, the issue with GBooks is that it displays different pages to different people. In the Ancient sources section, I think the date format is a bit weird when one uses the year of the translation as the year displayed ... or is this an artifact of the template? Mohr Siebeck should be linked on first mention. Most sources seem reliable but I must qualify it's so many that I might have overlooked the one or the other bad source. Spotcheck of this version:

  • 127 Need a screenshot or something.
  • 157 Need a screenshot or something.
  • 172 OK
  • 184 Need a screenshot or something.
  • 205 Need a screenshot or something.
  • 218 Need a screenshot or something.
  • 244 Need a screenshot or something.
  • 271 Need a screenshot or something.
  • 279 As presented the footnote conveys the impression that Mason is accusing Josephus of lying, I am not sure if the source conveys that.
  • 317 Need a screenshot or something.
  • 319 Need a screenshot or something.
  • 329 Need a screenshot or something.
  • 332 Need a screenshot or something.
  • 335 Is this Josephus' book?
  • 350 OK
  • 368 OK
  • 372 Definitively not on the page given.
  • 376 I figure most information is in the other source?
  • 387 Need a screenshot or something.
  • 437 OK
  • 482 Need a screenshot or something.
  • 534 OKish but the other source needs to carry some weight too.
  • 558 OK
  • 574 OKish

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:03, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added ALT text for the images
I've linked Mohr Siebeck now, and Rappaport's first name appears in both places.
Should all links to Google Books be removed?
For the sources checked:
  • 279 Right, Mason is focused on how Josephus portrays John and h* is followers rather than on whether the story actually happened... I've changed the wording in the article to: Steve Mason, for example, cites this episode as presenting John of Gischala's followers as "not real men at all," but does not comment on whether the story is historically accurate. to better reflect whathe actually says.
  • 335 Yes, and it can be dropped if necessary since the other two quotes support it too (see my comment above here).
  • 372 I've changed it to p. 112 and added Rogers 2022, pp. 401–402, which provides the information on those who escaped.
  • 376 Yes, Rogers writes Finding the rest of Judaea subdued, Silva, along with the soldiers of the Roman Tenth Legion who had been involved in the sieges of Gamala and Jerusalem, supported by somewhere between 3,000 to 8,000 auxiliary troops, turned their attention to the fortress of Masada. (p. 403) and Flavius Silva and his army of about 8,000 Roman legionaries and auxiliaries made their way to Masada by the end of winter... The two largest camps ... probably accommodated the men of the Tenth Legion, whose numbers have been estimated at anywhere between 3,500 and 5,000 soldiers, though there is no explicit evidence for their numbers or the number of auxiliaries with them (p. 410). Combined with Davies's The final eradication of the last rebel lair... this fully supports the sentence in the article. I've done a minor copyedit to make clear that the figure is "about 8,000," not a precise total.
  • 534 That's what 533 adds: Although Dio’s figure of 985 as the number of villages destroyed during the war seems hyperbolic, all Judaean villages, without exception, excavated thus far were razed following the Bar Kochba Revolt. This evidence supports the impression of total regional destruction following the war. Historical sources note the vast numbers of captives sold into slavery in Palestine and shipped abroad... The Judaean Jewish community never recovered from the Bar Kochba war. In its wake, Jews no longer formed the majority in Palestine, and the Jewish center moved to the Galilee. After the fall of Bethar and the end of the war in autumn 135... Jews were also subjected to a series of religious edicts promulgated by Hadrian that were designed to uproot the nationalistic elements within the Judaean Jewish community... (this quote also covers 535 btw).
  • 574 - see also 573, quote: Firstly, there is the archaeological evidence. Sites that were destroyed in the suppression of the revolt have been excavated. The well-known examples are Jotapata, Gamla, Jerusalem and, of course, Masada. These excavations dramatically illustrate the preparations, tactics and effects of Roman sieges... Mariamnei (talk) 11:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep working through the remaining fixes soon. Mariamnei (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mariamnei and Jo-Jo Eumerus: Apologies, but could you both hold fire on this for a bit? Until I get the query under "A query on some of the sources" resolved. I hope to be back with a response in a day or two. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, pin put on it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:33, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: For a quick update, it looks like these are the remaining points:
  • Google Books URLs: Would you recommend removing all of them?
  • Dates: The template has two options: the publication year (which I've been using as the translation year) or the original year. I think the original year isn't very practical here because ancient texts usually don't have a precise date, and giving a range might be overkill. Readers interested in dating details can always check the relevant author/work articles.
  • Sources: For the remaining sources I haven't addressed yet (see my responses to 279, 335, 372, 376, 534, 574), would you like me to provide quotations from these sources?
Finally, is there anything else I'm missing? Mariamnei (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if Gog the Mild wants me to hold off still, but on a) I'd probably remove them. Or leave them in but without a direct page link. On b) I must confess that I don't know what the best solution is for such cases. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:32, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. I removed the Google Books URLs (saw two of them). Tagging @Gog the Mild - please let us know how you suggest moving forward. Thanks! Mariamnei (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Firstly, note that I have recused and am writing here as a reviewer, so any comments are just one editor's opinions. I explained what I thought was necessary here, and having studied the various comments since I am of the same opinion. I have been holding off, and continue to do so, until you either remove the cites to primary sources or indicate that you prefer not to. If the latter I will then formally oppose and explain why, referencing the FAC criteria which I believe the article currently fails to meet. This would be with great regret - I have taken articles of a similar type and period through FAC and so am in a good position to admire the cracking job you have done here.
Regardless of that, have you considered an opening section where you briefly describe the primary sources and summarise for each the modern consensus of their strengths and weaknesses and/or reliability? Similar perhaps to Punic Wars#Primary sources or Scottish invasion of England (1648)#Sources. Note in particular the inclusion of archaeology - and examples of - in both. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild the article already has a section that does this: First_Jewish–Roman_War#Historical_sources.
Since this is my first FAC, I’d really appreciate some guidance on what the next steps are.
My instinct is that keeping the citations to primary sources is useful for readers who are interested in digging deeper into the material. That said, if they might be a stumbling block for FA status, since they violate our rules on primary texts, I'm not at all opposed to removing them. I see here that a compromise was suggested, of moving them from refs to notes, using the efn style. How does that approach sound to you? Mariamnei (talk) 06:54, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to clarify that I would not withdraw my support if you remove the cites. This regrettably loses a useful feature, but it would be consistent with other history articles. However, IF you feel strongly about keeping them (which I think would be very understandable), you could open a discussion about the issue at the FAC talk page asking for opinions, to see where consensus goes. Gog and me also suggested multiple alternatives (e.g., Gog suggested direct cites, such as done in the article Jesus when citing the bible, and I suggested combining refs), something like that could also be a compromise. Still, just removing the cites would certainly be easiest, in my opinion. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild @Jens Lallensack I've now removed all inline citations to the primary sources. The primary texts remain listed in the bibliography under References § Ancient sources and are discussed in a dedicated section: Historical sources. I hope this resolves the concern! Mariamnei (talk) 12:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I currently have very limited internet. I am happy that the current article is worthy of FA status. I would be happy to discuss possibilities of working the primary sources in somehow off FAC. @FAC coordinators: for info. 22:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Mead

[edit]
Nominator(s): AA (talk) 10:49, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Phil Mead, who is considered one of the greatest first-class cricketers of all time. Mead had a substantial career in English county cricket with Hampshire, spanning 31 years. He is Hampshire's leading run-scorer in first-class cricket and has the distinction of scoring the most runs for any first-class team. A prolific run-scorer, he made 153 centuries during his career, ranking him fourth on the all-time list of century makers. In the County Championship, Mead is the all-time leading run-scorer in the competition, a record which will never be broken due to the advent of the one-day and T20 games in modern cricket; his 2,843 runs in the 1928 County Championship also constitutes a record for the most runs scored in a Championship season. Mead also played Test cricket for England, making 17 appearances with some success. Given his standing as a first-class batsman, his relative lack of Test appearances is credited with Plum Warner not being fond of him and an exceptionally strong choice of batsmen to chose from at the time. He would later play minor counties cricket for Suffolk, alongside coaching at Framlingham College. In later life he would go blind, retiring to Bournemouth where he died in March 1958. An interesting cricketer and one of the most important batsmen in the history of the first-class game, who is surprisingly lesser well known than his contemporaries.

This article has been informally reviewed by WP:CRIC members. Thanks for taking the time to review. AA (talk) 10:49, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:1193390_Phil_Mead.jpg: the UK tag in use requires that the image description include details of how authorship was investigated
  • File:StateLibQld_1_233112_English_cricket_team_at_the_test_match_held_in_Brisbane,_1928.jpg is tagged as lacking author information and is missing a US tag and info on publication history. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All tagged and have added some details about inquiring on the authorship of File:1193390_Phil_Mead.jpg. AA (talk) 08:30, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When and where was the second of these first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:59, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It comes from a photo album (author unknown) spanning from 1928 to 1932. The Test match took place from 30 November to 5 December 1928. Published presumably in Australia by the content of the album, exact date not specific. AA (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it known to have been published by 1930? If no, the tagging may need adjustment. The Australian tag also requires info on first publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to have first been published in 1928 according to the State Library of Queensland: "Original version: photographic print : black & white 1928". Would you be able to point me in the direction of adding the info on the Australian tag... sorry, Commons isn't my forte! Thanks! AA (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is that publication, though, or just creation?
If the former, you'd add it here. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit ambiguously worded. There is no definitive date of publication given, just an insinuation that it was 1928. AA (talk) 22:01, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

I'll be back with detailed comments after a thorough perusal, but from a quick first glace I notice a persistent and not very welcome tendency to write "he would" when a plain past tense is what is wanted. It becomes rather wearisome for the reader. To summarise Fowler, "would" used in this way expresses habitual action in the past ('These he would produce with a flourish during our Wednesday and Sunday-evening sessions') and the future in the past ('She realised they would have to come back at some point and face the music'). Fine for such constructions, but these thirty or so extracts from the article don't need anything other than "he joined Hampshire", "his Test career was sporadic" and so on:

  • Overlooked by Surrey, he would join Hampshire
  • His Test career would be sporadic
  • This would be attributed to hostility toward his status as a professional batsman,
  • Mead would continue to play
  • He would then play two seasons of minor counties cricket for Suffolk in 1938 and 1939, whilst employed as a cricket coach at Framlingham College.
  • He would retire to Bournemouth, where he died in hospital in March 1958, following an operation for internal bleeding.
  • He would also play for the combined London School's team.
  • He would be spotted playing in a school's match at The Oval by C. B. Fry, who encouraged him to pursue cricket as a profession.
  • Aged 15, Mead would join the staff at Surrey
  • He would make his first-class debut for Hampshire in 1905
  • (a feat he would repeat for the next 27 consecutive seasons)
  • He would take a further 27 wickets
  • Warner's hostility toward Mead, which would remain for the rest of his career
  • he would score seven centuries during the season. His highest score of the season,
  • he would score nine centuries.
  • He would again record two centuries
  • first-class cricket in England would be suspended until 1919.
  • Mead would be rejected from active service during the conflict because of varicose veins, alongside other medical issues.
  • During the war, he would play for Frank Hopkins
  • Mead would have his most successful season
  • For Hampshire, he would make scores of 224 and 113
  • He would make a half century (66 runs) in the Fifth Test
  • Mead would end the 1923 season
  • Mead would make 3,027 runs
  • he would make thirteen centuries
  • and would not appear in Test cricket again
  • His average would drop to 38.37
  • Bill Frindall would later write
  • Arlott would later write
  • he would score two thousand runs in a season
  • He would take 277 wickets at a bowling average of 34.70

I think these need fixing if the article is to meet FA criterion 1a. More anon. Tim riley talk 10:43, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All eliminated/reworded! AA (talk) 12:28, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Detailed comments

Very little more from me. The article seems to me of FA quality; I particularly admire the way the main author has avoided trotting out a litany of statistics and has given us a real narrative. A few minor points on the prose:

  • "the combined London School's team" – the possessive looks a bit odd: I suspect just Schools is correct here.
  • "Two weeks after being released by Surrey, the county decided to offer Mead a contract, however he had been to Hampshire" – two points here. First, the sentence opens with a dangling modifier: it was Mead, and not "the county", that was released. Secondly, "however" needs a stronger stop than a comma in front of it.
  • Done. I have added a semi-colon on the second point. The first now reads "A fortnight after Mead was released, Surrey attempted to reverse their decision by offering him a contract". It did briefly read "A fortnight after being released, Surrey attempted to reverse their decision by offering Mead a contract"... though I felt the latter version was again dangling! AA (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the same amount of matches the following season" – can you have an amount of plural things? Perhaps the same number of matches?
  • "considered the strongest touring team to be sent to Australia at the time" – I'm unsure of your meaning here. Is it that the team was considered at the time to be the strongest ever sent to Australia?
  • Comment. Your interpretation is correct. At the time it was considered to be the strongest England team to be sent to Australia. I have done a slight rewording of this sentence: "...his form led him to be selected for the MCC's 1911–12 tour of Australia, led by Plum Warner and was considered to be the strongest touring team that had been sent to Australia at the time."
  • "he was not chosen to partake in the 1912 Triangular Tournament" – "partake in" strikes me as odd. I think you mean "take part in".
  • "He again record two centuries against Leicestershire" – "recorded", rather than "record"?
  • "all five Test matches in the tours itinerary" – "tour's" needs a possessive apostrophe
  • "Mead was unable to play in the first two Test matches" – you don't tell us why: was it just that he wasn't chosen or was he unavailable for some reason?
  • Done. So I was unable to uncover some newspaper sources that shed more light on this than the book sources and obituaries I have to hand. He was not selected in the 12-man squad for the First Test, but his recall came ahead of the Second Test. However, in a County Championship match days before, Mead injured his hand and was ruled out. The start of the paragraph now reflects that with additional references. AA (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "went onto win the match by 155 runs" – "on to" needs to be two words here.
  • Afterthought: Lord Tennyson could do with a blue link at the first of his three mentions.

That's all from me. I'll be looking in again to support and sign off. Tim riley talk 07:19, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley. Many thanks for your review and your kind words at the start of the review. Please find above my responses. Thanks for pointing out my "he would" repetition that has crept into my writing, I have no idea where it has come from as none of my previous FA's have it!!! Have made me recheck my recent contributions and low and behold, Jack Newman and Alec Kennedy were full of it. I am now acutely aware of that unwelcome new habit! AA (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We all have bad habits in our prose writing that we need to be prodded about. I was told off as a schoolboy for opening a subordinate clause with a comma and neglecting to close it with one at the other end and dammit I'm still doing it sixty years later. But I digress. Very happy to support the elevation of this article to FA. There must be something about cricket that attracts good writing (of footer and the rest I say no more) and this article upholds the standard. Highly readable, comprehensive but concise, neutral in tone, as well illustrated as I suppose it is possible to be given copyright rules, and, as far as I can see, well and widely sourced. Gladly signing on the dotted line. More, please. Tim riley talk 12:18, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who knows what other habits I have picked up over the years! Though having been late to academic writing, I'm hopeful I have improved somewhat. Thanks for your support. Cricket articles do seem to have attracted some good writers over the years. Sarastro1 (sadly inactive for the last 3 years) and YellowMonkey (15 years AWOL) spring to mind. Glad you enjoyed the article :) Many thanks for the support. I have many more lined up... this chap hopefully next! AA (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Serves me right for interfering, but I took the liberty of asking the wizards in the Photo Workshop if they could clean up the top image a bit. Instead they've replaced it with a slightly different shot. If you don't like it, by all means revert the image to its original state when first uploaded and accept my apologies for putting my oar in. Tim riley talk 11:58, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. It shows him in full batting flow. Much appreciated "putting your oar in"!!! Hoping the 2nd image in the article can be kept, very important one given it captures the last time he took to the field in Test cricket. AA (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Comments to follow shortly(ish) - SchroCat (talk) 19:34, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • "He is the fourth-highest run-scorer in first-class cricket,": I think you need "As at 2025 he is the..." (formatted as "{{As of|alt=As at 2025|2025}}") per some bit of the MOS
  • Comment. I'm not too sure about adding a year, mainly because with the advent of limited-overs cricket, his tally will never be surpassed as less first-class is now played. AA (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "bowling was utilised by Hampshire", "was utilised less", "He utilised clever", "Mead was utilised as a": anything wrong with "used"?
  • "five wicket haul" – hyphenated, I think
Test debut
  • "MCC's 1911–12 tour of Australia": I think you need something (possibly even just a footnote) that explains that the MCC was the England team at the time. You interchange the terms a little (perfectly correctly and reasonably), but it won't be clear to many
  • Done. Good point, this will be less obvious that the two were the same entity to people are less familiar with cricket, and cricket of that era. I've added a footnote with ref. AA (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Australia, led by Plum Warner and was considered to be the": the grammar goes a little awry in this sentence with a feeling of a run-on happening at the point quoted
Personal life
  • Comment. I have broken the sentence into two, and reworded: "...his form led him to be selected for the MCC's 1911–12 tour of Australia.[note 1] Under the captaincy of Plum Warner, it was considered the strongest touring team that had been sent to Australia at the time." How does this read now? AA (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He had a variety of business ventures": the last 'he' mentioned is Frank Englefield

That's my lot. Nicely written and nice to see a sporting article that doesn't just rely on lists of stats to get the story across. – SchroCat (talk) 12:05, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat Many thanks for your review, much appreciated. Please find my responses above. Pleased you enjoyed the article and the story it tells of a remarkable cricketer. AA (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. All good from me, although I do think you should reconsider the “As at 2025” point, per WP:AS AT. That, however, is not enough to stop my support. - SchroCat (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers :) Is the "as at" the wording required, or could a more specific date be entered? Just to reflect that his tally won't be surpassed by anyone... unless first-class cricket becomes as popular once again... I can but dream! AA (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

[edit]
  • P/PP error: Arlott 1991, p. 237–238
  • Give chapter page range: Arlott, John (1986). "Phil Mead". John Arlott's 100 Greatest Batsmen. London: Macdonald... If "Phil Mead" is a chapter/entry, the "Chapter-pages" field should normally be supplied in the cite template.
  • Hard to parse: Mead was born in Battersea. Overlooked by Surrey, he joined Hampshire, who he made his debut in first-class cricket for in 1905, establishing himself as a left-handed batsman in the side the following season. The sentence is a bit awkward; and the portion in green sounds grammatically wrong. Consider re-wording to be plainer and easier to parse.
  • Reworded. I have reworded to: "Overlooked by Surrey, he joined Hampshire in 1903 and made his debut for the county in first-class cricket in 1905. He established himself in the Hampshire side as a left-handed batsman the following season." How does that read now? AA (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plainer word? ... scoring his maiden Test century ... Some readers, especially English as 2nd language, may not know what "maiden" means here; perhaps "maiden voyage" is a common phrase. Consider helping those readers.
  • Help reader understand: His Test career was sporadic, spanning seventeen matches to 1928, scoring nearly 1,200 runs and making four centuries. This was attributed to hostility toward his status as a professional batsman, playing for an "unfashionable" county, and the presence of several strong batsmen in the England team during the 1920s.
    • The 2nd sentence starts with "this", which I suppose is refering to the word "sporadic" in the prior sentence (but it could refer to 17 years; or scoring 1200 runs, etc) ... can that connection be stronger?
    • Can "sporadic" be quantified a bit here? If he was only doing about 1 test per year; and a typical great player had 2 or 3 per year, then say that.
  • Comment. I think this would be difficult to quantify with references, and therefore without venturing toward OR. I've had a look around the usual sources for information like this, and there doesn't seem to be anything. I think it would be quite a niche analysis for anything to exist that covers it, even briefly. AA (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see. But where did the word "sporadic" come from? Is that a quote from a source? Or did an editor of the article choose it? If an editor selected the word "sporadic" they must have some specific meaning in mind: What does "sporadic" mean in this cricket context? What specific information is the editor trying to give to the reader with that word? If there is no objective meaning to the word, maybe it could be replaced with another word? Otherwise, it leaves the reader wondering "what does sporadic mean? Alternating years? Alternating months? Every third season? " Noleander (talk) 16:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Sporadic" was my own choice of word. Though, I wonder if "infrequent" is far better? Infrequent is more easily understood and has more linear explanation than "sporadic". Update: I've gone for "infrequent". Wonder if it might be worth quantifying by saying something along the lines of "Mead's appearances at Test level were infrequent, spanning seventeen matches across five series to 1928."? AA (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • A career could be sporadic for many reasons: injuries, temporarily leaving the sport, animosity from leaders of the team. Three specifics are listed:
      • professional batsman
      • unfashionable
      • several strong batsmen
The first two seem irrational/petty. If team leaders were deliberately leaving him off the team, then say that explicitly.
  • Done. I have added into the lead that the hostility came from Plum Warner; it is never explicitly confirmed that he was deliberately left off the team because he was a professional, but Warner was known to hold "elitist" views about the professional/amateur status of players with specific roles in a team. AA (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can can a word be added to "several strong batsmen" to clarify (e.g. "an abundance of strong batsmen competing for limited spots" etc)? The body text can give additional details, yes, but the Lead should be able to be understood on its own.
  • Passive voice: Mead had married to Beatrice Englefield in 1908, ... Consider Mead married Beatrice Englefield in 1908, ... passive "had" should only be used in specific situations, which I don't see here.
  • Wording: Mead managed to support himself outside of the cricket season by working as a travelling salesman for Spillers, and selling lightbulbs. He did these until he was offered.... "He did these" doesn't seem to be correct grammar, is there a better way to phrase this?
  • Word choice: His financial worries after going blind were assuaged by a fund raised ... "Assuaged" is a rather rare word and may force some readers to consult a dictionary. Consider something more direct such as After going blind he encountered financial difficulties and received assistance from a fund raised ...
  • Alphabetization of Categories? Looks like someone nearly alphabetized the category list through "Wisden Cricketers of the Year", but then it fell apart. Not an FA requirement, but it may help some readers search the categories faster.

Jack Critchley

[edit]
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:35, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a South Australian politician who served in the state lower house then in the Australian Senate where he was Senate opposition whip for seven years. He came to my attention via a honour roll at the state parliament which lists all the state parliamentarians who have seen war service, and having already brought a couple to FA (Ernest Roberts (Australian politician) and Bill Denny), I thought I'd see what I could do with Jack. He is the first state politician I have brought to FAC who doesn't have an entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:35, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Hi Nikkimaria, it's working for me...? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:53, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, nope, still not for me. Is it possible it's geolocked or something? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:53, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why it would be Nikkimaria, but it's possible I suppose. It's to the National Library of Australia and the entry says:

Portrait of John Critchley, Senate for South Australia [picture]

Call Number PIC Box PS 15113 #PIC/7852/1-2 Created/Published [ca. 1950] Extent 2 photographs : gelatin silver ; 15.8 x 11.7 cm. Physical Context

PIC Box PS 15113 #PIC/7852/1-2-Portrait of John Critchley, Senate for South Australia [picture].

Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:16, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I'll try to review this weekend. Hog Farm Talk 03:25, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Critchley's first speech to the assembly was brief, " - this is sourced to the Hansard only. Is it a truly obvious statement to be able to refer to this as brief, when the source won't be (presumably) describing it as such?
I was working on the basis of WP:BLUE, the other first speeches on the adjacent pages of Hansard were a fair bit longer, but happy to delete. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the Carr website considered to be a high-quality RS?
For what it provides, yes. He's a respected journalist and psephologist with a PhD in Australian history. His psephos website is an expert SPS and has been archived by the National Library of Australia. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Critchley was particularly concerned for the mental health needs of those suffering from what was then known as "war neurosis" " - again, I'm a bit uncomfortable drawing the conclusion that it was a particular concern of his only from a few Hansard transcriptions, although I'm sure it's true
Have reworded to make it about the content of his speeches. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to his family, when the ALP split over the issue of communism in 1955, Critchley refused to join the Catholic-dominated breakaway Australian Labor Party (Anti-Communist) – later the Democratic Labour Party – despite being offered the position of party leader in the Senate." - source does not support that the breakaway party was Catholic-dominated that I'm seeing?
Well picked up, its sort of common knowledge politically in Australia, but I agree it should be cited. Added Maddox and cited to her. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "John Victor Ryan, Senator (19 June 1956). "Question: Question: Compensation Payments to Trainee". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). Commonwealth of Australia: Senate. p. 1605." - source link is not working for me - is this content only available in Australia
Yeah, I don't know what is going on there. It works for me. The wording of the question is:

Senator RYAN.—Will the Minister representing the Minister for the Army supply the following information relative to representations made by Senator Critchley and myself concerning the compensation claim of E. Luxton of Moonta, South Australia, for physical disabilities occasioned during his national service training

. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:38, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that a lot of the article is actually derived from the Haskett source, with primary source Hansard proceedings inserted as additional sources where Haskett points out particular points. Hog Farm Talk 02:21, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haskett is essentially the official biographical entry for Critchley as a senator, and while I acknowledge it is a tertiary source, it is well footnoted and is akin to a national dictionary of biography entry. Of course instead of using Haskett directly, I could use the citations that Haskett used in the biographical entry, but I'm not sure that either advances the quality of the article or is worth the effort given the material isn't controversial in any significant way. I agree there is a quite a bit from Hansard, which I have used to flesh out what he spoke about during his career. There are however, plenty of contemporary newspaper articles about various aspects of his life which are used. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:38, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Hog Farm, thanks for having a look and apologies for the delay in responding. I think I have addressed your comments? See what you think? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting - sourcing seems to be on the thin side in many areas but I'm not seeing evidence of sources that should be used that aren't and the sourcing is generally appropriate for what it is supporting (given that the Hansard usage can be backed up by the other sources for significance). Hog Farm Talk 22:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MCE89

[edit]

A few comments below. (I'm pretty new to FAC reviewing, so please feel free to disregard any of these suggestions!) MCE89 (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • ...but was defeated in 1933 after the Labor Party split over austerity measures and his expulsion from the party - I think the syntax here could be made clearer (i.e. to make it clear that the party didn't split over his expulsion)
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:04, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • He also argued for fertile land in the south east of the state to be compulsorily acquired and used to settle unemployed people, sought to reduce the number of members of the assembly and sought to abolish the state upper house, the Legislative Council - Missing a verb in the final item of the list
Thanks, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A practising Catholic, he nevertheless opposed the Communist Party Dissolution Bill when it was presented by the government of Prime Minister Robert Menzies in 1950. - I think this could use slightly more of an explanation of why the fact that he was a Catholic makes it unusual that he would oppose the bill. At the moment I imagine that this could read as a bit of a non sequitur to those unfamiliar with that historical context
Good point. Added a bit cited to Duncan. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:23, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A vehement supporter of the ALP's banking policies... - Could a sentence be added on what these policies were? I think that would help give a bit more context to the later discussion of how he helped block the Menzies government's banking bills
Great point, added some more from Duncan. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:30, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and was elected sixth of the ten seats available - The grammar here sounds a little awkward to my ear, perhaps "elected to the sixth of the ten available seats" or "was the sixth of ten candidates elected"? The same goes for "and was elected first of the five seats available"
Adjusted as suggested.

Thanks for taking a look, MCE89. See what you think of my responses. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

G'day MCE89. Just checking you've seen this, and if you have any further comments? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So sorry @Peacemaker67, completely missed this! All looks good to me, happy to support. MCE89 (talk) 09:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for almost four weeks and has yet to gain a support. Unless there's notable progress towards a consensus for promotion within the next few days, I'm afraid it will be archived. FrB.TG (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

[edit]

I'm afraid that I've never heard of Critchley before, but it's good to see this article here. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • " Joining the Australian Labor Party (ALP),[2] he became president and then secretary of the local party committee," - it would be good to comment on why he joined the party, and that it was (and officially remains) the political wing of the Australian union movement - more background on the party and its status at the time and during the early years of Critchley's political career would help to put things in perspective, especially for readers not familiar with Australian political history.
  • "unsuccessful candidate for South Ward " - should this be "the South Ward"? This would seem to read better.
  • The sentence starting with " Critchley worked as a motor registration clerk" is over-complex.
  • The first para of the 'Federal politics' section should note that the ALP was in power at the time Critchley entered the Senate
  • Do any sources comment on why he didn't serve as a minister or shadow minister despite his considerable political experience and prominent position in the SA Labor Party? Was he seen more as a loyalist and enforcer type character than an administrator?
  • Nothing in the sources about this. The condolence motions paint him as a "very firm" whip who was also "very just and considerate". Perhaps he was highly effective as whip and they just didn't want to move him, or perhaps he didn't have the factional or state branch support over others. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:22, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ALP tends to laud its stalwarts more than is common for other Australian political parties: can anything be said about how Critchley has been memorialised by the party? Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look, Nick. I will address these points in the next couple of days. Cheeers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:18, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those changes look good, and I'm happy to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 04:40, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Source formatting seems mostly consistent. I must qualify that I don't know many of the sources nor do I have access to them, but they seem OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Cooper

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) and QuicksmartTortoise513 (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Gordon Cooper, one of the Mercury Seven astronauts. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

[edit]
Early life and education
  • “the only child of Leroy Gordon Cooper Sr. and his wife, Hattie Lee Herd” – fine, but “his wife” could be dropped; “Hattie Lee Herd” is sufficient.
  • "Pacific theater" → "Pacific Theater"

MSincccc (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting! I have capitalised "Pacific Theater". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Later life
Links made. QuicksmartTortoise513 (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
UFO sightings
  • You could mention the full form of "NASA" at least once in the article.
  • Introduce "Bruce Henderson" briefly?
  • “ground breaking technology” → “groundbreaking technology” (compound adjective).

MSincccc (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Full form written. I'm not sure what you mean by introducing Bruce Henderson. Also, where's the term "ground breaking technology" used? QuicksmartTortoise513 (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • By introducing Henderson, I meant specifying his role in the article — as "the author" or the "journalist".
  • ...understanding how someone so connected with ground breaking technology and science...
MSincccc (talk) 03:36, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added that Bruce Henderson was a journalist and author. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:28, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:SIC: Quotations must be verifiably attributed, and the wording of the quoted text must be faithfully reproduced. Two words in the source Changed to a single word. We will see if anyone complains. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:37, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
General
  • Reference no. 81 – The access date precedes the article’s publication date.
  • “He believed these anomalies may be the locations…” mixes “may be” with past tense (“he believed”). It might read more clearly as “might have been”.
Overall, the article is well written. Looking forward to your response. MSincccc (talk) 10:33, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7 and @QuicksmartTortoise513 Two more comments above, but the article is good and hence support the nomination. MSincccc (talk) 03:39, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected ref #81, which was a duplicate of #71. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:59, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MSincccc, is there more to come from you on this? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild Sorry, I had forgotten to make my declaration.
@Hawkeye7 and @QuicksmartTortoise513 Support and good luck with your nomination. MSincccc (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

Three weeks in and this has gained little attention. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Wehwalt

[edit]

Support: Just a few things.

  • Do we really need so much material on Cooper Sr.?
  • "senior high school year" "senior year in high school" feels more natural in Among.
    Changed as suggested. We don't use junior/senior etc in Australia, as high schools are six years or 4+2, and university undergraduate courses are three years long. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he played halfback in the state football championship." I might phrase as "he played halfback, and his team played in the state football championship."
    Tweaked the wording. In Texas playing at state was a really big deal. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The UFO section is as long as the section on his Apollo involvement.
    The Apollo section would have been longer if he had actually flown. I did cut back the UFO nonsense. Leap of Faith contains a lot more. In later life, Cooper enjoyed being a celebrity to the UFO movement. An astonishingly large percentage of Americans believe that aliens visit Earth. [33] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't Cooper give a ticked-off press conference upon his non selection for Apollo 13/14?
    I have no source for that. The tiddlywinks remark was after he was forced to pull out of the 24 Hours of Daytona race. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • No problem if the source doesn't specify, but "He unofficially soloed when he was 12 years old" is interesting -- do we know if he just took the plane up without anyone's permission at all?
    His father let him fly the plane. Set him up with cushions so he could see out the windows and blocks on the pedals.

    By the time I was eight, with the help of blocks Dad built for the rudder pedals and lots of cushions so I could see out the window, I was allowed to take over the controls from the front seat with Dad behind me in the main cockpit... The head of the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) in that region of Oklahoma was a close friend of my father's (my mother and father seemed to know just about everybody in the area). He knew I was flying without a licence - I was a long way from sixteen, the mandatory age to get a licence - and never said a thing. By the time I was twelve I was flying solo, even though I had not yet had any formal lessons.

    Added a bit more about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know why Marcus Cooper recommended that Cooper not volunteer for astronaut training?
    "I don't want my best pilots involved in some idiotic program." Added this.
  • "however, this debacle did not make Cooper popular with senior NASA management": "debacle" seems a bit strong -- maybe just "incident"?
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Cooper buzz Hanger S because of the argument with Williams?
    Yes. Clarified this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest retitling the "Later life" section, since some of it relates to his activities while still an astronaut. Perhaps "Other activities and later life"?
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are date available for his involvement with GCR and Teletest?
    Yes. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The ashes were then launched on the Explorers orbital mission on August 3, 2008": suggest linking "Explorers" to Celestis#Flights.
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 2017 Discovery Channel docu-series Cooper's Treasure followed by Darrell Miklos as he searched through Cooper's files to discover the location of the suspected shipwrecks": something wrong with the syntax here -- a missing word?
    Deleted "by". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest combining the last three short paragraphs.
    Reordered and combined the short paragraphs. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review

[edit]
  • Yes, it is. The article was originally a copy-paste of the NASA bio. When I rewrote it, the original article became the lead. The lead still contains a great deal of that material, but the body does not. [34] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I have some quotes supporting "His parents owned a Command-Aire 3C3 biplane, and he learned to fly at a young age. His father sat him on cushions so he could see and rigged the rudder pedals with blocks so he could reach them. He unofficially soloed when he was 12 years old, and earned his pilot certification in a Piper J-3 Cub when he was 16"?
    See the response to Mike Christie above. For the plane, "Dad bought a Commandaire biplane" (p. 102) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I kinda wonder if we can rely on autobiographical/self-quotes for such a strong claim. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now about the files:

I can't see any ALT text anywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:56, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Added ALT text. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, is this good to go? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some unanswered questions are still there, sorry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:37, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess now it's fine, but I didn't double-check closely. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]

RoySmith

[edit]

I saw this was the topic of some hand-wringing at WT:FACC so I figured I'd give it a read. RoySmith (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with Wehwalt that the material on Cooper Sr should be trimmed. I get that you want to show the aviation background, but you could certainly drop what vessel he served on and where he was stationed. "despite never having formal military pilot training" could go too. With a bit more copyediting, this could probably get down to close to half the original size with no loss of information that's relevant to Jr. By the time I got up to the 2nd paragraph, "Cooper attended ...", I had to double-check to make sure I understood which Cooper we were talking about.
    Trimmed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, not really. The specific parts that I suggested were the most trimmable were "served on the presidential yacht USS Mayflower", "served in the Pacific Theater", and "stationed at Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii Territory." as I felt these items were the least likely to aid the reader's understanding of how Jr's life was shaped by his father's experiences. I would have left the bit about flying a JN-4, as that seems directly related. I also would have left in the part about graduating from college and law school, as that explains how he got to be a state district judge. RoySmith (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. I have also retained the bit about Hawaii, as it explains why Cooper moved there, where he met Trudy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was assigned to the Naval Academy Preparatory School as an alternate for an appointment to the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland, but the primary appointee was accepted, and Cooper was assigned to guard duty in Washington, D.C. I'm confused by this. What does "the primary appointee was accepted" mean? Does that mean Cooper actually got into the USNA? And what does that have to do with guard duty?
    Entry to the USNA is by appointment from a Congressman. Usually one is designated as the primary, but others are named as alternatives in case the primary fails the entrance examination, or decides to turn down the offer. Many fine officers have started their career as alternatives. Added "Not getting admitted to the USNA did not mean that he would be discharged from the Marine Corps". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You've still got "but the primary appointee was accepted" which I think most readers will be confused about. RoySmith (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    He didn't get in; the principal appointee did. I have written: "in case the principal appointee failed the physical, medical or academic tests; but the principal appointee did not fail and was accepted." If the reader wants to know more about the appointment process, they can click on the link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because MA-9 would orbit over nearly every part of Earth ... I think what you're saying here is that due to the large geographical footprint of the mission, NASA needed to stage recovery assets all over the globe. But I only know that because I understand how these things work; most readers won't have a clue, so you need to explain this better.
    Added this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The clock and then the gyroscopes failed Upon first read, I assumed these were individual failures of these units, but eventually I figured out that they both failed because they lost power due to the previously mentioned power failure. I didn't figure that out, however, until I got to the bit about the radio being directly connected to the clock. So this needs some better explanation.
    Added explanation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gemini 5 was launched at 09:00 on August 21, 1965 Presumably EDT? You should specify.
    EST. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, this is confusing. My first thought was "No, you idiot, I said EDT". Because it's summer, so daylight savings time would be in effect. But I dug a bit and apparently daylight savings time was kind of a nebulous concept in 1965 and some parts of Florida observed it and some didn't! https://www.nasa.gov/mission/gemini-v/ does indeed say "Aug. 21, 1965, 8:59:59 a.m. EST (13:59:59 UT)", but I'm wondering if it makes sense to just use UTC here, as Gemini 5 does, to bypass any possible confusion. RoySmith (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did check it. Added UTC. But there was a big argument over whether UTC or EST should come first in the WikiProject Spaceflight articles. My understanding of the compromise was that local time is used for launches and landings in the US, and UTC everywhere else. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:16, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cooper intended to operate it at a low pressure, but when it started to dip too low the Flight Controllers advised him to switch on the oxygen heater. what does the oxygen heater have to do with the pressure in the fuel cell? That needs explaining.
    Added that the fuel cell combined hydrogen and oxygen to produce electric power and drinking water. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:30, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It eventually stabilized at 49 newtons per square centimetre Is that really the best unit to use here? It might be correct, but surely not familiar to most readers.
    It is in the source; there is already a conversion to psi; added one to kPa. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In some places, you give imperial units first and convert to metric "traveling 3,312,993 miles (5,331,745 km)" in other places the other way around "49 newtons per square centimetre (71 psi)". Pick one way and be consistent.
    Switch to SI first. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Askania Cinetheodolite precision landing system don't link Askania, it's just a redirect.
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure you noticed I made some edits here. But I have a question about "precision landing system". Does the source really call it that? My understanding of these things is that they're just cameras (with humongous lenses, on very fancy tracking mounts) used to document events. To me "landing system" means something that gives an aircraft guidance to the runway, and the word "precision" has a very specific meaning in this context, i.e. it provides vertical guidance in addition to horizontal guidance, the canonical example being the Instrument landing system or ILS. So could you take a look at the source and verify that wording? RoySmith (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    On May 3, 1957, I was a captain and had a crew out filming an Askania-camera precision landing system we had installed on the dry lake bed. The Askania automatic system took pictures — one frame per second — as a plane landed to measure its landing characteristics. The two cameramen, James Bittick and Jack Gettys, arrived at Askania number four site a little before 8 a.m., armed with still and motion picture cameras.

    — Leap of Faith, p. 82

    Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:22, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. It does indeed say that. I still didn't believe it, so I did some more digging and found https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD0428384.pdf, which does indeed appear to describe a precision landing system using a pair of these tracking cameras to triangulate the aircraft's position in real time. I haven't yet figured out how this information is transmitted back to the aircraft so it can control its approach, but mind blown. I'd never heard of this system and it's astounding they could make this work with 1958 technology. So, yeah, the wording you've got is fine and I've got my work cut out for me to do some more research on this. RoySmith (talk) 02:07, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for me. RoySmith (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Voices of Morebath

[edit]
Nominator(s): Pbritti (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In 2001, the Irish Catholic historian Eamon Duffy was at the height of his popularity, still riding high on the success of his seminal work on medieval English ritual, The Stripping of the Altars. A minor character from that book is the main character of this micro-history of the English Reformation, with Duffy using the records from "a somewhat unamiable busybody" to contradict popular narratives of English Christianity. Despite its dryness, the book has had an outsized impact on both later academic works and cultural memory of faith and rebellion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
Why is the book cover considered fair use? It is just a crop of Bruegel's Netherlandish Proverbs with white text and simple shapes added. ―Howard • 🌽33 17:15, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Out of an abundance of caution, I figured it should be considered fair use. However, my hardcover copy (which I believe is a first impression) gives full credit to Bruegel for the front cover art on both the copyright page and the inside leaf of the dust cover. Perhaps it is public domain. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So far, similar book covers uploaded to Commons have not been deleted (I'm not aware of a particular deletion request), such as c:File:The Sickness Unto Death.jpg and c:File:NBV21 book cover.jpg.
If credit is solely given to Bruegel on the copyright page, then I would take that as meaning the publisher doesn't claim copyright for the cover, esp. considering this is the US where the threshold of originality tends to be higher. ―Howard • 🌽33 18:35, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Howardcorn33: I'll throw a version tagged as public domain on the commons. Beyond the standard {{PD-US-expired}}, I'm assuming I should use {{Trademarked}} and {{PD-textlogo}}. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find that acceptable. ―Howard • 🌽33 16:08, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]

I've not read Duffy's work, but I'm interested in his approach -- this one has been on my to-read list for a while.

These two I think are reasonably "big", and make a material difference to whether the article meets the criteria:

  • I would generally encourage the use of page numbers when citing paginated sources, even when those are relatively short. Some of the sources we cite are actually quite long -- note 24, for example, can presumably be pinned down very precisely, but we ask the reader to search through 29 pages in order to find it.
  • I find it a little odd that, for a book with quite a large academic footprint, we don't cite any academic books in response to Morebath. We have a few reviews and small features, many of which come from religious periodicals, but I don't really see any sense of the continuing conversation in works of the same sort of weight.
  • I don't find the "Reception" section very easy to follow. Part of the problem here is that it's organised by reviewer, when the different reviewers all make lots of different points but tend to tread similar ground. I would suggest re-organising by theme, and including choice examples from different reviews to illustrate common threads in the criticism: this would be much more secure under WP:DUEWEIGHT.

These are smaller points which, on their own, are relatively minor:

  • the Protestant Elizabethan Religious Settlement.: is the adjective Protestant quite right here? This is not my field, but as I understand it, Anglicanism was (is?) generally considered, at least from within, a via media between Catholicism and (German) Protestantism -- a lot of the "real" Protestants, like the Puritans, were pushed out by it.
  • Just commenting here. Anglicans, at least the ones I know and from what I read, view themselves as Protestants. Their theology is certainly in line with other Protestant sects (though "Protestant" as a term is... nebulous, to say the least). During the Reformation, Anglicans did see themselves as steering Christendom back towards "true catholicity" by preserving tradition but breaking with the perceived errors of the Church in Rome and there is a lot of theological and ecclesiastical overlap (e.g., Oxford movement didn't come out of thin air), but I would be quite shocked to hear an Anglican describe themselves as non-Protestant. Worth pointing out as well that the Puritans tortured the Quakers (e.g., dismemberment, branding) for not being "real" Protestants as well when they got to the New World. ThaesOfereode (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since the sources on TVOM almost unanimously describe the Elizabethan settlement as establishing a Protestant regime, this is perhaps a question beyond the scope of this article. That said, if you want to learn more, a decent primer on the topic is Haugaard's Elizabeth and the Reformation (CUP, 1968). ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • its coverage of parochial and local matters: why the two adjectives -- what's parochial but not local, or vice-versa?
    I used "parochial" here in the sense of referring to matters pertaining to an ecclesiastical parish, evidently forgetting that many places use "parish" just as often for secular localities. Rewritten. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It drew critiques for instances where Duffy uses examples from Morebath to engage in broader discussions, with other reviewers noting that Duffy conceded these limitations.: this isn't wonderfully clear. Firstly, I think the word critique (detailed, close analysis at length) may not be the right word: I think you mean criticism (negative commentary). That aside, the second clause doesn't really fit with the first.
    Rewritten. Let's see if that fits well. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • an isolated and impoverished parish (now St George's Church): throughout the article, I think there's some confusion on the distinction between the village, the parish, and the church. A village is a collection of houses and fields, a church is a building, and a parish is an ecclesial administrative division. Hence, the parish cannot now "be" St George's Church, though the latter can be the parish church. However, was it not that at the time?
    Skipping the parenthetical, as the church's article is linked with mention of Binney. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • that served roughly 33 families of 150 people: those are very big families. 150 people in 33 families?
    Haha, fixed. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sir Christopher Trychay was Morebath's vicar for 54 years, a period during which England: this isn't grammatical. If I were you, I would put the dates in the first part: for 54 years between X and Y, a period...
    Re wrote to give us a shorter sentence introducing just Trychay. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest calling him simply Christopher Trychay: I do take the point about "Sir" as a priestly title, but under MOS:HONORIFIC we generally drop these titles anyway, and it'll still be unclear to many readers whether he was (also) a knight. I notice that Binney doesn't get "Father" later on.
    I've deleted it outside of the first mention and quotes. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we need to be explicit at some point about what Exeter has to do with Morebath, as otherwise readers will wonder what the village's records were doing in the town when they were bombed.
  • Religion played a significant role in the daily lives of Morebath's residents, though they conformed their practices to the oscillating theologies imposed under the monarchies of Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary I, and Elizabeth I.: the first half of this is a bit woolly, bluntly, and the second seems to contradict most of the article: we say a moment later that they joined an armeed rebellion against one of those, which doesn't quite fit with "conformed". I would suggest cutting this or rethinking it somehow.
  • Duffy recalled that he had discovered Morebath parish during his 1990s countryside trips out of Cambridge: Morebath is a very long drive from Cambridge -- even today it's about 5 hours. He's clearly not talking about a day trip here, so "out of Cambridge" seems a bit out of place.
    Removed. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie's seminal 1975 book Montaillou: cut seminal: WP:PUFFERY.
    Done. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not your fault, but the image of the church has an unfortunate camera artefact creating the illustion of wavy lines on the roof. Perhaps better swapped for this one?
    That's better. I cropped and rotated the image a bit since we're more interested in the church building than any current burials or walkways. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:49, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ranges need dashes, even in titles: see A Country Merchant, 1495-1520.
    Done.
  • The center of the story, the center of the village: centre in BrE.
    Good catch.
  • Bruegel's painting, alongside colour plates, woodcuts, and illustrated endpapers included in the book were described: the colour plates etc. Also needs a comma after book, and probably to change were to was.
    Did something similar but with dashes.
  • We mention the second impression, and then jump straight ahead to the fourth. What about the third?
    I have looked high and low and found absolutely no mention of the third impression. One presumes that there were no significant differences between the second and third impression.
  • Note 3: Patrick Collinson said that referring to the records used in The Voices of Morebath "would be misleading, if conventional", as Trychay audited and recorded them for not only the wardens but also other elements of the parish. I don't understand what this is saying -- I wonder if something has dropped out (e.g. "referring to the records as XYZ would be misleading"?)
    Yep, that's what happened.
    We now need to lose the italics, to match the formatting used throughout (and in the MoS). UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:37, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • the villagers grazed the parish's sheep alongside their own flocks and partook in raucous events called church ales, replete with homemade beer and visiting minstrels at the parish's church house, to financially support the congregation -- I don't understand the distinction here. Weren't the villagers and the congregation the same people?
    I think this is fixed.
  • witnessed the dissolution of the monasteries replace the parish's proprietor with speculators: I have very little idea what the second half of this means, or what it would have to do with the first.
    Rewritten.
  • Though complying with Edward VI's religious impositions, Trychay is recorded as having hidden expensive vestments that he had recently purchased after 20 years of saving up for them: again, it takes all of my dim memory of primary-school history lessons to piece together how the two halves of this go together -- we shouldn't assume that all readers will have had such a thorough grounding in Edward's religious policy.
    I added a few words that should help carry the reader through the meaning. Unfortunately, few of the sources are written with the average Wikipedia reader in mind, so I'll have to reach into some generalist glossing outside of the sources to say much else.
  • The parish subsidized five of its congregants to join the calamitous Prayer Book Rebellion at Exeter, after which the parish was gutted of its ornamental items: I found this whole paragraph a bit of a strange ride: I'm not sure it really has a central idea. We've stepped from "religion and everyday life couldn't be separated before the Reformation" (fine, but I'm not sure I like the implication that they could be separated during it), to "Trychay basically went along with what his parishoners believed, and so put up no real resistance to the Reformation" (fine in principle, but I'm not sure that's quite what the book is arguing), to "the parish was so resistant to the Reformation that they sent people to die fighting against it". The way we present the third part of that doesn't seem to be compatible with how we've presented the second.
    I've done some splitting/tweaking. There is inherently going to be a tension here, as the parish's involvement in the Prayer Book Rebellion was kind of a out-of-left-field move that many of the sources mention but fair to sufficiently extrapolate on. If that fits a bit better, let me know.
  • We could do with some dates for the accessions of the various monarchs involved here.
    Done.
  • Early modern English can be placed into lang templates: {{Lang|en-emodeng|at their goyng forthe to sent davys down ys camppe}}. This helps screenreaders pronounce it correctly and (I think) has some benefits for the Wiki software. You could consider a footnoted translation, too.
    I'm unsure on the best translation, but I added the language template.
  • While Collinson said Trychay is described as developing into "some kind of Protestant", Collinson said "to call him a Vicar of Bray [a clergyman who changed his beliefs to match official doctrinal changes] would be an insulting caricature: this is not the most felicitous phrasing, with the repetition. However, how can we read Trychay's faith is shown as reflecting the beliefs of his congregation, with Duffy saying "[h]is religion in the end was the religion of Morebath alongside this note -- I actually thought of the Vicar of Bray as I read it! There seems to be a conflict here.
  • defenders of "ancient traditions against the King's bad counsellors, not the king: need to pick a lane on capitalisation here.
  • are presented as likely among those killed in the Battle of Clyst St Mary.: probably is BrE; "likely" here is AmerE.
  • Carlson's review compared it to a previous Hawthornden Prize winner, Graham Greene's novel The Power and the Glory. Holding that "it is hard to think of Voices of Morebath as a masterpiece equal to Greene's novel", Carlson said that both books "give us the life of an all-too-human priest, an insignificant figure in the grand scheme of history but someone nonetheless rather representative of his time: this is a bit of a non sequitur: it's not a million miles from "holding that the book wasn't anything like as good as Greene's, Carlson said that Greene's book and Duffy's were basically as good as each other". Those two ideas need more seperation, I think.
  • the 2002 Samuel Johnson Prize for Non-Fiction, an award for non-fiction works: WP:MTAU and all, but I think most of our readers will have figured that one.
  • It was also shortlisted for the British Academy Book Prize for "accessible scholarly writing within the humanities and social sciences" in that award's second year: MOS:QUOTEPOV would axe the quote marks.
    Done.
  • It was also shortlisted for the British Academy Book Prize ... The judges for the British Academy Book Prize: a touch repetitious.
    Done
  • St George's Church reported that hundreds of people have come to visit after reading about it in Duffy's work: sequence of tenses: had come.
  • the English rural class: not sure even the hardest Marxist could defend the singular here.
    Done. Zinn rolls in his grave.
  • Playwright Alan Bennett listed The Voices of Morebath as a "key work" in 2005: Alan Bennett is certainly a leading light in his field, but this is a bit like citing Eamon Duffy's view of one of his plays -- what's his authority here? Key work for what? If it was a personal inspiration for a particular project, that would be another matter, but I'm not sure "famous person likes book" is necessarily notable in itself.
    I understand that it is certainly not enough to qualify as notable, but a leading British literary figure naming an academic monograph as one of his five "key works" strikes me as weighty enough to warrant mention.
    What exactly does "key work" mean in this context? One of his favourite books? An influential book upon his writing? What he considers to be one of the most important books on the Reformation? UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:51, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • pointing to the book as evidence that Duffy's works as have been focussed on exposing "Puritan propaganda".: something is awry here.
  • secularization: AmerE: secularisation in BrE (unless you're going to use Oxford spelling, and that way madness liez). See also Post-revisionist historians, such as Alec Ryrie, emphasize and, in the notes, popularized. I'd suggest doing a ctrl-f for "ize".
    I tagged this article as Oxford spelling from the outset (that seems to be the average among the sources I used), so I think it's ok to stay.
  • Moreau said that post-revisionists evaluated Dickens's thesis as not promoting a false conception that the religious revolution came "from the bottom": I've read this a couple of times and I'm not sure what it actually means. The multiple negatives don't help.
  • Lutton's argument promoted a theory of diverse pieties during this period: this is a bit academic-ese: there must be a more layman-friendly way to put "a theory of diverse pieties".
  • The Virginia Quarterly Review is put title-first by the template, so alphabetise under Notes.
  • Biblio: places of publication are inconsistent, as is whether to put state abbreviations after US placenames.
    The locations are not included for periodicals, web sources, and journals, but provided for books (as I believe is standard). I believe you're confusing the names of some of reviews (which themselves feature inconsistent abbreviations for Connecticut). ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:27, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes, you're right on the Connecticut abbreviation. Tucker 2007 has no location; the other two (Duffy 2001 and Moreau 2004) do. I think these are all the books cited -- as above, I'm a bit surprised that we're only citing two books other than the article's subject, and for that matter very few articles that aren't explicitly about the book itself. Is that really a reflection of its impact in printed scholarship? UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:42, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have gone through quite a bit of searching to wrestle up references to TVOM across other published works. While it's cited plenty, there's rarely engagement with the text at any level worthy of mention here (a surprisingly large number of citations merely use TVOM to reference statements about periodization or well-established facts). I've cited a couple monographs or reviews of other works that directly challenge or evaluate TVOM, but it's not like The Stripping of the Altars in terms of reopening a corner of scholarship. If you're aware of additional works I ought to reference, please let me know and I'll work on them. I've been transient these last two days, but will finish your comments tomorrow UTC. Thanks for your help! Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @UndercoverClassicist: Your patience has been greatly appreciated–my life has taken a number of left turns over the last week, so this review's goal of improving the article has become something of a brighter spot in the midst of the chaos. I have substantially reorganized the reception section to conform with your suggestion of a thematic organization. You were right: that really does improve the flow of that section. I also removed one of the shorter reviews from that section as likely undue (or, at the minimum, surplus). I have added a couple other works that engage with the impact of the book. Please offer any additional comments you can! ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the outstanding queries are the "key work" and the "Vicar of Bray" question -- did you manage to get to those? UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:30, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the "key work" bit a few days back because I felt you were right that there was little encyclopedic value. The Vicar of Bray thing has me a tad stumped. I agree that there's a conflict, and I think that's why Collinson initially made that point: Trychay, while ultimately compliant, had convictions that he was ultimately forced to surrender under duress. If you recommend an alteration that amplifies or otherwise improves that note, I'll gladly implement it! ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that puts me at a slightly tentative support: I'm happy at the moment to AGF that the book hasn't had much impact on other scholarly works, and can't find any evidence to shake my confidence in that, but then this isn't my field and I wouldn't necessarily expect to be able to turn up that evidence even if it did exist. It look as though the "Vicar of Bray" is going to have to remain unresolved, but I think the way we present it here is consistent with WP:DUEWEIGHT. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:11, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for more than three weeks and doesn't have a single support yet. Unless this changes the next few days, I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. FrB.TG (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: Thanks for the note. I'm still awaiting a reply from the only reviewer who has taken the time to comment at length. I don't know how to resolve this. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith

[edit]

This seems like an interesting topic and at first glance well-written, so I'm surprised it has attracted so little attention from reviewers. Let's see what I can do...

Background
[edit]
  • During this vicariate, England had four monarchs and Morebath transitioned from a conservative Catholic community rebelling against the government-imposed English Reformation into a village conforming to the Protestant Elizabethan Religious Settlement.[2][4][5][6][3] Why does it take five citations to support what appears to be a simple uncontroversial statement? See WP:OVERCITE.
    • Cut down to three. ~ Pbritti
      • In general, I'm a minimalist when it comes to citations. I'm not going to go through every one, but I encourage you to look on your own at them all and see if there are any places you use multiple cites which could reasonably covered with fewer.
        • I went through and removed a couple. As it stands, there are about 80 places where I've placed citations. Of these, 10 have multiple citations, with nine of those having two citations. I think a 1-in-8 presence of multiple citations is reasonable, but let me know if you want me to winnow it down a bit (this may require some slight adjustments to content). ~ Pbritti
  • Henry VIII (reigned to 1547) ... I suggest use of {{reign}} for a more compact presentation.
    • Done. Good call. ~ Pbritti
  • However, the strain of the Edwardian government's religious and financial demands proved the most trying: this seems like an odd construction here. The used of "however" and "most trying" implies a contrast/comparison to some preceding statement which doesn't really fit.
    • Dropped "However,". Reads far more cleanly. ~ Pbritti
  • Devon and Cornwall revolted with the implementation of 1549 Book of Common Prayer for the sake of readers not familiar with England, I'd add some context: "The counties of Devon and Cornwall ...". Also, "revolted against" instead of "revolted with" Or perhaps, "with the implementation of 1549 Book of Common Prayer, the counties of Devon and Cornwall revolted"
    • That's better. Done. ~ Pbritti
  • sponsored five of its men to join the doomed Prayer Book Rebellion at Exeter, again, add some context for unfamiliar readers: "... at the city of Exeter, 20 miles to the south".
    • Went with "nearby city". ~ Pbritti
  • he Accounts of the Wardens of the Parish of Morebath, Devon, 1520–1573 the full text is available at https://archive.org/details/accountswardens00weavgoog. I suggest adding a link (perhaps in an External links section).
    • Did this as a "Further reading" section. Good idea. ~ Pbritti
  • many of its archived records were destroyed in bombing raids on Exeter how did it come that the parish records were moved to Exeter?
    • Oh, I see, you explain in the next sentence. Why not present this in chronological order; first telling about Binney and the rebinding at the Exeter library, then following up with the bombing.
      • Good call. Done. ~ Pbritti

(more later)

Contents
[edit]
  • features 16 pages of front matter and 232 pages of body matter Maybe something a little less WP:PEACOCK than "features" (here and elsewhere)?
    • Done with the exception of the reference to the television appearance, as I believe that is conventional phrasing. ~ Pbritti
  • Duffy intended The Voices of Morebath to serve as a "pendant" for The Stripping of the Altars I'm not familiar with this use of "pendant". I don't see it mentioned in the OED either, so I assume this is a somewhat obscure use and worth an in-line explanation. I had to go back and figure out what The Stripping of the Altars was, so remind the reader, i.e. "his earlier volume ..." or something like that.
    • I added a parenthetical and a gloss. ~ Pbritti
  • The second impression I'm sure "impression" is correct, but "printing" would also be correct and more familiar to most readers.
    • Done. I was under the impression (no pun intended) that these were slightly different things. ~ Pbritti
  • In some places (throughout the article) you say "Morebath parish", in other places "Morebath's parish". Pick one and be consistent.
    • Made the latter the uniform usage. ~ Pbritti
  • In the aftermath, the parish was gutted of its ornamental items I'm not sure what that means. Did they sell the items to raise money for the rebellion, or did Royal authorities come and ransack the place in retribution?
    • I tried making that a bit clearer. ~ Pbritti
  • gladly embraced the duties and income of a second parish what does "second parish" mean?
    • In this context, literally a second parish came under his ministry. I adjusted that sentence to be a tad clearer. ~ Pbritti
Reception
[edit]
  • In his 2002 review for London Review of Books, Collinson contextualized The last we heard about Collinson was several sections back, so reintroduce him.
    • Done. ~ Pbritti
  • Duffy was awarded the Hawthornden Prize ... previous Hawthornden Prize winner, Graham Greene's novel In the first instance, you refer to the author as having won the prize, in the second, the book having won it. Which is correct?
    • The former. Done. ~ Pbritti
      • I'm confused. You still have "Duffy's book was awarded" but "previous Hawthornden Prize winner, Graham Greene", so still one is the book and the other is the author.
        • Whoops, sorry. Fixed for real this time. ~ Pbritti

As a general note, I'm wondering what makes Morebath so special that it got all these books written about it? Was there something about the parish which made it stand out from presumably hundreds (thousands?) of similar parishes? Or is it just that the vicar kept excellent records thus leaving something for future historians to work from?

Yeah that's the thrust of it. I tried pulling quotes that indicate this (eg "keyhole"). Let me know if you believe more has to be done to emphasize that. ~ Pbritti
OK, I see where you talk about this in paragraph 2 of Background, so perhaps that's fine. Let's see what other reviewers think. RoySmith (talk) 23:43, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy
[edit]
  • The French historian Jean-Pierre Moreau assessed both The Stripping of the Altars and The Voices of Morebath as among the revisionist works by English historians of the English Reformation. something's not right with this sentence. I think it's missing a word somewhere, but not sure what.
    • I think I just wrote a clunky sentence. I have rewritten it for clarity. ~ Pbritti

OK, that does it for a first read-through from me. RoySmith (talk) 23:41, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff
[edit]

Why do you have several references with "[Untitled]" instead of a title?

The JSTOR formatting indicated those titles as untitled works. While I think that book citations aren't really titles for reviews, I've put them in to maintain consistency and prevent any untitled citations. ~ Pbritti
The JSTOR links (and doi) are "nice to have", but the core citation is to the journal title, volume, issue, pages, date, author, and item title, just like you would find it in a traditional dead-tree card catalog, so yeah, that needs to be correct.
To clarify, I'm fairly certain that the dead-tree formatting, at least as indicated when I searched those sources where it was present, was some variation of "[Untitled]" or an auto-populated "Review of XYZ" that didn't correspond with the heading in the original source. I've removed the "[Untitled]" in favor of rendering the citations for the reviewed works that precede the reviews as titles. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:05, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many aspects of this are outside my field of expertise (English history, religion, literary review) so I am unable to comment on the comprehensiveness or quality of the research. But it's a good read for a non-expert audience so support based on the quality of the prose. RoySmith (talk) 10:39, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ippantekina

[edit]

Non-expert review; I'm pretty keen on reading history.

  • I would suggest other words rather than "noted" per MOS:SAID
    • Done.
  • the book was appraised as overly complex for the broad audience it had been written and marketed towards appraised by whom? And maybe shorten it to "... the broad audience that Duffy had intended it for"
    • I have attributed this to reviewers, but this is a summary of reviews that comment on both Duffy and the publisher.
  • Sir Christopher Trychay[note 1] was vicar of Morebath for 54 years, from 1520 to 1574 link vicar here instead
    • Done.
  • I'm unsure how you organised the "Reception" section as it currently reads like a collection of disparate reviews of who said what; I'd suggest a more thematic approach to the section
    • The first paragraph is for commentary on the practical elements of the book (size, price, readability). The second paragraph is positive reviews that contextualize the work with contemporary scholarship. The third paragraph is criticisms based on the limited source material, with the fourth being more positive appraisals of Duffy's treatment of this limitation. The last three paragraphs address the work's place in the field of microhistory.
  • Same concern for the Academic legacy section.
  • Harv errors for the two book sources in "Further reading".
    • I do not see these errors. The books in that section do not utilize the harv template.

Ippantekina (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ippantekina: Thanks for your review! I've worked through what I saw, but I think you may need to assist me in identifying the harv error, as I have tried figuring out what you're referring to but have been unable to locate an issue. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti: thanks for addressing my comments! I checked again and fixed my common.js and the harv errors are gone :) so no action needed from your side. Support on prose -- overall it was a good read about (to me) a niche topi, great work! If you are keen, I would greatly appreciate any feedback from you for my current FAC, but I understand if it is not of your interest. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I'll swing by that review once I wrap up reviewing responses to my comments on another editor's FAC. Looking forward to comparing Evermore to your other great TS work. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

I am not sure that the sparse use of the book itself is sufficient; on an article about a work I'd expect the work to be cited more frequently. I am also wondering about the logic between which works get a page number and which don't. Selwood 2018 should probably be marked as dead link. Are Guardian editorials reliable sources? Did some sparse spotchecking. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:11, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Citing the book itself would be WP:PRIMARY and opens the door to WP:UNDUE, which is why I avoided it on my previous FA on a book. Guardian editorials are fine to establish basic facts and indicate societal impact. Journal articles don't typically receive page numbers in citations but rather have page ranges listed in the bibliography. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:14, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this argument passes muster under the WIAFA comprehensiveness criteria - the book is the most reliable source for the book's own contents, and while sometimes there is the question of how much WP:WEIGHT to accord to any of its points, when it comes to plot summaries etc. that's not so important. The tendency of secondary sources to omit stuff or get things wrong because they are second-hand matters more in this context. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not inherently true, especially when the majority of sources utilized here are from peer-reviewed book reviews and reviews from highly reputable sources. Looking at other 2020s FAs on non-fiction works, there are zero primary-source references in The May Pamphlet and four in Why Marx Was Right. There is very little of encyclopedic value that can only be referenced to the book itself; if it's worth having on Wikipedia, it's almost certainly readily available in an RS (especially in such a widely and diversely reviewed work like this). I addressed the issue on Selwood. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Why Marx Was Right has an entire section sourced to the book itself. The synopsis section, which is exactly the type of section where one expects the primary source to be used. Not a counterexample. The May Pamphlet's synopsis section seems to be at times more analysis than synopsis. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:17, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a minor thing, but Why Marx Was Right technically breaks WP:PLOTSOURCE, in that it gives a synopsis of a non-fiction book without actually including citations -- in theory, PLOTSOURCE applies only to works of fiction. I have elsewhere raised the prospect of changing it to apply more broadly, and that didn't get much traction: there was at least a strong body of opinion that the current exemption is too broad. However, it would be easy enough to simply add footnotes with the page numbers relevant to the bits we're summarising. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see adding citations to TVOM that correspond with the portions discussed by other sources, but that runs contrary to RoySmith and his OVERCITE guidance and the guidance I received while working on Free and Candid Disquisitions. As such, I'm flatly saying that I will not be adding more PRIMARY citations unless a specific instance where one is needed is presented. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, definitively can't pass this one under "comprehensiveness" then. The rest works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I think your review would benefit from identifying an instance where the article is not comprehensive in its sourcing. If you believe that it should cite the book itself, it does that three times (without violating WP:PLOTSOURCE). If you believe coverage of the book's contents is incomplete, we should be able to identify how. You should articulate how this is definitively not comprehensive. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:43, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like you are using the book itself as a source only in footnote 5. One would expect it to be used a few times in the contents section too - by default, the book is the best source for the book's own contents. Sometimes you can cover everything with secondary sources too but in my experience, people doing that neglect to check whether that's enough and often assume that the secondary sources accurately reflect the primary source when that's not guaranteed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get the impression that if I had the exact same section sourced exclusively to the book, you would have not raised this concern. However, that runs contradictory to PLOTSOURCE. I have instead sought highly reliable sources that were carefully selected so that the book's contents were well summarized. The book is cited in those notes on the small occasions where secondary sources were insufficient in their coverage of the book's contents and where Duffy's own words were needed to provide greater detail. If you believe some element of the book is not adequately covered by the article, please identify it. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I get the impression that if I had the exact same section sourced exclusively to the book, you would have not raised this concern." That's indeed true, because the problem is exactly that you are using the wrong kind of source for this type of content. Sources aren't always equivalent. It also opens the risk of incompleteness. Did you compare these sources to the book, to verify that they aren't getting anything wrong or omitting anything important? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:12, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did. And it's not true that I used the wrong source. Policy opposes nonfiction books being the primary sources on their own content. There is no equivalent for WP:PLOTSOURCE for nonfiction that suggests that one has to cite the book. You should cite a policy or guideline, as you seem absolutely certain that there's something indicating what the "right kind of source" is here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Featured article criteria 1c aka the completeness criterium: "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;" I do not agree that omitting the book itself as a source gets you a thorough and representative survey of anything. This is one of the looser criteria because in practice, nobody has the stamina to conduct such research, but in this case, it should be possible. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:59, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't read that the same way you do, I think. As such, I think we're at an impasse here but I'm glad you reviewed the other sources. Thank you for your contributions to this review and I understand if you still disagree with my reading of the criteria on comprehensiveness. Best of luck with your current FAC, which I read and was very impressed with. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:18, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates&oldid=1325968734"