Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

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

This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page. Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ. Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, David Fuchs and FrB.TG—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators: actionable objections have not been resolved; consensus for promotion has not been reached; insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or a nomination is unprepared. It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and  Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed. An editor is 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:

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

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

Nominations

Masters of Doom

Nominator(s): GamerPro64 01:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

In 2003, author David Kushner's book "Masters of Doom: How Two Guys Created an Empire and Transformed Pop Culture" would be published. Its about the history of id Software and its co-founders John Carmack and John Romero, from the early years, the development of 1993s landmark hit Doom (1993 video game), to the eventual firing of Romero and the rise and fall of his company Ion Storm. And since its publishing it was become one of the most well known books on video game history and has even been influential on the creation of Reddit and Oculus VR.

This is my first time nominating a book for Featured Article but I think it has what it takes to be considered one. GamerPro64 01:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• I see a bunch of uncited statements, MOS:SANDWICH issues, and the article feels short to me --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 06:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• I would echo Guerillero above, and note that MOS:PLOTSOURCE (which allows for the plot summaries of fictional books to be uncited, with the assumption that they are cited to the book itself) doesn't technically cover non-fiction books (though this may be a discussion worth starting). For a first nomination, a mentor and a peer review are, I would argue, indispensible, and I would advise withdrawing this for the moment, opening a peer review and approaching one of our many experienced pop-culture nominators as a mentor -- there is certainly a path to FA for this one, but I think it would be wise to take the first few steps before actually opening the nomination. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

SoHo Weekly News

Nominator(s): RoySmith (talk) 23:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

This article is about an alternative weekly paper that existed in the late 1970s and early 1980s in New York. Offbeat and flakey but at the same time a serious force in NYC journalism with a major influence in the burgeoning punk rock scene. Ultimately a financial failure, SWN left a reputation and history far beyond what its circulation figures would suggest. I've been working on this on and off for seven years and finally found the energy for the final push to FAC standards. Enjoy. RoySmith (talk) 23:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Rollinginhisgrave

More to come:

• which at the time was just starting
• there have been arguments made that its coverage of local culture and business This reads as a bit cagey, can you attribute it better, for instance "some retrospectives have argued"
• "was particularly strong, with the paper being particular well known" Use of particularly a bit repetitive, and conjoining using "with" could be improved by simply saying "and the paper was".
• "Many of the staff went on to have illustrious careers" and "Many staff at the paper had storied careers after the paper shut down" feels repetitive, especially given they appear within three sentences of each other.
• "ground-breaking" appears a bit peacocky, I think the general Wikipedia treatment of this language is "influential" or equivalent.
• Bruce Weber got his start photographing male fashion models with a ground-breaking SWN photo story showing an underwear-clad male model in erotic poses. The temporality of this is a bit strange as every other item has been what people did after, and this is what Weber did during the newspaper's run.
• founded in 1973
• Michael Goldstein (1938–2018) MOS:BIRTHDATE advises "Beyond the first paragraph of the lead section, birth and death details should only be included after a name if there is special contextual relevance." I believe it should be excluded unless his age at founding is explicitly described as significant.
• "his last $800" to fund operations
• it grew to over 100 pages and competed with The Village Voice. In the lead you say "Positioned as a competitor to The Village Voice", I think these have different implications. In the former, it is marketing and may imply they didn't actually compete.
• Could you archive "Advertising: SoHo News Aiming at The Voice"? Same with ": Elinor Fuchs, a Leading Scholar of the American Stage, Is Dead at 91"
• the earliest issues showed the address of Goldstein's apartment on nearby Broome Street on the masthead I'm a little unclear on how the sources given verify this
• What do you believe makes ephemeralnewyork.wordpress.com a HQRS?
• The New York Times reported that SWN was the second largest English-language weekly in the city It reported that Goldstein said it was the second largest English-language weekly and that he said it sold at 400 newsstands.
• Because this is contested within the piece and only attributed to Goldstein, it should be removed from the infobox if this is the only source (sorry if more information is further down)
• "hire three more and double both circulation and advertising revenue by the end of the year" I don't think it's interesting that a newspaper says they would like to grow, and I think it can be trimmed to "was looking to expand".
• "In a 2020 interview, Kim Hastreiter spoke with Paper magazine" This needs to note that Hastreiter was staff

Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 01:56, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• "which helped drive up rents" -> which Petrus argued helped...
• Who is Jim Stratton? I don't really understand this bit, you can more clearly establish how he is responding to SWN rather than New York Magazine.
• What is Artful Dodger? Was this simply a column within the newspaper? If so, maybe omit the name and give a better description of the column? (e.g. lifestyle)
• You can use Template:sndash for 1975 – 1982
• "Richard Kostelanetz noted that..." this could be made more concise by reorganizing as Richard Kostelanetz contrasted... with"
• "Ronnie Cooke, Stephen Saban, Lesley Vinson, Megan Haungs". I don't think these names are worth mentioning in an article on SoHo weekly rather than Details. For one, I am not 100% convinced these are all intended to be understood as ex-staffers.
• "off the ground" MOS:IDIOM
• as a photojournalist producing should photojournalist be followed by a comma?
• "Fashion photographer Bruce Weber's" given we have introduced Weber in full as photography staff in the previous paragraph, another full introduction seems unnecessary and clunky.
• "flagrantly erotic" Muschamp is describing this from the perspective of the masses, not his own.
• The "legend" quote is quite confusing out of the context of the piece. "[now] legend" would render it more clearly I think, although still imperfectly.
• MOS:SAID for "noting", particularly around the idea that the photographs "legitimized the male form as a sexualized object for the mainstream". If that's true, they should get a stand-alone page!
• "background in the rock ′n’ roll world" this can be expressed in prose without needing quotes.
• In a 2020 interview Kim Hastreiter spoke → "Kim Hastreiter later spoke"
• Having now read the sources for "the paper [is] particular well known for its early coverage of the punk rock band the Ramones." I believe it needs to be adjusted, I don't think any sources discuss what it the paper is known for today in this context and the relationship with the Ramones in particular is the focus of neither.
• Now having read the sources for this section in general, it feels padded. The Talking Heads interview doesn't appear to be DUE, given it doesn't appear to have received any secondary coverage. I think it can be summarized in two sentences, the blockquote from the Video Lounge exhibit also just features a mention.
• In 2023, The New York Times noted that SWN's greatest success was in the 1970s and its demise in 1982 gave the Eye an opportunity to '[peak] in influence". My opinion here is that this sentence should be split. The description of the peak should be put as context in the intro of #Decline and shutdown, and The Eye taking over some of the market position should be put at the end of the section, in the description of legacy.

I'm going to pause here. Right now I'm at an oppose. The impression I get while reading is that there wasn't much sourcing and that you've had to piece what you could together from primary sources; the incidents section seems particularly affected by this. I'm happy to assist at peer review if so desired. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 06:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

2021 World Figure Skating Championships

Nominator(s): Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

The 2021 World Figure Skating Championships were held during the COVID-19 pandemic. As such, this article has a lot more background material than a typical skating competition. While I have never submitted an article to FA, I have shepherded several through the Featured List process. 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) 23:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

William Arthur Ganfield

Nominator(s): PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

This article is the fifth on a Centre College president that I've brought to FAC - this one is about a man who, despite his relatively brief stint in office (six years), had quite the impact on the school. William Arthur Ganfield was a minister in Iowa and Wisconsin when he was elected president of Centre in 1915. He restored the college's ties to the Presbyterian Church, thereby helping to solve Centre's ongoing enrollment and financial issues. He was a large supporter of athletics at both Centre and Carroll University, where he was president for nearly eighteen years; he was in office (and in attendance) for Centre's major upset victory over Harvard in 1921, and he later hired a Centre alum to coach Carroll's football and basketball programs to conference championships. The article underwent a GA review from It is a wonderful world last month. Any and all comments/suggestions will be greatly appreciated! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria Done, thank you for pointing out. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

English invasion of Scotland (1385)

Nominator(s): —Fortuna, imperatrix 21:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

England: A boy king who wants to be his daddy. An invading army that starts fighting itself before it even reaches the border. Stays two weeks, then goes home. Hungry and broke.

Scotland: French allies who are hated. The French plunder their ally's land and moan about being ripped off. The Scottish continue to rip off the French. The Scottish then hold the French leader to ransom.

Just another day in Anglo-Scottish/French politics. What could possibly go wrong?

I think this is now ready for promotion, and I look forward to your suggestions for improvement. —Fortuna, imperatrix 21:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed, but it might benefit from a map? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Nikki; working on a FIM-do-you-know-what-it-is-yet Special as we speak :) —Fortuna, imperatrix 10:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

A map would be good, but could it possibly include both current and contemporary borders as a couple of then English possessions mentioned are now in Scotland. I don't know how easy it would be to get the Solway Firth coastline from that era, but I'd be surprised if Carlisle was as far from the sea in those days. ϢereSpielChequers 08:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Source review

Recusing to review. This looks up my street. I'll start with a source review and then see how it is getting on generally.

• Article titles should be standardised on either title or sentence case, regardless of hte style of the originals. Similarly for the titles of books.

Check.

• "in return for knight service of forty days a year." Can a better source not be found than one 120+ years old?

Might rid of the whole footnote to be honest. It's somewhat adjacent to the topic, and theer's a link for tose wishing tyo indulge in esotericisms. What think ye.

• "The city was heavily pillaged and fired, leading the 18th-century antiquarian Robert Chambers to comment that Edinburgh "suffered its full share of calamities attendant upon these disastrous wars"." What makes Chambers a high-quality source? (Or even a RS?)

Meh. He's good enough to make a point that's now supported by a modern HQRS.

• No Wikilinks for authors?

Don't think I ever have. Likewise book URLs.

• "with one mind ... complaining grievously". The MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.
• Gillespie, 1997. Where you say vol, do you mean chapter?

No. But that was there since the GA review in 2018; wierd.

• Cite 78 - wonderful. :-)

Jenny Wormald?!

• "Jean Froissart, on the other hand, says that ..." Froissart needs introducing.

Done, +source.

• "According to Froissart, the invaders raids on the wealthy bishoprics of Carlisle and Durham, gained them more than was held within the whole Kingdom of Scotland." Well now. I assume you insert "According to Froissart" because the statement is so unreliable that the source distances it even more, with 'so the French said'? I am unsure that we need to give any credence to French boasts/denigrations of their allies. Especially when both the source and you feel a need to distance themselves from stating this as a fact. And even more so when almost any reader of the article wouldn't realise that it wasn't a fact.

Replaced with "claims"; added footnote re. reliability.

• "What Prussian march is this to which our Admiral has taken us?" Not IMO helpful to a reader, who is likely to misunderstand both Prussian and march.

Ah. As it it goes, no-one knows what that it is. Probably the Rhine I guess, but I would've thought the wine would've made up for its Prussian-ness.

• "This was a similar attitude to the English, whom Froissart writes in contempt for their poverty-stricken uncouthness." I am unsure what you are saying here. That the French had a similar contempt for the English as for the Scots? And why are we citing Froissart in line rather than using Wikipedia's voice?

Froissart was saying that the English and the French shared similar attitudes towards the Scots. Still, I've removed it as while it's relevant that the French looked down on their (so-called) allies, it's pretty par for the course for an invading army to feel that way towards the enemy (as in, the former is man biting dog, whereas the latter is dog biting man). And that para is about Francoo-Scots activities, so what the English thought is in any case rather out of place.

A quick skim. More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Gog, have responded to your points, except the one that relies on BHO (only temporarily, I hope, but it's being crap at the moment. It's a shame that their recent 'upgrade' made the thing look all so smart and modern, but also broke half the bloody links...) —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

On edit: Yeah; on further consideration, I've abridged some of the notes and removed others. Also considering whether some of fn. 15 could be folded into the text and the rest removed. —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Queries by WereSpielChequers

That was an interesting read, thanks for writing it. I've made a few tweaks hope you like them.

I'm not sure of the timeline in "Three days before reaching Edinburgh Richard received news from London that his mother, Joan, Countess of Kent—with whom he was very close—had died the previous day.[3][note 16] That night most of Edinburgh was set alight," That's some very fast communication between Berkshire, London and southern Scotland. Did they have some form of heliograph? If Edinburgh was set alight while Richard was three days away, does that mean that the English vanguard was travelling that many days ahead of the army or did the Scots burn Edinburgh themselves?

The Scottish counter attack would benefit from a route map. Hard to see how they would ravage Cumberland and also "almost reaching Carlisle." as there really isn't much of Cumberland between Carlisle and Scotland. I get that they headed South from Edinburgh, but "they could launch a counterattack in the east" doesn't make sense to me. The western end of the border is the most southerly place in Scotland, but I could understand it being described as " they could launch a counterattack in the west". Reading between the lines I suspect the army stopped outside Carlisle but sent raiding parties to ravage further into England, devastating Cumberland. But it reads that Carlisle was the furthest point they reached, almost as if the invasion was from westmoorland or Furness.

"The destruction in Carlisle was such that the following year's taxes were commuted to a £200 lump sum in acknowledgement, as the Exchequer writ puts it, of "the great mischiefs and destructions which are done to and inflicted on the people of the holy church and the commons of the county of Cumberland by the invasions of our enemies of Scotland"." Wouldn't destruction in Cumberland be more apt as Carlisle seems to have been the one bit of Cumberland that held out? Was this a reference to the whole county by referring to its county town?

Re "Men would serve, and to just serve not merely cum servitio debito but quanto potentius poteritis." What reading age are we aiming for? I've done a tiny bit of Latin and from the context I think I know what is meant, but links for those phrases would help if you are using such Latin terms that are almost archaic in modern English. ϢereSpielChequers 08:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln

Nominator(s): ErnestKrause (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC), Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

This article is about the 16th president Abraham Lincoln. It is a co-nomination with Nikkimaria and is the 4th time that this page has been nominated. A previous 2004 FAC nomination of the article was successful though it was delisted a year or two after that. Two further FAC nominations over the years also did not succeed. The current nomination is a significantly trimmed and condensed version of the Lincoln biography which previously had reached over 200Kb in system size, though now significantly condensed in system size. Looking forward to comments and criticisms from editors interested in this president. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• Who isn't interested in Lincoln?! But what an effort, magisterial, congratualations to all responsible parties! —Fortuna, imperatrix 21:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Drive-by comment: This is a great article! I don’t have enough time to give a full review, but I noticed quite a few images don’t have alt text. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe it’s recommended for every image to have at least some kind of alt text, so adding some would probably be for the best. Nice job overall, however — Crystal Drawers (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

One comment: How about including a sentence in "Health and appearance" on what his voice was described as? LittleJerry (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I haven't generally seen such a thing included, unless you think it is particularly noteworthy in this case? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

It found it discussed here. I think its important since was a prominent public speaker. LittleJerry (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Added. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

UC

This is impressive indeed. Some nitpicky comments follow -- I'm not at all qualified to pronounce on the history.

• calling for "malice toward none; with charity for all" in his second inaugural address.: with the semicolon, this is slgihtly ungrammatical. Could do "malice toward none" with "charity for all"? However, that starts to look like scare quotes, so this might be an acceptable sacrifice.
• There are a couple of quotations which need to be attributed intext, per MOS:QUOTE: see They settled in an "unbroken forest" in Little Pigeon Creek Community, Indiana. (and here consider MOS:QUOTEPOV) and Thomas and Nancy were members of a Separate Baptist Church, which "condemned profanity, intoxication, gossip, horse racing, and dancing." Most of its members opposed slavery. (to which the same may apply).
• When Lincoln was a teen, his "father grew more and more to depend on him for the 'farming, grubbing, hoeing, making fences' necessary to keep the family afloat: I think teenager is better than teen in formal writing, though this may be my antediluvian British sensibilities. The quote, however, certainly needs attribution on two levels -- I would be tempted to paraphrase the first but be clear who said "farming, grubbing" etc -- was it Lincoln Sr.?
• another milk sickness outbreak: hyphenate as a compound modifier. I must admit I don't totally understand this -- our article says that milk sickness is caused by drinking milk from a cow that has eaten a poisonous plant -- so presumably doesn't break out in the same way as e.g. flu?
• Abraham became increasingly distant from Thomas, in part due to his father's lack of interest in education; he would later refuse to attend his father's deathbed or funeral: is it worth giving a sense of how much later this was?
• Could we give Ann Rutledge a brief introduction -- how old was she, for example? How did she die?
• Suggest moving the link on "new homestead" to cover the "a", following the MoS guidance (I forget where) for similar piped links.
• the leader of ruffians known as the Clary's Grove boys: needs a group of ruffians or similar.
• Pace the eponymous article, "Lincoln–Berry General Store" should have an endash, not a hyphen ("Lincoln and Berry", per MOS:DASH).
• I think it would be helpful to set out briefly what a Whig was on first mention. Did Lincoln declare any political positions in his first, unsuccessful, campaign?

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Tim McGraw (song)

Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 03:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

This article is about a country music song that is named after one country musician and performed by another (ex-country) musician. I think this article is ready for the bronze star, and I would appreciate any and all inputs regarding its candidature. Many thanks in advance, Ippantekina (talk) 03:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• "....in 2004—the youngest signee in its history, and a...." - the clause starts with a dash but ends with a comma.....?
• "Swift spent four months near the end of 2005 to record her debut album" => "Swift spent four months near the end of 2005 recording her debut album"
• "classic hits such as Dolly Parton's "I Will Always Love You" (1974), the Marvelettes' "Please Mr. Postman" (1961), or Hoagy Carmichael's "Heart and Soul" (1938)" => "classic hits such as Dolly Parton's "I Will Always Love You" (1974), the Marvelettes' "Please Mr. Postman" (1961), and Hoagy Carmichael's "Heart and Soul" (1938)"
• "as well as that the refrain is built on repetitions of the initial short motif" => "as well as the fact that the refrain is built on repetitions of the initial short motif"
• That's what I got up to the end of "Music". I will return to look at the rest later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Philippines at the 1924 Summer Olympics

Nominator(s): Arconning (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

The Philippines first competed at the 1924 Summer Olympics in Paris, which marked their debut and the debut of any Southeast Asian nation. Some interesting facts include that the flagbearer had to carry two flags as the nation was still occupied by the US, the nation initially had to compete for the US even after becoming a member of the IOC, and two of the three initial athletes dropped out from competing.

My second FAC, shall respond to all comments, trying to improve the quality of the niche and infamous world of Olympic-participation articles. Yours truly, Arconning (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

CMD

Well done researching and putting all of this together, it seems a hard topic to find resources on.

• The lead wording on the shift from the HAAU to the Far Eastern Athletic Association read to me like they shifted from the HAAU to the latter due to the letter. However, the body makes it clear the Philippines was already a member of the PAAF, and thus they simply dropped participation in the HAAU. There's also something missing in this story, the article asserts "Philippine athletes had to qualify as athletes for the United States' Olympic team through trials hosted by the Amateur Athletic Union". "Its participation as a separate entity at the Olympic Games was then organized by the PAAF" does not explain how it transitioned away from this situation. Was Quezon negotiating with the United States, or with the IOC, or both? Was it already possible within the IOC for the Far Eastern Athletic Association to bring participation?
  • Rewording for less confusion as I may have misinterpreted some of the sourcing, sent an email as well. :)
• It is also unclear how the Philippines joined the IOC in 1918, but did not have an NOC until 1929.
  • Sent an email to the Olympic Studies Centre to clarify, though other nations have competed without an NOC such as Italy at the 1896 Summer Olympics and Switzerland at the 1896 Summer Olympics. The AOA was already recognized by the IOC so I seem its plausible that they didn't need to recognize the PAAF as it was still part of the AOA at the time.
• I'm not sure about the repeated use of occupation here, given the possible reading as a very temporary governance. It is a word used for the Philippines, although more for the earlier period of rule pre-Jones Act. The wording however is very odd when used as a comparison to Canada or Ireland. In 1924 both were "Dominions", a term with some legal wrangling, but certainly in the Ireland case they asserted (and assert, as many discussions on Wikipedia have established) effective independence from 1922.
  • Changed! It's quite odd, I agree, the competitors word it as such and I wouldn't want to misrepresent it + might be an issue of WP:OR if I did. Though I'll try to word it better if you'll ask me further. :)
• Any idea why Olympedia has ? for the flagbearer?
  • No idea... the report is devoid of any information regarding the flagbearers so I assume they had to use newspapers and/or other print sources to verify the flagbearers and did not find any regarding the Philippines'.
• The quote by Nepomuceno about his experiences is reading to me not specifically about his time "at the games", but rather about the seemingly awful travel experience needed to reach it.
  • Moved.
• Speaking of the quote, it seems odd there's no section on legacy. This was the first Olympics for the Philippines, and they participated almost continuously since, which is in some of the sources and seems worth mentioning. (There is also possibly some legacy for racial representation and decolonization, I'm seeing vague google snippets, but if it's not in the sources you've seen the snippets may be misleading me.)
  • Added some information, could you supply some of the sources you're talking about so I can expand if I find something... relevant!

CMD (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis Here's what I got for now, let me know if you have some more comments. :) Arconning (talk) 10:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis Got a reply from the Studies Centre! The participation of athletes back then relied on the Organizing Committee of the 1924 Summer Games rather than an NOC, which meant that NOCs weren't mandatory for an athlete's participation, hope that clears up the second point. For the first point, let me know if I've written it... better. :) Arconning (talk) 11:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Caerleon pipe burial

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

This article is about how to carry on drinking after death with the help of a lead pipe. I am indebted to Richard Nevell for a thorough GAN review, help with sources and suggestions for improvement. It's been a couple of years since I've been here, so apologies in advance if I've missed any changes in requirements Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• Keith is missing alt text

• File:Sir_Arthur_Keith.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria, thanks. Alt text added and replaced image source with working link. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

  Looking at that link, it doesn't appear to align with the tagging? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:28, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria, thanks, retagged. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

  If the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Ditto date? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria, thanks, I'll remove the image Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

UC

I have taught about this burial many times -- I didn't even know it had an article, so it's particularly wonderful to see it

A couple of quick points on a quick scan:

• Anything in a non-English language needs to be in a lang template -- that goes for Latin and for Welsh. In general, we should translate when we can: see Cair Legeion guar Uisc and Ultra Pontem.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Samian ware" is an outdated and misleading term; it's known as terra sigillata these days.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• We have an uncited sentence about the quantity of cremains found with the burial.

• Got lost in transit, added Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• Per MOS:HONORIFIC, don't include e.g. "Professor", "FRS", etc with someone's name -- just Alice Roberts, Mortimer Wheeler etc.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• British English doesn't like false titles ("archaeologist Mortimer Wheeler") -- we can do "the archaeologist Mortimer Wheeler", "Mortimer Wheeler, an archaeologist" or similar.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• What's with the superscript in the Evans and Alcock citations?

• Page number where the journal article is particularly long. I've seen this before, is it deprecated now? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh -- that's the cited page? I've never seen that before: using a SFN would solve it altogether; you could otherwise use the RP template, but that would need to be a consistent style throughout the article. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:30, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: thanks for taking a look, I'll work my way through. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Now for the bigger stuff, I'm afraid:

• Reference formatting is quite inconsistent -- are titles written in sentence or title case? Are initials formatted as e.g. CW Blegen, C W Blegen or (my personal preference) C. W. Blegen?

• Title case an Smith J K style now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• The bibliography title "cited texts" seems inaccurate, as there are lots of texts cited that don't make it there. In all honesty, I'm struggling to pick out a logical distinction between those cited wholly inline and those in the bibliography, but would strongly suggest moving (at least) all books and journal articles to the biblio. Some people like to keep websites and ephemera where it's not possible to give an author and date in the notes only.

• I have only put sources with references to more than on section in "Cited texts". I've regularly done this without comment, for example my 2023 FA Red-throated wryneck has the two Gorman books in that section. Unless MoS now prescribes it, I see no reason to change that. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

The MoS doesn't specifically prescribe any citation style, but I'd observe that this one is likely to be opaque to almost any reader, and I must admit that I can't see the logic in it -- what makes a source mentioned twice, in two different sections, more prominent or honestly different to one cited four times in one section? As I've noted above, using footnote-only references when you also want to specify individual pages has caused you some problems, and forced you into a very opaque style of notation which I wouldn't expect many readers to understand. That's an FACR problem, even if the citation style itself isn't. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:28, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• More generally, the weight and nature of the sources gives me a little pause. We're really leaning on two big academic works (Roberts and M. Wheeler), with what would seem like two major sources relegated to Further Reading. FAs need to be comprehensive: if there's good material in there, they should be used fully and brought into the biblio. Conversely, a lot of the sources we do use don't seem to be particularly high quality: introductory summaries by Historic England and Cadw, Caerleon.net, and museum records that state things like scientific investigations done on the objects -- which we would expect to be taken from an academic publication, and to have more information available there.

• I've removed the further reading, partly because I have no access to either of the Tessa Wheeler sources, and also because they're about the amphitheatre, not the burial. I tried to find the scientific investigations, but without success, but I'm unclear why a national museum isn't seen as a reliable soure for work that presumably it commissioned. @UndercoverClassicist:, perhaps you could clarify before I plough on with the remainder of your comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

See my reply to Richard below -- it's not that the source is unreliable, it's the balance between high-quality reliable sources (with emphasis on the high) and those which would certainly be considered reliable but may not represent the top end of scholarship in the field. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:26, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

It's possible that the analysis exists only as a grey literature report somewhere and wasn't published in a journal. I had a (brief) look and couldn't surface anything through Google. Richard Nevell (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• A quick look on Google Books for "Caerleon Pipe Burial" gave me quite a lot of unused sources:
  • This one briefly discusses the burial in relation to whether the living visited the site (using it as evidence in favour), and whether it can be called military (no).
  • This one and this one have useful context on this burial alongside other pipe burials elsewhere; we currently talk about other British examples, but otherwise only say that others exist, with times and places unspecified.
  • Similarly, Keith Hopkins here talks a little about the why of pipe burial, with reference to Caerleon (and a kind if pointed word for Wheeler).
  • I can't get the full text on Google Books, but this one discusses the burial at length.
    • The book is available via the Internet Archive, but I don't think Boon adds anything new and is summarising what is covered elsewhere (I'm not looking at the source right now as I'm on my phone so can't be 100% confident, but thought it worth mentioning). Richard Nevell (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
      • Ah, good find. I was including the source here as an illustration ("there are more out there that we're not using yet"), rather than because it had something specific -- but Boon does talk about what was poured down the pipe as libations, endorses the age and gender of the burial, and gives a more precise findspot than we have. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• • • • • I've added from those sources what appears to be additional to the existing content Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• • There's an important footnote to the archaeological investigation of the burial here, on JSTOR.
• Another thing -- I realise that I took a photograph of the real thing a little while ago: you can find it here. It's not the greatest, but might be worth adding so that readers can see what it actually looks like.

• Thanks, UndercoverClassicist, cropped the image and added Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

At the moment, I'm not sure we're quite up to the FA standards of comprehensiveness and detail, though it's unquestionably a good article and a really nice introduction to a fascinating find. I think this might be a case where bringing a pre-FAC mentor (noting the comment in the nomination about standards having changed, which I'm sure is very true) on board would have made the process easier, and would suggest poking through some recent archaeological FAs to get an idea of the level of detail and general "meat" we normally find in them. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

As I suggested the Cadw source, it seems only fair that I explain why I think it's suitable. As a Cadw guidebook it's a high-quality and accessible summary of Caerleon. I can't speak for how Cadw do things, but English Heritage send their guides for peer review and are a similar quality, and the guidebook is cited by other sources. The guidebook is not the definitive work on Caerleon, but is reliable and I think it is suitable for providing context, particularly as a source for an uncontroversial statement like "Although there are no extant visible traces of the burial sites that lay along the roads leading to the fortress, numerous tombstones and cremation graves have been recovered". Richard Nevell (talk) 09:00, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's a bad source, but we expect FAs to be primarily sourced to high-quality, high-detail works by academics, with perhaps a couple of other reliable sources (e.g. newspapers, guidebooks, quality websites, doctoral theses) cited where those add something that can't be replicated elsewhere. My impression of the sources here is that the balance is the other way: most of the sources are general-audience works, often written by heritage bodies rather than research academics. I note, for example, that while Roberts is unquestionably an authority in her field, Buried is a mass-market work, and will doubtless be built upon more specialised and generally "nerdy" scholarly publications: I'd generally expect an FA to be primarily engaging with those directly. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:16, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

A guidebook falls comfortably in the category of a general work designed for the public rather than specialists. All the same it's worth noting that research is an important part of Cadw's work and Jeremy Knight (the author of the guidebook) was an Inspector of Ancient Monuments, and has written numerous research papers and academic books. Richard Nevell (talk) 09:35, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist and Richard Nevell: I've made use of the Bank Holiday to address the points made above, as well as those from Nikkimaria above and Tim Riley below. Thanks you both for the time and effort you've put in. I've incorporated from the sources what seems to add value to the text, rather than basically rephrase what is already there. I have no problem using Cadw, English Heritage or the Museum as sources. It would be nice to get under the skin, for example with the museum's scientific tests, but inability to do so doesn't, in my opinion at least, lessen the credibity of what they are claiming Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: For your first link above, the text I can see in full is about Anglo-Saxon graves, I can only see snippet view for the pipe burial bit. Neither Wheeler nor Roberts mention a sacrificial table, and the presence of the pipe suggests that people visited the cemeteries, as does the Roman funerary customs. Perhaps you can access more text than me, but as it stands, I'm struggling a bit with this source. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've found a source, will add Ellis et al shortly Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: I've now replaced the Caerleon.net ref with the Wheelers' paper Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

What a pleasing article! A few quibbles before I sign on the dotted line to support promotion to FA:

• "In 1927, building works on a site" – AmE-style commas after dates: Plain Words sums up the BrE model concisely: Some writers put a comma here as a matter of course. But others do it only if a comma is needed to emphasise a contrast or to prevent the reader from going off on the wrong scent ... On the principle that stops should not be used unless they are needed, this discrimination is to be commended". If I were you I'd lose the superfluous comma. Tim riley talk 20:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• "confirmed at reexamination in 2001" – the OED hyphenates re-examination.
• "Across the river Usk, there was a suburb" – another superfluous comma.
• "the Ultra Pontem/Bulmore area" – spelling of Bulmore? (Double l elsewhere).
• "sent the fragments to anatomist Sir Arthur Keith, FRS" – two things here: first a clunky false title easily remedied by the insertion of a definite article; and I don't think we usually give people their postnominals in the text of an article,
• "tin and sulfur were present" – imported from America, presumably, in preference to English sulphur.

That's my lot. Tim riley talk 20:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Tim riley, thanks for looking. All fixed, except that now sulfur is globally standard for use in a scientific setting, alas Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Bloody hellfire! (with or without sulphur) but so be it! I much enjoyed this article and am happy to add my support for its elevation to FA. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 14:56, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Tim riley Thanks very much, I'm old enough to remember when a billion was a proper large number too... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Proceratosaurus

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC), IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 02:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC); A Cynical Idealist (talk) 03:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC), Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:20, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

This article is about the oldest known tyrannosauroid, though dramatically different from its later, more famous relatives like Tyrannosaurus in being quite small and with a crest beginning at the snout. While first named over a century ago, little was published about it until the last few decades, and we have summarised all of it here. FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Joining as co-nominator as agreed, focusing on revisions for things such as references and formattings. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 02:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

HF

I plan to review this tomorrow. Hog Farm _Talk 00:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Creisler, B. (July 7, 2003). "Dinosauria translation and pronunciation guide P". Archived from the original on August 18, 2010. Retrieved April 28, 2025." - needs publisher in the citation

Fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• "as well as the shape of the maxilla (the main tooth bearing upper jaw bone) and squamosal (a bone towards the back of the skull) as well as the shape of the external nares (bony nostril openings) and the infratemporal fenestra (the skull opening behind the orbit/eye socket) as distinctive" - is it possible to avoid the duplication of the "as well as the" construction in a single sentence?

Fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Von Huene considered the crest, as well as the shape of the maxilla (the main tooth bearing upper jaw bone) and squamosal (a bone towards the back of the skull) as well as the shape of the external nares (bony nostril openings) and the infratemporal fenestra (the skull opening behind the orbit/eye socket) as distinctive,[7][8] considering the crest, which he thought to represent the base of a nasal horn, as a feature supporting its relationship with Ceratosaurus.[9]" - "considered the crest" and "considering the cest" in the same sentence? The whole sentence seems very convoluted.

Fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:52, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• "3 m (9.8 ft) in length." - I would recommend rounding this the conversion to feet, given that the meter conversion is rounded here in the lead?

Fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• The link to Dilong in the first paragraph of the description section seems to be wrong - do you want Dilong paradoxus?

Fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Well preserved fossils of the related tyrannosauroids Yutyrannus and Dilong indicate that they were covered in relatively simple feathers in life, similar to the down feathers of modern birds" - this feels tacked on. There's obviously not going to be fossil evidence support to confirm/deny feathers for Proceratosaurus given that only a partial skull is available for this dinor. But is there actually direct speculation as to feather presence on Proceratosaurus? Are the two tyrannosauroids listed particularly close relations? If there's no direct discussion in the sources regarding feathers here, I don't know that this is really appropriate to include. Are there other related tynrannosauroids that lack feathers?

Hone explicitly states in the source: Feathers are rarely preserved as the conditions for their preservation have to be near perfect, and we have to be lucky enough to find fossils of feathered specimens. Thus even though only two tyrannosaurs are directly known to have had feathers, it is reasonable to infer that all of them did. I've modified the sentence to be more explicit about this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• "The presence of tyrannosauroids such as Proceratosaurus in the Bathonian" - would recommend linking Bathonian here as it is the first use

Fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

This is in good shape overall. Hog Farm _Talk 02:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Supporting from a non-expert perspective. Hog Farm _Talk 15:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith (support)

• discovered some time prior I assume we know when, so be more specific: "discovered X years earlier".

I looked into this, and I genuinely could not find out when the skull was discovered. The original 1910 description does not say, only "At last, however,' Mr. F. Lewis Bradley, F.G.S., has been able to submit to the Society the greater part of a skull obtained some time ago from the Great Oolite in an excavation for a reservoir at Minehinhampton (Gloucestershire)" [1]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't know how much faith to put in it (possibly none at all), but https://australian.museum/learn/dinosaurs/fact-sheets/proceratosaurus-bradleyi/ claims Bradley "discovered the first specimen in the early 1900s". RoySmith (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

That same page also claims the CT scan was done in 2010. RoySmith (talk) 00:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

The Arthur Smith Woodward book chapter confirms that the preparation and CT scanning occurred in 2010, but there's no confirmation about the date of the excavation of Proceratosaurus. Given the distance from the source, the "early 1900s" is probably just a reasonable speculation on the part of the author of the Australian Museum article, and I don't place any weight on it. Getting a proper answer on this would probably require deep archival digging that would probably go into WP:OR territory. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• Minchinhampton, a town in the Cotswolds in Gloucestershire, South West England.[1] Just saying "Minchinhampton, in South West England" is enough. Knowing the full political structure of the UK doesn't help the reader understand the subject.

Truncated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• made the skull the holotype specimen of a new species I know just a little about taxonomy; I'm familiar with type specimen but not "holotype specimen", so that needs a bit of explanation.

Fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• housed at the Natural History Museum clarify that you mean the one in London, as opposed to American Museum of Natural History, etc.

Fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• the name was invalidly published (nomen nudum) I'd do this as "the name was invalidly published".

Fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm sure to an expert, it's obvious what this means, but I'm still finding it a bit puzzling. It's also not entirely clear what it means to "move" a species. Reading the introduction to Rauhut et al, I understand it completely, so perhaps hew a bit closer to how they describe the situation and include some more of the details (obviously within the constraints of WP:CLOP? RoySmith (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Hopefully I've fixed this without getting too much into technical jargon. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• maxilla and squamosal bones explain what these are. I assume maxilla has something to do with the jaw, but I have no clue what squamosal is.

Fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• infratemporal fenestra likewise.

Fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• However, later research showed "However, Rauhut et al later showed ..."

I think some researchers had disputed it before this, but fixed and moved to the bottom of the section so the Rahut study could be properly introduced. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• The holotype skull was since CT scanned Be more specific: "In <year>, the holotype skull was CT scanned ..."

This isn't specified in the source, but it was CT scanned as part of the project to redescribe the specimen, so I've mentioned that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• The only known skull of Proceratosaurus is 26.9 cm (10.6 in) long as preserved I think you're missing the word "is"?

To my native English speaking self, this seems like okay grammar to me without the "is" (I'm not sure where the "is" is supposed to be inserted, presumably in "as preserved"?) but I'll let others chime in. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

"as preserved" looks a lot more common than "as is preserved" looking at ngram data [2] Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• its longest axis is not horizontal but inclined upwards at an angle of approximately 30 degrees looking at the various illustrations (ex File:ProceratosaurusBradleyiSize.png), I'm not seeing this.

I'm not sure what you mean. It's an internal feature of the skull that wouldn't really be visible in life or silhouette. It's in comparison to Guanlong, where the difference in the orientation of the nasal fenestra (the big black opening at the front of the skull is quite apparent. [3] Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Could you add some of that explanation to the article? RoySmith (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I've changed "longest axis" to "maximum length". Hope this is more clear. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I suspect this is a case of you knowing this stuff inside and out so it's all obvious, but I'm still struggling. Perhaps you could prepare versions of File:Proceratosaurus bradleyi Skull Reconstruction (alt).png and File:GuanlongWucaiiSkulls.png which have all of these features labeled, similar to File:Massospondylus Skull Steveoc 86.png? RoySmith (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I've provided a version of the Proceratosaurus image with all the skull parts labelled, as well as provided the Guanlong restoration (which is unmodified) in a double image for comparison. I think the reader will be able to infer what parts of the skull of Guanlong are which from the labels on the Proceratosaurus image. The Proceratosaurus image was reuploaded over the old one, so you may need to refresh your cache or use incognito to see it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• though one opinion published in 2000 Hmm, this is Rauhut again. You seem to be shy about giving him credit :-)

This isn't referring to Rahut 2010, this referencing Rahut 2010 quoting the opinion of another study "Madsen JH, Welles SP 2000. Ceratosaurus(Dinosauria, Theropoda). A revised osteology. Miscellaneous Publication, Utah Geological Survey 00-2: 1–80.". Would it be better to directly cite this study? Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I think citing the underlying source would make more sense. RoySmith (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Added direct supplementary citations to that section. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• You use the term "basal" in a few places (basal theropod, basal coelurosaur, basal thyreophorans). You should explain what that means.

Fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• causing the theropods teeth to slice, theropods -> theropod's

Fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• Be consistent about "bite force" vs "biteforce".

Fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Fixed properly. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• The exact layer of stratum in which Proceratosaurus was discovered isn't "layer" the same as "stratum"?

Changed to "stratigraphic layer". Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

That's it for me on a first read-through. RoySmith (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@RoySmith are all your issues dealt with or do you have any additional comments? Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

My apologies for leaving you wondering. I'm going to put this on the back burner for now but I'll come back at some point and take another look. If this slips down into "Older nominations" and I haven't come back by then, please ping me. RoySmith (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to call this a support from me at least as far as being well written and approachable to a non-expert. I dont know enough about paleontology to express an opinion on whether it is comprehensive or well-researched, but I assmume we will get some SMEs to chime in on that. RoySmith (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeti (Doctor Who)

Nominator(s): Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 12:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

The Yeti are fictional robots from the British science fiction television series Doctor Who. These robots are minions of the antagonist known as the Great Intelligence and first appeared in the 1967 serial The Abominable Snowmen, and subsequently re-appeared in the 1968 serial The Web of Fear.

This is my first FA nomination; though I've had a lot of experience with GAs and had a few successful FL noms, I figured it was about time to dip my toes into FA. I decided to nominate this article because I recently patched it up and feel it has a good shot at meeting FAC criteria, as despite the subject's obscurity it has some surprisingly well-documented creation info and Reception. As such, any and all comments are appreciated. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 12:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Arconning

@Pokelego999: Here is what I can get for now... Arconning (talk) 12:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Specify which English variant the article uses through the templates (though I assume it'd be British English).
• All of the images need alt text for accessibility.
  • The first caption should have a wikilink towards Doctor Who exhibitions#The Doctor Who Experience (2012–2017) for "Doctor Who Experience"
• "long-running British science fiction television series Doctor Who.", this statement needs to have some citing and text within the body. You should give a short explanation on what Doctor Who is for some context for the readers
• The lead states that Downtime was made in 1995, while the body states it was made in 1994.
• Mentions of "direct to video" - " direct-to-video"
• "Lethbridge-Stewart", wikilink to Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart + actor.
• "Victorian garb" - "Victorian fashion"
• "Yeti robots were also among the monsters to appear in the 1997 video game Doctor Who: Destiny of the Doctors.", citation?
• "many had criticized the "cuddly" Yeti designs." who?
• Citation 24 is probably not in Arabic.
  • Addressed the above. On a few points:

-Lethbridge Stewart is already hyperlinked in the section, as is his actor, so hyperlinking it again would not be necessary.

-Per WP:MOSPLOT the Appearances do not technically need to be cited; if I'm being honest the main issue is just that I couldn't find a valid citation template to use here.

-The source itself uses the same wording I use for the "cuddly" statement: "The costumes from The Abominable Snowmen were already falling apart, and had been considered by many to be a little too cuddly to send children scurrying behind the sofa."

As it doesn't specify who the "many" is, I did not either to avoid OR.

-I'll iron out something for introducing the series shortly. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 12:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

@Arconning I've added a paragraph at the start of history to give a very brief series overview; basically just included the basics that would be relevant to the article. Let me know as a whole if anything else needs to be done. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Shall be giving my support. Arconning (talk) 05:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

TheDoctorWho

After a request from the nominator, I reviewed this article in-depth just one day prior to candidacy, in an effort to make the process less stressful by cleaning up any outstanding issues that might come up here. This review included comments on wording choices, grammar, linking (dup links, Easter Eggs, BLUESEAs), and needing increased variety. These would be any common problems that I specialize in spotting, and that I would check for any featured-quality review to ensure that the article meets the criteria, specifically in regards to #1A, #1D, and #2. All of these were cleaned up in this edit, and as I believe those, and the other criteria are met (a quick glance at the images and source editor ensures that there are consistent uniform citations, and proper licensing), I'm satisfied to a point that I'd like to go ahead and provide my support. I'd be happy to provide a screenshot of the comments upon request. TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Aoba47

Apologies in advances as unfortunately, I do have the time to do a complete review for the article. I do have some comments about the citation formatting. I am looking at this version of the article.

• Some citations do not have the work/publisher linked. Examples are how Vox in Citation 2 and Bloomsbury Publishing USA in Citation 3 are not linked. Works and publishers should be consistently linked by either having them linked in the first citation or for each citation. It is up to you which way you prefer as long as it is consistent.
• Some of the citations are missing information. Citations 15 and 16 do not include publishers. Citation 24 is missing the production company and network. Citation 11 in particular is missing a lot of information, such as the director and production company, and should more clearly define Platt's role with the movie.
• Marc Platt, Mark Brake, and John Kenneth Muir should be linked in their citations. Downtime should be linked in Citation 11 and Millennial Rites in Citation 14. On a somewhat related note, is Piers D Britton notable enough for a red link? There is of course nothing wrong with red links, as they are useful, but they should be reserved for a topic that could potentially be an article.
• Why does one of the authors in Citation 20, (Smith?), have a question mark?
• I would be consistent with using title case for the citation titles. Doctor Who (and any show or movie title in general) should also be consistently italicized in the citation titles per MOS:CONFORMTITLE.

I hope that these comments are helpful. My primary concerns are with linking and incomplete information in the citations. I would encourage you to look through each source to check for any of these issues with the citations. Apologies again for not being able to help further. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Aoba47 I've done most of your other suggestions. A couple things:

-How do you hyperlink authors in a citation? The first and last names are split into two categories, so I'm not quite sure how to do it.

You use the |author-link= parameter with the name of the author as they appear in the Wikipedia article, and by that I mean with any disambiguation. For this one, you would just plug in John Kenneth Muir. It is the same way as James Chapman is currently linked in one of the article's citations. Aoba47 (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Added hyperlinks where applicable. Not sure on Britton so I'm not sure about adding a red link; if you want me to I will though. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

-On Smith?, I have no clue. He's just credited like that, even on the cover.

That is strange, but thank you for clarifying that for me. I am guessing it is some sort of stylistic choice on the part of the author. Aoba47 (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

-I elected to axe Cite 24, since the information is covered by the other citation on that line already.

-I am unable to add Director and Production Company to Cite 11, so I'm not sure what to do there.

I have left a suggestion below. I have primarily used the AV media citation in regards to television episode, so I was unaware that the production company cannot be put into this type of citation. Below is my suggestion for the citation formatting:

Writer: Marc Platt. Director: Christopher Barry (2 September 1995). Downtime (Motion picture).

@Aoba47: How do I format it like that? I'm not sure how to do that. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

You could just go into the source editor and use the citation that I have already formatted above and put into the article. Aoba47 (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

-Could you clarify what you mean by more clearly defining Platt's role in the movie? Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

The citation does not clearly convey that Platt was the screenwriter for the movie. When I first looked at it, I guessed that he was the director. My suggestion above should solve this. The citation should be easily understood by readers, even by those completely unfamiliar with the subject matter. Aoba47 (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I ended up putting the citation in with this edit. Aoba47 (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

@Aoba47 Thank you! Sorry about the complications there. Anything else that needs to be done citations-wise? Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

No worries. Just to be clear, this is not a source review. I just have one question. Do the Doctor Who: The Complete History sources have ISBNs? Other than that, I do not see anything else with the citation formatting. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

There are ISSNs, which I've added. I'm aware this isn't a source review, but since you were reviewing the formatting I figured I'd ask in regards to that in case there was anything missing from them formatting-wise. Thank you for the comments! Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing this point for me. I was more so making sure that reviewers who come to this FAC know for sure. Aoba47 (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

And for the sake of transparency, I did some edits to the citations when this FAC first opened, but I think that it is better to raise these points on here directly. Aoba47 (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Jayden Daniels

Nominator(s): ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

This article is about the American football player Jayden Daniels. He won the 2023 Heisman Trophy as the top college football player and was the 2024 NFL Rookie of the Year, with many citing his rookie year as the best in NFL history after setting various records and leading the Washington Commanders to their best season since 1991. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

White chocolate

Nominator(s): Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 03:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I am nominating white chocolate, beloved by marine life. This article has received a lot of help from Nikkimaria at peer review and Szmenderowiecki at GA, for which I am very grateful. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 03:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Images – pass

• img1: license good, no caption req, alt good
• img2: license good, caption good, at good, new zealand mentioned
• img3: license good, caption good consider White chocolate is featured, consider changing alt to A clamshell-shaped pastry base filled with green beans. A white flower made of white chocolate sits on top; covered with a spoonful of black beads of caviar. It is garnished with small leaves. dish looks diabolical
• img4: license good, caption good, alt good
• img5: license good, caption good, consider changing alt to White chocolate bar on foil embedded with red speckles
• img6: license good, caption good, alt fine
• img7: license good, caption good, alt good
• img8: license good [note it contains a trademark], caption good, consider changing alt to A chocolate wrapper labelled "meiji". Packaging is pulled back, and foil is torn to reveal chocolate beneath.
• img9: license good, caption good, alt good
• img10: license good, caption good, alt needs full stop as full sentence.
• bonus What type of English is used in this article? Put template at top please.
• sorry, just went through the links to flickr and a two of them are broken. They could be replaced pretty simply with archived versions. Not sure if there is a template for this on commons.
  • [4]
  • [5]

• • That's all for images from me. Cheers, Dracophyllum 22:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
    • Thanks Dracophyllum for your time, all done. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 03:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

      Great. I can support for images then. Cheers, Dracophyllum 03:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

      Dracophyllum, I've added the archive link for the first, but the second is not available. I have removed the image for now. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 01:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• ok great moving back to pass.

RoySmith

Channelling my inner marine life...

• According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term was first used ... cite the OED in addition to SciAm for this sentence.
  • Done - RIHG
• In 1936, the Swiss company Nestlé launched the first commercial white chocolate product This should be attributed to Eagranie Yuh, as part of his "general consensus" statement.
  • Done - RIHG
• For the "This year's 'hot' chocolate turns out to be white" reference (and others as approriate), I suggest adding "agency=Associated Press".
  • Done - RIHG
• (known as Milkybar in the United Kingdom) neither of the cited sources say this.
  • I've moved up the SCMP source to verify this (The turning point occurred in 1936, according to the Nestlé historical archives, when Nestlé launched white chocolate bars in Europe under the name Galak (or Milky Bar in the UK). - RIHG
• One account of Galak's creation ... there's a bit of WP:SYNTH going on here; the cited source (Sethi) tells the story of the glut, but the name "Galak" only comes from This year's `hot' chocolate turns out to be white.
  • I believe now that I've moved up the previous source it should be okay, as both sources are clearly referring to the same first commercial white chocolate product launched in 1936 by Nestle in Europe. - RIHG
• Why does the citation for Sethi 2017 say it is "in Punjabi"?
  • The author-link for the source is an interlanguage link to the Punjabi wiki's page on Simran Sethi. This is how the template formats it. - RIHG
• According to Nestlé, white chocolate was originally a coating for a vitamin product I don't think the source supports saying "originally", which makes it sound like this was the very first use. An early use, sure, but I don't see support for "originally".
  • I've moved up the Milkybar website source which I think makes the claim more concretely (In doing so, they accidentally invented white chocolate), and I've clarified that it was a modification of the coating. - RIHG

(more to come)

• Consumers had difficulty distinguishing between white chocolate made with and without cocoa butter this sounds like if you gave a typical consumer two samples to taste-test, they would have problems telling which was which. But, I think this comes from the source's "Because no such standard exists, it's hard to distinguish the real stuff from impostors" which I think is saying that it's hard for people to tell from the packaging which kind they're buying.
  • You're right, I've changed it to labels did not clearly distinguish between white chocolate made with and without cocoa butter - RIHG
• It was sold as "ivory", "blanc", or just wrapped in clear plastic bags this seems at odds with your later statement that white chocolate cannot be packed in a transparent wrapper
  • It is at odds, thanks. I've changed the imperative cannot to a descriptive white chocolate expires faster if packed in a transparent wrapper - RIHG
• International and domestic regulations govern ... Perhaps "national" or "country-specific" would work better than "domestic" here?
  • Done - RIHG
• White chocolate is 59% carbohydrates, 32% fat, 6% protein, and 1% water Given that there is no single standardized definition of what white chocolate is composed of, it seems odd to give such a specific nutritional analysis. Perhaps this needs to be qualified with "typically" or something like that? It would also be interesting to provide the corresponding values for milk and dark chocolate, for comparison.
  • I am inclined to agree, although this is standard for food FAs (see Maple syrup#Nutrition and Cucurbita#Nutrition). Now added. - RIHG
• panned chocolate products, such as panned nuts. Please provide a description of what "panned" means in this context.
  • I've rewritten the sugar panning page to be about panning more broadly and added a section on chocolate panning, so chocolate panning is no longer redlinked. Is this okay or would you still prefer I add a description? - RIHG
• almost half of the US$1,500,000,000 market I'd spell this out ("US$ 1.5 billion") per MOS:MONEY. Likewise £41 million and so on.
  • Done - RIHG
• exported white chocolate worth €396,915,753 I'd round that off to €397 million. And similarly for €96,742,159 later on.
  • Done - RIHG

OK, that's it from me for a first read-through. RoySmith (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Much appreciated Roy, I'll get to these over the next day. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 17:10, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @RoySmith:, everything above has been actioned. Thanks, Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 10:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Shapeyness

There are some initial comments below, I'll try to add some more soon (meanwhile, I'm going to find some white chocolate to eat!) Shapeyness (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• The mascot continued to be depicted as a child until 2010 Technically the source just says that the Milkybar Kid was portrayed by adults for a single ad campaign in 2010. It seems that the Milkybar Kid was portrayed as a child in other ad campaigns around this time (by Hinetaapora Short and Matthew Portas). However, it is true that more adult portrayals have occurred since 2010, e.g. a Milkybar Kid-ult campaign in 2020 [6][7]. Either way, I don't think the current source is strong enough to support this (as currently worded anyway).
• Anything more recent on white chocolate in Japan? It is a bit of a cliffhanger atm, although I understand there is nothing we can do if the sources don't exist to give more details
• Nutrition: the first couple of sentences come from data in the table - can we get a citation to the USDA database entry so it doesn't look like this is covered by the citation at the end of the paragraph?
• Relatedly, I think the rich source/moderate source language is based on FDA guidelines? It might be worth putting this in a note, maybe with a link to the requirements for something to use these claims.

Singapore Rail Test Centre

Nominator(s): ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 08:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

This rather short article is about a rail testing facility in Tuas, Singapore which just recently opened. After another rather vigorous GA review by Starship.paint, I decided to bring this to the FAC stage.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 08:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Images

• img1: licence good, consider shortening caption to Main entrance or Main entrance to the Test Centre [there are many options], alt missing
• img2: licence good, perhaps a map caption could explain to the reader what the colours mean so they don't have to open the map up, alt missing
• img3: licence good, consider Construction site in May 2022, alt missing
• given that the map is so small in the lede, perhaps it is better placed in the #Design section, where it would be most useful, and can be displayed at a size that is readable.
  • that's all. Cheers, Dracophyllum 08:57, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
    • I thought I have added the alts already. Did most of the other changes.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 09:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

      Great stuff. I can support for images. Cheers, Dracophyllum 10:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments Support from MS

Lead

• “the 54-hectare SRTC” → “the 54-hectare facility” – avoid repetition of “SRTC”.
  • Done.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 09:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• Could the lead section be expanded to at least 200 words long?
  • I don't think so, given the article is rather short..--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 09:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

History

• "named as" → "named"
  • Done.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 09:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• "will allow" → "would allow"

In the sentence: "Khaw said that the ITTC will allow testing..." the verb tense should be adjusted to "would allow" to maintain consistency with reported speech.

• • Done.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 09:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Design

• alternate current” → “alternating current”

Correct technical term in British English.

• • Done.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 09:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• “3% maximum upsloping gradient” → “maximum 3% gradient”

More idiomatic and concise.

• • Done.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 09:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• “A looped 3 km...”, etc.

Use a colon and bullet points or proper sentence structure for list items starting with “The tracks include”. As written, it’s grammatically off.

• • I'm sorry but I don't exactly quite follow since it's already bulleted and there's a colon.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 09:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• “mid-life refurbishment of trains” → “mid-life refurbishments of trains”

Plural fits better with context (or make “refurbishment” uncountable if referring to general process).

• • Done.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 09:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

General

• Could the source code specify whether the article is in British or American English? MSincccc (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Added {{Use Singapore English|date=May 2025}}

Support  Comments  from Noleander

• Users will want a lat/long web link they can click on to view site in a map app, but I cannot find lat/long link in this article. It normally would be in the InfoBox or in upper-right corner of article. The location of this test center is 1.34343980 North, 103.6441029 East (decimal degrees).
  • There's no parameter for it for the infobox public transit, but I put it in the upper-right corner. I used the coordinates from the official OneMap source
• The article uses phrases like "rail testing facility " a few times ... clearly an important concept, especially here:
  • First sentence of article: The Singapore Rail Test Centre (SRTC) is a rail testing facility ..
  • And claiming first place: The SRTC is the first exclusive train testing facility...

Readers need an article they can view to get the definintion of Rail testing facility ... (okay if it is small/stub article). Normally an FA nominator is not required to create a second article for FA, but looking at this SRTC article in its entirety, it seems essential to create Rail testing facility - at least a stub.

• I linked to List of railway test tracks. Might add a definition there.

• Quotes vs paraphrase: Hailing it as a "worthwhile investment" expected to cost "a few hundred million dollars", Khaw said that the ITTC would allow testing of new railway systems, "robustly, round the clock", without the need to close MRT lines. .. In top-quality encyclopedia articles, the majority of the article is written in the encyclopedia's neutral, objective voice. When quotes appear: they should have a special significance. See WP:OVERQUOTING. When readers encounter the quotes shown above, they may pause and wonder why the encyclopedia is drawing attention to the words: Is the official lying? Is the official exaggerating? Consider either (a) replace quotes with paraphrase in encyclopedia's voice; or (b) add words (in encyclopedia's voice) explaining what is so significant about the quotes and why the reader should pay special attention.

• Not much significant besides Khaw regarding it as a "worthwhile investment". But I will keep that phrase.

• Past vs present tense: The testing centre was constructed in two phases. The first phase, which includes the high-speed track, was initially planned ... shifts between present vs past. Probably will read smoother if "includes" -> "included"

• Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 02:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Diagram accuracy: The diagram https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Integrated_Train_Testing_Centre_map.png looks really nice; great job by the volunteer that created it! The metadata says it was created in early 2021. I'm sure it is mostly still accurate, but since the facility was not completed until 2025, there is a chance it does not represent the final facility layout. Suggest adding the date info to the pic caption to make it clear to readers that it represents the design as of early 2021, not necessarily the current "as built" layout. E.g. "Map of the facility, as represented in early 2021 design documents" or something similar.

• Done.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 02:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Clarify Stabling and maintenance tracks for conducting... I'm not sure what "stabling" means here ... a horse stable is a building for storing horses; is it building for trains? But it seems to be modifying the noun "tracks" ... is it a Siding (rail)? Suggest add words to clarify; or link to article that defines.

• Yeah siding tracks.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 02:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Official web site in the InfoBox? "External Links" section contains LTA official website of the SRTC ...can that URL be added into the InfoBox? Readers will first go to InfoBox to find URL.

• Added.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 02:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Topic bar at bottom: Suggest that the bottom topic bar be collapsed (hidden) by default:

{{Rail transport in Singapore|state=collapsed}}

It's customary to collapse topic bars by default, and with more readers using mobile devices, it also helps with bandwidth & screen real estate.

• Done.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 02:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• That's all I have for now. Notify me when above are addressed/resolved and I'll make another pass. Noleander (talk) 00:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• • Did the above changes.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 02:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Support on prose and MOS. I did not look at sources or images. I made a couple of small changes to article: hid the ugly raw URL in the InfoBox with plain words; and changed "exclusive" -> "dedicated" in the first exclusive train testing facility ... since readers may think "exclusive" means special or limited-access. Noleander (talk) 02:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith (Oppose)

Since I commented on this at WT:DYK, I guess I should bring up the same point here. I'm concerned about the quality of the sourcing. At DYK, I commented on two specific sources because these were being used directly to support the hook:

• Smith, Kevin (31 March 2025). "Singapore Opens New Metro Test Centre". International Railway Journal
• No, Kyung-min (1 April 2025). "GS E&C Completes Southeast Asia's First Rail Testing Facility in Singapore". The Korea Herald

These both appear to be basically rehashes of a press release; I base that guess on the tone of the writing, the extensive use of large quotes, and the fact that the centre began operations on 28 March 2025, with these two sources being dated 31 March and 1 April. Actually, it looks like this is the press release. Looking now at the rest of the sources, these also look like they're probably just based on the press release, based on the same criteria (with the assistance of Google Translate for the non-English ones):

• "Pusat Ujian Rel $800j Dibuka di Tuas". Berita Harian (in Malay). 28 March 2025.
• "新加坡铁路测试中心全面启用 新柔地铁列车料在此测试". 联合早报 (in Chinese). 28 March 2025.
• "$800 மில்லியன் செலவில் ரயில் சோதனை நிலையம் திறப்பு , சிங்க‌ப்பூர் செய்திகள்". Tamil Murasu (in Tamil). 28 March 2025.
• Loi, Esther (28 March 2025). "$800m Rail Test Centre Opens, Allows Trains and Rail Systems to Be Tested in Singapore". The Straits Times.
• Cho, Yong-Jun (1 April 2025). "GS E&C Opens Railway Test Center in Singapore". Korea JoongAng Daily
• Singapore Rail Test Centre completed". Railway Gazette International. 4 April 2025.
• Ong, Justin (Guang-Xi) (28 March 2025). "Singapore Rail Test Centre Officially Opens, Aims to Bolster Rail Reliability".
• Ahuja, Simran (2 April 2025). "Singapore Rail Test Centre opens for operations". Southeast Asia Infrastructure.

I'm not saying these reports are necessarily unreliable, but I'd like to see more independent sourcing and less dependence on contemporary news reports. I'm not sure I'm ready to oppose over this, but I'm leaning that way. RoySmith (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the FA criteria for sources so I won't say my opinion on the majority of them, but the LTA press release didn't mention the facility being the first of such in SE Asia, or even "Southeast Asia"; I'm inclined to think this is a conclusion drawn by the outlets themselves. In addition, the Berita Harian, Lianhe Zaobao and Tamil Murasu sources are only used once in the infobox to cite the names of the facility in the different languages, and I don't see how, even if those are press releases, they should be considered here, considering names of a place are uncontroversial in nature. S5A-0043🚎^(Talk) 02:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Upon additional perusing of the sources, I'm going to come down as a firm oppose. In addition to the problematic sources listed above, I count 11 other sources which are authored by the Land Transport Authority (who appears to be the owner of the facility). Some are primary documents (annual reports, etc), but most are just plain press releases. Pinging Starship.paint who did the GA review: I see you did a good job of spot-checking source-to-text integrity, but I don't see anywhere in the GA review where you evaluated the overall quality of the sources. RoySmith (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

And, sigh, looking again, I see two more sources which are speeches by the Minister of Transport. So again, primary and non independent. RoySmith (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• @RoySmith: - I did look at the source quality for most of those you mentioned above, I may have missed out on Southeast Asia Infrastructure which I think it was a late addition during the review. For the rest of the above, several of those are mainstream media outlets, and the others looked like decent industry-specific sources, which seemed fine for Good Article level in my opinion. starship.paint (talk / cont) 01:32, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• I'll also like to add on to the other comment by RoySmith - I did see the primary sources from the LTA or Singapore government. But, I did actually check (and ask) that the same information should be also provided in other sources. I would say that very little of the article should be sourced to primary sources only, with an example of an exception being basic information like the address. starship.paint (talk / cont) 06:38, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Isn't a government source a reliable source?--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 08:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
  • The problem with the government sources is that they're not independent. If a government report says there are 16.9 km of track, I'm willing to accept that as an accurate number. But when the sourcing for an article is overwhelmingly government reports and press releases, and newspaper articles which are directly based on those press releases, I'm having trouble seeing how this even meets WP:GNG which requires secondary sources which are independent of the subject. And note that this excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. This is a basic, bedrock requirement. RoySmith (talk) 11:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
    • In honesty, if you consider Straits Times or local media as invalid since they are considered still too close to the government and merely copying these claims, then almost every article related to Singapore would need to be purged since there's often very little coverage on our country by international news and we rely a lot on government reports. Already I tried my best, along with starship, to scourge for more secondary sources, such as International Railway Journal covering this subject, and I strongly believe that it's on that basis that this article passes GNG given its interest in other rail professional circles. I also doubt even local news reports would blindly copy from the press releases before publishing them. since they still have editorial standards to verify these claims...--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 11:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose by Nick-D

Just to comment here in response to Roy's review above, I've reviewed quite a few Singapore MRT-related articles at GAN and FAC and have raised concerns about sourcing in several of them. This has included over-use of government statements and text that's unnecessarily favourable to the government's views. Singapore is obviously a difficult country to source articles on contemporary government-related things on given it isn't a true democracy and doesn't have a fully free press, but it's an issue that needs to be considered by people developing articles. Nick-D (talk) 04:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• @Nick-D: - so, for this article, is there text that's unnecessarily favourable to the government's views? starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Yep:
    • The lead for instance unnecessarily says " It also incorporates several energy-efficient features in its design and operation such as solar panels and smart lighting control" - this type of thing is standard in modern infrastructure, and this seems like boosterism.
    • The article says that the site was reserved for a high speed rail line, but doesn't comment on whether building this facility has now made the high speed line unfeasible.
    • "The Korea Railroad Research Institute was consulted in the design of the testing facility" - Why, and what was learned from this?
    • This whole facility seems very unusual internationally, but the article only briefly discusses the rationale for it and this is presented from the government's perspective. Why was this a good use of public funds when larger and more complex metro systems get on fine without their own test facilities?
    • The text in general seems to go out of its way to present this facility in a positive light.
    • The article doesn't discuss the effectiveness of this facility - not unreasonably as it only opened a few weeks ago, but this suggests the nomination is premature. Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Addressing each of the above points:

• Ok, that might sound very fluffy, and I will be willing to delete that. I wrote it in the lead because someone commented the lead was a bit too short, so I expanded to include that it's a green building, or smth like that.
• In honesty, this is also a very rare admission of the conception of the SRTC by LTA, because they never explain how they decide where they build new facilities and stations. That said, the KL-SG HSR is now essentially dead besides some Malaysian corporations trying to revive it, but there's a lack of political will on either side (as for now) to resume.
• I still find it an important mention. I mean, does that then make mentions of who the contractor and the architects irrelevant? But I admit this point could be expanded a little more. From my understanding from the sources, since the contractor is Korean, they brought in a Korean organisation who had the relevant experience, and they are shown to have led various R&D projects related to rail. Credit due when credit due.
• I dunno, do you think they should spend it on something else?
  • Why is my opinion relevant here? What do independent reliable sources say? Have opposition politicians or independent commentators commented on this project? Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• On the last points, well, you have a point. Perhaps it's indeed rather premature and there's a lack of distance to really give independent commentary. That said, even some long-time establishments in Singapore never gotten any commentary, like plenty of my other MRT articles. And nobody cared enough to criticise our transport plans. Well, unless someone pays a professor to do a review of the SRTC.

@RoySmith: and Nick-D, I appreciate your criticisms, but I must admit the generalisations of our press releases and news sources as unreliable just because they are pro-government are offensive. The Straits Times has also been assessed as reliable as a newspaper of record except in cases of political controversy, and I don't see any political controversy here behind this project. You must also understand that Singapore is a small city-state and almost everything here is tied to the government in some form.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 12:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm shifting to oppose in light of the comment above. The nominator seems unable to tell the difference between government PR and independent reportage. Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I welcome for you then to launch an FAR if necessary on my recent FAs: Hume MRT station and Nicoll Highway collapse, if you deem my sourcing have issues.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 11:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

EG - drive-by comments

ZKang123 asked me to leave some feedback here, but these comments represent my own, and only my own, perspective. Here are my comments for now:

• I'd suggest finding Malay, Chinese or Tamil sources that talk about these more in detail. However, Kang told me that these sources mostly repeat the press releases and/or English sources already in the article. Not sure what can be done in these cases, as Singapore doesn't have freedom of the press much like the five main English-speaking countries or Europe do.

Lead:

• Para 1: "avoiding the need to conduct tests on operational lines" - Did the LTA have to do this prior to the construction of the test centre?
  • When there's system renewal works, maintenance, route expansion or new rolling stock being introduced, yes.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 01:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• Para 1: "three different tracks" - In this context "different" is not necessary.
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 01:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• Para 1: "energy-efficient" - I'd link to Energy conservation or something like that.
• Para 2: "The SRTC was first announced" - Who announced it? LTA?
• Para 2: "the opening of the first phase was delayed to November 2023" - Do we know why?

More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Even more in a bit. Epicgenius (talk) 04:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Flower

Nominator(s): Dracophyllum 10:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

The reproductive structure of flowering plants is back at FAC after 18 and a bit years. Underwent (over) expansion in 2021, then pruned and expanded recently. Many thanks for the GA review from User:Chiswick Chap and substantial peer review from many editors. Courtesy pinging @Tim riley: and @SchroCat: per their request. Additionally to the peer review, I rechecked all the references in sections I did not personally write, replaced a number of them with better ones, and added some supplementary references. My second FAC, nice to be back after all this time. Cheers, Dracophyllum, (1 PR) 10:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC).

Support from Tim riley

I peer reviewed this and said then that I hoped to see it at FAC. My few quibbles were well attended to at the time, and the only thing I have spotted while rereading for FAC is that in the Taxonomy section "Carl Linnaeus 1753 book Species Plantarum layed out ..." has two small errors: Linnaeus needs a possessive apostrophe after his name and "layed" should be "laid". This seems to me, speaking as a more or less complete layman, to be a clear, balanced, well sourced and well written article with the technicalities kept to a sensible level but properly covered, and I am pleased to add my support for its promotion to FA. Tim riley talk 21:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

fixed, thank you for the support. Cheers, Dracophyllum 21:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Support Comments from Noleander

• Thanks for bringing a Level 3 Vital Article to FA: Getting a Level 3 vital article up to FA quality can be very daunting!
  • Indeed it was, it would also be only the 80th to be promoted
    • Only 80, huh? I did one of them: π ... that was awhile ago. Noleander (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

  If it passes, it would also be the first top class WP:PLANT article to reach FA in 11.5 years... Dracophyllum 08:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• Aesthetics: the visual impact of this article is absolutely stunning ... the layout, the size of the paragraphs, the colors in the illustrations, the overall size. Everything looks clean and crisp. Just amazing.
  • Thanks for that. I would credit User:Chiswick Chap with a lot of the credit for that; they created many diagrams and made images a key GA focus. For reference, the lede images rationale is: Basal flower (magnolia), symmetric pollination syndrome (orchid), highly complex modern flower (passionfruit), long stamens (complete flower), reduced wind pollinated (corn), iconic pseudanthia (sunflower).
• Is it possible to add a sentence or two contrasting flowers with some things that laypeople often mistake for flowers? For example: bracts on Bougainvillea, which is only one example flower-like things. Perhaps most of these pseudo-flowers evolved to attract pollinators to nearby flowers? [The article already has the sentence An inflorescence may include specialised stems and modified leaves known as bracts and smaller bracteoles but that is not what I'm suggesting.] Lots of articles on subject X have a sentence or even a whole section listing "Things that are not X".
  • done, also added a note in the first paragraph of morphology that defines flowers and discusses how there are structures that look like flowers, that we currently dont include in this definition.
    • There are several structures, found in some plants, that resemble flowers or floral organs, but often only in an ambiguous way. These include: coronas, crown-like outgrowths; phyllody, leafy flower parts; and pseudonectaries.
    • Although flowers are defined as the reproductive structures of angiosperms, there are many gymnosperm cones which resemble flowers. The female cones of Ginkgo biloba, for example, are mostly considered to be simple strobili, and not flowers. This also resolves the (previously) uncited definition in the lede
• Section Flower#Floral diagrams and formulae is begging for an illustration. This one looks nice
  • done with dubious use of Template:multiple image because space is at a premium there.
• Quote: relationship: Outstanding usage of a quote box in section Flower#In culture ... but could you add a few words at the bottom (beneath author name) relating the quote to "In culture" e.g. "Poets often use imagery of flowers" or something like that.
  • I actually am not sure how to achieve that with Template:Quote box...
    • @Dracophyllum: There is an example in William_Shakespeare#Sonnets ... you change the "source" tag to be:

 | source = Poets often use flowers as imagery, as in this excerpt from  [[William Shakespeare|Shakespeare's]] ''[[A Midsummer Night’s Dream]]''   

and remove the "author" and "title" tags. Noleander (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• • • • done, ty
• Readers will be happier if a WP link is included in the caption of pic in section Flower#Coevolution ... Angimordella burmitina, an early (99 Mya) insect pollinator. That insect species has no article, but the parent family is Mordellidae, and that article's first sentence contains "... commonly known as tumbling flower beetles for the ..." which is enlightening. I think WP linking policy supports linking to parent taxons.
  • linked
• Citation for pic caption: Angimordella burmitina, an early (99 Mya) insect pollinator Captions can omit citations when they simply describe the picture; but this pic should probably have a citation for the "99 Mya" fact.
  • added
• Punctuation/grammar: .. angiosperms show a wide variation in floral structure. This includes size, shape, and colour. That latter sentence kinda sticks out in a bad way. Consider making it a fuller sentence e.g. The variations encompass all aspects of the flower, including size, shape, and colour or similar.
  • changed to This variation encompasses all aspects of the flower, including size, shape, and colour.
• Confusing: Although most plants have flowers ... In addition, the four main parts of a flower are generally ... Even after re-reading three times, I'm still not sure what "In addition" is adding to. Can it be re-worded so readers can digest the intent?
  • It reads ok imo. It is in addition to the structural variation described in the prior sentence. It's possible it's not needed, however.
• Identify the alternative: Flowers evolved between 150 and 190 million years ago, during the later part of the Jurassic era and ... Can the article have a few words here stating what plant features performed the role of flowers before flowers existed? [If not already stated nearby] E.g. Prior to the advent of flowers, plants reproduced using asexual methods such as ... [this blue example text is fictitious, only for illustration]
  • done, + a new source for part of the claim
• Emphasize & contrast: As a subgroup of seed plants, angiosperms used the flower to outcompete other members, as a result of greater efficiency. This seems like one of the most important facts in the article. Consider adding a few words identifying the competitors that were "outcompeted". E.g. ... angiosperms used the flower to outcompete other members – such as fungi and lichens – as a result of greater efficiency. [this blue example text is fictitious, only for illustration]
  • done
• That's all I have for now. Notify me when the above are addressed/resolved and I'll make another pass. Note that some of the above are optional suggestions. Noleander (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Noleander All resolved. Thanks, Dracophyllum 02:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• In section Flower#Colour, there is a a diagram with caption: The diffraction mechanism of photonic crystals. Nearby body text says ..present in some flowers are photonic structures. Two things:

(a) should change "photonic structures" in body to "photonic crystals" to match caption (or vice versa).

• • . > crystals per source. I think structures is also fine, but might imply man made per the sauce.

(b) The diagram itself includes the word "nanosphere": The term "nanosphere" is not explained anywhere in Wikipedia (no article on it). I had to look it up in a dictionary: it is a "spherical shaped nano-particle" (about a nanometer across). Suggest either (b1) add "nanosphere" article stub to WP; or (b2) define "nanosphere" in the diagram caption; or (b3) mention/define "nanosphere" in nearby body text; or (b4) edit the diagram in photoshop and remove that term (that diagram is used only by a single article in WP, so no impact to other articles). (I'm not saying that a WP article's body text must mention every term found in its diagrams; only that WP as a whole must define those terms). Noleander (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• • I've created Nanosphere per your request @Noleander:. Cheers Dracophyllum 23:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Support. Great article! Noleander (talk) 23:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Noleander, for your interest, Nanospheres was AFD'ed in 2005. Maybe this was before the tech existed? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nanosphere Dracophyllum 00:00, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Jens

• These whorls include: calyx, modified leaves; corolla, the petals; androecium, the male reproductive unit consisting of stamens and pollen; and gynoecium, the female part, containing style and stigma, which receives the pollen – you give some broad terms here in the lead (some of which do not even appear in the diagrams further down in the article), but much more common terms such as "pistil" and "nectar" are not mentioned; are the terms you selected for the lead really the most essential?
  • In my view, yes. They are almost always listed as the "four main whorls" in sources (such as Mauseth and Pandey) Both sterile and fertile appendages are borne on the foral receptacle in distinct whorls consisting of calyx, corolla, androecium and gynoecium. - pandey.

• or between flowers on the same plant—or even the same flower, as in self-pollination – but self-pollination is within the same individual, not necessarily the same flower?
  • Per Mauseth Cross-pollination is the pollination of a carpel by pollen from a different individual; self pollination is pollination of a carpel by pollen from the same flower or another flower on the same plant. I think this clarification is useful, as reader's might not expect it to be the case.

• controlled by the presence of MADS-box genes – why "the presence of" here?
  • rmved

• early Cretaceous – Early Cretaceous (upper case)
  • fixed and linked to Early Cretaceous

• angiosperms used the flower to outcompete other members – Is this scientific consensus? Where does the source say this? It could be opportunistic replacement, too?
  • In the first paragraph of Becker et al. THE origin of the flower during the late Jurassic to early Cretaceous eras (most recent estimates are between 150 and 190 MYA; Magallón et al. 2015) was a key evolutionary innovation that profoundly altered the Earth’s biota. Flowering plants (angiosperms), with reproductive security and speed conferred by the flower, replaced other seed plants in most ecosystems. Diversification of flowers and the resulting fruit spurred coevolutionary change in pollinators and dispersers, with subsequent wide-ranging effects on herbivores, mycorrhizae, and other interacting organisms. I've just gone with "replaced" per the source

• colour of flowers assists in pollination – This sentence is quite isolated in the lead. You mention colour here, but not nectar?
  • was drafted in chronological order. Moved to by pollination and changed to The colour and structure of flowers—such as nectaries and nectar guides—assist in pollination.

• are a key tool – I don't think they are a "tool". "Feature" maybe?
  • changed to feature

• and not to the whole flowering plant – You never mentioned that the term applies to the whole plant.
  • reworked this section

• Flower and blossom are cognates and are both derived from the Proto-Indo-European word *bʰleh₃ōs ('blossoming') – contradicts earlier statement regarding the origin of "flower".
  • doesn't contradict, but could be clearer. Here is the OED: "Anglo-Norman and Old French flur, flour, flor, fleur (Middle French, French fleur) flower, bloom, blossom (of a plant), representation of a flower, decoration, the best of something, best part, shining example, an elite group or individual, a paragon, a virtuous or beautiful person, prime or bloom (of life, etc.), virginity (all 12th cent.), flour (12th cent.: see flour n.) < Latin flōr-, flōs flower, bloom, blossom, representation of a flower, state of being in flower, something forming on the surface (as scum on wine), powdered or powdery form of a substance, fragrance, aroma (of wine, etc.), most flourishing condition attained by a person or thing, zenith, youthful condition, youthful prime, virginity, best of something, rhetorical or poetical ornamentation < the same Indo-European base as blow v"

• bloom and blossom refer to flowers – You didn't introduce "bloom"
  • reworked this section, please take another look

• A stereotypical, or complete, – not sure what this means. Is this needed? Would the opposite be "incomplete"? Maybe this needs an explanatory footnote if kept.
  • In #Variation I write Many flowers lack some parts—known as incomplete—or parts may be modified into other functions or look like what is typically another part. Both complete and incomplete are useful botanical terms.

• They are leaf-like, in that they have a broad base – but not always.
  • per De Craene Sepals have a spiral initiation sequence with rapid growth, a broad base, three vascular traces and an acuminate (pointed) tip. The homology of sepals with leaves is based on similar anatomy as well as on several character-istics such as the presence of stipules and stomata, and sepals are often compared to the petiole of a leaf due to their broad shape

• (small stem-leaf structures) – This explanation doesn't help I think.
  • yes stipule is too broad to be defined here. just rmved.

• If the calyx is fused it is called gamosepalous – Also when partially fused, right? And why not use "synsepalous", which matches the linked article and seems to be a much more common term?
  • ngram would suggest otherwise (the noun ngram is closer, however). I have included the partial part, but for some reason could only find it in Collins ED, which is odd.

• Angimordella burmitina, an early (99 Mya) insect pollinator – This image caption should clarify that it is a hypothetical life restoration.
  • added and linked

• More later. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
  • All responded to. Excellent comments thank you @Jens Lallensack: Dracophyllum 02:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

break

• Because sexual reproduction between distinct plants – would "individual plants" be a bit clearer than "distinct plants"? The latter sounds as if you were talking about distinct species.
  • The current wording is actually: Sexual reproduction between plants results in evolutionary adaptation, which improves species survival. How do you feel about it?

• Specific adaptations to attract pollinators (animals that transport pollen), for example, are the most common adaptations. – Two times "adaptations" reads a bit awkward, is it possible to reword?
  • changed to structures

• and may have stipules – I would still explain that term in simple words, so that the reader has at least an idea. Simply "outgrowths from the leaf stem"?
  • done. I like this version; stipules take many forms.

• ovules contained within an ovary. – need wikilinks here
  • done

• Anthers typically consist of – Introduce this new term.
  • Anthers, the tips of the male part of the flower (containing the pollen sacs), typically consist of four microsporangia (tissues that produce microspores) and an ovule in an integumented (protected by a layer of tissue) megasporangium (tissue that produces a megaspore). how's this

• Microspores are produced by meiosis inside anthers and megaspores are produced inside ovules contained within an ovary. – This is a bit technical and difficult and could do with additional explanation and context. Maybe an additional sentence to introduce some basics would be helpful.
  • added Meiosis is a type of cell division that occurs in angiosperms to produce microspores and megaspores; the precursors to pollen and embryo sacs (the gametophyes).

• into gametophytes (organisms that lead to creation of sex cells) – since this is such a basic article, and the term gametophyte is so important for understanding the text, I would provide enough context here to give a basic idea what this is (without introducing further complexity). The current explanation is insufficient for this purpose. It becomes clearer in the "male" section (which states that pollen are gametophytes) but that's a tad late.

• microsporocytes – are these the same as microspores? If so, stick with one term. If not, introduce the new term.
  • that is the umbrella term. but in the anthers only the microspores are present so i've gone with that.

• Maybe remove the heading "spores" (the heading, not the paragraph), as it is the introduction to the following sections. I found that heading confusing.
  • done

• ovules (female gametophytes) – you previously stated that ovules contain gametophytes, not that they are gametophytes.
  • good catch. fixed

• which acts as a stalk – why not simply "is" instead of "acts as"?
  • changed to the stalk

• pistil – wikilink
  • just goes to gyno which is linked earlier in the para.

• a stigma, which receives pollen – you should specify location. At the end of the stalk, I assume? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
  • • the stigma is the tip though?
  • All responded too. Thanks @Jens Lallensack:. Cheers, Dracophyllum 00:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

break2

• Other flowers have modified petal-like stamens; the double flowers of peonies and roses are mostly petaloid stamens, for example. – it is unclear to me what "double flower" means; I looked up the roses and petaloid articles but they do not mention this, and I don't see petal-like stamens. This might need more explanation.
  • Changed to In some flowers, for example, floral parts such as the stamens, stigmas, and sepals are highly altered to look like petals. This is most common in cultivation (such as of roses), where flowers with many additional "petals"—termed double flowers—are more attractive

• When flowers are bisected and produce only one line that produces symmetrical halves – Bit awkward wording. Maybe write: "If there is only one plane of symmetry, ..."
  • done

• Many flowers have symmetry – should be "most flowers", no? Also, it would help to give examples for these types (orchids are a good one for bilateral symmetrical flowers, I think)
  • done

• There are several structures, found in some plants, that resemble flowers or floral organs, but often only in an ambiguous way. These include: coronas, crown-like outgrowths;[35] phyllody, leafy flower parts;[36] and pseudonectaries. – Phyllody is not a "structure", or is it? I wouldn't expect to find features not typical for a species (diseases) listed in a section about "structure" anyways. Maybe a dedicated section "Deseases" is warranted?
  • I don't think there is enough for such a section. per the wiki article "It is generally caused by phytoplasma or virus infections, though it may also be because of environmental factors that result in an imbalance in plant hormones." If you consider the #structure section to be a little looser than just a strict botanical sense, I feel it could stay.

• but often only in an ambiguous way – not sure what that adds, maybe just remove this part.
  • done

• coronas, pseudonectaries – explain, or at least link these terms?
  • done

• In the majority of species, individual flowers have both carpels and stamens. – I would repeat the explanation ("male amd female parts"), especially since you provide it a few sentences later anyways. (Few readers will be able to remember all those terms you introduce throughout the article)
  • done

• Many flowers have floral nectaries, – "floral" is superfluous, since nectaries of flowers are "floral" by definition, right?
  • rmved. there is one tiny exception, but we dont call them nectaries

• The main axis or stalk of an inflorescence (a cluster of flowers)[11] is called a peduncle. – I would move this to section "inflorescence", especially since "stem" is mentioned there, too.
  • done

• I wonder why "Inflorescence" is a subsection of its own, even though it is only one paragraph, and even though the other paragraphs in "Variation" seem equally distinct and worthy of a subsection heading? Ditto "Pollinator relationships". How do you decide what is a separate low-level subsection and what is not? One solution would be to remove both headings.
  • I've removed pollinator relationships, inflorescences are a very common, recognisable, and interesting variation, more than anything else in the section; and have their own article... I am prone to keep it for now, but happy to rmv if you object further.

• Caption: "Floral diagram and formula for a Convolvulus flower". If you show it, shouldn't it be explained (i.e., what does the shown formula say?). Maybe add a footnote?
  • done This describes that the flower is: (*) radially symmetric, (K5) has 5 sepals, (C(5)) has 5 fused petals, (A5) has 5 stamens, and (G(2)) has two fused carpels.

• It has compressed internodes (gaps between attachment points), bearing structures that in classical plant morphology are interpreted as highly modified leaves. – I have honestly no idea what that means.
  • changed to A flower develops on a modified shoot or axis from a determinate (growth-limited) apical meristem. The internodes—gaps between attachment points—are typically compressed, resulting in the close arrangement of floral organs.

• This suggests a continuum in floral evolution, in which intermediate structures blur the lines between organs – Again, not sure what to take from this. Flowers can develop on different organs, but why does that "blur the lines between" them?
  • I tried again but have ultimate just decided to remove this passage, it is more evolution than growth anyways. Gradualism mostly captures this anyways. Dracophyllum 02:23, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• reversed and the stems develop flowers—even if the initial event was dependent on some environmental cue, which is no longer present. – should this say "that is no longer present" and without the comma?
  • sure, done.

• under ultraviolet light, which can be seen by bees and some other insects. – But birds can see ultraviolet too, right?
  • I've cut this clause for simplicity.

• Many flowers have close relationships with one or a few specific pollinating organisms. – I think the article fails to mention two important aspects: 1) Why do flowers prefer a limited number of pollinator species? This might seem obvious to a biologist but should still be mentioned. 2) How do flowers ascertain that only their preferred pollinator species can access the nectar? Isn't this an important driver of flower shape (e.g., extremely long flowers can only be accessed by hummingbirds with very long bills), and for this reason worth to discuss?
  • This section is basically repeated in the #coevolution section... But I've restated a little here as well and moved some info around. Many flowers have close relationships with one or a few specific pollinating organisms. They may be structured to allow or encourage pollination from just one or a few species. This increases efficiency, because there is a higher chance pollination comes from pollen of the same species.

• Optional: A sentence on Nectar robbing could be interesting, unless you think it is too specific and want to keep this article short.
  • Yeah I might do, I was also thinking about mentioning night-blooming somehow. Dracophyllum 02:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Whereas the pollen of entomophilous flowers is usually large, sticky, and rich in protein (to act as a "reward" for pollinators) – You previously only mentioned that nectar is the reward; now it is pollen, which is confusing. Mention both when mentioning nectar?
  • done.

• The mechanisms by which pollen is transferred between plants are called vectors – I don't think that vectors are "mechanisms"? They are "carriers", no? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
  • done
    • Great comments again. All resolved I think @Jens Lallensack:. Cheers, Dracophyllum 02:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

break3

• autochory (an internal vector); usually the plant itself – I think it might help readers to give an example (Dehiscence (botany)#Explosive dehiscence?), as I think that some readers might have no idea how the plant could disperse the seeds itself without an external vector.
  • done

• Related to the above: you say "usually the plant itself", but when it is not the plant, how can it still be an internal vector?
  • rmved

• during the later part of the Jurassic era and Early Cretaceous. – The Jurassic is a period, and the Early Cretaceous is an epoch. Neither of them is an "era" (see Geologic time scale)
  • done

• spores, or sporangia – isn't that the same? Aren't sporangia forming spores?
  • fixed

• such as Pinales, Cycads, Gnetophyta and Ginkgoales – should all be lower case?
  • No, because they are taxonomic names like Asteraceae. The exception is for common names, likegymnosperms vs Gymnospermae.

• angiophytes – term comes out of the blue and is not linked nor explained.
  • explained

• Angiosperms are a sub-group of spermatophytes (seed plants), and of these, the living species are regarded as a more recent ancestor of the older angiophytes – that does not make any sense to me; what do you want to say?
  • reworded

• The latter aspect is unique to them – unclear what "them" is referring to.
  • reworded

• Under "evolution", you apparently list synapomorphies of angiophytes and pre-angiophytes, but not those of angiosperms themselves?
  • added

• Fossils of the beetle Angimordella burmitina, which is at least 99 million years old, show evidence of adaptions for pollination – is it angiosperm pollination, and if so, how do we know? If not, why is it relevant?
  • yes it is. relevant because it is one of the earliest example of coevolution between animal and flower.

• Angimordella burmitina should be a red link rather than linking to the group article that does not even mention this species, I think. This one will get an article sooner or later.
  • done

• Shouldn't the "Coevolution" section have at least one example of coevolution that is visible in a flower? The only example is the fossil beetle, but it's just about the beetle morphology, not about adaptations in a flower that would be more pertinent to this article.
  • added

• The article seems to have a strong focus on cellular development. But there seem to be a number of other aspects that are not covered that seem important:

• You mention nectar and pollen, but plants have other means to attract pollinators; e.g. carrion flower is quite common and important, I think.

• added the lines Rewards given to pollinators by flowers in "payment" for pollination include: food (such as pollen, starch, or nectar), mates, shelter, a place to raise the young, and pseudocopulation (sexual deception). They may also be attracted by various stimuli such as size, scent (as in carrion flowers), and colour—this includes nectar guides, which show pollinators where to look for nectar; they may be visible only under ultraviolet light.

• What is the size range of flowers? The largest flower is that of Titan arum, is it? This information is of obvious interest for lay readers and helps to better illustrate the diversity of flowers.

• added Flowers range in size from less than 1 mm (1⁄25 in) (Wolffia) to 1 m (3.3 ft) in diameter (Rafflesia arnoldii).

• The fact that flowers can close and open is not discussed at all? What stimuli cause flowers to open? Some flowers open in the morning and close in the evening. Others flower at night. Etc.

• added

• Flowers develop from a bud, right – also not discussed?

• added bud in growth section

• Some flowers direct themselves to the sun (Heliotropism)

• added

• Senescence is also not discussed, I think. Pollination drastically shortens the lifetime of a flower, etc. Is it correct that flowers never last longer than a year, or are there multi-year flowers?

• added This process is called floral senescence; it is often accelerated or initiated by the completion of pollination. Death is preferred because flowers are costly to the plant; nevertheless, flowers can last for between a few hours and several months.

• I also wonder if we have some WP:undue weight towards colour. "Color" is its own major section with four paragraphs, but scent and nectaries are only mentioned en passant and are not really discussed. It is also interesting to look at other language versions of this article, especially of the German and Spanish Wikipedia, where this article is "featured"; neither of them seems to have a section just on colour. I am not arguing that the section should be removed, but the section is huge and the article looks imbalanced to me. What do you think?
  • I agree it looks a little large. I've cut it down to just two paragraphs. Dracophyllum 01:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• I also wonder (but not sure) if "Colour" should be right after the "Structure" section, or even combined with it. "Colour" is basic description still, so that makes more sense to me. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Demoted per your request
    • All responded to again I think. Phenomenal review so far I can't thank you enough @Jens Lallensack:. Cheers, Dracophyllum 07:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

break4

• Between 3 and 8% (around 1500) of all crops are pollinated by insects. In this way, flowers contribute a total economic value of around $361 bn (2015 estimate) to the world economy – This does not make sense to me. There are flowers that are not pollinated by insects, right? Of the crops not pollinated by insects (I am surprised these are the majority), many could still have flowers, right? And what do you mean with "crops"? Individual plants; species; or cultivars? If it is cultivars, is that figure ("between 3 and 8%") really informative, since what matters for the total economic value are only the most common crops, no? Are all tree species that are grown for wood included in these "crops"? Without background information here, the percentages are not really informative or can even be misleading, in my opinion.

• Cut

• For the section "Uses": Flowers are also important addictive drugs (Cannabis indica, i.e. hashish, marihuana); worth to mention I think.

• added

• Also in the "uses" section; the word "spices" could be listed (thinking about clove, saffron, Humulus lupulus).

• added

• Regarding balance/undue, I wonder if the "Taxonomy" section is (relatively) too long. Many important aspects about flowers are only very briefly mentioned, but uses of flowers for plant taxonomy has four paragraphs – twice as much as the "Uses" section that is for all other uses, and this is what worries me. Compared to the rest of the article, the "taxonomy" section strikes me as overly detailed. We might not need a detailed explanation of Linnaeus classification; the first two sentences of the second paragraph of the "Taxonomy" section seem enough for that (we need summary style here; we have other articles for those details). Also the rest could be shortened/written more concisely; the sentence this system of classification was published in their Genera plantarum in three volumes between 1862 and 1883 seems especially excessive to me.

• Indeed, I've cut much of it. The thesis is basically: we used to care only about flowers, then we cared about the plant as a whole, and now we just look at DNA, but in the end flower morphology is still key.

• The French botanist Antoine Laurent de Jussieu's 1789 work Genera plantarum set out a new method for classifying plants; based instead on natural characteristics. – Does that mean that Linnaeus' characteristics (the stamens) are not "natural"? If so, what is the difference?

• added: ...more on natural characteristics. This included taking into account the rest of the plant, so that diverse plants weren't put into the same groups, as often happened in Linnaeus's system

• The principal purpose of a flower is reproduction,[6] both of the individual and of the species – Only an individual can reproduce, I would assume; I am not sure what "and of the species" is doing there?

• changed to The principal purpose of a flower is reproduction of the individual, leading to the survival of the species.

• Not enough time today to finish it. I still need to reply to a couple of the points above, but overall, I am happy with most of the article now. However, the "Evolution" section (the first four paragraphs of it) appears weak to me, and I will try to provide more comments on it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• In anticipation of this, I have rewritten it so it doesn't rely so heavily on one really weird and not so useful explanation. It is now also more balanced, at four paragraphs. Hope this is an improvement. All responded to again @Jens Lallensack:. Cheers, Dracophyllum 10:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Femke

I would love to comment after WP:TCC ends, assuming this hasn't had a good read from nontechnical editors before. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

SC

• Support. Now Jens has finished his mammoth and excellent review, I've taken a further read. I am ignorant about the subject, so cannot comment on the technical side of things, but the prose reads very well and the article covers all I would think it should do for an encyclopaedic overview. - SchroCat (talk) 09:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Nub098765

What an article. It baffles me how anyone is willing to put in the effort to improve such a large topic. Applause all around. This is my first FAC contribution ever, so I will not be putting forward a !vote, but I hope you can appreciate these copyediting comments:

• "Flowers not only develop and produce spores (reproductive units), gametes (sex cells), zygotes (fertilised cells), and seeds, but also aid in their effective dispersal." — This feels a bit clunky. Unless it’s important to separate development and dispersal, consider streamlining: "Flowers develop and disseminate reproductive cells—spores, gametes, zygotes, and seeds."

• Technically that would be incorrect, because only seeds are "disemminated" I've gone with Flowers not only produce spores, which become gametophytes that produce gametes (sex cells), leading to zygotes (fertilised cells), but also develop and help disseminate seeds. This is a little wordy but I think it works.

• "The zygote grows into a seed, which contains structures to assist in the future plant's survival and success. — The word "success" sounds slightly non-neutral. Perhaps replace with "growth".

• done

• "The androecium, consisting of stamens, is the whorl of pollen-producing male parts." — Does this then mean that the stamens are such pollen-producing male parts? If so, I'd suggest clarifying it: "The androecium is the whorl of male floral organs called stamens, which produce pollen."

• done The androecium is the whorl of male parts called stamens, which producing pollen.

• "This close relationship compounds the negative effects of extinction, however..." — A more elegant phrasing might be: "However, such interdependence exacerbates vulnerability to extinction..."

• changed to However, this close interdependance increases the risk of extinction, since the extinction of either member almost certainly means the extinction of the other member as well.

• "In some flowers, for example, floral parts such as the stamens, stigmas, and sepals are highly altered to look like petals." — A shorter "In some flowers, organs such as stamens, stigmas, and sepals are modified to resemble petals." would work better here IMHO.

• done

• "The carriers by which pollen is transferred between plants are called vectors." — This construction is pretty wordy. Consider simplifying to "The agents that transport pollen between plants are known as vectors."

• done Agents that transport pollen between plants are called vectors

• "Flowers have been used by humans all over the world for thousands of years for a variety of purposes, including: decoration, medicine, food, perfumes, and essential oils." — Ah, the perils of the passive voice. Perhaps: "Humans have used flowers globally for millennia for many purposes, including decoration, medicine, food, perfumes, and essential oils."

• The change has been made.

• "They may be deciduous (fall off at maturity), but will more commonly grow on to assist in fruit dispersal." — "grow on" seems informal and a bit vague. "Persist" might be a better word to use there. Maybe: "While sometimes deciduous (falling off at maturity), sepals more often persist to aid in fruit dispersal."

• done

• "The molecular interpretation of these signals is through the transmission of a complex signal known as florigen..." — Has a bit of a convoluted structure. Maybe: "These signals are molecularly interpreted through a complex signal called florigen..."

• done

• "As a result of economic forces, plants are bred for longer lasting, more beautiful, or colourful flowers." — Perfectly fine as-is, but perhaps, for flow: "Economic demand has led to the cultivation of flowers that are longer-lasting, more colourful, and visually appealing."

• done

That's all from me. A great article by an excellent contributor. Thank you for the work that went into this, and apologies if any of my comments came across as glib. I'm still working out the kinks in my reviewing style. Nub098765 (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• • All responded too. Thanks for the very kind praise and excellent comments @Nub098765:. Cheers, Dracophyllum 08:53, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Thrilling Cities

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 04:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Here is the final book by Ian Fleming to come to FAC, a book published in 1963 after Fleming was given a first class ticket round the world and a bucket load of travellers cheques by The Sunday Times, the lucky so-and-so. As with all his other articles, this has been given a thorough brush up and clear up, and all constructive comments are welcome. - SchroCat (talk) 04:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

750h

lead

• no problems here

synopsis

• In Tokyo he met his friend Somerset Maugham lunch is this grammatically correct? should this be a "In Tokyo he met his friend Somerset Maugham at a lunch" or "In Tokyo he met his friend Somerset Maugham for lunch"

• Oops - added - SchroCat (talk) 10:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• In Las Vegas he visited the casinos—where he won $210. is the em dash needed

• Nope: blitzed - SchroCat (talk) 10:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

background

• given a first class ticket that ==> "given a first-class ticket that"

• It's not hyphenated in the OED - SchroCat (talk) 10:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• to Hawaii; 2,000 miles into the Pacific one of the maybe use the conversion template

• Yep, now added - SchroCat (talk) 10:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• When Fleming moved on to Vienna he is "to" needed

• Yes, definately - SchroCat (talk) 10:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• who was resident in the city ==> "who was a resident in the city"

• Both are correct - SchroCat (talk) 10:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

reception

• nothing wrong here.

@SchroCat: that's all i got. 750h+ 09:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks 750 - much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

happy to support! 750h+ 10:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Support  Comments  from Noleander

• Overall, looks like a fine article. Cover of 1st edition in InfoBox is really eye-catching

• Tighten: Thrilling Cities is the title of a travelogue by the author... Is there a reason the words "the title of" are there? Consider tightening to Thrilling Cities is a travelogue by the author... or if you want to emphasize that it is a collection of more-or-less already published articles, Thrilling Cities is collection of travel articles by the author... (but that's not quite right since the article were substantially changed when put into book form, correct?)

• Yep, good point: went with he first option. - SchroCat (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Editions?: The book was first published in the UK in November 1963 ... The word "first" will raise questions in the readers' minds: Were there multiple editions? Was it translated into multiple languages? Consider making article less indecisive by either (a) elaborating on other publication events (e.g. name the year of publication in USA); or (b) simplifying The book was published in the UK in November 1963... Edit: I see there are more details below in "Release and reception" section, so not sure if any changes are needed in lead.

• Mulling on this one - SchroCat (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Also a photographer? ... as well as photographs of the various cities. Readers will wonder if Flemming took the photographs himself. If he did, that should be mentioned prominently in the article. If he did not, that should be mentioned, maybe in an obscure footnote.

• It's not covered in the sources. The book has a list of photo credits for a number of the images, but not all, so it's possible (ie, this is my OR) they were stock images from the Sunday Times. - SchroCat (talk) 10:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• Clarify: ... titled "Incidental intelligence", dealing with the hotels, restaurants, food and night life. If that info is plain travel advice (as is found in common travel guides), the article should probably make that clearer.

• I've added a little more, pointing out that it's Fleming's impressions of the best. It's not quite the 'common travel guide' sort of stuff as the idea of costs, contact details, etc are not covered, just F's thought on a select few of the best. - SchroCat (talk) 10:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• Grammar The second series of articles was published in The Sunday Times from 31 July 1960 with Fleming's trip to Hamburg,... the conjunction "with" confused me at first. I was eventually able to parse it, but it took about 3 seconds. Consider something like The second series of articles was published in The Sunday Times starting on 31 July 1960 with an article about Fleming's trip to Hamburg,...

• Yep: done - SchroCat (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• ... continued... ...finished on 4 September with his visit to Monte Carlo. fast readers may think the visit to Monte Carlo was on 4 September. Maybe ...finished on 4 September with an article about his visit to Monte Carlo.

• Ditto - SchroCat (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Sections Synopsis and Background -The distinction between the two sections seems rather fuzzy: it is not clear what the scope or purpose of each section is. For example Synopsis section has " ...In Tokyo he met his friend Somerset Maugham for lunch and then had a Japanese bath. Fleming and Hughes also visited a geisha house.." ; yet Background section has a sentence with similar info: Fleming spent three days in Tokyo and decided there would be "no politicians, museums, temples, Imperial palaces or Noh plays, let alone tea ceremonies" on his itinerary; he instead visited a judo academy, a Japanese soothsayer and the Kodokan, a local gymnasium. Part of the confusion is that actual visits to cities were "background" to the publication of the book, so if event X happened in Tokyo (and was mentioned in the book), should X be in the Background section or the Synopsis section?
• [follow-on to above] Consider this approach to those two sections: Synopsis section is limited to restating/summarizing the events/observations on the individual cities; and Background section contains everything else (e.g. organization, planning, flight info, alternate titles, newspaper series publication dates, etc).

• Dealing with both these points together. I'd rather keep them more or less as they are at the moment, because otherwise we'll have an over-bloated summary and a rather dull and thin background section. As summaries are supposed to be under 700 words, if we move all the info out of the background section, it'll just mean dumping it, which isn't going to aid the reader. - SchroCat (talk) 10:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• Consider flipping sequence of sections, so Background section is before the Synopsis section, which makes chronological sense (I understand that "plot" sections are usually very early in book-related articles, but a "Background" section may be an exception).

• I think I'd prefer to have it this way round (it's in line with Fleming's other non-fictional work), but I'm still mulling it over at the moment. - SchroCat (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Sections "Release and reception" and "Reviews". Minor suggestions: "Release" seems more appropriate for films; consider "Publication". Not sure if those two sections should be subsections or peers? Consider making peers & changing "Reviews" -> "Reception".

• Same as above re keeping but mulling over. I've swapped out 'release' for 'publication' and 'Reviews' for 'Reception' though - that's much better. - SchroCat (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Obligatory p/pp: p. 222-223. and p. 186-187.

• Yep, done - SchroCat (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Sources section Thrilling_Cities#Newspapers: that list of sources seems to includes several newspaper articles by Flemming ... are those the articles that were the basis of the book? If so, maybe they should be placed in a special, focused grouping, with a group title that informs readers why they are special. That way, interested readers could find those articles and read the original article.

• OK, done - SchroCat (talk) 10:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• Category: consider including article in Category:British travel books

• Done - SchroCat (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• That's all I can find. Ping me when the above are resolved/addressed, and I'll definitely support on prose/MOS. (Note that some of the above are optional suggestions). Noleander (talk) 13:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Some of the easy/obvious ones done. I'll sort some of the others shortly and I'm still mulling over a few points at the moment. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Noleander. I've done almost all your suggestions, with the exception of the major one in the middle, which I don't think would improve the article. There may be some middle ground, or some smaller changes that can be made around the point you raised though and I'm happy to talk it through further. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

"Support" on prose and MOS. I have not checked images or sources. Regarding the issue above regarding "fuzzy distinction between Background and Synopsis sections": I still think readers will benefit from those sections having more precise (and distinct) purposes. But it is not a show-stopper for FA quality. If no other reviewers (or your conscience :-) mention it, then it might just be me. Noleander (talk) 13:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

A meagre gleaning of quibbles and carps:

• "by the author and The Sunday Times journalist Ian Fleming" – not sure about this, and I'm certainly not pressing the point, but I think I'd write "and the Sunday Times journalist", which seems to me more natural without the capitalised definite article. In fact here I think I might lose the definite article altogether. I leave you with the thought.

• Let me think on that one. I'm inclined to leave as is, given it's the formal title, (rather than the paper being named Sunday Times but convention adding the definite article). - SchroCat (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Fleming and Hughes also visited a geisha house" – who's Hughes? First we've heard of him.

• Blitzed here - better left in the background section. - SchroCat (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• "the home of his close friend Noël Coward" – true but Coward also had a home in Jamaica, as you well know. Perhaps Coward's European home or some such?

• Indeed, done. - SchroCat (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Fleming stayed just three days in Hong Kong" – a bit editorial? You don't do the same for his three days in Toyko later in the paragraph.

• Very true. Expunged. - SchroCat (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• "such as The Sunday Times editor Harry Hodson" – as above for the definite article, which I wouldn't capitalise here.

• As above. - SchroCat (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Fleming moved on to Berlin" – just "He", perhaps, rather than repeating his name?

• Yes, done - SchroCat (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Ingrid Etler, a journalist and old girlfriend" – a touch ungallant. Possibly "former girlfriend"?

• True! Done - SchroCat (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• "John Raymond, in The Sunday Times, wrote that "Mr Fleming's prose arouses the voyeur that lurks in all but the best of us", although he considered that the book remained 'supremely readable'" – not sure about "although": arousing the voyeur in us is surely not antithetical to readability.

• Tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

That really is all I can find to cavil at. Tim riley talk 20:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks Tim. All done bar two, about which I am pondering. - SchroCat (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Happy to support elevation of this article to FA. It seems to me to meet all the criteria. An excellent read, well proportioned, thoroughly referenced, balanced and as well illustrated as I suppose it is possible to be, given the vintage of the topic. Well up the SchroCat/Fleming standard. Tim riley talk 09:35, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text
• File:ThrillingCities.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks Nikkimaria: both these sorted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

UC

• Link on "series of books" would better cover the "a", to clue readers in that it links to this specific series rather than the generla concept (MOS:MORELINKWORDS).

• Yep, done - SchroCat (talk) 10:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• In Chicago he visited local crime locations, such as the site of the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre and the Holy Name Cathedral, where Hymie Weiss was gunned down: I wonder whether some dates would help here, and perhaps a brief introduction (I think the "Saint Valentine's Day Massacre" gives a lot of the details in the name, but we could note that Weiss was a mob boss.

• Good point: added dates and descriptor. - SchroCat (talk) 10:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• In Hamburg he visited the Reeperbahn and Herbertstraße—both part of Hamburg's red-light district.: "its", "the city's", or similar? They would hardly be part of some other city's red-light district.

• Done - SchroCat (talk) 10:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• Similarly, I would put a date on Operation Stopwatch, to be clear that he wasn't receiving top-secret information about an ongoing military operation.

• Done - SchroCat (talk) 10:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• he home of his close friend Noël Coward, who introduced him to Charlie Chaplin, his neighbour. In Naples Fleming interviewed Lucky Luciano, finding him "a neat, quiet, grey-haired man with a tired good-looking face: similarly, lots of names here; I know it might grate a little to introduce Charlie Chaplin, but I would still do so, as I think most people will need one at least for Luciano and probably for Coward.

• OK, done - SchroCat (talk) 10:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• Fleming was given a first class ticket: hyphenate as a compound modifier.

• The OED doesn't. - SchroCat (talk) 10:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we'd expect it to -- you only hyphenate when used in apposition, so the hyphen isn't part of the lemma. The normal usage would be "the ticket was first class" but "it was a first-class ticket": see e.g. here (which uses "world class/world-class" as one of its examples). Or does the OED explicitly say not to hyphenate in this case? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

It's not that prescriptive, so I've added it. - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• Fleming was given a first class ticket that cost £803 19 shillings 2 d and £500 of traveller's cheques for expenses and flew BOAC to his first stop, Hong Kong: I would consider replacing the second and with something else, perhaps a semicolon ("expenses; he flew...") -- at the moment this reads as slightly breathless.

• Added - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• I would link "Noh plays" and "tea ceremonies" in Fleming's quotation.

• OK, now linked - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• a judo academy, a Japanese soothsayer and the Kodokan, a local gymnasium: the Kudokan is a judo academy (specifically, it's the judo academy par excellence) -- are these definitely three different places?

• No: my error. Now adjusted. - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• I'm not sure the "Background" section really is a "Background", since most of it is talking about the process of writing the book. There might be a better word; I'll think on it.

• I think I'll keep it as 'Background', as it is the background of how the book came into being. It also follows the same pattern as the rest of Fleming's works, so there is a measure of consistency in approach across them - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• I notice that we're repeating quite a lot of material from the synopsis in the background section. Would there be mileage in redesigning the whole thing -- having a section on how Fleming got into the project, and another about his travels, which could bring together the details mentioned in each?

• I don't think so. We need to have a synopsis section (which we do) and if we add more into there it would quickly go past the 700-word limit, which seems to trigger a lot of people, so I think this is probably the better path to take. - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• later considered were The Thrilling Cities and More Thrilling Cities: from the footnote, it sounds as though they did settle on The Thrilling Cities, at least for the newspaper series.

• Added a comment about it being used as such. - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• more flabby verbose than one expects: not flabbily, or flabby-verbose?

• Oops - my error. - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• The critic for The Financial Times, James Bredin, found the book unsatisfying because of the brevity of the subject, thought that Thrilling Cities was good enough and well written so that it "can—and will, compulsively—be read at a sitting: something has gone awry with the grammar between these two parts -- but he also seems to be contradicting himself -- the second bit seems to be praising it partly for its brevity, which doesn't really gel with a verdict of "unsatisfying". On further reflection: surely not the brevity of the subject, but rather the brevity of the telling -- unless we mean that Bredin complained that Fleming should have spent longer on his holidays?

• Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• written either with Bond in mind, or if he was there: as if he were there. There might be a better and more precise way of expressing "there" -- I assume the point is that Fleming was acting like his own character?

• Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 09:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• Xan Fielding ... hoped that the material gathered was used in Fleming's Bond works with thrills included: would be.

• Yes, done - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• the differences between oriental and western women's approaches to men: oriental is frowned upon these days as an ethnic descriptor. Was he specific enough to say "Chinese" and/or "Japanese"?

• No. I've changed to "eastern" instead. - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

That's a fairly quick run: I'll come back to look at bibliography, sourcing and anything I've missed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 05:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Airship

As always, these are suggestions, not demands; feel free to refuse with reasoning.

• Slightly pedantic, but "is better known as the author of a series of books about James Bond" seems to imply, to the unfamiliar reader, that James Bond was an existing person Fleming decided to write books about. Perhaps better as "is better known as the author of the James Bond series of books"?
• I see the "Synopsis" section does not include inline citation, presumably following WP:PLOTREF, but that implicitly only applies to fictional works. Thoughts?

• I think it's logical that it should also apply to non-fictional works too, based on the same logic: the work itself acts as the primary source for the text. I could add four citations, one at the end of each paragraph, with a wide page range for each, but I'm not sure that would be terribly helpful. - SchroCat (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• The section could also provide some words on all the chapters, rather than just most. I think Honolulu, New York, and Monte Carlo are currently not described in any detail.

• There isn't much in the text to say about those three locations. I'm not sure we need to have too much on each one. - SchroCat (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note d would be more helpful at the preceding semicolon.
• The "Synopsis" section seems to overlap with "Background" quite a bit. I see Noleander expressed similar sentiments about the overlap above; at this point I'm questioning whether a distinct "Synopsis" is needed. I'd merge the two sections into a single long one, divided between two level-3 subsections for each individual trip.

• I think the synopsis is probably needed. I think there would be more pushback from readers if there wasn't some form of summary. I'm really against the thought of the multiple sections, as there just isn't enough in some of the chapters to justify it. - SchroCat (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• Might want to add a note clarifying that Fleming got the year of his father's death wrong (if Ian Fleming#Birth and family is correct).
• "Ann Fleming joined her husband in Les Avants and for the rest of the journey; Noël Coward was a friend to them both. Fleming had asked Coward to arrange the meeting with Charlie Chaplin" is almost staccato in phrasing; I'd eliminate the middle clause and just write "Fleming had asked his friend Noël Coward to arrange..."

A fun article. If you're interested in reviewing, I have one FAC open currently. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks AirshipJungleman29. All sorted, except where commented on. - SchroCat (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Crisco

• The cities covered by Fleming were Hong Kong, Macau, Tokyo, Honolulu, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Chicago, New York, Hamburg, Berlin, Vienna, Geneva, Naples and Monte Carlo. - I think an active voice focused on the book would work better here.
• Fleming is better known as the author of the James Bond series of books; Thrilling Cities is one of two non-fiction books he wrote. - Is the other non-fiction book worth mentioning in the lede?
• Each chapter closes with what Fleming titled "Incidental intelligence", dealing with the hotels, restaurants, food and night life, giving his recommendations for the best of each. - Feels like a conjunction is needed after "night life"
• Are any of these venues worth red links?
• After visiting Geneva, Fleming then travelled to Les Avants, the village near Montreux and the European home of his close friend, the writer Noël Coward, who introduced him to the actor Charlie Chaplin, his neighbour. - Quite a few subordinate clauses here. Is it worth splitting?
• mob boss and gangster both feel like WP:OVERLINK as common English-language terms. Conversely, feature story might be a valuable link as it refers to a specific genre of journalism.
• Otherwise looks sharp. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Celestica (song)

Nominator(s): Skyshiftertalk 23:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

"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. Skyshiftertalk 23:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Aoba47

Apologies in advance as I do not have the time to do a full review. I have included some comments based on my read-through of the article below to hopefully help with this FAC:

• Everyone in the “Personnel” section should also be represented in the prose. For instance, Nilesh Patel is only mentioned in that section, but not discussed in the prose.
  • Done
• Did the liner notes or any of the sources say where this song in particular was recorded, mixed, or mastered?
  • Unfortunately not.
    • Understandable. Thank you for checking. I have run into situations where the liner notes only credit the songwriters and producers so I understand there are situations where further information is just not available. Aoba47 (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• I would also include in the prose that the digital single and EP included other songs, “Insectica”, “Seed”, and “Mother Knows Best”.
  • Done
• The infobox and the prose in the article say that Crystal Castles wrote the song, but the “Personnel” section only credits lyrics to Alice Glass. The infobox and the prose make it seem like Glass and Kath wrote the song together.
  • Fixed
• The lead should have a sentence on who wrote and produced the song. I would also include the record companies in the prose of the lead.
  • Done
• I would clarify when the BBC Radio 1 premiere happened as it is not immediately clear in the lead. Maybe something like the following: (Polydor Records released it as the album’s third song on April 16, 2010, a day after its premiere on BBC Radio 1). I only used Polydor here as the article says that is the record label that released the song as a single with the other labels releasing the other versions.
  • Done
• I think that it would be better to have the music video have its own sentence in the lead.
  • Done
• This part, Critics cited the song as a shift from Crystal Castles' usual sound, would benefit from further clarification. I would briefly clarify the duo’s “usual sound” as it is unclear in the current wording. The same goes for the audio caption.
  • Done
• While I understand what you mean by this part in the lead, presenting a pop sound and resembling shoegaze, I think that it could be worded better.
  • Done
• I would avoid passive tense as done in this part of the lead, It was considered one of the best songs of the year by NME, which could be reworded to something like the following, NME considered it one of the best songs of the year. Another instance of this is this part later in the article, and it was considered one of Crystal Castles' ten best songs until then by Beauchemin.
  • Done
• I would encourage you to be mindful of repetition and to avoid having the same word for two sentences in a row. I noticed this example is the following, (when compared to their other songs) and (Larry Fitzmaurice of Pitchfork compared it), which has “compared” used for two sentences in a row.
  • Done
• I would be consistent with how the possessive apostrophe is represented. In the lead, there is Crystal Castles', but in the article, there is Alice Glass's. Be consistent on whether s’ or s’s is used.
  • Done
• I am not sure what this part, interacting in London's Abney Park Cemetery, means. What is meant by “interacting”?
  • Source says "scrapping about", and I wasn't sure how to make it more encyclopedic. I've edited it.
    • That is understandable. Thank you for the clarification. The revised wording should be good. Aoba47 (talk) 02:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• The last paragraph of the "Release and reception" section seems rather scattershot to me. I would refer to the following essay (WP:RECEPTION) to get ideas on how to better structure this paragraph.
  • This is always a hard point for me, but I've tried my best.
    • To be fair, I think that a lot of editors struggle with this type of section. I know that I do. Aoba47 (talk) 22:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• The duo have performed this song live, as cited in this article, so that information should be included in the article. I would recommend looking for further sources about this.
• Have you looked for any print publications about this song? I found the following sources on Newspapers.com: The Indepenent, The Bangor Daily News, and The Toronto Star. I would encourage you to look for further sources as I believe that are more even on just Newspapers.com to consider.
  • I did look on archive.org. I went on the Wikipedia Library and didn't find Newspapers.com, though I now discovered that I just had to apply for it, so now I wait. Thank you for the sources though!
    • That is understandable. It honestly took me years to even be aware of the Wikipedia Library in the first place. I am glad that I could help. Aoba47 (talk) 02:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Apologies again for not being able to do a full review, but I hope that this still helps. Best of luck with the FAC, and congrats on your recent FA promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Joeyquism

Hi! I've been browsing through the FACs intermittently for the past few weeks or so, and this one caught my eye. I love this song and figured it'd be a great way to get back into editing (or at least reviewing/helping out). Leaving a few thoughts below for now, but I'm aiming to leave a more thorough review by sometime tomorrow. Feel free to ping me if I haven't followed up by EOD. joeyquism (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Lead

• I'm not entirely sure about the current phrasing of "The song was written by members Ethan Kath and Alice Glass, with Kath producing it". The "it" feels a bit clunky to me, though that may just be my inner pedant talking again. Feel free to ignore, but perhaps something like "The song was written by Ethan Kath and Alice Glass, with production handled by Kath" might read a bit more smoothly?

Background

• Would it be possible to briefly clarify what Celestica is in the sentence, "According to Kath, the track was inspired by a suicide at the Celestica factories in Canada…"? I think adding a short clause explaining the company's function could help provide useful context for readers. Also, I've been trying to track down the origin of this clip without much luck, which is a shame, as it would make for a compelling citation, especially if we could pinpoint the location of the factory and Celestica's role in the production process. If you happen to come across a source, that would be amazing, though of course no pressure if not.

Carl Zoll

Nominator(s): BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

After narrowly missing out on promotion last month, I'm taking this back so that hopefully it can achieve FA status this time. Carl Zoll, the son of a stonecutter, was one of three brothers active in Green Bay, Wisconsin, sports, competing in wrestling and football. A heavyweight, he became one of the top wrestlers in the area and was undefeated in his first two years of competition, becoming the state champion. He contended for the World Light Heavyweight Championship in 1920 but was defeated, and after several losses in 1921, only competed periodically in subsequent years. Zoll was also active in football at the same time, being a member of the inaugural Green Bay Packers team in 1919. He appeared in exactly one NFL game for the Packers, a distinction that his two brothers also hold. He later worked for his family's stonecutting business until his death in 1974. Thanks are owed to Gonzo fan2007 and PCN02WPS, who both reviewed it twice (on the talk page and at the prior FA nom), as well as the five other editors who reviewed it at the last nom. Hopefully Zoll can become an FA this time. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Support from Gonzo_fan2007

• Support on prose, per my earlier reviews during GAN and the first FAC. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Image review - pass

Hi BeanieFan11, happy to do the image review. The article contains the following images:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carl_Zoll,_1920.png
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carl_Zoll_first_defeat_newspaper.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_1919_Green_Bay_Packers.jpg

They are all in public domain because of their age and/or lack of copyright notice. The links to the image sources are working. The images are relevant, placed in appropriate locations, and have captions and alt texts. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment

I can't see what changes have been made since the last FAC (apart from two edits by me) that address the issues raised there. Graham Beards (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• A decent amount of rewording has been done since your last comment at that FAC. You also never made it clear what exactly I was to do, only saying that the article somehow needed to be entirely rewritten by a football FA expert, despite all four of the most prominent football FA writers reviewing it, some even copyediting it, and each agreeing it was in FA-shape. As I said before, I'm happy to address any issue you point out. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

  I meant since the last FAC was archived. At least one reviewer said the prose needed a polish but no edits have been made. I'm sorry but I get the impression it has just been brought back to FAC hoping for better luck. Graham Beards (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

  The reviewer said the prose could use polish, but they also said their comment was "certainly not an oppose". I'm happy to address any issue you point out, but I don't see what I'm possibly supposed to do when I'm told by one lone "oppose" editor (compared to four who supported, and no other opposes) that the "whole thing needs to be entirely redone by a different football FA writer" when (i) each football FA writer reviewed and/or copyedited it and said it was good, and (ii) you haven't specified anything for me to do. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

  BeanieFan11, I certainly disagree with Graham Beards on their opinions on the article, but respect that they feel that way. I think their point lies more in two places: (1) WP:FIXLOOP, where they believe that the level of review is so significant that instead of providing 100 comments and days of back-and-forth, they would rather see another editor copyedit the article and improve the prose before reviewing it; (2) that since the last nomination closed, there haven't been any significant changes to the article and since David Fuchs archived the nomination as a failure, the expectation is that improvements need to be made to change that consensus. Now I of course am paraphrasing others, so they are definitely welcome to chime in to clarify. I obviously still disagree with the commentary and decision in the first nomination, but here we are. I would say that unless the two reviewers who were neutral on the first nom are willing to come back for another review and switch to support, it will be challenging to have this nom be successful with Graham Beards opposition (which was strongly relied upon for the archival of the first nom). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

  If the article is so poor and I'm incapable of writing acceptable prose, I'd like to see at least something illustrating that. At the moment, every addressable issue that anyone has raised anywhere has been addressed. I had nothing to indicate what I possibly could have done to 'fix' the vague 'issues' brought up by Graham Beards in the past FAC before a renom, and still have absolutely nothing indicating what sort of copyedit needs to be done now. Saying that the article needs someone other than me who writes football FAs to give it a complete rewrite when every editor meeting that description has done either that or given it a decent review and supported is pretty ridiculous if you ask me (especially with how vastly different the article is compared to when he first reviewed it). BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

  I agree with you BeanieFan11. I am sure there are actionable comments that could be made, but I view the prose as WP:FAC worthy at this point and any additional issues being relatively minor, stylistic choices. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

  Where did I say ""whole thing needs to be entirely redone by a different football FA writer"? I don't recall it, nor can I find the diff. Graham Beards (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

  I think the article needs a copyedit by someone new to the article who can bring some objective distance to the prose. ... you [should] find an editor who is familiar with the sport...preferably one with and established FA track record, who is willing to help you rewrite the article to a FA standard. In its current state, it is not good enough – that seems to imply you think the article needs significant reworking and rewriting by someone else. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

  Please supply the diff for this quote you attributed to me; "whole thing needs to be entirely redone by a different football FA writer"? If you can't, kindly apologise and retract the statement. Graham Beards (talk) 07:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the foundational quality of the sourcing here. Referring to a specific passage in the article at the last FAC, SchroCat stated that it read like it came from a "bad local newspaper". While I'm not going to disparage the quality of the Press-Gazette, we have a situation here in which the sourcing is almost entirely from a few regional newspapers. And while Green Bay has grown quite a bit, as of 1910 it was the eight-largest city in Wisconsin and smaller than Sheboygan, according to PDF pages 5 and 6 of this census document. So we're quite possibly into semi-regional or large local territory here at best for the 1910s newspaper coverage. And this coverage falls into two groups: 1) "come see this local wrestling production so that they'll still do shows here" like a 21st-century newspaper advertising a demolition derby or a high school basketball tournament and 2) "local boy makes good" stuff. I just don't see the available sourcing here as a foundation for a proper FAC. The pool of articles where GA-level sourcing exists is just much larger than the pool where FA-level sourcing exists. For example - I had 5 GAs promoted in 2024. Of these, CSS General Earl Van Dorn is a FA, CSS General Polk could maybe be a FA with further work, and I do not believe that Battle of Bayou Fourche, Edward W. Gantt, or Battle of Clark's Mill could ever be a FA without more research and publication into these topics, which is very unlikely for at least the latter two. I will let the FAC coords determine if this is actionable or not. 16:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

PCN02WPS

• As per my pre-FAC comments on the article talk page and at the first FAC, I will support on prose. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Rico Krieger

Nominator(s): Johnson524 04:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Rico Krieger is a German citizen who committed sabotage work inside Belarus for the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU). Motivated by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, he would blow up a railway line before being captured, subsequently becoming the first foreign citizen to ever be sentenced to death in Belarus. In a case involving multiple heads of state, duress, and an international prisoner swap: Krieger was returned to Germany in exchange for the release of a Russian FSB officer and hitman, a trade which concluded just last year. The article, a GA for over a month, has to be one of the most interesting and in-depth I've ever written, and if promoted, will be only the eighth Belarusian article to achieve FA status. Any reviews are truly appreciated, have a blessed day. Johnson524 04:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• Are there no images of the subject?

• Don't use fixed px sizes

• File:Asipovitšy_railway_station_1.jpg: what's the copyright status of the building? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done I've replaced the 'px' parameters with 'upright=1.1' and 'upright=0.7' parameters respectively. @Nikkimaria, do you know what to do about the multi-image template which requires 'px' parameters be used, or do these images have to be removed? Also, there are no free images of the subject, and when you ask what the copyright status of the building is, do you mean placing the template Commons:Template:PD-Belarus/en on the file page? Otherwise, it was released into into the creative commons by the original photographer. Thank you for the image review. Johnson524 05:09, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Belarus does not have freedom of panorama, so we need to account for the copyright of not just the photographer but the building as well. As to the template, not sure, sorry. Maybe ask at VPT? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. In that case, the template I linked wouldn't work. I found something interesting though... according to COM:FOP Belarus, Freedom of Panorama was outlawed in 2011, but this photo was taken in 2009, pre-dating that law. Is that how that works? Can this image actually be used, or does the law retroactively apply? If it does retroactively apply, then there might be another way. The part of the law that affects this picture: "[images] can be visualized, broadcasted or cablecasted, and publicly transmitted in any other way if such works continuously remain at the place with free admission" but are "not be the main object of visualization" both apply here, I think. Wikipedia/Commons aren't going anywhere ('remain in place'), will always be free admissions, and the use of this image on the page as a support to the larger article Rico Krieger as opposed to being the main object of discussion in an article say about the railroad itself, could mean this is fair use. This could really be a stretch though, sounding better in my head than in actuality, but what do you think about both of these @Nikkimaria? Cheers! Johnson524 06:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

What you're describing is an exemption for non-commercial use - unfortunately for our purposes non-commercial is the same as non-free. As to the date, do you know what the law was before 2011? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done @Nikkimaria I don't even know where to begin to find this information. Better safe than sorry, removed image. Johnson524 04:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I'm not well-versed with copyright questions, can we make a screenshot of him from the government video broadcast on TV and uploaded on YouTube? —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 06:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Such a screenshot would have the same copyright as the video broadcast. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Belarus-1, the state-run media which broadcast Krieger's duress confession, states at the bottom of their website that "For any use of materials, an active hyperlink to news.by is required". This is the only thing I can find on their whole website which talks even remotely about copyright/re-use, and since this is kinda sketchy and state-run media is not one of the things exempt form Belarusian copyright (COM:NOP Belarus), I'd err on the side of caution and say there's currently no fair use photos of him, unfortunately. Johnson524 04:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Sounder commuter rail

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 01:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

After a decade of sitting on some notes, I have finally finished writing an article on one of my username's inspirations: a commuter train system that serves the Seattle area. It has two lines, runs somewhat infrequently, but boasts great views (especially on the N Line, which runs along Puget Sound). A GAN review was completed last month and I feel that there wasn't substantial changes needed to prepare for a run at FAC. The first line turns 25 in September and I hope to have a TFA ready for that day. SounderBruce 01:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• "Other services, including reverse commute and mid-day trips are offered" => "Other services, including reverse commute and mid-day trips, are offered"
  • Fixed.
• "which is shared with Amtrak Cascades" - link Cascades, which seems to have an article
  • Added link.
• That's all I got as far as the end of the Stations section. Back for more later.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• "add passenger cars on gamedays in the future" - might be worth clarifying that the Kingdome was a venue for [whatever sports it was a venue for] (or at the very least clarify that it was a sports stadium) as without that info, "gamedays" is a bit meaningless in this context
  • Added list of sports.
• That's taken me up to the end of "Demonstration project and votes" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the review so far. I hope you'll be able to enjoy a ride on Sounder; the N Line to Everett is very scenic and, when combined with a ferry trip, a perfect way to spend a summer afternoon here. SounderBruce 17:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

More comments

• "A series of open houses [...] were held during the same month and was followed" - subject seems to change from plural to singular mid-sentence
  • Decided to split the sentence, as it isn't that related to the next event.
• "In April 1999, Sound Transit, WSDOT, BNSF (formerly Burlington Northern), and Union Pacific announced a preliminary agreement to operate Sounder service" - think that should be either "In April 1999, Sound Transit, WSDOT, BNSF (formerly Burlington Northern), and Union Pacific announced a preliminary agreement to operate Sounder services" or "In April 1999, Sound Transit, WSDOT, BNSF (formerly Burlington Northern), and Union Pacific announced a preliminary agreement to operate the Sounder service"
  • Switched it to "Sounder's Seattle-Tacoma line" to make it clearer; "Sounder [train] service" would have worked, but it implies (at least in American English) that it is just one trip and not the whole line's operations.
• "A provisional station near in North Sumner" - is there a word or words missing here?
  • Fixed.
• That's all I got in the remainder of the article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thanks again for the review. I have made the suggested changes and appreciate your feedback. SounderBruce 17:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
  • BTW @SounderBruce: - I know you have an interest in soccer and I currently have a soccer article at FAC (1883 FA Cup final). If you had any spare time and fancied taking a look that would be great! If not, no worries..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the offer. I will be on a fairly long road trip beginning soon, so I can't commit to anything; if I have a free evening, I will try to leave a review. SounderBruce 21:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Support by Nick-D

I'll post a review over the weekend.

• As an early comment, the article would benefit from a better, and especially more interesting, infobox photo to get readers' attention. The current image is cluttered and doesn't depict anything clearly. Something like File:Sounder_at_Carkeek_(20192129658).jpg would be superior. Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Swapped with a scenic shot that isn't too "scenic". Will look at retaking a shot from the same vantage point with my equipment when the weather is more reliably sunny. SounderBruce 06:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
    • That looks good Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I've read over the article, which is in excellent shape. I have only 2 comments:

• For the 'Stations' section, were all the stations established for this service or did they exist before it started?
  • Several were existing facilities that were either repurposed for Sounder or built with the hope of eventually serving Sounder; in fact, one of the future stations will serve a bus platform that will have waited 40 years for its train.
• For the ridership section, how does the actual ridership compare with what was expected when this service was planned? Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
  • @Nick-D: Thank you for looking over the article. I have added a blurb with some of the predicted rider numbers that were reported by the Times; will look for more in a bit.

SounderBruce 07:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• • • @SounderBruce: have you been able to find anything further here? Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
      • @Nick-D: I was not able to find consistent projection numbers for the "full" operating plan that is currently used. SounderBruce 06:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
        • Thanks Bruce - I'm very pleased to support this nomination Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Support  Comments  from Noleander

• I reviewed this about a month ago for GA. The article was in great shape then, and the nominator addressed several issues that I raised at that time.

• A month ago, the article had some railfan lingo, but I believe that was all converted into layman's terms during the GA.

• The article's prose & paragraphs are rather dense and detailed, but I don't think it rises to the point of encroaching on WP guidelines WP:SUMMARY or WP:DETAIL; and a dense, factual style is somewhat expected when describing an engineering infrastructure.

• Map color contrast: There are two maps near the top of the article that do a poor job of communicating info to the reader due to a color-contrast issue: those maps draw the rail line as light blue, while the line is adjacent to a light blue bodies of water (Puget Sound, Lake Washington, etc). .. the lines are very hard to see because it is blue-on-blue. These two maps are in the sections Sounder_commuter_rail#N_Line and Sounder_commuter_rail#S_Line.

The content of the maps is not under the control of the nominator of this article ... the nominator is using the standard rail/subway map template template:Rapid transit OSM map. That template gets the color of the Sounder line from WikiData at: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q56525586 and that file contains the official light blue color of the Sounder line, which, coincidentally, is nearly the same color as the map's ocean & lakes.

This is not the first time in the world's history that rail line colors have conflicted with map background colors (e.g. a green rail line going thru a green forest). This color-contrast problem has been solved in real world maps in many ways (e.g. drawing thin black borders on the rail line). For example: Google maps draws this same Sounder rail line in its official light blue color, but has white border lines, so as the line crosses blue water it is still visible: https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6669173,-122.4022998,18.17z/data=!5m1!1e2?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDUwNy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

Does the template:Rapid transit OSM map template offer any solutions to this color-contrast issue? For example: does that template provide an alternate way to draw the line to enhance contrast with the background? I posted a query on that template's Talk page: Template_talk:Rapid_transit_OSM_map#Is_there_a_way_to_draw_borders_on_a_rail_line,_to_distinguish_it_from_background_color?

Has this map color-contrast issue been discussed before in the FA process? What was the outcome?

• That's all I have for now. The article is a great article, and I hope my lengthy discussion about the map color issue is not out of place here in the FA review. Noleander (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
  • @Noleander: I have also made some inquires about improving the interactive map template; it seems to be using {{Maplink}}, which does have support for color changes, but the code is rather complex. For the time being, I have whipped up a new map in QGIS that should suffice as a placeholder. SounderBruce 07:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: New map looks fantastic. The article is in great shape... I look forward to seeing it on the front page of Wikipedia in September! Support. Noleander (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

@SounderBruce One final comment: There is a redundancy near the bottom of the article: the See Also section has a link to Commuter rail in North America, and also there is topic bar Template:USCommRail at the very bottom of the article, which has the identical link to Commuter rail in North America in the topic bar's colored header. Some editors say "See Also" sections should not exist in a great article (on the theory that any important link should be in the body text); on the other hand, the topic bars are not displayed to readers on many devices (e.g. phones). Not a showstopper for FA, just pointing it out. Noleander (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Moved the link up to the very first use of the term "commuter rail" in the body. Thanks again for your comments. SounderBruce 17:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Source review

I'll conduct a source review this weekend. Hog Farm _Talk 20:41, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Caldbick, John (January 7, 2015). "Milwaukee Road's S-Curve Trestle (Tacoma)". HistoryLink. Retrieved January 2, 2025." - what are Caldbick's credentials for this? Is he a subject-matter expert? What sort of editorial control does HistoryLink have, and are the editors recognized experts for Washington history? The about page of the website says "With a few noted exceptions, all articles on this site are original works prepared exclusively for HistoryLink.org by staff historians, contract writers, volunteers, and consulting experts." - so there seems to be a fairly wide range of qualifications by the writers. The same general question applies to the other HistoryLink articles
• "The locomotives are 58.5 feet (17.8 m) long and 15 feet (4.6 m) tall, while the passenger cars are 85 feet (26 m) long and 15 feet 11 inches (4.85 m) tall" - I'm not convinced that this can be adequately supported by a 1999 press release. This press release obviously can't support the size of the 2012 locomotive additions, or support that the various new car cab purchased in the 20 years since didn't have a redesign

Spot checks from this version

• "The tracks cross over the Lake Washington Ship Canal on the Salmon Bay Bridge, a movable bascule bridge near the Ballard Locks, and pass through Golden Gardens Park" - The source used to support the use of the Salmon Bay Brigde is a source from 2018 discussing how the bridge is being considered for replacement. While this didn't happen, I think a more recent source that isn't discussing the bridge in the context of it being planned to be removed 7 years ago would be better
• "Trains then pass under Interstate 405 near the former Longacres horse racing track and arrive at the first outbound station, Tukwila, which is shared with Amtrak Cascades" - source does not seem to mention Interstate 405 or the horse racing track, and I'm not seeing where it supports that Tukwila is the first outbound station?
• "The railroad to Tacoma was completed in December to meet a deadline imposed by the United States Congress and scheduled passenger and freight service began on January 5, 1874" - OK, although the copy of Armbruster on Internet Archive not having visible page numbers is a bit annoying
• "The companies, which merged into the Burlington Northern Railroad in 1970, ceased all of their passenger service the following year amid financial losses" - Can I get the quotes from the sources supporting this?
• "Burlington Northern agreed to share technical information with Metro Transit for their studies and stated that they were interested in operating the trains, which they could accommodate with the construction of a parallel track" - Does Higgins, Mark (October 27, 1990). "Commuter rail line draws interest". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. p. B2. support the parallel track, and if so can you please provide the quote? The other source supporting this mentions that the service would occur on existing tracks
• "The demonstration was delayed due to issues securing financing from the state settlement and was renamed to reflect its expanded scope, which included rush hour service to Seattle that began from Everett on January 28" - source mentions only funding difficulties without specifying if this was the state settlement or the federal grant funding
• "The RTA's preliminary schedule for the projects in Sound Move was adopted early the following year with plans to begin construction on commuter rail stations in 1998." - could I please get the quotes from the sources supporting this?
• "of which $200 million would be funded by Sound Transit—was part of the agreement, which was overseen by U.S. Senator Slade Gorton at the request of local officials during an impasse in negotiations" - could I please get the quotes from the sources supporting this?
• "A flat rate of $1 is charged for senior citizens and passengers with disabilities enrolled in the Regional Reduced Fare Permit program, or low-income passengers enrolled in the ORCA Lift program" - OK
• "The ST2 ballot measure, approved by voters in 2008, included funding for additional parking garages at four S Line stations that would open in the 2020s" - OK

So there's 10 spot-checks - one with issues, one with a more minor issue, one with a non-ideal source, three OK, and four pending quote from offline source. Hog Farm _Talk 21:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for the late response. I have been on a road trip for the past week and will not have full access to my sources until I return. Will make corrections and such where I can with the online sources I can access. SounderBruce 04:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Image review

Images are well chosen and all, as I can see, have sufficient alt text. Licence checks:

• File:Sounder commuter rail overview map.svg: licence OK (CC by Wikimedian), data fully sourced.
• The various logos, used at small scale, do not meet the threshold for copyright protection, or are else themselves generic (the ferry).
• File:Sounder N Line trainset near Brackett's Landing in Edmonds, WA.jpg: CC by Wikimedian; checks out.
• File:Amtrak Cascades passing Sounder at Everett Station (18345447693).jpg: CC by Wikimedian; checks out. The caption only duplicates information cited elsewhere, though I might consider citing it for form's sake and to avoid well-meaning tags.
• File:Auburn station west platform, 2018.jpg: CC by Wikimedian; checks out.
• File:Sounder trainsets passing at Tukwila station, July 2015.jpg: CC by Wikimedian; checks out. Again, I might consider citing the caption, even though there's no strict requirement to do so.
• File:Sounder and Amtrak maintenance base, Seattle.jpg: CC by Wikimedian; checks out.
• File:Sounder-consist-full.jpg: CC by Wikimedian; checks out.
• File:Sounder 326 seats on the upper deck.jpg: CC by Wikimedian; checks out. It's technically uncited (and not mentioned on Commons) that this is a Bombadier BiLevel coach -- I don't see any reason to doubt that, but would suggest adding it to the Commons page.
• File:Emd f59phi.jpg: CC by Wikimedian; checks out.
• File:Sounder 922 at Auburn station, Feb. 2025 (cropped).jpg: CC by Wikimedian; checks out. The identification isn't available on the Commons page, but can be inferred from the number given in the table, which is cited.
• File:SRDX 111 at Everett Station (18778358478).jpg: as above.
• File:Sounder Cab Car 327 (37384615221).jpg: as above.
• File:SDRX228.jpg: as above.
• File:NP 6511C King St Seattle Aug 1970xRP - Flickr - drewj1946.jpg: CC by Wikimedian; checks out.
• File:DuPont Station 02.jpg: CC by Wikimedian; checks out.

That's a pass, and I note that many of the images were taken by the nominator -- which is impressive dedication to duty indeed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Mercurial World

Nominator(s): CatchMe (talk · contribs) 12:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

This article is about the debut studio album by Magdalena Bay, a kind-of-indie pop duo from the US. It was almost entirely made by both members of the duo and received critical acclaim, appearing in several rankings (but not as much as their following album).

As my first nomination at FAC, I would appreciate any comments or interest in participating here, and I hope you have a good time reading the article. Thanks to everyone and also to Medxvo and OlifanofmrTennant for the comments in the Peer review. CatchMe (talk · contribs) 12:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Departure–

I'm going to be reviewing this over the coming days. I'm going to focus on prose primarily - I'll state I don't know much about this group or music bureaucracy in general beyond what I learned from my FA work but a featured-class article should be readable and (where applicable) interesting to a general audience. Departure– (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• Background and development
• Tenenbaum then joined Lewin's group,[1] the progressive rock band Tabula Rasa - this should be re-arranged. The citation breaks up the statement and makes it less readable - might I suggest some variant of Tenenbaum then joined Tabula Rasa, Lewin's progressive rock band, that was inspired by...[1] - move the citation to the end of the sentence. Departure– (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• Tenenbaum and Lewin then reconnected with the goal of making pop music, - ambiguous. How and when did they reconnect? Departure– (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• it was planned to be promoted by a series of concerts supporting the bands Kero Kero Bonito and Yumi Zouma, before they were cancelled due to the COVID-19 lockdowns. - Where I'm from, the COVID-19 lockdown had begun on March 13, so this should specify where the lockdowns affected - in fact, I can't find where the group was from outside of the lede, which seems important for an American music group. When was the tour cancelled specifically? If it was a named tour, include the name of the tour. Departure– (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• They recorded together in their home studio, which "immersed [them] in [their] creative, insular universe" and contributed to the album's "particular sense of madness in containment". Lewin was suspended from his job and had time "to just focus on music". There are a lot of quotes here in Wikivoice - can you add a literal interpretation of these? Are these quotes all from direct interviews, or secondary articles etc? Departure– (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• They noticed that the songs were mainly about observing the passage of time and feeling overwhelmed by the universe. Who is "they"? If it's a self-description, treat it as a self-description instead of a "woah, we're so great" style of description in the prose. Departure– (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• In an interview with Vulture's Justin Curto in 2021, Tenenbaum stated that it was a subconscious pattern. - "it"? Some elaboration here would be helpful - "their music contained subconscious patterns" or something. "Subconscious patterns" is also a bit of a weasely response on their end - if the interview contained any other more literal explanations then please add them. Departure– (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

More to follow. Departure– (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@CatchMe: It's been a week since you've opened this FA and you haven't responded here or edited the article at all in that time. If you address any of these issues, please ping me for fastest response. As of now I'm going to leave this as oppose on prose - at least until any of these issues are addressed. Departure– (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@Departure–: Thank you for your comments and my apologies for the delay. I've been too busy in my off-wiki life so I didn't have time to edit the article, but I hope this is not too late for you (and others) to still want to participate here. I believe your concerns so far have been addressed and I would be glad to continue improving this. CatchMe (talk · contribs) 21:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll be taking another look at this either tonight or tomorrow and will reconsider - please ping me if you don't see a review within 24 hours of this comment being written. Departure– (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Back now. Here's some more:

• with influences of several genres including - change to "with influences from several genres, including" - I think it's a personal choice but the latter seems far more formal. Departure– (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• It is also inspired by 1980s and 1990s pop music - if you don't have anything to say about their inspirations directly, they should be part of the list directly before this sentence Departure– (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• Matt Colar of AllMusic compared Tenenbaum's "baby-voice" to that of the singer Kate Bush. - who is Kate Bush? Elaborate in the prose for clarity in a vaccuum Departure– (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• Writing for PopMatters, Rob Moura found similarities between the production of some tracks and Art Angels (2015) by Grimes, the bubblegum of Kero Kero Bonito, the strings and piano of Future Nostalgia (2020) by the singer Dua Lipa, and the works of the project M83 - what are these "similarities"? If Moura thought they just sounded similar, say "X compared Y to Z" (if they can be given that type of weight in the prose), and if it's anything else, tell us what. Departure– (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• The duo mentioned Fiona Apple as an influence for their songwriting, - again, clarify for context in a background - if it's a person, perhaps give their ethnicity or time they were active or genre. Departure– (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• after Lewin grew up listening to her and Tenenbaum discovered her through him as a teenager - this is awkwardly phrased. Perhaps some variant of "which X was a long-time fan and who introduced Y to it as a teenager" for clarity Departure– (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• About the influences on the album - Don't start a sentence like this. Use "When discussing the influences" or some variant. Departure– (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• Mercurial World opens with "The End", a PC Music song - PC Music is both uninterpretable in a vaccuum and links to a defunct record label, which raises more questions than it answers. Did this album have an old song from a dead label as its opening track? Departure– (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• in which Tenenbaum wonders if an end exists. - How so? The song's lyrical content, or as outside commentary? Departure– (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• and a 1970s-infused funk bassline. - "X-infused" seems like a word-to-watch as overly promotional - replace with "-style" or "-inspired", maybe? Departure– (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• and gaming samples over Tenenbaum's breathy vocals. - "gaming samples" should be replaced with "samples from video games" for clarity, as "gaming" is also a verb and has a whole lot of meanings beyond even those two. "Tenenbaum's breathy vocals" has "breathy" which strikes me as a primary WTW - replace with "vocals by Tenenbaum"? Departure– (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• The following track, "Something for 2", is made by electronic beats. - Was it composed entirely of electronic beats? If not, this is incorrect. Departure– (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

@CatchMe: I'm going to be honest, the amount of unclear statements I've found in just the next four paragraphs lead me to believe that the rest of the article isn't very close to FA quality as of now (based solely on these unclear statements and the amount of prose remaining). I do see this as a solveable issue but any individual statement that doesn't work in a vaccuum isn't going to fly for my reviewing purposes. Leaving this as an oppose for now - please ping me once you've addressed these, and if you do, please be sure to clarify everything else in the article so that it'll work on its own. Departure– (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Image review - pass

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

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mercurial_World.jpeg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Magdalena_Bay_2021.jpg

The first image has a valid non-free use rationale and uses a low-quality image below the suggested threshold of 0.1 megapixels. The second image is published as own work under CC BY-SA 4.0. The images are relevant, placed in appropriate locations, and have captions and alt texts. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for this! CatchMe (talk · contribs) 21:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Misti

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

This article is about a volcano in Peru, which despite its long inactivity is considered to be among Peru's most dangerous ones. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

HF

I will review this. Hog Farm _Talk 20:10, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Misti has been cited as an example of a volcano where glaciers are retreating due to global warming," - if the consensus of the high-quality RS is that there are no glaciers on Misti, I think we can safely ignore the one reference to this as erroneous. I've seen my fair share of short one-off mentions of stuff in Civil War literature that is just plain wrong, from an author of an overarching work not specializing in the detailed topic matter and misinterpreting a source (or in some places, I almost suspect guessing)

  Done. Sometimes you run into this issue where otherwise reliable sources make plain mistakes - Copiapó (volcano) is my go-to one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the spelling choice between Inca and Inka be standardized?

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• "The city itself was founded on 15 August 1540" - for context, this was founded by the Spanish, right?

  Most likely, but the history is a bit complicated around that time c.f Paullu Inca. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Ubinas is the most active volcano in Peru, having erupted 24 times since 1550" - reading through Ubinas#Eruptive history, it appears that this soure is outdated

  Did something a little ugly to solve this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  "having erupted more than 23q times" - is the q suppose to be there? Hog Farm _Talk 02:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  No, typo; removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• "The quebradas (dry valleys) carry water during the wet season" - I think it would be a bit better to introduce the meaning of quebradas earlier in the paragraph where the term is first being used

  However, these are place names, here it's a technical word. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• "and include the 300-metre (980 ft) thick Río Chili" - this is the only place that the diacritic is used in Rio Chili - is that intentional?

  No, removed it. Actually, I am not sure if it needs one, do you know? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  I have no idea. Hog Farm _Talk 02:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Ready for the eruption history; I hope to be able to finish this soon. Hog Farm _Talk 21:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• I know this is probably due to inconsistent source, but having part of the article say "There is no clear indication of past glaciation, either, except possibly on the western flank." but then later "Traces of glacial erosion[126] like cirques,[128] evidence of hydromagmatic activity and mudflows imply that Misti was glaciated during the first last glacial maximum of the Central Andes 43,000 years

ago." So is there only marginal possible evidence of glaciation, or enough traces to state outright that there is an implication of past glaciation? I think there needs to be some sort of harmonization here

• Sigh. Went with what might be a partial solution, can you double check. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  I agree that putting the material reflecting disagreements between sources to the same immediate area is a better way to present the discrepancies. Hog Farm _Talk 02:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Historical records begin in 1540 AD when the Spaniards arrived" - I'm not a huge fan of this phrasing, given that there is some sort of historical Inca record for the 1440/1470 eruption

  I wonder if the 2001 source is outdated, but I don't remember this well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  Would this footnote be better off ommitted? At least to me, this doesn't really add anything besides confusion. Hog Farm _Talk 02:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  I've recast this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• " on the 2 May 1677, 9 July 1784, 28 July 1787 and 10 October 1787. " - why the "the"?

  Took it and the other word out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• ", to discurage the volcano" - is this a spelling error or a technical term that I am not familiar with?

  Tyop. Fxied. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• "The first documented ascent was by Álvaro Meléndez, a priest from Chiguata,[314] in 1 May 1667." - I guess what qualifies as a documented ascent? Earlier in the article there are reference to various people climbing far enough up the volcano in 1600 to throw stuff into the crater

  One where the person and date is clearly identified, I guess. Many of the mountains there have such ascents which found evidence of earlier ascents. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• "The iron cross on the summit was placed in 1784 and was still there a century later" - this seems like an odd statement, as there's greater detail about the history of the cross earlier in the article, including information that the 1784 cross had been replaced by the century later

  Removed this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

That's all for the first pass. Hog Farm _Talk 00:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

My concerns have been addressed; supporting. Hog Farm _Talk 04:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Image review - pass

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, happy to do the image review. The article contains the following images:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Volcano_Misti,_Peru.jpg

  from Flicker, CC BY 2.0

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Peru_physical_map.svg

  own work, CC0 1.0

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:P1020738_El_Misti_Krater.jpg

  own work, PD

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ubinas_and_Misti.jpg

  own work, CC BY-SA 4.0

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:El_Misti_Volcano_and_Arequipa,_Peru.jpg

  from NASA, PD

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Volc%C3%A1n_Misti_desde_Arequipa,_Per%C3%BA,_2015-08-02,_DD_03.JPG

  own work, CC BY-SA 4.0

The images are relevant and placed in appropriate locations. I suggest adding alt texts. All images have captions.

Added ALT. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Several captions end with a period even though they are not full sentences. I think those periods should be removed.
• Misti as viewed from Arequipa Should there be a comma after "Misti"? the later caption Misti, as seen from Arequipa (2015). uses a comma.

  Don't think that's necessary? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

  It's a minor issue so it's not necessary. It's just odd to have the same expression one time with a comma and the other time without the comma. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• The crater of El Misti (2005). In most other places, the article refers to volcano without the "El" and without italics.
• This mosaic of two astronaut photographs taken from the ISS illustrates the proximity of Arequipa to Misti, just 17 km away (2009). Do we need the information about how the image was created? We could simplify to "Arequipa is only 17km away from Misti." or something similar. We could add "(shown on the left)" after "Arequipa" in case this is not clear to the reader but I'm not sure that it's necessary.

  No, removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Phlsph7 (talk) 12:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• Looks good, that addresses the main concerns. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Older nominations

Greatest Hits (Mariah Carey album)

Nominator(s): TenthAvenueFreezeOut (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

This article is about Mariah Carey's second greatest hits album, released in 2001. Though it was far less commercially successful than her first greatest hits album, #1's (1998), it includes a much greater selection of Carey's previous work, comprising twenty-seven songs across her career from 1990 to 2000.

I will be as receptive to feedback as I can, so I appreciate it if you can take the time to read this article and leave feedback! TenthAvenueFreezeOut (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Siege of Hennebont

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 09:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

A brief siege of a small town typical of a hundred or a thousand others during the Hundred Years' War. It was notable at the time for the defence being led by a woman, her husband being a prisoner. She even donned armour and rode among the fighting men. The horror! The excitement! She didn't come to the unfortunate end of a later Joan, but she did spend the rest of her life imprisoned as insane. Mostly the article is about the to and fro of armies across Brittany with the occasional short, sharp clash of armed men. I wrote this recently, ran it through GAN, honed it a little and offer it up to you. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

images - pass

• img1: license good, caption probably not required? as stated in box title, alt good

The infobox images are frequently generic - eg Edward III's Breton campaign. As we are fortunate enough to have a near-contemporary image of the actual siege it seemed worth emphasising this. Tweaked anyway - is that better?

• img2: map good, alt redirecting to caption is fine, consider changing caption to A map of Brittany with modern administrative boundaries, showing locations of interest or similar.

Any particular reason? It's shorter, but also seems to convey less information. (The current usage is also my standard formulation :-) which I have used in a couple of dozen FACs without attracting any comment.)

• img3: license good, caption good, alt good
  • I assume Medieval capitalisation is preference?,

It is.

cheers, Dracophyllum, (1 PR) 09:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for picking this up Dracophyllum, and so swiftly! My responses are above. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

ok, I can support for images. Cheers, Dracophyllum, (1 PR) 21:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

Well up to the usual Gog standard.

Thank you Tim. I try.

Just two points, neither of which affects my support.

• I think, as our article on the lady is headed "Joan of Flanders, Countess of Montfort", you might offer a little more than a mere footnote to make this alternative way of labelling her clear to the reader from the outset. Perhaps something on the lines of "Joanna of Montfort (sometimes referred to as Joan of Flanders, Countess of Montfort)"? I note, in passing, that a quick rummage in the Internet Archive brings up just one "Joanna of Montfort" as opposed to dozens for "Joan of Montfort" but I do not press the point.

I am loath to bog down the opening sentence of the lead with this sort of background trivia. I could, slightly reluctantly, do as you suggest at first mention in the main article. 1. I would rather not. 2. How Wikipedia articles are titled is not my fault and sometimes entirely beyond the wit of man.

• "... had been underway for five years, therefore Joanna despatched her senior ... counsellor" needs a stronger stop than the comma.

Done.

That's all from me. Tim riley talk 10:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Mr riley, I appreciate both the support and the rapidity with which it was proffered. (No gerunds?) Gog the Mild (talk) 11:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

HF

I will review this soon. Hog Farm _Talk 13:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Apologies on the delay ...

I would remove "p. title page" from the Sarpy reference as another part of Sarpy is also cited, but otherwise after reading through this I feel that I can support. I generally dislike to leave FAC reviews with minimal commentary, but it looks like the other FAC reviewers have already picked up on any issues. Hog Farm _Talk 20:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Done.

Thanks Hog Farm Gog the Mild (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Borsoka

• ...with her two-year-old son... Why not their? Was he from a previous marriage or an extramarital affair?

No one knows, they didn't have DNA tests at the time. Their works just as well for me, so changed.

• However, the presumption of legitimacy is on my side. :)

• ...to win the Montfortists back to France... To France or to his cause?

To France.

Borsoka (talk) 11:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC) One of your usual articles of high-quality , so I support its promotion. Borsoka (talk) 03:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments Support from MS

Lead

• The article Charles, Duke of Brittany is linked twice in the same paragraph; it constitutes duplicate linking.

I am not seeing this. Are you sure? Which paragraph?

• • I meant the first paragraph of the lead:

The siege of Hennebont took place between late May and late June 1342 when the forces of Charles of Blois conducted an unsuccessful siege of the fortified port of Hennebont, commanded by Joanna of Montfort.[note 1] The conflict was a part of the Breton Civil War, a dynastic dispute between two claimants to the Duchy of Brittany which had broken out the previous year. A complicating factor was the pre-existing Hundred Years' War between France and England. Philip VI of France was supporting Charles of Blois, his nephew;... "Charles of Blois" is linked twice to the article Charles, Duke of Brittany.

Got it. Thank you. Fixed.

• "pulled into this fight" → "drawn into the fighting"

I will if you insist, but I like to try and avoid - where I can - even mild cliches.

• "try and starve" → "attempt to starve"

The former is informal; "attempt to" suits formal historical writing.

Fair enough. Done.

Background

• "all but independent rulers" → "Virtually independent rulers"

Why? What's wrong with the nice straight-forward monosyllables?

• I will not insist upon it.

MSincccc (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a review MSincccc, I appreciate that. Responses above, some of them queries for you. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Background

• "reinforced the town from the sea" → "reinforced the town by sea" ("By sea" is the standard phrase in historical and military contexts.)

Done.

Siege

• soubriquet → sobriquet (“Sobriquet” is the correct modern spelling; “soubriquet" is outdated and not listed in standard British dictionaries.)

Soubriquet is given as a standard word in the on line Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries, and as an alternative spelling in Collins on line and in Wiktionary. On a very quick skim I couldn't find a dictionary which gave it as archaic or non-standard.

Aftermath

• "on 30 September at the battle of Morlaix" → "on 30 September at the Battle of Morlaix"

Capitalisation of "Battle" is standard in British English for named battles.

The HQ RSs don't capitalise it. In fact they rarely capitalise battle when referring to the name of any armed conflict. Nor does it seem to be the standard usage, see [8] and [9]. Going by what we would consider RSs, capitalisation would seem to be the error.

Interestingly, if you ask ngrams to generalise here (by cutting "Morlaix"), there's a very marked preference for "Battle of X" over "battle of X" (clearest when you look at "Battle of the" or the variations on much-referenced battles, which removes the idioms "battle of wits" etc). However, it does seem that both are used. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

That’s all from me for the prose. Responses to your queries above. MSincccc (talk) 07:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Support from UC

• Philip VI of France was supporting Charles of Blois, his nephew; while Edward III of England had promised military assistance to Joanna, the wife of the rival claimant, John of Montfort: I don't think we can have both while and the semicolon here: a semicolon can only divide two clauses that could otherwise be independent. I'd cut the while, personally.

"while" removed.

• A truce between France and England was in place when the siege started but expired in June.: suggest but it expired to be (grammatically) clear that the siege didn't start-but-expire in June.

Done.

• Would it be worth making Joanna of Montfort into Joanna of Flanders, to even more strongly avoid confusion with John of Montfort? On the other hand, as they're married, I can see the value in using the same epithet.

The sources are all over the place - some scholars simply duck the issue. Still, I would like to keep the current usage, which I think helps the reader in several ways: as you point out, it reinforces the John-Joanna relationship; and it would (IMO) be confusing to have Montfortists supporting Joanna of Flanders.

• The Montfortists pursued: it might be worth explicitly saying that supporters of (John? Joanna?) were/are known as Montfortists.

Ah ha. No. I think a reader can work out which side Montfortists support in an armed conflict featuring a Joanna of Montfort and a John of Montfort.

Well, yes, but are they their volunteer supporters, their hired soldiers, the members of their apocalyptic religious cult...? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't see that adding that Montfortists were supporters of the Montforts would help a reader in this improbable dilemma. In context in seems clear enough

Charles's French army overran eastern Brittany and captured John of Montfort. Joanna took up the cause and concentrated her resources in Hennebont. In late May 1342 Charles moved on the town. On arrival part of his army advanced against orders and attacked some of the town's defenders who were formed up outside its gate. More troops were pulled into this fight before the French were pushed back in a disorderly retreat. The Montfortists pursued, inflicting many casualties and burning the French camp.

At the time the Hundred Years' War between France and England had been underway for five years; therefore Joanna despatched her senior counsellor, Amaury of Clisson, to Edward III in England with a large sum in cash to encourage English military intervention. The Montfortist cause was soon being supported by Edward III as an extension of the war with France.

I've had a flick through and I can't see any case where there's a plausible misreading or misunderstanding, so I'm happy with the approach taken here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• the Montfortists abandoned Hennebont and redeployed further west, hoping for English reinforcements: is it worth saying here whether they ever arrived?

Ho hum. I could, and I am not set against this. With this sort of article there is frequently no obvious place to stop adding subsequent events. I mean: I add that they did, which raises "And how did they get on?". Etc.

• Brittany was a province of France -- a question -- how far does it make sense to talk about territorial states and provinces in this period, as opposed to which rulers/titles owed fealty to which other rulers and titles? Put another way, would it be more accurate to start this section at "The dukes of Brittany were vassals of the French kings, but governed the duchy as all but independent rulers"?

It would be more accurate, but less helpful to a casual reader. One could write an entire paper on the nuances of the situation and how it arose, and still get responses pointing out all of the nuances one had missed. I have just reread Sumption and Wagner's summaries and I think "Brittany was a province of France. Although the dukes of Brittany were vassals of the French kings, they governed the duchy as all but independent rulers." is a decent paraphrase and as good a brief summary for a general audience as one might reasonably hope for. It is a wording which has been thrashed out at some length - with input from your good self.

• I'm not sure we need the regnal dates for John III and Philip IV: knowing John's date of death is useful, but then we get told it immediately after. MOS:BIO generally disapproves of life dates without a compelling reason, and I think the same logic applies here.

Agreed. Some reviewers are enthusiasts for them and sometimes I add them out of prophylactic habit. Although, thinking on't, John's does add some usful information. Philip's removed, John's left for your further consideration.

Honestly, I don't see what it adds that we don't get from finding out that he died in the following sentence -- and it is a bit of a "spoiler", since he hasn't died yet. I suppose it's vaguely useful to give us a sense of how long he's been duke, but I'm not sure we care that much and the narrative doesn't make a point of his being e.g. old, young, experienced, inexperienced -- so we're inviting readers to form judgements without guiding or endorsing them. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Deleted.

• What support John had came largely from the lower levels of society, especially in the towns.: this is a little ambiguous: do we mean that most of John's supporters were poor and urban (so nobody in the countryside liked him), or that this pattern was mostly apparent in the towns (so some rich rural folks liked him, but no rich urbanites did?)

I don't get your point. Do "largely" and "especially" not cover this?

No, they don't -- it's not clear exactly what is modified by "especially" ("what support John had" or "the lower levels of society". Could do "Especially in the towns, what support John had came mostly from the lower levels of society", or "John's support came mostly from the lower levels of society, and primarily from the towns". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Neither of those. I think I will stand by the existing wording. I don't see what "especially" can be referring to other than support coming from the lower levels of society.

Can you think of another way of phrasing it, then, at least so that I understand the intended meaning? I don't understand how what we currently have can be equivalent to neither of the options I suggested, though of course I can understand a disagreement over style or phrasing. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Rereading the three sources and taking a reasonable stab at just what one of them means, how is "John's support came mostly from the lower levels of society in the countryside and the bourgeoisie in the towns."? Which loses a nuance, but what the heck.

That's very clear to me (though not what I would have taken away from the current wording): you could always bring back "what support John had" to keep the nuance in the current framing that John didn't have much of it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:51, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

That wasn't the nuance. It actually works a little better without it. Implemented.

• Starting in early June 1341 John seized most of the fortified places in Brittany and by mid-August had all but made good his claim to the Duchy: lc duchy here.

Done.

• The French King liked: lc king.

No. "They are capitalized ... When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office". (MOS:JOBTITLE)

Right, but his title wasn't "the French King", so this is now a description. If it were "the King", we would capitalise. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Ah, so it is.

• The French King liked the idea of having a relative as the duke as it would bring: I think this could be reworked for clarity. Perhaps "Philip hoped to bring ... by having a relative as duke?"

Weell. I think it helps a reader to first give them what Philip wanted, and then explain why he wanted it; rather than t'other way round.

Perhaps, but the double use of "as", each with a slightly different meaning, makes the sentence stumble. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Ah. I have tweaked. "The French king liked the idea the new duke being related to him as it would bring the traditionally semi-autonomous province ..."

Works well; I've made a minor ce to what I assume was intended. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• This army overran all of eastern Brittany: restate the antecedent (which army?); some readers will make use of the contents links, or section links from elsewhere, and may not have read the preceding section.

Done.

• other lesser places also went over to the French: can we clarify lesser -- smaller? Less strategically important?

I am trying to combine smaller with and/or less well fortified but if "lesser" won't serve I think a longer description is getting non-summary. So i have gone with "and many other places"

• Joanna travelled to England where she went insane and ceased taking part in the war; she was held in Tickhill Castle until she died in September 1374. It has been suggested that her confinement in Tickhill was political, rather than because of mental illness.: two things here. One, the first sentence gives the mental illness as a fact, whereas the second suggests that it may have been a pretext -- do those latter sources believe she did suffer from insanity, but that this wasn't the reason for her confinement? (I must admit to an inherent scepticism here, given the track record of people in the past on claims of "this awkward and gender-non-conforming woman is not mentally sound"). Second, there's a bit of a difference in register between the very modern, PC (in a good way) "mental illness" and the more dated and arguably insensitive (see here, citing the AP stylebook) "went insane".

My fault. Two sentences written at different times using different sources, and then being too close to proof read properly. Most sources briefly state as a fact that she went insane. Sarpy dedicates most of her book to arguing that this was a fix - much as you summarise. I find this convincing, but perhaps because it fits my biases. How about "Joanna travelled to England and took no further part in the war and died in September 1374. She stayed in Tickhill Castle and it was given out at the time that she had gone insane; this is accepted by most historians although it has been suggested that she was confined for political reasons, rather than because of mental illness.

I think that works -- we're placing "insane" firmly as a contemporary judgement rather than endorsing it, much as we might say that someone was diagnosed with hysteria or melancholy. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Implemented.

As Tim says, very much up to the usual Gog standard, and I enjoyed the memory test on the last article on the Breton Civil War.

Thank you UC, your usual insightful review. All addressed, with a number of queries back to you. Should I organise an end of series test for regular reviewers of my Breton Civil War FACs? Just one more to go on the first two years of this war - the Truce of Malestroit - and then I shall give you all a break from things Breton for a while. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

My (relatively few) quibbles are now all resolved, so moving to support. Will look forward to the end-of-topic test. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Source review

To come. —Kusma (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• What is the deal with Ormrod 1980 "The three Edwards"? The book appears to be by Michael Prestwich (and I can find a couple of other 1980 publishers, but you can of course use your edition).

The deal is I am cracking up. Ormrod wrote Edward [the Third], Prestwich The Three Edwards. They sit next to each other on a shelf. I confuse them. Fixed.

The paper copy I own is an obscure Book Club edition.

• Some of the books have orig_year, some don't (for example, Burne 1999 is from 1955 or 1956 depending on who you ask. Allmand 2001 is the revised edition of a book from 1988). Check what you want here.

The two orig years removed.

• Some publishers are linked (one Routledge and one Clarendon Press), some are not. Probably best to unlink all.

Agreed. Done.

• I think Sarpy (ref 1) would look nicer if you dropped the "title page" from the citation and moved it into the {{sfn}} with |loc=title page but I will not complain if you ignore this suggestion.

I couldn't work out how to do what you were referring to, but have done something different which you may or may not be happy with.

Almost (and sorry for the typo in my suggestion): it still needed fixing in the Sources section, which I have just done.

• Ref 43: there does not seem to be a chapter named "political prisoner" in the book; what do you mean?

It's a section header. To save any poor spot checker having to wade through a whole chapter. It should show up on a ctrl-F search

Maybe say |loc=section "Political prisoner" then? Just "Sarpy 2019, political prisoner" looks a bit odd.

Sure. Done.

• Remove page numbers in Wagner 2006 (those are only for the "Breton Civil War" entry). You cite the same book also with other page numbers, for example in refs. 38 and 46.

Bleh! Sorry. Done.

Sources are generally decent history books from reputable publishers. Wagner 2006 is technically tertiary but looks decent (citing sources). Did a few lazy spot checks, all fine. One major issue (author name), a few small consistency issues, perhaps make Sarpy prettier. —Kusma (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Kusma. Appreciated. All done. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Almost happy, just not a super fan of the political prisoner (see above). —Kusma (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Excellent, all looks fine now. Source review is a pass. —Kusma (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Jon698

Will be making some comments soon. Jon698 (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Add a comma before but in "A truce between France and England was in place when the siege started but it expired in June."
• Add a comma before but in "John had the stronger legal claim but the aristocracy and clergy knew little about him and mostly preferred Charles."
• Add a comma after Paris in "In Paris Philip proposed"
• Add a comma after annuity "receiving an annuity and land in France in exchange"
• Add a comma after June in "At some point in June Mauny"

Jon698 (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Jon698 and thanks for the comments. Unfortunately, for the style of commaisation I use, a comma would not be appropriate in any of the five instances where you propose one. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: That's fine. I don't see anything else for me to comment on. Jon698 (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Tomiĉo

• The siege of Hennebont took place between late May and late June 1342 when the forces of Charles of Blois conducted an unsuccessful siege of the fortified port of Hennebont – sorry to nitpick over the first sentence of a good article, but suggest "…Charles of Blois unsuccessfully besieged the fortified port of…" instead, to avoid restating the noun in the title and to use a more engaging verb instead.

Tomiĉo (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

No worries Tomiĉo. MOS:LEADSENTENCE suggests "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence ...", which is usual and which is what I have done here. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Battle of Arkansas Post (1863)

Nominator(s): Hog Farm _Talk 03:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

A second attempt for this one. In December 1862, Ulysses S. Grant and Henry Halleck managed to divert a command intended for political general John A. McClernand to William T. Sherman. After Sherman led this force to defeat in the Battle of Chickasaw Bayou, McClernand took over and reorganized the command. Sherman and McClernand had independently decided to reduce a Confederate position on the Arkansas River known as Fort Hindman, which was commanded by the luckless Thomas Churchill. After some maneuverings and shellings from the David Dixon Porter's Union Navy squadron, McClernand's infantry assault was repulsed along the lines, but unauthorized flags of surrender were raised over the Confederate lines. The ensuing chaos resulted in Union troops swamping the Confederate lines, and the fort was captured and later destroyed. Grant took personal command not long afterwards, and after some false starts embarked upon his famous campaign that captured Vicksburg. Courtesy ping to prior reviewers - @History6042, Nikkimaria, and Gog the Mild:. Hog Farm _Talk 03:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

images

• img1: license good, caption good, alt long but key info in first sentence
• img2: license good, caption short but good, alt very long but key info in first sentence
• img3: license good, caption good, consider Operations against Vicksburg, including the Arkansas Post Expedition (4), alt long but key info in first sentence
• img4: license good, caption good, alt good
• img5: license good, caption good maybe consider appending Colonel although i see it is in prose, alt good
• img6: license good, caption good, alt good
• img7: license good, caption good, change alt to Soldiers advance across a ditch on planks and up sloped earthworks
  • Many of the alts are very detailed, but ok because they present key info right away. cheers, Dracophyllum, (1 PR) 05:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
    • @Dracophyllum: - Thank you for your review! Are these changes what you had in mind? Hog Farm _Talk 14:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

      yes. I can support for images. Cheers, Dracophyllum, (1 PR) 19:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "the Union Army (as the United States was known during the war)" Pardon?
  • Is "As the United States Army was known during the war" better? I have had reviewers express concern that to non-Americans it is not necessarily obvious that Union = USA Hog Farm _Talk
• "that Arkansas Post should be attacked;" Optional: make the semi colon a colon.
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Acting Rear Admiral David Dixon Porter's Union Navy fleet". That's a lot of blue.
  • Split up partially - I don't think there's a clean way to prevent the rank & name from being blue next to each other. Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• Link "cutoff"? Meander cutoff?
  • That isn't the sort of cutoff going on here - more like two rivers eventually eroding the space between them. Apparently the Corps of Engineers still has issues trying to prevent this from recurring on these rivers. Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Union troops moved up close to and swamped parts of the Confederate line." Maybe 'Union troops moved up close to the Confederate line and swamped parts of it.'?
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Grant relieved McClernand of command of the operations against Vicksburg on January 30 and took command of the campaign personally." I am not a fan of "command of" twice.
  • Is "Grant relieved McClernand on January 30 and took command of the campaign against Vicksburg personally" any better? Or does it read as a complete canning of McClernand rather than just a demotion? Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• "this was a key event in the outcome of the war." I am not sure that something can be a "key event" in an outcome". An outcome is, as it were, instantaneous. What was it anyway? ;-) Maybe 'key contribution to the eventual Union victory' or similar?
  • Have rephrased. Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• "by controlling its coastline and major rivers. A significant component of this strategy was controlling the Mississippi River." "...by controlling ... was controlling ..." Optionally.
  • I've combined the sentences into a single sentence; Nick-D did express some concerns with excessive wordiness at the A-Class review. Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• "from separating the two-halves of the Confederacy." Perhaps 'from separating the eastern and western of the Confederacy.'?
  • Have rephrased to "from separating the eastern and western halves of the Confederacy" Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Union Navy elements". Would these "elements" be ships?
  • Yes, rephrased. Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• "to make another campaign". Does that work in US English?
  • I don't know I guess. This sounds right to me but so does the positive anymore and "might ought to" Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Union Major General Ulysses S. Grant ". Perhaps mention his area of authority?
  • I've added a sentence to mention this. Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• "down the Mississippi Central Railroad". Perhaps 'along'?
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• "in an campaign".
  • Oops, fixed. Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• "from high ranking Union military and political figures". Does that need a hyphen? ('high-ranking')
  • Not sure; have added to be on the safe side. Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Halleck, who distrusted McClernand, used this language in the official orders". Perhaps 'put this language', to be really clear?
  • I've clarified some stuff in the prior paragraph. The orders were dictated by Lincoln but this part was influenced by Halleck. Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Grant was also growing concerned about the length of his supply line in Mississippi". "Also". Also to what or whom?
  • I'm not sure, removed. Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• "the support of the president". Upper-case P.
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Acting Rear Admiral David D. Porter was in command". You link rear admiral in the lead, but not here.
  • Linked. Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• "the movement he had intended to command left without him." I have trouble with both McClernand commanding a "movement" and a "movement" leaving anywhere.
  • Replaced with "force" Hog Farm _Talk 02:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• "The same day that Sherman left". It may be worth clarifying that Sherman left at the same time as his men. If he did.
  • I've added more detail to both this and the description of Sherman's advance movements. Hog Farm _Talk 02:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Sherman's operation reached the Vicksburg area on Christmas Eve". An "operation" reached an area?
  • Replaced operation with force Hog Farm _Talk 02:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Defeated, Sherman's men re-boarded their ships on January 1, 1863, and withdrew from the battlefield." They "withdrew from the battlefield" after they "re-boarded their ships"?
  • Rephrased to "withdrew from the Yazoo" Hog Farm _Talk 02:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• "was reassigned to supervise Confederate river defenses within the state. Suggest just 'assigned'.
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 02:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Behind it was a sloped wall, which was 18 feet". High? Wide?
  • Clarified. Hog Farm _Talk 02:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• "was on the north side curtain wall." Hyphenate north-side?
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 02:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• "a 9-inch (23 cm) Columbiad cannon was position in the northeastern bastion's casemate." positioned?
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 02:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Many of the men assigned to defend the fort were concerned that it was poorly sited" In what way?
  • What I've got to work with here is "The troops who manned the post, however, had serious misgivings about the location" followed by a series of quotes from Roger Q. Mills, an unnamed Texan, a captain in the W. P. Lane Rangers, and an "armchair historian" that the citation for the paragraph leads me to believe is probably a reference to an 1880s Southern Bivouac article. I will try to hunt up something more specific in the other sources. Hog Farm _Talk 03:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• "with another tier of rifle pits between the outer line and the fort." Was this line started or completed?
  • Started - clarified. Hog Farm _Talk 03:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• "the attempt was foiled by flooding along the riverbanks." Caused by the defenders or the weather?
  • Weather, added. Hog Farm _Talk 03:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• "On the night of January 3/4, the two officers went to speak with Porter". Sherman and McClernand, or McClernand and Gorman?
  • The former; noted. Hog Farm _Talk 03:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Writing about Sherman's support for the plan, Richard L. Kiper wrote that ..."
  • Rephrased Hog Farm _Talk 03:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• "as the operation would occur within Curtis's area of command". Maybe add 'geographical'?
  • Went with "geographic" Hog Farm _Talk 03:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• The last paragraph of Prelude details Churchill's troops, except for his cavalry, which turn up in the next section. McClernand's forces are also broken down in Battle, while the Union navy contribution is partially listed in Battle. The Confederate artillery is listed in Background, except for some mobile artillery in Battle. Some mobile Union artillery crops up just after this. Might it make sense for all known information to be lumped together in an Opposing forces section?
  • @Gog the Mild: - Does Battle of Arkansas Post (1863)#Opposing forces look like an improved start? I'm going to have my wife go provide a list of copy-editing suggestions this weekend. I'm still looking for a succint summary of the Union Navy forces. The detailed oobs in Smith 2023 and Bearss 1985 do not list the naval vessels. Smith 2023 at one point lists a number of vessels involved in the operation, but this does not include among others Monarch and is clearly incomplete. Tomblin's The Civil War on the Mississippi includes a detailed listing of part of the Union fleet, but the structure of the rest is unclear from that work, and where Black Hawk among others falls in there is not stated. I can/will keep looking, but Bearss's trilogy is considered to be probably the most comprehensive thing ever written on the Vicksburg campaign, with Smith's five-volume work as the second most detailed. The lack of a detailed naval order of battle in those works is concerning. Hog Farm _Talk 02:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• "he ordered his men to defend the outer set of rifle pits, which were still incomplete. As it was believed that the Union troops already heavily occupied the area of the lower rifle pits, the orders were changed to hold the inner line of rifle pits, closer to the fort." Is "the outer set of rifle pits" the same thing as "the lower rifle pits". Is "the inner line of rifle pits, closer to the fort" the "another tier of rifle pits between the outer line and the fort"?
  • Clarified in the original description of the rifle pits - although the comma placement in what I have added is guesswork. Hog Farm _Talk 03:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• "and the six cannons of Hart's Arkansas Battery". "the" implies they have already been mentioned in the article.

I'm going to pause here. The action hasn't started and I've picked up a lot of - mostly minor - bits and pieces. And I have reviewed it recently - did I miss all of this. HF, could you resolve the above - possibly by telling me I am wrong - give the rest of the article a bit of a copy edit and then ping me to finish the review? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll work my way through these concerns over the next day or to, and then have my wife read through this for spelling/grammar/stuff not making sense. After which I will attempt to give this a round of self copy editing. Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: - Okay, here are some edits resulting from the copy-editing; I've had somebody other than me read over it so all of the spelling errors should be gone. I've made another round of edits to try to tighten up the phrasing. Hog Farm _Talk 03:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• The title: do we need the year as a disambiguator?
  • This was moved by Lieutcoluseng in 2018 to distinguish from Battle of Arkansas Post (1783). Pageviews in 2024 were about 2.5 to 1 for the 1863 battle rather than the 1783 one. The Encyclopedia of Arkansas refers to the 1783 action as the "Colbert Raid". I am not familiar with the 1783 action and would like to hear what Lieutcoluseng has to say. Hog Farm _Talk 01:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  Wholeheartedly agree, Hog Farm. Done. Your point of view makes sense for reasons stated in most recent page move comment. Have a great day. Lieutcoluseng (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Break

Restarting at Battle

• "Sending out his small cavalry force as scouts". All four companies?
  • Three of four (including the brigaded company) Hog Farm _Talk 18:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• "he ordered his men to defend the lower set of rifle pits ... the Union troops were landing near the outer rifle pits." Is the lower set the same as the outer? If so, perhaps stick to one name? If not, I'm confused.
• "positioned on the right flank of the line of rifle pits, near the river." Are we talking about the inner set of pits? Could you specify? If it is, I thought its right flank rested on the fort, not the river?
• "Many of Sherman's troops did not land that evening as the transports did not arrive until ..." Suggest "the" → 'their', to indicate that not all of the transports didn't arrive.
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 18:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Sherman's men were offloaded from their transports". This gives the impression that all of them were, which you contradict in the next sentence.
  • Have rephrased. Hog Farm _Talk 18:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• "By 11:00 am, Sherman's troops finished landing." Perhaps insert a 'had'?
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 18:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Sherman and Steele's division", "Steele's division". Which? (It is not usual to include the corps commander when specifying a division.)
  • The intended meaning was that Sherman was accompanying Steele's division on this movement; I have rephrased. Hog Farm _Talk 18:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Churchill was informed by Lieutenant General Theophilus Holmes that he was expected to "hold out till help arrived or all dead". Holmes vacillated and originally denied reinforcements, but then stated that he would send some." This gives the impression that Holmes was senior to Churchill, despite ranking two levels below him.
  • Yes, Holmes was the senior officer. I was under the impression that in the English-speaking world that Lieutenant General (Holmes) was consistently two spots above Brigadier General (Churchill) with Major General in between - is this not the case? Hog Farm _Talk 18:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Gah! Apologies HF. For some reason I read that as Lieutenant Colonel! Gog the Mild (talk) 10:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• "troops dispositions" → 'troop dispositions'? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:12, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Corrected; I don't know if this counts as a spelling error or a grammatical one Hog Farm _Talk 21:05, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Additionally, Churchill ordered about 120 soldiers to guard the line of the bayou from Deshler's left down to the Arkansas River. He also pulled troops from the right of the rifle pits line to support Deshler, and sent four guns from Hart's battery to Deshler as well ..." Maybe just start with "Additionally ..." then list all of the changes in one sentence?
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 21:05, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• "However, there were delays in getting Morgan's lines established and for the navy to finish its preparations." "However, there were delays in getting ... and for the navy to finish its preparations."? Maybe 'However, there were delays while Morgan's lines were established and the navy finished its preparations.' or similar?
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 21:05, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• "The transfer of the 19th Arkansas required Garland to stretch his line to fill the space formerly occupied by the Arkansans." In the previous sentence you say it was only "a portion of the 19th Arkansas".
  • Rephrased Hog Farm _Talk 21:05, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• "men had to crawl forward". I dislike phrases like "had to" - no they didn't. Consider plain old 'men crawled forward'.
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 21:05, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• "a general storming of the Confederate works". I think "works" counts as a specialist term. How many readers are going to understand it?
  • Rephrased. Hog Farm _Talk 21:05, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Morgan's corps began its advance, as the Union assault began brigade-by-brigade". 1. "... began ... began ..." 2. You sure about those hyphens. (An open question, I don't know.)
  • Some searching suggests that this is usually phrased without hyphens so I have removed them. Hog Farm _Talk 21:05, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

And point 1? (I should have listed them separately.)

Missed it; I've rephrased this. Hog Farm _Talk 02:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Deshler discussed with Steele and informed him that" → 'Deshler informed Steele that'?
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 21:05, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• "but a listing of casualties". A listing or a list?
  • Replaced with "breakdown" as listing may not be the best word given that it isn't a list of names. Hog Farm _Talk 21:05, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• "or fourth of the Confederate soldiers". Does that work in USEng? In BritEng it would be 'a quarter'.
  • Yes, this works in AmEng. Hog Farm _Talk 21:05, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• "That same day, McClernand received Grant's order to return to the Mississippi River." Personally? Or with his two corps?
  • Clarified; and I have added another page to the page range in the citation where it is clearer that this is McClernand + troops. Hog Farm _Talk 21:05, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• "A spat between Grant and McClernand arose". Can a spat arise? 'broke out'? 'occurred'?
  • Rephrased Hog Farm _Talk 21:05, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• "to relieve McClernand from command". Can you relieve from command in USEng? In BritEng it would be 'to relieve McClernand of command'.
  • Yes, this works in AmEng, and there are even usages online of the U.S. military itself using this phrasing. Hog Farm _Talk 21:05, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• "McClernand reverted to commander of XIII Corps". At no point have you said that McClerland was in direct command of a corps, and XIII Corps only came into existence 16 days earlier.
  • Rephrased. Hog Farm _Talk 21:05, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Pausing. I still need to go through the first half again. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• "but entered the White River first as a diversion. After moving through a cutoff into the Arkansas River", Optional: not sure this is needed for the lead.
  • Removed from lead Hog Farm _Talk 01:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
• "the ambiguous wording of the order actually gave". Delete "actually".
  • Removed Hog Farm _Talk 01:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
• "but he believed that he was required to remain in Illinois according to his orders." → 'but he believed that his orders required him to remain in Illinois.'?
  • After another read through of the source, I've rewritten this substantially to catch some nuance. Hog Farm _Talk 01:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• "who was upset about being sidestepped in command of the river expedition". I am not sure that "being sidestepped in command" will be clear to all readers.
  • Rephrased Hog Farm _Talk 00:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• "and sent it back to Arkansas Post." Delete "back".
  • Removed Hog Farm _Talk 00:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• "using his naval vessels in the movement." Maybe "movement" → 'proposed attack'?
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 00:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• "the operation would occur within Curtis's geographic area of command." It may be worth stating what this was.
  • I've added a sentence without listing all areas as most of Curtis' territory was completely irrelevant to this operation. I hope I do not need explicit citations for describing Kansas, the Colorado Territory, the Nebraska Territory, and the Indian Territory (modern day Oklahoma) as being west of Arkansas and Missouri. Hog Farm _Talk 00:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Meanwhile, Churchill had about 5,000 Confederates". Recommend deleting "Meanwhile".
  • Removed Hog Farm _Talk 00:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

That's it for now. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• @Gog the Mild: - does this string of edits address the confusion with the various lines of rifle pits? Hog Farm _Talk 00:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Pretty much. "he ordered his men to defend the lower set of rifle pits" - could "lower" be changed to 'outer' or 'inner' as the case may be? And "decided to withdraw his forces from the rifle pits" - all of them, including those from the fort to(wards) the bayou? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: - I've rephrased here and at the one I missed above; I hope this is clearer. Apologies for this one being a bit rougher. Hog Farm _Talk 02:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

That works. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

FM

• Some preliminary comments, will review the rest later. FunkMonk (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• There are some unnecessary duplinks, such as Mississippi River and Union Navy twice in the same section.
  • Removed Hog Farm _Talk 02:47, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• The maps look pretty heavy on the left side, where they shift the section titles into odd awkward positions. Anything that could be done about the layout?
  • I've adjusted the map alignment - is this an improvement? Hog Farm _Talk 02:47, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Giles Alexander Smith" more context in the caption that just name? And date?
  • I've expanded the caption. Hog Farm _Talk 02:47, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• Perhaps more dates and context for some captions of historical images in general that now seem pretty basic?
  • The Giles Smith, map and plan, and naval bombardment captions have all been expanded - the middle one was done by a notable engineer and the latter was published in a notable periodical. The battle map was published in an 1887 source that doesn't have an article but maybe should; I don't know how useful it would be just to namedrop the Battle and Leaders of the American Civil War in the caption. Hog Farm _Talk 02:47, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Eritha

Nominator(s): UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

This article was an interesting and tricky one to put together. There are probably two real-life figures from the Aegean Bronze Age (with apologies to Agamemnon) that we can really write about as rounded human beings, and Eritha is one of them. She was a priestess, probably of the goddess Potnia, who worked near the Mycenaean citadel of Pylos in the last year before that palace was destroyed by fire. Quite by chance, the blaze preserved records of her name in the palatial administration's accounts, which also give us the oldest known testimony of a legal dispute on the European continent.

The direct evidence base for Eritha and her life is minuscule: this article therefore has to do a lot more "building up" than would normally be necessary in a biography, particularly around apparently simple questions like "when did she live?" and "what was her job?" I have tried to strike a balance here, aiming to avoid digressing while making sure that the essential context to understand what we do know about her life is given, following what the grown-up academics include when bringing her into their discussions. Similarly, I have tried to keep things comprehensible while not shying away from the arcane questions of philology that are unfortunately essential to any discussion of the dispute that brings her into the historical record. The article underwent a GA review by Iazyges in January, for which I am grateful. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

ImaginesTigers

Interesting topic! I didn't know she existed; I only know the creme de la creme and the firestarters, apparently I'll do some spot checks given UC's track record of successful nominations. I will spot-check 10% of the total references General questions

• I can't see the method for which sources are linked vs which aren't – e.g., Deger-Jalkotzy (1988) has a Google Books link, as does Finlayson (2013), but there isn't one for Bennet (2013) or Benet & Shelmerdine (2008).

Spotchecks

• Linear B tablets were written on clay and retained for at most a year.[36]

• Bennet (2001) is a bit dense so I struggled to find this. Got it, though! I think the article expresses a little more certainty than Bennet does ("implies"), but passes.

• Linear B tablets were written on clay and retained for at most a year.[36]

• Salgarella (2020) refers back to Bennet and uses more authoritative language, so that's a double pass

• Those identified by name in the Pylian tablets, such as Eritha, constitute around 2% of the estimated population of the polity. Dimitri Nakassis has argued that they represent "a broad elite group" within it.[7]

• Pass.

• Eritha appears to have been the more important of the two.[10]

• Pass

• Priestesses are shown as having control over land, men, women and material goods, including textiles.[8]

• Pass – I do wonder if it might be helpful to clarify, as the source does, that we aren't quite sure what ownership entails within the context of this society. It'd make for an interesting footnote?

• I've tried to hedge it with "having control over": you're right that the concept of "property" may not be helpful here (and, confusingly, there are people in the social picture called "owners" who are a completely different thing). At the moment I'm not sure a footnote would clarify or add much. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Land designated as "communal" was leased to individuals by the damos, and conferred obligations on the leaseholder with respect to the damos.[11]

• Pass.

Give me a ping when you respond. Engaging work, thank you — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

@ImaginesTigers: thanks for the review. I've taken out the Google Books links, for consistency -- we now only have links where the full text appears online and is accessible by means other than the DOI, JSTOR or other named parameter. Happy to add any that I've missed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Support on sourcing. Ping me if a prose review is needed down the line. Thank you for the work — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

images

• img1: is it the case that the lede image only possible depicts Eritha?, license good, caption good, consider changing alt to Painting of a woman with skin rendered in white, holding up two bundles of grain
  • I don't want to go as far as "possibly of Eritha" -- although Mycenaean painting is remarkably standardised between sites and over time in its visual idiom, this one's from Mycenae rather than Pylos, and may not be quite contemporary with her. However, it's as close as we're going to get: I think it has encyclopaedic value in showing how a person like Eritha was depicted/visualised in her society, and the flipside of Mycenaean painting being so stylised is that we can say pretty confidently that a portrait of Eritha would look like that if one existed. Done on the alt. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• img2: license good, caption ok but consider linking polity, consider changing alt to: Photograph of Mycenaean ruins, showing the foundations of a wall
  • Both done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• img3: awesome svg, license good, caption good, remove fullstop from alt
  • Done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• img4: where is that map in present day terms?, license good, i would like present day loc in caption if known, alt good but rmv fullstop
  • I've added a bit to the caption. Full stop in the alt is needed, as it contains the full sentence Map of the south-western Peloponnese: several sites, including Pylos, are labelled in Linear B, ancient Greek and English.. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
  • overall shockingly great images here, if alts are not full sentences don't give them fullstops. cheers, Dracophyllum, (1 PR) 06:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
    • Thank you -- replies above. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

      Great, I agree the lede image and caption are appropriate. support for images. Dracophyllum, (1 PR) 06:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Borsoka

• By the time of Eritha's life... I would add the century.
  • I've gone for "at the end of the Bronze Age", since she was alive around the transition between the C13th and C12th, but we don't know how old she was and therefore how much of her life covered either one. These dates are all a bit fuzzy anyway! UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• It is believed to have been a religious centre near Pylos.... I would be more specific: "Archeological evidence and written sources indicate that...", or something similar.
  • Ha -- if only! Honestly, it's little more than well-established (and generally accepted) guesswork. The place seems to be important to the palace, and there's clearly some flow of people and goods between the two, so it would make sense for it to have been vaguely nearby. Similarly, there's a cemetery site not too far from Pylos at Volimidia, which has a lot of tombs despite not really seeming that impressive otherwise, so that gets hypothesised as a religious site because... tombs are kinda/maybe religious? We don't know anything about the links between Mycenaean religion and funerary habits, and the patterns as to where they put their tombs are complicated and pretty clearly involve lots of competing priorities. The best guess is that Sphagianes is Volimidia, but it's entirely a guess, and there's no real evidence behind it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ..., who may have been a mother goddess and was possibly the chief goddess of the Pylian pantheon. She was a mother goddess according to the relevant article.
  • The relevant article is a little overconfident, unfortunately. We know basically nothing about Potnia besides her name (which means something like "mistress") -- we have no images, no definite sites of her worship, no epithets... UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• I would move note "b" after the comma following the text "centre near Pilos" in the same sentence.
  • Done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ... "servants of the god"... Why not singular?
  • They are plural, so the label needs to be: compare "three magistrates known as consuls"; "major churches known as 'Basilicas'", or similar. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Only 5% of the land... Why not plural?
  • Non-countable noun, like "5% of the water" or "5% of the money". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Most of the landholders there, including Eritha, are described with titles associated with religious cult, particularly forty-six people labelled as "servants of the god". ... Eritha is one of two women named as religious figures, along with another named Karpathia. ... Another woman at Sphagianes, by the name of Huamia, is listed on the tablet PY Ep 704 as a "servant of the god" Contradiction?
  • I wasn't counting "servants of the god" as religious figures -- they seem to be servants/slaves owned by the god/religious institution. There's probably a clearer way to phrase "religious figures" to mean "people like priests". Will think on it: any suggestions? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  I've had a go with "holding religious office". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Why does not note "e" follow the citation (in contrast with all other notes)?
  • Now this is what I come to FAC for -- fixed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• I would state that the meaning of the term "etōnion" is uncertain in the section when it is first mentioned.
  • Done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ...happened late in the LH IIIB period, around the transition to LH IIIC, and... I would delete. Alternatively, explain the periods.
  • I ended up going for a footnote here. It's complicated, but we need to use the pottery dates, because that's the area of certainty: the absolute date is a lot less secure (because all absolute dates are dubious in the Aegean Bronze Age). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ...an etōnion may have been required to pay no or fewer taxes to the damos... To the damos (the ordinary people)?
  • Not a great definition, unfortunately: we did discuss what the damos was in the previous two paragraphs, so I don't think a gloss is helpful ("a body that probably represented or oversaw, somehow, at least some of the [other?] landholders"?) or particularly necessary.

• • What about deleting the text "to the damos"? Borsoka (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Nakassis's point is that the tax Eritha owed (or didn't owe) might have been to the damos (so that damos are unhappy because they're getting less income); others think the obligation was to the palace, and possibly that the damos had to pay the difference if some of Eritha's land was tax exempt (so the damos are complaining either that Eritha is getting a free ride, or that they have to pay more tax because of her).UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• ...competing loci of religious, civic and royal power... I would avoid the use of the term "loci". Borsoka (talk) 04:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • maybe domains could work? Loci basically means circular region iirc. Dracophyllum, (1 PR) 07:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
    • "Loci" in the sense of "locations": I've gone for "centres", though I'm not totally happy with that (I was trying to keep it fudgy as to whether we meant places, institutions or people). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Borsoka. A few replies above; more to follow (mostly the ones where I agree straightfowardly). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• (lead) ..., near the palatial centre of Pylos I would delete.
  • I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea, but why? We've already established Pylos as a state, and I think it's helpful to show readers where Sphagianes was within that state; I think the link to Palace of Nestor has value as well. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• I would shorten the lead's second paragraph quite radically. Borsoka (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Here I appreciate that we all have different approaches, and my way of writing an article is likely to be different from what many wise, skilled and capable people would have done. However, I'm not sure I see the advantage here. The lead is currently (by a rough count on Word) 257 of the article's 2455 words (which doesn't count references, notes and biblio), which at ~10% seems well in line for lead length; MOS:LEADLENGTH has Few well-written leads will be shorter than about 100 words. The leads in most featured articles contain about 250 to 400 words. The paragraph in question is 69 words and summarises just about all the biographical information we have for Eritha other than her legal dispute; it condenses the "Position in society" section, which is 676 words, so again the rough 10:1 ratio is holding steady. I can't really see that anything in there is trivial or irrelevant for a reader who won't read the body -- but, as ever, happy to discuss. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@Borsoka: I think that's all replied to, though I'm afraid I've quibbled a couple. Open to discussion on those, particularly if I've misunderstood your point. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• I would still delete the second paragraph's first sentence because it contains information repeated in other sentences. However, this is not a major issue, so I support the promotion of this article. Thank you for completing this interesting article about the extremly poorly documented life of a Late Bronze Age woman. Borsoka (talk) 03:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks, Borsoka -- appreciate your time and sharp-eyed comments. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

FM

• Some preliminary comments, will review fully later. FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• Why are some of the footnotes sourced with for example " See Judson 2020, pp. 12–20." instead of just regular citations?
  • In that case, it's because those pages of Judson are explaining this phenomenon in detail: you don't need all of them to get the basic point. I suppose the distinction is pretty minor; it could be a SFN? Ditto the Shelmerdine one on note g: Shelmerdine doesn't spend all these pages saying "the Aegean chronology is really complicated", but rather going into the ways in which it's complicated. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 05:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• Doesn't the end of footnote f need a citation?
  • No; it's a routine calculation from multiplying Lane's figures by the sizes given in the translation of the tablet. It's equivalent to using the inflation template. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 05:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• "The remains of the palace at Pylos" write the name instead of a general term with an WP:easter egg link?
  • I've tried to avoid it throughout, as the conventional name is the romantic "Palace of Nestor" -- but nobody called "Nestor" actually lived there, or, in all probability, ever existed. The name is modern rather than ancient -- it was Carl Blegen who came up with it in the 1930s. Calling it "the palace [at Pylos]" is unambiguous (there's only one) and, I think, a better option. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 05:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Could the entire "the palace at Pylos" part be the pipelink then, as it seems more specific than just "the palace"? FunkMonk (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough: I've done that. We don't yet have a generic article for Mycenaean palace, but I've redlinked that, as we really should. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:01, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Could also be done in the image caption. FunkMonk (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Now done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Link terms at first mention outside the intro as well, such as Pylos.
  • Done for Pylos, and I think all others. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• Give context that you give in the intro in the article body too, such as "in the southwestern Peloponnese".
  • Done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• Is Sphagianes worth a redlink to encourage creation?
  • It would be a redirect to Volimidia (and therefore, for now, a double redirect), so I think it's best to keep the link just on that term. We may not need to encourage it too strongly....

• Present Dimitri Nakassis and other modern scholars by occupation for context?
  • Here I follow a wise FAC regular, and avoid giving occupational descriptions that amount to "this person is exactly the sort of expert you'd expect me to be citing". Disciplinary boundaries are fluid in Aegean prehistory -- most people here could equally be called archaeologist/prehistorian/philologist/Mycenologist/classicist at the very least, and it would be artificial and misleading to choose (for instance) whether to call Nakassis a linguist, a philologist, or an archaeologist. On the other hand, if someone's context is unusual or particularly important, it gets included. The same approach has been used at other FAs, such as Homeric Hymns and Brothers Poem.

• Link animal sacrifice?
  • Done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• "f some key sites within the Pylian state" Link Pylos in this caption?
  • Sure; done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• is Karpathia worth a link?
  • I don't think so: we know nothing about her beyond her name, where she lived, and a tiny modicum of information about her property. We can only write an article about Eritha because so much ink has been spilled over her legal dispute. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Eritha and Karpathia control the largest amount" Controlled?
  • I'm not sure about this one, honestly, as we're talking about people within a text, but I've gone for the past tense in the interests of taking the least pretentious option.

• "Their contents may, in normal circumstances, have transferred to" have been transferred to?
  • Absolutely: fixed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• "argue that the presence of the dispute in the palatial archive indicates that "land tenure was ultimately under the control of the king's central authority"" this is the first time you mention a king, way down in the last section, and throughout I was wondering what kind of authority was actually ruling the palace. Could this somehow be established earlier, for example at "Mycenaean states, such as Pylos in the southwestern Peloponnese, were centred around monumental buildings, known in modern scholarship as palaces"? And do we even know who the king was at the time? For context.
  • Ah -- this one's complicated, and I must admit that I don't agree with Shelmerdine and Bennet that it's wise to talk about a "king" at Pylos (there's someone who goes by a title that means that in later Greek, and seems to be extremely important, but the exact contours of their authority and legitimacy are incredibly murky). I've added something a bit further up, when we talk about the nature of the Pylian state. As it happens, we probably do know the name of the individual in question, but at this point we've got such a daisy-chain of inferences and assumptions that I'd rather leave that whole thing aside for now -- any reading of S+B puts this as institutional authority rather than anything to do with the specific person who held the title (though again I'm really not convinced that this is a sensible distinction to draw!). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support - looking good to me. FunkMonk (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

Not much from me.

• "were centred around monumental buildings" – there are those, of whom I am not one, who get frightfully exercised about "centre around" and insist it must be "centred on". I think they are rather silly (though logical) but I draw this view to your attention.
  • I've changed it: seems a small distinction, but I can't see an argument that around is better. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• "around 2% of the estimated population" – I think the MoS prescription may have changed since I last tracked it down, but I think "two per cent" is much easier on the eye in the middle of prose. (The other version is fine in diagrams etc of course.)
  • The MoS is agnostic (though it does expect % in scientific articles): I've spelled out in full. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Guy Middleton has argued" – the image of the actor Guy Middleton, superb portrayer of cads and bounders, came instantly to mind when I read this. Better to introduce your Guy Middleton with a brief job label, I think.
  • See above one this one, though I acknowledge that there's arguments either way -- in this particular context, there are major cons to introducing Aegeanists by discipline (specifically, that they're all people of many hats, so narrowing it down to one is editorial at best and misleading at worst). I hope that few readers will assume that I've quoted an actor as an archaeological expert; the system employed here would give his trade as "the actor Guy Middleton" if we were calling on his opinion as someone outside the field. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• "indeed, this is one of few positions of power" – is the "indeed" a touch editorial?
  • I think so. I've rephrased a bit. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Only 5% of the land" – as above for the percentage.
  • Changed as above. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• "a legal dispute from Europe" – not sure about the preposition. Might not "in" be more accurate?
  • I don't think so: the preposition modifies evidence, not legal dispute, and the evidence comes from Europe (in other cases, the evidence might presently be e.g. in the Smithsonian). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• "the damos, whom he considers to have been "ordinary people" – unless "damos" is plural as well as singular (my Linear B is a bit rusty) we have a singular-v-plural clash here.
  • It's a collective noun: "the orchestra were all talented musicians"; "the Cabinet are unable to agree on anything". I think this is fine, but we could always do "which he considers to have been composed of...", which is only slightly more wordy. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• "and at least partially independent of it" – a minor matter, but I prefer to keep "partially" to indicate bias, and use just "partly" when that suffices in such a context as this.
  • Changed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Hittite codes and complilations of law" – not sure if this should be compilations or complications but it ain't right as it is.
  • Complicated compilations -- fixed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

That's all from me. Tim riley talk 14:13, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks, Tim: replies above. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Happy to support the promotion of this article. It strikes me as meeting all the FA criteria, and turns what could have been a rather dry subject into a lively and engaging piece. Widely sourced, with no one source being cited more than nine times. I think the map is superb, and the other illustrations are fine. I look forward to seeing the article on our front page. Tim riley talk 10:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

20 Exchange Place

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

This article is about a skyscraper in Lower Manhattan, New York City. Built as the headquarters of the City Bank–Farmers Trust Company, it was one of the city's tallest buildings and the world's tallest stone-clad building at the time of its completion. At one point, 20 Exchange was planned to be the world's tallest building as well, but since it didn't, the tower has fallen into relative obscurity compared with the Empire State and Chrysler buildings (which did claim that title). While 20 Exchange may seem like just another NYC skyscraper nowadays, it has some interesting architectural features, such as massive "giants of finance" and a lobby with 45 types of marble.

This page became a Good Article five years ago after a Good Article review by Lee Vilenski, for which I am very grateful. After a copyedit by Mox Eden (which I also appreciate) and some other adjustments, I think the page is up to FA quality. I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments Support from MS

Lead

• "New York City" should be delinked as per MOS:OL.

Critical reception and landmark designations

• The article on The Times could be linked in this section.

MSincccc (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• The Times and The New York Times are not the same and should not be used interchangeably. MSincccc (talk) 16:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Architecture

• The articles Architectural Forum and Rotunda (architecture) could be linked in this section. MSincccc (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for the comments so far, @MSincccc. I've addressed these, and I have used the NYT's full name to reduce confusion. Epicgenius (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Architecture (continued)

• DTH had also hired several teams of experts, who suspected the issues were related to power surges from Consolidated Edison machinery, but Con Ed said its equipment was functioning properly. Could "Con Ed" be mentioned within round brackets on its first mention?
  • I just spelled out the company's name, since this is the only other use of it. - EG
• The article Life and Trust could be linked in this section.
  • Done. - EG

MSincccc (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@User:MSincccc: Thanks for these comments. I've now addressed them. Epicgenius (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I've no further suggestions. Good luck with your nomination. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 02:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Support  Comments  from Noleander

• The primary image in the InfoBox is rather dark: it would be an easy matter to retouch it to brighten it: especially the shadow regions
  • I'm not actually sure how to do this. I'll ask around. - EG
• Explain: entire irregular city block and .. That phrase "irregular city block" is used twice. What does it mean? 99% of city blocks in USA are rectangular. Is this block 3-sided? 5-sided? trapezoid? Readers will want to know.
  • It's a four-sided block with irregular side lengths (I think the side lengths are already mentioned but I'll clarify this shortly). - EG
• Elaborate: Art Deco is a very important American art/architectural form. It is mentioned in passing a few places, including the lead which says it is an art deco building: but article seems to lack specifics. Maybe some pics of the art deco decorations? A list of art deco features? Comparison with other art deco NY buildings?
  • Unfortunately, the sources I found didn't even agree on whether the building was Art Deco, let alone elaborate on the Art Deco architectural features. The use of setbacks and vertical stone piers is pretty common in Art Deco buildings (but this is original research, so I can't add it). - EG
• Define ... white Rockwood stone.. - If this is a major component of the facade, it should be defined. The existing red link is not helpful. Where is the stone from? Can you find some website that defines/describes the stone and insert some of that info into this article?
  • The next sentence actually mentions where the stone came from (Alabama). The sources don't say who made the stone, only that it's a type of oolitic limestone. I found a source that describes what this is in more detail, but it goes into technical detail that, in my opinion, may not fit in the article. - EG
• Nationality is useful: as decorations designed by David Evans. ... Maybe change to ... British sculptor David Evans ....
  • Done. - EG
• Provocative word: which supposedly could handle over 100,000 .. "supposedly" should be omitted, unless the sources say there was some question whether the capacity was an exaggeration; in which case that controversy should be mentioned in the body text (or in a footnote for that sentence).
  • I removed this as suggested. The sources don't give any indication that this was in dispute. - EG
• Exernal Links vs InfoBox: External links... Official website is kinda hidden. The Infobox supports the website tag, so consider eliminating the External Links section and instead adding this tag into InfoBox: | website = http://20xnyc.com/the-building.aspx
  • Actually I realized that this was a dead link, so I've replaced it. I copied the new website to the infoboz as well. - EG
• Elevators: Problems with the elevators persisted through mid-2022... That was three years ago ... any updates?
  • Unfortunately, not that I can find. - EG
• Clarify: architecture critic Robert A. M. Stern wrote in his 1987 book New York 1930 that 20 Exchange Place's proximity to other skyscrapers, including 70 Pine Street, 1 Wall Street, 40 Wall Street, and the Downtown Athletic Club, "had reduced the previous generation of skyscrapers to the status of foothills in a new mountain range". I'm not sure what the critic was saying. The listed buildings are all about the same height as 20 Exchange Place , but it sounds like the critic is saying they are shorter than 20 Exchange Place? Regardless, consider adding some words to clarify his point, whatever it is, since it is confusing as it stands now.
  • Stern says that these other buildings are the same height or taller than 20 Exchange Place. It's older buildings that are shorter. I've fixed this. - EG
• and a budget of $9.5 million... Readers would be happy to see that in todays dollars. I think template:inflation would work, e.g.

    $9.5 million (equivalent to ${{Inflation|US|9.5|1929|r=2}} million in {{Inflation/year|US}}) 

Will display: $9.5 million (equivalent to $173.96 million in 2024)

• Done. - EG

• See also Section: 60 Wall Street - Why is this here? If it has a special relation to 20 Exchange Place, then add a few words following the Blue link so users can decide to click on it or not.
  • It's one of the buildings near 20 Exchange. I moved it up to the Site section. - EG
• .. the lobbies had been closed to the public by the end of the 20th century. Lobbies are an important part of many NYC skyscrapers. Readers will want to know if the lobbies are open to the public today, or not.
  • The last paragraph of the "Residential use" section mentions that the main lobby has been open to the public as a coffee shop since February 2024. Please let me know if you want me to make it clearer. - EG
• @Epicgenius: That is all I have for now. Ping me when you have addressed/resolved the above, and I'll make another pass. Noleander (talk) 03:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for the initial comments. I've addressed a few of these and will take a look at the rest soon. Epicgenius (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Noleander: Thanks again for the initial comments. I've now addressed or replied to all of them. Epicgenius (talk) 14:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Article is looking pretty good. Two remaining issues I see: (a) suggest delete "External Links" section, since that URL is now in the InfoBox (redundancy is generally avoided, unless there is a compelling reason); and (b) Image in InfoBox is rather lame .. consider swapping with the more vibrant image that is located in the article's Development section. Almost ready to support. Noleander (talk) 16:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@Noleander: Thanks for these as well. I've done both of these; for the infobox image, I just swapped it with another pic. Epicgenius (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Support. Noleander (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

images

• img1: license good, no caption req, alt good
  • Thanks. Actually, I might touch up this image later, per Noleander's above comments. - EG
• img2: a little blurry license good, caption good, alt missing
  • I've added an alt. I might head back downtown later to take a better pic, though it may take a few weeks. - EG
• img3: license good, consider changing caption to Entrance on Beaver Street; the central arch serves as a service entrance or similar. alt missing
  • I've added an alt. - EG
• img4: license good, caption good, consider swapping sentence order in alt
• img5: is license derived from no known author?, caption good consider adding date taken, alt good
• img6: license good, caption good, alt good; is that angle < 90 degrees i can't tell from the pic
• img7: license good, caption good, alt good
  • epic looking building. cheers, Dracophyllum, (1 PR) 06:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review Dracophyllum. I've addressed the comments you've raised. Epicgenius (talk) 12:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

      nice. I can support for images. cheers, Dracophyllum, (1 PR) 21:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

750h

reviewing! haven't reviewed one of these articles in a while! 750h+ 09:36, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

lead

• was one of the city's tallest buildings and the world's tallest stone-clad building at the time of its completion. While 20 Exchange Place was intended to be the world's tallest building at the time of its construction, the Great Depression resulted in the current scaled-back plan. "at the time of" is used twice, maybe use "at its completion or at its construction
  • Done. - EG

site

• Just prior to 20 Exchange Place's ==> "Just before 20 Exchange Place's"
  • Done - EG

architecture

• Some observers characterized the building as an Art Deco structure, while others describe it as having a "modern classic" style with minimal Art Deco ornamentation. i think we should either use "characterized and described" or "characterize and describe". i would opt for the latter though, but i don't really mind
  • Oops, I forgot to add a "d" to the end of "described". Thanks for pointing it out. - EG
• and an alloy of bronze, zinc, and copper and trimmed with think there should be a comma after "copper"
  • Done - EG
• There are glass panes above the doors and panels; they are separated by mullions ornamented with industry symbols. ==> "Glass panes above the doors and panels are separated by mullions ornamented with industry symbols."
  • Done - EG
• The outermost piers are topped by eagles at the 17th floor. ==> "The outermost piers are topped by eagles on the 17th floor."
  • Done - EG
• At the highest setback, there are buttresses that transfer some of the upper-story loads to the base. ==> "At the highest setback, some buttresses transfer upper-story loads to the base."
  • Done - EG

history

• which comprised a majority of the ==> "which comprised most of the"
  • Done - EG

impact

• no problems here.

that's all i got @Epicgenius: do have an open FAC in need of reviews but no obligation though. best, 750h+ 09:36, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review, 750h+. I've addressed all of these now. Epicgenius (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Hi 750h+, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

  oops forgot about this. happy to support 750h+ 14:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Source review by Kang

I will do a source review on this.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 02:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Contingency Song

Nominator(s): Locust member (talk) 03:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

"Contingency Song" is a single from Jane Remover's second studio album, Census Designated. Released alongside a reissue of their debut studio album, Frailty (2021), and an announcement of their first merchandise capsule, the song's single version differs in production than its album version. In March, I created the article and upgraded it to GA. I later put it up for peer review with limited, yet substantial participation. I believe that, although the article is short, it covers its bases from all available information on the Internet, and has no information left behind. Thank you!

I would also love to give a big thank you to Medxvo for reviewing the article for GA and helping me out with copy editing. Locust member (talk) 03:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Support from Averageuntitleduser

Signing on. Should be done today or tomorrow. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

• "The two versions of the song differ in length and in the way in which they were produced." — perhaps just: "in length and production."
  • Done Locust member (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• In the lead and body, "relationship" could be specified (e.g. romantic relationship, intimate relationship).
  • The Fader states Jane repeats, dreading the world-eating collapse of a relationship before the track descends into pure staticky chaos. Pitchfork states As its gloomy climate grows in harshness, Jane shuts down over a destructive relationship. Both don't specify what type of relationship, so claiming that Remover is singing about a romantic/intimate on in the wiki article would be OR, right? Locust member (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
    • "Relationship" is commonly used in that sense, and considering the dramatic contexts in the sources, I think we are okay. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

      Alright, added "romantic relationship" Locust member (talk) 12:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• "while the mastering for the single and album version were handled by Zeroh and Hector Vega, respectively." — I think a rewrite without "handled" is more direct, e.g. "while the single and album version were mastered by Zeroh and Hector Vega, respectively". Change similarly in the body.
  • Done Locust member (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• "A drum-less track" — suggest removing from the lead as too detailed.
  • Done Locust member (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Over the course of the song, the instrumental grows in intensity until it conceals Remover's vocals and ends in near-silence." — replace
  • I'm going to need a little bit more guidance here; replace what exactly? Is the whole sentence poorly written? The sources that I am using for this claim (and the claim in the body) read: The pulverizing noise soon eclipses them, squealing and churning until a sense of resignation begins to close in. (Pitchfork) and Contingency Song” builds in beauty and intensity throughout most of its six and a half minutes without ever dropping a beat, then bottoms out into gorgeous near-silence again. (Stereogum). do you have a recommendation for what exactly could be changed with the sentence? not disagreeing but this is just the best I can currently come up with based on the sources. Locust member (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
    • Whoops! I clearly hadn't finished this. It was a originally a nit-picky word choice comment. But I think it's negligible now, so no issue. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• "alongside the release of" — I think this is used to avoid the semantics over whether Remover or the label released the songs, which secondary sources presumably don't always specify. But it felt a bit clunky both times:
  • The first sentence could be rewritten as a list and Helfand's article could be sourced to add that the songs were released by DeadAir: "In June 2022, Jane Remover came out as a trans woman, announced their new stage name, and released the songs 'Royal Blue Walls' and 'Cage Girl' via DeadAir Records."
  • At that point, I don't think active voice would be too confusing in the other sentence ("and released the single 'Lips'"). Passive voice could work too ("and the single 'Lips' was released").
    • Done both. Locust member (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• "merchandise capsule" — I hadn't heard this phrase before, and when Googling it within quotes, a tweet by DeadAir is one of the top results. Would "merchandise line" work?
  • Done, "merchandise line" works! Locust member (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Office Magazine has the good detail that Remover placed the song last to represent dawn.
  • Added, thanks for this! Locust member (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• "until its noise conceals Remover's vocals and ends in near-silence" — "until its noise... ends in near-silence" is a bit confusing.
  • Same as the above one (where I listed both the Pitchfork and Stereogum sources) Locust member (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
    • I would just say: "until it conceals". The instrumental ending in silence reads smoother than noise ending in silence. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

      Done. Locust member (talk) 12:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• BrooklynVegan listed the song as among their favourites of the week. Not much, but I think it could be added.
  • Added. I saw this when editing the article but BrooklynVegan, at the time, was not listed at WP:A/S, so I was unsure it would have passed the "high quality" source inspection for FA. Locust member (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• "artistic reinvention and sound evolution" — naturally, what was the artistic reinvention? Could you elaborate in the article?
  • Done, let me know if it looks good? Locust member (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
    • It's good. I think we could say even a bit more. I came up with: "artistic reinvention away from bitcrushed electronic music and toward a shoegaze sound with clean electric guitars." Averageuntitleduser (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

      Done. Locust member (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

A few more comments about "Composition" and "Critical reception" are on the way. In the meantime, don't mind my pickiness. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

No worries about the pickiness! I got most done, but need some clarification on a few. Locust member (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• "It is a drum-less track" — I would say "It contains no drums". Also, it would be worth introducing/repeating here that this is in contrast to traditional rock and roll structures.
• Sometimes in the "Critical reception" section, the article could integrate the quotes to better explain what the reviewers mean. This would also help remove some repetition with the "Composition" section.
  • DeVille seems to think that the song builds up smoothly and without losing momentum. Something like that could replace his second quote.
  • Harris's article isn't very opinionated, so I would weaken "lauded" to "complemented" or "enjoyed". In place of the quote, we could just say that he liked the song's progression.

Ok. I think that's all. Also, I recommend removing the graphics templates from this review page. That instruction is in the blurb at the top of WP:FAC, which is admittedly not the shortest. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Done all. Thank you for the review!! Locust member (talk) 12:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Nice changes. I did some crazy Google searching and looked in other databases but didn't find any more sources, so the article seems comprehensive. Support. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

wee image review

• image: fair use license good; resolution fine, no caption needed, alt good. That isn't the album cover so what exactly is it? Dracophyllum, (1 PR) 06:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  It is the single cover: Apple Music Locust member (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  ok. I can support for image(). Cheers, Dracophyllum, (1 PR) 21:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Medxvo

• The lead says that Remover mixed both versions, but I think the mixing for the single version isn't confirmed according to the prose
  • Done
• "was remastered for their second studio album" - "... for Remover's second studio album", as the preceding sentence doesn't mention the singer
  • Done
• "the single and album version" - "the single and album versions"? (in lead and prose)
  • In the peer review, an editor said that "single version" is not correct; you can read that here. Would like to know your opinion on it though.
    • I personally think that "single version" is okay (see this review for example).
• "they felt it was able to represent dawn" - I think it would be great if this could be expanded more based on Remover's comments in the source
  • Done, I think
• I suggest archiving refs 3, 7, 8, and 15
  • Done

I think that's all :) My other comments were previously addressed during the GAN review. Medxvo (talk) 11:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the look!! Locust member (talk) 02:45, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I've replied to one point above, but I'm happy to support. Best of luck with the FAC! Medxvo (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I do agree with you and have changed it to what it was originally. Thank you!! Locust member (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Hundreds of Beavers

Nominator(s): Jon698 (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

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) 20:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Dracophyllum

images

• img1: fair use license good, res good, caption good, alt missing
• img2: caption good, license good, consider adding Black and white to alt
• img3: caption good, license good, consider adding Black and white photograph to alt
• img4: caption good, license good, consider adding Black and white photograph to alt
• img5: caption good, license good, consider adding Black and white poster of to alt; maybe delink them in the footer?
• img6: caption good, license good, consider changing alt to Mike Cheslik attending a video call in 2024
• img7: caption good, license good, include location in alt
• img8: a little blurry license good, caption good, alt missing
  • some small changes needed. cheers, Dracophyllum, (1 PR) 06:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

@Dracophyllum: Done in this edit Jon698 (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

nice. I can support for images. Cheers, Dracophyllum, (1 PR) 21:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

alert solely for subjects related to this. Jon698 (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Paleface Jack

Everything seems ok so far. My only critique would to be to bunch your works cited into just a single alphabetized reflist rather than making subsections on the type of source. Other than that, well done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

TompaDompa

I'll give this a look. As an initial comment, is there any particular reason to say "the original theatrical run grossed more than six times its production budget" in the WP:LEAD instead of providing the specific figures? TompaDompa (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: I have changed "the original theatrical run grossed more than six times its production budget" to " the original theatrical run grossed over $1 million". Is that better? Jon698 (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, assuming it is correct (I'm not entirely clear on the timeline for the original run—when does it count as having ended?). TompaDompa (talk) 00:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: I have removed "original" and made further edits to address your concerns below. I will be making some edits to make the citations consistent. Jon698 (talk) 01:01, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

General comments

• Source reviews are not really my forte, but I don't see how the approach here meets WP:FACR 2c, which requires consistent citation formatting.
• The article could use quite a bit of copyediting for clarity, brevity, "flow", and general polish. I have brought up a few examples of issues below; these are not exhaustive.

All of the references now use the same citation style. Jon698 (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Lead

• "Hundreds of Beavers premiered at Fantastic Fest on September 29, 2022" – this contains information that is not present in the body, namely the date. In this case, the solution is to add the date to the body.
• "Produced on a low budget of $150,000, inspiration for the film came from [...]" – this is not really grammatical, as this sentence construction makes "produced on a low budget" refer to the inspiration rather than the film itself. That being said, fixing that problem in isolation would lead to a sentence ("Produced on a low budget of $150,000, the film [...]") where the subject of the sentence comes directly after some information about it and a comma and is then followed by the rest of the sentence, which looks out of place in encyclopedic writing (being more reminiscent of the style used by e.g. newspapers). It's not necessarily wrong, but should be used sparingly if at all to maintain WP:Encyclopedic style and tone.
• "inspiration for the film came from [...] Let's Play videos." – this is subtly different from what the body says ("The second act of Hundreds of Beavers was designed to be like watching a let's play."), and going by my understanding of what the source says it is even incorrect.

Addressed in this edit Jon698 (talk) 01:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Plot

• "Two beavers sneak into the orchard [...] and eat the support beams" – there are two beavers sneaking, but only one of them gnaws on the beams. It should be possible to rephrase this without getting into the number of beavers at all.
• "successful 19th-century applejack salesman Jean Kayak" – I do not see any good reason to describe the character as "successful"?
• Referring to one character as "the trapper" and another as "the Indian Fur Trapper" is bound to lead to confusion. Try to find some way to refer to them after their initial introductions that does not run the risk of causing confusion.
• "A pair of beavers styled after Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson begin investigating Jean's traps. [...] When the detectives report back to the beavers" – this refers to the same pair of beavers, which should be made clearer.

Addressed in this edit Jon698 (talk) 00:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Cast

• I would WP:REDLINK the actors here.

Addressed in edit for plot section Jon698 (talk) 00:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Production

• I would WP:REDLINK the first mention of Mike Cheslik here.
• "Filmmakers Mike Cheslik and Ryland Tews met at Whitefish Bay High School" – do the sources say when?
• "Cheslik directed, wrote, edited, and created the visual effects for the film while Tews played the lead role." – this comes rather out of chronological sequence.
• "It was originally conceived as a parody film of The Revenant and survival films." – I would gloss The Revenant as a 2015 film.
• "The footage was then showed to other investors which allowed the rest of the film to be shot." – I'm guessing the intended meaning here is that the necessary funds to shoot the rest of the film were secured by enticing investors through showing them the first-act footage. It should be rephrased (showing the footage did not in itself make shooting the rest of the film possible).
• "The black-and-white film had a budget of $150,000." – this seems like an odd place to introduce both the budget and the fact that the film is in black-and-white. It's also a somewhat conspicuous phrasing: a noun-phrase description used to introduce new information followed by a verb phrase used to introduce some other new information is typical for news reporting, but not for encyclopaedic writing.
  • The new version of this sentence—"Shot in black-and-white, the film had a budget of $150,000."—is an example of what I described above: a sentence where the subject of the sentence comes directly after some information about it and a comma and is then followed by the rest of the sentence, which looks out of place in encyclopedic writing (being more reminiscent of the style used by e.g. newspapers). As I said above it's not necessarily wrong, but should be used sparingly if at all to maintain WP:Encyclopedic style and tone. If you want to mention both the black-and-white part and the budget in the same sentence, the straightforward sentence construction "The film was shot in black-and white and had a budget of 150,000." would be better (or, alternatively, "[...] on a budget [...]"). TompaDompa (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• "in winter in 2019 and 2020" – ambiguous. Is that the (Northern Hemisphere) winter of 2019–2020, or two consecutive winters, or the winter of 2019 and additionally non-winter parts of 2020?
• Overall, the timeline of the shoot is very unclear to me. The article mentions 3–4 weeks for the first act, 12 weeks (total?) in 2019 and 2020, and 9 weeks in Michigan and Wisconsin. The timeline needs to be made much clearer.
• "wooden kazoos, wooden clapper toys, and other wooden objects" – this could be rephrased as "wooden objects including kazoos and clapper toys" to make it slightly more concise and to avoid having the word "wooden" thrice in rapid succession. It's a matter of preference.
• "The second act of Hundreds of Beavers was designed to be like watching a let's play." – the source goes on to explain how it is like a let's play, specifically, and not just watching a video game: by showing the entire progression instead of using a montage or similar. This is, I think, a crucial detail. There are plenty of other things that are explicitly linked to video games rather than let's plays (and these things, or at least a sample of them, should also be noted in the article).
• "The film's poster [...] was praised as one of the best film posters of 2024 by IndieWire." – this seems like overselling it. The list has 50 entries, so this is basically saying that IndieWire found it to be one of the top 50 posters of 2024, which is not exactly an extraordinary accomplishment.

  I have attempted to address most of your comments in this edit. I have not done points 7, 8, and 10. For point 2 there is no specific date given for when they first met. Jon698 (talk) 00:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

  I see that the article now notes that the poster list is a top 50. That's somewhat better, I suppose, but I really think this should be removed entirely as a rather minor point. TompaDompa (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Release

• "Hundreds of Beavers, with a runtime of 108 minutes, premiered at Fantastic Fest in 2022." – this phrasing is pretty awkward. The runtime seems rather shoehorned in, so to speak. If there are different runtimes and we need to specify which one was used at the premiere, "Hundreds of Beavers premiered at Fantastic Fest in 2022 with a runtime of 108 minutes." would be better. If there is only one runtime (which seems to be the case?), it would be better to mention the runtime elsewhere instead.
  • What other runtimes are there? TompaDompa (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• "More than half of the film's box office earnings were made after being released through video on demand." – is this really in the right section?

  I have addressed these concerns in this edit

  The article now says "More than half of the film's box office gross was made after being released through video on demand." in the "Box office" subsection. That's better, though "after being released [...]" seems to modify the wrong thing (the box office gross, instead of the film itself). It should be rephrased. TompaDompa (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Reception

• "Hundreds of Beavers has grossed" – use the simple past tense instead.
• Avoid "earn" for revenue. Use "gross" instead.
• "It crossed over $1 million in gross" – this seems unidiomatic.
• "$500,000 was earned on digital platforms and $250,000 worth of merchandise was sold." – this appears under the heading "Box office", but is not box office. It should at least be introduced along the lines of "In addition to the box office revenue, [...]".
• The "Critical response" subsection is rather heavy on verbatim quotes.

I have addressed these concerns in this edit except for the last point about the reviews. Jon698 (talk) 00:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Accolades

• Has there been no coverage of the awards and nominations the film received—or indeed, did not receive—that would warrant prose coverage here?

I'm afraid I am going to have to oppose this at present. The main issue I have identified is prose quality (WP:FACR 1a), but I also have concerns about comprehensiveness (1b) and have identified at least one omission that will need to be rectified (see above about missing details concerning video games and let's plays). I also suspect that there is a fair amount more to be said about the low-budget filmmaking and probably also general analysis of the film (i.e. in addition to the filmmakers' reflection). Oh, and I suppose it does not meet the requirements about consistent citations (2c), but that's more of a "do not support yet" thing than an outright "oppose" thing. At any rate, this would seem to need more work to be ready for promotion to WP:Featured article status than can reasonably be expected to be carried out during the FAC process. I would usually suggest bringing this to WP:Peer review, but I see that this was already done and there were no responses—that's a shame. In this case, I would recommend reaching out to WT:FILM and the WP:Guild of copyeditors for help with improving the article. TompaDompa (talk) 00:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

There have been a number of edits made, and the article looks a bit better. I still think it needs quite a bit of further polishing and expansion before it is ready, however. In addition to WT:FILM in general, I think Darkwarriorblake may be a good person to ask for advice about how best to approach writing an article like this. TompaDompa (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This has been open for nearly three weeks and has yet to pick up a general 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) 14:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Maltese nationality law

Nominator(s): Horserice (talk) 04:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

This article is about the history and regulations of Maltese citizenship. Given that it's been in the news recently for its citizenship by investment scheme, I thought I'd be a good time to put this article forward for FAC. I took it through GA a few years ago (thank you Pichemist) and updated it according to recent developments. Looking forward to feedback, Horserice (talk) 04:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Great initiative, I wish you best of luck. _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 16:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Coat_of_arms_of_Malta.svg needs a tag for the design

• Changed this to an older design since that would have been the CoA at the time of passing. I tagged this one as PD under Maltese law.

• File:European_Economic_Area_and_Switzerland.svg: see MOS:COLOUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

• So the main concern here the use of these specific colors? Or that there should be a pattern on the fill? I'm really unfamiliar working with images and so I'm trying to understand what is actionable for this. Horserice (talk) 04:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• There should be a way to understand the image without being able to see the colours - so that could be a pattern, or a symbol, or some other way of labelling. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• I've reached out to the original creator of that image for assistance. If we get to a point where the image is an issue for passing the review, I'll just remove it. Horserice (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Arcticocean

The recent ECJ case was timely, as you have been developing this article for several years and had it more or less ready to propose for FA status. I enjoyed reading this article.

I am surprised that after the recent case, the article is stable enough to meet FACR no. 1(e) but the page history shows that it clearly is. This will just be a review of its prose and readability, section by section:

• Lead:
  • Good, and initially conveys the legal significance of Maltese and EU citizenship with ease.
  • they continue to have favoured status when residing in the United Kingdom: is this WP:WEASEL? If the favoured status is the Commonwealth status, it may be better to make the link explicit, as in something like 'favoured status as Commonwealth citizens when residing in the UK; they are eligible to vote [etc]'. Otherwise, I'm not sure anything in the article supports the description of favoured status.

• • Rephrased. I was using "favoured status" in a generic way to try to highlight that they have more rights in the UK than other foreigners but I can see how that might be a bit confusing.

• Terminology:
  • Good.
  • I was surprised at the whole first paragraph being supported by the Kondo (2001) work, but I checked a preview of the work and it is.
• History:
  • Good. A long and complex history is presented briskly and in an encyclopedic manner. Legal-technical language use is appropriate.
  • British subject status was standardised as a common nationality across the Empire and its Dominions with passage of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914 – perhaps this could more clearly explain the nature of BSS. 'Standardised as a common nationality' has some ambiguity. Was BSS a secondary citizenship, held in addition to a primary one, as presumably with Commonwealth citizen status which is treated later? Or did Maltese nationals (as they would otherwise be) become solely British subjects?

• • I was avoiding adding more context on 19th century regulations in an attempt to not overweight the article towards covering British law but I suppose discussing the standardisation of the status makes no sense without that context. Added a paragraph on that.

• • All British subjects/Commonwealth citizens – Reword (MOS:SLASH).

• • Done.

• • Foreign women married to Maltese men could acquire citizenship by registration with no further requirements – This left me wondering about foreign men married to Maltese women and whether that information is known. Perhaps specifying the situation would seem gratuitous or even create WP:NPOV issues – you would know best.

• • Post-independence, foreign men married to Maltese women would not have acquired Maltese citizenship. The article discusses coverture and how the traditional assumption in imperial law (really it was European law in general) was that women followed the nationalities of their husbands. Starting from that position, we can see how colonial (and later Maltese) law relaxes from that position. Basically what I'm saying is that I thought I wrote it in a way where that doesn't need to be written explicitly. Do you think it's unclear and something needs to be added?

• • Dual/multiple citizenship was constitutionally prohibited – Reword (MOS:SLASH).

• • Done.

• • Although Maltese citizens who naturalised as foreign citizens continued to automatically lose their Maltese citizenship – there are conflicting grammatical tenses here. '

• • Rephrased.

• • In the 2025 European Court of Justice case … Functioning of the European Union – I think that more needs to be said about this and the consequences for Maltese citizenship by investment (WP:FACR § 1(b)).

• • Hmm while the expectation is that the pathway gets shut down, there haven't been moves by the government to do so just yet and I can't find a source that even says something like "Malta is expected to end this pathway", etc. On the ruling itself, I suppose I could pull more information from the ruling itself, but I'm hesitant to do that due to WP:PRIMARY. The judgement is pretty fresh so I think it will be so time before academic secondary sources become available that discuss this specific event. Is there anything specific you would prefer added here?

• Acquisition and loss of citizenship:
  • may naturalise after three years residence – missing apostrophe: three years' residence.

• • Done.

Well done for some great work on this article. Although I have suggested changes to individual sentences above, I am able already to support for prose (writing, comprehensiveness, NPOV, style, and length). Arcticocean ■ 10:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for going through it! I'm glad you found it a good read. Horserice (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Re the foreign women married to… and the ECJ items, if you've considered the feedback and are happy as is, I've no further concerns. Thanks, Arcticocean ■ 17:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• Hi Arcticocean, I just want to check if should read your comment above as a formal support for this nomination to be promoted to FA? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

  Yes. Arcticocean ■ 20:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Borsoka

• This distinction is clearly defined in non-English speaking countries... Are you sure? I would delete the whole sentence.

• That is what the source says. I understand it is difficult to confirm this fully and it might not be entirely relevant since Malta is not core Anglosphere, so I just removed it.

• ...is used in other laws... No law is mentioned in the previous sentences.

• The very first sentence mentions the Maltese Citizenship Act.

• Not in the main text. Borsoka (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• Okay, added it in that section. Horserice (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• ...after their loss of Rhodes to the Ottoman Empire I would delete.

• Done.

• ...the Order of Saint John... I would not use this designation, for they were introduced as Knights Hospitallers. I would use "the Knights/Hospitallers".

• Changed.

• The 1802 Treaty of Amiens restored Malta to the Order but the organisation had been thrown into disarray following its 1798 defeat, which made enforcing this provision impossible. Regardless of the treaty, local residents vehemently opposed restoring the Knights to power and opted for continued British rule. Britain itself decided against leaving Malta after considering its strategic military value in the Mediterranean Sea following resumption of the Napoleonic Wars. I would delete.

• Done.

• ...; a subject who locally naturalised in Canada was a British subject there, but not in the UK or New Zealand I would delete.

• I changed this to specify Malta if that makes this better.

• There were two exceptions to this:... Only one exception is mentioned.

• There are two exceptions:

a) a wife married to a husband who lost his British subject status was able to retain British nationality by declaration

b) a British-born widow or divorcée who had lost her British nationality through marriage could reacquire that status without meeting residence requirements after the dissolution or termination of her marriage

• For me b) is not an exception, because she lost her British nationality by her marriage to a foreigner before being renaturalised. Borsoka (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• Fair enough. Horserice (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Britain somewhat relaxed these measures in 1971 for patrials, subjects whose parents or grandparents were born in the United Kingdom,[21] which gave effective preferential treatment to white Commonwealth citizens. Is this relevant?

• I guess the end part is more relevant to other nationality law articles in the Commonwealth than this one, so I omitted that. I left the part on patrials in to illustrate that despite the changing relationship between Britain and colonies/soon-to-be former colonies, there were still vestiges of constitutional/nationality law that bound them together.

• I would link jus soli to "doctrine of birthright"

• Done. I omitted the wikilink to jus soli on "birthright citizenship" since the two would have been very close.

• Sections "Entitlement by birth, descent, or adoption" and "Voluntary acquisition" mainly repeat information from previous sections. Borsoka (talk) 11:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Those sections show the regulations as they are currently, rather than what they were in the past. It's important for readers to be able to just skip to that section if that's all they want to know, which I would argue is essential to an article like this. Thanks for giving the page a read. Horserice (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, I know. I would delete parallel texts from the previous sections. Borsoka (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• I omitted and shuffled around a few parts where I thought appropriate. I don't really want to cut too much or else it becomes harder to show progression in legislation over time. Horserice (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for this interesting article. I support its promotion. Borsoka (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Source review

Not much to say about the sourcing here - some inconsistent identifiers, the use of a few media reports for recent events seems fine (people tend to overuse them). I wonder if there are primary sources (government statements, parliamentary reports etc) though. Source #10 has an unusual format, I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

- Could you point out which sources are using inconsistent identifiers?

- There's one press release by the government I can find but it doesn't say anything about what the government is going to do in response to the ruling. The citizenship by investment scheme is still listed as a valid pathway online. Will likely need to wait a while for the government to change local legislation and for academic sourcing to become available that covers the ruling. Horserice (talk) 09:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Kitty Marion

Nominator(s): Noleander (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

This article is about a tough-as-nails activist that always fought the good fight. This would be my sixth FA article; and my fourth FA article related to the Progressive Era in U.S. history. This article uses a hybrid convention for citations: short cites (sfn/harvnb templates) are used for major sources; long cites (<ref>) are used for minor or one-off sources. Noleander (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

MSincccc

Lead

• "by selling the Votes for Women newspaper"→"by selling copies of the Votes for Women newspaper"
• Marion died in New York in 1944. Could "she" be used here since "Marion" has been used in the very previous sentence?

Early life

• "Her abusive father had a violent temper, often ridiculed her because of her red hair."→Her abusive father, who had a violent temper, often ridiculed her because of her red hair.

Acting career

• "England" could be delinked as per MOS:OL.
• Later violent acts committed by Marion included smashing windows of Sainsbury’s market on Regent Street in London; The word "market" could be dropped from this sentence to avoid redundancy.
• You could link to the article Regent Street. MSincccc (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for the excellent comments. I addressed all of the above, per your suggestions. Noleander (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

World War I

• Upon the outbreak of World War I in 1914, the leadership of WSPU adopted a patriotic stance, and suspended their activism in order to support the national war effort. The second comma (after "stance") is unnecessary.

Birth control movement in the US

• The article American Birth Control League could be linked to in this sentence -In January 1917, she noticed an advertisement for an upcoming birth control rally at Carnegie Hall, organized by Margaret Sanger's organization, the American Birth Control League (ABCL).
• "selling Sanger's monthly magazine, the Birth Control Review"→"selling copies of Sanger's monthly magazine, the Birth Control Review"

• when she briefly returned to England to see the unveiling of a statue of British suffrage leader Emmeline Pankhurst. "British" could be dropped in this sentence, as the context makes it clear.
• "New York City" could be delinked as per MOS:OL.

General

• Could it be explicitly stated whether the article is in British or American English?

P.S. There is a typo in your nomination statement-and my forth FA article related to the Progressive Era in U.S. history. MSincccc (talk) 10:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

@MSincccc I addressed all of the issues raised above (by implementing all the suggestions). Regarding dialect of English: I added an "American English" template to the top of the article Talk page, reminding future editors of the convention used at this point in time. Noleander (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

You’ve added a "Use dmy dates" template, but the mainspace still doesn’t clarify that the article is written in American English. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

@MSincccc Can you help me out with that? I added a template to the talk page that says the article is written in American English... template:American english... But I cannot find out what I'm supposed to do in the article page. I'm searching for a template that would go there but I can't find one Noleander (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I have added one to the article's mainspace. MSincccc (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I learn something new every day. Noleander (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I have no further suggestions. Support. MSincccc (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Support from Jon698

This is a very interesting article. I have always been interested by the bombing campaigns of suffragettes.

• Could United States obscenity law be linked in "Marion was arrested several times for distributing birth control information in violation of anti-obscenity laws." and "usually for violating obscenity laws"
• Could "she became a US citizen in 1922" be changed to "she became a citizen of the United States in 1922" since that is the first mention of the US in the article?
• Could Marion be added to replace pronouns as the first mention in these paragraph starters?
  "In 1906 she joined a union for actors"
  "During an acting career that spanned 24 years, she performed"
  "Britain was at war with Germany, and under the Aliens Restriction Act of 1914 she"
  "In January 1917, she noticed"
  "Unlike her suffragette years"
  "After departure from the ABCL, she"
• Could the "in 1907" part of "The WSPU, founded in 1903, initially relied on lobbying and peaceful marches, but in 1907 it gradually began to employ increasingly violent measures" be changed to "by 1907"?
• Could you wikilink the mention of Margaret Sanger in the body in the sentence "In January 1917, she noticed an advertisement for an upcoming birth control rally at Carnegie Hall, organized by Margaret Sanger's organization, the American Birth Control League (ABCL)."?
• Could "After Margaret Sanger resigned as president of ABCL" have the Margaret removed since she has already been mentioned in the article earlier? Jon698 (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@Jon698 - Thanks for reading the article & providing valuable feedback. I implemented all of the suggestions you made above. Regarding the pronoun "she" vs the last name ("Marion"), I generally used the name ("Marion") for the first reference in each section, then shift mostly to "she" (with an occasional "Marion" for variety). But I'm happy to use the convention you suggest above, which is to use "Marion" for first reference in each paragraph. Let me know if there are any more issues you discover. Noleander (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@Noleander: No further comments. Jon698 (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Support from Star Manatee

I don’t usually do FA reviews but I reviewed this for GA so I thought it might be worth nitpicking a few things that I didn’t see or have come up since.

• I see the image has changed since the GAN, but to a one that seems somewhat low quality. I think some form of File:Kitty Marion.jpg might be nicer, personally, but that’s just my own taste.

I agree that the current photo is not ideal: it is a bit washed out. However, it has solid proof of free use, as required by WP policies. All other decent headshots of her (including the photo that was in the article at the time of GA, and the photo named above) do not have solid free use proof, so they would probably fail the image validation phase of the FA review. I'll keep looking to see if I can find a better picture that is free use. Noleander (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• In [e], this is a personal nitpick, but only wiki linking half of Victorian England, when to me it appears to be more or less one proper noun, isn’t to my tastes. Maybe Victorian England?

Done. Noleander (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• Several categories identify her as a socialist - I was not able to find a reference to socialism or any other branch of the thought of Karl Marx in the text, but I did not do a comprehensive read through for it. Could you point to if it is in the text?

Done: removed categories. She was definitely a strong supporter of workers & the labor movement, but the sources do not ever come out and call her a "socialist". So, the article cannot say so. Thanks for catching that ... someone must have added those "Socialist" categories a long time ago. Noleander (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

That’s pretty much all. A great article, although short for someone with such significance. 🔮🛷 Vote Kane 🛷🔮 (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

@Star Manatee: Thanks for the review here, and -again - for the GA review. If you see anything else in the article that can be improved, please let me know! Noleander (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

No problem. I think I mostly exhausted my nitpicky complaints on the review, so I don’t think I have anything more to say right now, but if i end up spotting something I’ll go back and say. 🔮🛷 Vote Kane 🛷🔮 (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Image and source review

File:Myra Sadd Brown Hunger Strike Medal.jpg needs a licence for the underlying medal. Otherwise, it seems like the images are fine. The Day Book's citations are inconsistently formatted. What makes "Margaret Sanger Papers Project Newsletter " and " Hearts and Minds: The Untold Story of the Great Pilgrimage and How Women Won the Vote" a reliable source? "Marion in mentioned " is a typo, yes? Footnotes a and p aren't sourced, which is excusable only for d. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus Thanks for taking the time to do the image review. All of the issues you raised have been addressed:

• For the medal image: I added "expired" tags, and also textual justification for the art/design of the physical medal. The "Details" of that medal image now state:

"The physical medal was designed and manufactured circa 1909 in London UK. The author/designer is unknown, but if the author was 25 years old in 1909, and died at age 70, then they died in year 1954. Add 70 years after death yields year 2024. The original medal is in the collection of Museums Victoria. Thus, any copyrights related to the design/art of the physical medal have expired. The museum probably photographed the medal sometime between 1950 and 2000. The museum attached a CC-SA-4 license to the photograph."

If we conclude that the new justification and "expired" tags are not sufficient, the image can be removed ... it is not essential to the article.

• The Day Book cites - thanks for catching that inconsistency; it has been fixed (added ISSN)
• The source "Margaret Sanger Papers Project Newsletter " is super reliable: its author & editor Esther Katz is NYU professor & a leading authority on early 20th century birth control movement in USA.
• The source "Heats and Minds... " is so-so, but I agree it is not sufficiently scholarly. I removed it (there was a second, scholarly source already located at end of the same sentence for the same facts).
• Fixed typo "Marion in mentioned" ... thanks for catching that.
• Removed footnote [a] which was: "Occasionally spelled as Schafer" . I'm 100% sure that was in the sources, but I'm kicking myself for not capturing the source at the time. I cannot find the source now; so removed the footnote. If I find the source, I'll add it back in, with cite.

Please let me know if you see any other issues with the article. Noleander (talk) 12:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

New England Revolution in international competition

Nominator(s): Brindille1 (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

This article is about the New England Revolution's somewhat modest history in international competition. I took inspiration from a few other articles for this, including Burnley F.C. in European football. Brindille1 (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Image review by Arconning

• File:New England Revolution Bench before CCC Alajuelense match.jpg - Public Domain
• File:Morera-Soto-lda.jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0
• File:BruceArena 20060511.jpg - CC BY 2.0
• File:Richie Williams NYRB.jpg - CC BY 2.0, source link needs to be fixed for WP:V
• All images have alt text though I'm quite skeptical with the alt text for Arena's.
  • "Bruce Arena with during US Men's National Team training", grammatically incorrect, should be a quick fix.
• Here are my comments for now. Arconning (talk) 05:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you @Arconning for the comments, I've addressed them. I've switched out the Richie Williams picture for a different one. Brindille1 (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  Pass per image review. :) Arconning (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

History6042

• Tables need row scopes.
• Tables need column scopes.
• Some cells in tables can be merged.
• "Bruce Arena with during US Men's National Team training" alt text makes no sense.
• All sources should be archived if they are online.
• Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you @History6042 for the comments, I've addressed them. Brindille1 (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  Support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 16:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

PCN02WPS

Overall comments Maybe this is just because I don't watch all that much club soccer, so this is just a genuine question, but why does the article separate the concacaf competitions and the mls/liga mx competitions? Does "international competition" refer to the concacaf competition specifically?

Lead

• "which they have reached on three separate occasions" → unnecessary word IMO
• "In 2022, they lost to Pumas UNAM in penalty shootout after winning the first leg" → "in a penalty shootout"; also recommend linking Penalty shoot-out (association football)
• "They won the 2008 edition of their tournament" → "the tournament"?
• "final of the 2010 North American SuperLiga" → since this is not the name by which the competition was introduced, I would recommend avoiding the use of the full name in subsequent mentions

History

• By my reading, none of the exception clauses of MOS:YEARRANGE quite seem to be satisfied in the case of the subsection headers, so I would recommend changing to First appearances in CONCACAF competitions (2003–2007) and Return to CONCACAF competitions (2022–2024) (except, of course, in the case that you read it differently, in which case I'm happy with a simple explanation)
• "brought the aggregate score within one" → a link or brief explanation would assist unfamiliar readers with what an "aggregate score" is
• "and Daniel Hernández were sent off" → need a link or explanation to "sent off"; recommendation is just a link to Fouls and misconduct (association football)#Red card (dismissal)
• The last sentence of the first paragraph might benefit from a very brief explanation of the two-leg fixture format, if such an explanation is not given at the mention of "aggregate" above; I think the two-leg format could be very confusing to some readers, especially those without an interest in sports
• "scored a 90th minute free-kick, which sealed a 1–0 result" → link Free kick (association football) (and I don't believe, based on the convention in that article, that the hyphen is necessary)
• the phrase "their record-breaking 2021 season" is practically begging for a link to 2021 New England Revolution season
• Also, the above phrase (and the whole sentence which contains it) appears to be uncited as the next citation doesn't mention it
• "to face Pumas UNAM of Mexico" → I'd de-link "Mexico" per WP:OVERLINK, that's a major country in my mind (especially compared to Haiti, which is not linked at mention shortly before)
• "and the Revolution won leg 3–0" → a word missing here
• "in what would be the" → "in what was the" sounds much more natural to me here, WP:WOULDCHUCK (not a guideline, just an essay I tend to follow)
• "Revolution's five participations in the tournament" → "participations" sounds awkward to me, maybe "appearances"?
• "Because of this aggregate win, they advanced" → if you want, you could slim this wording down a bit by adding ", an aggregate win." to the end of the last sentence and starting this one at "They advanced to". 100% up to you on this
• "and the away leg 5-2" → en-dash on the scoreline

Other competitions

• "held initially in 2007" → "first held in 2007" sounds more natural to me
• "season, with general manager Craig Tornberg saying" → the present tense sounds odd to me - I would go for a semicolon after "season" and start back with "general manager Craig Tornberg said..." though feel free to rework as you see fit
• "second trophy, with their first"
• "The followed this up with two more home matches" → "They" - also, this sounds a little too informal to me
• "ending their participation in the tournament" → "eliminating them" for brevity, plus it eliminates the repetition with "participated" used in the next sentence
• "the match tied 1–1" → the teams tied, not the match
• "the title-deciding match" → "the championship" sounds like an easier way to say this
• "Morelia prevailed 2–1" → "Morelia won 2–1" since you used "prevailed" two sentences earlier
• "This would be the last SuperLiga match " → "This was the last..."
• "that was started in 2019
• "for the 2023 edition. In the 2023 edition, the Revolution" → repetition
• "the New York Red Bulls, and a 5–1 win" → not sure the comma is needed here
• "where they drew 1–1" → "where" sounds weird to me since you were talking about the team they were playing, not the stadium or something - if you want to keep the sentence structure the same I'd go for something like "against whom they drew"
• I don't really care one way or the other, but is there a reason why Williams gets a year in the caption and Arena doesn't?
• The fact that attendance is given in one table but not the other seems odd to me, though I guess attendance gets hard to add to tables on two-leg fixtures
• duplicate links of "Gillette Stadium" in the table seem excessive to me
• In the club and country table - {{flagicon|MEX}} [[Mexico]] does not strike me as the ideal way to do this - I think {{flagicon|MEX}} {{subst:nfa|Mexico}} would be best - and the link pointing to the NFA seems more appropriate given the context than a link pointing to the country itself, ditto for "United States" below. I am also not super convinced that all of the flags in all of the tables are necessary but I know it's convention for soccer at this point so I'm not blaming you on that

Nice work. Comments above - mostly grammar and wording, I have this watchlisted so no need to ping. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and thorough comments. I've addressed comments in the article, and will respond to the other questions here.

• "Why does the article separate the concacaf competitions and the mls/liga mx competitions? Does "international competition" refer to the concacaf competition specifically?
  • I don't see "International competition" as referring exclusively to the CONCACAF competition, although it makes sense to separate that one for a few reasons: it's more prestigious (allowing teams to qualify for the Club World Cup), more long-running, open to all leagues in the continent, and consistently requiring teams to qualify. Most (all?) analogous Good/Featured articles for European clubs adopt the same standard for official UEFA competitions as I did in this article- it seemed appropriate here as well.
• "I don't really care one way or the other, but is there a reason why Williams gets a year in the caption and Arena doesn't?
  • The Williams picture is less clearly of a soccer coach- it shows him in his playing days. Felt relevant to clarify here to not give the impression he was a player manager. But if this is confusing I can easily change it to give years for both.
• The fact that attendance is given in one table but not the other seems odd to me, though I guess attendance gets hard to add to tables on two-leg fixtures
  • Yes- in addition to the challenge of displaying this for two-legged fixtures, I suspect attendance data for the 2003 and 2006 CONCACAF competitions doesn't actually exist publically.

Brindille1 (talk) 01:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Changes and explanations look good to me - happy to support. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• "The club has taken part five times in international competitions organized by CONCACAF" - would it not be easier simply to say "The club has taken part five times in the CONCACAF Champions Cup (known as the CONCACAF Champions League between [whenever] and [whenever]"? "Competitions organised by CONCACAF sounds like it covers multiple totally different competitions, rather than (as far as I can see) the same one under different names
• "an annual competition between MLS and Liga MX" - I know it's kinda clear, but clarify that Liga MX is the top Mexican league
• That's what I got on the lead. Need to drop off now but will be back for more later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• "faced Liga Deportiva Alajuelense of Costa Rica, in an two-legged tie" - it should be a two-legged tie. I also don't think the comma before "in" is needed
• "to play their first home match at the Bermuda National Stadium" - it was their only home match in this tie so "first" is not needed
• "Two years later, the Revolution again qualified for CONCACAF competition" - I think "Two years later, the Revolution again qualified for the competition" works better
• "The Revolution competed in the second season; general manager Craig Tornberg saying" - either change the semi-colon to a comma or change "saying" to "said"
• "the club had turned down transfer offers from Nottingham Forest F.C. and FC Nantes." - maybe say in which countries these teams play.....?
• That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks @ChrisTheDude. I've addressed these comments. Brindille1 (talk) 03:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support - if you have any spare time and fancy taking a look at a very different soccer article, I currently have 1883 FA Cup final at FAC. If you don't have the time, no problem at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Source review

• Newspaper citations should use page numbers that reflect their actual locations, rather than what Newspapers.com assigns; e.g. Citaition 1 is from p. E5, not p. 89. This seems to onl be an issue for a handful of citations.
• Newspapers.com links should include |via=Newspapers.com.
• Publications and/or publishers need to be wikilinked on the first use or on all uses, whichever is preferred.
• Several citations (MassLive and Boston Globe mostly) need to be marked with subscription-only access.
• MLS should not be shortened in citations.
• Citation 18: "MATCHDAY GUIDE" doesn't need to be all-caps.
• Citation 23 needs page numbers for
• Citations 25 and 26 should be switched to {{cite press release}}.
• Citation 44 does not need "Staff" as the author, nor the "SPORTS" in the title.
• Perhaps the main "By season" table could have a column for citations instead of stacking four citations in the caption.
• Has there been a check for citeable material in books about MLS?

Mostly formatting. Will do some spotchecks soon. SounderBruce 04:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @SounderBruce for the comments. I've made changes to address these, with a couples notes:

• I've added citation columns (and page numbers) for the "By season" tables, which hopfully makes the information much more verifiable. I weighed a couple of options for the other tables, but per WP:NOTCITE, I've removed the general table-level citations. All of the information in the smaller tables is sourced from the "By season" tables that precede them, which satisfies "Cited elsewhere in the article".
• I've done some checks for cite-able material, mostly in "The United States of Soccer" by Phil West. Is there any area of this article that's specifically lacking in information?

Brindille1 (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Value theory

Nominator(s): Phlsph7 (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Value theory is the systematic study of values, examining which things are good and what it means for something to be good. It distinguishes different types of values and explores how they can be measured and compared. Thanks to Acer-the-Protogen for their GA review and to Noleander for their peer review! Phlsph7 (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Image review - pass

• img1: license good, relevant, caption good. Alt could be expanded a little; Diagram with a box (instrumental value), and an arrow pointing to a circle (intrinsic value).

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• img2: license good, relevant, caption good. alt txt good
• img3: license good, relevant, caption good. alt txt good
• img4: license good, relevant, caption good.alt txt good
• img5: license good, relevant, caption good. alt txt good
  • Potentially the alt txt for these diagrams could explain what each shape represents.

    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• img6: license good; the commons page should probably say public domain as pre 1930 (subject died in 1928), relevant, caption good. alt txt good

  I think it depends on the author rather than the portrayed subject. Our source simply says "public domain". Phlsph7 (talk) 08:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• img7: license good, relevant, caption good. alt txt good.
• img8: license good, relevant, caption good; is it angular distance or whether or not the segments are neighbours? I guess those are equivalent? alt txt could be: Circular diagram showing the relations between different types of values, represented by segments

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• img 9: license good, relevant, caption good. alt txt good.
• img 10: license good, relevant, caption good. alt txt good.

Dracophyllum 21:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello Dracophyllum and thanks for your image review! Phlsph7 (talk) 08:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Anytime. Support for images. Dracophyllum 08:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

• I reviewed this a week ago in a peer review. The article was in great shape then, but I did manage to find some suggestions to make. The nominator subsequently made edits addressing most of those issues, and also made additional improvements. Looking at the article today: It has outstanding Prose, MOS-compliance, and citations/sources. The images are free-use. I wish there were more diagrams, but - given the nature of the subject - that deficiency is excusable. I'm leaning 'Support', but I'm curious to see what philosophy-savvy reviewers have to say, since the topic is Greek to me. Noleander (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

  Hey Noleander, just checking wether you have more commonts or feel in a position to support or oppose the nomination? Phlsph7 (talk) 09:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Support from UC

Another one in the increasing series of excellent philosophical articles by Phlsph7. My usual disclaimer that my philosophical knowledge is limited to two or three lectures that went well over my head -- but I'll do my best to comment as a (reasonably) educated layperson.

@UndercoverClassicist: Hello again and thanks for reviewing another article on a challenging topic! Phlsph7 (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• We go a long time without an image, which does make for a somewhat intimidating wall of text. I'm not sure that there's necessarily a good fix here: I wondered about multi-imaging the various diagrams of types of values together, or else pulling the Schwartz diagram into the lead? However, all of those are currently doing good work where they are.

  It's not ideal, but I found a way to add an image of Socrates to the first section. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

  Looks good (I made a small caption/layout edit). He's definitely better not being the lead image. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• Value theory is the study of values. Also called axiology, it examines the nature, sources, and types of values: this might be better under MOS:REDUNDANCY as something like Value theory (also called axiology) studies the nature, sources, and types of values

  I usually try to make the first sentence as simple as possible per MOS:LEADCLUTTER. I don't feel particularly strongly about this so let me know if you think MOS:REDUNDANCY is more important in this case. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

  Obviously, I'm not a neutral arbiter in this case, but I don't see that the current formulation adds any clarity that's lost in the one I proposed, or in something similar to it. LEADCLUTTER has Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject, but I think we're a long way off that in either case. If really concerned about LEADCLUTTER, you could footnote axiology, which would allow you to introduce some of the other terms we present as alternatives further down (like timology and "theory of values". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

  Implemented. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• I was going to suggest linking "good in itself", but was surprised to find that neither that nor bonum in se point anywhere (though we do have Malum in se. Am I missing an obvious page here?

  I added a link to Intrinsic value (ethics) instead, which is close enough to "good in itself". Phlsph7 (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• Value realists state that values have mind-independent existence as objective features of reality: "mind-independent existence" might be a tough one: would this be much weaker as "exist as objective features of reality"? I think "objective" and "mind-independent" could be argued as equivalent.

  Implemented. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• Could link evaluation to "evaluative" in the lead, balancing "normative". We have that link in the body.

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• The roots of value theory lie in antiquity as reflections on the highest good that humans should pursue.: not a problem, as such, but it's a bit odd to have a statement about something's beginnings at the end of a discussion of it.

  I added one more sentence. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• the ancient Greek terms ἄξιος (axios, meaning 'worth' or 'value'): ἄξιος is an adjective, so better translated as 'worthy', 'of value'. The noun is ἀξία, but I think it's much less common.

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• theories about what things are valuable and how valuable they are: which things or what is valuable and how valuable it is.

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• The term timology is an older and less common synonym: you could, if you wish, enlighten readers that this comes from the Ancient Greek τιμή, meaning 'honour', 'worth', or 'value'.

  It might be better to keep it as brief as possible since the term timology is not widely-used today. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  Fair enough. Incidentally: if we're going to explain the aetiology of "axiology", why not that of "value"? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  In principle, we could discuss the etymology of the words "value" and "theory" by looking at an etymology dictionary. But our sources on value theory don't do that, even though some discuss the etymology of the word "axiology", so I don't think it's necessary for us. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• Value theorists examine the expressions used to talk about and compare values: could we use another term that covers e.g. writing and sign languages (and indeed thought) -- "describe"?

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• "Thick evaluative terms" is linked on second mention: is this intentional?

  Moved. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• One suggestion to distinguish between intrinsic and instrumental value relies on a thought experiment that imagines the valuable thing in isolation from everything else.: when we say things like "some people have suggested...", I think it's usually best to credit those people where possible: I'd argue that it comes within WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV as an implied or paraphrased quotation.

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• According to a common view, pleasure is one of the sources of intrinsic value.: any value (sorry) in name-dropping Epicureanism here -- though I notice that you've generally avoided giving a genealogy to these philosophical perspectives at this stage?

  This is better reserved for the history section, especially since it is a widely-held view well beyond Epicureanism. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• value simpliciter: Latin lang tags around simpliciter.

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• The sentence "Pleasure is good" is an example since the word good is used as a predicate: italicise or quote good as MOS:WORDSASWORDS.

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Consequentialism is a theory in normative ethics. It says that an act is right if it leads to the best consequences: I understand we're being brief, but is this quite right? So Consequentialism says that it's not right for me to donate all my possessions to a homeless shelter, because there would be better consequences if I gave them to a children's home?

  Standard versions of consequentialism agree with your example (donation to the homeless shelter is wrong in this case), but satisficing versions disagree. Technically speaking, our sentence is correct even for satisficing versions since it does not say that only actions with the best consequences are right. We could provide a more general and less accessible characterization by saying that "It says that whether an act is right depends on the values of its consequences". Phlsph7 (talk) 09:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  I think that sort of framing would be better, or even "depends on its consequences", if that would be less technical and more accessible? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  Implemented. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• A similar view, proposed by the Chinese philosopher Zhang Dainian: I know that "Chinese" here really modifies "philosopher", but it's a little unfortunate that we appear to be giving only Zhang's nationality but not that of the various more-or-less (Anglo)-Saxon people mentioned around him. Is there a more specific tradition into which we can place him: or else call him e.g. a historian of Chinese philosophy? He does also have a Chinese wiki page, which could be ILL'd.

  He belongs to a different tradition than most of the other main contributors in this fields, which is a reason for mentioning it. I'm not particularly familiar with his work as a historian of philosophy, but I think this discussion of values is his own philosophy, not a historical summary of someone else's philosophy. Our source, Li 2014, also introduces him as "The Chinese philosopher, Zhang Dainian...". Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• According to this view, the evaluative statement "That act is bad" is as objectively true or false as the empirical statement "That act causes distress": are you intentionally leaving open the possibility that neither is objectively true or false?

  I guess we have this covered implicitly since it is a comparative statement: if both have zero objectivity, then the first is still as objective as the second. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, precisely -- I just wanted to check that this view allows for that possibility. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• Natural properties can be known through empirical observation and are studied by the natural sciences, like size and shape: I think this would be clearer as Natural properties, like size and shape, can be... -- at the moment, we lull the reader into expecting the "like" to introduce examples of natural sciences.

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• the property "is pleased".: the property "pleased", surely?

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• Between these two positions, there are various intermediary views: intermediary is a person who tries to negotiate or mediate between parties: intermediate?

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• The historically influential theory of hedonism: can we be more precise than "historically": are we talking about the 80s BCE or the 1980s here?

  It has been influential in many periods, starting in antiquity. However, I think there were some ups and downs, which would make the discussion of its historical influence a little complicated. The point here is not so much to start a historical discussion, which would fit better in the history section, but to make the reader aware that this is one of the main views. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• Hedonists usually understand the term pleasure in a broad sense that covers all kinds of enjoyable experiences, including bodily pleasures of food and sex as well as more intellectual or abstract pleasures, like the joy of reading a book or happiness about a friend's promotion. Pleasurable experiences come in degrees, and hedonists usually associate their intensity and duration with the magnitude of value they have: is it worth mentioning qualitative hedonism here -- some would consider "higher" pleasures to be of greater value, seperate from the intensity or duration of the pleasure?

  I added a footnote. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

OK, let's do a few more:

• This theory overlaps with hedonism because many people desire pleasure and because desire satisfaction is often accompanied by pleasure. Nonetheless, there are important differences: people desire a variety of other things as well, like knowledge, achievement, and respect; additionally, desire satisfaction may not always result in pleasure: a musing rather than a problem, but I notice we adopt very human-focused language here and throughout, which raises the implication that someone following this school of thought would think that an animal's happiness or suffering has no moral value, except where it causes happiness or suffering to a human being. Is that intentional?

  This roughly reflects how the sources discuss the topic since they also refer to persons and people and when explaining their views, such as Hurka 2006 pp. 361–362. Non-human animals are usually not explicitly excluded, but they are not the main focus. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• One debate in desire theory concerns whether any desire is a source of value: this is ambiguous (does it mean "whether there exists a desire that is a source of value" or "whether there exists any desire that isn't a source of value"?). Suggest whether all desires are sources of value, or whether a desire is necessarily a source of value.

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• According to one suggestion, there are two main fields of human goods: theoretical abilities responsible for understanding the world and practical abilities responsible for interacting with it: see above: can we attribute this suggestion to anyone in particular?

  In providing a broad summary of the field, Hurka 2006 explains this distinction without attributing it to anyone in particular. There are often cases in philosophy where there are widely held views in a particular area that didn't clearly originate from a single philosopher or one specific school of thought. In these cases, I think it's better to just state the view as one proposal rather than attribute it to a randomly selected philosopher who happens to discuss it somewhere, like Thomas Hurka in this case. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• philosopher Max Scheler: this is a false title, which isn't as heavily frowned upon in AmerE as it is in BrE, but does get a bit tiring when we have example, philosopher Isaiah Berlin applied this idea to the values of liberty and equality, arguing that a gain in one cannot make up for a loss in the other. Similarly, philosopher Joseph Raz said that it is often impossible to compare the values of career paths, like when choosing between becoming a lawyer or a clarinetist. The terms incomparability and incommensurability are often used as synonyms. However, philosophers like Ruth Chang distinguish them a moment later. In the last case, it also creates a little ambiguity: do we mean that "normal" people use the terms interchangeably, but philosophers (of whom Ruth Chang is one) see a distinction? We're also quite inconsistent about it: generally speaking, the famous philosophers don't get the title. You might consider cutting "philosopher" when it's being used as a generic introduction for exactly the sort of person a reasonable reader would expect to find quoted in a philosophy article.

  Opinions on this point seem to be divided among FA reviewers. In earlier articles, I did not mention titles when introducing theorists and some FA reviewers complained. My current practice is that I try to mention the title when the name appears for the first time unless the person is well-known, like Plato, or the context makes it clear. Personally, I don't have a strong opinion on this and I think either practice works. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• For instance, Immanuel Kant argued that if a vicious person becomes happy, this happiness, though good in itself, does not increase the overall value: increase the overall value of what? Similarly, earlier, with For example, if a virtuous person becomes happy then the intrinsic value of the happiness is simply added to the intrinsic value of the virtue, thereby increasing the overall value: the value of that person? The value of the world? The value of doing the thing that made the virtuous person happy?

  I guess that depends on your metaphysical assumptions, for example, whether individuals or states of affairs are the primary bearers of value. This is discussed in the subsection "Realism and anti-realism". Also explaining this here might add unnecessary complexity. Our source, Oddie 2001, also simply talks about the problem of whether "happiness always and everywhere adds value" without specifying the value bearer. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• Existential nihilists reject both naturalist and supernaturalist explanations by asserting that there is no higher purpose. They suggest that life is meaningless, with the consequence that there is no higher reason to continue living and that all efforts, achievements, happiness, and suffering are ultimately pointless: particularly in this paragraph, I'm struggling to keep straight the distinction between value and related ideas like "right/wrong", "meaning" and so on. Are we saying here that these nihilists think nothing has value, because nothing has meaning? Incidentally, if we're covering existentialism here, isn't all efforts, achievements, happiness, and suffering are ultimately pointless only half of the story -- nothing has essential meaning, so it's up to human beings to create that meaning and purpose -- il faut imaginer Sisyphe heureux?

  This is not just you, it's the sources on existential nihilists themselves that often don't clearly distinguish. For example, from Pratt: Existential nihilism is the notion that life has no intrinsic meaning or value ... Existential nihilism begins with the notion that the world is without meaning or purpose. One explanation could be that this is a broad tradition and different philosophers in this tradition use different terminology, so when you attempt an inclusive summary, you lose precision.

  What you say is true of existentialism but existential nihilism is not exactly the same thing. Existentialism is covered in our article in the sentence A similar view is defended by existentialists like Jean-Paul Sartre, who argued that values are human creations that endow the world with meaning. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• Values measure the extent to which an entity fulfills its concept. For example, a good car has all the desirable qualities of cars, like a reliable engine and effective brakes, whereas a bad car lacks many. Formal axiology distinguishes between three fundamental value types: intrinsic values apply to people; extrinsic values apply to things, actions, and social roles; systemic values apply to conceptual constructs: I found the plural on values tricky here: I don't have a sense of what this school of thought thinks "values" actually are. I get the idea that a good car has more value (singular) than a bad one, but where does the plural come in? Is a "value" here synonymous with a "desirable quality"?

  I changed the first plural to singular because we talk about an individual entity. Different entities can have different values or value properties, so the later plurals make sense. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

  I'm still looking at It uses axioms to give an abstract definition of value, understanding it not as a property of things but as a property of concepts. Value measures the extent to which an entity fulfills its concept. For example, a good car has all the desirable qualities of cars, like a reliable engine and effective brakes, whereas a bad car lacks many and scratching my head -- in part, but not entirely, because the first two sentences seem to contradict each other ("the extent to which the thing fulfils its concept" is, surely, a property of the thing?). But then I'll freely admit that I always was too thick for philosophy. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

  From Hartman 2011 p. 103: The value predicate “good,” thus, is a property of concepts rather than of objects. Maybe it's similar to how the property "being instantiated" is a property of concepts rather than of objects. But I guess it depends how you use the term "property". Phlsph7 (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:44, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• Value theorists employ various methods to conduct their inquiry, justify theories, and measure values: conduct their inquiries reads as more natural to me.

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• In this context, an intuition is an immediate apprehension or understanding of a self-evident claim, meaning that its truth can be assessed without inferring it from another observation. Value theorists often rely on thought experiments to gain this type of understanding: I'm not sure what specific type of understanding we mean here.

  It refers to the understanding discussed in the previous sentence: the type of understanding that belongs to self-evident claims, which could be a priori understanding, depending on your theory of intuition. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Based on his observation that people would not want to spend the rest of their lives in this pleasurable simulation: this might be me being a spoilsport, but when we say "observation", do we really mean "contention" -- or did he actually do a robust survey?

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• According to him, the thought experiment shows that the value of an authentic connection to reality is not reducible to pleasure.: I assume another interpretation is that people are irrational?

  If I remember correctly, some defenders of hedonism make a similar point in their attempt to refute Nozick's thought experiment. But since the point here is to showcase how thought experiments work, I don't think we should get into this. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Our article hyphenates Open-question argument, which would seem the default for a compound modifier (it's the question that's open, not the argument).

  I think both spellings are used. I added the hyphen. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Didn't we do the bit on "Ethics -> Consequentialism" already, further up?

  The earlier discussion was just a brief definition in a footnote for readers who haven't heard the term, not the proper explanation. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Classical utilitarianism, a prominent form of consequentialism, says that moral actions produce the greatest amount of pleasure for the greatest number of people.: this is only strictly true if we don't consider Mill a classical utilitarian, since his idea of higher and lower pleasures means that it's completely possible for an action to produce more utility while producing less pleasure (for example, forcing people to go to the library instead of the pub).

  This is often presented as the standard definition of "classical utilitarianism". For example, from Sinnott-Armstrong 2023: [Classic utilitarianism is] often summarized in the slogan that an act is right if and only if it causes “the greatest happiness for the greatest number.”. One explanation might be that even though most of Mill's ethics falls under classical utilitarianism, this specific aspect does not. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• The economic value or benefit of a commodity is the advantage it provides to an economic agent, often measured in terms of the money people are willing to pay for it: I would suggest what people are willing to pay: I'm only speaking from experience of economics teachers here, but they tend to avoid speaking about money directly when they can help it -- and the "costs" they're interested in are often partly paid in time or convenience, either directly or indirectly.

  Implemented. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Marginal utility often diminishes if many units have already been consumed: could link diminishing returns somewhere around here.

  I'm not sure if diminishing marginal utility is the same as diminishing return. It might be that the first is about consumption and the second about production. Diminishing marginal utility redirects to Marginal utility. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• According to this view, values are beliefs or priorities about goals worth pursuing that guide people to act in certain ways: I might find this a bit clearer with a specific example of what this means in practice.

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• One approach to this type of research uses value scales, such as the Rokeach Value Survey and the Schwartz theory of basic human values,: we already introduced these a little while ago, in the "Methods" section.

  The detailed explanation is up there. They are mentioned here in one sentence to make the reader aware that they are also used by sociologists. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Anthropologist Louis Dumont followed this idea, suggesting that the cultural meaning systems in distinct societies differ in their value priorities. He argued that values are ordered hierarchically around a set of paramount values that trump all other values: this might be another place where a specific example, perhaps from Dumont's work, might clarify things.

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• values associated with the autonomy of individuals, such as self-directedness, independence, and personal goals: the fulfilment of personal goals, surely -- a value needs to be a singular noun.

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• MOS:BIRTHDATE: birth and death dates generally shouldn't be included in an article text outside the first sentence of a biography. In the "History" section, I would therefore look to rework the essential dates into prose: for example, In the late fifth century BCE, Socrates identified the highest good as the right combination of knowledge, pleasure, and virtue ... His pupil Plato conceived the good as a universal and changeless idea ... Aristotle, a contemporary of Plato, saw eudaimonia as the highest good. Think here about how much detail or precision a reader needs here to get the point: in most cases, the exact dates of birth and death are less relevant than the general chronology. As we get down the history section, the dates become a bit of an obstacle to reading.

  I guess this depends on how you interpret the term "special contextual relevance" in MOS:BIRTHDATE. Given that we have to include this information anyways in the text, as your proposed reformulations suggest, I think there is a point to be made that they are relevant. You are right about the precision, but I don't think this is a serious problem. There are also other factors to consider, such as concision, ease of reference, and the difficulty of avoiding repetitive formulations when introducing new dates in prose in almost every sentence.

  To address the precision concern in particular, we could make the dates in the parenthesis more vague, such as "(5th century BCE)" and "(5th–4th centuries BCE)". However, this is not standard when the exact dates are known, so I think this is not a good idea. I could look up whether high-quality sources in the history of philosophy follow our practice. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• We are inconsistent on the capitalisation of "the Good".

  Adjusted. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• MOS:SAINTS: Saints go by their most common English name, minus the word "Saint" (see also MOS:HONORIFIC).

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• In general, we shouldn't put CE after a date unless there's a realistic chance of a reader thinking it's a BCE one, but see my earlier point that most of these dates probably need the axe anyway.

  The change between BCE and CE happens in the first three paragraphs, so I think it makes sense to include the CEs at least there.

• I think note v uses a hyphen for a date range (but see above re. MOS:BIRTHDATE).

  Fixed. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

That's all for the text. I haven't done a systematic look at the references, footnotes, biblio or images -- I may do so, but no promises. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for all the helpful comments! If you have more time to look at things like references or images, it would be much appreciated. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Images, biblio and footnotes

• File:Socrates Louvre.jpg strictly needs a PD tag for the original work, though it manifestly is PD.

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• File:Max Scheler2.jpg: I don't understand the licensing here. If the author and date are unknown, how can it be released under a CC licence? I would also call him Max Scheler in the caption for consistency with the others, which use full names or well-known initials.

  I adjusted the caption. The copyright information is from our source, the Great Norwegian Encyclopedia. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  That only pushes the issue: the page says it's public domain, and links to a page about Creative Commons. That page doesn't actually say that it's been released under a CC licence, contra what we have on Commons, only that it has been "identified as being free of known restrictions", which is too low a bar for us. Only the artist can release the image under a CC licence -- we don't know who that is, but given that it must have been taken before 1928, it seems rather unlikely that this happened. The threshold for assuming out-of-copyright status is 120 years, and an unpublished work by an unknown author is only PD if created before 1905, so we either need to find some more information or swap it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  I asked at [10]. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

  I changed the image to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:IsaiahBerlin1983.jpg Phlsph7 (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

  That one's licensing is transparent; all good there. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• File:Raja Ravi Varma - Sankaracharya - cropped.png: another one that needs a US PD tag, as a formality.

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• File:Franz Brentano in Vienna, 1875.png: we need publication information for this one, and a US PD tag. I suspect the first of those might prove complicated, in which case you may want to look for an alternative image.

  It turned out it wasn't so complicated after all since the author's name is in the right bottom corner of the image. I updated the license tag. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  May still be a little bit complicated: US PD relies on publication status -- do we have evidence of when it was published? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  I asked at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Photographer_died_in_1894%2C_but_publication_date_is_unknown%3A_what%27s_the_US_copyright_status%3F . Phlsph7 (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  Are the arguments for US PD from the discussion acceptable to you? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:27, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

  I don't disagree with them, but I think we're working to different standards: it's probably not under copyright, but for FAC, we need to actually be able to put a specific licence on it and be confident that it isn't. The assumption of PD status relies on what is, ultimately, nothing more than an assumption about when and how it was first published -- it's an entirely reasonable assumption, but I don't think it clears the bar here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

  I replaced it with https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:G-H-von-Wright-1961_(cropped).jpg Phlsph7 (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

  That looks good. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Courtesy ping here to Dracophyllum, as this covers issues that overlap with their image review. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:17, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry I don't know anything about commons tags; I usually just focus on the on-wiki part of images. Cheers, Dracophyllum 09:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  For the future, an important part of doing the image review is to check the copyright status of the images -- that they all have valid FURs or licence tags for both the United States (where Wikipedia's servers are located) and their source country, and that there is no reason to suspect that those licences are invalid (e.g. a licence which depends on a clearly incorrect publication date, or on an author's death date when the author is unknown). Where the image is a photograph of something that isn't itself a 2D work of art, this needs to be demonstrated both for the photograph and the thing being photographed (there are some exceptions, under Freedom of Panorama). Of course, commenting on captions, image choice and alt text is important too, but an article shouldn't be listed as passing an image review unless the copyright can be vouched for. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  Roger Dracophyllum 11:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• This view is sometimes called radical nihilism: we haven't generally used italics in similar phrases (If this position limits itself to the moral realm, it is known as moral realism, an influential position in ethics.), and there's no real justification in the MoS for doing so.

  Are you sure it's not the other way around per MOS:WORDSASWORDS? I would have added the italics to the second passage rather than remove them from the first one. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  That does have Italics may also be used where DFN tags or templates mark a term's first use, definition, introduction, or distinguished meaning on the page. As tags and {{{1}}} templates do not apply text formatting, the italicization (or quoting) must be added if intended. In which case, consistent italics with the DFN template/tag in these contexts would be an acceptable approach. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  I opted for simple italics since I'm not sure they are all definitions in the strict sense. I hope I didn't miss any. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:22, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• prima facie duties: prima facie is unapologetically Latin, so italicise (use a lang template if you can, but that might cause problems if done for only part of a hyperlink).

  Italics added. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• Normal practice is for all footnotes to end in a full stop, even short references -- this is done automatically by SFN templates. I notice that you've followed this for explanatory notes, but not for references.

  That's one of the differences between the sfn template and the harvnb template. The important point is probably consistency, which should be the case for the reference footnotes since they all use harvnb. The explanatory footnotes are full sentences, so having them not end in a full stop would be odd. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  Indeed: most style guides have reference footnotes end in full stops too, but if you've consciously chosen not to do that, our MoS doesn't insist. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• Dash not hyphen in title of Bartley 2020.

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• For books (e.g. Arneson), it's usual to give just the year of publication. For websites, a full date is often better.

  Fixed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• The publisher of Dancy 2004 is Oxford University Press; the Clarendon Press is the building in which it was printed.

  Fixed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• We seem to have a consistent policy of converting ISBNs to 13 digits, which I can accept is a legitimate way of doing things.
• I would give ISSNs for journals, to aid verifiability (especially where the text is not accessible), but you may not share my enthusiasm for them.
• In the |edition= parameter, use ordinal numbers (2nd, not 2), as the latter prints as e.g. "2. ed.".

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• I see a lot of citations to the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, but my understanding is that that is written by recognised experts (under editorial oversight?) and considered a highly respectable source. Is the same true of the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy?

  Yes, see https://iep.utm.edu/home/about/ .

  All looks good, but I'm not sure I'm happy taking their word for it. Are they ever cited in academic works, for example? Anyone can say they have high standards, but what matters to us is whether the (other) experts in the field believe them. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

  According to the Routledge Dictionary of Philosophy, the IEP is an excellent online philosophy encyclopedia ... refereed by distinguished editorial boards and peer reviewers. The Bloomsbury Companion to the Philosophy of Consciousness also recommends the IEP as a source of information. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:03, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• I have some hesitations about an Oxford Very Short Introduction, with the weight on the HQ part of HQRS, but can see why it might be necessary to use one for high-level explanations that would be considered obvious in more specialist works.
• Slingerland 2007: lower-case as.

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• Slim 2015: upper-case "is" (it's a verb).

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• Check punctuation and capitalisation in Sharma 1991.

  Fixed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• Rajendra Sharma should alphabetise above Ram Sharma.

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• Authors and editors are consistently not linked, which is a legitimate approach.
• Pirgmaier 2021: title in title case.

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• I would probably alphabetise O’Keefe ignoring the punctuation, so after Oddie. He's also got a curly apostrophe instead of a straight one, which needs changing.

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• Martin 2016: is the capitalisation on "The Birth of the True, The Good, and The Beautiful" definitely right?

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• There's a lot of OUP in the bibliography -- between Oxford and Stanford we have the vast majority of sources. There's nothing wrong with them, of course, but it does lead me to ask a question about whether we've covered the range of available ideas in a representative way. In an overview article, I can see that we're not generally citing thinkers and ideas at first hand, and so I have less reason to believe that (e.g.) the Cambridge Companion to Ethics would say things that are radically different to those found in its Oxonian equivalent.

  By my count we have a total of 210 sources, of which 38 are from Oxford University Press and 30 are from Stanford University. I think that's not too bad, especially given the restriction of being limited to high-quality sources on the subject. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: Thanks for the detailed reviews of content, images and sources! I hope I didn't miss any comments. Do you have the impression that all your main concerns were addressed? Phlsph7 (talk) 11:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Almost totally, but I'd appreciate your thoughts on my follow-up query on the IEP. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:29, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

And now moving to Support: really nice work, as ever, and thank you for your patience with a long review. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Source review from Dracophyllum - pass

In progress Dracophyllum 10:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the source review! Phlsph7 (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• ref1: good, heathwood and hart are supplementary but good
• ref2: good
• ref3: good
• ref5: good
• ref7: where in hurka does it say that? is there really anything in the non page numbered schroeder? I cant see anything

  Hurka 2006 established the relation between value theory and consequentialism on p. 357 in the paragraph starting with: The theory of value is important, first, because it gives content to some important claims about the right. Consequentialists about the right hold that.... From Schroeder 2021, Lead section: In its narrowest sense, “value theory” is used for a relatively narrow area of normative ethical theory particularly, but not exclusively, of concern to consequentialists. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• ref8: good; Taliaferro contradicts ref 7, although I guess that is why you say in a "narrow sense?"

  Yes, this problem arises because different philosophers use these terms slightly differently. This is explained in the sections "Definition" and "Ethics". Phlsph7 (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• ref11: good
• ref13: good
• ref17: good
• ref19: good, can't access most
• ref21: good
• ref23: how does orsi help here? I can't decipher it

  The relevant discussion of the relation between evaluative and normative concepts in Orsi 2015 starts on p. 8 with the chapter "1.4 Value and normativity": evaluation in a narrower sense: the sense at issue when we judge things to be good, bad, and the like ... The other concepts mentioned above (ought, etc.) are sometimes grouped together as 'normative' concepts ... Phlsph7 (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• ref29: good
• ref31: good
• ref34: good, but isn't relative value just a value that depends on other things, not considerations/viewpoints

  I guess this is a question of how we interpret the terms "considerations" and "viewpoints" in this context and on which type of relative value we focus on. I added the clause "is relative to other things" to make it more inclusive. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• ref37: good
• ref42: ref good
• ref43: cant access
• ref47: good
• ref52: how does Oddie support this claim

  I added the section "§ Do Value Claims Have Truth Makers?" to the Oddie reference, where this claim is more explicit: Value claims presuppose the existence of value properties and relations Phlsph7 (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• ref54: good
• ref61: good
• ref67: good
• ref73: good
• ref83: good
• ref92: good

more later. Dracophyllum 10:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

break

• ref101 good
• ref105 good
• ref109 good, what does zaibert establish here?

  Zaibert discusses the role of intuitions in Moore's two-worlds thought-experiment. I don't know if it adds something that is not already present in the other sources so I guess it could be removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• ref114 good
• ref120 good
• ref127 good
• ref137 good
• ref139 good
• ref151 good
• ref159 good. How is Bahm useful here?

  I fixed the page number for Bahm 1993. Page 103 talks about Plotinus's view of the Good and deficiency of Goodness. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• ref168 good. is the Boyd & Timpe source good? I dont get any results when I search Laozi in the google books page. this could be on my end

  The preview link to the page has stopped working so I'm not sure. I removed the reference since the sentence is already well supported by the remaining references. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• ref173 good
• ref181 where does this support the claim? I couldn't find it on the first page

  It seems the preview link redirected to the wrong place. I removed it, added page numbers, and a secondary source. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• ref187 good
• ref191 good
• ref200 good
• ref211 good
• ref216 good
  • Spotchecking done. Just a few comments @Phlsph7:. Cheers, Dracophyllum 09:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  I don't have the capacity to check every reference; but it seems to me in this spot-checking that all of the sources are of high quality, I found no evidence of close paraphrasing, and no major issues. As such, I can support for the source review. Hopefully this is enough. Cheers, Dracophyllum 20:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Shapeyness

Hi Phlsph7, another great article, I think the use of diagrams is particularly good in this one :) There are some comments below, although most are pretty minor. Shapeyness (talk) 00:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Shapeyness and thanks for the review! Phlsph7 (talk) 09:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Value is the worth of something, usually understood as a degree that covers both positive and negative magnitudes corresponding to the terms good and bad." Minor/optional change: I don't think too much would be lost by simplifying this slightly, e.g. "Value is the worth of something, usually understood as covering both positive and negative degrees corresponding to the terms good and bad."

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Further categorizations cover attributive, predicative, personal, impersonal, and agent-relative values." Minor/optional: since most readers are unlikely to know what these terms mean already (and we can't link to anything), would it be better to go a bit more general, e.g. "Further categorizations cover types of value based on if they are relative or absolute"?

  I reformulated the sentence to focus on absolute and relative values. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• The lead mentions that value theory is "an interdisciplinary field" but the only methods listed in the lead are traditionally philosophical methods - other methods mentioned in the article include surveys and observation of behaviour

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• "...belong to another realm of reality" This is a bit dramatic for an encyclopedia, plus I doubt proponents of the view would put it this way (I may be wrong!)

  I guess it depends on how you interpret "realm of reality". I changed it to "domain of reality". Other options would be dimension, aspect, or sphere of reality. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Another disagreement among realists is about whether the entity carrying the value is a concrete individual or a state of affairs. For instance, the name "Bill" refers to an individual while the sentence "Bill is pleased" refers to a state of affairs. States of affairs are complex entities that combine other entities, like the individual "Bill" and the property "pleased". Some value theorists hold that the value is a property directly of Bill while others contend that it is a property of the state of affairs that Bill is pleased." There is quite a bit of repetition here, and most underlying sources don't seem to go into the details about what a state of affairs is - this can be condensed almost entirely with "Another disagreement among realists is about whether the entity carrying the value is a concrete individual, like a specific person called Bill, or a state of affairs, like the fact "Bill is pleased"." I don't necessarily think it needs to be squashed down that far, but the fact it's possible shows the space here can be used more efficiently.

  You are right about the sources, but they can assume that their readers know this metaphysical distinction. I fear that without the explanation, the difference between the two views may be lost on many of our readers. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  I think there may be room to cut down repetition nonetheless. And if the explanation of states of affairs is kept, I think it could be simplified so it is more in line with the source being used, e.g. "States of affairs consist of individuals and properties taken together, like..." or "States of affairs are the combination of individuals and properties, like...". Obviously push back if you think that would go too far in the direction of oversimplification! Shapeyness (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  I reformulated the passage to shorten it and reduce redundancy. Another alternative would be to move the whole Bill-example into a footnote. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Between these two positions, there are various intermediate views" Maybe better "There are various intermediate views between this position and realism" given the distance between this sentence and the first mention of realism

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Cognitivists contend that value statements have a truth value." Do we want to explicitly mention that realism is a form of cognitivism? Also "Error theorists defend anti-realism based on this view" is misleading - error theorists are cognitivists, but that doesn't mean that their anti-realism is based on cognitivism

  I changed it to "following this view" instead of "based on". The link to cognitivism is already implicity covered in the first paragraph of the section. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  I worry that that could be overlooked by some readers, and the fact that it is in the middle of a passage dedicated to anti-realism could lead to misunderstandings. On the other hand, maybe I'm over-cautious, there is nothing explicitly in the text that is misleading. Feel free to ignore this one if you think including an explanation would over-complicate the current structure. Shapeyness (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• I would start a new paragraph for reductionism to keep each paragraph a bit more focused. My understanding is that reductionism is viewed by some as a form of realism and by others as a form of anti-realism. This is alluded to but not explicitly mentioned. Do you think there is sourcing for this (both in terms of verifiability and due weight)?

  I divided the paragraph. I think we could come up with the sourcing, but the terminology is at times confusing so it might be better to spare our readers the additional difficulty. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  If the only issue is difficult/complexity, something like this could keep things simple: "According to some views reductionism is a form of realism, but the strongest form of realism says that value is a fundamental part of reality and cannot be reduced to other aspects." Shapeyness (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  Implemented. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• On naturalism vs supernaturalism, is the link for naturalism the right one? I associate ethical naturalism more with ethical non-naturalism than supernaturalism (which I associate more with a more general idea of naturalism). This is not important at all, I just wondered.

  I changed the link to Ethical naturalism, which is the better link target. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@Phlsph7: all looks good now! I quickly checked sourcing and that also looks solid, but I don't think all of the philosophers/philosophies in the history section have sources explicitly linking them to the history of value theory/axiology. I assume there isn't much written on the history of value theory so it might be difficult but I think explicit sources are needed to avoid OR and undue weight issues. Let me know if you think they are all already covered, it may just be that I missed mentions in the few sources I checked. Shapeyness (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I added a few more references to provide stronger support for the link to value theory. If I remember correctly, the sources usually explicitly talk about topics that belong to value theory, like what things have value or what the highest good is. In most cases, at least one source is directly from value theory. In some cases, the discussion happens in the context of ethics rather than value theory, reflecting the fact that the two disciplines are often not clearly distinguished. Especially for the views of some of the non-Western thinkers, it may be hard to find sources that say explicitly in the text that the presented views are part of the history of value theory rather than ethics. One way to approach this would be to look at concerns about specific claims where this may be controversial. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:05, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for adding those! After looking into the sources in more detail, most of these demonstrate due weight even if a overview for value theory isn't used. The only few places where I think a bit more is needed to demonstrate relevance/due weight are in relation to Stoicism, Buddhism, Al-Farabi, and Adi Shankara. The key problem here is not necessarily verifiability but use of sources to demonstrate due weight in this specific article. Shapeyness (talk) 15:03, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I added references for Stoicism and Buddhism. I removed the sentences on Al-Farabi and Adi Shankara. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Support as all my comments have now been addressed and I could find no other issues when comparing against other overview sources. Final optional comment: a concrete example might be useful to explain the buck-passing account of value. Shapeyness (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This nomination has been open for a month now. While it has attracted some commentary, it has yet to pick a support for promotion. I'm afraid if things don't progress in the next few days, it is at the risk of archival. FrB.TG (talk) 08:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: Thanks for taking a look at the nomination. Just a short update: the nomination currently has two supports, one leaning support, and one review planned in the course of this week. It also has passed the source and image reviews. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Rose Cleveland

Nominator(s): Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Rose Cleveland was the sister of U.S. President Grover Cleveland. He had not yet married when he became president in 1885, so she served as acting first lady until his wedding the following year. Despite all of the excitement in Washington, recent scholarship has taken more interest in the years after, when she began a same-sex relationship with Evangeline Marrs Whipple and moved to Italy. The couple provided assistance for refugees of World War I and the Spanish flu, of which Cleveland herself died in 1918.

This is the sixth U.S. first lady article I'm submitting as a featured article candidate, part of a project I began with WP:Women in Green, and the first not to be the wife of a president. I wasn't sure about submitting one of these simpler Acting First Lady articles, but Cleveland had surprisingly in-depth coverage of her life with publications specifically about her. Nonetheless, this is the shortest first lady article I've submitted to this point. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• File:Rose_Cleveland,_before_1918_(cropped).jpg: what is the author's date of death and where was it published before 1930? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello Nikkimaria! Alt text added. I'm unable to confirm anything about the author or publication of that particular image, so I've removed it barring any revelations on its origin. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 06:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Vacant0

Will review this. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

• Brockell (2019) uses sentence case while other references use title case. I'd recommend changing the style of this reference to title case for the sake of consistency.
• Per MOS:SMALL, {{small}} templates should be avoided in the infobox.
• You could mention that Ipswich is in England, e.g. Ipswich, England, in Early life.
• Avoid repetition: They moved to Holland Patent, New York, in 1853 → In 1853, they moved to Holland Patent, New York
• He had raised Cleveland and her siblings as Presbyterian, and she remained devoted to the religion her entire life. could be moved after the "The Clevelands were poor..." sentence.
• Would suggest cutting this: before returning home to her family home in Holland Patent → before returning to her family home in Holland Patent
• Holland Patent is wikilinked twice in the same section (Early life).
• Here she returned implies that the Houghton Academy is located in Holland Patent. I'd suggest changing it to: After recovery, she returned
• Recommend wikilinking Nassau.
• Besides teaching, Cleveland became a prominent lecturer in the state of New York, speaking at schools about things such as history and women's rights. could be moved after the "Here she returned..." (After recovery, she returned...) sentence.
• Cleveland inherited The Weeds Grover or Rose?
• Cleveland's brother Grover Grover is already introduced in the previous section so I don't think that it's necessary to state "Cleveland's brother" again. In order for this sentence to then make sense, I suggest changing so he asked her to fulfill the role to so he asked Rose to fulfill the role
• Typo: in June 1, 1886 → on June 1, 1886
• How is File:ROSE ELIZABETH CLEVELAND.jpg relevant to the section?
• Would suggest merging sentences: In 1909 → , while in 1909
• She founded the Florida Audubon Society along with the Whipple and Marrs families and served as its vice president. was this after or before her return to New York?
• Maybe change the Bagni di Lucca, Italy subsection to Life in Bagni di Lucca, Italy
• You could note that Bagni di Lucca is in Tuscany.
• What was Rob Hardy's occupation?

Overall, a fantastic article. I enjoyed reading it. Good job, TBUA. If you're interested, you can join our next month's GAN Backlog Drive!

Vacant0 changes made, that should be everything I think. The image is just where an image of her best fit. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Support on prose. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

MS

Early life

• Cleveland attended Houghton Academy in Buffalo, New York, from 1864 to 1866. "Buffalo, New York" could be linked in this sentence.
• Their mother died the same year, and Cleveland inherited their home, The Weeds.→ Their mother died the same year, and Cleveland inherited their family home. Or {{blue|Their mother died the same year, and Cleveland inherited The Weeds. Any of the two suggested versions (in blue) will avoid repetition.

Acting First Lady of the United States

• Could "Annie C. Van Vechten" be introduced in brief?
• Could "Adelaide Hamlin Thierry" and "Katherine Willard Baldwin" be introduced in brief?

That's all for now. A few suggestions above. MSincccc (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Bagini di Lucca, Italy

• The Spanish flu occurred this year,... Could "this year" be replaced with "that year"?

"That year" would be appropriate if the flu was happening in the same year you're speaking or writing whereas "this year" would refer to an event in the past (as is the case).

Legacy

• Cleveland's romantic to Whipple→Cleveland's romantic letters to Whipple

That's all from me. I hope that my suggestions have been useful, Thebiguglyalien. MSincccc (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

MSincccc Thanks for the help! Everything should be fixed now. The people you mentioned aren't notable besides being friends with Cleveland, so I've introduced them as "women named". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 17:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

A fine article indeed. Support. MSincccc (talk) 09:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Aoba47

• Would a link for women's rights be beneficial? I am only bringing this up as women's suffrage is linked, and I could see a similar argument being made for why linking women's rights could help readers get further background on this.
  • Linked.
• This is more of a clarification, but do we know how Cleveland's father, mother, and brothers died? I am guessing that since this information is not in the article, it is not known or named in a source, but I still want to ask just in case. I have a similar question about the "period of illness" Cleveland later has. Again, I understand if further information is just not available or known about this kind of stuff.
  • Clarified "lost at sea" for the brothers. Added "became ill" for the mother but the source didn't have more detail. Unable to find a clear answer for the father or for her illness.
• Do we know what degree Cleveland earned from graduating from Houghton Academy?
  • It looks like this was a secondary school, but the source emphasizes her study of classical literature, so I added that.
• This is likely from my modern perspective, but I have a comment about this sentence: (Besides teaching, Cleveland became a prominent lecturer in the state of New York, speaking at schools about things such as history and women's rights.) I would associate lecturing as a type of teaching, but the quoted sentence places that as distinct and different.
  • Removed "at schools", her lecturing career seems to have been more general.
• First lady of the United States should be linked on the first instance in the article to match the links in the lead and the infobox. Apologies in advance if I somehow overlooked it if it was already linked.
  • Linked.
• Just out of curiosity, but do we know which languages Cleveland was familiar with?
  • I'm only finding hints, like how she studied in Greek and Latin.
• Cleveland's book on George Eliot's poetry is inconsistently represented in the article, with both George Eliot's Poetry, and Other Studies and George Eliot's Poetry and other Studies being used.
  • Fixed the latter to align with the other uses.
• Was there a reason given for the president keeping the press from taking pictures of Cleveland? Based on the article, she seems like someone who would not like having her photos taken, so I would imagine her brother did that to help her, but I was curious if a reason is known.
  • Yep, the source says it was for privacy. Added.
• Who addressed Cleveland as Miss Rose? I was curious as I could see it going a few ways, like this could have been something used by servants for her or something used by close friends and acquaintances.
  • According to the source, she was "generally addressed as Miss Rose" in Washington.
• I wonder if wedlock would benefit from a link, but admittedly, the current redirect is not particularly helpful.
  • Yeah, probably not helpful in its current state.
• For this part, the feminist movement of the time, I think a link to first-wave feminism would be helpful to provide further background information for interested readers as I believe that this is the movement being referenced.
  • Linked.
• This is another clarification question, but for Indigenous sovereignty, should indigenous be capitalized? On a side note, I do want to say that the article does a wonderful with both discussing and highlighting Cleveland's more progressive views and work while also acknowledging and naming her prejudices. It provides a nuanced perspective on her, which I appreciate.
  • I think Indigenous is one of those words where it can be upper or lowercase since it refers to a group of people, I have no preference. And thank the sources, I'm just the messenger!
    • You did a very good job with conveying the information from the sources. I am glad that the sources provided this more nuanced take on a historical figure, as I always think that is important to consider when looking back on them. Thank you for the note on Indigenous. I have seen it both ways too. It is one of those words that I am never quite sure about. It should be fine either way here. Aoba47 (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• I would clarify in the prose that Oliver Ames was the governor of Massachusetts. I would do the same type of clarification for John W. Candler.
  • Done and done.
• I am curious if this sentence is needed: (It is unknown whether they had a romantic relationship.) If it is unknown, why include a sentence that implied that it was a possibility or something that people may think is the case?
  • Clarified, it has been raised as a possibility.
• For this part, a 220 acre farm, shouldn't it be 220-acre with a hyphen?
  • Fixed.
• A link for Audubon may be helpful.
  • I'd rather not link one word within a proper noun if it can be helped.
    • That makes sense. I did not consider that, and I agree that a link to a specific part within a proper noun like this would awkwardly cut it up and hinder readability. Aoba47 (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• Would Grover Cleveland's death in 1908 be relevant to this article? Is there any information on Rose Cleveland in connection with his death?
  • A few sources mention it in passing, but mostly in relation to other people or to explain the context of other things. It doesn't seem to have directly affected Rose.
    • Understandable. Thank you for the reply. Since Grover's death is not really about Rose directly, it is understandable why this information would not be present in this article. Aoba47 (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• Do we know how Evangeline Marrs Whipple died?
  • Added.

Wonderful work with the article! I have focused my comments on the prose. I hope that this is helpful. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 01:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Aoba47, that should be everything. Thanks for the feedback! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I am just glad that I am able to help. I really enjoyed reading this article. I agree with your replies above and with your edits to the article. I support this FAC for promotion. I hope you have a wonderful rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Source review

Why is the Washington Post reference formatted like a journal article? Are there any reviews of "An Honest President: The Life and Presidencies of Grover Cleveland" and "Rose Elizabeth Cleveland: First Lady and Literary Scholar"? The citation info for A Woman of the Century is pretty basic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Big Boys (song)

Nominator(s): Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 13:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Cuffing season may be over, but there's never a deadline to improving articles. "Big Boys" quickly became one of the most popular SNL sketches shortly after it aired last December 2022, mainly thanks to the Gen Z app TikTok. While its song's got a catchy chorus, it was never released on streaming or radio, to the chagrin of many music fans. This is technically my first TV show article (despite mainly being structured like a song article), so I hope my first foray in that topic area's successful on this try. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 13:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

IntentionallyDense

Always wanted to review an Elias article as I've seen some of the hard work they've done. I don't have much time right now so expect a more thorough second wave of feedback at a later time.

• I noticed that "two million" is spealt out but other numbers larger than 9 are not spealt out. The MOS doesn't give specific guidance on numbers such as two million where there is a smaller number in front so I'm more curious about wether this is intentional or not as I'm not sure if this is incorrect or not
  • Yes, this was intentional on my part - Elias
• 48 is spealt out in full in the lead but not in other parts of the article (same with other higher numbers) for consistency perhaps consider changing this so they are all spealt out or not.|
  • I've followed the spelling standard used in the SNL season articles (forty-eighth season vs. season 48). - Elias
• It may be relevant to include which two songs in "SZA performed two songs from the album" but use your best judgement here
  • I think doing so takes away the focus from SNL and the comedy sketch, so I left them out on purpose - Elias
• "who specifically is overweight" may sound better as is specifically
  • I don't see the difference tbh - Elias
• fan culture may have an appropriate wikilink
  • Wikilinked "fan culture" to fandom; this also reminded me to add a WL for "fan video". I *think* that wikilink may be vidding? Not sure. I'm used to the term "fancams" or "fan videos" or "fan edits", and I don't know if "vidding" has the same meaning as those three. - Elias

That's all I have for now but I will return to this with hopefully some more feedback. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 19:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@IntentionallyDense thanks for coming along. I appreciate the compliments! Your comments have been insightful so far; I look forward to the rest. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 03:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the numbers, I have no fixed opinion of the whole two million vs 2 million so I don't think any changes are needed there. Regarding using the same style as other SNL seasons, there is other times where 48 isn't spealt out in reference to the season so I think for consistency it would make sense to stick with either spelling it out in every occurrence or using the numbers. Somewhat off topic but I'm surprised we have an article on Vidding and not fan edits or fan videos.

• Apparently "fan edits" are a form of vidding? Very confusing terminology even to someone immersed in fandom. Re. the number spelling, I don't think it really is that serious; "7th" looks weird to me and I can't just change "forty-eighth" to "48th" because "7th" is almost directly beside it. - Elias
• You know this area better than I do but Single (music) may be helpful wikilink

• Done - Elias

• " dancers who wear Santa hats and pajamas" may sound better as "wearing Santa hats..."

• Done - Elias

• "unofficial audio snippet of it was" may sound better as "of the song" or just "snippet was"

• I removed that part - Elias

• I may just be tired but the placement of the explanation for fancam in "In the sketch, the "Big Boys" chorus played when actor Pedro Pascal watched one fancam, a fan-made video about a popular figure, of himself on TikTok" reads a bit awkward to me. I'm not quite sure why though

• Moved into a footnote - Elias

That's all I have for now! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:38, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing, IntentionallyDense! It's a delight to interact with you at FAC for the first time. Responses above Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 23:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Based on the pretty short length here and the fact that the prose was in great condition when I got to this article, I believe that's all I have to contribute. Support on prose and best of luck moving forward! As always, thanks for your cooperation and willingness to hear others out. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 00:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Arconning

I'll do a few comments that I can nitpick, will add some more if I can.

• From my understanding, wouldn't it be more apt to omit mentions of the word "the" when mentioning "cuffing season"? [11] (e.g. concept of the cuffing season to concept of cuffing season).
  • I think this is a MOS:WORDSASWORDS situation (note the term in that dictionary entry is also in italics). The way the wikipedia article is using "cuffing season" is more similar to that of the examples given in the online Cambridge dictionary - Elias
• "fan videos", "fan-made videos" could probably work better in this context.
  • Anything can be a fan-made video... "fan video" refers to a more specific genre of fan-made works. The linked article vidding also uses "fan video" - Elias
• "For her appearance, SZA performed two songs from the album.", which were?
  • It does not need to be mentioned because it takes the focus away from the subject of the article. - Elias
• "SNL actor Kenan Thompson", since it's SNL, "SNL cast member..."?
  • Done - Elias
• "After it went viral on TikTok, SNL reused the song for another season 48 sketch, which parodied fan culture there.[12] In the sketch, the "Big Boys" chorus played when actor Pedro Pascal watched one fancam, a fan-made video about a popular figure, of himself on TikTok.", the title of the sketch could be included, "Fancam Assembly".
  • The sentence is already pretty long and I think this is non-essential information - Elias
• Would the audio require captions for accessibility?
  • Yes, but I'll get to it at a later time - Elias
  • These are my comments for now! Arconning (talk) 05:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@Arconning, thanks for going beyond the GAN review by helping with the FAC as well. I have replied to everything above (and addressed the comment about close captions as well). Hope you have a great day! Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 03:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

@PSA I'll give my support, love the article! Hope you have a great day as well. :) Arconning (talk) 10:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Aoba47

• I have a few questions about the "guest appearances" parameter in the infobox. Shouldn't the dancers be included? If we know their names, they should be credited here. What about Kenan Thompson? He also makes an appearance in the sketch. What about Cecily Strong, Ego Nwodim, and Punkie Johnson?
  • Nope, I couldn't find their names anywhere. And those four are cast members so they do not count.
    • That makes sense. Thank you for clarifying this for me. It is a shame that the dancers do not get credit, but that information is unfortunately unavailable. Aoba47 (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• I believe File:Big Boys (Saturday Night Live).png would need a stronger justification for inclusion. The WP:FUR, specifically the "purpose of use" parameter, is quite vague in my opinion. To be clear, I am not against using this screenshot, but since it is non-free media, it should have a strong rationale for its inclusion.
  • Expanded
• I am uncertain about the first two sentences of the lead. I would think that it would be more beneficial to start with the performers, as done for other song articles. A suggestion for these two sentences would be the following: ("Big Boys" is a novelty song performed by Keke Palmer and SZA for a pretaped comedy sketch on the television show Saturday Night Live (SNL). It was included in the forty-eighth season's seventh episode, which features Palmer as the host and SZA as the musical guest.)
  • I disagree with this comment in that I prefer that the sentences not get overly long. I do not think there is a hard rule enforcing this stylistic choice and the current structure is not a detriment to the article.
    • Fair enough. I should have been clearer anyway. Song articles start by naming the performers in the lead's first sentence. Any reason why this article does not do that? Aoba47 (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
      • As explained, this is an article about an SNL skit, first and foremost. The most important thing about it is not the performers but its purpose. I think that if the sketch song got an official release like what happened with 3-Way (The Golden Rule), then I could have included the performers at the opening sentence. However, this is not the case.
• The lead should mention the songwriters. On a somewhat related note, do we have any further information on the people behind the song, such as the producers? I am guessing that since this song was never released, that this would not be known, but I wanted to double-check just to make sure.
  • I added the songwriters, though the producers are unknown
    • I figured the producers were unknown, but thank you for clarifying this for me. Aoba47 (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• I would cut down this part, (frequently mention the concept of the cuffing season), to the following, (frequently mention cuffing season), to be more concise. I have the same comment for when "the concept of the cuffing season" is used later in the article.
  • It just seems awkward when written that way. I know we aim for being concise but we have to balance it with having a smooth flow of words as well
    • Frankly, I think "the concept of" is more awkward. I do not think that it adds anything and it comes across more like filler to me. Aoba47 (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
      • Well okay, fair enough
• For the lead's second paragraph, I wonder if the first two sentences could be combined. The first sentence on the airdate seems rather abrupt to me. Maybe something like the following: (The "Big Boys" sketch aired on December 3, 2022 and in it, Palmer and SZA dance alongside three SNL cast members)? That is just an idea though, but I think this part could be worded better.
  • See my reply three comments above
    • Fair enough. I just feel that the prose reads as choppy by having a short sentence at the start like this, but I will not press this further. Aoba47 (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• I believe that the first two sentences in the "Background" section could be combined as they come across as slightly repetitive in my opinion. This is what I thought of: (On December 3, 2022, singer-songwriter SZA was the musical guest on the television show Saturday Night Live (SNL) for the seventh episode of its forty-eighth season.) Either way, musical guest (as well as the host) should be linked in this section to match the link in the lead.
  • The links have been added. However, I did not merge the sentences as I found it overly long.
    • It seems repetitive to me. The first sentence is about how she ppears on SNL, but it is unclear in what capacity she appears in until the second sentence. I do not see the reason for not saying it at the start. Aoba47 (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
      • We will have to disagree there. The introduction of SZA as a musical guest still happens relatively at the beginning of the paragraph. I can see the problem when this is mentioned in the last sentence, but I doubt that it is a major issue when done during the second sentence. I actually have no idea how I can transfer that detail to the first sentence, so an example here will help.
        • I already gave you an example, but you disagree with it. I will see if other reviewers comment on this. Aoba47 (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
          • Ah, my bad @Aoba47, I didn't see the example. Regardless, the suggested prose feels overly long to me. Say, if I did implement the change, then the first paragraph's ebb and flow would become rockier. We now start with a very long sentence, and as we go on the sentence length gets shorter: "On December 3, 2022, singer-songwriter SZA was the musical guest on the television show Saturday Night Live (SNL) for the seventh episode of its forty-eighth season. Prior to this, she had been teasing the release of her second studio album, SOS (2022). For her set, she performed two songs from the album." Not super ideal. Alternatively I can write "On December 3, 2022, singer-songwriter SZA was the musical guest on the television show Saturday Night Live (SNL) for the seventh episode of its forty-eighth season. Prior to this, she had been teasing the release of her second studio album, SOS (2022), so she performed two songs from the album for her set.", but the "overly long sentence" problem just gets doubled. I already established a preference for using long sentences sparingly, so now we're in a pickle. @IntentionallyDense and @Arconning, apologies for the ping but as previous reviewers, what do you think of Aoba's suggested change? (There's another suggestion a bit down the line for which I would also like your input.) Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 00:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

            It may be helpful to know where Aboda is coming from here. From my understanding it is based on repetitiveness, which in my opinion isn't something that jumps out at me here. The first paragraph seems to be some background on SZA's performance and the second paragraph is about the song itself. Regardless, repetitiveness is quite subjective so this may be a "wait and see" kind of situation.

            Regarding the placement of the writers of the song, the first few setences of a lead are vital. It's what makes people decide to keep reading or not. Putting the most important information first is important for this. If the writers were very notable for the topic (for example I can think of some artists where the producer they work with is vital to their song style and would be important) then I could see it being placed higher up but otherwise I don't see the big deal in splitting up that information. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

            I personally am fine with either writing style as they do make sense on paper. Though I lean in more with Elias' original suggestion regarding the consistency of the sentences' length in the section. Arconning (talk) 09:25, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

            Thanks @Arconning and @IntentionallyDense for the input (cc @Aoba47). There is another comment below for which I would like additional opinions. It's the one that starts with "This is another point where we unfortunately do not see eye-to-eye". Regards, Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 13:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

            My second paragraph is in response to that. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 14:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

            To be clear, my comment on this part is about the repetition. I just think it is unnecessary to break this into two sentences. But if other editors disagree, then that is fine. I agree that it is a "wait and see" situation. If other editors are okay with it, then that is fine by me. Aoba47 (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• These two sentences, (For her appearance, SZA performed two songs from the album.) and (SZA performed another song during her appearance, a rap track titled "Big Boys".), are repetitive. They both use "performed songs" in some capacity for two sentences in a row. I would think that these sentences could be combined to something like: (For her appearance, SZA performed two songs from the album, as well as a rap track titled "Big Boys" for one of the episode's comedy sketches.)
  • I am unsure about merging them because the first part directly ties into the previous sentence about SOS. It would slightly break cohesion, I think. I agree with you about redundancy though, so I rewrote the second paragraph a bit.
    • That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• I think that the "Background" section would read better as a single paragraph.
  • The themes and topics discussed in each paragraph are different enough to make me think a split is warranted.
    • That is fair. I will not press this point further. Aoba47 (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• The "Background" section brings up that the song was written for a sketch, but the actual writers are only named in the next section. I am uncertain on why this information would be separated from one another.
  • No clue why this is a problem.
    • When I was reading this part, it made me question who actually wrote this song. It just seems odd to me to bring up that this song was written for something without naming the writers right at that moment and instead having the readers jump to a different section to find that information. Aoba47 (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
      • Hm, think of it this way: we're dealing with a song created not for a musical artist's body of work. This is about a song created for a TV show. The songwriters do not really matter as much here. To me, it makes sense to focus first on setting the stage (so to speak), by bringing up the comedy sketch. Readers will likely want to learn "who performed this song?" first and not "who wrote this track?" Naming the songwriters this early into the prose (e.g. by writing "SZA also contributed to a rap track written by Punkie Johnson, Vannessa Jackson, and Streeter Seidell for one of the episode's comedy sketches") might strike folks as odd. Who are they? Why are they relevant to the conversation? The immersion in the section gets broken, if that makes sense.
        • Songwriters always matter. It does not matter if the song is on an album or just in a movie or a television. A song appearing in a SNL skit does not diminish the importance of the people who wrote it. You say that the first question readers would have would be "who performed this song?". Well, I was a reader. My first question when I read this part was "who wrote this track?". When I read about a song being written for something, I want to know who wrote it. I do not think that it breaks the immersion. I do not think that the second paragraph of the first section is too early in the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
          • This is another point where we unfortunately do not see eye-to-eye. My apologies for being stubborn about this point - the confusion stems from my being unsure on how (or why) this can be improved. While I stand by my opinion that this comes down to stylistic preference, I am open to suggestions on how the suggestion can be incorporated. Where in the second paragraph of the first section do you want the detail about songwriters mentioned, and how? I am also open to having other folks (like Arconning and IntentionallyDense) comment on it.
            • An option would be to change (SZA also contributed to a rap track written for one of the episode's comedy sketches.) to (SZA also contributed to a rap track for one of the episode's comedy sketches.). If the writers and writing process is not going to be brought up in this section and the focus is on the episode, then "written" is not really needed here. Aoba47 (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

            I trimmed it to "rap track from one of the episode's comedy sketches". I hope this is satisfactory. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 04:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I hope that these comments are helpful. I have never heard of this song before so hopefully my more outside opinion can be useful here. I have only read the lead and the "Background" section so far, but I wanted to stop here for now. I will read the rest of the article once everything has been addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping by @Aoba47. It's been a long time since we've seen each other! I have replied to your comments. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 03:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses. I have left my replies above. I will look through the article again sometime on Wednesday night if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• I would clarify how Cecily Strong, Ego Nwodim, and Punkie Johnson factor into the song and the sketch as it is rather vague in its current wording. It is not made clear until later in the article that they are rapping on the song.
  • Clarified
• I would recommend linking hook, particularly for readers who may be unfamiliar with music jargon.
  • Linked
• I have a question about this sentence: (SZA performs the hook in her singing voice, in contrast to Palmer and the SNL cast, who rap the remaining lyrics.) Why not just say something like, SZA sings the hook while Palmer and the SNL cast rap the verses?
  • Good idea to trim this part, although "SZA sings the hook" is a repetition of the previous sentences. I went with a slightly different approach.
    • Thank you for addressing this. I think that the article could more clearly identify that SZA is singing the hook. This part, (she could perform the hook), is a bit vague as "perform" could mean different things, even on a song. I would also be mindful of the repetition of perform in this paragraph. I would also link verses to help readers who may be unfamiliar with this kind of music jargon. Aoba47 (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
      • Addressed
• I have been told in the past to avoid the following sentence construction, (with the premise of finding a boyfriend who specifically is overweight). I do not have an issue with it, but I have seen enough notes in other FACs that it is likely just best to avoid the "with X verb-ing" phrasing when possible.
  • It's not the same structure; note the presence of the preposition "of" before the verbal.
    • Thank you for pointing this, and apologies for misreading this part. That was a pretty dumb mistake on my part. Aoba47 (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• For this part, (as Star-Lord from Guardians of the Galaxy), I would think that the Guardians of the Galaxy (Marvel Cinematic Universe) would be more appropriate as this is about the Marvel Cinematic Universe version of the team. That and Guardians of the Galaxy should not be in italics as it is referencing the team, not the movie.
  • I changed the link but kept the italics. Guardians of the Galaxy here refers to the entire franchise, and its particular use parallels Parks and Recreation which is a TV sitcom.
• For both (as Star-Lord from Guardians of the Galaxy) and (as Andy Dwyer from Parks and Recreation), a descriptive phrase should be added for both Guardians of the Galaxy and Parks and Recreation to better introduce both to readers.
  • Done
• I am uncertain of the placement of the poster sentence. That is about what happens in the video, but it is placed in the paragraphs about the lyrics. I would think that this would be better suited for the last paragraph of this section, which is about the video.
  • I split the parts about the video into its own section
• I have no idea what this sentence is trying to say: (It features an ensemble of overweight men in different contexts.). The "different contexts" wording in particular is very vague. Can any further information be added? If not, it may be better to reword this part to say: Mike Diva directed the video, which features an ensemble of overweight men.
  • Rewritten
• Something about this sentence just seems awkwardly constructed: (One of the social media platforms where "Big Boys" went viral was TikTok, where an unofficial audio snippet was used in over two million videos.) I think you worded this kind of thing better in the "Streets" (song) article.
  • I don't see the problem. If you're referring to how I wrote "used" in "Big Boys" instead of "appeared in" like in "Streets", that's because "using an audio" / "using a sound" is a valid way to say "included this song in a video" in TikTok.
• For the Today ranking, I do not think that it is necessary to specify the month and the year. I think the year alone would be good enough.
  • Removed
• I get what you are going for with this part, (In the view of multiple journalists), but I think something like "According to multiple journalists" would read better.
  • Done
• For this part, (Writing a retrospective of SNL sketches for Collider), why not add the year to the prose, like what is done for the Today ranking?
  • Done
• This source from The A.V. Club could be useful as the writer praises the chemistry between SZA and Palmer.
  • I ultimately decided on not including this because the article is not about SNL or the skit (it's about the One of Them Days film). Furthermore, the article doesn't really say anything super meaningful about "Big Boys".
    • Fair enough. I disagree as the source does praise their chemistry for this song: (SZA was the musical guest when Palmer hosted the show back in 2022, and the two made some real magic together.) That being said, it is not a major point so I will not press it further. Aoba47 (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• It is not required for a FAC, but I always encourage sources to be archived as that would avoid any potential headaches in the future with link rot and death.
  • Done
  • I will incorporate those two suggestions later as I will have to get lunch with friends outside in a few

These are my comments for the rest of the article. I hope that this is helpful! Aoba47 (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Aoba47! Your comments helped with rewiring my perspective on the article. Replies to all of your comments are above. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 03:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@PSA: Thank you for addressing everything. You have done a great job with this article. I am going to wait and see what other reviewers have to say. I hope you have a great weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Aoba47. Same goes to you. I'll be seeing Final Destination Bloodlines in a few hours so I'll definitely take my time enjoying the day Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 00:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I am glad that I was able to help. I hope you enjoy the movie! Aoba47 (talk) 00:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Aoba47. I replied to (what I believe is) the final pending suggestion. Let me know if everything's in order. regards, Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 04:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. It looks good to me. I will read through the article again later today just to make sure that I have not missed anything. Aoba47 (talk) 12:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience with my review. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. What I perceive as repetition in the first section is not enough for me to hold back my review further. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 04:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Ippantekina

An FAC for a viral TikTok song? I gotta give huge kudos to you! Anyways, expect my comments soon.. Ippantekina (talk) 09:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Image and source review

Image placement, ALT, licence and rationales seem OK to me. I am pretty certain I have reviewed such sources before for reliability, they seem OKish and are consistently formatted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Harry Crerar

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

This article is about Harry Crerar, Canada's most senior field commander in the Second World War, who commanded the First Canadian Army in the campaign in North West Europe in 1944–1945. I prepared this article as part of a series on the senior commanders in the campaign, but never got around to them all. Crerar is not a household name even in Canada, but Canada is in the news a lot lately. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text
• File:Crerar_e010750463-v8.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:CrerarReturnsToOttawa1945.jpg

  I do not know, but Archives Canada says the copyright has expired, so it must have been more than 50 years ago. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• File:British-p011074.jpg: what's the status of this work in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  The rights have been released world-wide. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  How do we know that? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  Toutes les images dont les descriptifs comportent la mention de copyright "libre de droits" et qui ont été numérisées, peuvent être téléchargées en haute définition (fichiers numériques TIFF en 300 DPI) et utilisées librement, avec pour seule contrainte l'obligation d'inscrire, lors de toute utilisation, la mention :
  "Conseil Régional de Basse-Normandie / National Archives USA" pour les images dont l'origine indiquée sur le descriptif est "NA-USA"
  "Conseil Régional de Basse-Normandie / National Archives Canada" pour les images dont l'origine indiquée sur le descriptif est "NA-CA".[12]

  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  That does not specify worldwide release? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Gog, I removed the image from the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Drive-by comment -- I notice the Knight of Saint John isn't showing up in the post-noms in the first sentence, leaving an odd-looking double comma; obviously the post-nom template could be altered to include this but can we confirm that it is a recognised post-nom in Canada (since I don't think it is everywhere)? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Since 1990, the Order of St John is a recognised order in Canada, but the post-nominals are not used. [13] I believe that they were used in the past eg. [14] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Support Nick-D

As a disclaimer, Hawkeye approached me to ask if I could comment on this nomination via my talk page. I think that I'm an appropriately tough judge though ;) I have the following comments:

• having rapidly risen in rank from brigadier in 1939 to that of a full general in 1944.

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note in the second para of the lead that he saw combat in the First World War

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• Say in the lead who J. L. Granatstein is/was

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• Did Crerar have any role in the Dieppe fiasco? e.g. were the Canadian units involved transferred from his command before it?

  Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• I'd suggest saying what happened to McNaughton in the first para of the 'Army commander' section.
• What Crerar involved in planning for the 1st Canadian Army's role in Overlord?

• Added a paragraph on this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• The Normandy section would benefit from being renamed as it has a much wider scope and being split into sub-sections

• Split into subsections. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• In this section, it's never made really clear why Montgomery didn't have confidence in Crerar. It would also be good to know what Crerar's views of Montgomery were.

• Crerar maintained a policy after the war of not criticising his colleagues or subordinates. As far as Canadians are concerned, the important issue was Dieppe, and Crerar always defended Montgomery over this. The two men never became friends, but that was Montgomery; he remained friends with Brooke. Should this be added to the article? I gave an example of Montgomery's sensitivity in handling Canadian affairs in the instance of Keller. Normandy was a brutal affair and Montgomery relieved several British officers. Military historians generally agree with Montgomery's assessment of Simonds as Canada's best general.Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• For the reputation section, do sources discuss whether Montgomery's concerns over Crerar were motivated by the anti-colonial bias that was rife among British officers and politicians (which included frequent efforts to prevent Commonwealth forces from being commanded by their own leaders throughout the war), or linked to Monty's dubious leadership in this period?

  I have a whole book on the subject of Montgomery's relationship with the Canadians. Montgomery was a British regular, but not a careerist. I cannot help think that what Maughan characterised as anti-colonial bias was shaped by Montgomery's experience with the Canadians rather than the other way around. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Nick-D, how is this one doing? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I was waiting for one of my comments to be actioned, but it looks like it has been now - I'm very happy to support this nomination. Thank you for the ping. Nick-D (talk) 04:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Zawed

Some comments:

• In the lead, is it necessary to abbrev the DSO since it isn't mentioned again?

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Lead: he became General Officer Commanding the 2nd Canadian Infantry Division,. Should there be an "of" after Commanding?

  Don't think so, Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Lead: where he assumed command of the First Canadian Army which, although designated the Canadian First Army, contained a significant amount of British and Polish troops. How about "where he assumed command of the First Canadian Army which, despite its designation, contained a significant amount of British and Polish troops...". This does away with the repetition of "First Canadian Army".

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Early years: Scottish born lawyer. Should be Scottish-born lawyer I think?

  Hyphenated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Early years: The death of his father later on in 1912 prompted a career. Suggest "The death of his father later that year prompted a career" since 1912 mentioned in the previous sentence

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• First World War: called up as units to form the artillery of the 1st Canadian Division. Is the "as units" necessary here?

  I think so; the point is that the Militia batteries became the CEF ones rather than the individuals forming new units. (Only one Australian battery did this, so I thought it was worth drawing attention to.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• First World War: I think some of the details first para could be tightened up a little. For example, the mention of personnel numbers doesn't add much

  I thought most readers would be unfamiliar with the size of a battery. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• First World War: Although Crerar had survived the war intact. "Intact" seems an unusual way to describe it; how about "uninjured" or "without injury"?

  Changed to "unscathed". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm up to the "Corps commander" section, more to come. Zawed (talk) 10:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Continuing on with the review:

• Corps commander: A much larger raid on Dieppe on 19 August involving over 6,000 Allied troops. There is an inconsistency in treatment of dates here, compared to elsewhere, in that the year is not listed.

  The usual practice is to add it for the first use in the paragraph or when the year changes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• Corps commander: the extent of the casualty information for Dieppe seems excessive for this article

  I am not sure here. pinging @Nick-D: for another opinion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

  I agree that this could be further summarised. The key issue is that the Canadian force involved took heavy losses for no gains in a poorly planned operation. Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  Okay, I have trimmed the text to say that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• Service in Italy: King then pressed for a second Canadian division to be sent to Italy. I wonder if it is worthwhile reminding the readers who King is. Maybe "King, still prime minister, then pressed for a second Canadian division..."

  Added that he was the PM. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• Service in Italy: he was succeeded by "Tommy" Burns. This looks to be the Colonel E. L. M. Burns mentioned earlier in this article, suggesting adding "Tommy" to the first mention

  That's him. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• Army commander: became operational in Normandy at noon on 23 July,.... Another instance of a missing year.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• Army commander: Vice-Marshal Leslie (Bingo) Brown'. Express the nickname in quotation marks rather than brackets for consistency with other nicknames?

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• Army commander: Montgomery responded by moving the 3rd Canadian Infantry Division to Simonds's II Canadian Corps, so Canadian officers could take action.. I'm not understanding what is meant by "take action"? Do you mean deal with the Keller situation?

  Yes. Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

That's about it, pretty minor issues really so anticipate supporting. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Confirming that I support the promotion of this article to FA. Zawed (talk) 10:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

• "and, despite his many achievements, soon faded into relative obscurity until his death in 1965" he seemed to receive a fair number of honours and positions. It's difficult to reconcile this statement with the listing of same.

  Fair enough. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• "In 1899, he attended Upper Canada College, the premier boarding school in Canada located in Toronto." I would put a comma after the second "Canada" to avoid ambiguity.

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• "He resumed command of the 11th Battery again" He has not previously resumed command of the 11th Battery, i.e., this is only his second stint, therefore "again" is incorrect.

  Quite right. Changed "resumed" to "assumed". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• You seem undecided whether to call the PM "King" or "Mackenzie King"

  Deleted "Mackenzie" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• " Field Marshall Sir Harold Alexander" Field Marshal, surely.

  Well spotted! Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• "then returned to Ottawa two days later, where he was met by a guard of honour at Union Station." I might rephrase to "then returned to Ottawa, arriving two days later, ..." as given the distance by train, he was probably in transit for almost a day.

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Since you do not mention his place of death in sourced text, the reference to his dying in Ottawa in the infobox is unsourced.

  Added, with a reference to the CDB. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Support Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments by A. B.

I'm flattered to be asked to review this article and I'm not sure I'm qualified to evaluate featured articles. Most of my work has been with often marginal articles that end up in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion or Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. I try to get those that are salvageable up to basic notability then move onto the next cripple. So it's nice to experience the opposite here.

I have two comments:

• The infobox does not display Crerar's foreign awards; to see them, I have to click on "show" beside "Mentioned in despatches" to get the dropdown list. This is probably not obvious to the casual reader.

• Has anybody actually checked all the references to ensure they actually support the article text?

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

1. To save you some work, I rescued Hume Peabody from PROD.
2. I think I put the collapsible list in so the Infobox would not get too long. (Works on mobile too. I did not know that.)
3. At FAC, each article gets a source review, which usually involves a perform a random spot check of the sources. This is really picky, but only a random sample is checked because Featured Articles usually have too many to ask a reviewer to check them all.

Thanks for this! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Hi A. B., I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

  I support it. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)}, A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Simon Harley

• First World War. The Royal Air Force did not exist in 1917, so presumably Malcolm Crerar was killed whilst serving in the Royal Flying Corps?

  Yes. There was an error in the source. I have replaced it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• First World War. Is the Dickson quote really necessary, as opposed to elements being incorporated into the narrative? And if necessary, maybe it should be introduced along the lines of "Crerar's biographer Paul Dickson wrote:" then incorporate more of Dickson, from "The personal cost of war was heavy" onwards.

  Removed quote. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Between the wars" Perhaps some explanation (if possible) as to why Crerar had been the second choice for command of the RMC, yet still ended up with the job?

  Sources do not say. Decided to delete this clause. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Second World War: Chief of the General Staff. Some dates are maybe needed to anchor the Hong Kong section - when Crerar met Grassett, when the troops were sent, also identifying the December as December 1941.

  Added dates. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Second World War: Corps Commander. "In January 1943, Crerar was created a Companion of the Order of the Bath, the highest level of award permitted by Canadian government policy." Presumably this stems back to the Nickle Resolutions?

  Yes. Added a link. In Australia, hereditary titles were forbidden, but knighthoods remained on and off until 2015. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Observations: Some full names, e.g. Arthur Edward Grassett, which contrast with the way most names are rendered?

  I was just following the name of the article. Changed to "Arthur Grassett". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Apart from that, a very interesting and balanced life of Crerar. —Simon Harley (Talk). 20:27, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

No problem. Support. —Simon Harley (Talk). 14:22, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Source and image review

File:HDGCrerararrivingatcamp.jpg has pretty inconsistent information re Flickr links. File:The British Army in North-west Europe 1944-45 BU5861.jpg has a broken URL. Files are well-placed but seem to lack ALT text. British Pathe is apparently written with é but I wonder if it's being used as a source (as the citation format implies) Are there any reviews of "Failure in High Command: The Canadians and the Normandy Campaign"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• I have repaired the broken URL in File:The British Army in North-west Europe 1944-45 BU5861.jpg.
• Corrected spelling of "Pathé". While the other two source confirm his award of the medal, this source substantiates the claim that it was presented by President Truman
• "The Canadians and the Normandy Campaign" is one of the most celebrated books on Canada's role in the campaign. [15][16][17][18] (Lots more.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

  That leaves only ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

1883 FA Cup final

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I decided to give you all a break from articles on Gillingham F.C. seasons and nominate something else. I mean....it's still football, but at least it's different football This article concerns a match won by a team which I would imagine 80% of football fans in 2025 have never heard of, but it's undoubtedly one of the most significant matches in football history, as it accelerated the end of the "gentleman amateur" era and heralded the start of the transformation of football into a business rather than primarily a nice diversion for posh young men. If you watched the Netflix series "The English Game" in 2020 you may know about this game, although frankly very little happened in real life like it happened in that show.... Feedback as ever will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size

• File:1871_FA_Cup.jpg needs a US tag.

• File:John_Frederick_Peel_Rawlinson_Vanity_Fair_8_January_1908.JPG has a dead source link and needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: - I couldn't figure out which (if any) US tag applied so I uploaded the trophy image locally and removed the Rawlinson image completely as upon further consideration an image of him decades later as a judge (or whatever) probably wasn't relevant..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
    • Erm... you've uploaded it locally with a US tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
      • @Nikkimaria: I couldn't see an equivalent of that tag on Commons....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
        • There isn't a direct equivalent because on Commons you're expected to have a separate tag for US status. But if that tag is valid, wouldn't PD-US-expired on Commons be correct? It's just less specific. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
          • @Nikkimaria: - I added that tag to the Commons version and once again made that the version used here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

MSincccc

Background

• Going into the 1882–83 FA Cup, Old Etonians, the team consisting of former pupils of the prestigious Eton College, were the reigning Cup-holders. Since "Cup holders" refers to the noun form in this sentence, it should not be hyphenated.

Route to the final

• In the first round, they beat Accrington 6–3, and in the second they defeated Lower Darwen 8–1. The article Lower Darwen F.C. could be linked in this sentence.
• In the third round, they took on Darwen Ramblers and scored only one goal in the first half, but dominated their opponents after the interval, scoring seven more goals without reply to win 8–0. The article Darwen Ramblers F.C. could be linked in this sentence. MSincccc (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@MSincccc: - done all that. I'm surprised to learn that those long-defunct minor clubs have articles (like an idiot I hadn't checked ) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Match

• The reported attendance was 8,000, the highest for any final to date. Could "at the time" be used in place of "to date" since the latter implies up to now, possibly sounding like it's still the highest today (which it isn’t)?
• ...it was the ninth FA Cup final in which he played, a record which still stands as of 2025. Is the phrase "of 2025" required here?
• The "f" in "Fellow" should be in lowercase.
• "Cup holder" is a non-hyphenated term. MSincccc (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
  • @MSincccc: - done the first and last but I think the "as of 2025" needs to remain because simply saying "a record that still stands" would become inaccurate in the (admittedly unlikely) event that someone plays in a 10th final -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Match (continued)

• Could "included the likes of John Chevallier" be replaced with "included John Chevallier"?
• Can "weavers" be delinked here?
• Could "the teenaged full-back Jimmy Ward" be replaced with "teenage full-back Jimmy Ward"?
• "Skilful" is the correct spelling in British English.

Post-match

• As he received his medal, a jubilant Hunter reportedly shouted "fifteen years at football, and got the English Cup at the finish!" Is "jubilant" required in this sentence or can it be omitted for neutrality?
• "Focused" is the more common spelling in British English.

That's all from me. MSincccc (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@MSincccc: -all done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Support. MSincccc (talk) 08:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

PCN02WPS

• " During the extra period, Blackburn's James Costley scored and Blackburn won the match 2–1 after extra time" → this might be a little on the pedantic side but I think since you start with "during the extra period", you can just cut the sentence off after "won the match 2-1"
• "they had defeated"
• "had entered" - the "had" strikes me as unneeded here too, and maybe later in the sentence as well. Though maybe it just sounds weird in my head for some reason

Route to the final

• "they took on Darwen Ramblers" → "took on" strikes me as being a little too informal
• "the interval" → I think a link here would be appropriate for non-sports fans
• okay, I will admit - the text wrapped right before "and was late beginning because a football had not been provided and one had to be located" and reading that part made me laugh

Match

• " Hon. Arthur Kinnaird was" → genuine question: what is the "Hon"/why is it necessary?
• "newspaper The Sportsman" - link to disambiguation page
• Any reason Matthews' name isn't linked in the "details" score template?

That's all I spotted - nice work as always. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@PCN02WPS: - many thanks for your review - all done! WRT Kinnaird, as the eldest son of a (living) baron, he was officially styled "the Honourable Arthur Kinnaird", which in prose is always written as "Hon. Arthur Kinnaird". Kinda like how our Prime Minister is officially "Sir Keir Starmer" because he holds a knighthood. "Sir" isn't part of his actual name but it is always used when his name is written in prose in a way that something like "Mr" wouldn't usually be. Hope that helps! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Gotcha, good to know. Changes are good - happy to support! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

SC

I'll try and get to this, but I'm running a bit slow at the moment, so it may be a little slow. - SchroCat (talk) 05:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Just one comment on this: "teenaged[29] full-back": is his age that important? We don't state it for anyone else in the article (and "this is a clumsy formation anyway!) - SchroCat (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• @SchroCat: - no, it probably isn't that important, so I removed it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support Nice work., as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

750h

reviewing this! 750h+ 09:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

lead

• following the threat of teams which wished to pay their players breaking away to could "breaking away" be changed to "to break away"?

background

• as the home counties which drew maybe a comma before "which"
• The FA was at the time dominated ==> "The FA was, at the time, dominated"

route to the final

• there were six rounds prior to the final ==> "there were six rounds before the final"
• and in the second they defeated ==> "and in the second, they defeated"
• In the second round they beat Brentwood ==> "In the second round, they beat Brentwood"
• In the fourth round they defeated Swifts 2–0 to reach the quarter-finals. At that stage they played Hendon and won 4–2 to secure a place in the semi-finals. ==> "In the fourth round, they defeated Swifts 2–0 to reach the quarter-finals. At that stage, they played Hendon and won 4–2 to secure a place in the semi-finals."

match

• Goodhart, a fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge who had served ==> "Goodhart, a fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, who had served" MOS:GEOCOMMA
• While the Etonians lined-up with a i don't think "lined-up" needs a hyphen
• and the Olympic goalkeeper, Thomas Hacking had to "use all ==> "and the Olympic goalkeeper, Thomas Hacking, had to "use all"
• At the end of the regulation 90 minutes, the score was 1–1. this sentence kind of confuses me; why is "90 minutes" after "regulation"?

post-match

• of the match; previously the trophy had been presented ==> "of the match; previously, the trophy had been presented"
• but unlike in the association game it could not be resolved ==> "but unlike in the association game, it could not be resolved"

@ChrisTheDude: all done, nice work! I do have an open FAC if you'd like to take a look! 750h+ 09:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@750h+: - many thanks for the review. I have made these changes. The only item I haven't actioned is the one about "the regulation 90 minutes". This wording is to indicate that 90 minutes is the standard length of a match. Open to suggestions as to how to word that better..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Source review from Eddie - pass

• Link all or no newspapers, FNs 17, 43, 56 are unlinked
  • Those papers do not have articles to link to
• I'm inclined to argue that url-access= limited doesn't make sense for newspapers.com clippings, as they do provide access to the whole newspaper article in question. Thoughts?
  • Removed
• Per WP:HOWCITE, add location to newspaper citations when the location is not mentioned in title (so, for instance, FN 21 (and others))
  • Done
• I would think that FN 41 should use {{cite magazine}}
  • Done
• FN 75 should have the author added
  • Added
• How do you decide which publishers to link?
  • I linked the ones that have articles
• What makes the following publishers high quality and reliable?
  • Sportsbooks Limited
  • Matador
  • SoccerData
  • Guinness World Records (see WP:RSP)
  • Soccer Books Limited

@Eddie891: - re: the publishers, the Guinness Book, regardless of who published it, was edited by Jack Rollin, one of English football's foremost statisticians, who edited The Football Yearbook, one of the two "bibles" of English football, for decades. Sportsbooks publishes the Nationwide Football Annual, the other "bible" of English football, which has been published for over 100 years and is widely regarded as the definitive annual publication on the sport. SoccerData is a well-known publisher of specialist football books with an extensive catalogue, including books by the aforementioned Rollins and Tony Brown, a former chair of the Association of Football Statisticians. Matador I am unsure about so I replaced it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Matador was the one I was most concerned about. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

- Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks to me like a pass. Have not done spotchecks. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

TRM

Comments forthcoming. The Rambling Man (Been a while, I know......) 19:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• " into extra time. During the extra period, Blackburn's" could go " into extra time, during which Blackburn's" for the lead...
• Could link Professionalism in association football.
• Could link "codified" to Laws of the Game (association football)
• "Wanderers won the final," I suspect "the" should be part of the link.
• Could link upper class as we have some readers from over the pond and it's not all Downton Abbey, yet.....
• When you get to the competition itself, is it worth adding an illustration for the concept of the knockout approach?
  • Can't think what you have in mind - could you elaborate? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• Ref 13 says "Blackburn Rovers, were the first team from outside London and the Home counties to appear in an FA Cup Final.", but that's being used to cite "the first club from the north of England to reach the final", not sure that's good enough.
• Can we not find a more contemporaneous image of Eton?
  • Can't see any on Commons and I imagine it probably looked fairly similar - most of the buildings in the photo look pre-1883 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• "second .[14] " remove space.
• "after the half-time break" -> "after half-time".
• "A 2–0 victory over Church secured them a place in the quarter-finals,[16] at which stage they faced opponents from outside Lancashire for the first time during the competition as they were paired with Druids, based in the village of Ruabon in Wales;[18] a 4–1 victory took Blackburn into the semi-finals.[14]" huge sentence...
• "another Old Boys team" question really, why is Old Boys capitalised? it's just old boys?
  • Our article has it capitalised -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• "The Manchester Guardian wrote" I'm out of the loop a bit, but the Guardian didn't write this, it was written in the Guardian, right? Ignore if this turn of phrase is accepted nowadays. Maybe "reported that" instead of "wrote that"?
• "defeating Rochester" should Rochester be linked if they've played in the FA Cup, does it make them WP:N?
  • I don't believe "playing in the FA Cup = automatic notability" has been the case for quite a few years now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• "teams and two teams from the Midlands and north of England, and the random draw kept each pair of teams" teams teams temams.
• "had not been provided and one had to be located" probably could tighten this a bit.
  • Can't think how - can you suggest anything? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Blackburn added two " scored.
• "at Kennington Oval in" question, back in the day, would we have have said "at THE Kennington Oval" or not? I don't know, just asking.
• Okay, I've seen the clip, but instead of "large crowd", I'd use the lovely quote "an unusually large number of spectators".
• Could link the 1872 final.
• "Hon." do our non-UK readers know what this means?
• "extremely novel" are there really degrees of novelness?!
• "were on average smaller " weaker too? Not as athletic? Smallness isn't a major issue (see Messi) .... just checking.
  • I think an entire team of small players (especially in an era when a lot more physical barging took place) is a different situation to having one shorter guy in the line-up -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• "focussed" never like the double s.
• "became the norm" in what context?
• "The Etonians, who were..." could make this a new paragraph.
• "the cup holders" is it cup or Cup?
• "made something of a comeback " bit conversational.
• "half hour" hyphenate?
• Can't believe we don't have a FL about Presidents of the Football Association...........
• "team until 1901" could link that final.
• "added fuel" a bit journalistic.
• Ref 48 fix the dab for Sportsman.

The Rambling Man (Been a while, I know......) 22:01, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man: - many thanks for that exhaustive review! All addressed other than where I replied above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Zhao Chongguo

Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Zhao Chongguo was a general of the Western Han dynasty of China. Born on the rural western frontiers of the empire, he served as an officer in several campaigns against the Xiongnu before (in his seventies!) leading a campaign against the Qiang in what is now Qinghai. He is known mainly through an extensive biography in the Book of Han, through which his advocacy of the Tuntian system became influential on later Chinese military history. This is my first milhist article, and to date my only A-class: I hope everyone enjoys it!

Just in case they're interested, pinging Borsoka who helped with the GAN review, and Matarisvan, Hawkeye7, and Hog Farm who helped with the A Class review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Toadspike

• Can't promise a full review, but the zh template around "tuntian" in the lead caught my eye. I believe the output is only supposed to go in brackets. I suggest converting to tuntian (lit. 'farming garrisons').
  • Fixed. - G
• Also, the related article Marquis of Haihun doesn't mention Zhao Chongguo at all, instead listing three other people as helping Huo Guang. It would be nice to add Zhao to that article and perhaps add those people (Zhang Anshi, Yang Chang, and Sima Ying) to this article, if you have sources for them.

• Hi Toadspike, just checking to see if you will be able to do any more on this one? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Sadly I am very busy with Real Life right now and I am unlikely to do much reviewing for a while. Toadspike [Talk] 20:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

MSincccc

Lead

• Could military science be linked in the lead (I am aware of the fact that it has been linked in the body)?
  • Fixed. - G
• His life and career is known mainly through a biography in the Book of Han The sentence is missing a full stop. MSincccc (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Fixed. - G
• Could you please clarify whether the article is written in British or American English?
  • American, added template. -G

Early life and career

• Could "advisory counselor" and "privy treasurer" be used in the article (without the capitalisation)? MSincccc (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Fixed. - G

Military service, Later life, and Death and legacy sections

• It should be "breach" not "breech" (used in two sentences).
  • Fixed. - G

A few minor suggestions for prose above; I will review the Campaign against the Qiang section later. MSincccc (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Campaign against the Qiang

• "Huangshui valley"-Could “Valley” be capitalised as it is part of a geographical proper noun?
  • Fixed. - G
• "Hexi corridor"-Could “Corridor” be capitalised as it is part of a geographical proper noun?
  • Fixed. - G
• The Grand Administrator of Jincheng, an administrator who governed the commandery's force of 10,000 cavalry, was also sent to reinforce Zhao Ang. Could "an administrator" be dropped from this sentence to avoid redundancy?
  • Fixed. - G

That's all from me. Looking forward to your response, Generalissima. MSincccc (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

• MSincccc responded. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
  • A fine article. It meets the FA criteria; Support. MSincccc (talk) 02:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Ten_mounted_soldiers,_China,_Western_Han_dynasty,_206_BC_-_24_AD,_painted_earthenware_-_Royal_Ontario_Museum_-_DSC04016.JPG should include an explicit tag for the soldiers. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Added a tag. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Matarisvan

Hi Generalissima, my comments:

• “in the Shanggui prefecture of the Longxi commandery”: Use of “the” doesn’t seem necessary. Perhaps this could be rewritten as “in Shanggui prefecture in Longxi commandery”?
  • Fixed. - G
• “a group from which many noted Han generals had their origins”: Does not seem grammatically correct. Perhaps “a group many noted Han generals originally belonged to” would be better?
  • Fixed. - G
• “in the Jincheng commandery”; “in the Wudu commandery”: “the” doesn’t seem necessary.
  • Fixed. - G
• “descendants of men who died in military”: “descendants of men who had died during military service”?
  • Fixed. - G
• “infamous to the Xiongnu”: replace “to” with “among”?
  • Fixed. - G
• Consider standardising on using either of BC or BCE?
  • Done. - G
• “who did not seek to take immediate offensive operations”: “who was not looking to launch offensive operations immediately”?
  • Fixed. - G
• “abolished by the fall of the usurper emperor”: What do we mean here? Was it abolished by the time of this fall, or was if abolished because of the fall?
  • We just know that by that point it had been abolished; rephrased. -G
• We have only 3 photos in the article. Could we add a photo of the Weiyang Palace in the Later life section?
  • Added. -G

That’s all from me. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Generalissima, still waiting on your comments. You there? Matarisvan (talk) 07:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• @Matarisvan: Apologies; forgot to get back to this. Made fixes! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Quite nice, happy to support. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 03:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Rollinginhisgrave

Hi Generalissima, the article looks nice and clean on a first look over. Some comments I'll finish off over the next day:

• Is there a reason "General Li Guangli's" is capitalized? As with Chief Commandant
  • MOS:JOBTITLE seems to suggest that it'd be capitalized there; the second seems a bit more ambiguous so I reworded to make it lowercase. - G
• "which gave him control over the minting of cash coinage." a bit confusing, seems the role of managing parks solely entails this from this wording
  • Reworded. -G
• the scandal and suicide of his son The scandal of his son (existence/event)? Of his son's suicide?
  • Reworded. -G
• and became known as are we still in speculation? If not, is this taking place in 104?
  • Still in speculation. -G
    • I'm still a bit confused by Little is known about Zhao's early life or military experience prior to 104. What happened in/after 104? - RIHG
      • Oops, good point; reworded. -G
        • The article is now saying he joined the unit in 104 in the early life section and 100 in the military career section. - RIHG
          • Ope... looking closely at the source, I'm not sure why he says 104 (I guess that'd be the earliest possible date he could have joined?) Rephrased to make it consistent. - G
• a position he would ultimately hold -> a position/which he held ?
  • Fixed. -G
• I'm a bit mixed on the omission of BC throughout but I will defer to other reviewers who apparently have not taken issue
  • MOS says to only use it when ambiguous, so I've tried to follow it. -G
• a particular threat -> particularly threatening ? May reflect preference
• greatly weaken the Qiang, and allow WP:CINS
  • Reworded. -G
• Memorial (law) is not a good link, but I am noting I had to look up the meaning in this context.
  • Wiktionary might be more appropriate; linked. -G
• "Eighteen of the high officials" out of how many?
  • Out of an unknown number; rephrased. -G
• I think there's value in identifying the amount of gold as 60 catties to give the reasoning behind the quantity.
  • Done. -G

Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 16:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

That's all I've got, it's a very enjoyable read. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 01:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave: Thank you very much! Responded. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

All looking good, lodging my support. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 22:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Image review from Dracophyllum - pass

• img1: license good; commons tags good, caption good, alt good
• img2: license good; tags good, caption good, alt good, image does appear a little cluttered
  • Swapped out for another image of cavalry sculptures. - G
• img3: license good; tags good, caption good, alt good.
• img4: license good; tags good, caption doesn't need full stop as not a full sentence, alt good, consider increasing image size slightly.
  • Resolved this. -G
  • That's all for images. Cheers, Dracophyllum 22:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Source review from Dracophyllum

• I note there are only 8 sources in the bibliography. Not that this is a FA criteria, I do note that it is only 5 more than the three needed for GNG Consider bolstering with the following, although note many of these just briefly touch on the subject. Still, I think the more the merrier. Dracophyllum 06:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
  • [19]
  • [20]
  • [21] Through proquest on WP:TWL
  • [22]
  • [23]
    • The above two sources seem to like quoting the line: "The reason why it is easy to control the Qiang is that as soon as there are influential men they attack each other, so naturally they cannot unite." Would be cool to see this in a quote box somewhere.
      • Also given as "The reason why the Qiang people are easy to keep under control is because each tribe has its own leader (hao), they are frequently at war with one another, and they are not unified." in Dreyer 2008.
  • [24]

spotchecking

• ref1: good; a cavalryman from Shanggui thanks TWL for the access here
• ref4: page is invalid here, also not clear where in the source the claim is supported
• ref5: I believe you also want page 716 (for Zhao Yu), and pages 689-690 for Zhao Sheng, also pages 716 and 717 for Zhao Zhongkuang.
• ref7: not clear to me how this support the claim
• ref9: This reference actually leads to a translation of an ancient artifact Zhao Kuan’s Stele. Is this WP:RS?
• ref10: confirms he was promoted after wounds were inspected
• ref14: good
• ref16: good
• ref18: I can't see where these pages/page say Barkol Lake, Also you can link to Barkol Kazakh Autonomous County#Geography.
• ref21: Good
• ref35: good
• ref41: good
• ref44: good
• With the exception of a few refs, the whole of |#Campaign against the Qiang| relies on Dreyer 2008. This is not ideal; is it the only detailed source on the subject?
  • Needs some more sauce. Dracophyllum 06:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Outram Park MRT station

Nominator(s): brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 06:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

This article is about an MRT station on the Singapore MRT system that serves as a triple-line interchange of the East-West line, North East line and Thomson-East Coast lines. I should have addressed the issues in the first FA nom and did a PR to improve it further for the next FA nom. (i can say that this article has been changed for the better) brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 06:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

History6042

• I think there are too many images.
• Online sources should be archived.
• If passenger count is in the infobox it should be in the text.
• "An array of faces depicted in the artwork." doesn't need a period.
• The inflation/currency conversion estimate "(US$95 million in 2020)" needs a source.
• Any information that could be added about the naming of the station?
• Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 15:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

  @History6042 some, if not most of the online sources are from NewspaperSG, which is an archive of newspaper sources in Singapore. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 15:38, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

  Oh okay, I was not aware of that, thanks for telling me. History6042😊 (Contact me) 15:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

  No problem also i can’t find An array of faces depicted in the artwork. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 15:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

  It is an image alt text. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:54, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

  @History6042 i should have addressed all the points already. i think the images should be fine and i can't find much info about station naming... so.,, brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 12:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  Okay, support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Arconning

• Where are the sources for the translations of Outram into Tamil and Mandarin?
• "In March 1996, Communications Minister Mah Bow Tan", "In March 1996, then-Communications Minister Mah Bow Tan"
• "site of a prison complex", the prison complex could probably be named instead.
• "10 metres away", conversion.
• Wondering why the first mention of S. Iswaran is not wikilinked whilst the second mention is.
• "Chinese opera and law or medicine", wikilink each.
• Source 5: via... where?
  • Here are my comments for now. Arconning (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  should have addressed most of the points. not sure what it meant by law... could be law during colonial Singapore (which I couldn't find any articles). Also, via where in FN 5? brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 13:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  oh nvm i see it brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 13:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  yup all of them should be done by now brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 13:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  • The sources used for the Mandarin (should be used rather than Chinese) and Tamil translations of the station should be archived.
  • A lot of the online sources used that are not on NewspaperSG still require some archive links.
  • "In the near future, a new underpass was opened to allow commuters to cross Outram Road.", I'm not sure about this sentence, could you explain it a bit to me? Maybe it's on my part but would the "In the near future" be dated once this article turns older?

  Arconning (talk) 13:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  it doesn't say when, so i put it as in the near future brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 13:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  should have dealt with the archives now yay =D brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 13:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Brachy0008 Even if it's the near future, it's still grammatically incorrect and would be outdated in the near future as this is an encyclopedia. This could be worded as "As of [Month, YEAR], a new underpass is set to open to allow commuters to cross Outram Road." Arconning (talk) 04:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

  changed. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 04:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Arconning @Roysmith pinging =D brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 04:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  Will give my initial support. Arconning (talk) 10:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  @RoySmith pinging again brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 05:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

  It's not clear what I'm being asked to do here. RoySmith (talk) 09:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith

• Just a nit from a problem I saw on a sister article at DYK: the lta.gov.sg website is one of those stupid designs which hides text under drop-down tabs. If you're citing something that's burried in one of those tabs, you can use the "at=" parameter to {{cite web}} to tell readers how to navigate to the right place.
  • Added the parameter but not sure if it follows MoS.

• And while I'm here, the pluralartmag.com citation has a bogus title ("Art in Transit | North East Line Tour | Art Outreach S'pore")
  • Removed. =D

EG

It looks like this nom has stalled, and I don't want this to get archived, so I'll probably review this shortly. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

k tysm brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 03:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Epicgenius, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

My bad, i've been busy all week. I'll look either tomorrow morning or Thursday. Epicgenius (talk) 00:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Lead:

• Para 1: "The station was included in the early plans of the MRT network in 1982; it was constructed as part of the Phase I MRT segment from Novena, and was completed in December 1987." - I would mention that it was only the EWL platforms that were opened at that date.

• Done.

• Also, there is no mention of when the NEL platforms opened, and the TEL platforms' opening date is in paragraph 2. I'd suggest putting the opening dates of all the different platforms in a single paragraph.

• Added the NEL opening date (which was somehow missing in the article itself)

• Para 2: "Before the line was planned to be extended to the World Trade Centre, the station was originally the terminus of the North East line." - I would mention that it was the southern or western terminus. The current phrasing makes it sound like the NEL has a single terminus.

• Done.

• Para 2: "which involved destroying existing platforms" - The body says that Shimizu-Dillingham-Koh Brothers Joint Venture had to "hack away the platforms to create openings in the [linkway] structure". This is not the same as destroying existing platforms; it's more like creating holes in existing platforms while leaving these platforms otherwise intact.

* Changed to partially destroying existing platforms while keeping them intact

• Para 3: "Outram Park station contains three different artworks, Memories, Commuters and Mata-Mata." - "Different" isn't necessary here. Also, was this part of the MRT network's Art-in-Transit programme?

* Done.

Construction and East–West line:

• Para 1: "It was to be constructed as part of the Phase I MRT segment from Novena station, due to be completed by December 1987;" - The semicolon should be a period. Currently, the sentence is already pretty long, and the next part of the sentence already begins with a capital letter.
  • Done.
• Para 1: "it transits areas" - In this context, "transit" is usually used as a noun; "traverses" is more common as a verb.
  • Done.
• Para 2: "awarded to a Japanese joint venture Ohbayashi-Gumi/Okumura Corporation in November 1983" - If you use the indefinite article "a", you also need commas around the name of the actual joint venture, since this becomes a restrictive clause. I suggest either of the following:
  • "awarded to Japanese joint venture Ohbayashi-Gumi/Okumura Corporation in November 1983"
    • Done.
  • "awarded to a Japanese joint venture, Ohbayashi-Gumi/Okumura Corporation, in November 1983"
• Para 2 is just a single sentence; I'd combine it with one of the other two paragraphs.
  • Merged.
• Para 3: "but were completed on 27 May 1985 instead." - Do we know why?
  • Nope. The source provided doesn't provide any reason why.
• Para 3: "The station was part of a line service that continuously ran from Yishun station in the north to Lakeside station in the west" - Instead of "line service", I'd suggest "route". One of the two words is redundant to the other, but "route" might clear up any ambiguity regarding lines or service.
  • Done.

North East line:

• Para 1: "Preliminary studies for the North East line (NEL) in 1986 included plans to terminate that line at Outram Park station rather than HarbourFront station" - Again, I'd clarify that this was the southern or western terminus.
  • Changed to plans for Outram Park station being the southern terminus of the NEL
• Para 1: "By 1995 the planned line had been extended to include an additional new stop" - The word "new" is unnecessary since the sentence implies that all of the NEL stations will be brand-new
  • Done
• Para 1: "In March 1996, then-Communications Minister Mah Bow Tan confirmed the station would interchange with the NEL" - There is a grammatical inconsistency here. The EWL would interchange (verb) with the NEL at this station, but the station would be an interchange (noun). The station itself does not interchange (verb) with a line.
  • Changed to would serve the NEL as an interchange
• Para 2: "The site of the NEL station was the site of Outram Prison" - You repeat "site" here. I would say "The NEL station was built on the site of Outram Prison".
  • Done.
• Para 3: "In order to link both the NEL and EWL stations" - "Both" is redundant here.
  • Removed.
• Para 3: Also, I'd link hoarding.
  • Linked.
• The article never actually mentions when the NEL station opened, despite it being in the infobox.
  • Already addressed, see Lead.

More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Thomson–East Coast line:

• Para 1: "On 29 August 2012, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) announced Outram Park station would interchange with the proposed Thomson line" - As mentioned above, stations act as interchanges (noun), where several lines interchange (verb) with each other. The word "interchanges", as a verb, is not applicable to stations; it's the lines which are doing the interchanging (verb).
  • Changed to would be an interchange with the proposed Thomson line.
• Para 1: "giving residents three years to vacate the premises to facilitate tunnelling works under the complex" - Actually, I would mention the tunneling works first (explaining the reason for the acquisition of the building). Then, I would mention that residents had 3 years to leave.
  • Done.
• Paras 2/3 - I would suggest rearranging this in chronological order; right now, it is very hard to follow these two paragraphs. Currently the narrative jumps from "the TEL is announced in August 2014" to "the TEL's planned opening was announced in March 2022" to "the TEL began construction in May 2014" to "a new underpass is scheduled to open in December 2022" to "the TEL's opening was announced in October 2022". In fact, you mention the opening date twice: in paragraph 2, when you mention that the line opened on 13 November 2022, and in paragraph 3, when it was announced that the station would open on that date (after you mentioned that it had already opened).
  • Rearranged.
• Para 2: "joining Marina Bay and Dhoby Ghaut stations" - I think you should reword this to explicitly say that these two are also triple-line interchanges.
  • Reworded.
• Para 3: "Construction was expected to start in the second quarter of 2014 with completion expected in 2021" - Was this delayed?
  • Added another sentence taken from Orchard MRT station
• Para 3: "As of December 2022, a new underpass is set to open to allow commuters to cross Outram Road." - Are there any updates on this? It's been at least two years.
  • No updates.
• Para 3: "it was announced the TEL platform would begin operations on 13 November that year" - Who made the announcement? Was it Iswaran?
  • Should be the LTA according to FN 32, added.

Incidents:

• This entire section seems like it may violate WP:NOTNEWS, but I'm not totally sure:
  • For the first incident, it seems like the shooting (even if fatal) only disrupted a small part of the station for a few hours. Unless it had a significant long-term impact (e.g. a law was enacted, or it led to public outrage), I don't know if the shooting is noteworthy enough to be mentioned here.
  • For the second incident, it might not be common in Singapore, but I know at least in NYC that inappropriate public urination happens all the time. Even if it is reported in the news, it's typically prosecuted as a misdemeanor (and thus falls under routine coverage).
    • Not really sure what to do with it, so I cross-referenced it to other MRT featured articles, and most of them either do not have them or they did but there was enough coverage. Removed.

Details:

• Para 1: "second one being out-of-bounds" - I'm not sure what this means. Does it mean that this level is outside fare control? Or is it not accessible to passengers?
  • FN 24 says it is off-limits to the public. Changed to out-of-bounds to commuters
• Para 1: "It is also connected to the EWL and TEL stations through two linkways" - Do these two linkways both lead to both stations, or is one of them connected to the EWL and the other to the TEL? Also, are the EWL and TEL directly connected to each other?
  • The two linkways lead to both the EWL and TEL stations, which appear to be directly connected to each other. Further elaborated in article.
• Actually, this article doesn't discuss the station design that much at all, as compared with other FAs like Dhoby Ghaut MRT station and Marina Bay MRT station.
  • Wasn't able to find much sources.
• Para 1: "Outram Park station is named 欧南园 in Chinese[44] and ஊட்ரம் பார்க் in Tamil.[45]" - Transliterations may be helpful here.

• • Added transliterations

• Para 2: "On the EWL, the station is located between Tanjong Pagar and Tiong Bahru stations" - What about the other lines?

More in a bit. Honestly, reading this article, the prose brings up a lot of unresolved questions; I'd look into other sources to see that you aren't missing anything significant. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• • Added,

Artworks

• Para 1: "Three artwork are displayed at Outram Park station commissioned as part of the Art-in-Transit programme, a showcase of public artworks on the MRT network" - This should be "Three artworks".
  • Added the s (lol i was blind /j)
• Para 2: "Memories by Wang Lu Sheng, which uses bold colours inspired by the area's cultural heritage, especially Chinese culture." - This is a run-on sentence. I suggest "Memories by Wang Lu Sheng uses bold colours inspired by the area's cultural heritage, especially Chinese culture."
  • Changed.
• Para 3: "Teo also took the advice of architects and the project team. He initially was hesitant, but he valued their different perspectives and came to an understanding together, allowing the work to proceed." - I feel like this type of detail may be trivial, rather than being actually noteworthy. If you're working with a team, wouldn't you typically take advice, anyway?
  • Removed.
• Para 4: "Mata-Mata (stylised in lowercase)" - Why not just mata-mata?
• There seems to be a lot less coverage of mata-mata than of the other two artworks. This may not be immediately actionable per ZKang123's comment, so striking this. - EG

Unfortunately, reading through this article again I think I have to oppose this FAC. This article is outright missing large amounts of details, such as information on the design, and there are inconsistencies in the amount of coverage given to specific details (e.g. next-station information is given only for one line). In addition, parts of the article such as the TEL section are hard to follow. While I'm willing to change my !vote if all the above issues can be changed in a reasonable time frame, these are things that should have been remedied before the FAC was initiated. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Also, I forgot to mention that I recommend asking @ZKang123 for advice if you need it. He has done some outstanding work on MRT FAs, including the Dhoby Ghaut MRT station and Marina Bay MRT station FAs that I mentioned above. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: I actually did give my input in the peer review and already did my best to offer advice. To address some of the points above; unfortunately since the TEL is still relatively new, the TEL artwork doesnt have as much coverage. Ive tried to search around too, especially looking up the artist, but not as much. Also while theres a layout diagram available for Outram Park, its outdated especially with the new TEL station, and theres little information I can find about the new design layout. --ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 02:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Ah I see, thanks for the clarification @ZKang123. Nonetheless, I do think the article might benefit from a little more detail about the pre-TEL layout, if that info is available. Epicgenius (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

for mata-mata, WP:CAPITALIZATION applies. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 01:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I see, that makes sense. I thought it would have been easier to just write it out in all lowercase, but I forgot that the MOS recommended against it. Epicgenius (talk) 01:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

addressed all the points =D brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 05:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I will strike my oppose for now (so a FAC coordinator doesn't archive this) and review this over the next few days. Thanks for your prompt attention to my feedback. I will note that the "Details" section is still a little short, even though you said you weren't able to find that many sources. @ZKang123: Do you know if any reliable non-layout sources exist for the pre-TEL design? Thanks in advance. Epicgenius (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I have expanded a bit more on the design though not much else I can find on the pre-TEL design.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 13:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Addendum: @Brachy0008: I just found another paper on the construction of two new TEL linkways (not the new EWL-NEL linkway). The original at ResearchGate.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 13:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

In addition I still believe the artwork section can still be expanded a bit more. There are a couple of articles on the artworks by Art Outreach (a government initiative, so the source is reliable) which describes each artwork a bit more.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 03:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

@Brachy0008, this article is looking better now, but there may be more to say about the station design than "this station is a Civil Defence shelter" and "this station is accessible" (each of which takes up its own paragraph in Outram Park MRT station#Details). Gonna ping @ZKang123 for awareness as well; are you sure that there is nothing else to say about station design or artwork? These are my main concerns with the article right now, as most of my other concerns above have been addressed. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

By the way, I was talking with another MRT editor off-wiki. They suggested that you email the LTA to see if they could provide information about these missing details. Epicgenius (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

oh ok! thanks! brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 14:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

Despite the best efforts of Epicgenius, this nomination has stalled. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Rani of Jhansi

Nominator(s): ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

We don't know much about much of her life, nearly all the bits we do know about have been controversial, and her legacy has been heavily contested.

Still, I hope I've managed to muddle through this mess to create a coherent article on India's most revered heroine. Formerly one of the Women in Green Hot 100, this article has received a GA review from MSincccc and copyediting from Grumpylawnchair; I thank them both for their help. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Support from MSincccc

• I recently reviewed the article for GA. The prose looks fine to me so do the images. MSincccc (talk) 00:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Rani_of_jhansi.jpg needs a US tag

• File:Rani_of_Jhansi,_watercolour_on_ivory,_c._1857.png: when and where was this first published and what is the author's date of death?

• File:1857_jhansi_fort2.jpg: source link is dead; when and where was this first published?

• File:Sonia_Gandhi_as_Rani_Lakshmibai.jpg needs a more expansive FUR, and that may need a different tagging

• File:1957_Rani_Laxmi_Bai_2.jpg is mistagged. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
  • The first, third, and fifth should be fixed Nikkimaria; I'm not sure why those details matter for the second when its owners state the miniatures are out of copyright; and I'm not sure what you mean for the fourth. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
    • On the second, it currently has tagging indicating it is PD because the author died over 100 years ago, and because it was published before 1930; can those things be verified? On the fourth, the purpose of use indicates the depiction is "as shown by the similarity to other statues and depictions in the article" - if the other statues and depictions show this, why is a non-free image needed? Depending on how the FUR is developed, it may or may not meet the purposes of use covered by the current tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Borsoka

• Introduce Moropant Tambe as her father.
  • Done.
• Explain peshwa with one or two words.
  • Done.
• According to legend, the astrologers attending her birth foretold that she would combine the qualities of the three principal Hindu goddesses: Lakshmi, deity of wealth; Durga, deity of strength; and Saraswati, deity of knowledge. I would move this to section "Cultural legacy".
  • Why? If it's just because of "According to legend", most of this section is explicitly attributed to sources of dubious measure: "uncorroborated popular legend", "British vs Indian sources", "it is presumed", "popular legend". As pointed out in the introduction to "Biography", these legends and stories cannot be ignored when presenting a comprehensive view of the Rani's early life, because it is all we have.
• If the traditional chronology is correct... I understand there are two "traditional" chronologies.
  • Good point, changed to "traditional Indian chronology".
• ...the nearby kingdom of Orchha, who had remained loyal to the Company... Is "who" correct in the context?
  • Changed.
• ...when they were driven off by the raja of Banpur's troops... Why did he intervene in the conflict?
  • We don't know.
• ...a ruler now seen as a "Jezebel"... Some explanation?
  • Difficult to explain without WP:SYNTH, as the sources don't explain the nickname of "Jezebel", referring to the notorious biblical figure. Removed while I figure out a way of clarifying it.
• ...in the late 1800s... Ambiguous: around 1809 or 1899?
  • Clarified.
• ...such as Alexander Rogers' 1995 novel in verse The Rani of Jhansi or The Widowed Queen, Philip Cox's 1933 play The Rani of Jhansi, and George MacDonald Fraser's 1975 novel Flashman in the Great Game, among others... Why is chronology ignored?
  • The first date was wrong.
• The link to Mehtab is not helpful. Introduce her with one or two words. Borsoka (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Done. Thanks for the comments Borsoka, responses above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Been very busy in RL, hope to return later today or tomorrow. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

FM

• Some preliminary comments before I review. FunkMonk (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• There are some seemingly unnecessary WP:duplinks, some in close succession, which can be highlighted with this script:[25]
  • There are a couple of duplications of links to deities in separate sections, which I have retained; otherwise I think I've removed everything.
• Give dates in the captions for the posthumous illustrations and the battle image?
  • We don't know when the posthumous illustrations were composed, because their production would have been prohibited in post-rebellion India; added the date of the battle image.
• Should there be citations for the pronunciations?
  • I don't know FunkMonk, seems to fall under WP:BLUESKY for me unless there is disagreement. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Easter Oratorio

Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

This article is about the Easter Oratorio, one of three oratorios by J. S. Bach, the famous one being the Christmas Oratorio of 1734 followed by the 1738 Ascension Oratorio. The Easter Oratorio was - in a way - already composed in 1725, in a clever collaboration of Bach with Picander who would write the poetry of the St Matthew Passion. In their first project together (as far as we know), he wrote the text for a pastoral cantata that was probably performed as musical theatre for the birthday of Christian, Duke of Saxe-Weissenfels. For Easter 1725, all music except the recitatives was heard in the Nikolaikirche in the Easter service, now among four Biblical characters instead of shepherds, with different text probably also by Picander. - When Bach thought of oratorios in the 1730s, he could just make a new score with a new title. He must have loved the piece, making more changes in the 1740s and performing it again the year before he died. Find out why. - The article received a recent GA review by 750h+ and additional detailed comments by Michael Aurel. --Gerda Arendt

Image review

• File:Nikolaikirche_Leipzg_1749_(Kupferstich)_Foto_H.-P.Haack.JPG: under US law, reproduction of a 2D work does not garner a new copyright - this should be tagged for status of the original work rather than the reproduction.

Storye book fixed the licensing. --GA

The tagging is now contradictory - it has one tag saying the author's date of death is unknown and another giving a specific author date of death. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Also noticed inconsistencies in citation formatting that should be cleaned up before a full source review is done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I'll look into that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

MSincccc

Lead

• Cantata could be linked at least once.

  I tried Bach cantata, - the general cantata seems very far off. --GA

History

• Bach used the music of the Shepherd Cantata, only composing new recitatives,... Could the phrase "only composing" be rephrased with "composing only"?

  yes if you say so --GA

• Bach used the music of the Shepherd Cantata, only composing new recitatives, for a church cantata for Easter Sunday. Could the phrase "on Easter Sunday" be used here?

  in this case, it's the occasion rather than the date --GA

• The first performances came on Easter Sunday, 1 April 1725, after Bach had led the his St John Passion in its second version on Good Friday. There's a typo in this sentence.

  fixed --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

MSincccc (talk) 09:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Movements

• The music of the arias and the closing chorus, Nos. 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11, correspond to movements of the Shepherd Cantata, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10,... It should be "corresponds" (not "correspond"), since "music" is singular.

  fixed, but perhaps there is a better way, - it's more that movements correspond (regarding the music) --GA

That's all from me. MSincccc (talk) 10:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

The article is well-written. Good luck with your nomination. Support. MSincccc (talk) 00:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I will not insist upon it, but a few minor changes could be made to the lead if you want to-

• "chorus of praise and thanks" → "chorus of praise and thanksgiving"– More standard in British usage.

  taken --GA

• "Recitatives, with the characters talking among each other" → "recitatives, in which the characters talk among themselves"

  interesting, - that sounds to me like talking to self - try "conversation" --GA

• "Jesus has risen" → "Jesus is risen" since "is risen" is the traditional and preferred British liturgical form.MSincccc (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  interesting, it was like that, but during GA review, both 750h+ and Michael Aurel requested a change. ("Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again" is a phrase I remember from U.S. services also.) --GAGerda Arendt (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  To chime in here, I wasn't protesting the use of the phrase "is risen", but the use of the phrase "was risen", which doesn't quite work grammatically. (Intransitive verbs don't take objects; we can say that "X rises", but not that "X rises Y". Here the use of the passive voice places "Jesus" as the object. A more obvious example would be that we can say "John sneezed", but not that "John was sneezed".)

  I suggested "has risen" as a replacement, no doubt because the standard, modern phrasing for the verb "risen" came to my mind before the more archaic construction did, but I don't have any issue with using the phrase "is risen". We probably shouldn't start writing "He is come" and "He is fled" about the place, but "is risen" sounds entirely fine to me in a religious context. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

History (after a re-read)

• it's first title was Kommt, gehet und eilet (Come, go and hurry), but soon changed to Kommt, fliehet und eilet (Come, flee and hurry). "it's" → "its" (possessive pronoun, not contraction).
• "well-suited for" → "well suited to" – British usage.

That's all from me. MSincccc (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

taken, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Michael Aurel

I think there have been some changes since my recent comments, so I'll hopefully give the page another, more comprehensive read. I probably won't be all that prompt with my review, but marking my place here as I intend to get around to it. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

A bit tardy (as per my warning above), but here's an initial set of comments. I do notice that you were editing the article at one point while I was reading over it, so apologies if any of the below suggestions don't quite match the current text:

• (Latin: Oratorium Festo Paschali), (German: Oster-Oratorium), – I'd suggest placing these beside each other, within one bracket (using a semicolon), as we have "(German: Oster-Oratorium)" enclosed between two brackets, which doesn't quite feel right

  done, thank you --GA

• Oster-Oratorium (Kommt, eilet und laufet) – Very much a nitpick, but in this field in the infobox I think the brackets shouldn't be italicised

  done --GA

• for Easter in 1725, when he used most of its music for two compositions, – By "when", are we referring to 1725 or specifically to Easter in 1725? I initially read it as the latter, but if by "used" we mean that he composed these in this time period, then it I think it would have to be the former?

  trying --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Entfliehet, verschwindet, entweichet, ihr Sorgen, BWV 249a (BWV 249.1) – Hmm, it isn't entirely clear what the relation between "BWV 249a" and "BWV 249.1" is. Are these simply different ways or writing the same thing, or do these refer perhaps to different versions of this work (or to something else)?

  they refer to the old style of BWV numbers (with letters, in the NBA) and the more recent style (with secondary numbers, for Bach Digital). The latter is more precise, but the former is better known, and therefore also kept. Wikipedia articles go by the former. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  Ah, I see. I notice you've removed both "BWV 249a" and "BWV 249.1" when mentioning the Shepherd Cantata. Any reason for this? – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:14, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  thank you for noticing, - they are now back, also in the infobox --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• a congratulatory cantata, – The link is about Bach cantatas in general (not necessarily just "congratulatory" ones), so limiting the link to just the word "cantata" might be better

  not sure, because the link to cantata is way too general, - it would go to Bach cantata, where congratulatory cantatas are mentioned earlier, and the rest is intructive for all who don't know what a Bach cantata is --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, there's no issue with the link itself. But now (with recent changes) the link is on just the word "congratulatory", but the linked article is about all of Bach's cantatas, not just the congratulatory ones. I'd place the link on the word "cantata" later in the sentence. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:14, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  I used a link for that later one but specifically to the church cantatas (which has the other link in the first sentence --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• and Kommt, gehet und eilet ("Come, go and hurry"), a cantata for Easter Sunday (BWV 249.3) – Per WP:SINGLE, glosses use single quotes. I also think it would be more natural to have "BWV 249.3" next to the title (for example, using commas).

  well, as explained above, I used the new BWV style in brackets, for differentiation --(forgot to sign)Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  Hmm, is doing so standard practice in sources? If not, I'm not sure we need to do so in cases where we're only using the latter style. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:14, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  Well, we will have to stick also with the older style (as Bach Digital does, having it in the first position), because, as I said, Wikipedia artile names rely on that one and most of the sources (Dürr, Wolff ...) rely on that one. The other has more numbers, for different versions. What do you think about a footnote, explaining on the first occurrence? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  I changed that now to commas where there is a title and only one BWV number, using single quote marks for translations of titles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  Those changes look good. I would just point out that double quote marks linger at Kommt, gehet und eilet ("Come, go and hurry"),. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  fixed --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Both works are musical dramas of four characters – "of" isn't wrong, though I think we could be more specific. If there are only four characters in total in each work I would use "involving", and if we mean instead that there are four central characters then I would use "centering around" (or similar).

  "involving" taken --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Both works are musical dramas of four characters; in the secular cantata shepherds and shepherdesses, ... – I suspect you meant for this to be a colon instead (when using semicolons, the part after the semicolon should be a complete sentence). It also feels as though the "four"-ness isn't necessarily being illustrated for the secular cantata; for example, are there two shepherds and two shepherdesses (or one and three, etc.)?

  see below, in UC, look for "learning" --GA

  Hmm, UC's suggestion is the same as mine, I believe. Whether or not we do use a colon, a semicolon should be followed by a full sentence. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  back to comma, and 2 + 2 for the secular work - please check --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  The comma doesn't quite work; I would use a colon. For example, this would work: [...] characters: in the secular cantata, two shepherds and two shepherdesses; and in the Easter cantata, four Biblical figures from the Easter stories in the Gospel of Luke and other Evangelists.. I also think the "four" in "involving four characters" slipped out. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  tried colon - I don't think we need "four" twice --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  Great, what you've done works well. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• and in the Easter cantata four Biblical figures from the Easter stories from the Gospel of Luke and other evangelists. – I think it would be ideal to avoid "from the" being repeated. I think "in the" would work in the latter case.

  taken --GA

• Bach performed the secular work, known as the Shepherd Cantata, – I would suggest referencing this alternative name when the work is first mentioned

  done before I saw this --GA

• Its text was written by Picander, – Not necessarily required, but a brief description of who Picander was might be helpful.

  the lead is already longish, and he is well known as the author of the St Matthew Passion. There's more in the body, and here is a link --GA

  I think just "German poet" would work (this at least avoids the reader thinking he's a fellow composer, for example), but I'll leave the choice to you. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  it would promise too much because poetry was only a voluntary free-time occupation for him - who would think of a composer for text-writing? --GA

• in both a morning service at the Nikolaikirche and a vespers service at the Thomaskirche. – I'd link vespers. My inclination would also be to use the English names of these churches, though I seem to remember you have a reason for not doing so.

  most of the sources are in German and mention the German names --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  I see. But most of our readers speak English, no? – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  Nikolaikirche is shorter in the image caption, - there is a pic of a church, and where else would the Easter Sunday service be? --GA

  All of that's reasonable, but we generally avoid dipping into non-English words when we don't need to (MOS:NON-ENG: Non-English terms should be used sparingly), and the linked articles seem to use "St. Thomas Church" and "St. Nicholas Church". – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  I believe that we should be consistent within one article: Thomaskantor, Thomanerchor, Thomaskirche. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  Hmm, I have to say I don't really agree (the titles of our articles would suggest that for those other two the German word is the common name), but it's rather minor in the scheme of things, and there's not much sense in pressing the point when it is arguably partly a matter of personal preference. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  I'd also re-suggest linking vespers. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  done, I overlooked that --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• Bach made the composition the Easter Oratorio (BWV 249.4) – Not sure "the composition" adds anything here. Very minor, but "created" sounds slightly better here to me. I would also again raise my query as to "BWV 249.4" being in brackets rather than between commas.

  but he didn't "create" anything here, as explained in the body, - only minor changes, - how would you word that? --GA

  "produced", perhaps? This probably doesn't carry the same implication of creating something original. I would also restate my feelings on "the composition". – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  commas taken - "produced" would still hint at some production, while he only renamed / re-labelled / or what? - If not "the composition" then what? "the Easter cantata"? - We have to be very clear (see the question below) about that the music of the oratorio is the same as for the cantata, besides those very minor changes of a few extra measures, different text layout in the middle section of one aria, and two different instruments. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  "made" is fine, but it is essentially synonymous with "created", so it will still carry the same implication if that's your concern. As to "the composition the Easter Oratorio", the problem is that it sounds as though we're saying Bach made the composition into the oratorio. (Unless that is actually the intended meaning, and I've misinterpreted the phrase?) – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  not sure my English is good enough for knowing exactly what "made it into" means. He took the composition, and wrote Oratorium on top when writing a beautiful new score. What is that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  I'll give rephrasing a go, see what you think: "In 1738, Bach revised the Easter cantata as the Easter Oratorio, BWV 249.4, making only minor changes and adding a new title." Not sure if this is all exactly correct, but this might set you on the right track. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  I adapted that partly and rephrased/reordered the whole paragraph, - please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, that looks good. I've made a few minor copyediting changes (removed "some", added "the", added italics to "Easter Oratorio" for consistency with the rest of the article, removed the link to autograph (manuscript) as it's linked above), let me know if you disagree with any of them. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• when he wrote a new manuscript copy with some minor changes and a new title in 1738. – Hmm, I wonder if we can be a little more specific here: "a new manuscript copy of ..." (I'm assuming it is the music written in 1725, though I think it could help to make this clear).

  but what else would it be? - trying --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  What you've done works. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• Kommt, eilet und laufet ("Come, hasten and run") – Same comment on single quotes

  same reply ;) --GA

  Hmm, I'm not sure you replied on this specific point. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  perhaps I misunderstood, - now single quotes for translations of titles --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• it features no original Biblical text, no Evangelist narrator, and no chorale. – Possibly this was intentional, but "Evangelist" wasn't capitalised above

  yes, because it's a different meaning (with a different link) --GA

  I had thought so. That said, I do notice that the first instance links to Four Evangelists, where the word is capitalised. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  thank you, taken --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• In the oratorio, Bach assigned the individual characters of the cantata more generally to four voice parts. – Hmm, I have to say I'm not entire sure what is meant by "more generally" here (can you assign something "more" or "less" generally?)

  I'd be happy with better wording, perhaps you can help: in the cantata, it was same history involving characters who lived 2000 years ago. In the oratorio (without changing anything), they are you and I, general people who react to the situation, - involving the listener, - perhaps read below and then come up with a summary --GA

  now rephrased within the whole para, as mentioned above --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• The work, basically the same music in cantata and oratorio, – Hmm, I think when the word "basically" is used it can generally be omitted or replaced. Depending on what is accurate, I'd suggest "largely", "almost identical", or something similar.

  similarly: please read the changes below and then tell me how to summarise best --GA

• The work, basically the same music in cantata and oratorio, is structured in eleven movements. – I'm not sure the phrase beginning in "basically" quite works grammatically. "cantata" and "oratorio" also need articles of some form. How about something like "The music, which is _____ the same between the cantata and the oratorio, is ..."?

  will depend on what you find one question above --GA

  I dropped the thing in brackets completely, was explained in the preceding para --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  Great, looks better. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• are followed by a duet of tenor and bass, illustrating two disciples running to the tomb of Jesus – A "duet for tenor and bass" is better I think. Hmm, I'm also not entirely sure a duet can "illustrate" something; perhaps "representing" is better(?), though I have to say this wording still doesn't seem ideal.

  I'd normally say "for" but here - as just explained, they are the characters (formerly Simon and John), - not sure how to do that --GA

  "for" should still work, and I think it would sound more natural of the context of a musical composition (cf., for instance, "sonata for violin and piano" and "sonata of violin and piano"). As to "illustrating", how about "followed by a duet of tenor and bass, in which two disciples run to the tomb of Jesus ..." (this might some require some rephrasing later in the sentence). – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  giving you "for", but the runs in the music are just an image / symbol / what? for the running - we can't say they run in the duet - especially as in the oratorio (by eliminating the characters) it's more we who move, but again not in reality --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  We specifically say it's the disciples doing the running, so the readers should understand these are just characters being referenced (not the singers), meaning the "in which" should hopefully be fine. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  tried "assigned", no more illustration --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  Not what I had in mind, but I think it works. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• where they meet two women who had followed Jesus. – The first part here is in the present tense, while the latter part is in the past perfect tense, when it only needs to be in the past tense. (Let me know if this if this needs further explaining.)

  past tense taken --GA

• The middle movements are alternating recitatives, with the characters mostly engaged in conversations, – "in which the characters mostly engage in coversation"?

  thank you --GA

• and arias, in which three of them (soprano, tenor and alto) express their emotions facing the empty tomb, – Any reason to not just go for "in which the soprano, tenor and alto express ..."?

  I found a bit unfair that the bass was left out, but taken --GA

  I see, well, maybe you'll have to take that up with Bach. ;) – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• express their emotions facing the empty tomb, and then on the news that Jesus is risen. – Hmm, I'm not sure you can have emotions "on" news. "upon hearing" perhaps?

  changed before I saw this --GA

• The music is scored festively with a Baroque instrumental ensemble of three trumpets, timpani, two oboes, oboe d'amore, bassoon, two recorders, flauto traverso (only in the oratorio version), strings and continuo. – Any reason to not link the instruments?

  yes, sea of blue, they are linked in the music section and all are mentioned in the linked Baroque instrumental ensemble - consistent with other such articles --GA

  Hmm, the featured article of yours which comes to mind is BWV 1 where they seem to be linked in the lead. If you want to avoid too many links, you could just link the ones which are lesser known; for example, while all readers will know what a trumpet is, those without a background in music likely won't know what a "flauto traverso" is. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  I looked at three other FAs (4, 23, 56) where they are not linked, - the idea at this point is to give the idea of Baroque instruments and roughly what instruments, but not send readers away to individual instruments, - those interested can find them later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  I see, if it's been done at other FAs then that's no problem. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  anyway, as another reviewer also asked, I linked the two instruments with italian names --GA

  Ah, I see. Good, those are the ones I would have recommended linking. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• In the cantata version and the 1738 oratorio version, – Hmm, we have a year for one but not the other; I wonder if this could be made consistent.

  we have only one cantata version but two oratorio versions --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• the choir sang only in the final movement. – I think the present tense is more appropriate here, as the work is extant, meaning that choirs today still sing this movement.

  not quite the question, that movement stayed the same anyway, - it's the other one - open for advice --GA

  I'm not sure I'm quite cottoning on to what you mean. Assuming both these works are extant (which I think they are), I would lean towards present tense. For instance, compare "In the opening movement of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata, the piano plays arpeggios ..." and "In the opening movement of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata, the piano played arpeggios ...". The latter sounds either as though the work isn't extant, or that the piano in question has met an untimely demise. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  trying harder to explain: in the 1740s, after three versions, Bach changed towards more choir participation, and then the former state with only on movement was a past ("sang"), - do you see what I mean? Since the change, the choir sings in two, and that is the version performed and recorded. - Better wording? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  If I'm understanding correctly, the use of past tense is because these versions aren't (or aren't commonly) performed today? I do have to say that the use of the past tense still sounds to me as though it's suggesting these versions aren't extant. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  As said somewhere, the version typically performed and recorded is the final one (.4) but the others still exist. Perhaps compare Bruckner's symphonies, or Bach's St John Passion where four versions exist, and people often record the first version, thinking that the second was compromise with the city ... - perhaps you can think of some better wording? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  As said somewhere, the version typically performed and recorded is the final one: Yup. Reading your responses, I think I might be understanding: is it that with the past tense you're trying here to contrast these previous versions with the "new" revision produced in the 1740s? If so, it could work to make this connection a little more explicit. For example, you could start with "In the 1740s, Bach again ...", and then change the next sentence to "He arranged the third movement partly for choir, whereas in the cantata version and the 1738 oratorio version, the choir sang only in the final movement" (or similar). I think this would hopefully make the connection clear and justify the use of the past tense. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  mostly taken, please check --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  Looks good. Made a few tweaks myself. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• Bach again revised the work, which he seems to have regarded highly, in the 1740s, – Having "in the 1740s" at the beginning of the sentence feels a little more natural to me. I might also use brackets for "which he seems to have regarded highly", though this is largely personal preference.

  what you want to put in brackets is perhaps the most important information in the whole lead ;) - I'll move the period, but feel that revising again and again is the more important part than when precisely this happened, on top of we know only a timeframe --GA

  What you've done works well. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• The short description is "Bach music composition", three nouns which I'm not quite sure work together without separation. How about "Musical work by Bach"?

  I didn't write that but will change --GA

  Great, it's much improved. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

– Michael Aurel (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for detailed reading and commenting, Michael. I usually do the lead last in reviews ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

No worries at all, Gerda. Onto the rest of the article I move. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

A next batch of suggestions:

• In 1723, Bach was appointed as Thomaskantor (director of church music) in Leipzig, – A nitpick, but I'm not sure "as" adds anything here

  gone --GA

• He took office in the middle of the liturgical year, on the first Sunday after Trinity. – I wonder if it's possible to give any dates from the Gregorian calendar, as some readers mightn't know much (or anything) about the Christian liturgical year.

  added date, but don't know it it's in the source given or if it needs an extra one --GA

• He wrote the St John Passion for Good Friday 1724 – "Good Friday in 1724" or "Good Friday of 1724", I think

  "of" then - would I say "Christmas of 2024"? --GA

• the St John Passion for Good Friday 1724; unlike the cantatas, this was a dramatic sacred oratorio. – Perhaps ignorant to the reasons for drawing out this particular distinction, it seems to me that we could just say "the St John Passion, a dramatic sacred oratorio, for ...".

  The reason is that his first oratorio, that Passion, was completely different from what he had done before, and - as you will read later - the Easter Oratorio can be seen as it's sequel. --GA

  inspired by some question below I tried to expand the Background, by the Holy week, the heavy workload then, the days between Palm Sunday and Good Friday, such things. I'd like to add the exact pages from Wolff, but am in Poland and can't access the book here. I will add that when back home (Saturday). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  Great, what you've done works. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• The following year, Bach pursued to write a second cantata cycle, – I'm not sure "pursued" is the right word here. It typically refers to running after something, and I'm presuming that Bach wasn't writing the cycle while running. ;)

  What would be the right word for expressing his endeavour to do such an unbelievable thing? --GA

  Just "wrote" would work. While the achievement was of course impressive, we (per MOS:PUFFERY) generally avoid implying the impressiveness of certain things with our language, though quoting a scholar for this sort of assessment would of course be fine. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  The very source used says so, beginning on page 275, "Bach could begin with a most promosing cantata project of great homogeneity", and concluding three pages later: "It is hard to imagine that this fascinating, unprecedented project of chorale cantatas was initiated by anyone but Bach himself. ... Bach's artistic borders on the incredible. That Bach went about his grand project systematically becomes immediately evident ...". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  Great, quoting that source would work (eg. "grand project", or similar), if it's something you want to emphasise. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  I added to the section, please check, more Easter cantatas, examples not only of the load that season but also reusing music with different text. In the process, I quote Wolff twice, for the characterisation of this cantata cycle and Picander's St Matthew poetry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• It was followed by the second version – Hmm, by "it", do we mean the second cantata cycle or BWV 1?

  BWV 1, on Palm Sunday, followed 5 days later (same year) by the second version of the St. John Passion. --GA

  Understood. I would use "This was followed ..." to avoid ambiguity. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  rephrased differently, please check --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  Looks good. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• the second version of the St John Passion performed on Good Friday. – "..., which was performed on Good Friday". I would also query as to what year (or years) it was performed on Good Friday.

  We talk about the Holy Week of 1724, Palm Sunday (BWV 1), Good Friday (St John), Easter Sunday (our cantata), - a heavy load on the choir (which may explain why it has little to sing in the Easter cantata), - what is unclear? --GA

  Your rewording has resolved both of these points. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• In 1725, approaching his second Easter, Bach – I would write "approaching his second Easter as Thomaskantor", as otherwise it might sound as though Bach was two years old!

  "in office" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• Bach composed a congratulatory cantata, Entfliehet, verschwindet, ... – A change may not be needed here, but the way we use "congratulatory cantata" makes me wonder if this is considered a specific type of cantata in Bach's output. If so, are there specific qualities or characteristics of congratulatory cantatas which set them apart? (Besides, of course, having to do with congratulating someone or something.)

  it is a specific genre in his output, as explained in Bach cantata, but that link is gone. - I guess I'll write more in the background about parody music, when he used it before this work, and later, in the Christmas Oratorio for example, based on congratulatory cantatas such as Tönet, ihr Pauken. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  please check if the changes in background are clear enough --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• Entfliehet, verschwindet, entweichet, ihr Sorgen, BWV 249a, known as the Shepherd Cantata, – "also known as ...", perhaps?

  it's not known under the longish German name ;) - we also have Coffee Cantata and Hunting Cantata, with these common names, - well, first in German, of course. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  Ah, I see. Perhaps "more commonly known as", then? – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  taken --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• During Lent, a time without cantatas in Leipzig, – By "without cantatas", do we just mean they weren't performed? It might also be worth briefly describing in brackets when Lent is, for non-religious readers who aren't aware.

  there is a link, and another one for Liturgical year, and from the context should be clear that it is the time in preparation of Easter (like Advent is the time in preparation of Christmas, also silent): no cantatas performed (which meant no cantatas composed, - he composed for the next occasion, after seven weeks without came Palm Sunday, Good Friday and three feast days of Easter, each with a cantata, all within 10 days). --GA

  A paraphrase of "time in preparation of Easter" (in brackets) would work well. I would also be explicit on the point that there weren't performed (or composed) during this time, as "time without cantatas" make it sound a bit as though the cantatas ceased to exist during this period. – Michael Aurel (talk)

  link and explanation of Lent are now in Background. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  Great. You also seem to have gone for a wording with avoids "without cantatas", so no concerns there. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• had the time to write an extended festive composition, – Hmm, is this composition BWV 249a, mentioned just before?

  it's any but turned out that one that year, - he normally had no time to compose such a thing --GA

  Ah, understood. I suspect I was misreading the phrase. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• The librettist of the Shepherd Cantata was Picander, – I'd suggest briefly explaining the term "librettist" for the unfamiliar.

  we said in the lead that he wrote the text, for the unfamiliar, - there's a link for those with a short memory --GA

  The link is good, but (per MOS:NOFORCELINK) we generally try to avoid readers needing a link to understand a sentence. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  while correct, I'd assume that 90% of readers who got reading this far will know what a libretto is and thus a librettist, - it would help them not to get held up, and the others have the chance to learn. - In operas, it's so common that we don't even link. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, and it's of course good for those readers who don't know the term to learn, but readers on mobile, for example (the majority of our readers), won't be able to preview that page, meaning they would need to click away to learn what the word means. For example, something along the lines of "The Shepherd Cantata's librettist (the author of the work's text) was Picander" might work, or you could perhaps rephrase to use "libretto" instead, and define that. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  I'm almost tempted to say again "wrote the text", but "libretto" is the standard word for texts of operas, so connects nicely to the character of the piece as dramatic music. "the author of the work's text" seems a lot for the readers who know that already. Would we link to ball in an article about a specific match? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  Ehh ... I don't really know it's the same, but evidently neither of us with be persuaded, and I suppose I can live with just the link. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• was Picander, in their first documented collaboration. – The other person in the collaboration is of course obvious, but, technically, he hasn't been mentioned in this paragraph so he can't be referred to. "in he and Bach's first ..." would work.

  I think it's obvious enough for a simple wording that treats them as equal partners --GA

  The issue is that pronouns should refer back to an antecedent, but here the antecedent ("Bach and Picander", or equivalent) is absent. (Also, as "their" can also be singular, it – at first – sounds a bit as though we might be using "their" because Picander's gender is uncertain.) – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  "with Bach" was added a while ago --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  Hmm, I don't know it was, but I've added what I think we've agreed upon. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• It seems likely that Bach planned from the start – I think "had planned" works a little better here, as we're technically going back two "steps" into the past. Another nitpick, but "intended" sounds slightly better here to me, as what we care about here are his intentions (not necessarily some specific "plans").

  thank you, taken --GA

• to use most of the music also for an Easter cantata, – "to reuse", dropping "also", perhaps?

  well, I have my doubts, - doesn't re-use imply that first came one then the other? while it looks like he wrote one music (probably with more thought about Easter), and to it came two layers of text? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  probably with more thought about Easter: I see, understood. Using "from the start to use most of the music for an Easter cantata as well" would probably be fine. I also wonder then if "adapted" should potentially be "wrote"? Is Picander going back and changing an initial text, or is it that he wrote it for that purpose from the beginning? – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  wording taken --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• Picander would write in 1728 about their collaboration: – Minor, but I'd suggest "In 1728, Picander wrote of their ...", as we presumably care more about what he wrote about it, rather than the fact he wrote about it.

  I thought that we are in 1725, at the beginning of their collaboration, when the other date is in a future, no? --GA

  Ah, if that was the intention, then that's no problem. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• and several cantatas, both sacred and secular. – "sacred and secular cantatas" might be slightly better, as otherwise it might sound as though the cantatas were both sacred and secular at the same time.

  but how could that be? - changed anyway --GA

• Picander published the libretto, of an interaction between two shepherds and two shepherdesses – I'm not sure "of" works here. Perhaps "in which two shepherds and two shepherdesses interact ..."?

  taken and I also split the sentence --GA

• named after characters in Greek mythology, – You've dipped into my area of interest here, so I'll be extra picky: I generally think "figures" is preferable to "characters" in the context of Greek mythology, in the same way that we maintain a distinction between "mythology" and "fiction", even though mythology is of course fictional.

  taken with thanks --GA

  I found more precision about the names, new ref added --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Out of interest more than anything (it may not be worth mentioning), but who are the mythological figures in question?

  no idea, I took that from the source without investigating --GA

• Picander published the libretto [...] in 1727 as Tafel-Music. – The two parts of this statement don't quite flow nicely into each other. I'd suggest splitting the sentence in two, discussing the publication part in the first, and the part about the shepherds separately.

  look above ;) --GA

• as Tafel-Music – I'd link Tafelmusik. It also seems to me that we're using half German ("Tafel") and half English here ("Music").

  the answer is already somewhere on this page, but again: this is the exact spelling in the publication. German was different 300 years ago, and less uniform. --GA

  Hmm, perhaps, but – unless I've misunderstood, and he published it with the literal title "Tafel-Music" – our article is in modern English, so we should use the form commonly used today (which, judging by ngrams, is "Tafelmusik"). – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  I found a better source for the exact wording in the publication, and think we should preserve it, the same way as we don't subject Bach's German to modern orthography. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  Ok, I've read the source you've cited, and it seems that I was indeed misunderstanding what we meant here. To help make this a tad more explicit, we could potentially write "titling it Tafel-Music" or "under the title Tafel-Music". – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• at Schloss Neu-Augustusburg on 23 February 1723. – Per MOS:NOFORCELINK, I think it would be worth mentioning that this is a palace

  after we said it's for a duke? --GA

  Hmm, it's presumably been performed plenty of places that weren't his palace, so I'm not sure this quite follows. If it was his palace in particular, "Christian's palace" (or similar) would work. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  The (new) source points at that we don't know for sure where. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  rephrased the sentence adding palace (hesitating because Schloss means palace), and put the possibly thingy at the end. We could add the full title. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  That's better, and it addresses this point (so it's been struck). For the overall passage, yes, adding the full title might be good (or describing what it says), just so that the reader understands how we know the date, etc. – 15:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• I do notice that years are included in most of the subheadings in the "History" section, but not for "Secular model, BWV 249.1".

  there's only one, - the others are three versions to be distinguished --GA

  Hmm, I see. I would still include it, though it's nothing to worry too much about. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Bach used the music of the Shepherd Cantata in its exact sequence, – Hmm, this feels as though it's a slightly odd thing to note in particular. Is it surprising that the music is in the same order?

  surprising or not, it should be said somehow - In the Christmas Oratorio, the use of the secular pieces is not strictly following the models, for example. - There is an Easter cantata which Bach also used by just underlaying sacred text, which I think I may mention in the Background section, to prepare this. --GA

• composing only new recitatives, – Did this involve adding new movements? If so, we might write "new recitative movements", to be specific.

  not really, there were recitatives composed for the secular work, but finding words for that music that also made sense would have been difficult, so there were new words and those set to different music, - better wording? - still same order of movements, even: where four characters interacted in the secular work, there are also four in the Easter work, which could probably be said somehow, but I didn't know where and how. --GA

  That's all fine. What might help to clarify this is giving a brief definition for "recitative": something similar to "sections in which the singers use the delivery of ordinary speech" could work, if this is correct?

  see a link to ball above, - recitative and aria are really the two most common terms in Baroque music, and I don't recall any FA explaining either, - the word recitative is even close to "recite". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• its first title was Kommt, gehet und eilet ("Come, go and hurry"), but soon changed to Kommt, fliehet und eilet ("Come, flee and hurry"). – "but this was soon ..." is better. I would also query as to what we mean by "soon"; for example, could we give a rough (or not rough) idea with any dates?

  "was" taken - the source (Dürr) gives us only this --GA

  That's fine. "but soon changed" is still missing a subject, though ("it" or "this" would work). – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  rephrased --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• The festive nature of the original material made it well suited – I'd write "The festive nature of the original material was well suited"

  fine --GA

• can be seen as an Easter play, following a custom of "scenic representation of the Easter story". – Either "play, and follows ..." or "play which follows ...", depending on the intended meaning

  "which follows" --GA

• It seems likely that Picander also wrote the text for the cantata. – I'd use "for this cantata", or, better, "for the Easter cantata", to distinguish from the cantata mentioned above that Picander wrote the text for.

  taken (but isn't that what the topic of this section is?) --GA

• This is jumping up to the previous section of the article, but I notice that we say It seems likely [...] that Picander also adapted the text for that purpose, but in the lead we say Picander may also have adapted his text for the Easter cantata.

  we are even encouraged not to use exactly the same wording in lead and body, no? --GA

  They're slightly different claims: "likely" implies that there is a greater chance that Picander wrote it than there is that someone else wrote it, whereas "may" doesn't imply this. If you'd like to vary the wording between the lead and body, you could use "likely" and "probably", or "may" and "possibly" (depending on which is more accurate). – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  but who knows what is more accurate? when I wrote the article all sources seemed to agree on likely, but now two of the new ones changed that picture, one even saying "unlikely". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• Both share the same metrical pattern – Similarly to above, we need to have explicitly referred to two things just before to use "both". "The Easter cantata and the Shepherd Cantata", or something similar (depending on how you change the preceding sentence), would work.

  "both texts" --GA

  I'll make a general comment here, as this has cropped up a few times in my suggestions. Pronouns rely on the noun they're replacing having been explicitly referred to just before, and this explicit reference is called the antecedent. In some places in the article, the antecedent is absent but you can still tell (or guess without too much trouble) what the pronoun is referring to; the issue is that, from a grammatical perspective, we still shouldn't use pronouns if we haven't clearly and explicitly referred to the relevant noun just prior. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  thank you for your patience, - I tried to be more explicit in the preceding sentence, - please check --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  No problem. And what you've done there works perfectly. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• Only the recitatives were newly composed. – Hmm, I feel as though we've already stated this above (specifically, when we say composing only new recitatives).

  dropped the second time --GA

• scenes from the Gospels, – I'd suggest a relevant link for "Gospels"

  well, the one for Luke is linked in the same sentence, no? + we had a link for the Evangelists. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  Those links are good, but some readers mightn't know what "gospels" are in general. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  I come from project opera where we don't link to a composer when their work is linked right next. Whoever doesn't know who Verdi is will find it in Aida. Similarly: whoever does't know what Gospel is will find it in Gospel of Luke. Avoiding too much blue. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  Hmm, I'm not particularly convinced, but (similarly to some others above) I suppose it's fine. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• He created text for dialogues and arias of four Biblical characters, assigned to the four voice parts – I'd use "involving", same as above. And "who were assigned to ..."?

  taken --GA

• the disciples Simon (tenor) and John (bass), – I'd link tenor and bass (voice type) (first mention in body)

  well, it would make a sea of blue, and the terms are rather familiar, linked in the lead - I'd go for an exception, also because we'll link soprano and alto, and readers who missed this corner would wonder why tenor and bass are not linked again --GA

  Hmm, I'm not sure I understand. Some readers will know what "tenor" and "bass" mean here, though many without a musical background won't. As to the lead, my general assumption would be that if something is linked in the lead, it should also be linked in the body (though this perhaps doesn't always need to hold the other way around). In any case, we link alto and soprano in the same sentence, and things should be consistent between all four. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  linked all now - should the links then be removed in the Music section? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  They don't seem to have links in the "Music" section (maybe you've already removed them), but yes, I'd avoid linking them a second time in the body. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• appearing in the first duet hurrying to Jesus's grave and finding it empty, – "who appear in ... grave, finding ... empty, and meeting ..." is preferable I think.

  taken --GA

• and "the other Mary", Mary Jacobe (soprano). – Hmm, is there any particular reason to call her "the other Mary"? In a literal sense, all this seems to be telling us is that her name is also Mary, something which, given her name is "Mary Jacobe", we'd hope the reader would realise. ;)

  dropping it, it's the exact phrase from the Gospel but we can offer a link ;) --GA

• Bach scholar Hans-Joachim Schulze summarised: – Is there anything "summarise"-ish about his statement in particular? If not, I'd use "According to ..., [quote]".

  I reduced it to "wrote", - "On the whole" indicated enough that it summary.

• Hmm, perhaps I'm not understanding things completely, but is there a particular reason we're quoting the scholar here? If possible, I would summarise his opinion in our own words.

  I think it's written well, and high praise for what others have regarded as a mediocre job of adjusting something to match the music; it is also nicely open about who it was. --GA

  I tend to avoid quoting full sentences, but that's all fair enough. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• the unidentified librettist – This is the first mention of an "unidentified" librettist. Is this who we were talking about above? If so, we should note his "unidentified"-ness there.

  We wrote before (as some sources): "It seems likely that Picander also wrote the text for the Easter cantata." That includes that he is not identified, just likely.

• The cantata, different from the secular model, – By "the secular model", I'm assuming we mean the Shepherd Cantata? It's worth noting that (outside of the heading) we haven't called it this, so it might be worth doing that in the section above.

  We wrote before: "Bach used the music of the Shepherd Cantata in its exact sequence" - now what else is that than using it as the model? --GA

  The use of the definite article in "the secular model" implies that the reader has already been introduced to something called the "secular model", but we haven't actually referred to the Shepherd Cantata as such at this point in the text (except in a heading). This means that the sentence does make sense, but only if the reader recalls the statement you've quoted, from two paragraphs earlier (Bach used the music of the Shepherd Cantata in its exact sequence), and recalls that we used "secular model" in the heading of the section discussing the Shepherd Cantata. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  was changed to "Shepherd Cantata" a while ago --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• is opened by two instrumental movements that are probably taken – Are these the differences (or some of the differences) between the two works? If so, I think it'd be worth making this explicit; for example, "In contrast to the _____, the cantata is opened ...".

  No, there is no contrast. We wrote before "The cantata, different from the secular model, is opened by two instrumental movements." (The other was opened by one instrumental movement, none of the two here.) --GA

  To put it another way, we are making two statements in this sentence: that the cantata and the secular model are different, and that the cantata opens with two instrumental movements. Presumably these aren't unrelated statements, so one is led to assume that this is a difference between the two, but we don't actually state this. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  That the two cantatas are different is no new claim, but I rephrased it. --GA

  That works well. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• from a concerto of the Köthen period. – I'd link concerto

  That is a highly ambiguous term, and sending a reader away might confuse more than educate. It means here a piece for solo instruments and orchestra (like the Brandenburg Concertos) which seems to be the most normal meaning, but what exactly it is doesn't change the meaning for this piece. --GA

  The article concerto seems to include Baroque concertos, and the meaning here (a piece for solo instruments and orchestra) seems to match that page's definition, so I think the link would work. It's worth noting that even if the concept isn't important here, some readers will be unfamiliar with the term. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  linked --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• like the Shepherf Cantata, – Typo

  sorry --GA

• The work is, like the Shepherf Cantata, a dramma per musica – Per MOS:NOFORCELINK, I would give a brief explanation for "dramma per musica".

  I'd say a drama for music, and that is nothing the term doesn't present (and nothing that hasn't been described by the dialogues in both the secular and the sacred piece. --GA

  Hmm, sure, that's the translation of the phrase, though it doesn't really tell us what a dramma per musica is. I'll also note that dramma per musica is mentioned (or is now mentioned) above, so this brief explanation should be included there, with the link dropped in this second instance. I also wonder if the phrase should be italicised, looking at the linked article? – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  I italicised it on the first instance, but think that the explanation, musical drama, is really close. I used that in the second instance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• The first performances came on Easter Sunday, 1 April 1725, – "It was first performed on ..."? Also, by "performances", do we mean it was performed multiple times on this day?

  twice, and that's why "it was first performed" wouldn't fit. --GA

  "It was first performed" should still work, as it doesn't necessarily imply a certain number of performances taking place on that day. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  if you say so --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• a week after Bach had led Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern – By "led" do we mean "performed"?

  "led" is there to avoid a repetition (performance - performed), - it is also a little indication that the leading was not "conducting" in our sense, but done by playing violin or keyboard. --GA

  If the wording is idiomatic, them then that's fine. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• two days after his St John Passion in its second version on Good Friday. – St John Passion and Good Friday are linked above

  sorry (the above was added later ...) --GA

• Bach performed it with the Thomanerchor, – Also linked above

  delinked --GA

• and in a vespers service at the Thomaskirche, with a sermon by Johann Gottlob – I'd specify "the second in a ...", to clearly indicate this isn't the same performance. I'd also link vespers.

  linked, and "the other" --GA

  Link added. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Markus Rathey pointed out that this music was Bach's first and only for Easter that matched the dramatic approach of the Passions. – I'm assuming Markus Rathey is a modern scholar, though using the past tense here makes it sound a bit as though he was contemporary with Bach. I'd use "points out" or "has pointed out".

  I have done that, but where is the line? Dürr wrote in 1971, past, Rathey in 2016, - yes, that's more recent, but in 20 years, no more, - who would update? --GA

  I would generally use the present tense for all scholars whose opinions are reflective of modern scholarship. Exactly where the line is drawn will depend on the discipline, but, in general, if the scholar is not so outdated that their opinion is unreliable, I would use the present tense (and I would say this generally accords with MOS:PRESENT). That said, using the present perfect would also be perfectly fine for such scholars, if you'd prefer (but the tense should be consistent for all such modern scholars). – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  I tried present tense for Gardiner, Rathey and Wolff. Please change if you see one that I overlooked. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• Bach had the time to think of larger musical forms in 1732, – I'm not necessarily sure what he had time for was thinking, specifically, as thinking about "larger musical forms" presumably doesn't take all that long. Maybe something to the effect of "Bach had the time to compose in larger musical forms in 1732"?

  we'll have to search, - there was no large composition in 1732 (yet), and the 1733 Missa was a "composition" in the original sense of "put together": many older pieces with new text, therefore "to compose" might be misleading in both senses, no? --GA

  "plan", perhaps(?), though I suspect that also mightn't work. Or we could say that the added time caused him to gravitate towards longer forms, if this is what the source says. (I would probably need to see the source's claim to think of a more effective rewording.) – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  Ok, I see you've used "plan". – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• with no festive music – Where did it go? (I'm being facetious, but the point is that if we mean that it just wasn't performed, we should probably say so explicitly.)

  not sure what you mean, it wasn't only "not performed" but "not composed, because not needed" --GA

  That's fine, but "with no festive music" makes it sound a bit as though previously composed festive music also ceased to exist. If festive music both wasn't performed and wasn't composed, then stating this much would resolve this. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  expanded using "not permitted" - perhaps you know a better term? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  Great, that's much better. – Michael Aurel (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• In 1733 he composed the – I would place a comma after "1733".

  I understand that it is a US comma. --GA

  I would've still used it, but yes, it's more common in AmE. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• the Missa for the Dresden court, – Should "Missa" be italicised?

  no, its a generic title like Sonata --GA

  It is, though in this case it's also the name of a specific work. I would also note that Bach's Missa of 1733 seems to italicise it. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  no, we don't italicise Requiem, Mass, Missa, Symphony, - I changed that article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  No problem. – Michael Aurel (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• intended for use in their church services – "these church services', as the services don't belong to the works. Or, if "their" refers to the aforementioned days (rather than the works), I would write "intended for use in the church services on these days".

  sorry, I rearranged the sentence and it ended wrong, - fixed --GA

• probably first performed on Ascension Day 1738. &ndash "in" or "of", same as above

  "of" --GA

• For Easter Sunday, 6 April 1738, Bach could use the 1725 Easter cantata ... – Hmm, did he use it in the way we're referring to here? If so, would it work to just say "Bach used the ..."?

  well, perhaps you can help to word that it comes as a surprise that he used it as it was, instead of adding more work for the choir, some chorales, such things - It's unlike the later oratorios, therefore (but he sems to have liked it). --GA

  Hmm, I see, I'm not sure "could" is achieving that here, though. I'd just use "used" here, and, then separately state that the lack of meaningful changes before its use was unusual (or something to this effect). – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  I changed to "used", and "very minor changes (from below), followed immediately by those changes, - please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  Great, no problems there. – Michael Aurel (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• 1725 Easter cantata basically as it was – A grumble towards "basically". Does "with minor changes" work? Or "largely unchanged", perhaps?

  As the following text shows, the "changes" to the music are so minor that even "minor" seems too much, and "largely unchanged" even more so. The change was to no longer make it a drama involving historic persons, but a drama in which the listener is involved: called to run and to reflect. --GA

  If "minor" seems too strong, then perhaps use "very minor', or something more specific. Despite their minor nature, though, there were changes ("basically" sounds a bit as though there were no changes, but that we're unwilling to make an unqualified statement). – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  see above --GA

• He wrote a new autograph score of the music and at this time labelled the work – Not sure "at this time" adds anything

  Did you read the DYK nomination, with all the suggestions to say the Oratorio was performed in 1725, and I replied, yes, but it was not yet named Oratorio. It can't be clear enough, - what would you say? --GA

  Hmm, no, I haven't. I would think it's clear from context that we're talking about 1738, but, if we think it's necessary, we could restate that it's 1738 at the beginning of the sentence. Either way, "at this time" isn't really needed later in the sentence. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  dropped, also dropped "new" - there was no score for the cantata --GA

• labelled the work an oratorio, Oratorium Festo Paschali. – "labelled the work an oratorio, titling it Oratorium Festo Paschali"?

  added --GA

• He made several changes; – The points mentioned in the preceding sentences would count as "changes" in my eyes. Do we perhaps mean changes specifically to the music? If so, "He made several changes to the music;" might be better.

  gone in the change above --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• the insertion of a measure in the first movement – Do we mean an additional measure of music? If so, I'd add "of music".

  good idea --GA

  Added. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• a different underlay of the text in the middle section of the alto aria – As "underlay" has a specific meaning in a musical context, I'd link underlay#Music, or (probably the much better option, given that link's inadequacy) I'd give give a brief explanation of the term

  I'm no native speaker. I never heard the word "underlay" before, - the German is "unterlegen" (so the same): the way the syllables of text are written under the notes of the music, - but how could that be clarified? --GA

  Your explanation, "the way the syllables of text are written under the notes of the music", seems quite good, and would work with slightly more encyclopedic wording. (Or, alternatively, you could rephrase the bullet point to avoid the word "underlay".) – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  calling Michael Bednarek for help wo knows English, German and Classical music: is there a short term for Textunterlegung, and if not how can we best say it in English? In this case, the text also changed a bit. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  English 'underlay' for German Textunterlegung can be seen as a term of art, similar to 'through composed', 'leitmotiv', 'Urtext', 'Sprechstimme', all – including 'underlay' – used in musicology literature. This paper of 30 pages discusses the problems of translating it in-depth. I can only suggest to keep using it with a parenthetical pointer to the related subject prosody (music), or to describe its meaning as attempted above. I prefer the first. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• a different underlay of ... and five additional measures – Technically, these aren't changes, and don't quite align with the phrasing in the other points. Something along of the lines of "the use of a different ..." and "the addition of five measures" might be better.

  how are additional measures no changes? - how is the different underlay of text, resulting perhaps in different vowels sounding, not a change? like the different sound of another instruement? --GA

  Sorry, my wording was a bit oblique. What I'm pointing out is that the wording in this bullet point isn't consistent with the others: "the insertion of a measure ..." vs "a different underlay ..." (rather than "the use of a different underlay ..."). – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  done "use" but unconvinced --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• Derived from the secular musical theatre, – By "the secular musical theatre", do we mean a specific work? If so – and maybe I'm just losing my way in so many different pieces here – which one? Or do we mean "secular musical theatre" as a genre?

  should we instead say dramma per musica again? - Perhaps we could drop the paragraph, because the same thing was said about the same music as cantata, but it seemed worth saying that this isn't like his other oratorios (now that it was named Oratorio). --GA

  I replaced "theatre" by "drama" as in the lead --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• I notice that in some places we use the serial comma (eg. it features no original Biblical text, no Evangelist narrator, and no chorale), and in others we don't (eg. an Evangelist narrator, Biblical texts and chorales,. I realise that checking for this is a right pain (so sorry for putting you through the ordeal), but they should technically be consistent.

  commas are so different in German, sorry, - can you please just fix when you see it missing? --GA

  I've added the serial comma in the quoted passage, and will do so when I read later parts of the article, but a skim of the article on your part, checking for this, would probably be a good idea. (It's minor, but it's worth noting that another reviewer will probably choose to point this out if they notice it.) – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• based on a scriptures – Plurality clash: "a" is singular", "scriptures" is plural.

  I thought I had moved the sentence to later, - my bad. --GA

• In a later version from the 1740s, between 1743 and 1746, Bach revised the oratorio once more – Hmm, I'm not sure this is quite right. It sounds a bit as though we're saying the same thing twice. Would dropping "In a later version from the 1740s" work?

  dropped "a later version from" --GA

  In the 1740s, between 1743 and 1746 – I'd remove "In the 1740s", as "between 1743 and 1746" already tells us the decade. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  dropped --GA

• he expanded the third movement from a duet into a four-part chorus, at least in the outer section, – Do we perhaps mean "outer sections" (that is, the sections at the beginning and end of the movement)?

  yes --GA

• in the middle section of the soprano aria (movement 5) – I'd write "in the 5th movement"

  we said "alto aria" in the previous section, - also there's only one (of both) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  I now linked all thees movements to their descriptions --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  Nice! That looks very helpful. – Michael Aurel (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• Conductors have to decide if the duet in the middle section of the third movement is sung by two soloists or the choir sections. – Hmm, well, they technically need to decide whether or not to use the final version at all (even if it's common practice). A more appropriate statement might be that conductors commonly choose one or the other.

  no, not the same thing. Provided they use that last version (and we are in the section about that version), they still have to decide, because it's marked tenor bass but not indicating solo tenor ore choir tenor (same for bass) --GA

  I might protest that context doesn't change the literal statement we're making, but I can see your point that readers are unlikely to misinterpret our meaning given the preceding content. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• for the last time on Easter Sunday, 6 April 1749, the year before his death, right after his last performance of the St John Passion. – "and right after his last ...", as otherwise it might sound as though the year before his death came right after the last performance of the St John Passion. I would also query as to what we mean by "right after" (hours later, days later, months later?).

  It seems significant that in 1749 he coupled again the St John Passion (on Good Friday) and the Easter Oratorio (two days later on Easter Sunday, as explained in Background), similar to the first (cantata) performance. Rathey calls the Oratorio a sequel to the Passion. - rephrased, please check --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks, that makes sense. I'd rephrase it to: Bach performed the Easter Oratorio for the last time in 1749, the year before his death; this performance, which took place on Easter Sunday, 6 April 1749, again followed a performance of the St John Passion on Good Friday. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  taken with the exception of "on Easter Sunday" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Open as of 26 May

• Bach decided to compose new music for almost all liturgical events, which became his first cantata cycle. – Technically this reads as saying that all of the liturgical events themselves became his first cantata cycle.

  so how do say in English that it's the new music which ...? --GA

  "liturgical events, and this music became" would work. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  how about "these cantatas", - or begin with "new cantatas"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  Specifying "new cantatas" in there might be good (eg. "decided to compose new cantatas ..."). Then, maybe ending it with "resulting in his first cantata cycle" could work? – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  saying now "composed cantatas", - something freshly composed is always new ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  Hmm, not sure if this was your intention (or if you just forgot to make the change), but it seems we still have the original wording (decided to compose cantatas for almost all liturgical events, which became his first cantata cycle). – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  I rephrased it, please check --GA

  That works fine. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• Their collaboration led to the 1727 St Matthew Passion and several cantatas, – "They also collaborated on the ...", maybe?

  yes, but the St Matthew Passion is not an "also" but a pinnacle --GA

  That makes sense, but I'm not sure that comes through, as we're also including "several sacred and secular cantatas" in that "pinnacle". – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  I might try something that their most prominent (best-known, or what?) collaboration was the St Matthew Passion (almost 70 movements) but would probably need a ref, right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  Hmm, I would think so, yes. I would probably just go for something like "They later collaborated on the 1727 St Matthew Passion, as well as several sacred and secular cantatas." if you want to avoid "also", though I'll leave the choice to you. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  expanded --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  That looks good. I'd only point out that "Their collaboration led to the ..." can probably now be changed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  yes, done --GA

• The title suggests that it was performed as musical theatre in costumes during a meal – I'm a bit confused by "title" here. Do we mean the title "Shepherd Cantata"? Because if so, I'm not sure how we can infer all this from it.

  we talk about Tafel-Music, - how would you call that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  I see, so perhaps I have misinterpreted things in my above comment? Specifically, did he publish[...] it with the literal title "Tafel-Music"? – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  yes, see just above --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  Ok, looking at the source, this comes from the full title (Tafel-Music bei Ihro Hochfürstlichen Durchlaucht zu Weissenfels Geburts-Tage den 23. Februar 1725). This might be a result of the newly added source, but I think a bit of rephrasing might be needed in the last sentence; we can probably say that the date is "stated" (or similar) rather than "suggested", and that it's just the location of the performance which is "possible". – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  I thought that was clarified by moving the "possible" to the end. --GA

  I think you suggested it above, but we should probably include the full title here. Or, if you like, we could state that the title began with "Tafel-Music", and then describe the other information it included. I would then put the "possibly" part into a separate sentence (to give a clear division between what we know from the title itself, and what is conjecture on the part of modern scholars). – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• The librettist could base his work on a Harmonie aller Evangelien in which Johannes Bugenhagen had integrated scenes from the Gospels, including Luke 24:1–13. – I have to say that this sentence has rather confused me. Sorry to hit you with a flurry of questions, but these are the points I think might cause confusion for the reader. By "The librettist", do we mean Picander (or librettists in general)? If we mean Picandar, I'd use his name. What's a "Harmonie aller Evangelien"? Who is Johannes Bugenhagen?

  We don't know for sure if it was Picander, so can't use his name. - One of the sources I found recently mentioned this work, and what it is is said: he "integrated scenes from the Gospels" (There isn't one Easter story - like there is one Christmas story - but are different episodes dispersed in four Gospels, and this Mr. Bugenhagen made it all one, - making it easy to build on.) It doesn't matter too much who did this, or does it? --GA

• He created text for dialogues and arias of four Biblical characters, – By "he", do we mean Pincander or Bugenhagen?

  "he" was the librettist, and still is the librettist, and we don't know if he was Picander. --GA

  Understood. I'd suggest replacing "He" with "The librettist", as we do refer to two other male individuals (Bugenhagen and Picander) in the prior sentences. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  I did it, but unconvinced, because now two sentences in a row start with "The librettist". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

  It isn't ideal, but I would probably take the repetition over ambiguity. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• He also thought of oratorios – Hmm, what do we mean by "thought of". "planned", maybe? Or did he start writing them but not finish, perhaps?

  How do we know? --GA

  Well, I'm assuming "thought of" isn't the exact wording in the source. Depending on what the source says, I would make the statement more concrete, as "thinking" of a composition doesn't seem that noteworthy (and presumably he ended up doing more than just "thinking" about writing them). – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  the (new) source (I can't see the offline one) uses "designate", so did I now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  The current text is: He designated also oratorios for two other feasts of a celebratory nature, Easter and Ascension Day, intended for use in the church services on these days. This doesn't quite work grammatically. Maybe try starting with "He designated two other works as oratorios, the Easter Oratorio and the Ascension Oratorio, intended for use ..."? – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• Bach took great care with expression marking in this score. – The immediate relevance of this statement isn't entirely clear to me. If possible, see if you can explain why this is significant to what's being said.

  Usually, he omitted all such markings, so it's relevant, - the source meantions it, why would we not? --GA

  There's no problem with us mentioning it, it's just that its relevance isn't evident. Your response, "Usually, he omitted all such markings", answers the question of its relevance, so stating this in the article would solve this. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  This just is so, - I wouldn't know source for it, therefore I'd prefer to just say it like the source. --GA

  I do notice that the cited source says the work is "unusually rich" in its use of expression markings. Stating something to this effect would probably do the trick. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

This is down to the end of the "History" section. It's an interesting article (so far, at least), and it's always a pleasure to read about Bach. More soon on the way! – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I made a new header for the open questions which can we removed when we are done. I think some look a bit out of contxt ;) Please clarify the last two. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

UC

Interesting stuff throughout. Most of the points below are nitpicks on grammar, sense and style, particularly around getting the flow of natural English. In a couple of places, I found the musical terminology tricky to follow: I think we need to make sure that a reader without a good knowledge of musical terminology or of Baroque instrumentation can still pick up what's going on. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• He wrote an autograph score in Leipzig in 1738 using this name, matching his Christmas Oratorio and Ascension Oratorio.: using this name makes it sound like we're talking about the name Bach used for himself -- "under this title"?

  taken --GA

• He had composed the music for Easter already in 1725, when most of it served both a congratulatory cantata, Entfliehet, verschwindet, entweichet, ihr Sorgen, BWV 249a, and: not sure about the idiom of most of it served -- what's the meaning here? Secondly, I'd use dashes to bracket off the title for extra clarity.

  I tried to clarify an admittedly complex situation further, in different order of title and description. --GA

• Kommt, gehet und eilet (Come, go and hurry: "Come, Go and Hurry" is a title, so needs to be in title case: depending on how we're reading it under MOS:MINORWORKS, either in quote marks or in italics (probably the latter). Ditto Kommt, eilet und laufet (Come, hasten and run)..

  no, "Come, go and hurry" is simply a translation of a title, not a title itself. --GA

  Translations of titles are formatted as titles -- see e.g. the Homeric Hymns, Poet in New York, and The Marriage of Figaro. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  My understanding is that they are formatted as titles when they used as titles, such as The Marriage of Figaro. "Come, go and hurry" will never be used as a title, just help understanding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I've seen this distinction made anywhere: translations of X generally follow the formatting rules for X in the target language. The rule you outline would imply that translations of proper nouns don't need to be capitalised, because they're not being used as proper nouns, which is clearly not correct. Have you got a statement of this principle in print that you could refer me to? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  I saw it that way (copy-cat that I am), take example BWV 4, for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  That one puts double-quotes around all the translated titles, as far as I can see? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  I don't see that but added those to the translations in the lead, trying to please ;) - In the BWV 4, we have two translations that need to be distinguished, but not a title, which would be italic and title case. I don't understand quotation mark for something clearly separated by brackets. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  Brackets and quotation marks do different jobs -- brackets separate things from the main sentence, quotation marks (here) indicate that the terms should be read as the title of a work rather than through their "natural" meaning: so, they differentiate the Charge of the Light Brigade, which was gruesome and traumatic, from "The Charge of the Light Brigade", which is only traumatic if you're a Victorian schoolboy forced to memorise it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  Back to the beginning: some translations of German titles are titles, others just translations. In music, larger works have titles italic in title case, smaller ones (songs, arias, short piano pieces) in quotation marks and sentence case. This is a large work, while its movements are regarded as smaller works. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  No objection to treating major and minor works differently (per MOS:MINORWORKS), but I really don't understand the distinction made with some translations of German titles are titles, others just translations: a title is formatted as a title whatever language it's in, per the examples I've given above. I'm happy to be corrected if you're following a specific style guide: could you show me it if so? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  I gave you the quotation marks, didn't I? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  They only seem to be in the lead. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  sorry, I guess I was tired --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

• Both works have the character of a play of four characters, in the secular cantata shepherds and sherherdesses, and in the Easter cantata four Biblical figures from the Easter story in the Gospel of Luke, 24:1–13.: typo for shepherdesses. I'd go for a colon after characters, and remove the chapter and verse from the text: it's either "Luke 24:1" or "The Gospel of Luke", but chapter/verse numbers are only used with "short" titles (e.g. Ephesians, 2 Kings, Matthew).

  taken, dropping the verses numbers in the lead, but I don't think that a colon is wanted when what follows is not a sentence. --GA

  Another major use for colons is to introduce a list, which is precisely what we have following four characters. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  thank you, learning --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• Easter Sunday, 1 April 1725: there's an extra space here.

  please feel free to repair such minor things that take longer to explain ;) --GA

• with the characters mostly in conversations: idiom: in conversation or engaged in conversations.

  thank you, took the latter --GA

• In the cantata version and still in the 1738 oratorio version: cut still in: doesn't read right in English.

  removed - is there a short way to express astonishment that even in the oratorio, their isn't more choir singing? --GA

  I'm not sure that we're really in the business of expressing astonishment in Wikipedia's voice. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  the typical oratorio is a feast for the choir: Messiah, Israel in Egypt, Elijah, Le Roi David, - besides the Christmas Oratorio and the Ascension Oratorio which has a huge chorus to begin and another to end, and several chorales. This is different. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  Right: if a reliable source has expressed their astonishment, we can quote them, but we can't be the first to do so. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

• You have a habit of putting the adverb immediately after the verbal phrase, as it would be in German (He had composed the music for Easter already in 1725; Bach revised the work, which he seems to have regarded highly, again in the 1740s; . He thought of oratorios also for two other feasts) -- in English, it's usually better before the verb -- so "He had already composed...", "Bach again revised the work...", "He also thought of oratorios..."

  thank you, once more --GA

• Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1: comma needed after this.

  yes

• In 1725, approaching his second Easter, Bach composed a congratulatory cantata, Entfliehet, verschwindet, entweichet, ihr Sorgen, BWV 249a, known as the Shepherd Cantata, to be performed for the 43rd birthday of his patron, Christian, Duke of Saxe-Weissenfels.: again, this would be more readable with the title bracketed by dashes rather than commas, to give a sense of the hierarchy of the sentence.

  I split the sentence --GA

• The author of the Shepherd Cantata was Picander: as a non-musician, I need it to be a bit clearer as to what the difference between the composer and the author of the cantata is.

  I replaced it by librettist (but had thought that was the unfamiliar term) --GA

• our incomparable Kapellmeister Bach: why do we translate everything else, but not Kapellmeister?

  no, - we could link Kapellmeister but shouldn't in a quote, right? --GA

• an interaction between two shepherds and two shepherdesses and termed a Tafelmusik,: can we explain what that means -- and attribute inline to avoid the charge of ?

  I took the wording from the other article: it was the title/genre when published in 1727. - we could get the longish German title in a Main header, - what do you think? --GA

• The work can be considered an Easter play, following a custom of "scenic representation of the Easter story": likewise, attribute inline.

  Dürr. --GA

• The Easter cantata does not include chorales, which is rare in his liturgical music: from the paragraph, his should be Picander, but I think we mean Bach's.

  said so now - it's open though, generally, who picked the chorales, the librettist, Bach, a pastor, or a book of chorales for occasions --GA

• 1732, an official year of mourning with no festive music: mourning for whom?

  the details are in the linked article, and are far away from this music: do we need to name the Elector of Saxony? --GA

• Missa for the Court of Dresden: is this a title? If so, it should be italicised or in double quotes; if just a description, "court" should be lowercase.

  no, this is not a title, court - my memory was wrong --GA

• Would Parody mass be a better link than parody music -- the latter seems to suggest that it was meant to be funny?

  A Parody mass is something different (Renaissance). Parody music#Baroque is what Bach did here and often: use music for one occasion also for other purposes. --GA

• The Ascension Oratorio, was probably first performed on Ascension Day 1738: no comma here.

  yes --GA

• Oratorium Festo Paschali: lang tags here.

  yes --GA

• He made several changes, of which editor Ulrich Leisinger who prepared a critical edition for Carus, mentioned four in his preface: this is not quite grammatical. Suggest He made several changes: Ulrich Leisinger, who prepared a critical edition for the publisher Carus, mentioned four of them in his preface. Given that he made an edition, we don't need to say that he was an editor.

  taken with thanks --GA

• the assignment of a flauto traverso as the solo instrument: what's one of those?

  linked that flute, but think that solo instrument is known (violin in a violin concerto) --GA

• the alto aria (movement 9): should "Movement" be capitalised here?

  I dropped it - there's only one, and which number doesn't change the meaning: that all these changes were minor. (I added the details only today, because of questions in the DYK nomination: what is the difference between cantata and oratorio? And the answer is "not much". What Bach called oratorio in 1938 was already heard in 1725, so it's in a way his earliest oratorio, just was not yet named so.) --GA

• the assignment of an oboe d'amore as the obbligato instrument in this aria: this is a bit technical for me as a layman. I notice we link two of these Baroque instruments a bit later.

  gave them links --GA

• Derived from the secular dramatic action: I'm not sure what this means: it clearly wasn't a secular story?

  used now "musical theatre" as further up --GA

• Its early performance history suggests that Bach enjoyed the work: Can you explain what about the performance history leads us to this conclusion?

  I have no idea. CurryTime7-24 added that, and the source (Wolff) is offline. I added the earlier book by Wolff, Bach - The Learned Musician, but didn't find it there (not in the parts offered by Google that is). --GA

  Perhaps a job for WP:RX? I would have reservations about bringing an article to FAC if I couldn't vouch that the material actually is supported by the citations. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  This is an old article by many, - no, I can't vouch for all of it. I'll look into sourcing that bit or drop it, but first wanted to give CurryTime a chance. I'd be willing to rewrite it on sources that I see, but integrating Klek and Schulze has higher priority. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

  By now, I added from both Klek and Schulze, and I began a Reception section where the Wolff Trilogy stuff went. I left the sentence about Bach's enjoyment in place for now. It seems positive and harmless. - There could be more detail from both valuable sources but might be too much theology.? I also introduced the latest BWV numbers for clarification. I wonder if BWV 249.2 - a lost 1726 other congratulatory cantata with the same music and text by Picander should also be included, for completeness, or if it would rather cause irritation? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• This final version is usually performed and recorded: not quite idiomatic: suggest "is the one most usually..."

  taken --GA

• Conductors have to decide if the duet in the middle section of the third movement is sung by two soloists or the choir sections.: why is this any more true here than for any other part -- surely you could make a similar choice with any duet, or indeed any part at all?

  no, but perhaps I should place it to the recordings section. - It would just be easier here, where it was described that Bach rewrote the movement "for choir", but left the middle section for tenor and bass, without indicating if solo tenor and bass or choir tenor and bass. --GA

• Unlike Bach's later Christmas Oratorio, the music for Easter has no Evangelist narrator providing Biblical text: we seem to have said this at least three times by the "Music" section. Does it need so much repetition?

  no, I forgot to remove when repositioning --GA

• Alfred Dürr's standard work: this is cited to Dürr himself, who clearly has a vested interest here -- we need an independent source for the esteem in which this work is held.

  removed --GA

• The timpani always play with the trumpets: can this be put into more layman-friendly terms?

  timpani - drums? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, but what does "play with the trumpets" mean? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  I don't know what to say besides "play with the trumpets": the timpani only play when the trumpets also play, - the table is there to visually show the sound a bit, large forces in the outer movements, intimate sounds in the inner ones. There's no extra information in adding the timpani because they are always together with the trumpets. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  It sounds like your answer is there: "the timpani only play when the trumpets also play" is much clearer. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  might "play together with the trumpets" also work? ('cause the other is so long) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  The issue is the idiom of "play with", which is WP:JARGON -- it makes sense if you know about music, but those who haven't read a specialised work of musical scholarship (or attended a classical concert with a nicely detailed programme) are unlikely to have come across it. We could shorten very slightly: "the timpani only play when the trumpets do" is 8 words and 42 characters; "the timpani play together with the trumpets" is 7 words and 43. I'm not sure I see a material difference there. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  taken --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

• What's the difference in the table between "SATB" (no spaces) and "S A T B" (spaces)?

  SATB is for the choir (all singing at the same time), the other for the 4 characters (who usually sing one after the other, in conversation) --GA

• to movements of the Shepherd Cantata, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10: idiom: movements 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 of the Shepherd Cantata

  thank you, - the link looks strange though --GA

• a Sinfonia, an Allegro concerto grosso: not sure about the capitals here.

  they are movement titles here --GA

• were also used in the Actus tragicus funeral music: I would clarify that this is a Bach composition, and perhaps give a date for context.

  Bach clarified, but the date is not certain, 1708 could be - listen if you don't know it, the recorders come right at the beginning, Sonatina --GA

• based on words from the Song of Songs.: might be a nice touch to quote these in a footnote?

  I would not know exactly from where - it's more the attitude of love here and there --GA

  If we can't point to specific words, "based on words from..." is a bit too strong: "inspired by" or similar? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  let's see: the source says "(an allusion to the Song of Songs)" - we can't say the same, so perhaps "inspired" is good.

  Song of Songs

  3

  1 By night on my bed I sought him whom my soul loveth; I sought him, but I found him not.

  2 I will rise now, and go about the city, in the streets and in the broad ways, I will seek him whom my soul loveth. I sought him, but I found him not.

  5

  8: I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, if ye find my beloved, what will ye tell him? that I am love-sick.

  Aria

  Tell me, tell me quickly, say where I can find Jesus, whom my soul loves!

  What would you say? ... about searching for the beloved, who is described by "whom my soul loveth" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  Let me make sure I understand you correctly: you're proposing based on words from the Song of Songs about searching for the beloved, who is described by as "him whom my soul loveth"? (see minor tweaks there for grammar). I think the idea here is sound but I might be tempted to stretch it out a bit: something like "...her desire to find Jesus. Mary calls Jesus "whom my soul loves", quoting the Song of Songs, in which the same phrase is used of the female speaker's beloved?" In an ideal world, we'd have a secondary source making that point, but it strikes me as one that would surely have attracted comment, given the strongly erotic context of the original text? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  no, I proposed nothing ;) - I propose now to say that the situation and phrasing allude to Song of Songs, 3:1–2. I'd hesitate to say "inspired", because the librettist could probably rely on the audience knowing their Bible enough to understand the allusion.

  I found this discussion, reading with interest (especially the Johannine aspect), but can probably not use it as a reference. About the aria, it says, very similarly to Leisinger: "Mary Magdalene’s aria (no. 9), as a Johannine love song, refers to “Jesus, “Welchen meine Seele liebt!” (whom my soul loves!), which is a reference to the biblical “Song of Songs” (3:1)". Perhaps I can give it as a second, supporting ref? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  I don't see that the Bach Cantatas website would meet WP:HQRS: I did Google around for William (L.) Hoffman, but can find no trace of him outside the website itself. The allusion is discussed in this ebook: the Google Books version isn't paginated, but I found it by searching "Welchen meine Seele liebt Bach Hoheslied" UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you. (Why do you think I said "but can probably not use it as a reference"?) - I found Schulze, which I will try to use for other details. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  I added the Klek source that you found, and used for that one bit. There could be more but not now (close to midnight. I don't know how to handle page numbering, - why is the linked page 2. I'll think about Schulze tomorrow, can't find a year for that, - some of it reads a bit dated, but the BWV numbers are the latest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  Update: i added more from Klek, including the music section. There could be a section on reception (Spitta ...), and should be clarification of the trumpet part thingy (principale): I reads Klek as that the a part for a third trumpet was in the 1738 score, but the only part for it (for the player) dates to 1749. Which sounds reasonable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

  I now added more from Klek (see above), including that trumpet part. Schulze supports the Song of Song connection. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• the bass (John) summarises joy that Jesus lives again: not the right word: expresses?

  taken --GA

• added a new principale part in 1749: what's one of those?

  part is is the sheet for players, only what they have to play, principal means the principal trumpet, added --GA

• A few sources throwing Harvard errors as uncited: the two Bach digital sources and Funk 2025.

  used now --GA

• What's the thinking behind Rathey in the Further Reading? My usual view on FAs is that if there's something in that work that you can't get from the article, it should be brought into the article (and so the work moved to the bibliography): if there isn't anything in it you can't learn from our article, then why are we asking our readers to go read it afterwards?

  That was in the article since 2018, and I can't read it. I have read other things by the author and found them useful. --GA

  I found it (or something else by the same) and used it as ref. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for good questions! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Second read below:

• Bach composed a congratulatory cantata, Entfliehet, verschwindet, entweichet, ihr Sorgen, BWV 249a, known as the Shepherd Cantata: given all the commas in the title, I would bracket off titles like this with endashes -- so Bach composed a congratulatory cantata – Entfliehet, verschwindet, entweichet, ihr Sorgen, BWV 249a – known as the Shepherd Cantata

  I tried it differently, thinking that in the first approach, we don't need that precise German title which would cry for a translation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• reconnecting to the court where the music director had just died on 6 February 1725: I'm not quite sure what this means: suggest it might be better as an independent sentence, but it definitely needs a rephrase for clarity.

  dropping it for the moment, - the source hints at Bach wanting to bring his name into play at that court, potentially as successor, but this would be more important for the bio and the other cantata than this piece of music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• It seems likely that Bach planned from the start to use most of the music also for an Easter cantata: another slightly Germanic idiom with also in that position: to re-use most of the music for an Easter cantata?

  teach me English: to me "re-use" sounds as if first came one, than the other, but the thought expressed is that Bach planned both together, the secular work almost a by-product of the Easter work, earlier performed just because of the calendar? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• two shepherds and two shepherdesses named after Greek mythology: we seem to be missing characters in Greek mythology or similar.

  fine, why not --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Tafel-Music.: is this a title? Seems odd to have the German Tafel and not Musik.

  this is the exact title in the collection, - German spelling was different, including less standardised, 300 years ago --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• The work can be seen as an Easter play, following a custom of "scenic representation of the Easter story".: quotes need attribution inline.

  the quote is from Dürr, - it's only quoted to be not accused of copyvio ;) - I moved the two other refs to earlier in the sentence, and left only Dürr for the quote, how is that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• The librettist could base his work on a Harmonie aller Evangelien: lang tags missing here: I haven't systematically checked for others.

  you probably read that before I added it earlier today --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• MOS:': Jesus's.

  complied --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• I wonder if it would help to put an explanatory footnote on the first use of "BWV X" to explain what that system means?

  added, with pleasure (BWV is linked from the infobox, but we shouldn't link from a bold item) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

More to come. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith (support)

I'll take a shot at this. I more or less meet UndercoverClassicist's description of "a reader without a good knowledge of musical terminology or of Baroque instrumentation". I know a little about music, but I'm far from an expert and totally clueless about Baroque.

Thank you for reviewing! --GA

• Wikilink to Liturgical year

  done --GA

• He wrote the St John Passion, an extended dramatic Passion, for Good Friday 1724.[5] I'd leave out "an extended dramatic Passion" to avoid the repetition. Or maybe "He wrote the extended dramatic St John Passion for Good Friday 1724"?

  I'd like to point out that the Passion was an extended piece and a dramatic piece, both in contrary to the cantatas. A Passion is a special kind of oratorio, so I wonder if we could say "an extended dramatic oratorio"? --GA

  How about "He wrote the St John Passion for Good Friday 1724; unlike the cantatas, this was a dramatic piece, and of extended length"?

  I tried something similar, - "piece" seems a bit too little ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Bach continued to write new cantatas, now composing chorale cantatas again, I'd avoid the repetition with something like "Bach continued to compose new chorale cantatas ..."

  Well, yes, but the chorale cantatas are so exceptional that it would sound too harmless, rephrased differently --GA

• a format that he kept until Palm Sunday of 1725, when Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1, was first performed on Palm Sunday.[6] Likewise, I'd leave off the trailing "on Palm Sunday".

  good catch, that was unintended --GA

• It was followed by the second version of the St John Passion performed on Good Friday.[1][7] In addition to being clueless about Baroque music, I'm clueless about Catholic holidays, so I was confused about Good Friday coming after Palm Sunday. I had to go look up Palm Sunday to discover that it's the week before Easter Sunday. Would it work to say "... was first performed on Palm Sunday (a week before Easter). It was followed by ... five days later, on Good Friday"?

  I would be possible, but most readers who get this far into the article, will know - Holy Week being the highest holidays in all Christianity. (Bach was Lutheran, btw.) There are links, and with the link to Liturgical year, there's now one more ;) --GA

• It seems likely that Bach planned from the start ... whose opinion is this? I'm assuming that's from one of the sources, so "Leisinger/Frindle/Veen considered it likely that ..."

  I haven't read any source that did not think so. Not all of them would agree that Picander was the librettist, but nobody had doubts about the plan to use the music for both occasions. I just try to not add more than 3 refs to one fact. --GA

• composing only new recitatives Give the reader a hint, "composing only new recitatives (spoken sections) ..."

  I'd hesitate. (It's not spoken but sung.) recitative and aria are very common in classical music, - perhaps compare some FA about Bach works. --GA

• It seems likely that Picander, again, attribute that opinion to whoever said it.

  I thought that it becomes clear by what follows: it must have been someone who knew both the other text and the music very well, and there are not many candidates. - Today however, two new sources didn't think it was him, one thinking that Bach did it himself. I'll think about it. (The same situation, btw, is in the very famous Christmas Oratorio, - practically everybody thinks that he wrote its text but he didn't publish it.) --GA

• arias of four Biblical character characters (plural)? I was also going to say that Biblical should be lower case, but hunting around I see that it's sometimes considered correct to capitalize it, so whatever.

  typo, thank you for the catch, - you are welcome to make obvious fixes yourself! --GA

• Simon (tenor) (and likewise for the others) WP:SEAOFBLUE

  the brackets are not blue - what would you suggest? --GA

  It takes a careful reading (and younger eyes than mine) to notice that the brackets are a different color. I've played with this a bit and can't come up with anything that really works better. Maybe one of the other reviewers might have some ideas?

  the others so far had no problem - we could delink tenor and bass (linked in the lead and in Music) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• The cantata, different from the secular model, is now opened by ... I'm not sure what you mean by "now". Are you referring to modern performances in contrast to how it would have been performed in the 18th century?

  I added that "now" only today, but will drop it if it causes misunderstanding. Perhaps "in contrast" is clear enough about that - while the major five movements have the same music in both cantatas - the unusual opening by two contrasting movements is only there in the Easter cantata. --GA

• Bach performed it with the Thomanerchor, with boys singing the women's roles,[11] twice, in the morning service ... this seems kind of complicated. I suggest breaking it up: "Bach performed it with the Thomanerchor, with boys singing the women's roles.[11] They gave two performances; one in the morning service ..."

  taken, thank you --GA

• The Bach scholar Markus Rathey I think people can assume his area of scholarship is Bach.

  I'll try that. I tend to describe a bit when people don't have an article. --GA

• For Easter Sunday 1738, 6 April 1738 don't repeat the year.

  yes --GA

• the assignment of a flauto traverso I'd add "(transverse flute")

  it was only that until I noticed that it doesn't mean the same thing, flauto traverso being specifically Baroque, the other any flute blown sideways --GA

• He made several changes; Ulrich Leisinger, who prepared a critical edition for the publisher Carus, mentioned four of them in his preface, the insertion of a measure in the first movement, the assignment of a flauto traverso as the solo instrument in the second movement, in the alto aria a different underlay of the text in the middle section and five additional measures at the end for better proportion, and the assignment of an oboe d'amore as the obbligato instrument in this aria.[1][33] This is an overly-complex sentence and should be broken up.

  I'll try a list then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

(I'll pick up with "Movements" next time)

• My major concern about the Movements section is that it's broken up into a large number of small subsections, which in turn have lots of short paragraphs (some just a single sentence). I think this would work better if you got rid of the level-4 headings and turned it into running prose, mostly one (substantially longer) paragraph for each movement.

  I am not sure I understand because the level-4-headers are for the movements. I could, of course, throw everything under one of those headers into one paragraph, but tried to visually brake when one para deals with the secular cantata but another with the Easter work, or 1 and 2 are handled together because they belong together but then comes info about only 1, then only 2, then again common. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  I tried an example in my sandbox.

  Thank you for trying but for me, the level-4-headers are almost a must to get oriented. (I like for example that visibly the recitative sections are shorter, providing weight at a glance.) The headers relate to the links in the table, and are consistent with most other GA cantata articles and all other FA cantata articles. Compare BWV 1. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• You use a few different styles for translating phrases. Early on you have the German in italics followed by the English inside parentheses and qoutes, i.e. Kommt, fliehet und eilet ("Come, flee and hurry"). Later on I see both in roman and quoted "Kommt, eilet und laufet" ("Come, hasten and run") and both in roman and just the German quoted "Entfliehet, verschwindet, entweichet, ihr Sorgen" (Flee, dissolve, fade away, you cares). Looking at the source, I don't see any difference in the markup, and I'm at a loss to explain why different examples render differently, but this should be tracked down.
  • Oh, I see. The three versions are:
  • {{lang|de|Kommt, fliehet und eilet}} ("Come, flee and hurry")
  • "{{langr|de|Kommt, eilet und laufet}}" ("Come, hasten and run"))
  • "{{langr|de|Entfliehet, verschwindet, entweichet, ihr Sorgen}}" (Flee, dissolve, fade away, you cares))

  The roman vs italic is the use of {{lang}} vs {{langr}} and the quotes are right there in the markup. Pick one style and stick with it.

  sorry, no: we have to distinguish two things, titles and text. I don't have German phrases italic, or half the article would be italic, but titles: yes italic (lang). Their translations, however, are no titles, therefore not italic and sentence case. Reviewer UC talked me into giving the translations quotation marks (see that review). Text, however, is just in quotation marks (langr), and its translations just in brackets. It may seem confusing that the same words are sometimes a title, and at other times the beginning of text. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• and its character as a musical drama The word "character" has (at least) two different meanings. In most places in the article, you're using it in the sense of "a biblical character", but in this place you're using it as "style", which I think it a little confusing, so perhaps find a different word here.

  would you know one? - "style" is not it, and English not my first language - I rephrased it. --GA

  Consulting the keeper of all English knowledge, maybe " distinctive nature" or "expressive quality"?

  thanks for searching, but they read more like explanations, - not quite to the point here. I rephrased it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Are "manuscript" and "autograph" synonyms? You use them both and it's not clear if there's a distinction being drawn.

  they are not, manuscript is anything written by hand, and autograph (manuscript) is an author's manuscript - I used "manuscript" in the sentence "when he wrote a new manuscript copy" when it's clear that the author wrote, and about the manuscript parts for which it's not clear who wrote them, - usually scribes would perform that job. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• historically informed performances are shown with a green background This causes accessibility problems, per MOS:COLOR.

  without mentioning it, they are also distinguished by the words "Period" and "OVPP". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

OK, that does it for me. For the most part, this is very nice and made for an enjoyable read for somebody (i.e. me) with very little famiarity of the subject. Most of the above are minor issues. The biggest thing in my mind is the layout of the Movements section. RoySmith (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for diligent reading and good questions! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• The trumpets play a broken chord, you wikilink chord, but it would be better to link broken chord. Unfortunately, that just redirects to Chord (music) which doesn't actually say anything about broken chords. Arpeggio talks about broken chords but only to the extent of saying that arpeggios are one type. So this could all use some clarification. Perhaps add a short explanation in-line of what you mean by "broken chord"? Does it mean arpeggio here, or something else? Or at least, add something to Chord (music) which explains what a broken chord is (I can't think of anybody more qualified to do that) and then link broken chord directly to that section.

Finally, I return, Roy. I am not sure. It's not an arpeggio, when the notes of a chord are not played at the exactly same time, which is possible on a piano, but in fast succession, like on a harp, but still sounding together. Here, the notes of a major chord form the melody one after the other, like steps or jumps, and I don't know how to say that. I actually thought that it is a familiar phrase. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure it's a familiar phrase to music experts, but WP:TECHNICAL. You're the expert on this stuff; if you can't figure out how to explain it, nobody else will. RoySmith (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I know it in German, but not in English. Aza24, DBAK, could you perhaps look into the wording? It's the final movement (11) and sounds like this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt Any progress here? RoySmith (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Nobody answered. I changed it to just "fanfare". None of the sources is specific, sadly. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry about the slow reply. I think it's quite nicely resolved now. Tbh I am not sure I was listening to the right place – is it the trumpets at the very start of no. 11, "Preis und Dank"? If so I think fanfare works better than something involving chords, but I am happy to discuss further. Best to all, DBaK (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

PS In celebration of this enquiry I got my natural trumpet out to have a look at the Oratorio. I can confirm I'm still a terrible nat player! DBaK (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• I'm still not a fan of how the Movements section is laid out, and I still think there could be more explaining of some music terms (such as "recitatives") per WP:TECHNICAL, but overall this reads well and taught me some things about a topic I previously knew almost nothing about, so I'll support on that basis, and with the expectation that music SMEs will be digging deeper into the those aspects of the article. RoySmith (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Sailing moose

The trumpets are not playing a broken chord. They are playing simultaneously, which is a regular chord.Sailing moose (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

We are talking about the melody formed by the three first notes sung, text: "Preis und Dank", which are played first by the first trumpet). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

OK, I see what you are saying; but if you are going to be this specific about musical ideas, measure numbers would be helpful. Sailing moose (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, the source says that the first measure belongs to the trumpets alone, and when the voices enter (and the instruments repeat), the voices sing a "Devise" (motto) - the text "Preis und Dank" - to music taken from the trumpets. How can we say that without saying exactly the same (because it would by copyvio)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

EFG EFG G___? That bit? DBaK (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Please see above: replaced by "fanfare", and that's all the sources say. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Yep I commented above too! :) DBaK (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Seen now, will reply only here: I looked now at the score, for some original research. Movement 11, p. 54 in the Leisinger pdf source, no measure numbers. I can see that the trumpets are not written in D major (but C major) which is confusing to me ;) - The bass voices sing "Preis und Dank" on the next page, measures 9 to 10, D A F-sharp, three notes of the D major chord downwards. The trumpets have one measure of triplets in preparation in measure 1, but then the same intervals in measures 2 to 3, just with a dotted rhythm. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

750h

Don't have much to say since i was the GA reviewer, but i think the lead has too many paragraphs. MOS:LEADLENGTH recommends 4 or less, but i think 5 is fine. 750h+ 06:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for looking! I moved this in chronology after I couldn't find it. The typical FA doesn't have 4 versions, I guess, which should be distinguished for clarity. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll ping you after more changes, - it already changed a lot since you reviewed for GA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Parsecboy

Chalk me up as another "reader without a good knowledge of musical terminology or of Baroque instrumentation"!

• Should we link less common instruments like oboe d'amore in the lead? (I have a "was in high school band many years ago" level of familiarity with types of instruments, so that and the flauto traverso were new to me). I see they're linked further down in the body, but links in the lead are probably worth repeating.

  We can but some may not know violin, and then we get many links, to instruments all featured in Baroque ensemble. --GA

• Can we work in a direct link to cantata somewhere in the lead? I had to go down a bit of a rabbit hole (from Church cantata (Bach) to Bach cantata before I got to Cantata).

  We could but it would feel like a link to ball when talking about an individual game. Also: cantata has so many meanings that it may confuse rather than enlighten. --GA

• "It seems likely that Picander who wrote the libretto for the Shepherd Cantata also wrote..." - the "who wrote the libretto for the Shepherd Cantata" clause should be offset by commas.

  done --GA

• "Bach had the time to think of larger musical forms in 1732, an official year of mourning with no festive music." - presumably this should be 1733, not 1732? And can we work in a reference to the death of Augustus II the Strong? Readers will probably question why there was a year of mourning.

  1733, thank you. (I shouldn't write from memory). - There seem to be so many things (not mentioned) more relevant to the music than who exactly died eight years after it was written. But if it would help you, we could. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

  I was thinking of something as simple as "an official year of mourning with no festive music, following the death of Augustus II, the Elector of Saxony". I think an obvious question readers could have is "whose death was so important that they couldn't celebrate for a whole year?" It would probably also be a good idea to situate Leipzig in the Electorate of Saxony earlier in the article, which would make clear the connection between the death of Augustus and the year of mourning.

• "In the third recitative, a dialogue of a man and a woman in the secular work, the two women express their burning desire to see Jesus again, "Indessen seufzen wir" (Meanwhile we sigh)," - there are some issues with this sentence, which I think has probably been rewritten one time too many. We're missing a verb in the clause about the secular work, and there's a missing transition to the sacred version in the next clause. It also ends with a comma, not a period.

  Splitting. Sometimes I still write English like German. --GA

  I struggle with this sometimes when I'm translating German sources ;)

• "Dürr's 1971 analysis still showed a critical view,[12] but acknowledged the work as in the tradition of Easter plays." - I assume the footnote should be moved to the end of the sentence? Or do we need an additional reference for the second half of the sentence?

  I don't know. A reference for the critical view seems more important that for something said earlier, with a reference to Dürr. --GA

That's all from me for now. Parsecboy (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for a helpful look! Please check, Parsecboy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Source review

Why do some sources with multiple pages not have page numbers? Leisinger 2003 for example seems to have 104 pages. Some pagenumbers are also linked and others not. Some websites are marked as website and others with an URL in the "website" parameters. What make Musik an sich, Rondo, funk-stiftung, musica-dei-donum.org and Bach Cantatas website a reliable source? Is the Michael Maul de:Michael Maul? Uwe Wolf seems to be a false link. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into it.

• pagenumbers: I try to link Wolff 2002 and Dürr/Jones
• tried to unify websites
• source quality:
  1. Musik an sich: ref only supporting, could be dropped
  2. Rondo: magazine for classical music and jazz, review only used to support existence of recordings and different ways to interpret Bach's change to movement 3
  3. funk-stiftung: private non-profit foundation to support different field including culture, ref only supporting
  4. musica-dei-donum.org a review by an author used often for classical music, ref only supporting, could be dropped
  5. Bach Cantatas: for the longest time Wikipedia's only source for Bach's cantatas, the most detailed information about their recordings. In this article, it's used only for the recordings. In one recent GA review, the reviewer accepted it as cited in other cases. I forgot where exactly, sadly. If we don't want to do that, options are to split the discography off, as for BWV 1, or to support each recording by a supporting source.
• The only page of interest in the Leisinger (Carus edition) is the foreword, pp VI–VII, which are given.
• Michael Maul seems to be the one.
• linked now to Uwe Wolf (musicologist) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

adding: I linked now the listing of the recordings by Muziekweb as support they exist. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Roy Marshall

Nominator(s): AA (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

This article is about the West Indian cricketer Roy Edwin Marshall, who played international cricket for the West Indies in a brief Test career in the early 1950s, but is probably better known for his 19-year association with Hampshire in English county cricket. An attacking opening batsman, he was a member of Hampshire's 1961 County Championship winning team and would captain Hampshire from 1966 to 1970. He made 504 first-class appearances for Hampshire and scored 30,303 runs, a total that only one other has surpassed. A very important figure in the history of Hampshire cricket. Curiously, he was appointed chairman at Somerset in the late 1980s (having moved to the county some years prior), following the fallout of the 'Somerset Revolution' which had seen the departure of Ian Botham and Viv Richards. I have worked extensively on this article over the last few months. It was at peer review for nearly 3 weeks, but had no comments, and I have posted on the Cricket Project page for feedback, and it has had some edits from project members. Hopefully it is now at FA level. Any feedback welcome. Cheers, AA (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Roy_Marshall_of_West_Indies.jpg needs a more expansive FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• • Comment. I have expanded the FUR. Though, this is a tough one! Any suggestions? AA (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

Since the splendid Sarastro1 vanished into semi-retirement I can't think when I last enjoyed a cricket FAC as much as this. I have a few very minor quibbles, none of which affect my support:

• "Whilst still qualifying to play for Hampshire in 1954, Marshall made four first-class appearances" – the meaning is unclear. I read this as meaning not "although he still qualified" but "while he was waiting to qualify", and if the latter is what you mean I suggest you say so.
  • Done. I have (hopefully!) made it a little clearer that he was awaiting his County Championship qualification and the matches he played in were 'friendlies'. Though, I remain a little unsure on my wording here! AA (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• "Come the end of the season" – as a Lancastrian I might well say "come the end of the season..." but it looks a touch colloquial for an encyclopedia article, and perhaps "by" rather than "come" might be more suitable.
  • Done. "By" does read much better than "come", less colloquial. AA (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• "with a team led by the Duke of Norfolk" – this conjures up visions of His portly Grace, padded up, leading the team onto the field, at which the mind boggles. Perhaps "managed by", "directed by" or some such?
  • Done. Now that is some vision! I'm almost surprised he never played, many aristocrats of the day, portly and old, with limited cricketing talents did (much to the hindrance of their teams). I have substituted in "managed by". AA (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• "what Sandiford considered to be the most reliable opening partnership in county cricket" – in its day or of all time?
  • Done Most certainly he means in its day. To that point, Percy Holmes and Herbert Sutcliffe were (and probably still are) the most reliable of all time. Have reflected that Sandiford is talking about at that moment. AA (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• "the three first-class matches that comprised the tour" – in the King's English the tour comprised the three matches, rather than vice versa. Perhaps "constituted"?
  • Done. A far more regal word! AA (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• "As a result, most of the Hampshire batsmen struggled, however, Marshall was the exception" – a stronger stop than a comma needed before "however".
  • Done. AA (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I greatly enjoyed this article, which seems to me to meet all the FA criteria, and I am happy to record my support. I hope we shall see more cricket articles here from AssociateAffiliate. Tim riley talk 12:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks Tim riley for your kind words and feedback :) I'm glad you enjoyed the article, and thank you for the support. I have a few more in the works, so watch this space! AA (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Good. Well, kindly ping me when you go to PR or FAC with any more cricket articles. Tim riley talk 14:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

SC

Comments to follow - SchroCat (talk) 08:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Just a few minor points from me:

• "However, on debut": the 'however' doesn't add anything to the party here and could/should be expunged
  • Done. I have removed "however". AA (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• Why the different approach in "North v South and The Rest versus Surrey"?
  • Done. I guess habit of referring to the North v South matches using their classic naming, whereas matches between The Rest and Surrey were not called "The Rest v Surrey". I was a little conflicted on how to amend that. "The Rest v Surrey" does't sound right, and sounds a little colloquial. So I have amended all to "North versus South" and "The Rest versus Surrey". AA (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• "gaining 26 batting bonus points": it may be worth adding in a footnote to explain both the concept of 'batting points' and the rules under which they would be gained
  • Done... ish? I have briefly explained the concept of "batting points", but I cannot find an exact reference for that explanation which is relevant to 1959 (as batting bonus points have changed throughout the decades, and today's system is very different to that of 1959). I have also explained the rules of bonus batting points in 1959, which is referenced. AA (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I hope these help! - Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 04:05, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments. Please find my responses/actions above. Cheers :) AA (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support Lovely article - very enjoyable. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

  Cheers, glad you enjoyed the article :) AA (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This has been open for over four weeks and been inactive for the better part of two weeks. I have added it to Urgents, but unless it receives several additional in depth reviews and support over the next week or so I am afraid that it is going to time out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Support from UC

Commenting after a request on my Talk page, and as someone without a particularly strong knowledge of cricket.

• Lots of "Marshall"s in the opening paragraph -- in general, I would look to state his name on first mention in the paragraph, then go for "he" unless we shift grammatical subject. I notice that this seems to be the approach adopted from the second paragraph onwards.
  • Done. Have removed all uses of "Marshall" after the first use in both paragraphs. AA (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• 30,303 runs, a total for the county that is only surpassed by Phil Mead.: I would try to make the chronology clearer here -- to say that he ended up with Hampshire's second-highest total, behind Phil Mead, who played in the first third of the C20th (or however you want to do it).
  • Done. How's this read? For Hampshire, he made 504 first-class appearances and scored 30,303 runs, a total for the county that is only surpassed by Phil Mead, who played for Hampshire between 1905 and 1936.
• chairman of the Somerset committee: Somerset Cricket Club? The link is otherwise a bit of an Easter egg: it sounds as if he had some sort of job in local government.
  • Done. Now reads "Somerset County Cricket Club", so he's now not potentially the chairman of the cricket club in Bermuda, or a local councillor! AA (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• he was able to partake in the First Division of the National Men's League: I guess that's the top tier of Barbardian domestic competition? It would be good to spell that out if so (cf. the First Division in English football, which wasn't always the highest level).
  • Done. I have expanded the sentence to reflect this... however, it is unreferenced. Finding a reference which states it is the highest level of club cricket on the island is going to be from a very niche source, or totally non-existent. I've had a thorough look for one in the usual places! AA (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

  Hm: is there no "Bluffer's Guide to Barbardian Cricket", or any kind of cricket encyclopaedia, that sets out how domestic competition works in Barbados? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 05:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  I'll post on the WP:CRIC talkpage and see if anyone has any books lying about! AA (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  I've found the following reference, might be a little vague! [26] AA (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  I think it's explicit enough: The more than century-old First division will now be called the Elite division ... "We have renamed our two top divisions. What was our First division is now the Elite division ... the winner of the First automatically goes up into the Elite division ... The Elite (division) should be the cream of the crop". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 05:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  Sorted :D AA (talk) 08:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• His success as a batsman for Lodge: The Lodge?
  • Done. "The" added! AA (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• He did not appear for Barbados again until 1949, playing in the interim for the elite Wanderers Club. Strong performances in club cricket led to his recall to the Barbadian team in 1949: can do without the repetition here.
  • Done. Second "1949" removed. AA (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• In the second match, he made a second century (110 runs), which was also complemented by a half century: do we know how many he got in the second innings?
  • Done. We do! 57 runs. I have added this in brackets. AA (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• This earned him selection to the West Indian team for their tour of England in 1950, where he was chosen as a third opening batsman behind the Jamaican Allan Rae and the Trinidadian Jeff Stollmeyer; at 20 years of age, he was the youngest member of the sixteen-man squad: suggest a full stop after Stollmeyer, for rythym and readability.
  • Done. AA (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• did not feature in the 2nd Test. He returned to play in the 3rd Test at Adelaide, where a pulled muscle in his leg saw him bat with a runner for over 100 minutes. The injury subsequently kept him out of the 4th and 5th Tests: not convinced about the numerals/capitalisation on "2nd Test" etc -- is this how good sources do it?
  • Comment. It does seem the commonly done thing. ESPNcricinfo and CricketArchive both go down the numbers route, as do most newspapers and other sports media, i.e. Sky Sports. AA (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• against the touring Indians in January 1953: I would rephrase this: "the touring Indians" is a little informal and makes me think of a Native American version of the Harlem Globetrotters.
  • Done. Haha a fair point! Have reworded to now say "...the touring Indian national team". How does that sound? AA (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

  Much better. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Barbados' only innings: MOS:' prefers Barbados's for this and similar.
  • Done. Looks weird, though, right? :D AA (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keith Sandiford opined that had he not decided to quit Test cricket at his peak: this is phrased like it's a contemporary judgement: Sandiford would have been 17 at the time, so I'm not sure we would have paid his opinion too much notice?
  • Done. So I have added before "Writing in 1998, Keith Sandiford opined..." AA (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

More to follow. Looking pretty good so far; these are, on the whole, pretty small nit-picks. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Marshall featured in four 'friendly' first-class matches.: I would lose the scare quotes here: "friendly" has a well-known meaning in sport (that it wasn't considered part of a proper competition), but readers who don't know that aren't going to be helped towards it by a vague bit of punctuation.
  • Done. Have removed the scare quotes. AA (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• He played twice for the Commonwealth XI, with one match apiece for Hampshire and the South,: this sounds as if he played one match for the Commonwealth XI while playing for Hampshire, and the other while playing for the South. I don't think that's right?
  • Comment. Yes, this part really screwed with my head when writing it, and no matter which way I worded it, it still bothered me. How does it read now? I could must simply omit the matches, or shorten it to mention one of the four was for Hampshire against the touring Pakistanis? AA (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

  New framing works well. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 05:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• Marshall completed his qualification period ahead of the 1955 season, making him eligible to play in the 1955 County Championship.: what is/was a qualification period, and how do you complete one?
  • Done. Miss this one! Have explained and referenced it. AA (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• on what was described as a "responsive strip": is it known who gave it that description?
  • Comment. It would appear this is the later description of Sandiford in Roy Edwin Marshall: His Record Innings-by-Innings (2005). Quite knows where he got it from! On the same note, I wonder if I should link "strip" to Cricket pitch... then again, there are several uses of pitch before I could link. And I can't change "strip" as it is a direct quote... hmm! AA (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• Following the 1956 season, Marshall toured Jamaica with a team managed by the Duke of Norfolk.: I might clarify that this was the made-up "Duke of Norfolk's XI", rather than a national or country team.
  • Comment. Is saying "ad hoc" a succient enough way to differentiate? AA (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

  I think that would be a very elegant way of doing it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 05:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• including 273 runs in the three first-class fixtures against Jamaica: on the same note -- were these strictly considered first-class matches?
  • Comment. All three held first-class status, with the DoN's XI containing several Test cricketers, same with the Jamaicans. AA (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• He also played two innings' of note against Surrey: no apostrophe.
  • Done. Have removed. AA (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• These scores were all the more remarkable, considering Hampshire were dismissed for 120 in their first innings and 153 in their second.: I think this section veers slightly onto the wrong side of sportswriting versus encyclopaedia writing: this clause in particular stands out. See also He also played two innings of note and He made a number of eye-catching performances: we don't express opinions in Wikipedia's voice, though we can faithfully report opinions expressed at the time.
  • Comment. I've had a shot at rewording this: "In the 1957 season, he made an attacking century (107 runs) made in 66 minutes against Nottinghamshire in June; this was the fastest century by a Hampshire batsman since 1927. Later in the season against Surrey, he contributed an attacking 56 runs in Hampshire's first innings and 110 runs, made in 111 minutes, in their second. These scores were made as Hampshire were dismissed for 120 in their first innings and 153 in their second." Is this veering toward more encyclopaedic? AA (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

  I think so. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• a tendency to give his wicket away when set: this is firmly in cricketer-ese, and might benefit from a translation.
  • Done. How's this? "a tendency to give his wicket away when well established in his innings." AA (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

  Better, but can we rephrase "give his wicket away" accurately and concisely? Not a crisis if not. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

  Comment. I've rephrashed to read: ...a tendency to be dismissed when well established in his innings." AA (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  I'd probably change that back: it gives the opposite impression (what we had suggested that he would start off well, then do something silly and get out; what we now have suggests that it was rare for him to get out without first scoring some runs). "Be dismissed" probably isn't any clearer, I don't think. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 05:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  Comment. It now reads "Sandiford noted that he was hampered throughout it by having a tendency to be give away his wicket when well established in his innings." Not sure of another way to word it "giving away his wicket" without it becoming too convoluted, i.e. "he had a tendency to give his wicket away through unforced errors when well established in his innings". Bit wordy? AA (talk) 08:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  Could do that: I think both approaches have their appeals and downsides. What we have works, I think. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed. My concern with the latter reword is it sorta strays in OR territory. I can assume he would be dismissed through an unforced error (i.e. trying to smack Jim Laker for 6 when there was no need!), but the source doesn't specifically state that as the reason. For all we know, a pigeon or two could have distracted him :D AA (talk) 08:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• the season ending North versus South and The Rest versus Surrey fixtures.: hyphenate "season-ending", and the two match names ("North-versus-South").
  • Done. All hypenated. AA (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• He was an instrumental part of Hampshire's historic maiden County Championship title in 1961: cut historic; we've already said that it was their first (though I might be tempted to change maiden to say that in plain language; "maiden" is another bit of cricketer-ese that doesn't get that much use outside sport and ships).
  • Done. A fair point! I have removed "historic" and changed "maiden" to "first". AA (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• He would tour South Africa: for simplicity, and because we use a simple past in the next clause, better as he toured.
  • Done. Flows much better! AA (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• he defied the potent bowling of Tom Cartwright and Albert Wright: again, I think we're getting a bit excited with the tone.
  • Done... I hope!. Have removed "potent"... might look deeper into the match to add some context too. AA (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

  More context added by noting the number of wickets the pair took in the match. AA (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• It was announced in October 1965 that Marshall would be succeeding the retiring Colin Ingleby-Mackenzie as Hampshire captain, thus becoming the first professional to hold the post: I don't know if there's space anywhere in the article, probably earlier, to outline the gentlemen/players distinction and so to give readers a sense of what's going on beneath this sentence?
  • Done. I have explained briefly the difference between Gentlemen and Players, and what criteria was required to represent either team: "He took part in the season ending Scarborough Festival, playing in the Gentlemen v Players match; as a paid professional he represented the Players, in contrast to unpaid amatuers who played for the Gentlemen. Later on, I have explained that Hampshire captains were traditionally amatuers, before the abolition of amatuerism in 1962: "Prior to his appointment, the captaincy had traditionally been held by a player with amatuer status. With the abolition of amatuer status by the MCC in 1962, the role of captain would be inherited by a professional.". How do they read? AA (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

  NB spelling: amateur. Blame the French. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Done. Corrected! AA (talk) 08:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• being raised on hard concrete and matting pitches at his father's plantation: MOS:IDIOM: he wasn't raised on them; he learned to play cricket on them.
  • Done. Have reworded to say "... a trait he put down to learning to play on hard concrete and matting pitches at his father's plantation." AA (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• later in his career, particularly when he began to become afflicted with arthritis: I'm surprised we're just learning about this now, not in the section on his career -- particularly as he dropped so starkly in form in his later years. When did this start to happen?
  • Comment. I did wonder where to put this myself. Sandiford specifically mentions that he became afflicted later in his career, though puts no definitive time on when. So was unsure exactly where it would have been prudent to insert that into the relevant section of his career, without it becoming OR. AA (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

  That's a fair one. I think we may have to stick with what we have. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 05:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• to occasionally bowl medium pace and leg break deliveries: hyphenate both compound modifiers.
  • Done. Both done. AA (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• Such was his ability as an off break bowler: hyphen.
  • Done. AA (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 05:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist please find above my responses :) AA (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Such was his ability as an off-break bowler early in his career, that A. A. Thomson: no comma here in English.
  • Done. AA (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• He was considered by Sandiford to have been: neater and simpler as "Sandiford considered him"? This will need a minor tweak to the following clause.
  • Done. Have simplified and tweaked after. AA (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• which contrasted to the manner in which he batted: contrasted with
  • Done. Amended. 21:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• but also noted that his tactical knowledge and insights should have made him a better captain.: noted should be reworked into a verb that doesn't endorse the conclusion, per MOS:SAID, but this whole thing seems a bit convoluted, and it's hard for me to work out what Wisden are actually saying. What's the point here -- that he was pretty rubbish despite being a good tactician? Are they saying that he didn't use his tactical knowledge while captaining?
  • Comment. I think that is what they are alluding to; despite having the skills, he did not put them to use - largely down to his cautious and "negative" captaincy. I've had a go at rewording it as I think it is an important point: "Wisden remarked how his "very keen cricket brain and strong opinions" added to the depth of his captaincy, but also commented how the tactical knowledge and insights that he possessed should have contributed towards him being a more successful captain." What are your thoughts?! AA (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  What did Wisden actually say, here? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 05:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  Wisden says: "He had the tactical knowledge and insights that should have made him a slightly better captain". AA (talk) 08:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  I'd be tempted to express that as words to the effect that his overall performance as a captain did not live up to the high level of tactical knowledge and insight he showed, or that he was a mediocre/poor captain despite his tactical knowledge and insight. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  I've had a little reword, but tried not to stray toward what might be perceived as me offering an opinion: "Wisden remarked how his "very keen cricket brain and strong opinions" added to the depth of his captaincy, but commented that despite the tactical knowledge and insights that he possessed, these did not translate into success during his captaincy". AA (talk) 08:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  The grammar of this isn't quite right: I've had a chew on it and I think the easiest fix is just to stick a comma before despite, assuming that "these" is his keen cricket brain and strong opinions. If we mean that it's his knowledge and insights, we need to do a bigger rephrase -- perhaps "he possessed tactical knowledge and insights, but these..." UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  I've had another reword! Wisden remarked how his "very keen cricket brain and strong opinions" added to the depth of his captaincy, but observed that despite possessing tactical knowledge and insights, these qualities did not ultimately lead to a successful tenure as captain. AA (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• In terms of runs-scored: no hyphen.
  • Done. AA (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• For Hampshire, his 30,303 first-class runs is a total only surpassed by Phil Mead's 48,892.: per MOS:LEAD, we should now give the dates here too.
  • Done. Reworded and dates no inserted to read: "For Hampshire, his 30,303 first-class runs are only surpassed by the 48,892 runs made by Phil Mead, who played for Hampshire between 1905 and 1936." AA (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• Hampshire's Wisden Cricketers of the Year: italics on Wisden?
  • Done. AA (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note 88 (Hill) is local news, which wouldn't normally be a HQRS, and is cited with two others on the name, date and location of Marshall's pub: does it say anything that they don't? I think we can wear it for a trivial detail but should look to remove/upgrade if it adds no value.
  • Comment. Note 88 was used to provide the name of the pub, but I have found a book reference instead! AA (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• ISBNs are formatted inconsistently: use {{subst:format ISBN|9780000000000}} to hyphenate, and give either 10 or 13 digits depending on what's printed on the book (generally, if published before 2007, that's 10, otherwise it's 13).
  • Done. Never knew that template existed, shall use in future! AA (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• Press University of the West Indies is, I think, "University of the West Indies Press".
  • Done. The reference had the wording that way, but no harm having it as "University of the West Indies Press" which seems WP:COMMONNAME. AA (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• Any chance of some more images between the portrait and the pub -- cricket grounds where he played, notable players he played with, etc?
  • Comment. It would be nice! Relevant images and ones that don't stray into pictorial recentism seem few and far between. I had wanted to put a picture of The Lodge School and The Gabba (where he made his Test debut) in the first section, but no picture of his school exists. And there are no photos of the Gabba dating from when it looked very different in 1951 (putting a picture of the modern Gabba seems inappropriate). He formed a notable opening partnership with Jimmy Gray – however, no fair use images of Gray exist. Same with Colin Ingleby-Mackenzie, whom he succeeded as captain. A bit of a photographic black hole I'm afraid :( AA (talk) 21:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

That's my lot on a first pass. In general, where you've replied above and I haven't, I don't think any further action is needed: I'll go through and make sure I've replied where that's not the case. It's a very well-written article and it looks as though you've done a good job of bringing out the story of someone who isn't particularly well documented or widely known. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 05:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Cheers and many thanks for your review, appreciated. I've actioned some more of your comments (and one I forgot). Nice to have expanded an article on arguably one of the lesser-known figures of the game, but one who was an extremely important figure, particularly in county cricket and the history of Hampshire cricket. AA (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments from MS

• Placeholder. MSincccc (talk) 11:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Lead

• Could the short description be modified to West Indian cricketer (1930-1992) as per WP:SDDATES ?
  • Done. Can't see why not! AA (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I've read through the Lead and Later life, death and legacy sections and will review the Cricket section later. MSincccc (talk) 11:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Lead

• County cricket has been linked twice in the lead; it constitutes duplicate linking.
  • Done. Removed the second linking. AA (talk) 08:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• I will conclude the review by this weekend, when I have the proper time. MSincccc (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Cricket

• However, Sandiford noted that he was hampered throughout it by having a tendency to be give away his wicket when well established in his innings. A typo in this sentence. ("to be give away...")
  • Done. Fixed! AA (talk) 08:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• “making him eligible to play in the 1955 County Championship” → just “making him eligible for the County Championship” (avoid repetition)
  • Done. Much more concise. AA (talk) 08:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Due to the qualification rules of the time, that dictated"→"Due to the qualification rules of the time, which required a player to be resident..." ('Which required' is standard non-restrictive relative clause usage in British English).
  • Done. Have reworded. AA (talk) 08:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• whilst against Warwickshire he defied the bowling of Tom Cartwright and Albert Wright who had taken bwtween them 15 wickets in the match A typo in this sentence.
  • Done. Well spotted! AA (talk) 08:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• Prior to his appointment, the captaincy had traditionally been held by a player with amatuer status. amatuer→amateur
  • Done. Fixed! AA (talk) 08:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• With the abolition of amatuer status by the MCC in 1962 amatuer→amateur
  • Done. Fixed! AA (talk) 08:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• Marshall wore thick glasses throughout the entirety of his career. Could the phrase "the entirety of" be dropped from this sentence?
  • Done. Have dropped it, reads much more concisely now. AA (talk) 08:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

That's all from me. MSincccc (talk) 06:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments. Please find above my responses! AA (talk) 08:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I have no further suggestions. Support. MSincccc (talk) 10:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Source review from Eddie - Pass

Reliability

• What makes bcacricket.org a high quality reliable source?

• Comment. The BCA is the Barbados Cricket Association, the governing body for cricket in Barbados. Its status on the island makes it high quality and reliable. AA (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Same with www.utilitabowl.com?

• Comment. www.utilitabowl.com is the sponsorship name for the website of Hampshire County Cricket Club - a direct source from the club (just using a dumb sponsor name) and most of the articles published on there are by Dave Allen, the club's official historian. AA (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• cricketweb.net?

• Comment. Articles are written by Martin Chandler, a cricket historian and member of The Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians. WP:CRIC consider his works reliable. AA (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Also, might be better to use the publisher not the www. name in the citation for these three

• Done. Have changed to publisher, which actually makes more sense! AA (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Formatting

• Inconsistent use of location/linking for sources (ie why does The Independent get both, but not The Times)
  • Done. Fixed, and a good spot! AA (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
    • Why is The Times not linked in FN1 then? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
      • Done. Now linked! AA (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• The title of FN 9 should just be "Roy Marshall", you should handle that it is a part of Wisden some other way

• Done. Now has the publisher as Wisden Cricketers' Almanack and via ESPNcricinfo. AA (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Why do you link e.g. Gale in FN1, but not BNA in FN 26
  • Comment. BNA is linked previously in FN 19. AA (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• FN 81 would have been The Evening News and Post when the article you are citing was published, no?
  • Comment. Evening News according to the BNA. Was known as the The Evening News and Post from 1889 to 1894. AA (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
    • Ah, right- I read our article as "1889 to 1984", not "1889 to 1894" Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
      • Haha now worries :D AA (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• Arlot should have |url-access= registration, and I'm not sure it's useful linking the other two to archive.org anymore, as one is unborrowable, and the other link doesn't work for me
  • Done. I have fixed the link for the first one which didn't work, and have removed it for the one that can't be borrowed. Have added |url-access= registration to Arlott and to Lawrence and Scarlett. AA (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Otherwise, looks good to me on a first pass. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:15, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments :) Please find above my responses! AA (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm satisfied. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Chris Pratt

Nominator(s): 750h+ 13:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

This article is about Chris Pratt—one of the world's most bankable, highest-grossing, and highest-paid film stars. You might know him for playing Star-Lord in the Marvel movies or for playing Owen in the Jurassic World franchise. Off-screen he has an extremely controversial public persona, and he is dubbed the worst Chris among the actors dubbed the "Hollywood Chrises", which in addition to Pratt includes Chris Hemsworth, Chris Pine, and Chris Evans. This one's pretty short, so enjoy the read! 750h+ 13:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Vacant0

Will review this. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• I'd suggest finding replacements for situational sources like you did at Ryan Reynolds. I would, however, keep the HuffPost interview.
• Maybe add a location for Allan (2015).
  • not required i don't think
• Early life and education prose looks good. I'll read through the rest later.
• Pratt portrayed Barry → Pratt then portrayed Barry
• Anna Faris is wikilinked multiple times.
• 2000–2013: Early roles and breakthrough reads well to me.
• Pratt initially declined the role of Peter Quill can be cut to Pratt initially declined the role of Quill
  • i changed it to Star-Lord since that's how he's referred to in most of the article
• leave an Earth to leave the Earth maybe, I'm unsure?
  • i don't think so the sentence sounds wrong
• Maybe mention the cost of Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom?
• 2014–2018: Worldwide recognition and blockbuster films also reads well!
• Grant Cutler, played by him → Grant Cutler, played by Pratt
• Andy Dwyer is wikilinked multiple times.
• The Tomorrow War received... → The film received...
• 2019–present: Continued success and versatility also looks good.
• Acting style and public image looks good.
• Jews for Jesus is wikilinked multiple times.
  • the two sections it's linked in are pretty far away
• Director James Gunn, known for Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) links to Guardians of the Galaxy. This should be fixed.
• Personal life, Philanthropy, and Acting credits and awards look good.

Overall, I've re-read paragraphs several times to see if anything major would pop out to me, but it didn't, so good job on that. That's it from me. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Vacant0: what do you think? there is still a SR source but that is in a quote describing his acting style 750h+ 11:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@Vacant0: ? 750h+ 09:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to take a look at our other recent actor FAs and then compare it with this one, to see if anything is missing or if the prose style is similar. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

@Vacant0: ?? 750h+ 05:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll respond tomorrow. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Support on prose. I've had a look at our other actor FAs and the prose style seems to be very similar, therefore I won't have more objections than those that have been already addressed above. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Chris Pratt (43672959202) (cropped).jpg-This image does not have alt text.
• File:Chris Pratt by Gage Skidmore.jpg-What is the relevance of this image under the Acting style and public image section? We already have multiple similar images of his in the article.

MSincccc (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• File:Chris_Pratt_2009.jpg might have a potential image quality issue, given its blurriness.

• File:Signature_of_Chris_Pratt.svg-Source link is dead. MSincccc (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  I have no further suggestions regarding the images, 750h+. I look forward to your response (it has been over a week). No rush, of course. Kind regards. MSincccc (talk) 09:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  @MSincccc: oops sorry.

  • i have added alt text to File:Chris Pratt (43672959202) (cropped).jpg
  • Acting articles usually have a picture of the actor at a public event under the acting style/reception/public image section
  • File:Chris_Pratt_2009.jpg i'm confused what you mean by "potential quality image issue", but it is properly licensed, being transferred from Flickr
  • Fixed the signature source link

  750h+ 09:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

  File:Chris_Pratt_2009.jpg – The licensing of the image is satisfactory as it stands. The "potential image quality issues" relate to blurriness. If you are able to replace it with a clearer version, please do. MSincccc (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

  @MSincccc: all of the images around this time are of similar of worse quality. 750h+ 01:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

  I had approached Nikkimaria regarding this. They feel that, since there are several higher-quality images of the subject elsewhere in the article, you could drop this one, even though it is not forbidden to use it in the article. MSincccc (talk) 08:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

  okay 750h+ 05:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

  @MSincccc: done 750h+ 12:09, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This has been open for nearly four weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• • "Yet to pick up"? The first reviewer ends by saying he supports. In any case, after cleaning up some parts that I found lacking, I'm willing to give a Support too. igordebraga ≠ 22:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

EG

Hope to get to this soon. (That is, if I don't get sidetracked by more Broadway shows and real life.) – Epicgenius (talk) 14:27, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: any updates? no rush of course 750h+ 12:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I may leave some comments soon, but I got sidetracked by real-life matters. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

no problem and no rush! feel free whenever you're ready 750h+ 13:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

My apologies, I forgot to mention that I will be out of town for Memorial Day and won't be able to come back to this until Tuesday at the earliest. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

no problem! 750h+ 05:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• I have nothing at all up to the end of "2000–2013: Early roles and breakthrough". Back for more later....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Previously known primarily for supporting roles, 2014 marked...." - 2014 wasn't known for supporting roles.....
• "cast as Owen Grady in the science fiction film Jurassic World (2015)" - might be worth being explicit that JW is a sequel to JP and not just a film with a coincidentally similar title
• "The fourth installment of the Jurassic Park film franchise, the film was" - ah, there it is :-) Move this earlier as per the above
• " the 1960 Western of the same name, in which he starred alongside Denzel Washington" - this makes it sound like he and Denzel appeared in the 1960 version
• That's got me up to the end of "2019–present: Continued success and versatility" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• "the group of Hollywood actors commonly known as the "Hollywood Chrises"—Evans, Hemsworth, and Pine" => "the group of Hollywood actors commonly known as the "Hollywood Chrises"—Evans, Hemsworth, Pine, and himself"
• "Faris gave birth to their son who was born nine weeks premature, weighing just 3 pounds 12 ounces (1.7 kg)." - when?
• "The couple welcomed their first daughter, followed by their second daughter and a son" - when?
• That's what I got to the end :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: all done thanks for the suggestions 750h+ 10:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Medxvo

• "One of the world's highest-paid actors from 2015 to 2017, Time named him" - seems grammatically incorrect, perhaps it can be rephrased a bit?
• "Zero Dark Thirty (2012) and the romantic comedy" - you can add a serial comma for consistency
• "In March 2020 ... In May 2021 ... In June 2021" - can we adjust this part to avoid repetitiveness?
• "and "Two Birds Holding Hands" before releasing" - a comma is probably missing after the song's title
• "he played the lead role of Dan Forester" - I think it's better to indicate "Pratt" instead of "he", since the preceding sentence wasn't solely about him
• "was ranked nineteenth-highest-paid actor" - "the" is probably missing before "nineteenth"?
• "TV Guide described his public persona" - should we attribute this to its author for consistency in attributing journalists in the section?
• "affirming ... and criticized" - "and criticizing"?
• "March of Dimes which" / "Feed Thy Neighbor to which" - a comma is probably missing before "which" / "to which"
• I suggest merging the duplicate refs (27/146), (47/159), (72/115)

I think that's all, great work on the article! Medxvo (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Medxvo: done! thanks for the review 750h+ 14:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Support. I have an open FAC, if you'd like to take a look. Medxvo (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

yeah sure i’ll take a look in a few hours. 750h+ 23:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Source review

• Article titles should be in a consistent case (sentence or title) regardless of how they appear in their original as per MOS:CONFORM.
• It seems you've decided to link publishers on every instance but that doesn't seem to be the case with e.g. ref. 22, 100.
• Be consistent with all-capping Uproxx.
• I'm not a fan of reference within reference in #107. I'm sure it can be arranged more elegantly.
• There's an unnecessary ] in #148.
• Articles from Newsweek are not reliable since 2013, as per WP:NEWSWEEK. FrB.TG (talk) 08:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Mean (song)

Nominator(s): Medxvo (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

This article is about a self-written track by Taylor Swift from her album Speak Now (2010). Although inspired by a particular critical review, the track addresses all of Swift's detractors who questioned her vocal ability in 2009 and 2010. Several music journalists considered it the most country-sounding track in her discography and one of the best country songs of all time.

Thanks to CatchMe for the great GAN review. Any comments from all editors are very much appreciated. Medxvo (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

NegativeMP1

By far one of my favorites from her discography. I'll take a look soon. λ NegativeMP1 13:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

To be fully transparent, I delayed this review so that what other reviewers were bringing up–which seemed to be fairly significant issues at first, would have a chance to get their word in before I left my own comments. Let alone a support or an oppose. I'll wait a bit longer since there's still a bit more that seems unresolved but I should hopefully still get the review done soon. λ NegativeMP1 00:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi NegativeMP1, just checking to see if you will be doing a review. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I forgot that I volunteered to review this, sorry. I'll try to take a look today. λ NegativeMP1 15:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I really can't find anything wrong with the article. I believe that everything I would have pointed out got caught by the other reviewers that were doing their own thing while I stepped back. I really do apologize for taking nearly a month to actually give a stance here and not end up providing any feedback at all in the end, but I support. λ NegativeMP1 23:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment

Medxvo, I appreciate your efforts on T.Swift articles thus far! However I seriously think this article might need some more work before FAC. Some immediate issues I see include failed verification of a very significant claim: Swift said that the particular inspiration came from a critical review by Bob Lefsetz, who chastised her following her performance at the 2010 Grammy Awards. Swift did not mention the said critic by name in the 60 Minutes interview, and the Rolling Stone source said: "She’s never fully admitted it". Also, I am unsure if this article has been thoroughly researched, in regards to academic/scholarly analyses and not just webzine/newspaper sources. There are very useful sources like Zaleski 2024, Klimchynskaya & Tontiplaphol 2024, or academic papers/book chapters (that can be accessed to via the Wikipedia Library Platform) like this, this, this, this or this that have not been explored to add to the prose. I would suggest exploring all available sources possible to ensure that this article meets criterion 1c. Ippantekina (talk) 03:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@Ippantekina: Quoting the interview ref: "One nasty review said she had killed her career overnight, and was 'too young and dumb to understand the mistake she'd made.' (Taylor Swift: The things that were said about me by this dude, just floored me and like leveled me. [...]) But then Taylor did her thing, and turned the wound into a song, the hit single 'Mean'." Not sure how that fails verification. The Rolling Stone source was added there to confirm that Mr. Lefsetz was the one who said those statements. I'm uncertain if some of the provided sources contain significant information that isn't already available in the article. Unless I'm mistaken, all of Zaleski's statements can be found in the article (excluding her excessive Lefsetz trivia). And, to my understanding, the Klimchynskaya & Tontiplaphol book critiques the "gendered judgements" of some of Speak Now reviewers (e.g. Ritchie and Keefe that are present in the article) in the context of the song "Mean", and I'm uncertain if that's worth adding or even related to the song itself. Also not sure if the Smialek and Ledbetter articles have anything particularly useful, unless I'm missing something, of course. ("Mean" being the first song where she sings about her career doesn't add anything significant to me). The remaining three sources are certainly useful and I've incorporated them in the article. Prior to this FAC, I only checked the Swift-related books, so I appreciate the sources and the reminder to check the Wikipedia Library. I've checked again and tried to search for other sources via TWL but didn't really come across anything helpful besides these sources, and it's particularly challenging to search through random books when the song title is just "mean". I'll keep searching, and I'm definitely open to more useful sources and more elaboration from you. Medxvo (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Re. the Lefsetz reference, that is a very much case of WP:SYNTH because in both sources, Swift never confirmed that he was the target of this song, and she only said "this dude". Retrospective commentary from the Klimchynskaya & Tontiplaphol book could add value to the "Critical reception" section (could be how initial reviews have been cross-examined retrospectively, for example). Ippantekina (talk) 04:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Ippantekina: "This dude" explicitly refers to Lefsetz since he was the one who wrote the "nasty review". I've replaced the Roling Stone source with another source that I hope supports this more effectively. The Klimchynskaya & Tontiplaphol book would've been great had they focused on the initial reviews of "Mean", instead of Speak Now as a whole. I'm not sure if it's relevant here but I'll take another look and see if it can be added. Medxvo (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately the People source said, "Swift’s song “Mean” is rumored to be about critic Bob Lefsetz." Your claim (""This dude" explicitly refers to Lefsetz since he was the one who wrote the "nasty review"") is subjective that is nowhere found in the 60 Minutes interview. Besides how do we know that Lefsetz was the only one that wrote a negative review of Swift's performance? Presenting something treated as a rumor in Wikipedia voice is not it... especially when Swift never confirmed it. Ippantekina (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Ippantekina: People also wrote, "Swift said, referring to Lefsetz", when they were talking about the 60 Minutes interview. Re. "Besides how do we know that Lefsetz was the only one that wrote a negative review of Swift's performance?", the interview ref said "One nasty review said she had killed her career overnight, and was 'too young and dumb to understand the mistake she'd made'". These are Mr. Lefsetz's statements and they put them in quotation marks. Medxvo (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced and I think this should require a bigger RfC to have a third-party opinion. But from what I see, nowhere in the 60 Minutes interview is Lefletz's name mentioned... Ippantekina (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Also re. the print/journal sources, thanks for your swift action (pun intended) incorporating them. But I hope it also should point to a larger concern... that is an extensive survey of the existing literature should have been done prior to the FAC. I'm not sure if it has been done thoroughly now, but I'll take a look at the prose soon. Ippantekina (talk) 05:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Ippantekina: Thanks, I'll be waiting for your thoughts. Medxvo (talk) 09:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I hope this adds more context and doesn't come across as an "other stuff" argument, but I myself am a Swift-focused editor, and you and I, as with (I assume) a lot of editors who listen to pop music frequently, know that her songs almost always have a subject behind them. I would only include it in Wikipedia voice and present it as a fact when Swift has confirmed the subjects herself (i.e. "Hey Stephen", "Forever & Always"). In most other cases, it's always best to leave out the speculations/rumors... unless there have been widespread commentary regarding the possible subject (for example the article for "Dear John" does not present in Wikipedia voice that it is about John Mayer, although it must have been 99% the case.. or "All Too Well" is about Jake G., or "My Tears Ricochet" is about Scooter Braun/BMR, and the list goes on...). In the case of "Mean", I reckon one way to do it is, to present a background information (Swift was chastised by critics at the Grammys), an interview (Swift mentioned "this guy"), and the surrounding commentary (several journalists have speculated that Lefsetz is the target), although I am still not the best fan of this approach, it should be much more objective than presenting it straight-up as a fact. Ippantekina (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

@Ippantekina: Thanks for elaborating. If you're also interested in more context, my inclusion of the song's inspiration wasn't based on any journalistic speculations, and I generally have no interest in speculations regarding song subjects. It was mainly based on the 60 Minutes interview source, which directly mentions Lefsetz's statements followed by Swift stating "this dude". I don't think it would make sense to discuss the Grammys performance and the comments of "this guy" without mentioning Lefsetz. He was the one who said those specific comments that were mentioned and quoted in that specific interview. I personally see no speculations here but I understand your point and I've removed that paragraph now since the "music and lyrics" section already covers similar themes. Would you like to take another look? Medxvo (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: Greetings to you all. Would you like to share your thoughts as third opinions on the above discussion or does it require a noticeboard discussion? I don't really want to waste anyone's time and I would highly appreciate the feedback. Medxvo (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Not a FAC coordinator, but it seems like the questioned sentence about Lefsetz has been removed. Regarding academic literature ... I see the problem: The name of the song is so generic that you get over 13000 hits, most of which irrelevant, if you search for it, even when also requiring "Taylor Swift". Are there any search engines or databases about sources specifically on music-related academic publications? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Jo-Jo for replying. I'm not sure if there's a search engine for academic publications, I'm only aware of this search engine for sources listed at WP:MUSICRS. Medxvo (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Google Scholar has a few bad sources in it but is otherwise pretty good. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I've been searching throughout the day but couldn't really locate any useful sources for the song on Google Scholar... I would appreciate any sources that I may have overlooked. Medxvo (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments from TPH

• Could "Background" and "Production and release" be combined? Both are very short. I also feel that listing out the musicians in this part is redundant to the "personnel" section closer to the bottom, and would be better if only the latter were included.
  • Agreed, combined the two sections under the title "production and release" since the writing process is inherently part of production anyways. But most of the recently promoted song FAs incorporate the credits in the article prose, mainly to avoid giving undue weight to specific contributors (such as including writers and producers only and excluding other contributors), and also to provide readers with a brief preview of the recording process and instruments utilized. Medxvo (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• Even if both of the above were combined, I feel the article is still rather lacking on the song's conceptualization.
  • Could you elaborate please? Do you have specific suggestions on how to improve this part? Medxvo (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what's missing, but it just feels short relative to other FA-class song articles. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:51, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  TenPoundHammer, I think I understand your point now. I added more info related to the album that could be beneficial for this article, please let me know what you think. Medxvo (talk) 10:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, that looks a little more fleshed out now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• I'm not a fan of the "some critics" being relegated to footnotes. Why not include their opinions within the body? I've never seen this "attributed to" used so many times as a footnote in any other article. It feels ungainly.
  • It's just because they share similar statements, and sometimes they don't say much beyond "catchy" or "has great narrative". I was also encouraged to combine similar opinions at my previous FAC. But I realize that many consecutive footnotes may seem awkward so I've added more opinions, please let me know if it looks any better. Medxvo (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• "Music and lyrics" should include what key the song is in, which should be verifiable by any official sheet music. I use musicnotes.com for this.
  • Some editors had issues with musicnotes.com on previous FACs. I think the most recent one was this FAC. I concur that this would be beneficial, but I haven't seen any recent FA that incorporated musicnotes.com or other similar sources. Medxvo (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  Then how else can the key of the song be confirmed? I would think that's a basic fact. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:51, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  I think we would need official sheet music that verifies this is how the song was originally written. But those published on musicnotes.com and other similar websites are mainly written by music experts and can differ from website to website. Most of the recently promoted FAs don't include sheet music info anymore, though I agree this info would be helpful.. Medxvo (talk) 10:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  Could the sheet music be cited with a {{cite book}} without directly linking to musicnotes.com? And an attribution of "According to the sheet music published by X, the song is in the key of whatever and has a tempo of about X beats per minute." Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  @TenPoundHammer: Thank you for the suggestion, I hope I did this correctly. Medxvo (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: Thanks a lot for the comments. I've responded to your concerns above and am open to suggestions if anything remains unsatisfactory. Medxvo (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I think every issue I brought up has been addressed, so I support. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Vestrian24Bio

@Medxvo:

• According to Link-dispenser,
  • 2 refs need an archive link.
    • Archived. Medxvo (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• There are 3 instances of duplicated citations; Refs 58&140, 63&139, 70&145.
  • These charts are generated through the chart template, and they are duplicated because of the two versions/two tables. Not sure how to fix that.. Medxvo (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Medxvo: It can be fixed using the |refname= parameter; see template documentation for instructions on how to. Vestrian24Bio 10:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Vestrian24Bio: Thank you, I believe I've fixed this. Medxvo (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• Isn't there any news coverage for NBC's 2010 Thanksgiving television special performance... Same for 46th Academy of Country Music Awards performance and Speak Now World Tour – Live as well.
  • Added news coverage (and more useful info). Medxvo (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Mention "eponymous" album.
  • Could you elaborate please? Medxvo (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry, wrong page. Vestrian24Bio 10:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• There are links equal to wikitext in the page.
  • Should be fixed. Medxvo (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• DUPELINKS check;
  • Banjo guitar is linked twice in the article.
  • Mastering (audio) is linked twice in the article.
  • Country pop is linked twice in the article.
    • Should be fixed. Medxvo (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Media usage: All three files have proper copyright tags, captions and alt text.

Vestrian24Bio 14:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Vestrian24Bio: Thank you for the review! I believe I've addressed your concerns. Medxvo (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

All good then, support. Vestrian24Bio 16:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Image and source (form) review

I see that someone above is already checking some sourcing; will comment on that separately. Out of curiosity, File:Taylor Swift - Mean.ogg why was this particular part selected for sampling? ALT text and image placements are fine. What makes Roughstock a reliable source? CMT is linked inconsistently to different webpages. Otherwise, it looks like the source formatting is consistent and we are using major magazines and stuff as sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Jo-Jo Eumerus for the review. The sample features the most upbeat part of the song, which I think highlights the production elements effectively. It also includes the lyrics that are mainly discussed later in the section. I believe it would be beneficial to showcase how these lyrics were incorporated in the song, in addition to the production aspects. Roughstock is listed at WP:MUSICRS as a reliable source for country music-related articles, and their staff page seems to indicate editorial oversight from Matt Bjorke (who wrote the Speak Now review used in this article). I believe I've fixed the CMT inconsistency. Please let me know if anything remains unsatisfactory. Medxvo (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Jo-Jo Eumerus: sorry for the double ping. Just wanted to check if you're satisfied with my responses. Medxvo (talk) 08:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Seems OK (although I'll comment above on a different thing) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

comments from brachy08

Oh hi! Thanks for inviting me to this FAC. Will be dropping as much comments as I can. =D (it's one of my faves on Speak Now)

• male and woman seem a little... inconsistent not gonna lie. I would recommend changing male to man
  • Changed "woman" to "female" since "male"/"female" are more consistently applied in the article. Medxvo (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• addressed.

brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 03:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

also: Another young female (played by King) cannot join a group of girls during lunch because she is wearing a different colored ribbon around her waist and is forced to eat in the school bathroom. Maybe change young female to girl?brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 08:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Done, Brachy0008. Medxvo (talk) 10:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

alr. support brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 13:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Prose review

One immediate issue I see is that the "Personnel" listed is not for this song specifically. All of the musicians listed are credited for the Speak Now album as a whole, at least that's according to the liner notes of the physical copy that I have at hand... Ippantekina (talk) 06:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I believe the same instruments have been used for all of the songs, and additional instruments for some tracks ("Enchanted", "Haunted", "Back to December") were listed separately. Credits for "Mean" can be seen on Swift's YouTube channel here, which are the same on Qobuz and in the liner notes. Medxvo (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Eh... I'm not exactly sure if the booklet for Speak Now indicates that all of those musicians play the same instruments on every single track. This is OR but I don't think the Hammond B3 or Rhodes are on this song. As this information is not absolutely verified for this particular track, I wouldn't present this information as such...

• Is Swift's YouTube channel seriously not enough to verify the information for this particular track? I wouldn't remove information posted by the artist themselves just because I speculate the instruments weren't actually used. Medxvo (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

The prose seems fine from a glance, but really... I think this needs some more work before it is really ready for FAC. The language/phrasings etc are fine, but I'm not entirely confident that this article has been well-researched (no need to squeeze each and every literature out there, but I believe the points I made previously and below does mean that this article could be expanded using notable sources). I do apologise if I come up as overtly strict, although this article is very close, I think FACs should be reserved for polishing/fine-tuning rather than expansion.

• I know that listing all personnel in prose has been standard practice for Song articles, but since the FAC of "Forever & Always" I've reckoned otherwise.. as this information can be found in the "Personnel" section (whose veracity is a little doubtful as I pointed out)
  • I'd like to keep them to provide general information on which instruments were used in the song and to credit the musicians. This probably needs a WP:WPMU RfC to avoid confusion between editors, but I'd prefer keeping them. Medxvo (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• Perone said something about the Rolling Stone list placement that I think can be an interesting add (he highlighted that the song made it to No. 24 on a list that was created less than 5 years after its release, which is both noteworthy and controversial)
  • The 2014 Rolling Stone ranking was present in the article before I removed it because there is already a 2024 updated ranking. I've restored it and added Perone's commentary. Medxvo (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• There's a good essay from Ann Powers regarding this song that could be used in this article.
  • It is a great essay indeed, although I'm not sure how it would benefit the article. I've tried to incorporate some commentary, but let me know what you think. It wasn't focusing on the song itself and was confusing to me. Medxvo (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• Zaleski wrote about Swift's "overtly saccharine vocal twang" which I think does add value to prose...
  • The "Mean (Taylor's Version)" section states that she used a country twang in the original version, but I've adjusted this part per your suggestion because I agree it was a bit confusing. Medxvo (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Ippantekina (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

@Ippantekina: Thank you for your time, I've responded to your points above. I personally think that the 3200-word, 97,000-byte article is comprehensive enough and meets the FAC criteria as well as the WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC policy. I'm not comfortable enough with adding commentary from every single source I encounter just because it exists, as I try my best to follow the WP:SUMMARY guideline while not overlooking significant details at the same time. I'm unable to see the work that "really" needs to be done outside of FAC or the significant information you think is actually missing from the article, because an "overly saccharine" vocal description and a blog essay about ethics and social behavior do not seem like significant additions or "notable sources" to me. Medxvo (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

@Medxvo: thank you for promptly addressing my comments. The article looks fine, but I'm still doubtful about the personnel listed, as the CD booklet and web sources seem to all point towards Swift's entire band during the Speak Now era, which doesn't mean that it is necessarily true all of them played the same instruments for every single track. That said, I'm not opposing this candidature, but also not supporting it either... Do consider my vote an abstention and I hope my comments have been helpful, though they might appear nitpick-y at times. Ippantekina (talk) 03:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@Ippantekina: After taking a deeper look, the audio for "Ours" on Swift's YouTube channel isn't listing the song's credits for some reason, although it has some exclusive instruments explicitly stated in the liner notes. They're also not listing the orchestra for "Back to December". I believe I've made the necessary adjustments now. Thanks Ippantekina again for your time, I appreciate it. Medxvo (talk) 10:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• Hi Ippantekina, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination on prose? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  Hi @Gog the Mild:, consider my vote an abstention. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 02:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

750h

putting myself down for a review. expect comments hopefully within a few hours. 750h+ 01:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi 750h+, just checking to see if a review is going to be forthcoming. No pressure either way. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Punic Wars

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 09:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

The Punic Wars: 118 years of enmity, four major wars - the first alone lasted 23 years. Outrageous swings of fortune and a death toll in the millions. Hundreds of significant participants, giving every reviewer the opportunity to complain that I have missed their favourite. I have taken 21 battle, siege and treaty articles from these wars to FA, plus the articles on the 4 constituent wars, and boiled these 25 articles, plus many, many others, down to fewer than 7,500 words. No doubt there are differing opinions as to whether they are the correct 7,500 words. This over-arching article stumbled at the final stage in 2022. I bring it back in the hope that this time it will be considered worthy. So fire away. But a word of warning to all reviewers - please do not pet the elephants. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

MS

• Placeholder. MSincccc (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Lead

• The First Punic War broke out on the Mediterranean island of Sicily in 264 BCas a... There is a typo in this sentence.

Fixed.

• How about using a capital "b" in "battle" as in He was defeated in the battle of Zama...

Most HQ RSs don't capitalise battle, siege, campaign etc in these circumstances, so neither do I. (I was surprised when I discovered this.)

Primary sources

• "Greek" could be delinked here.

Done

Background and origin

• During the Pyrrhic War of 280–275 BC, against a king of Epirus who alternately fought Rome in Italy and Carthage on Sicily, Carthage provided materiel to the Romans and on at least one occasion provided its navy to ferry a Roman force. The comma after BC could be dropped for clarity.

Indeed. It was inserted by a helpful editor who believes in post-temporal commas. I missed it on my proof read, so dropped with prejudice.

• You could consider clarifying with “a maritime empire (thalassocracy)” for broader accessibility.

Er, it seems pretty accessible to me. I am not entirely sure that this doesn't make it less accessible, but I have gone with your judgement.

That's all for now. Minor suggestions above. MSincccc (talk) 11:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping on this so quickly. I am looking forward to your continuing scrutiny.

Opposing forces

• When they did they fought as well-armoured heavy infantry armed with long thrusting spears, although they were notoriously ill-trained and ill-disciplined. Using a comma after "did" would help separate the introductory clause.

To my eye it would confuse things, leaving a reader suspecting that the first clause was subordinate.

• Could the first reference of light cavalry be linked rather than the second reference (both in the same section)?

Done.

• with a heavy spike on the underside, which was designed to pierce and anchor into an enemy ship's deck. Could the comma as well as the phrase "which was" be dropped here?

It could.

• The added weight in the prow compromised both the ship's manoeuvrability and its seaworthiness... You could simply write:The added weight in the prow compromised the ship’s manoeuvrability and seaworthiness...

I could, but I prefer including both to emphasise to the maritimely challenged that these are two different things.

• In British English, "partway" is the standard and more commonly accepted form.

Changed.

MSincccc (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

First Punic War

• Much of the First Punic War was fought on, or in the waters near, Sicily. The commas could be dropped in this sentence.

With pleasure.

Carthaginian expansion in Iberia

• In British English, "southeast" is the preferred form.

South East England, South Eastern Railway (England), South East London, South East Wales, South East Water, South East Hockey and BBC South East - to pick just a few of very many - would, taken together, seem to suggest that "south east" is at least a widely used formal alternative.

That's all for now. I have read until just before the Second Punic War. MSincccc (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Additional comments

• To be honest, aside from a few minor copy-edits, there's very little to fault in the rest of the article.
• Some of the images—particularly the maps—might raise an MOS:COLOUR concern.

All in all, it was quite a lengthy read, but a well-crafted one. Nicely done, Gog. Support. MSincccc (talk) 09:57, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith (Support)

I don't know if I'll do a full review, but for now, I'll at least leave a drive-by request that you find enough room in your 7.5 kword budget to mention the origin of the word "Punic".

Hi there Roy, did you miss footnote 1 or are you after something more or different? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm. Yeah, I missed the footnote :-) RoySmith (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to have another go. There have to be lots of things I left out. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• On the map, is it possible to make it say "265 BC" instead of "-265"? Also, comparing the -265 frame to File:CarthageMap.png, which claims to show 264 BC, I see some differences. Most significantly in Sardinia, but also along the North African coast. Any idea why these differ? And also on the technical front, is it possible to make this with some kind of control so the reader can stop it on any particular year for closer study?

Re the gif, I have put in a request at Maps Workshop.

Re the differences. That's due to differences between the sources, both ancient and modern, as to what constitutes "control". Or even how you define it. Especially in mountain or desert areas with few or no settled inhabitants.

• The Punic Wars were a series of wars "series of conflicts" would avoid repetition.

Well yeah, but we're an encyclopedia - they were wars, great big ones; and they're called wars. Shouldn't we make that clear up front, even if it is a trifle infelicitous?

• and involved a total of forty-three years of warfare It could just be my personal peeve, but I find this kind of "and" construction awkward. How about "involving a total of ..."?

Done, but also slightly rephrased.

• before the survivors withdrew Only the survivors?

They left their dead.

• It's a little odd that you refer to "Italy", since that country didn't exist at the time. I think you could get away with it as a colloquialism, except that you go to the trouble of using "what is now Tunisia", "what is now Piedmont", "modern Spain and Portugal", etc in other places.

Italy is - to my mind - a geographical area as well a country. Like Africa, or Malta.

• in 509 BC 348 BC and around 279 BC I think a comma after 509 BC?

Whoops.

• Carthage had a proprietary approach to Sicily what does "a proprietary approach" mean?

Changed to "proprietary attitude towards". Does that work better?

• as well as a short sword and a 90-centimetre (3 ft) shield I don't imagine the Romans were using either cm or ft. Do you know what units they were using?

No idea, don't care. Any more than I do for what either the Romans or the Carthaginians used instead of km/mi, directions (S, SE, SSE), or a host of other things.

• Link Balearic Islands

Already linked. (In Background.)

• Link Syracuse to Syracuse, Sicily?

Already linked. (In Background.)

(pick up at Interbellum next time)

• Hannibal arrived with 20,000 infantry, 6,000 cavalry and an unknown number of elephants – the survivors of the 37 with which he left Iberia[74][165] – in what is now Piedmont, northern Italy in early November; the Romans were still in their winter quarters. this is a bit of a long rambling sentence.

Broken into three more digestible ones.

• In Roman defeats, 217–216 BC, it's confusing how many armies there were. You've got "A large Roman army was lured into combat by Hannibal ..."

"A large Roman army was lured into combat by Hannibal at the battle of the Trebia, encircled and destroyed", so stop counting that one.

• "... an army at Arretium and one on the Adriatic coast" so I guess that's three armies, although one was "encircled and destroyed", so maybe just two at this point?

Yes, just two. I think most readers will consider that an army which has been "destroyed" has been, well, destroyed.

• Then later Hannibal attempted to draw the main Roman army, which leaves me wondering which of those were the "main" army.

Good point. Refined to "Hannibal attempted to draw the westernmost of the two Roman armies into a pitched battle ..."

• Then Hannibal ... completely defeated the Roman army: saying "the army" makes it sound like there was just one army

Changed "the" to "this".

• but A cavalry force of 4,000 from the other Roman army says there were two.

Changed "A cavalry force of 4,000 from the other Roman army" to "A cavalry force of 4,000 from the Roman army based at Arretium".

• Are these the same two as the ones at Arretium and the Adriatic coast? This all needs a bit of clarification.

Hopefully the above changes in total clarify the situation. Let me know.

• Hannibal attempted to draw the main Roman army under Gaius Flaminius into a pitched battle by devastating the area they had been sent to protect does "they" refer to Hannibal or Gaius Flaminius?

Ah ha! This now reads "Hannibal attempted to draw the westernmost of the two Roman armies into a pitched battle by devastating the area it had been sent to protect." Is that clearer?

• By early 215 BC they were fielding at least 12 legions; by 214 BC, 18; and by 213 BC, 22 I think "By early 215 BC they were fielding at least 12 legions; two years later they had 18; and a year after that, 22}} would be easier to read.

Ok. Done.

• suborning pro-Roman factions I had to look up what "suborn" means. Is there a more common word that could be used here?

Really! Ok. Done.

• After the second of these Syphax was pursued comma after "these"?

You are winding me up, yes? (That seems as near random as can be.) Just in case it is not dry humour, why?

The first time through, I parsed this as "these Syphax". I didn't know what a Syphax was, but it sounded like a plural noun and "these Syphax" was referring to the several of them. That didn't quite make sense, so I started hunting and found (in the previous section) the explanation that Syphax was a person. So I guess "these" is actually referring to "the two large Carthaginian armies which had been destroyed by Scipio"? Adding a comma would make that more clear, with no winding required.

Ok. Thanks for the explanation. Comma inserted.

• after confused fighting they broke into the city, but, lost in the dark, withdrew, this use of "lost" had me thinking "lost the battle" until I figured it out. How about "disoriented"?

Ah, yes. Good point. I have changed to "becoming disoriented in the dark".

• killing everyone they encountered and firing the buildings behind them Maybe an American/British thing, but "firing" to me means "terminating employment". How about "setting fire to" or "burning"?

Switched to "burning" to be more colonial-friendly. ;-)

OK, that's it for a full reading from me. Overall, this is really nice. RoySmith (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi RoySmith and thanks for the review. All of your comments are addressed above. Thanks for identifying some of the lumpier bits, hopefully it reads a little more smoothly now. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I am not competent to judge the "comprehensive" or "well-researched" aspects of this, but am happy to support as far as "well-written" goes. RoySmith (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Pbritti

Presently teaching this conflict! Will afford me a chance to brush up and make sure my students have the highest-quality source freely available. Will review sometime in next week. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Image Review by Unlimitedlead - Pass

I can confirm that all seems well as far as the graphics are concerned. My only points of contention are 1) that there are not nearly enough commas and 2) whether we can get File:Campagna africana di Scipione 204-203 aC.png in English. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Afternoon UL. So far the requests for commas to be removed v requests for commas to be added is 3:1. :-)

Re translating the map, you don't like latin? I could put a request in at the map workshop. I assume that you are only thinking of having the key translated? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, just the key is fine. Hopefully it can be done with minimal hassle! Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi UL, an update. The request is in with the Map Workshop, and I have also run it past a couple of editors who may have the requisite skills. I'll let you know when/if any results come through. Is there anything else standing in the way of an image pass? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

No, that is all. Let me know when we're in the clear. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Greetings again UL. Done, thanks to Harrias's technical skills. (My hero!) Gog the Mild (talk) 11:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Cool beans. Passed image review. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

UC

Various more-or-less inconclusive discussions

A couple of quick comments for now: The "Aftermath" section is, as far as I can tell, all true, but seems very light on detail by comparison with other war FAs. See for instance Pontiac's War, Rwandan Civil War, or indeed Second Punic War, where the comparable section ("Roman victory") is twice the length (and, honestly, I think is still rather lighter than it ought to be). In particular, I think we need some mention of the tremendous cultural impact of the Punic Wars in Rome (see for instance Elena Giusti's Big Book on the topic), and almost certainly the name of Virgil connected to that. There is no requirement, recommendation nor suggestion regarding the length of an "Aftermath", nor even a requirement that there be one. I am happy to write longer aftermaths when I feel they are called for. I suspect that Battle of Dunbar (1650) is more to your taste, or perhaps Battle of Poitiers. I can also produce as evidence more immediately relevant and not overly diminutive aftermaths such as First Punic War, Battle of Zama or the one you mention, Second Punic War. Aftermaths tend to be longer when events are ongoing. In many ways the Punic Wars ended with Zama, and everything after that is aftermath; quite possibly given undue weight in this article, but one follows the sources. I mean, Carthage wasn't even the most important city the Romans destroyed that year; the Third War was already a footnote and leaves little more to say. I am resolutely against the inclusion of cultural, or pretty much any other, "influences" in articles on warfare. The Romans no doubt wrote about, sang about, carved, painted and re-enacted Gauls, Greeks and, occasionally, Carthaginians. No doubt there is a fascinating series of articles in there, but this isn't one of them. Even when one may want to pad out an undernourished-looking aftermath. The sources don't do it - the books and collections on the wars that is. Miles does, but he is writing a history of Carthage. Influences are the thin end of the wedge, they rapidly lead via the influence of the Punic Wars on Renaissance painting to cricketers traversing the Alps accompanied by puzzled pachyderms. I could make a strong case for including the influence of the Punic Wars on causing both the outbreak of First World War (via the Schlieffen Plan) and the outcome of the Gulf War (due to Norman Schwarzkopf's desire to emulate Cannae) but neither are going in there is a line. There are three chapters in Blackwell's Companion on the aftermath/afterlife of the wars -- we cite two, with one citation each, to the total effect of Numerous large Punic cities ... were permitted to retain their Punic system of government. A century later, the site of Carthage was rebuilt as a Roman city by Julius Caesar; it became one of the main cities of Roman Africa by the time of the Empire. This is all to the good, but is it really a fair summary of the key points made there? Lazenby, in his chapter on the wars here, similarly goes into detail on the aftermath and consequences of the war, talking about the impact of the war particularly on the institutions and politics of Rome. I note that one of the chapters in the Blackwell companion (Brizzi, currently uncited) is specifically about cultural memory. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC) Working on this. Part way through a response. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC) As you will have gathered, we seem to differ a little on how much (and thus what, or perhaps vice versa) to put into the aftermath of this one. I don't see a need for much more than there is. But, given the usual good sense of your suggestions, and what is in the sources you mention, I'll see what I can do. Some thoughts/points. Re "There are three chapters in Blackwell's Companion on the aftermath/afterlife of the wars ... is [the current Aftermath] really a fair summary of the key points made there?" It may be, or may not. No article nor section is required nor even supposed to be a summary of a source. I hope that the Aftermath is a fair summary of the scholarly consensus and gives the main points of it due weight in the context of the article - in this case a brief encyclopedia article on a series of wars. I think it is the due weight area that you are unhappy with. [?] so let me see what I can do to edge towards an acceptable compromise. Rereading Brizzi I really can't find anything appropriate for the aftermath, not even when straining. Did you have anything in mind? Richardson: I don't see that there is anything to be gained by adding key points concerning the Romans ongoing campaigns in Hispania, nor the role of the site of Carthage in the abortive Gracchian land reforms. (Do you differ?) I am unenthusiastic about adding details from as late as the early Imperial period, but see below for a possibility. Fantar seems passably well mined to me. But see below for a possible slight expansion. Lazenby: "talking about the impact of the war particularly on the institutions and politics of Rome." Actually, he doesn't. He does make a comment that the 2PW disturbances to Italian agriculture "were clearly factors behind the period of revolution that began with the Gracchi in 133 and 123 BC." 80 years later? Oh, come on! Absent considerable support from other sources that is not going in. I could put in something about ongoing poor relationships with the allies leading to the Social War, 125 years after Hannibal started poking at that weak point if you wish. But to me the connection seems too tenuous to be included. A proposed lightly expanded aftermath is below. What do you think? Rome was determined that the city of Carthage remain in ruins. The Senate despatched a ten-man commission and Scipio was ordered to carry out further demolitions. A curse was placed on anyone who might attempt to resettle the site in the future. The former site of the city was confiscated as ager publicus, public land. The remaining Carthaginian territories were annexed by Rome and reconstituted to become the Roman province of Africa with Utica as its capital. The province became a major source of grain and other foodstuffs for Rome. Numerous large Punic cities, such as those in Mauretania, were taken over by the Romans, although they were permitted to retain their Punic system of government and culture. The Romans did not interfere in the locals' private lives and Punic culture, language and religion survived, and is known to modern scholars as "Neo-Punic civilization". The Punic language continued to be spoken in north Africa until the 7th century AD. A century later, the site of Carthage was rebuilt as a Roman city by Julius Caesar; it became one of the main cities of Roman Africa by the time of the Empire. Rome still exists as the capital of Italy; the ruins of Carthage lie 24 kilometres (15 mi) east of Tunis on the North African coast. References Part of this is a difference of philosophy, and I am trying hard to avoid falling into the trap of "I would do this differently, therefore your way is wrong" -- that's not right and it wouldn't be fair. However -- I do think we need some discussion of the long-term impact of the wars (particularly the 2PW) on Rome -- I believe Brunt's Italian Manpower goes into some detail on how many Italians were killed and the impact this had on Italian agriculture and the state's recruitment pool. Hopkins's Conquerors and Slaves would be another "obvious" place to look, despite its age and increasing creakiness on points of detail. I also tracked down Michael Taylor's DPhil thesis, which has a lot (and, more importantly, cites a fair bit) on the economic and political impacts of the 2PW. Clearly, this needs to be handled judiciously, as this article is about the wars as a whole, but by the same token, major changes that emerged as a result of one of the wars form part of the picture of what happened as a result of the whole. I may need to do some more reading to have a firmer idea of exactly what I'd think of as must-say points here, but I think we need something to mark how the Punic Wars were -- politically, militarily, economically, administratively -- a turning point for the Roman state. Now for the philosophical bit: I do think that at least some articles on battles/wars aren't complete without at least some discussion of the cultural impact of them. I'd include Battle of Thermopylae, and probably Battle of Britain there -- any article which didn't discuss how important they have become as stories would at least be missing something. I'm hesitating to go as far as to say that this is definitely in the same boat, but equally struggling to see that we don't need at least some acknowledgement of the massive role of the wars (and the end of Carthage as the "auld enemy") in the Roman collective psyche, as a major aspect of the way that these wars have been written about in scholarship. Unfortunately, we don't seem to have an FA on a really "transformative" war to use as precedent either way. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC) Ah, enlightening. I am not much convinced that the Punic wars were either "transformative" or "a turning point" - politically, militarily, economically or administratively and see little support in the sources for it. In your previous comment you specified four sources; on examination they had little to nothing new along these lines. Now there are three more - two of which you seem to be querying even as you mention them and the third a thesis. How does Taylor meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP, Dissertations? PhD theses are just about allowed as RS, but are not usually considered to be the HQ sources FAC requires. "Turning point" wars: Second War of Scottish Independence, Anglo-Scottish war (1650–1652) and Mercenary War (PS Winter War? Rwandan Civil War?) are all FAs and one could at least make the case. And, as you point out, many of the effects which might at least be considered for inclusion in this article would fit under one or another of the constituent wars rather than in the aftermath of the wars as a whole. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC) This certainly is a philosophical one. To some extent, this is a "group biography": we wouldn't say that an article on the Flower Pot Men couldn't say anything about Bill that didn't also apply to Ben. Now, there's a confounding factor here that the wars didn't end with the big one, so to be really convicing we'd have to argue that the effects of the 2PW lasted beyond the end of the 3PW -- personally, I think that criterion is met here, particularly in saying (for example) what it meant for Rome to occupy most of Spain and all of Sicily, to have a navy, and to administer provinces. We don't currently have an "effects" or "legacy" section, which would be the natural place for this. However, at the moment I'm leaning towards "I would have done this differently" rather than "it's wrong if you don't do this". I'll leave this one for now, but might carry on looking for sources -- in the meantime, I'll come back in a bit and do the usual UC nitpick. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC) That seems sensible. In particular it seems helpful to separate any additions to Aftermath from any possible Legacy section. And within the former to distinguish between what, if anything, we may wish to put at the end of the individual war as opposed to the overall aftermath. Re the last point, if you are scrabbling around for sources then it seems to me that this is something which could be done at leisure after the FAC has closed. I don't have any problem with adding that, for example, the administrative or military structure of Roman politics or of the Roman army was changed by either one of the wars or the Punic Wars in general. So long as there is a solid consensus of sources, or sufficient for us to put "Some scholars argue that ..." Your call obviously, but it may take any time pressure of wading through a sea of sources off you. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC) It might. The key question is whether I can swallow my reservations about supporting an FA on this topic that doesn't have, for want of a less crude phrasing, a section that decisively answers "why do people say this thing is so important?". I remember being advised, just before nominating my first academic biography, to make sure that it addressed how Panagiotis Kavvadias left the scholarly world different to how he found it -- I think that was very good advice, even though the topic might not be said to call for it so loudly as this one. I'm not sure I'm there yet, but I'm trying to keep the prospect open. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC) Having spent a ridiculously large proportion of the past six years hip deep in the Punic Wars my off-the-cuff response is that they weren't (so important). Just sticking with Roman wars the various wars against the Gauls were almost certainly more significant - politically, militarily, economically, administratively. For the Greek wars remove the "almost". The Punic Wars called for huge efforts but when they were over, they were over. Bar some technical bits around building and operating war fleets, cross-marine logistics and projecting (armed) force. Politically, militarily, economically, administratively - nope, not so that you would much notice. As I say, off the cuff and top level and happy to be overwhelmed by a mass of contradictory sources. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC) Each war involved immense material and human losses on both sides.: isn't that true of most wars? We might be hindered here by not having a section that's explicitly analytical rather than narrative about the wars' outcomes, but as far as I can see, we don't make a claim that these wars were unusually destructive by ancient/world standards. I think we would need to do so to justify this under MOS:LEAD. Some are, many aren't. I can cite it, but you are correct, it isn't overtly there in the main article. I'll take it out. As novice shipwrights, the Romans: the Romans were not novice shipwrights at all, though the Roman state was new to constructing military ships. Absolutely correct. I am unsure how that snuck in. Changed to what I meant to say. A small typo has snuck in here. Personally, I'd be interested in some detail as to how the procurement happened (partly because I have an instinctive "yuck" reaction to "Age of Empires" explanations whereby "the Greeks", "the Romans" or whatever build stuff and it just seems to pop into being) -- what did "[the] Romans set out to construct a fleet" actually look like -- voting money for the purchase of ships? Who actually built them? In Athens, for example, it would have involved wealthy citizens "volunteering" to buy ships, either abroad or within the city; construction being overseen by elected state officials, and physically built by people who might be regular carpenters in times of peace, and might have been working under terms of conscription. However, I appreciate we might not know: I know the imperial navy is not totally unstudied, but I don't think I've seen much written on that of the Republic. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:31, 30 April 2025 (UTC) That's an interesting point. I have come across very little on that side of things. I was thinking that I must have put something into some lower level articles, but no. Bar the decisive battle of 2PW (the battle of the Aegates) where (my words) With the state's coffers exhausted, the Senate approached Rome's wealthiest citizens for loans to finance the construction of one ship each, repayable from the reparations to be imposed on Carthage once the war was won, and to donate slaves as oarsmen. The result was a fleet of approximately 200 quinqueremes, built, equipped, and crewed without government expense. The Romans modelled the ships of their new fleet on the vessel captured from Hannibal the Rhodian. By now, the Romans were experienced at shipbuilding and with a proven vessel as a model produced high-quality quinqueremes. Importantly, the corvus was abandoned, which improved the ships' speed and handling but forced a change in tactics on the Romans; they would need to be superior sailors, rather than superior soldiers, to beat the Carthaginians. If it were me, I might include a very executive summary here -- that the ship-building was financed by loans from wealthy citizens, that these loans were to be repaid by the spoils of war ("reparations" is pretty euphemistic!), and that the crews were formed of slaves "donated" by said wealthy citizens. It's not only interesting, but a good insight into the operation of the Roman state at this time, and useful to give a sense of the nature of the Roman fleet that resulted. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC) I suspect I wasn't clear. That arrangement was a one time only occurrence, noted by the primary sources - one assumes - because it was so unusual. I remember before I nominating First Punic War scouring the modern sources for the sort of detail we (well, you) are talking about and coming up with zilch. It does leave a hole. There are some scattered bits and pieces so I get a rough mental picture, but not something I could put into an article without being very synth. Or have I misunderstood you? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC) Was that the initial model of funding for the navy? If so, I still think it's useful: if it's just an odd thing that happened in the middle of a war, not so much. You may be ahead of me, but looking for general sources on the Republican navy, I see the book reviewed here, this article (which argues that Rome did not suddenly become a naval power during the Punic Wars), and a bit in this chapter on how the early navy was organised. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC) It was an odd, non-standard, one-off arrangement born of desperation and financial exhaustion after 20 years of continuous war. The navy so created did win the battle which ended the 1PW, but still, as you write "not so much". Steinby is great, but doesn't bring anything new to the table. Note the reviewer's response to "Roman naval history starts early": "the supporting evidence which is presented for this position is slight (pp. 32-34) and for the most part highly speculative ... The evidence for naval activity prior to the First Punic War is slim at best and is, in the end, analysed in a highly speculative manner." Steinby more or less doesn't cover any of the aspects we are interested in here; the review goes chapter by chapter and even from just that I think you can ascertain this. I like Harris, I cite him - not this paper - in other articles. I have this paper and assume I went through it prior to nomination, but I'll go through it again - possibly not today - and get back to you. (I am unsure why I didn't spuriously cite something from it just to prove I'd read it, but I didn't. Ah well.) Potter has barely two pages on the navy and his one comment on organisation is hedged with "we have little direct evidence on this point, it appears that ... If it is correct to generalize from the evidence of the later imperial fleets ... we may surmise that ..." The bit of Potter that stood out to me was The First Punic War saw a radical change in the structure of the Roman fleet. In the fourth and early third centuries b.c., we hear of officials known as the duumviri navales who commanded a fleet of twenty ships. ... [and] it is likely that the main purpose of these ships was to control piracy. This fleet appears to have been replaced in 278 BC, when the Roman state decided to depend entirely on the naval forces of allied states. The existence of a large seafaring population would prove decisive in the years of the first war with Carthage, for, while Rome assumed responsibility for building the necessary ships, it required the preexisting skills of naval architects throughout Italy to help in the actual construction of the ships. I think there's some useful context there, particularly in the fact that Rome had the use of warships immediately before the 1PW, even if they were technically held by the allies, and that these allies were critical to the building of the "real" Roman fleet -- again, it helps to do away with the popular narrative that "nobody in Rome had ever got their feet wet until, suddenly, they magicked a war-winning navy out of nowhere". UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC) :-) We're not here to right great wrongs, but I don't see why we can't apply a slight tweak. I've seen another source who will support that, so bear with me while I hunt it down. (Was it Harris?) We are getting into the weeds here, and somewhat away from where this part of the thread started. done. According to the classicist Richard Miles, Rome had an expansionary attitude: I know that we've hedged this as Miles's point of view (though would also observe that he's writing in a mass-market book here rather than an academic one), but I'm really not happy with this kind of anthropomorphism -- it's dangerous for any state, even a modern one, but especially misleading for Rome. As many wise heads have pointed out, the Roman system makes it particularly complicated to project any kind of single agency or long-term strategy onto it -- we have absolute executive power invested in two potentially (often?) antagonistic men, who get carted away and changed every year! I don't think the sourcing helps you here, as we would naturally expect even a careful scholar to simplify things somewhat when writing for the general public, and oversimplification is precisely the problem at hand. Well quite. And put three classicists in a room for long enough and they'll give you four reasons for the 1PW starting. I have just reread Hoyos on this ("The Outbreak of War"). I like his analytical approach to the sources. He has his own take, but pretty much agrees that "stumble into war more by accident than design" and especially that war was more or less inevitable. (Summarised on pages 145-147.) A quick skim elsewhere suggests that most sources more or less agree. (Although I spotted a "This is a clear case where the factors within the Roman political system seen as favouring expansion did come into play and were the prime cause of a war", so I feel a need to be careful." What do you feel about something like 'As Rome and Carthage came closer to sharing a joint border the chances of misunderstandings and hostilities increased. In the event they stumbled into war more by accident than design, with neither anticipating a prolonged conflict." I know, I know, but for summary style, how would it do? Let me see if I can have a look at Hoyos: I think it's better, but I expect we can probably do something about the MOS:CLICHE of stumbled into war more by accident than design. I'm still not totally happy with with neither anticipating a prolonged conflict -- again, empires and cities do not have personalities, minds or expectations, though the people in them do -- but it's less important here because we're explicitly disavowing an anthropomorphic mode of explanation. That change is definitely a step forward, anyway. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:31, 30 April 2025 (UTC) I shall put it in for now (while I have the sources open) then and we can both brood on't. The modern historian Andrew Curry: from what I can gather, Curry is a journalist, and very much not a Polybius scholar. Given that those are not a rare breed, he seems an odd choice here. (In passing, I'm not a huge fan of "this historian is reliable" vs "this historian is unreliable" as a useful mode of analysis, but I may have to swallow it here). Curry's comment removed and replaced with one from Goldsworthy. Modern historians usually take into account the writings of various Roman annalists, some contemporary; the Sicilian Greek Diodorus Siculus;: Diodorus was writing in 21 BCE, which would be very impressive indeed if he were indeed contemporary with the Punic Wars. Colon added. We have a rather nasty sandwich in the First Punic War section (including the subhead "Course") between map and navbox. While this isn't strictly outlawed by the letter of the MoS, which only covers images, it would seem to fall within the spirit of not creating overly-thin chunks of text. On my screen, it reduces the first line to eight words. Better? Much. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC) UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC) enrolling slaves, criminals and those who did not meet the usual property qualification: there's an unintentional comedy to the order of this tricolon ("and worst of all...!"). To take you way back to the "Armies" section, we said that Most male Roman citizens were liable for military service and would serve as infantry, but didn't actually clarify that the most meant "except the poor" -- later, we talked about the velites as poorer or younger men unable to afford the armour and equipment of a standard legionary, so it's now a bit of a surprise to find out that there was another tier of poverty below them. Imagine me vigorously kicking myself. Added. (Note the new footnote.) Rework looks good. I notice "Those who did not meet the property requirement could be required to serve in the navy" -- is that something that came about during these wars, as for the initial phases, Rome didn't really have a navy? UndercoverClassicist T·C 05:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC) I have not been able to find an opinion one way or another. It seems possible, but there may have been an earlier precedent crewing the "anti-piracy squadrons". You would think that some source would at least speculate. Certainly by the middle of the first war this was common enough for Claudius Pulcher's sister to make her unfortunate remark.

• between the Roman Republic and the Carthaginian Empire during the period 264 to 146 BC: I'm not sure about "Carthaginian Empire" here as a proper-noun way of referring to the polity. It does come up in print, but relatively rarely, and usually as "Carthaginian empire" to talk about the geographical extent of Carthage's territories -- see Walter Scheidel here, who does talk about the "Carthaginian Empire" (though tends to avoid the phrase when he can) in the sense of "the spread of Carthaginian control over the western Mediterranean), but refers to the state that makes the decisions and takes the actions as "Carthage". Carthage was just as much a republic as Rome was, and for much of the period in question, Rome was more of an empire than Carthage was, so I think the Republic/Empire distinction is unfortunate. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Grabbing a source at random (Hoyos's Companion) Ameling starts his section on "The Structure of the Carthaginian State" with "Carthage was an aristocratic state and a city-state, in other words, its structures did not really evolve with the changing conditions and the growth of the Carthaginian empire." and titles a section "The Carthaginian Empire". Bleckmann uses it more casually "the grain-rich island of Sardinia above all, which was particularly important to the Carthaginian empire." Elsewhere Pilkington has published The Carthaginian Empire. For several hundred other scholarly usages see [27].

Yes -- those uses make my point, though I may not have expressed it very well. The term is used for "the wide territorial possessions that Carthage had" (like, sometimes, "Athenian empire" or "Angevin empire"), but not as a metonym for the state -- we don't have e.g. "the Carthaginian Empire declared war on Rome", "Hannibal was a general of the Carthaginian Empire", or similar, just as we don't generally say "Pericles was a major statesman in the Athenian Empire" (additionally, the overwhelming preference is for "empire" in lc, which is not unrelated to the point here). I think "between the Roman Republic and Carthage" would be better and a closer fit for how those terms are used in practice. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• The First Punic War broke out on the Mediterranean island of Sicily in 264 BC as a result of Rome's expansionary attitude: I'm not sure this is (any more) a good summary of what's in the article (and it's anthropomorphic). We don't really say why the 1PW started in the article (we say that the "spark" was the desire to control Sicily, but we don't clearly divide that from the Battle of Messana, which is part of the war). I might be tempted to go more low-level here and say something like "when Rome sent forces to assist the Mamertine mercenaries, occupying the city-state of Messana, in their war against Syracuse". However, I must admit I'm not totally clear why, from the 1PW article, sending a garrison to a city already garrisoned by another state meant that the two necessarily had to fight each other. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I think that is (quite a bit) too fine grained for this sort of very general overview article. One could readily write a whole article on this, as scholars have written whole papers. While I am not wedded to the current form of words it seems to me to do a workmanlike enough job.

Perhaps, but I think you now have a MOS:LEAD problem -- as I read it, the corresponding bits of body text are, roughly, As Rome and Carthage came closer to sharing a joint border the chances of misunderstandings and hostilities increased. In the event they stumbled into war more by accident than design, with neither anticipating a prolonged conflict ... The spark that ignited the First Punic War in 264 BC was the issue of control of the independent Sicilian city state of Messana (modern Messina). I cannot read The First Punic War broke out on the Mediterranean island of Sicily in 264 BC as a result of Rome's expansionary attitude as a summary of that -- have I misunderstood the lead–body correspondence here? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Break

More resolved minutiae

Is "mainland Italy" an overlink? Yes. This expedition enjoyed considerable early success and campaigned in Italy for fourteen years before the survivors withdrew: the use of "the survivors" hints that we've missed an important change in the campaign's fortunes over those fourteen years. Why? A reader would hardly expect every single member of the expedition to have survived. No, but I would suggest including the important fact that they ended up firmly on the back foot in Italy, even before they were forced to withdraw. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC) * Suggest pulling the link on "armed forces" to cover the "its", so we don't expect the link to go to "armed forces" per se. Good point. * This caused Carthage to cease to be a military threat.: add to Rome? It turned out to be to any one! But I take your point. * Link on "defend itself" might be better on "attempted to defend itself". It's a bit of an Easter egg, to be honest. It is a bit. I've take it out. In 151 BC Carthage attempted to defend itself against Numidian encroachments and Rome used this as a justification to declare war in 149 BC: I think these would be better joined with a semicolon rather than and, since only one of them happened in 151 BC. Done. * I wasn't expecting the link on "Carthaginian" (in the footnote) to go to "History of Carthage". Colour me at least somewhat astonished. I suspect that was a "helpful" drive by and I missed it. I do some daft things, but hopefully not that daft! * He is best known for The Histories,: better as "best known for the Histories". UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC) Done. * The map shows approximate extent of territory controlled by Rome and Carthage immediately before the start of the First Punic War: The approximate extent -- or just cut The map shows? Also suggest "controlled by Rome, Carthage and Syracuse", since most of the Greek isn't (the city of) Syracuse. Done. * Polybius' account is usually to be preferred when it differs with any of our other accounts: did Goldsworthy really write that -- not differs from or disagrees with? Sloppy subeditors at Phoenix, perhaps. He really, really did. It would be catty to write "differs [from]", or even worse, to [sic] him, wouldn't it? UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC) Yes. :-) Why is Goldsworthy a classicist but Craige Champion not? Goldsworthy's first degree was in history, although I think his DPhil was technically classics. There is a degree of both inserting a bit of variety from me and of I can't be bothered to wade through first, second, third degrees and later possibly changing specialisations. If you feel I have any wrong, or simply not to your taste, feel free to change them. * is commonly used by modern historians where Polybius's account is not extant: I am also going to quibble this line. In particular, Livy is often used for different things -- in particular, you'll find a lot of Livy in treatments of how the Roman army actually worked on a micro scale, and on "face of battle" type history (Sam Koon's work springs to mind here). How about amending "historians, particularly where..."? Livy is widely considered a military incompetent by many modern HQ military historians. They are correct. If he makes a statement on a Koon type area (Koon's "Phalanx and Legion" is IMO excellent) there is a substantially non-zero chance he is wrong and in some cases laughably so. Whereas Polybius had actually commanded real troops. That is in passing. Your suggestion is an improvement and has been implmented. * Modern historians usually take into account the writings of various Roman annalists, some contemporary; the Sicilian Greek Diodorus Siculus; and later writers such as Plutarch, Appian, and Dio Cassius.: not sure about the colon at the start here. I know it's introducing a list, but to me it reads more naturally without. I marginally prefer it, but I can see where you are coming from and so removed. * empirical evidence from reconstructions, such as the trireme Olympias.: does Goldsworthy explicitly name-drop Olympias? I only bring it up because, as far as I know, triremes played a fairly minor role in any of the Punic Wars, and Olympias is modelled on one from the 5th century. As you point out later, Olympias also handles and would fight rather differently to a quinquereme. Goldsworthy: "The full-scale reconstruction of an Athenian trireme and its extensive sea trials in the 1980s AD has greatly increased our knowledge." And so on to give details. Let me know if you would like me to dig out arguments that quinqueremes were so ubiquitous that Polybius uses the term to cover all war ships, even when they are demonstrably/arguably not fives. No, this is fine -- all we need here is for G. to vouch that it's been used. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC) * It had conquered peninsular Italy south of the Arno River by 270 BC when the Greek cities of southern Italy (Magna Graecia) submitted after the conclusion of the Pyrrhic War.: this is a bit clumsy: what we mean is that this surrender completed the conquest of that region, not that Rome suddenly conquered the whole region (which, of course, includes Rome itself) in in that moment. How about "By 270 BC, when the last Greek cities of southern Italy ..., it had conquered all of..."? Done. * Carthage, with its capital in what is now Tunisia, had come to dominate: I would favour thinking of Carthage as a city with an empire, like Rome, so Carthage is in Tunisia. We wouldn't say "Rome, with its capital in Italy", or "Athens, with its capital in Attica". Yes, I would indeed say "Rome, with its capital in Italy" if I was writing something I wouldn't expect a reader to already know. Much as I might write "The Seleucid Empire, with its new capital at Antioch in north-west Syria". I'm not sure those two are equivalent -- but I'm me and you're you, and this is a perfectly acceptable point on which to differ. Struck. * Relationships were good: relations is the normal term in diplomacy, I think. The first sentence of Rankov "The First Punic War transformed Rome’s relationship not just with Carthage but with the whole of the Mediterranean world." The first sentence of Lomas "The Second Punic War was a watershed in the relationship between Rome andthe other peoples of Italy." Etc. Which means I should have written 'The relationship was good'. But changed. Yup -- singular not plural. But either works. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC) * the two states had several times: thrice? Oh come on. I know I write in an old-fashioned style, but let us retain some reader friendliness. Plus, do we know it was only thrice? Scardigli for example list four. It was the precision more than the archaism I was after, but if there's doubt, stick with what we have. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC) * Detail from the Ahenobarbus relief showing two Roman foot-soldiers from the second century BC: I would suggest a slight rephrase to be clear that the relief is itself from the late C2nd -- it could be a modern relief that depicts soldiers from a long time ago. Done. * I would treat velites as a Latin word and italicise (in a template). Quite a few dictionaries consider it to be an English-language word - [28] Very well (though I'm not sure I could wear "a velite", as some of those suggest). UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC) * a 90-centimetre (3 ft) shield: false precision, perhaps? It's pretty debated as to how standard these bits of equipment were, so I wonder whether "large, rectangular shield approximately 3 feet in height" or similar might be better. "90-centimetre" suggests "not 80 and not 100", and I'm not sure we can really do that given that we have exactly none of them to go and measure. Even on the relief, the soldier on the right has a shield a good 10% longer than the other guy. We can't use imperial measurements as our primary units. Amusingly, Goldsworthy states "a circular shield 3 feet (40 cm) in diameter". In other works Goldsworthy doesn't give a size, Bagnall goes with "three feet". My trusty Roman Military Equipment disappointingly does not cover velite shields at all. I think I am going to go with "a large circular shield". Can't we? Anyway, that works. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC) * they were notoriously ill-trained and ill-disciplined: I would like to know who said this -- if it's the Romans, I think we need to fess up to that. The cite is to Goldsworthy, although there are similar passing mentions elsewhere; he doesn't specify where he draws the information from. OR alert: given that the citizen phalanx - unlike most Carthaginian troops - was at best a militia - those who had had the Xanthippus treatment excepted - was at best a militia I would be astonished if he wasn't on the money. Not a lot you can do here -- although professional soldiers were the exception in this period rather than the norm, so whether they would have stood out in that company might be debateable. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC) * Many were from North Africa and these were frequently referred to as "Libyans".: by whom? That is more of an editorial comment by me to help out readers ("Libyan" = North African). I have tweaked the phrasing slightly ("Many were from North Africa and these are usually referred to as Libyans.") but cannot find a source which actually defines the word they throw around so readily. * Hyphenate "close-order infantry" (and "light-infantry skirmishers"). Done. citizen-militia: not sure this one should be hyphenated, however, when standing as a noun. Unhyphenated. If either commander felt at a disadvantage, he might march off without engaging. In such circumstances it was difficult to force a battle if the other commander was unwilling to fight: I don't really get the if here -- if the other commander was marching off, surely he was necessarily unwilling to fight? No, he might be quite willing to fight in general, but not at that precise time, place or circumstances - ie, if he "felt at a disadvantage". OK, so why not cut "if the other commander was unwilling to fight" -- after all, doesn't force require that the other person isn't willing? UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC) Good point. Done. Quinqueremes, meaning "five-oarsmen": the word unambiguously means "five-oars", but Goldsworthy may be correctly nudging it because we don't believe that was literally true. Nah. I am trying to paraphrase "derives its name from". Ah -- that's not a good paraphrase, unfortunately. An ambulance derives its name from a walking medical team in the First World War, but ambulances don't walk. More importantly, "the quinquereme derives it names from 'five-oarsmen'" is at best only very indirectly true: it's a kinda-translation of the Greek term πεντήρης, which itself comes from τριήρης, and people debate whether the end bit of that is actually "rower" or just the root of the verb "row". Could we just explain what they were -- the heaviest type of warship in general use in the Hellenistic period? I'm not sure it particularly matters that there were (probably) five rowers in each vertical section, especially as we're not exactly sure how that "five" was made up. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:14, 12 May 2025 (UTC) Done. * the workhorses of the Roman and Carthaginian fleets: suggest a rephrase for MOS:IDIOM (potentially confusing, as well: do we mean the ships that did the literal heavy work of transporting the most stuff, logistical/mechanical work, etc?) Changed to "main components". * In 260 BC Romans set out to construct a fleet and: Rome or the Romans. Done. * The Romans were unaccustomed to building quinqueremes: as we discussed above, it seems like at least a lot of the shipwrights in question weren't actually Romans. I don't see how that effects the accuracy or relevance of the statement. It affects the relevance massively: if the Romans weren't the ones building the ships, it doesn't particularly matter how experienced they were at doing so. What matters is that the many Italian shipwrights contracted by the Roman state, many/most of whom were actually non-Roman allies, may have been experienced at building other ships, but not these ones. A fairly simple change (from "the Romans" to "Italian shipwrights" or similar) would fix here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC) Tweaked to "The Romans and their allies ..." * At least half of the oarsmen would need to have had some experience if the ship was to be handled effectively: I'd quite like a basis for this number: which part of his body has de Souza plucked it from? Ah. You have me dead to rights. I have over stretched my paraphrasing and will delete that sentence, rolling de Souza's thoughts in with Casson's. * employing the previously traditional tactic of ramming.: not sure I like traditional here -- there wasn't any "tradition" about it, it was just the only good way of using your boat to put a hole in someone else's boat. That depends on many things, but I have no particular interest in "traditional". Changed to "more common". Does "city-state" have a hyphen in it? We vary. A sample of dictionaries has a majority giving both as alternatives. Fine, but we should pick one for this article. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC) Done. * the only substantial, independent power on the island: I would lose the comma here for total clarity -- I don't think it adds much, and makes clear that other powers were either substantial or independent. Done. I am always happy to remove a comma. * was badly defeated at the battle of Akragas. That night the Carthaginian garrison escaped: suggest the night after the battle -- battles don't necessarily happen in the day or take a single one. Done. * It is possible that the presence of the corvus, making the Roman ships unusually unseaworthy, contributed to this disaster; there is no record of their being used again: lang template on corvus. As you'll surely remember, corvus is 2nd declension, not 4th, so can't be plural: we therefore either need to pluralise it in the first sentence as corvi or keep it singular in the second ("its being used again."). Or we could consider it an English-language word, as several dictionaries do, including Wiktionary and the OED on line. I know I have gone for it being Latin, but I now feel that was a mistake. I'd accept that, but then we should still treat it as singular (none of the OED quotes that I can see without an account pluralise it). UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC) Done. Wiktionary states "plural corvuses or corvi". I'm sure you're including that purely for interest rather than to imply that Wiktionary is a reliable source -- or maybe just to taunt me with the awful prospect of corvuses. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC) :-) * their previously-established colony: no hyphen here. "ly"! Groan. * Was it a conscious choice to use "New Carthage" rather than Carthago Nova? Yes. The sources are about evenly split and when I can I prefer to use English on the English-language Wikipedia. * the battle of the Rhône Crossing: the capitalisation here seems odd, since "Rhone Crossing" isn't really a proper noun -- it's like we've suddenly decided to use "traditional" capitalisation halfway through. Quite right. The article has an upper-case C [!] and I missed it. Now piped to avoid this. * Consistent diacritics needed on "Rhone". Done. * what is now Piedmont, northern Italy in early November: comma after northern Italy. Not the way I commaise. But as you suggested removing one earlier, I have moved it to here. (And very odd it looks too.) We'll have to blame MOS:GEOCOMMA for that one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC) The Carthaginians captured the chief city of the hostile Taurini Gauls (in the area of modern Turin) and seized its food stocks: is city really the right word here? 'settlement'. * These allied states provided more than half of "Rome's" military manpower: the MoS doesn't really like scare quotes, and it's usually better to find a way of making the implicit subtext explicit. "These allies provided more than half of the military manpower used by the Roman state"? I think it easier to just remove the quotes. * Hoping that the ethnic Greek and Italic states of southern Italy in particular could be persuaded to defect he marched deeper into Italy: that's a giant perambulatory clause -- I think we definitely need a comma after defect, or else a rephrase. Rephrased - thanks. * the Roman army, public and senate: cap Senate. Done. * the richest and most fertile provinces of Italy: Italy didn't have provinces at this time. You are correct of course - and rephrased - but the source cited disagrees. * both were more aggressive-minded than Fabius: not a usual idiom in print: aggressively minded Done. * who accepted battle on the open plain near Cannae.: is it worth giving a vague idea of where that was? Done. * Libyan heavy infantry on the wings swung around their advance, menacing their flanks: might be a bit too flamboyant: threatening? I like menace for its additional meaning of "An annoying and bothersome person or thing." Another Carthaginian commander named Hasdrubal, not the same man as Hasdrubal Barca, one of Hannibal's younger brothers, led the Carthaginian cavalry on the left wing which routed the Roman cavalry opposite: clearer, I think, if you use dashes or brackets for the "not the same man..." clause -- it's quite a run-on sentence otherwise. Done. Much better. * It's not ideal that Hasdrubal dies in the Italy section then comes back to life in the Iberia section: would this be better organised by year, with the theatres handled together? No. It was like that originally. It was an unreadable mess. That bad that I went to the considerable trouble of rewriting it by theatre to resolve it. There is surprisingly little overlap and IMO it is the least bad option by some way. In 149 BC a Roman army of approximately 50,000 men, jointly commanded by both consuls, landed near Utica: can we name the consuls here? We could, but we are not going to. If we named every consul who fought in a major action we would be hip deep in them. If you would like more information read Second Punic War, a fine, well-written featured article. * Ñaco del Hoyo appears to be alphabetised incorrectly. Oops. Fixed. Capitalisation of Baker 2014 is out of whack with other similar sources. Fixed. * Some journals have ISSNs, others don't. One work has an ISSN, because I was unable to find any other identifier. Ah, gotcha -- so the system is that each source should have (exactly) one identification number of whatever sort exists? Fine in that case. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC) Near enough, yes. Hoyos 2015b should have location removed. Ditto Sidwell and Jones 1998 and Whittaker 1996. Not the way I do sourcing. Ah, I was looking at Collins 1998 and assuming that you were following the template in not giving locations included in the publisher -- but now I think the missed location there was just a mistake? UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC) It was. Locations added to Collins. Well spotted. I'm not sure I'm on board with citing Liddell Hart for historical fact (though would be sympathetic to using his view in the history of scholarship on the topic). Fair enough. The Stele of Polybios Art, Text and Context in Second-Century BC Greece: missing a colon? Done. Worlds Together Worlds Apart -- missing some kind of punctuation? Yes, and not the full title. Remedied. Do you have any thoughts on Pen and Sword as a publishing house? A bit more mixed than some in terms of quality. Some very sound authors, some very sound publications. (I managed over 60 cites to P&S works in one of my FAs.) I have heard that they have a higher than most publishers incidence of outright rogue publications but haven't noticed that personally - perhaps I am a bit fussier than average on what I purchase. Carey is a professor of military history and was pretty much a "have to have" when I worked on the battle of Zama. Roberts I treat with more caution (despite his seeming more on top of his subject than Carey) and rarely use on Wikipedia, although he is one of the few extended treatments of Hannibal from Tarentum on. (Worth a read, if only for how he struggles to get a coherent narrative out of the sources.) Link Walbank in Scullard 2006. He is already linked at first mention in the Sources The World of Rome: an Introduction to Roman Culture: cap An? Done. The UNESCO citation puts the title first, so alphabetise by that. Done. Make sure there is consistently a space between two initials ("F. W. Walbank"). Done. Write out page range in full in Whittaker 1996 (WP:NOTPAPER). Done. * We might consider calling Lilybaeum by its Punic name ("Lilýbaion"), much as we call Agrigentum by its Greek one, before the Roman conquest. I would prefer to go with what the sources universally call it. * In late November the Carthaginian cavalry routed the cavalry and light infantry of the Romans at the battle of Ticinus.: a Roman force of cavalry and light infantry? It makes it sound here like they didn't rout the heavy infantry (who in fact weren't there at all), but somehow inspired the Gauls anyway. Tweaked. 217 BC 40 Carthaginian and Iberian warships were defeated by 55 Roman and Massalian vessels at the battle of the Ebro River, with 29 Carthaginian ships lost: that was lucky for the Iberians! Indeed. I am over complicating things. Mention of Iberians removed. The Romans' lodgement between the Ebro and the Pyrenees blocked the route from Iberia to Italy: what does lodgement actually mean here? Linked. Lodgement On Sicily the Romans avoided battle in 252 and 251 BC: Why on Sicily here, given that all the previous battling was on Sicily? Because the previous two sentences dealt with naval matters. Without the on Sicily a reader would reasonably assume that the avoiding battle was also naval; until, one assumes, they got to the elephants, at which point they would scratch their heads and reread the sentence. * Polybius regarded the war as "the longest, most continuous and most severely contested war known to us in history": consider adding the Polybius citation to the footnote, for those who want to read more or verify it. You've lost me here UC. What Polybius citation? As in, give us chapter and verse from Polybius (1.63) so that interested readers can follow it up: I tend to cite as "Polybius 1.63, quoted in Goldsworthy 2008" (or whatever the citation is). Completely a matter of taste, of course, but seems to me to have benefits and few costs. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC) I very much dislike "quoted in" citations. I could add a cite direct to Polybius, or perhaps better, add Histories under Further reading. (Something else I dislike, but a lesser evil.) Personally, I probably wouldn't put a primary source in Further Reading -- whether you choose to add a second citation, modify the existing one, or do nothing, I'll be happy with your decision either way. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC) The immense effort of repeatedly building large fleets of galleys during the war laid the foundation for Rome's maritime dominance, which was to last 600 years: are we getting a bit ahead of ourselves here? After all, fast foward less than two centuries, and Rome will be (apparently) unable to stop pirates from sailing up the Tiber with impunity. I need some convincing that Rome really held "maritime dominance" over (in particular) Egypt in 241. Well, regardless of the sources I am, on consideration, largely with you. (Specialists do tend to attribute all and everything to their specialisation. (Have you read NAM Rodger on the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions being due tot he Royal Navy procurement systems?)) Removed. I'd come across the idea, but not the name -- cart, horse, etc? UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC) Nicholas A. M. Rodger. His work is excellent and he develops his hypothesis convincingly. An army had previously been created by the Romans to campaign in Iberia and the Roman Senate detached one Roman and one allied legion from it to send to north Italy: northern Italy -- but I would also consider reworking the long, clunky passive. Both done. Only 10,000 Romans out of 42,000 were able to cut their way to safety: at the risk of being a spoilsport, I would call MOS:IDIOM and replace with something dull like "escape". Can we really be sure that none of the 10,000 got out by bludgeoning, dodging, playing dead or some other means? I disagree re the idiom. It seems a reasonably straightforward paraphrase of "... 10,000 Roman soldiers managed to fight their way out and make it to the nearby town ..." (Miles) I think John Keegan had some wise words about this kind of (frankly) imaginative language, and my point about Miles as a (very good) mass-market book may need resurrecting here. I'll see if I can dig out The Face of Battle later, but for now will suggest that "escape" is also a good paraphrase of that and avoids the use of imagination (Miles's, or possibly Polybius's, to be clear!). UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC) I have my 1978 copy of Face pretty well memorised. Possibly you are thinking of the Napier's "Such a gallant line ..." section? Regardless, I am content with the current form. Gone with your suggestion. Tweaked and elaborated re the casualties/survivors. Hannibal repeatedly defeated Roman armies, in 209 BC both consuls were killed in a cavalry skirmish: semicolon here, not a comma. What were both consuls doing in the same cavalry skirmish, incidentally? Done. (I meant 208, and goodness knows. No one came back to explain. Scouting with an escort of 220 they walked into a much larger force of Numidians and were wiped out. It was Marcus Claudius Marcellus's fifth time as consul, he ought to have known better. . A fresh Roman army attacked the main Carthaginian stronghold on the island, Agrigentum, in 210 BC: we've changed its name: is that intentional? If so, I think we should clarify/remind that this is Akragas. Standardised as Agrigentum. By the middle of the 2PW, we seem have fallen out of the habit of giving modern equivalents for places. I'm not sure I particularly mind, but consistency is, as ever, king (consul? Sufet?). I believe that all ancient settlements that still exist now have their modern names - where different - given at first mention. Hannibal negotiated a treaty whereby Syracuse defected to Carthage, in exchange for making the whole of Sicily a Syracusan possession.: I think we need to be clear that the second part of this was firmly in the future tense; Hannibal wasn't in a position to actually make the whole of Sicily Syracusan at that point (or ever). Rephrased. I'm not sure that quite solves the problem (it reminds me a bit of the old joke: "doctor, will I be able to play the piano after my operation?) -- how about framing it as a promise that Carthage would allow Syracuse to take over the whole of Sicily? UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC) Further tweaked. The siege was marked by the ingenuity of Archimedes in inventing war machines to counteract the traditional siege warfare methods of the Romans: It's a little sub judice whether all or any of these machines actually existed... Understood. But the sources state it as a fact. I can't even find a clearly expressed statement doubting their entire existance to enable me to insert a sceptical footnote. Are you aware of one? I'm not sure it's particularly relevant here, to be honest. There's a lot written about how the "famous" sun-reflecting ship-burning mirror device probably never existed, but then none of the good sources talk about that one anyway. There's other interesting work about how later inventors (particularly Leonardo da Vinci) thought (or pretended) that Archimedes had invented devices that were clearly modern (or their own), such as a large steam-powered cannon, but again nobody nowadays talks about those as real things. So we're left with the ship-sinking claw, which to me is still a bit unlikely, but I don't think anyone has actually gone on the record and said "gosh, isn't it strange that someone came up with this idea from whole cloth, that it worked well, but nobody ever decided to do it again?" UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC) More to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC) It was the only time during the war that Carthage reinforced Hannibal: successfully reinforced -- since Hasdrubal tried to do so later? So what, that was the only time Hannibal was reinforced. (If I inserted "successfully" every time something was done successfully there would be a lot of them. True, but at the moment the sentence gives the wrong impression -- it gives us the idea that Carthage only bothered to help him out on one occasion. Compare something like "it was the only time that my parents sent me a birthday card" -- if they actually sent one every year, but the postman stole it, that would be germane information. It's particularly confusing here because "reinforced" has two "ends" (sending reinforcements and their being received), and it's not clear to the reader that we're specifically talking about only one of those. Could rephrase to "that Hannibal received reinforcements from Carthage"? UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC) I think you are overloading the nuances, but changed to "It was the only time during the war that Hannibal received reinforcements from Carthage." For 12 years after Cannae: this seems like an odd way to mark time, since we haven't mentioned Cannae or its date for quite a while. Most readers will need to scroll up, I think. There are three short paragraphs in between. And if one reads straight past "after Cannae" one does not lose any of the sense of the prose. Possibly, but there's also a subsection break, and we don't explicitly put a date on Cannae. I'm not sure this is better than "Until 204 BC". Incidentally, I'm also a bit confused on the chronology: Cannae was 216, so apparently the war continued swirling around southern Italy and cities continued being swapped from Rome to Carthage and back again until 204, but then we have by 207 BC Hannibal had been confined to the extreme south of Italy and many of the cities and territories which had joined the Carthaginian cause had returned to their Roman allegiance. That seems to contradict that timeframe. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC) Reference to Cannae removed. The chronology still puzzles me: is The war surged around southern Italy ... as cities went over to the Carthaginians or were taken by subterfuge and the Romans recaptured them by siege or by the support of pro-Roman factions still a good description of the years from 207 to 204? We now don't have a firm start date on those twelve years, which makes this whole bit quite confusing. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC) I think it probably works better if I pull any mention of dates and leave it as a summary for the sub-section. ("Roman allies defect, 216–207 BC") Yup, this works well now. UndercoverClassicist T·C 05:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC) This breach of the recently signed treaty is considered by modern historians to be the single greatest cause of war with Carthage breaking out again in 218 BC in the Second Punic War.: just checking that one of the three citations makes the meta-judgement that it is considered this (rather than just saying that they consider it to be so?) Ditto, earlier, Polybius's work is considered broadly objective and largely neutral between Carthaginian and Roman points of view. 1. No, the don't. "many" inserted. 2. Same question on "many": I think WP:SYNTH and MOS:WEASEL apply -- three is not many, and even then, there's no point under SYNTH that we can say we've piled up enough straws to make the metaphorical heap. Suggest "Historians such as... have called it..." -- you can give one (or two) as examples and cite more, if you like, without necessarily name-dropping everyone. Is there a 2.? UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC) 1. Wading through upwards of a dozen sources mentioning this I realised it is the consensus of the sources, so I can just state it in Wikipedia's voice. 2. I no longer have access to Hau. I could defend it on what Lazenby says, but as above this would not be the consensus view. Dialled back.

Break 2

• Hannibal set an ambush and in the battle of Lake Trasimene completely defeated this Roman army, killing 15,000 Romans: and no allies?

I am not feeling a need to repeatedly point out that a Roman military unit may not be made up entirely of Roman citizens, any more than I feel it helpful to repeatedly mention how few Carthaginians there would be in a Carthaginian military unit. I am happy to note that the sources are with me on this.

I wouldn't ask you to, but we need to be accurate -- if, for example, we were talking about a battle involving the Royal Gurkha Rifles, we may not repeatedly point out that Gurkhas are from Nepal, but it would also be wrong to talk about the deaths of "twenty Englishmen". We're not just talking about the odd non-citizen here; a Roman army of the period was, by design, at least half non-Roman. Here, we could just cut Romans, or add "Romans and allies". I can't think of another case where it would be acceptable to refer to the casualties of a multi-national force as purely those of the "main" ally, even when one nation is clearly in charge ("203 Athenians died at Marathon", or "American forces seized five beaches on D-Day?") UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

It is entirely standard to describe a multi-national force as purely those of the "main" ally, especially when one nation is clearly in charge. "The Spartans held the pass for a further day", "the Canadians met heavy resistance at Juno", "the Canadians tried but failed to take Dieppe". The article explains prior to getting down to details of the action that Roman armies were made up of equal numbers of Roman and allied legions. That is sufficient. Just as it is to explain the multi-national nature of Carthaginian armies once, without repeatedly running through a list of nationalities. And the first three sources I consulted all support this approach.

None of those do what has happened here, which is to introduce an error of fact: it's much closer to "the Americans met heavy resistance at Juno" or "four thousand Spartans held the pass of Thermopylae". We have said that 15,000 Romans were killed -- this is not true. Assuming that the Roman armies were normally constituted, around 7,000 Romans were killed. Again, you don't need to explain the breakdown in any detail or do anything particularly complicated: there are any number of possible fixes (for instance, "completely defeated this Roman army, which lost 15,000 troops", in addition to those offered above) which avoid the problem. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

You accidentally deleted my response.

Can we, like good Wikipedians, stay with the sources? Lomas states in Hoyos's Companion "There are a number of good general accounts of the Second Punic War, including Lazenby 1978, Bagnall 1990, and Goldsworthy 2000". Looking at how these three describe the same thing, the casualties at Trasimene, we have respectively "15,000 Roman soldiers were killed", "As many as 15,000 Romans died" and "15,000 Romans were killed". None of the three make any distinction between citizens and allies among the dead. Looking a little further, Miles has "15,000 Roman troops were cut down" while a brief search of what I have electronically gives Sabin (in a footnote) "15,000 Roman dead and 15,000 prisoners at Lake Trasimene". Again, neither of these mention allies among the dead. There is the more general "some 15,000 of his army died" from Briscoe and "Flaminius and 15,000 of his men were killed" from Hoyos and, finally, Hoyos elsewhere with your preferred usage "Ten thousand Romans and allies were killed". Taking these eight as a whole, they would seem to be sufficient support from the sources for my "killing 15,000 Romans". Gog the Mild (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm really not sold on this one -- specifically, on the superiority of "15,000 Romans" to "15,000 Romans and allies". Even "Roman troops" is better (plenty of British soldiers are Fijian), if less clear. I do take your point that many sources are (frankly) lazy about it, but it's not like we have a unanimous wall of opinion in one direction: there are lots of ways of doing it in the sources, some of which seem manifestly better than the others, and I really don't see the appeal of this one. Yes, it's (precisely) one or two words shorter, but (again) it's manifestly not true, and we aren't being forced into it by an overwhelming scholarly consensus that refuses to countenance any other way of doing it. Even if we were, WP:IAR would apply: we don't report commonly repeated misconceptions as fact simply because there are many sources that state them. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

We seem to be running out of road on this one. I really don't see why you have a bee in your bonnet about the bog-standard way of describing multi-national forces, the standard way in the HQ sources of describing roman armies of the time, and the way most HQ RSs describe this particular situation. The article is clear "An army was usually formed by combining a Roman legion with a similarly sized and equipped legion provided by their Italian allies". Elsewhere: "These allied states provided more than half of Rome's military manpower", "By 212 BC the full complement of the legions deployed would have been in excess of 100,000 men, plus, as always, a similar number of allied troops." No reader is being deceived. I note that you still haven't come back on why we can overlook the even more extreme case where a force is described as Carthaginian when its proportion of Carthaginians makes up a fraction of one per cent.

From where I sit I am trying and failing to see any difference in this case between "we don't report commonly repeated misconceptions as fact simply because there are many sources that state them" and 'We follow the sources except when I don't like where they lead me.' Can I suggest that you grit your teeth on this one? Or failing that, perhaps we could seek a third opinion? Ian Rose is both an FAC and a MilHist coordinator and may be prepared to opine. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not at the teeth-gritting stage yet, though we're clearly going to have to get somewhere with this question, which might require it soon. As I see it, the sources give us three options:

1. State the facts in full: "15,000 Romans and allies" (Hoyos elsewhere) or else word it as soldiers of Rome rather than Romans per se (Miles, Lazenby).
2. Fudge it to "men" or similar, avoiding an ethnic description (Briscoe, Hoyos)
3. Abbreviate "Romans and allies" to "Romans" (Goldsworthy, Sabin).

Unless I've misunderstood you, I don't think there's a serious reading that says the 15,000 dead were all actually Romans, and the allies miraculously escaped unscathed. Overall, I'm not seeing a compelling case for 3., or even -- again, unless I've missed something -- that you've put forward any real reason to prefer it over 1. or 2. except that it's what we've already got -- and I'm not sure that's really much of a good reason at all. I'd be interested in a third opinion too, from Ian or indeed anyone else. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Yep, that's a good summary. My reason, good or otherwise, for preferring 3 is that it follows what most of the sources say most of the time. And what most of the HQ RSs say most of the time about any multi-national military force. There are - I'm not sure why I am telling you this - "Roman" armies composed largely of Goths. Or the "British" army at Waterloo ... And because once we move away from this convention - which is, yes, I'm repeating myself, followed by most historians most of the time as a useful shorthand - there is no logical place to stop. Eg, when tomorrow a new reviewer objects to "Carthaginian" forces being described as such on the irrefutable grounds that they weren't composed of Carthaginians, what would I say?

And with hindsight my previous comment seemed a bit curt. If it came across like that to you, my apologies - I didn't mean it to be. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I can understand that. I do think there's an important distinction between "British forces" and "Britons", or the destruction of a "Roman" army and the deaths of however many "Romans". Shall we park this one until a third opinion comes in? And please don't worry about the comment -- I appreciate it's tricky to get tone across in print, and I feel like I get it wrong as often as I get it right! UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 05:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

T8612

The captions of the pictures are inconsistent in the article; some suggestions:

• The picture of Polybius is a stele found in Kleitor, not far from his home city of Megalopolis. You could add a source, like this one.

Excellent. Thank you. Done.

• The picture of Hannibal is a modern statue, sculpted by Sébastien Slodtz in 1704, now in the Louvre.

Yep. I think that is all in the image details. Caption lightly tweaked.

The date of 1872 is when the sculpture was placed in the Tuileries gardens, but it was made in 1704.

Whoops. Changed.

• The mosaic of Archimedes is in the Liebieghaus, Frankfurt, but it's considered to be a forgery. See here (p. 294). I suggest saying it is a creation of the early modern era.

Ah! Thanks. Caption tweaked.

• The ruins in the picture of Carthage are from the Roman Empire. I suggest using this picture, which shows the remains of the circular military port.

I really like that image. I have used File:Carthage view.jpg in First Punic War to illustrate a similar point, but it needed a ridiculously long caption, as your suggestion would. I don't think that that is worth the space for an aficionado's point in an overview article.

"Remains of the military port of Carthage"?

T8612, done. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Excellent.

More to come later. T8612 (talk) 07:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that T8612. Eagerly awaiting the next instalment. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• I have some problems with the Primary sources section.
• The biggest problem is that the text downplays the usefulness of Livy, is commonly used by modern historians where Polybius's account is not extant. Livy is widely used, even when Polybius is extant. He was not as good as Polybius for analysing battles of politics, but Livy recorded everything and gives a comprehensive list of all the operations and Roman magistrates (it complements Polybius very well actually). Moreover, Livy relied on Polybius, but only on certain aspects, like campaigns or battles; he extensively used previous Roman analysts, such as Fabius Pictor and Cincius Alimentus, who were contemporary of the events. I would like some rephrasing to express this.

While I am not necessarily doubting any of this, could you provide sources to support the points you make? While there are probably endless ways of expressing anything, and any piece of prose can be improved, I have reread most of my sources, especially Mineo's "Principal Literary Sources for the Punic Wars (apart from Polybius)", and feel that the current section is a reasonable, short summary of them. In particular I wish to avoid going down the rabbit hole of chasing nuances in a section which is peripheral - arguably optional - to the subject of the article.

• More generally, I think this section would benefit by telling which parts are extent: Polybius is extent for the 1PW and the beginning of the 2PW, in excerpts afterwards; Livy is extent for the 2PW and in short summaries for the 1PW and 3PW. As a result, the 2PW is the best known of the three wars.

I can, obviously, easily cite this, but suggest that this would be getting into rather too much detail for an overarching article.

• I would also mention that Polybius was a contemporary of the 3PW, and that he witnessed the destruction of Carthage as he was in the staff of Scipio (it could also be placed in the 3PW section).

Added.

• and the later Roman historians Plutarch, Appian, and Dio Cassius. These men were ethnically Greek, not Roman, although they wrote during the Roman Empire. Plutarch is also a moralist/philosopher, but not historian. So, I would rephrase to and authors writing during the Roman empire, such as Plutarch, Appian, and Dio Cassius

"The Roman empire" would need introducing and explaining, so I have tweaked your suggestion but, I think, captured the spirit of it.

• During the Pyrrhic War of 280–275 BC link Pyrrhic War.

Already linked at first mention in the same section.

My bad.

• Messana (modern Messina). You link it twice in the "background and origin" and "Sicily, 264–257 BC" sections. Perhaps add a link to the Mamertines in one of them?

The first is to the city, the second to the battle. Rephrased the second mention to make this clearer. I think that may be a little Easter eggy.

• In the 1PW article, the responsibility of the war is rightly put on Rome (and Appius Caudex), but it is absent in this one. Can a short sentence of the events be placed here, like The spark that ignited the First Punic War in 264 BC was the issue of control of the independent Sicilian city state of Messana (modern Messina), and the desire of the consul Appius Claudius Caudex to obtain a rich booty from the war.

I have gone with just the first part of your suggestion. (But not the second: as I comment below to Tim riley, "in this overview article I feel that once we get into "interesting-and-nice-to-know" factoids we could drown in them.")

Yes, I prefer it this way.

• under the command of the Spartan mercenary Xanthippus, perhaps link Sparta.

Done.

• their request for a 2,000-talent loan, I would link Attic talent somewhere.

I follow the sources and refer to all of the talents as Euboic. Do you have sources which contradict this?

• The Treaty of Lutatius was agreed, maybe tell who was Lutatius?

See my "interesting-and-nice-to-know" comment.

In that case, I would remove Lutatius, as the name brings more questions than answers. "The peace treaty" would be fine here.

Done

• The Romans, panicked by these heavy defeats, appointed Quintus Fabius, the abbreviated form of his (long) name is more "Fabius Maximus", than "Quintus Fabius". There were hundreds of Quintus Fabius, but only dozens of Fabius Maximus.

Again I would be grateful for evidence that this is the consensus of scholarly opinion.

Goldsworthy (2006) uses Fabius Maximus (see pp.13, 21, 191, 199, 215), or simply Fabius; the Cambridge Ancient History vol. 8 uses Q. Fabius Maximus or Fabius Maximus (see pp. 53, 174, 432); Bagnall only uses Fabius Maximus (pp. 52, 54); Hoyos et al. (2015) use Q. Fabius Maximus (pp. 75, 296, 304, 331, 495). I think it's important to add the cognomen Maximus here.

Changed to Fabius Maximus at first mention and Fabius thereafter.

• Gaius Varro and Lucius Paullus , idem, "Terentius Varro and Aemilius Paullus" are better.

Could I have the sources for these. Thanks.

Goldsworthy (2006) only uses their full name or Paullus & Varro (see pp. 199, 202); same with the Cambridge Ancient History vol. 8 (see pp. 51, 69, 79); Bagnall only uses Paulus & Varro (pp. 54, 55); Hoyos et al. (2015) use Aemilius Paullus & Terentius Varro or simply Paullus & Varro (pp. 117, 121, 296). So for them, if you want to follow the RS, you could pick either "C. Terentius Varro & L. Aemilius Paullus", or just "Varro & Paullus". The prenomina are not important as they were the only members of their family active at the time.

Thanks. Changed to Terentius Varro and Aemilius Paullus at first mention, and Varro and Paullus thereafter.

• Hiero II, the tyrant of Syracuse for the previous forty-five years and a staunch Roman ally, Hiero started his reign in 275/270, so it's more than that. Moreover, it makes him king already at the beginning of the 1PW, when Syracuse battled against Rome. So I would say that Hiero had been a Roman ally since 263 (after he had been defeated by Rome).

Done.

You still have to change the "forty-five years", Hiero reigned for about 60 years.

Apologies. Fixed. I don't know why I have 45 years stuck in my head.

• In 205 BC Mago landed in Genua, link Mago. But I also think you could tell in the Carthaginian expansion in Iberia that Hamilcar had three sons, and present them there.

I think it is easier on a reader - who may not read the whole article, and may not remember all the details if they do - to introduce them as they first feature in the narrative.

Fine.

• In 210 BC Publius Cornelius Scipio. In order to help the casual reader, I would mention either in the text, or in the footnote that he was the later Africanus. However, I think it's possible to remove the footnote, by mentioning the two Scipio in the text above, as in Both battles ended in complete defeat for the Romans, who also lost their two commanders (Publius and Gnaeus Scipio), as Hasdrubal had bribed the Romans' mercenaries to desert. This way, you can just say below In 210 BC Publius Scipio (son and nephew of the Scipios who died at the Upper Baetis)

Ah ha. That sounds better. That said, I have recently tweaked this for another reviewer. Could you have a look at that before I change it again? Thanks.

As far as I can see, you only changed the footnote. I still think it would be better to rephrase the way I suggest, because the footnote forces you to go back to the previous section, where you did not mention Scipio's father. I'm also not a fan of adding footnotes.

I am not a fan of jumping around chronologically. I don't see how it helps a reader to know what name a person will be given later in the article. On reflection I have ditched the footnote entirely. I am deliberately naming as few people as I possibly can, trying only to name check the most prominent. I have read through and trimmed a further couple who do little to aid a reader's understandin.

More to come later. T8612 (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi T8612, it is good of you to review this. I have addressed your comments to date - I suspect you may wish to come back on some of them - and eagerly await your next tranche. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Gog, I was AFK for a week and I don't have my sources with me, but I'll check and come back next week. T8612 (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi T8612 and apologies for the delayed response. I completely missed your last set of comments. Thanks for the research into the sources. All of your comments have now been addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Support by Borsoka

• Consider integrating note 2 into the main text.

It gets close to being trivia. I think that if it is to be mentioned, a footnote is appropriate.

• I would delete note 3 (this is not an essay, but an encyclopedic article).

Done.

• Explain thalassocracy with two words.

Done.

• ...Carthage was the dominant external power... I am not sure I understand. Were there more external powers on the island? I would rather say that "Carthage dominated/had seized large chunks of the island/...".

Rephrased.

• ...well-armoured heavy infantry armed with long thrusting spears... I would delete "well-armoured".

I see no need to deprive readers of this information.

• ...(also known as "heavy cavalry")... Do we need it? If yes, do we need the quotation marks?

1. Yes. 2. IMO yes, otherwise I wouldn't have included them. I think it helps a reader. As you, I assume, don't, quote marks removed.

• Link and introduce Messana when it is first mentioned.

Isn't that what I have done with the last nine words of "Background".

• ..., the only significant independent power on the island,... I would rephrase it. Perhaps changing "independent" to "native Greek/local" would help.

I don't see how either of those improve things for a reader, or even address the political point being made.

• According to my memories, Sicily was the first Roman province. If I am right, this could be mentioned in the article.

Your memory is correct, but I don't see that a diversion into Rome's internal governance is relevant in this summary of the Punic Wars. (I refer you to your second point above.)

• I understand your concern but I need time. Borsoka (talk) 11:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC) Oh, now I remember what was my problem: Sicily was not annexed as a Roman province, but as the first Roman province. Borsoka (talk) 11:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Neat. Done as you suggest.

Borsoka (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Borsoka, all addressed and ready for more. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• ...and their cities brought back under Carthaginian rule. We are not previously informed that they seized cities.

Done. (And changed to "towns".)

• ...an act of war... A link to casus belli?

It seems overlink to me. Are any readers likely to not grasp what an act of war is?

• Could the three Hasdrubals be distinguished from each other in the text in some way? Alternativel, I would introduce the third Hasdrubal in the text (not in a footnote).

Not, IMO, without mangling the text. None of thee sources do. I assume for the same reason. I don't introduce the third Hasdrubal in a footnote, I disambiguate him there. Nevertheless, I have moved this into the main text, although I am not sure it is an improvement.

Borsoka (talk) 11:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Borsoka, your latest batch addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• I am not sure that socii is the best link to Latin allies, because socii were Rome's non-Latin allies, according to my memories.

Your memory is completely correct and the text should say "non-Latin allies". However, thinking on't, that is the most reader friendly of phrases, so I am going with "Italian allies".

• ...Several of the city states in southern Italy allied with Hannibal... Had these been Roman allies before Cannae?

Depends on how you define "allies"; tribute cities may be closer in some cases. They were all in some formal relationship with Rome.

• How do you define "allies"? They are mentioned in the section title, but in the text the city states are not introduced as such.

Ok. The logical place to introduce them would seem to under "Roman defeats, 217–216 BC" where I write "The prisoners were badly treated if they were Romans, but released if they were from one of Rome's allies. Hannibal hoped some of these allies could be persuaded to defect and marched south hoping to win over Roman allies among the ethnic Greek and Italic states." Before I expand this I just wanted to check that this works for you.

• Excellent idea. Borsoka (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Done.

• ...(see § Iberia below)... Is this necessary?

Few things in life are necessary, but I think the pointer is helpful. I can imagine a reader at this point ("In 205 BC Mago landed in Genua in north-west Italy with the remnants of his Spanish army ...") thinking "who? What? Where did he spring from? The indication that the whole article is not chronological, only chronological within themes, is I feel, likely to be reassuring.

• Only here? I would delete it. For me, such "helpful" references indicate the lack of copyedit.

Removed.

• ...jointly commanded by both consuls,... Could you name them?

Probably. But I am deliberately keeping the name-count down in this overview article. As I have said to other reviewers in similar circumstances "in this overview article I feel that once we get into "interesting-and-nice-to-know" factoids we could drown in them."

• Rome still exists as the capital of Italy;... Is this necessary in an encyclopedic article?

I feel so. An astonishingly high proportion of people are extremely shakey on what thee and me would consider basic geography. I note that the Wikipedia article on Rome starts "Rome is the capital city and most populated comune (municipality) of Italy." And I think it succinctly shows the deep continuity.

• Sorry, but for me the last sentence (contrasting Rome with Carthage) is unencyclopedic. It reads like a last sentence in a speech about the Punic Wars for very young or very old people. :) Borsoka (talk) 02:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Then we differ.

Borsoka (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Borsoka, all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

More responses, including a query. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• (Lead): ...of wars between 264 and 146 BC fought between... Could it be rephrased?

Certainly. Excellent point. I have rephrased the opening paragraph and shortened it.

• (Lead): ...It lasted twenty-years years, until 241 BC... Twenty?

Fixed.

Borsoka (talk) 02:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC) Happy to support this nomination. I highly appreciate your ability to write concisely about complex topics. Borsoka (talk) 02:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

• "Each war involved immense material and human losses on both sides." I might reverse "human" and "material", since by modern standards, the human losses are more important.

Done.

• "This caused Carthage to cease to be a military threat." Is this fully accurate? They could become a threat by breaking the treaty, presumably.

Nah. They couldn't even chase off a bunch of Numidians, as they established at [[|Battle of Oroscopa|Oroscopa]]. I've checked a couple of sources, it's a fair enough summary.

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• --Progress report, up to "Italy" in War II, nothing further to report.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  I've read it through and it all seems very solid work, as did the previous iteration that I supported some time ago. Support. Wehwalt (talk) 08:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Wehwalt. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:44, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Source review

Going to qualify up-front that this is not a topic where I am deeply familiar with the sources. The source formatting seems consistent, although I notice that this is used as a full text link on one source but only that source has such a link - have other sources been investigated?

Link removed. I don't understand your final query Jo-Jo. Could you help me out by explaining a little further what you are after?

Mahaney, W.C. (2008). has one critical review, does it affect its assessment?

I quite like Mahaney's mildly left-field analysis. But it is not as if there is any shortage of sources for Hannibal crossing the Alps, so I have swapped out Mahaney for Briscoe and Erdkamp, who seem safe enough.

With the exception of Bagnall every source seems to be well-cited or from a prominent publisher.

One doesn't get much more prominent than Pimlico and he seems to be cited to the gunnels. On the first page of Google Scholar I found "There are a number of good general accounts of the Second Punic War, including Lazenby 1978, Bagnall 1990, and Goldsworthy 2000" by Kathryn Lomas, and that in Hoyos's magisterial A Companion to the Punic Wars. I felt no need to look further, but what skeleton did you shake out of the cupboard?

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo. Thanks for looking this over and apologies for the delayed response. Do my comments above resolve your qualms? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

It seemed to me that this source is the only one with a full text link, which begs the question whether it's because it's the only source with a full text link or because only one source had one added (which would be inconsistent formatting). Re Bagnall only that I couldn't find much information myself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: okey dokey. Thanks again. Is this a pass for source review then? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

A couple of drive-by comments on the images

The terracotta elephant (Naples, Mus. Arch. Naz. 124845) illustrated in the section on the first Punic war is not from Herculaneum, as stated in the caption. It was found in the courtyard of a house in Pompeii (XV.15.5) in 1895: see Notizie degli scavi 1897, pp. 23–27, with fig. 3 on p. 25.

Changed. Source added.

The maps need better proofreading. I didn't check them all, but there are typos in the labels of at least two of the ones used in the section on the second Punic war: File:Map_of_Rome_and_Carthage_at_the_start_of_the_Second_Punic_War_Modified.svg ("Panoramus" for Panormus), File:Campagna africana di Scipione 204-203 aC.png ("carthaginenis" for carthaginensis).

Request submitted.

I also endorse UC's comment above about Andrew Curry: he is not a historian, and should not be described as one. Champion's opinion on the reliability of Polybius carries some weight; Curry's carries none. — Choliamb (talk) 13:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Curry's comment removed and replaced with one from Goldsworthy. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Jens

Excellent article. Only a couple of comments from me:

• In the lead, it is a bit unfortunate that the Mercenary war is introduced twice, but I am not sure if this needs to be addressed.

Well each of the four wars are introduced twice. I am not sure there is much that can be done about it.

• You do not mention the causes of the first Punic war; was there a particular event that caused Rome to declare war?

Er "The spark that ignited the First Punic War in 264 BC was the issue of control of the independent Sicilian city state of Messana (modern Messina)."

• The conflict between these policies pushed the two powers to stumble into war more by accident than design. – I wonder if this is really a widely accepted fact, or if it needs author attribution?

It is the consensus of scholarly consensus and I don't think it needs different attribution than any other.

• Akragas: Mention that it is also called Agrigento/Agrigentum, as you also do with another city? This helps with finding it on the map, which uses "Agrigentum".

Good point. Done.

• link Spartan

Done.

• which was already at war against Macedonia. In 205 BC this war ended with a negotiated peace. – Sounds as if both sentences refer to the same war, but they refer to separate ones.

It was one war. But I think my use of language is confusing, so I have rephrased.

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Jens and thanks for that. I have addressed your points above. What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Support. In your articles it is a challenge to find any nitpicks at all. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

SC

Background and origin

• You need a key for the map

Done.

• There's a word missing in the alt text ("a colour of the western Mediterranean region")

Inserted.

(I noticed these just in passing, but will conduct a full review shortly). - SchroCat (talk) 07:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

• One a further readthrough, this all seems very solid and enough for encyclopaedic coverage of the the subject. Besides, the review is already longer than the article, so support. - SchroCat (talk) 06:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

From first canter-through for typos etc:

• "entirely on Carthagian territory" – should this be "Carthaginian"?

Possibly.

• "a quasi-monarchial, autonomous state" – the OED calls "monarchial" "obsolete, rare". You might be better off with "monarchical".

Another fine traditional word goes down with all hands.

Starting proper perusal now. More soonest. Tim riley talk 09:32, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Down to the end of First Punic War section

• "forty-three years of warfare ... It lasted 23 years" – words or digits for such numbers? I like your first style more than your second, but either way you should, I think, be consistent

Ah. Yes. Sorted.

• "immense material and human losses on both sides" – should this be "matériel"? (OED: "The equipment, supplies, etc., used by an army, navy, or other organization, as distinguished from the personnel or body of people employed."

I keep reverting "helpful" changes to this. Even linking it to materiel. To little avail. Done.

• "Rome was a rapidly expanding power in Italy, with a strong army but no navy. The fighting took place primarily on Sicily and its surrounding waters" – not obvious how Rome could fight in the surrounding waters of Sicily if it had no navy.

I don't see that, for the lead, I need to add more than the current "At the start of the war".

• "This expedition enjoyed considerable early success and campaigned in Italy for 14 years" – do expeditions campaign? And I refer my honourable friend to my comment on "forty-three years of warfare etc", above.

I believe they do; much as an army or other military might.

You may, thank you.

• "Carthage provided materiel to the Romans" – both the OED and Chambers give "matériel" its acute accent.

I prefer to go with Collins, Wiktionary, Wikipedia and, even, some sources emanating from Oxford.

Now you mention it, I see that the current edition of Fowler says Used in English since the early 19c. to mean ‘material and equipment used in warfare (as distinct from personnel)’, it has been naturalized and is printed in ordinary roman type without the accent on the first e of the original French matériel. The open e in the last syllable differentiates it in speech from material., and I subside with what grace I can. Tim riley talk 15:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Good old Fowler I have always said.

• "Most male Roman citizens were liable for military service" – were there any female citizens? (I know not of Rome, but the only people recognised as citizens in ancient Athens were men.) And I presume there was some sort of upper age limit: you wouldn't want old dodderers like me in your front line.

Long ago, I omitted "male" from this boilerplate. It was objected to, on the grounds that how was a reader to know that there were no female Roman citizens at the time if I didn't tell them.

• "they were notoriously ill-trained and ill-disciplined" – says who?

The sources cited at the end of "the latter were usually Numidians." Are you hinting that you would prefer more frequent citations?

• "If either commander felt at a disadvantage, they might march off" – as there were no commanderesses I think a plain "he" would be preferable to a clunky gender-neutral "they"

Boudica, Zenobia, Mavia, Hypsicratea? Done, at the risk of the Wrath of UndercoverClassicist.

• "partway through the First Punic War" – the OED hyphenates "part-way"; Chambers and Collins make it two separate words. Take your pick, but certainly isn't a single unhyphenated word.

Torn apart.

• "the only significant independent power on the island" – this is Plain Words on "significant": This is a good and useful word, but it has a special flavour of its own and it should not be thoughtlessly used as a mere variant of important, considerable, appreciable, or quite large ... it ought to be used only where there is a ready answer to the reader's unspoken question 'Significant, is it? And what does it signify?'

I keep falling for that one. Sorry. Swapped out.

• "The Carthaginian's superior seamanship was not as effective as they had hoped" – the possessive apostrophe should be after the "s" in this sentence.

D'oh!

• "there is no record of them being used again" – anyone for gerunds? "their" would be preferable to "them" here.

That was my contractually required gerund misuse.

• "had declined by 17 per cent" – see my comment on "forty-three years of warfare etc", above.

Further comments later. Off to lunch now. Tim riley talk 10:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Years of warfare are consistently in words, percentages in numerals.

A few more

• "Carthage's oppressed dependant territories" – I think (but am not absolutely sure) that when used as an adjective the word is "dependent".

Yep. Dependant is obsolete; why am I not surprised?

• "Iberia (modern Spain and Portugal)" – you've told us that in the lead, but after that we've have four mentions of Iberia in the main text before we read this explanatory parenthesis, which might, perhaps be moved up to the first mention in the main text.

It might, it might.

• "in spring 218 BC Rome declared war on Carthage" – this isn't a carp or quibble, but I'm just wondering how a declaration of war was actually declared in those days?

Pushed the ambassador down a well? I just follow the source, which states "Fabius [the Roman ambassador] responded by declaring that he let fall war ... In this way war was declared".

• "but was then ambushed and besieged itself" – I don't imagine it really besieged itself. I might shift the "itself" to between "and" and "ambushed"

Great image though.

• "Fabius introduced the Fabian strategy of avoiding open battle with his opponent, but constantly skirmishing with small detachments of the enemy" – worth a mention and explanation of his nickname "cunctator"? I just mention it.

I mentioned it in Second Punic War - "The Roman populace derided Fabius as "the Delayer" (in Latin, Cunctator)" - but in this overview article I feel that once we get into "interesting-and-nice-to-know" factoids we could drown in them.

Fair enough. Tim riley talk 17:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• "to be paid over 50 years ... restricted to 10 warships" – as above for digits-v-words.

I'm happy with both. (I am assuming that some new MoS rule to standardise all mentions of numbers has been introduced?)

• "almost all of the requirements of Scipio's large army" – do we want the superfluous first "of" here?

Nope.

More to come. Tim riley talk 18:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Last batch

• "Over the following 48 years" – words-v-digits again.

See above.

• "However, elements in the Roman Senate had long wished to destroy Carthage" – about all I knew until now about the Punic Wars (Alps and elephants apart) was Cato the Censor's "Carthago delenda est" and I'm mildly surprised at not seeing it in this article, though I don't press the point.

Again "interesting-and-nice-to-know" factoids. (Most of which relate to the Romans.)

Once again, fair enough. Tim riley talk 17:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• "Vast amounts of materiel" – acute accent needed.

Umm.

• "Rome still exists as the capital of Italy" – do we really need to be told this?

Spoilsport! I can cite it> It is included for the benefit of North American readers.

Whoooo! Steady! Tim riley talk 17:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• "Several different "talents" are known from antiquity" – this and note 14 seem to me models of their kind, helping the modern reader understand the values involved.

Thankee kindly.

• "prohibiting attacking each others allies" – needs a possessive apostrophe after "others"

Drat. Added.

• "Publius Scipio was the bereaved son of the previous Roman co-commander" – not clear why "bereaved" is in this sentence.

Rephrased

That's my lot. The article seems to me clearly of FA standard and I look forward to adding my support when you've had the time to address my comments, above. Tim riley talk 07:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Mr riley, I am even more in your debt. All addressed I think and the article much improved. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Very happy with the above exchanges, and pleased to sign on the dotted line to support the elevation of the article to FA. It meets all the criteria, in my view, as well as being a crackingly good read. – Tim riley talk 17:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Query for the coordinators

@FAC coordinators: Greetings all, this nom has six general supports, image and source review passes, no unaddressed comments and has been open for a little over three weeks. Could I have permission to nominate another? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: [29] Oh come on guys! Gog the Mild (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

We're out camping for a month and coverage has proved intermittent so just saw this -- go for it,more death and destruction please...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, and your wish is my command. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Happy Feet (penguin)

Nominator(s): ―Panamitsu (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

This article is about an emperor penguin who arrived at a beach in New Zealand and became a bit of a media sensation. After filling his stomach with sand, he was kept at a zoo to recover, and was released 10 weeks later in the Southern Ocean with a GPS tracker. However, it fell silent and it is not known if he was still alive. ―Panamitsu (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Support Oppose from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "namedafter = [[Happy Feet (2006 film)]]" should be something like ' namedafter = the animated 2006 film [[Happy Feet|''Happy Feet'']]'
• "In order to prevent the public from putting Happy Feet in danger" → 'To prevent the public from putting Happy Feet in danger'.

Done ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Numbers in convert templates do not need commas.

Done ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Miskelly et al needs an OCLC (837311158)
• "Happy Feet was an emperor penguin who in June 2011 ... making him one of the". "who", "him"?! Do the HQ RSs anthropomorphise to this degree. Even if they do, does it strike an encyclopedic tone?

• The newspaper sources do but the scholarly sources don't. I've had a look at the featured animal articles Laika, Easy Jet (horse) and Knut (polar bear) which do anthropomorphise like this. ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• I also feel that we shouldn't anthropomorphise, as we aim to be a serious encyclopedia so following the language of scholarly sources makes sense. Besides, if you keep he/who, you would need to introduce him as a male in the first sentence in the lead already, before you can refer to him as "he". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• "and as a result, was transported to Wellington Zoo". 1. Suggest deleting "as a result". 2. Suggest deleting the comma.

Done ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• "Happy Feet was released in the Southern Ocean on 4 September 2011". Is the date of the bird's arrival at the zoo known?

Yes although I'm not quite sure what you want to be done with it. ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• "more media attention than Prime Minister John Key." → 'more media attention than New Zealand Prime Minister John Key.'

Done ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• "making him only a few kilometres south of the world's northernmost recorded emperor penguin" This doesn't really work. Consider 'to only a few kilometres south of the world's northernmost recorded emperor penguin' or similar.

Now is "He was one of the northernmost emperor penguins ever recorded out of captivity" ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• "He was named after the 2006 film Happy Feet, which features emperor penguins, and was initially estimated by an expert to be about three years old, but further analysis has suggested that he was about 11 months old at the time of his arrival." Recommend breaking the sentence.
• "Two weeks later, a DNA test of a feather sample determined that he was male." Two weeks later than when?

Clarified. ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• "A ranger subsequently went to take a look at the bird, a juvenile with a height of about 1 metre (3 ft),[10] who was later reported as being "initially bright-eyed, alert, and in apparent good condition"." I think that this sentence is trying to do three separate things and so confuses the reader.

Done. ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• "The bird excited the public". I imagine that many members of the public had either not heard of the bird or were unexcited. I recommend not putting this in Wikipedia's voice. Perhaps start the sentence 'thousands of people went visit him at the beach'

Done ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• "visit"? Perhaps 'view', or 'see'?

Done ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• "including people who work for the news". "work" → 'worked'.
• "including people who work for the news, school students, veterinarians and a penguin expert from Massey University." Does the listing of some random-seeming categories of visitors serve any purpose?

I've removed this list entirely. ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• "while locals kept watch of the penguin 24 hours a day". Is that grammatical in NZEng?

Changed "of" to "over". ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• "he was ensured to have sea access at all times." Likewise.

Changed to " he was ensured access to the sea at all times". ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• "DOC co-ordinated this protection effort" → 'The DOC co-ordinated this protection effort'.

• I don't know why but sources never write "the DOC" e.g. [30] -P

• "was stressed due to the relative warmth of New Zealand's climate". Delete "was stressed due to the relative warmth". The stress wasn't caused by the climate, but by the relative heat at that time and place. (Which in turn was, I agree, caused by the climate.)

• Do you mean to remove the climate part and change it to "with the temperature being about 10 °C (50 °F), was stressed due to the relative warmth."? I'm a bit confused here. -P

How you have it now works. Although "with the air temperature being relatively warm at about 10 °C (50 °F), was stressed" → 'with the air temperature of about 10 °C (50 °F) being warmer than emperor penguins were accustomed to, was heat stressed' or similar would save me coming back to ask "relative to what?". Gog the Mild (talk) 11:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, done. ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• "by Te Papa and DOC." 1. Could what or who Te Papa was/is be explained in line. 2. the DOC.

Added "museum". No "the" as I mentioned before. ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

This is a fascinating and well-researched article, but there are grammar issues and - more importantly - areas where an encyclopedic tone seems lacking. I am not surprised to note that much of the sourcing is to newspapers, as a popular tone pervades the article. Some of the article seems to be trivia, and at times I had the impression of an accumulation of available factoids rather than a themetic approach. I'll pick another section at random and see how that reads.

Legacy

• "In November 2011 a statue of Happy Feet was unveiled at the Coastlands Shopping Centre in Paraparaumu, to fundraise for the construction of the Coastlands Aquatic Centre, made with the help of Wellington Zoo nurse Sarah Holleman, who looked after the penguin." I got lost in this sentence. I think breaking it would help, as would perhaps a little more information.
• "people were planning on creating a documentary about Happy Feet." Grammar.

Done. ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• "reported him to DOC". the.

Nope ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• "That year, Christine Wilton, the woman who discovered Happy Feet at the beach and reported him to DOC, wrote a children's book about the penguin, and in late 2011 Penguin Books published a children's book about him." "That year" makes "in ... 2011" redundant. "wrote a children's book about the penguin, and .. Penguin Books published a children's book about him" is clunky.

• I've never been able to figure out if these are the same books or not so I don't know how to word it any better. ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• "In December 2011, Time magazine named Happy Feet as the runner-up 2011 animal of the year". Is it possible to avoid mentioning 2011 twice in one clause?

Done

• "Happy Feet boosted votes for the emperor penguin in the annual Bird of the Year competition". "annual" - in wich year?

Done

• All bar the last occurrence in "Legacy" occurred in 2011. Any reason for that? Nothing legacy-notable prior or since?

Not that I know of. ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I am leaning oppose and feel that a withdrawal for a thorough copy edit may be the best way to go. However, if the nominator prefers to try and tackle that issues while the article is still at FAC I am content to wait and have another look later. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, it was really helpful. I've been considering following your advice and withdrawing, but I've got a lot of time on my hands so I might try fixing the issues while the article is at FAC. ―Panamitsu (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Gog the Mild I think I've replaced the 'popular' tone with one that is more formal (I've ignore the anthropomorphising for now). I have removed some trivia and am wondering if I should remove the question time part in the Aftermath section. What do you think? ―Panamitsu (talk) 09:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Gog the Mild, apologies for another ping. Is it possible for you to have another look at the article? I think I've fixed all the issues but there haven't been any comments for a while. ―Panamitsu (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• I'll skim Cost and Aftermath.
• Summarising here. The prose still needs work. It is ok, but not "engaging and of a professional standard". Too much trivia (eg 100 kg of smolt), not sufficiently summary style, in need of a copy edit - which would considerably trim the length. It seems to me to also be feeling the lack of a mentor - see the FAC instructions. I'm sorry, but I am firming up to oppose. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Further comments

• "Happy Feet was recognised as one of Time magazine's runner-ups for 2011 Animals of the Year". It wasn't "recognised". Suggest deleting "recognised as".
• Why mention "and was the subject of a children's book published by Penguin Books" in the lead and not "Christine Wilton ... wrote a children's book about him"?
• "A few hours later, he was found again". Suggest "found" → 'seen'.
• "the last having been found in 1967 at Southland's Oreti Beach." Maybe "last" → 'first'?
• "After the woman sighted Happy Feet at Peka Peka Beach". Optional: "woman" → 'dog walker'.
• "and he was ensured access to the sea at all times." Maybe 'and it was ensured that he had access to the sea at all times.'?
• "This was conducted in front of about 100 spectators through an observation window." Er, I think you mean something like 'This was conducted in front of about 100 spectators, who observed through a window.'
• "During a Parliament question time". 1. Lower-case p 2. It is usually 'a parliamentary question time', although NZ usage may differ.
• "where some colonies have never been visited in person." Do the last two words add anything.
• "the only other recorded emperor penguin in New Zealand". Maybe 'the only other recorded emperor penguin to swim to New Zealand'?

Much better. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the unexpected re-review! I've used all these suggestions. ―Panamitsu (talk) 07:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Article: "Animal of the Year"; lead: "Animals of the Year". Which?
• Why does the lead only mention one of the two children's books written about him?

Nearly there. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Changed to animal of the year. The book issue was because I couldn't figure out if they're the same book or not, but now both are mentioned. ―Panamitsu (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Kusma

Planning to review. —Kusma (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Lead: "one of the northernmost emperor penguins ever recorded" doesn't this need some hedging ("wild") against penguins in captivity in the Northern Hemisphere? Aalborg Zoo had emperor penguins from 1963 to 1983, for example. Or is this too obvious?

I thought it was obvious but maybe that's because I've been looking at this article for too long. I've added "out of captivity". ―Panamitsu (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• "fitted with a GPS tracker so that his location could be tracked" can you say this without using "track" twice?

Done ―Panamitsu (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• "arriving just a few kilometres from the northernmost sighting of an emperor penguin" this sounds like that was in New Zealand as well, which seems to be incorrect; the northernmost sighting happened somewhere off the Argentine coast, thousands of kilometres away.

Added "which occurred in Argentina". ―Panamitsu (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• "Named after the 2006 film Happy Feet" do we know who named him? this claims it was the person who found him?

Added. The scholarly source says the same thing. ―Panamitsu (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• I am not sure you are telling the Arrival story in the best possible order. The first paragraph is arrives/speculation about how he got there/age/sex, the second paragraph tells the actual story of the arrival and subsequent media attention etc.

I've just split a paragraph and moved some text down to make it more chronological. The first paragraph is now arrival/how he got there, second paragraph was discovery and age/sex/etc, third paragraph public attention at the beach, fourth paragraph health problems and move to zoo. ―Panamitsu (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• "at the noon of the same day" shorten to "at noon on the same day"?

Done ―Panamitsu (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• "by DOC and Te Papa museum" probably by museum staff?

Added "staff". ―Panamitsu (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Citation 17 is to an audio file; could you say where in that audio file we find the cited content?

I've removed that citation another source supports all the information in that citation. ―Panamitsu (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Release: grammar and tenses seem a bit off in the first paragraph.

I think I've fixed it. ―Panamitsu (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• "Cockrem believed" who is Cockrem?

I've added an introduction. There was one in the past but I must've mistakenly removed it. ―Panamitsu (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

You tell us twice in the Release section now that he is from Massey University. Once should be enough. —Kusma (talk) 15:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Oops fixed. ―Panamitsu (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

More later! —Kusma (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• More in healthcare: a lot of work is done here by unnamed "veterinarians". Do we know more about them / can we use a little variety instead of "veterinarians did A", "veterinarians did B"?

I've converted it to passive voice to avoid the repetition which I understand is discouraged. ―Panamitsu (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• "Veterinarians also put him on an intravenous drip" why "also"?

Removed

• "veterinarians flushed sand out of Happy Feet's stomach[16][14] which involved an endoscopy to look inside him" all of the operations mentioned here seem to be essentially by using an endoscope through the oesophagus and then targeted water flushing? It is a bit unclear the way it is written whether only the first operation was done with an endoscope. If I am right, perhaps explain endoscopy first and then say it was performed a couple of times?

Added "a method also used during subsequent procedures". ―Panamitsu (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• "The penguin was also provided" I don't think the "also" does much here.

Removed

• You could have the ten weeks before you describe the conditions for the penguin. Was he shown to the public?

I've moved it to the end of the second paragraph. I don't recall him being shown to the public. ―Panamitsu (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for having to stop again, I'll try to finish reviewing later today. —Kusma (talk) 10:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Release: " It had experts" is there a nicer word than "had"?

Changed to "included". ―Panamitsu (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• "the risk of introducing to Antarctic colonies" introducing what?

Oops fixed. ―Panamitsu (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• "John Cockrem, a penguin expert from Massey University, believed that if he was released in sub-Antarctic waters and swam to Antarctica on his own, any disease would disappear naturally; but the penguin may not survive the journey" you can read this as meaning that if we release Cockrem and the penguin, then swimming to Antarctica would heal Cockrem and kill the penguin. Shouldn't it be "might not survive"?

Fixed

• "New Zealand does not have the facilities to replicate the climatic conditions required for an emperor penguin. California did" why different tense in the two sentences? Better use "did" both times.

Fixed

• "California": did they have a specific place in mind? SeaWorld San Diego apparently offered to take the penguin

Added

• More tense issues. "Another problem was that New Zealand did not house any other emperor penguins;[26] if he were moved to the International Antarctic Centre in Christchurch for example, he would be isolated.[12] Some media outlets had also suggested"

Fixed

More later! —Kusma (talk) 15:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• "On 29 June, the committee unanimously decided that after Happy Feet recovered, he would be released"

Fixed

• "The zoo estimated in late July that it would cost about $30,000 to return Happy Feet to the wild, with the original plan being to move the penguin to Bluff, in the southern South Island, via air or truck, then to sail past Stewart Island and then release him,[30] but the plan later changed." split up the long sentence and simplify. "The zoo estimated the cost of returning Happy Feet to the wild at about $30,000. The original plan was ..."

Fixed

• Why did the plan change?

The source says that going to Bluff via air/truck was a plan but they hadn't yet contracted anyone for the transport, so I guess it was just changed because they found the Tangaroa, which was at the same city as the penguin. So I've just removed that sentence. ―Panamitsu (talk) 05:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Lisa Argilla was probably one of the veterinarians who treated the penguin, shouldn't she be mentioned earlier?

I'm not really sure how to do that without it making it look forced. ―Panamitsu (talk) 05:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Was Tangaroa making a detour for the penguin or was it planned to go to Campbell Island?

I don't know if any detour was made, but it was doing a survey around the island and I've added this to the article. ―Panamitsu (talk) 05:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• 5 days of transmissions seems very little [31]

How do you mean? ―Panamitsu (talk) 00:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

The article I linked to has a longer working time for the transmitters in every other case they looked at. You do not have to cite that article, but it does provide some context for the fitting of penguins with transmitters and what to expect in terms of how long you can track them. —Kusma (talk) 08:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Added "which was much earlier than expected". ―Panamitsu (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• The Gareth Morgan story could perhaps better be told first in the section with the deliberations what to do. (I assume the offer was rejected because it would have violated the Antarctic Treaty?) How were they planning to use the chip in order to find HF? I can understand that they could have identified him if they had come across the penguin.

Do you mean splitting that paragraph so the offer is moved to the first paragraph, and his suggested method of finding him remains as the last paragraph? It definitely would help with keeping it chronological and with the Antarctic Treaty thing (I don't know why his offer never played out so I'm making the same assumption as you), but I'm struggling to find a spot to put it into the first paragraph. ―Panamitsu (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you would need to split the information. That Morgan made the offer could be said early. The thing about Marie Byrd land also seems interesting independent of Morgan and could be in the paragraph about the penguin's journey south? —Kusma (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to get back to you on this. I've just split the Morgan paragraph and it's a lot better but I've got to make further copyedits and I hope to work on it before you have another read. I'll also consider try out the Marie Byrd land during then. ―Panamitsu (talk) 11:18, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• Cost: Who was responsible for the costs and for which parts of the costs? The final paragraph sounds as if DOC and Wellington Zoo both spent some money.

I've added that DOC paid for the cost his care when he was still at the beach. I ―Panamitsu (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Are any of the donations / planned donations mentioned included in the zoo's $29,000? (Assuming that DOC paid more than $1,000, does this mean that Wellington Zoo actually earned money by this?)

I'm not sure. ―Panamitsu (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I've just found a source which says that the extra money was donated to other charitable causes. ―Panamitsu (talk) 07:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Media coverage: I think the 600 are just those that reported on the initial discovery, so I guess there were a few more.

I've changed it to this although the source isn't super clear on what it means. ―Panamitsu (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• "members of the Our Far South expedition reported on his location nightly" I am surprised that this expedition was involved in this reporting.

I think it's because Morgan donated the transmitter and he was involved in the expedition. The expedition happened later on so I do agree that it's confusing, and I've removed it. ―Panamitsu (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Legacy: Three months of reporting in 2011 is not really a legacy, more something like "recognition". Especially if the plans for the documentary were immediately abandoned. I am not sure how to best treat this, but I like the sectioning at Knut (polar bear) much better.

I agree. I've changed it to "aftermath" because "media coverage" might fall under "recognition", unless it would be better to merge the sections somehow. ―Panamitsu (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Done with first read through. I guess this will need quite a bit of further editing; I am happy to do another read through when a few more people have commented. —Kusma (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Kusma apologies for the ping but would you like to have another read through? I believe I've fixed a lot of the issues but there haven't been any comments for a few weeks. ―Panamitsu (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been a bit busy with other things. I'll try to have another look over the weekend. —Kusma (talk) 10:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, no worries. When you get the time to come back, I'd like to ask you, should we remove the "Haere Ra Happy Feet" farewell party? I can't decide on my own if it's trivia or not because it was attended by 1,700 people. ―Panamitsu (talk) 23:41, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Also do you think the "alternative release method" should be removed? I can't decide on my own. ―Panamitsu (talk) 05:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Kusma ? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I am aware of this and intend to look again tomorrow (had a very busy week). —Kusma (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

OK, back for another look.

• Lead: "and a book published Penguin Books in late 2011." (a) by Penguin Books (b) anything about the book? "another children's book published by Penguin Books"? it would be cute if Penguin Books primarily published books about penguins
• Arrival: As Christine Wilton is later named as the discoverer, shouldn't she be mentioned here?
• Release: is it just me or is the tense a bit off in "as he may have contracted one" -> "might have"?
• On first mention of Gareth Morgan's expedition, would it make sense to state when the expedition was planned to happen?

Generally this is much improved. I think the party and the alternative release should stay in, but I do not have a strong opinion on these two factoids. —Kusma (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I've just used these suggestions. ―Panamitsu (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Happy to support. —Kusma (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• NZPA is an agency, the Herald is the work. Similar problem with GlobalPost vs The World - check throughout

• FN5 is missing author. Ditto FN13, check throughout

• News sources sometimes include publisher, other times not

• FN27: work title shouldn't be part of article title

• News articles sometimes include retrieval date, other times not

• Why is ABC News italicized and NBC News not?

Generally quite a bit of formatting cleanup to do. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I've always wondered what to do with agencies so I really appreciate the comment. I've fixed all those issues I believe. ―Panamitsu (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: how is this looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Much better. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Jens

• I still think that "it" instead of "he" to refer to the penguin is preferable, as noted by Gog above.

All I really have to say to this is that I've looked at individual featured animals using this query. All of those articles, where the gender is known, uses "he" or "she" over "it". I'd rather not move over to "it" because it'd be a lot of work, but if no one else agrees with me then I'm happy to change the article to "it". ―Panamitsu (talk) 02:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• The penguin was "initially bright-eyed, alert, and in apparent good condition" – per MOS:QUOTE, the quote needs author attribution (e.g, "in a 2012 scientific publication, Miskelly and colleagues stated that …"), or you can rephrase in your own words instead of using a quote. In this particular case, I think that rephrasing is preferable.

Done

• On 27 June, – and elsewhere, should this be rather "On June 27", or is this order specific to New Zealand English?

Yes it's used in NZ and MOS:DATES says that this ordering is fine. ―Panamitsu (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• In images: alt=Refer to caption – this is not helpful. The "alt" entries should be to explain the image for blind people; something like "Photograph of the entry of the animal hospital" does a better job describing what the image shows.

Fixed

• approximately half of the sand was removed in an operation, is "operation" = "surgery", a word you used earlier? If so, use the same term.

Done

• and cable tied on to the feathers of his back – what does this mean? Fastened to the feathers, or connected to the transponder via cable?

Changed to "fastened with cable ties to the feathers of his lower back" ―Panamitsu (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• and Penguin Books also published a children's book Happy Feet – should this be "book titled 'Happy Feet'" or "book about Happy Feet"?

Fixed

• I also did an extensive copy edit. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your work and review, much appreciated. ―Panamitsu (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support. I am happy with this one now after the recent copy edits. I would appreciate additional comments on the question whether "he/who" or "it/that" is more appropriate to refer to this penguin individual. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Spot check

• 3 Having some difficulty with "concerns arose about the potential danger the public posed to the penguin. In response, the" given the way it depends on two sources, one multi-page.
• 5 OK
• 6 OK
• 11 OK
• 25 OK
• 26 OK
• 27 OK
• 31 OK
• 32 OK
• 33 OK
• 37 OK
• 44 OK
• 50 OK
• 51 OK
• 52 OK
• 55 OK
• 56 OK
• 57 OK
• 58 OK
• 59 OK

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Yoshi's New Island

Nominator(s): ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 03:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Yoshi's New Island is a 2014 platform game developed by Arzest and published by Nintendo for the Nintendo 3DS... Still.

Third time's the charm? After two previous nominations and a peer review in the middle, I firmly believe this article is finally ready for FA status. I've reached out to several editors involved in the second nomination to implement additional feedback beforehand, just to be safe. Of course, new editors and new feedback are always welcome and appreciated. Please note that no additional references have been added to the article since the most recent nomination, nor have any changes been made to existing references.

Courtesy pings to all editors who actively participated in the second nomination: @Thelifeofan413: @UpTheOctave!: @Vacant0: @Hahnchen: ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 03:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Vacant0

Considering that issues that I've found in the previous FAC nomination and the feedback I've left on the article's talk page have been addressed, I'll support this hopefully final nomination. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I'll do a source review in the coming days. @The Green Star Collector: I'd suggest asking fellow editors to review this nomination. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Good call. I'll ping every other editor involved in the previous nominations one last time to see if there's anything I'm overlooking: @Thelifeofan413: @Cukie Gherkin: @SchroCat: @UpTheOctave!: @Hahnchen: ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• VentureBeat, Nintendo World Report, PC Magazine, Polgon, Joystiq, Shacknews, Eurogamer, Digital Trends, Kotaku, Siliconera, Nintendo Life, EGM, GameSpot, IGN, Famitsu, GamesRadar, The Observer, Edge, and Ars Technica are all high-quality reliable sources present across FAs.
• TheGamer, however, is not a high-quality source and I recommend finding a replacement for it.
• Why do you think Destructoid is high-quality in this case?
• What is the reliability of inside-games.jp?

@Vacant0:

• I'm seeing that News posts and original content after August 2020 are considered generally reliable for TheGamer, with this particular article having been published in 2022 and updated in 2024. I've also found retrospective takes from Valnet's Screen Rant and Game Rant, though I can see that both publications fall into the same reliability category as TheGamer. I can remove the source if absolutely needed, though I haven't been able to locate a good replacement for it.
• The author of the Destructoid review has been writing for the site since 2009 and was reviews director at the time of the review's publication. The other Destructoid source's author has written almost 1,500 articles for the site since 2015 as an editor-at-large.
• The reliability of inside-games.jp is unclear.

(This is reiterating some of my responses to UpTheOctave!'s source review in the preceding nomination.) ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I'd then recommend removing TheGamer and inside-games.jp references from the article. I'll do a spotcheck by the end of the week. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Gameplay

• Ref 1 done
• Ref 3 done
• Ref 8 done
• Ref 9 done
• Ref 10 mentions that you got 10 seconds to pick up Mario, I don't see a mention of 30 seconds (Ref 2 seems to mention this)
• Ref 2 done
• Ref 13 done
• Ref 15 I don't see "For each flower collected in a level, one is added to the ring" being mentioned
• Ref 16 done
• Ref 17 done
• Ref 15, 17 I don't see Super Yoshi being mentioned, though the rest is backed up by these sources
• Ref 19 done
• Ref 21 done
• Ref 18 done

Development and release

• Ref 27 done
• Ref 13 done
• Ref 31 done
• Ref 26 done
• Ref 29 done
• Ref 32 done
• Ref 33 done
• Ref 35 done
• Ref 42 done
• Ref 44 done
• Ref 2 done

Reception

• Ref 45 done
• Ref 47 done
• Ref 5 done
• Ref 2 done
• Ref 50 done
• Ref 17 done
• Ref 49 done
• Ref 30 done
• Ref 51 done
• Ref 54 done
• Ref 46 done
• Ref 53 done
• Ref 30 done
• Ref 54 done
• Ref 2 done
• Ref 17 done
• Ref 1, 54 I don't see gyroscope being mentioned
• Ref 18 done
• Ref 51 done
• Ref 55 done
• Ref 58 done

Thank you for the source review, @Vacant0:

• The Digital Trends ref does mention that stars can be "spent" to extend the amount of time you can be separated from Baby Mario (you can store up to 30), though I've swapped this out with ref 2 so it's less confusing.
• I added a different Nintendo World Report ref for the flower ring info.
• I added a booklet ref for the name of the Super Yoshi transformation.
• I replaced "gyroscope controls" with "motion controls", since this is better reflected in refs 1 and 54.

★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, that's better. You should now remove TheGamer and inside-games.jp referecnes from the article. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 08:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

My source review is done. Support on prose and sources. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

On another note, I've forgot to mention that there should be consistency with the |publisher= parameter, some references use it, some don't (e.g. Ars Technica is owned by Conde Nast and it's not mentioned). You can also remove the parameter if you want. The style is also consistent, all references are written in sentence case. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I have removed the publisher from every citation. Going forward, I will omit this parameter for consistency. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 02:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Support   Comments   from Noleander

•   Regarding footnote Known in Japan as Yoshi New Island (Japanese: ヨッシー New アイランド, Hepburn: Yosshī Nyū Airando) - The "Known in Japan as Yoshi New Island" is confusing to me... they speak Japanese in Japan, not English. And when I run the first Japanese name thru Google Translate, it gives me the possessive: "Yoshi's New Island". Suggest either (a) drop the English name entirely from that footnote; or (b) provide a source that positively says that the Japanese name is _not_ possessive.

• Mid-sentence citations: Yoshi's New Island is a platform game[1] with gameplay.... The game features six areas on the island known as worlds, each comprising eight mandatory levels and two optional levels,[1] for a total of 60 courses.... The superscript citations in middle of sentences is a bit ugly & intrusive. I don't think the WP MOS prohibits them, but - in my opinion - they interrupt the reading flow, and hence should not be used unless there is a compelling reason. I would expect them to be found only in the middle of sentences that are very contentious. Another: .... collected by jumping through a roulette ring,[3] which functions as the goal of most levels[13] and replaces the post-leve... Is there a strong reason you avoided putting those superscripts at the end of the sentences? Did some editor challenge those specific assertions that have the mid-sentence cites?

• Cites in plot: . Moreover, it is revealed that "Mr. Pipe",[25] a moving Warp Pipe who supplied the ... I believe that WP generally discourages citations within a Plot section. Probably not a strong rule, but it is odd that the Plot section in this article is mostly free of cites, then - boom - there is one near the end.

• As of when? The Lead says: The game has sold more than two million copies worldwide and... Statements like that alway make me suspicious ... when was that statement valid? See WP:As of. I see that the "Sales" section in the body correctly specifies an "as of" date.

• That's all I have. Seems like a decent article. Noleander (talk) 02:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, @Noleander: I've done my part to address some of them:

• My guess is that the "Known in Japan" part is just trying to find the closest Japanese → English translation. I've seen this in a few other articles, but I can remove it if needed.

If the source for this is giving the English phrase that Japanese speakers use (when they are required to identify the game in English) then the article should say exactly that; also: including the Japanese spelling of the game is making it hard for readers to understand that point. If that is the point. Noleander (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and cut the "Known in Japan as Yoshi New Island" portion; the Japanese and Hepburn names will suffice. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

• I try to include citations mid-sentence only if the information isn't supported by a citation at the end. I could try bundling them, though I find this makes it confusing which citation supports which piece of information and leads to clusters.

Mid-sentence cites are permitted in WP, so this is no reason to oppose FA. But it is a balancing act the editor must perform: balancing flow/readability vs citation clarity. Very few readers will scrutinize the cites, but all readers will read the sentence. When I do that balance, the conclusion is to favor readability. I don't understand what you mean by "I could try bundling them ..." ... the article already has many sentences that end with 2 or 3 superscripts, such as ... that the platforming was rarely difficult.[8][17][50] Can that approach be used to eliminate the mid-sentence superscripts? If you want to help the reader know which specific fact is supported by the source, you can put that in the citation. e.g. "Smith, 2015, "New game arrives" page 14. Game rating is 82.5 In this example, you add the specific fact (rating is 82.5) at the end of the citation. That would only be required in the handful of mid-sentence cites that you move to the end of the sentence, not all cites. Again, mid-sentence cites are no reason to Oppose for FA .... I'm merely suggesting how to improve reader's flow. Noleander (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

@Noleander: Apologies for my late response, but I was actually able to cut or bundle quite a few of these citations in the gameplay and development/release sections while ensuring every statement is still supported. If you wanted to take another look over, that would be much appreciated. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• To my knowledge, Mr. Pipe's name is never actually mentioned anywhere in the game, so I would recommend including just this one reference in the plot section.
• Specified the relevant year for the statement about the game selling two million copies.

★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

@The Green Star Collector: Replied above, below specific topics. Noleander (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

The Green Star Collector, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• ... some more comments added by Noleander 25 April 2025:

• Terminology: The game features six areas on the island known as worlds, each comprising eight mandatory levels and two optional levels, for a total of 60 courses. I gather the terms "course" & "level" are synonyms? I believe "level" is more common, especially in US. Consider using "level" exclusively in the article, so as to minimize confusion to readers unfamiliar with gaming.

• Trim unneeded words: Much like that of its predecessors, Yoshi's New Island's gameplay revolves around ... Consider Like its predecessors, Yoshi's New Island's gameplay revolves around ... or Yoshi's New Island's gameplay revolves around ...

• No need to identify source in Lead: According to producer Takashi Tezuka, a sequel to Yoshi's Island was chosen.. When I see a source explicitly named like that ("According to producer Takashi") it draws my attention, and makes me think the fact is contentious, e.g. a controversial opinion. I'm not sure there is any need to name the source in the Lead, which is supposed to be a very high overview. Maybe omit source from Lead, and put into the body text?

• Include job title: The game was first announced by Satoru Iwata ... consider naming that persons title e.g. "producer Satoru Iwata ..."

• To use a source within an FA nominated article, it is generally required that the nominator read all the sources (at least, the parts of the sources relevant to the article). A few of the sources are in Japanese (14, 43, 47). Have you read those? If you cannot read Japanese, perhaps you can post a query at Wikipedia talk:Featured articles asking if it is okay to rely on the translated versions of those sources?

• Categories: They are appropriate & alphabetized.

• External links: "US official site" external link appears to have a dead URL: https://www.nintendo.com/store/products/yoshis-new-island-3ds/ That is not permitted by WP:ELDEAD. The archived version of the "US official site" is still of interest, but it would have to be in a footnote or someplace less conspicuous.

• Ditto for this external link: https://www.nintendo.com/games/detail/yoshis-new-island-3ds

• Wording second to last ... consider next to last ... so fast readers don't read it as "second"

• Image free-use: The article has only two images; both are copyright, and both have "fair use" justifications that seem satisfactory (but I am not a copyright expert)

• Leaning 'Support'. @The Green Star Collector: after you've addressed/resolved the above items, notify me and I can make another pass. Note that some of the above are optional suggestions. Noleander (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

@Noleander: Most of your recent suggestions should now be addressed. I feel sufficiently confident in my understanding of the Japanese articles, at least the parts that are relevant to this article. With regard to the dead external links, should the archived versions also be removed or simply relocated? ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 03:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I think those dead archive links are historically valuable. Just try keeping them in the article but hide them in a footnote. Maybe a footnote at the end of the some other external link. Noleander (talk) 04:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Support Noleander (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Image and source review

Image placement, ALT and rationales seem OK. I see spotchecking was done above. I'll disclaim that I am relying heavily on WP:VGRS for the sources now: Are Chris Carter and Andriessen, CJ from Destructoid and Klepek, Patrick from Giant Bomb reliable sources? Same for Slant Magazine. Siliconera apparently is only barely acceptable as a source, so probably unsuitable for FA. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: The author of the Destructoid review was the site's reviews director at the time of publication, while the author of the other Destructoid article was an editor-at-large. Likewise, Klepek was a news editor for Giant Bomb, and his name even redirects to Wikipedia's article for the site. LeChevallier authored more than 200 articles for Slant Magazine between 2011 and 2015, though I can remove this source if absolutely necessary. I've also removed the Siliconera citations wherever possible, though we do still have to rely on a few for the name of the art director as well as some key sales info. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I don't mean to bother you, but are you satisfied with the above response, and is there anything else you wished to add? ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

No, I think it's fine now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - This article needs a copy edit. Even in the lead, there are confusing elements, such as:
  • "to safely transport the infant Mario across the island in a series of levels while escorting him across the island to his brother, Luigi." - you're already transporting Mario, why repeat it with the word 'escorting'
  • "A sequel to Yoshi's Island was chosen rather than a follow-up to Yoshi's Story due..." - chosen by whom?
  • "neutral opinions on its aesthetics and level design" - I assume you mean mixed opinions. Reviews would be boring if they just state everything is "OK".
    • hahnchen 16:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

@Hahnchen: I've gone ahead and made some copy edits throughout the article. As for the suggestions for the lede:

• Rephrased the objective of the game to safely transport the infant Mario to his brother Luigi by completing a series of levels across the island.
• It's somewhat unclear who chose this. Producer Takahashi Tezuka stated that we thought it would be the perfect choice for a new Yoshi action game, though I'm unsure whether this refers to just him, a portion of the development team, the whole development team, etc.
• I've changed "neutral" to "divided", as I would strongly prefer not to use the word "mixed" twice in one sentence.

★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Coord note

Discussion has stalled with limited support to promote. Unless that changes in the next few days the nomination is liable to be archived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

@Thelifeofan413: @Cukie Gherkin: @SchroCat: @UpTheOctave!: @Hahnchen: @RoySmith: Don't mean to pester anyone, but it sounds like this is your last opportunity to throw in feedback, a support vote, an oppose vote, etc.

@Thelifeofan413: @Cukie Gherkin: @SchroCat: @UpTheOctave!: @Hahnchen: @RoySmith: Don't mean to pester anyone, but it sounds like this is your last opportunity to throw in feedback, a support vote, an oppose vote, etc. Repeating the ping - they don't work if you don't sign them. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Where would I position my section? Above or below the Coord note - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Below is fine. - SchroCat (talk) 11:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I am stacked at work and with other activities at the moment, so won't have the opportunity to comment on this nom. - SchroCat (talk) 11:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I guess I was pinged because of my peer review? I did a quick scan and see that many of the issues I raised at PR have been addressed, but video games really aren't my thing, so I'm afraid I'll have to bow out of doing a full review. RoySmith (talk) 11:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm swamped just now so unfortunately don't have time to contribute a review. Apologies! UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 22:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Although I don't have time to give a new review, my support on referencing formatting and reliabilty still stands from last time. I agree with Vacant0 on all points, especially the removal of TheGamer sourcing. Best, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 20:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Cukie Gherkin

Will be contributing comments here soon. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Jenhawk777

Will be contributing a prose and copy edit review - soon. Please don't archive yet! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Have a few unexpected minutes right now! So, Yoshi's New Island is a platform game with gameplay similar to that of the other Yoshi's Island games, revolving around one of multiple friendly dinosaurs known as Yoshis needing to reach the goal at the end of each level while protecting an infant Mario from enemies like Shy Guys and other obstacles. Long and awkward. How about: "Yoshi's New Island is a platform game similar to its predecessors. Players choose a friendly dinosaur, known as a Yoshi, to protect infant Mario from enemies, overcome obstacles and reach each level's goal." Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

One of the optional levels in each world is unlocked by obtaining every collectible and finishing with full health in each level of that world, while the other is unlocked after 30 medals are collected by jumping through a roulette ring,[3] which functions as the goal of most levels and replaces the post-level minigames from the previous Yoshi's Island installments. I got lost in the middle of this sentence... I am unfamiliar with this game and could not figure out what this is describing. Please clarify - with separate sentences. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Other sections revolve around the use of a power-up known as the Yoshi Star, which briefly transforms Yoshi into Super Yoshi,[18] providing temporary invincibility and enabling Yoshi to travel at high speeds, as well as run up walls and across ceilings, for a short period of time.[16][19] That is a dangling sentence fragment at the end. How about a period after Super Yoshi [18]? Then perhaps use that fragment as the opening clause to the next sentence: "For a short period of time, Yoshi has invincibility, can travel at high speeds, and run up walls and across ceilings." Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

That's all I have time for today, but I will be back. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I was going to do a prose review, so if you could let me know when yours is finished, I'd like to do that in addition to double checking various bits and bobs - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Mother Solomon

Nominator(s): Averageuntitleduser (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Mother Solomon is an interesting footnote in Wyandot history. Alongside other Wyandots in Ohio, she was forced into Kansas by the Indian Removal Act, where her husband and children died of illness. However, she resettled in Ohio two decades later and lived out as a nanny and cultural activist.

I was inspired to write this article last year after finding Daughters of Aataentsic at the library and have since improved it with the help of many editors. Thanks to TechnoSquirrel69 and Kimikel for their thoughtful GAN reviews and to Dudley Miles for reviewing the article as a mentor. There was discussion at the peer review about the reliability of certain sources, and Dudley suggested that I ask for opinions on whether Marsh's book in particular has been properly assessed. Thanks in advance, Averageuntitleduser (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: if I'm reading this right, this is a first nomination for Averageuntitleduser and thus needs a source spot check? RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Yep. And a plagiarism check. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith (spot-check passes)

Doing a source-to-text spot check. I'll be looking at [17, 18, 19, 21, 34, 38, 39, 41, 50, 54] from Special:Permalink/1283807770.

Ref 17

• President Andrew Jackson's Indian Removal Act, requiring Indigenous communities to move west of the Mississippi River, passed in 1830.[17]
  • Averageuntitleduser This is from Labelle. It looks like I can get it on inter-library loan, but if you could email me scans of all the cited pages, that would probably be a lot faster. RoySmith (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
    • Labelle was on De Gruyter, but their website seems to be merging. I have sent Labelle and the encyclopedia. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Verified.

Ref 18/19

• Treaty commissioners in the region, spurred on by the federal government, began pressuring Wyandots to leave, and nearby Lenapes and Shawnees signed their own removal treaties. However, Wyandot scouting parties out west in 1831 and 1834 rejected their proposed land tracts. Tensions peaked in 1841 when white men murdered the head chief Summundewat.[18][19]
  • I can't find "Encyclopedia of American Indian removal" anywhere, so again you'll need to send me scans of the relevant pages.
  • Verified, but as a minor point, Littlefield and Parins only says that "most of the Delawares had relocated west", not that they had signed a treaty (like it does for the Shawnees), so might be worth rewording that a bit. Also, as far as I can tell, this one source covers everything in the sentence, so Labelle citation can be dropped here.
    • Reworded and dropped. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Ref 21

• On July 12, 1843, Solomon gathered alongside hundreds at the Wyandot Mission Church. They grieved, spread flowers across the adjacent cemetery, and heard Squire give a farewell speech in the Wyandot language.[6][21][22]
  • Labelle
  • Most of this is verified in Labelle p 59; the only thing I can't find is that it was spoken in the Wyandot language. Perhaps that's in one of the other cited sources?
    • Removed "Wyandot language"; that was left over from Marsh. Dropped Wolf. Wood verifies the grieving more explicitly. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Ref 34

• Her and John's two-acre land tract on the south end of Tauromee Street was put up for auction in October 1862.[34]
  • Verified (but as a nit, the source says "south side", not "south end")
    • Tweaked. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Ref 38

• Labelle describes her childcare as tireless and daily, and the village nicknamed her "Mother Solomon" out of respect. Solomon promoted Wyandot culture throughout the village and demonstrated the Wyandot language in community gatherings and public presentations. She taught children about the relationships between their ancestors and Wyandots by repeating stories her elders had told.[38]
  • Labelle
  • Verified

Ref 39

• The Hocking Sentinel described her storytelling as "full of interest and romance". A writer for the newspaper claimed to have visited Solomon often and stated that she spoke for hours about early Wyandot history and her childhood.[39]
  • Verified.

Ref 41

• Solomon advocated for the village to restore and continue operating the run-down mission church as a means to preserve Wyandot presence in Ohio. In 1888, with a $2,000 budget,[h] the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church began repairs.[41]
• On September 21, 1889, the Central Ohio Conference held a rededication ceremony.[41][42]
• Solomon was the only Wyandot removed in 1843 to attend.[41][44]
  • Labelle
  • Essentially verified, but Labelle says "restore and preserve the mission". It's not clear if that means to restore the building as a monument/historic site, or as an ongoing religious establishment, so I'm not 100% sure about the "continue operating" part.
    • Left at "restore". Averageuntitleduser (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Ref 50

• Many adults attested to being raised by Solomon, and some deemed it an honor. Labelle believes that her attainment of the honorific "Mother", rather than the lesser "Sister" or "Auntie", indicated success in her work. She ascribes Solomon to a Midwestern, 19th-century wave of mothers who sought to mediate between settler and Indigenous groups.[50]
  • Labelle
  • Verified. If I wanted to be really annoying I might complain that there's some WP:CLOP around "mediate between settler and Indigenous groups" but I think what you've got is fine. If you made it a direct attributed quote, it would be better.
    • Quoted. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Ref 54

• Marsh died and was buried there two years later. In October 2016, the church held an event celebrating the bicentennial of missionaries in Ohio, and Solomon's life was recounted during a tour of the cemetery attended by 192 people.[54]
  • Labelle
  • Verified. The wording is a bit odd; at first I read this as her burial happening two years after she died, so I'd reword that.
    • Reworded. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

OK, this is done. I called out a few nits here and there, but nothing of significance. Spot-check passes for both source-to-text integrity and copying (I also ran Earwig, which reported no problems).

Comments from PMC

This looks cool, I'll take a look. I usually get to FAC reviews within a week of putting my name down but please give me a ping if I let it slide. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: pinging, but no rush. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 02:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Very sorry! Having a look now.

Lead

• "forced Wyandots to move to Kansas" - feels like "the Wyandots" reads more smoothly, since you're referring to the entire tribe
  • Done, and in a few other places too. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• "took her to Indigenous sites as a child" I think this needs more context. Religious sites? Culturally-significant-but-not religious sites? Sites of great battles? Also, as a reader, I'd want to know what this meant for her, since it's significant enough that we're putting it in the lead.
  • I replaced this with the detail about elders relaying oral tradition, which I think is given more detail and importance in Labelle and the theses. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
    • Yeah this works better I think
• Suggest linking mission school, and in the body also
  • Done. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• "The Indian Removal Act forced Wyandots to move to Kansas..." repetitive of para 1, one of them should go
  • I think this detail is important in paragraph 1 to establish the notability of the topic. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
    • A couple of issues here. Regardless of its importance, having it in the lead twice is repetitive. Having this as the second sentence implies that the return to Ohio is the most significant thing about her, but I'm not sure that it is. Finally, as written, the first paragraph presupposes knowledge that the reader may not have - "returned to Ohio" implies that the reader knows that Solomon was from Ohio, but this is the first mention of Ohio. I would suggest swapping it for a summary of her activities - "she was known for her efforts to preserve Wyandot culture through X and Y".
      • I looked at MOS:FIRSTBIO, and as written, it would seem difficult to follow without repeating information further in the lead. I'm not sure about the third point. Of course, the sources don't discuss her return to Ohio in detail, but they all recognize it as context for her babysitting and cultural promotion, because it meant she did them in an area were there were few to no Wyandots. I propose something like: "The Indian Removal Act forced the Wyandots to move from Ohio to Kansas, though Solomon later returned to Ohio and began babysitting children and promoting Wyandot culture". Please suggest an alternative if you disagree. Another option is to remove this part and have a lead with only two paragraphs. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
        • It would be fine to have a lead with two paragraphs, as the article is not particularly long. Your proposed version is fine.
          • Went with two paragraphs. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Solomon helped her family recover energy" using "energy" this way feels somewhat informal and unclear. I see that this was just changed today, but recuperated is better imo (although yes, it would be better with the context that Dudley has mentioned)
  • Changed to "recuperated from the removal". Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
    • Honestly, on re-read, I'm not sold on it being a necessary detail for the lead. I'd recommend cutting it down to "Following the removal, Solomon had more children, though by 1860..."
      • Done. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• "had a few more children" "a few" is also informal
  • Removed. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• "She sought to protect..." when?
  • I can't really date this. It was continuous, and presumably after her husband and children died. I think both are implied, though. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
    • It's a bit jarring as-is. Having some context, such as how she tried protect it, and from what, might help the flow.
• "[Animals] were stolen from her" when? And also, is this significant enough that it needs to be in the lead?
  • Between 1848 and 1859. I have removed it though; it is a bit jarring and only included in a primary source. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• When did she marry the second guy
  • Added. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• I know the limited use of Margaret is because of her husband, but it's a bit jarring and I think it could be written around
  • Fixed; hopefully it reads smoothly. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• "Throughout the village, she garnered the nickname" could be trimmed to "Villagers began calling her" or "Her village nicknamed her" or similar.
  • Done as suggested. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• "Solomon became weaker in her final years" - "weaker" doesn't tell the reader much about what's actually happening, and it's pretty typical that people don't get stronger in old age. Do we know what was wrong with her?
  • Removed; it's not very important for the lead. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Early life

• "Squire encouraged family visits to Indigenous sites." As with my comment on the lead, we should say why if we know it, and what kinds of sites if possible, since right now we only specifically mention one
  • Changed to "culturally significant sites" per the source. Reading the theses, the why they give seems a bit straightforward (Squire thought it was important that she receive a Wyandot education). Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
    • Yes, but the reader isn't reading the thesis, they're reading the article.
      • That was even a bit hasty of me. Little only presumes the explanation I gave. The best I can manage, based on Kelly, is: "Squire sought to teach indigenous knowledge to Solomon, and he encouraged..." Would that work? Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
        • Yep, works
          • Added. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• "and Wyandots relayed oral tradition to her" this phrasing feels odd. Random Wyandots? Friends of the family?
  • Specified: Wyandot elders. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• "chief Warpole" chief should be capitalized here I think, since it's an office - see MOS:JOB
  • Done. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• having "to the children" at the end of the sentence reads like he's emphasizing maintaining culture as something you're doing to the children. Suggest reordering, maybe "he emphasized to the children the importance of maintaining Wyandot culture" (or "to his audience")
  • Done. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• "eventually befriended..." - eventually isn't doing much here, unless it was a struggle to befriend these pastors (in which case we need more context), we can remove it without losing meaning
  • Removed. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Wyandot removal

• "Treaty commissioners" - link? or if we don't have an article, perhaps briefly explain their function? it's not a title that's obvious from context
  • I came up with: "Commissioners sent by the federal government to negotiate treaties". Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• "their proposed land tracts" proposed by the government or by who?
  • Presumably the government. Should I add that? Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
    • Yes, it's not clear from context
      • Added. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• I cannot find where Little p. 87 mentions Solomon at all
  • Whoops, this was Kelly. Fixed. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• Split the paragraph at "Around 664 Wyandots..."; this is a new topic and should be a separate para
  • Done. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• Harassed how?
  • Specified. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• "a territorial dispute" with who?
  • Clarified. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• "began an apple tree orchard" - "planted" rather than began maybe?
  • Switched. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• "Solomon had a few more children" informal. Also, split the para here, since we have a clear topical split between their agricultural activities and her children
  • Done and done. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• I might revise the sentence about her eight children to account for her having at least three in Ohio that we've already mentioned
  • So something like: "Throughout her life, she had three boys and five girls, at least three of whom in Ohio, though all of her children died young". I'm not sure how to present it though (mainly to make it clear that it is being repeated), do you have a suggestion? Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
    • Hmm. Actually, come to consider, I'd just mildly reword and leave out the Ohio thing. "Solomon had more children in Kansas. She is known to have had three boys and five girls throughout her life, all of whom died young." I think "more children" and "known to have had" will cue the reader enough to remember the Ohio set
      • I like that. Done. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• Ref says the children "died quite young", not that they didn't live past adolescence. For all we know, they all died by the age of 5, which would make the "adolescence" statement technically true but misleading
  • Changed to "died young". Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• It feels weird that we're only linking Indian removal this far into the article
  • Introduced earlier. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• "threatened the legal status of Wyandots and devalued the cemetery" in what way
• "so she continuously tried to prove its importance" to whom and by doing what
  • Responding to this, the one above, and the one about the lead. Labelle briefly states that Solomon was an activist for the cemetery, as described, but only gives the example of the letter she signed in Ohio. She doesn't give any more context to Solomon's activism, so would it be best to remove this sentence? Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
    • Is it possible to post a quote or maybe email me the pages cited? I can only find a French version and the page numbers are really off; I can't read French so it's difficult to find the actual activism in the text. It'd be easier to give a suggestion if I could see what's there.
      • Here it is, with context: On 31 January 1855, Wendat/Wandat Chiefs made special provisions, through treaty negotiations, for the protection of their sacred burial grounds in Kansas. Upon conclusion, Chiefs Silas Armstrong Sr, George I. Clark, Joel Walker, John Hicks, Tauromee, and Matthew Mudeater signed a treaty with the understanding that the "question of the permanency of the burying ground was settled for all time." Thirty-five years later, Mother Grey Eyes Solomon signed another document, indicating her clear objection to the removal in 1890 of remains from the Kansas Huron Cemetery, the burial ground that held her late husband David Young and several children. This act of protest indicates that the provisions of the 1855 document had not been "settled for all time." Mother Solomon and other Kansas Wendat/Wandat had to continuously prove the importance and legitimacy of their cemetery as their legal status fluctuated in the wake of Indian Removal and forced enfranchisement. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
        • Ah, okay, the page numbering is wildly off in the French version, that's why I wasn't seeing it. Two issues, then. First, farther down, our article says she moved into the Hayman residence and "There, she signed a document...". The quote above does not say she signed the document at the Haymans' residence, only that she signed it in 1890. We have to be really careful about making assumptions not borne out by the text. We can certainly say "that year", but not "there".
          Second, I'm not sure the claim that she, personally, continually tried to prove the cemetery's importance is supported by the current citation. What we have right now is "Mother Solomon and other Kansas Wendat/Wandat had to continuously prove...". To me, that reads as though Labelle is taking all their actions collectively, not saying that Solomon herself was acting continually. Where does Labelle call Solomon an activist for the cemetery? I found an English version by looking at a different database, but I can't find this, and the index doesn't help. Can you quote a bit or give the page number?
          • You are right, changed to "that year". Your interpretation of the passage makes sense, too, and since it is the only one relevant to the claim, I have removed the sentence. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• The detail about of the various thefts feels like it isn't contributing much to the article. I see this is all sourced to a Senate document. It might be helpful to include the context of why she was presenting these complaints to the Senate.
  • I have added this. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
    • Makes more sense

Return to Ohio

• "Her and John's two-acre land tract on the south side of Tauromee Street was" feels like a case where the detail is getting in the way of the flow. I'd trim and revise this bit to "The two-acre tract of land she owned with John..."
  • Trimmed and revised as suggested. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• "she previously" - "had previously", I think. Also, do we know when she lived in it? Is it the same one from her childhood? (I guess it can't be, since Big Spring isn't in Upper Sandusky as I understand it?)
  • Done. We do know what cabin it was, but only from Marsh. After Solomon married Young, they moved into a log cabin Young had built over the river a few miles northeast of Upper Sandusky. Solomon relocated to that cabin. I managed to add from a newspaper quoted in Labelle that the cabin was located north of the city along the river. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• "The cabin had rafters..." this feels unnecessary
  • Removed that sentence. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• should be "had burned down", I think since we're talking about the past of the past here
  • Done. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• I think I'm confused about locations. Putting this here rather than earlier so it doesn't get lost.
  • As I understand it, Solomon lived in Big Spring Reservation as a child, but then she attended school in Upper Sandusky. They're not terribly close, nearly 25km as the crow flies according to Google Maps. Was it a residential school, or did the whole family relocate again after the 1822 move? Or was the Big Spring Reservation perhaps not located at the linked township? Is it maybe Upper Sandusky Reservation?
    • I believe the Big Spring Township article is the right link. The Cincinatti Enquirer said her family moved north of Carey, which tracks (and which I have added). I also haven't come across the Upper Sandusky Reservation or a second family relocation in the sources. It isn't a fully satisfactory answer, but the students did board at the school and Solomon's siblings attended it too, which I have both added. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
      • If it was a residential school, I think that makes sense, in terms of place. However, Big Spring Reservation isn't the same entity as Big Spring Township, and the Township article doesn't mention the reserve, so I still think the link is a bit surprising without context.
        • It would make sense, though I haven't found it in the sources. Also, removed the link. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
  • If it was the Upper Sandusky Reservation, our (admittedly short) article says that was dissolved in 1842, presumably coinciding with the removal of the community. Maybe we should mention that?
  • We keep saying "the village" but what village are we actually talking about? Sandusky was not a village, even at that stage, I don't think?
    • Good point. As above, according to Marsh, Solomon lived in a cabin north of the city, where there was a small settlement, but she often travelled into the city. I added that the cabin was located north of the city along the Sandusky River, based on a newspaper article quoted in Labelle. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• "Margaret began babysitting" - Solomon, not Margaret
  • Changed. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• Labelle wasn't there - who's she citing?
  • Looking into this, I only have a concern or two. Labelle cites Marvin Jr. about Solomon demonstrating the Wyandot language, and I cannot find that in his book, but she says that it was a certainty. She also does not cite a source for Solomon teaching children. If this is a problem, please let me know. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• "the relationships between their ancestors and Wyandots" This sentence is incomprehensible to me. Were the ancestors of the Wyandot children not Wyandots?
  • Not changed or responded to still.
    • Changed to say she was teaching "nonindigenous children". Averageuntitleduser (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• I might provide some context for the Sentinel, as in "a local newspaper", because Hocking has not been mentioned at all in the text and it's quite jarring
  • Added context. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• "claimed" - we usually say claimed when someone's account may be dubious. Do we have a reason to doubt this?
  • Revised. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• Split para at the visit to Kansas; separate topic from her childcare/storytelling
  • Not yet. Is there a better way to address this? That sticks out a lot. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
    • Paragraph splits are not aesthetic in purpose. A paragraph deals with a particular point or idea; when we switch ideas, we start a new paragraph. Since the visit to Kansas has nothing to do with her childcare efforts, it should be a new paragraph.
      • Beyond that, I do think it disrupts the flow. The sentence after it is unrelated, so it would still be a bit of whiplash. Could I move them to the start of the next paragraph, so they do not feel so tacked on? Averageuntitleduser (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
        • Well, no, because visiting her relatives and giving away paintings doesn't have anything to do with restoring the church, which is the focus of the next paragraph. I won't oppose over this but I don't love it.
          • Truly, I feel strongly against making the new paragraph. I think it would call unnecessary attention to the sentences. This is one of the more minor comments, so would you accept that? Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• I don't know that her nephew's attendance is a necessary detail
  • Sure, removed. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• Split para between attendance and Solomon's performance
  • Done. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• The phrasing "at the age of 72" feels like it's unnecessarily emphasizing her age. If you really need to mention her age, I might move it to the previous sentence - "Solomon, now 72, was the only..."
  • Moved. I think it is a useful marker. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• Same as in the lead, reporting that she became weaker in her old age feels like padding, given that most people get weaker with age
• I'm not sure what the extensive quote from Love brings to the table
  • Responding to this and the one above. I removed Love's quote and put less emphasis on her becoming weaker. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• Do we know who the Haymans were to Solomon? Caretakers obviously, but - old friends? New friends? Etc
  • Only from Marsh, who implies that the Haymans had regularly checked up on Solomon, but even then, she doesn't discuss their relationship much. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
    • I might mention this, at least to give some context.
      • Not actioned yet
        • Marsh supports that they visited her at least once: "The neighbors stopped by with food and to see if she needed anything. One day, Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Hayman saw that she must not be left alone." But I think I should refrain from citing her, and in just a lone instance, until more reviewers say their opinion. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Death and legacy

• Not sure we need Lease calling her a noble woman - seems pretty routine to speak well of the dead at their funeral
  • Removed. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• "who sought to mediate between settler and Indigenous groups" sorry, but this is the absolute first we're hearing of this. The article describes her advocating for Wyandot culture and caring for children, but I don't see how that translates to mediating between Indigenous and settlers. Also, this is the first indication that she was nannying for white children also - is there a way to add that context earlier? I was assuming she was working with other Wyandot families.
  • I think Labelle meant this in a cultural sense, so I have revised the sentence. In regard to this and the comment about Solomon teaching children, the article now also states that she "began babysitting children in her settler village", which I hope makes it clearer. I wish I could be more overt, but sources don't explicitly say she was babysitting white children. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
    • I don't know that this is an error per se, but I think you're going to need to add more context before it's going to make sense to a reader. I get what you're saying because I've got access to the source, but without knowing that, it looks like it's saying her work was specifically done with an eye to reconciling settlers with Indigenous people, which I don't think we can say.
      • That makes sense. I revised the sentence to not make it seem like a formal goal for Solomon. Does that solve the issue here? Averageuntitleduser (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
        • Yes, looks better to me
• "An exception to the limited studies" - at no point does the article establish that studies on her have been limited, so this violates the principle of least astonishment.
  • Revised. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• Why is the book not cited? It may be billed as a kid's book, but if it's based on reliable sources and by an archivist, it may be useful, and not using it in an FA seems like a gap
  • The article previously cited Marsh, though two editors on the peer review said she would not pass FAC, based on issues of self-publishing and a lack of independent sources supporting her reliability. If there is a consensus to reinstate Marsh somehow, I would be happy to. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
    • Arguably she's a subject-matter expert; I think your comments at the PR make a solid case for it. In addition to what you've already said, Marsh's research collection is held at Bowling Green State University ([32]), and a quick GBooks search shows me that her other work is cited in several other books by reliable publishers.
      • Ok, considering the peer review, could we wait to see what another prose or source reviewer thinks? Dudley, you noted at the peer review your willingness to see advice on this at the FAC. If more reviewers supported Marsh's inclusion, would you be willing to let that happen? Admittedly, I was surprised at how much content I could retain in the article without her, so I don't think there would be too much to add. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
        • I would still prefer that it is left out. Even if she is reliable in other works, we cannot know whether she took more liberties when writing a children's book. But I would not withdraw my support if you use it. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
          • Unless the book is billed as fiction, I don't think it's reasonable to assume that she "took liberties" just because it was a kids book. Remember, this book is heavily cited by Solomon's other biographers, so we're already reliant on it at one remove. (I'm not insisting that it must be cited, I just think there's a solid case to be made that it could be if it were useful).
• Not sure March's death and burial is relevant unless she was specifically buried there because of Solomon
  • She was an archivist for the church in general, so removed. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• I would split/reorganize the last paragraph to put the 3 sentences about her artifacts being displayed in a separate paragraph at the end.
  • I'm hesitant to do this because of the time leap it creates. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
    • Yes, but it creates a unity of subject matter. One paragraph for Marsh's book and the service, one paragraph for various museum displays.
      • OK. Done. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

With apologies, I think there is quite a bit of work to do before this article is ready for FA. I really don't wish to oppose, but I'm leaning more in that direction than I like right now. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:54, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for these. I have been working away at them and should have replies ready tomorrow. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: replies above. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi PMC, how is this looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Really sorry for letting this go so long. I think it is looking much better but still have some things worth discussing, per my comments above. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: thanks again. Some more replies. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Averageuntitleduser, sorry for being a delinquent. There's a few things not yet addressed that I've replied to, but on the whole I'm content to support, with appreciation for your hard work and your patience with me. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• The alt text for the infobox image should include her name rather than describing her as "an elderly woman", in line with WP:ALT guidance.
• File:John Solomon circa 1870.png-Same as the above.
• File:Mother Solomon 1887.jpg-Same as the above. MSincccc (talk) 08:51, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• Tweaked all. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  I have no further suggestions regarding the images. Support on media. MSincccc (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "Solomon recuperated with her family". Recuperated from what? I raised this at PR and it needs clarifying.
  • Changed to "recover energy". Let me know if it should be revised. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• You have changed it to "Solomon helped her family recover energy". This is even more confusing. The first version said that she recuperated, but did not say from what. Now it is her family, not Solomon herself, who needed to recover energy, although you have not said they lost it. You need to say first who suffered from what, and only then go on to their recovery. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks. Labelle only talks about how Solomon supported her family, not how they suffered. I changed it to "recuperated from the removal", which I hope clarifies in what sense "recuperated" is being used. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

• It is OK in the lead now, not the main text. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

• Fixed. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

• "In Kansas, Young began work as a ferryman while Solomon recuperated with her family." As above.
  • Done. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• "Labelle describes her childcare as tireless and daily" "tireless and daily" sounds odd. Maybe "Labelle states that she worked tirelessly every day at her childcare".
  • Done as suggested. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• "which she attributed to the prominent Vanishing Indian stereotype". Is "she" Solomon or Labelle? This should be clarified.
  • Clarified. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• "She ascribes Solomon to a 19th-century wave of Midwestern mothers". "ascribe" is the wrong word here. Maybe "She describes Solomon as one of a" Dudley Miles (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Done as suggested, with one word tweaked. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

Six weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress 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) 14:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

EG

I may take a look tomorrow or Thursday. Epicgenius (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Lead:

• Para 1: "Her family moved to the Big Spring Reservation in 1822," - Where is this in relation to Owl Creek?

• Added both counties. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Para 1: "Solomon married a Wyandot man in 1833. They had several children, at least two of whom died." - I suggest combining these two sentences because, in my opinion, right now they read choppily.

• Done. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Para 1: "In 1843, the Indian Removal Act forced the Wyandots to move to Kansas, and many died of illness." - Many of the family members?

• I reworked this sentence heavily to hopefully make it smoother. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Para 2: "relocated around Upper Sandusky, Ohio" I suggest changing this to "relocated to around Upper Sandusky, Ohio"; otherwise it sounds like the family was already near Upper Sandusky, Ohio, and moved to some other place near Upper Sandusky.

• Done. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Para 2: "Many attendees admired her stage presence. Solomon died in 1890." - These two sentences seem quite choppy. I would suggest combining them, either with each other or with other sentences.

• Combined the "stage presence" sentence with the previous one. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Para 2: "She was a popular local figure" - I'd elaborate a bit on this.

• Added a detail. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 04:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Early life and education

• Para 1: "She was the eldest of four siblings and two half-siblings" - Four full siblings, so six total siblings? Half-siblings technically count as siblings, as well.

• Specified "full siblings". Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Para 1: "Solomon's given name was of Christian origin" - Out of curiosity, was "Grey Eyes" not part of the given name, middle name, or surname?

• I think it was altogether her surname, then "Solomon" was added as another surname. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Para 2: "When Solomon was four, Squire brought her to the Olentangy Indian Caverns. She was too afraid to explore them, but understood the importance of the site and learned that generations of Wyandots held councils or hid from enemies in the caves." - As written, this is a little bit abrupt - you give an example of Squire teaching indigenous knowledge to Solomon, and then move on to discussing what Solomon and her family did. I would suggest adding "For example" to before "when Solomon was four".

• Done. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Para 2: "Her uncle, Chief Warpole, taught her the origin of their family name: her part-British paternal grandfather was adopted into the Wyandots and was named "Grey Eyes Man". Solomon once gathered with other children to hear Warpole describe the origins of the Wyandots in Canada and their relocations to Michilimackinac, Detroit, and Upper Sandusky." - Again, I'd preface this by saying that these are examples, so something like this: "For example, her uncle, Chief Warpole, taught her the origin of their family name: her part-British paternal grandfather was adopted into the Wyandots and was named "Grey Eyes Man". Another time, Solomon gathered with other children..."

• Done both. 04:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)Averageuntitleduser (talk)

• Para 3: "Students boarded at the school, and she later attended with her siblings" - This article says that she was among the first students to be enrolled; technically, her siblings would have attended with her, not the other way around (which implies she joined after her siblings).

• Fixed. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Para 3: "Solomon began attending the nearby Wyandot Mission Church as a child" - At the same time as she was in the mission school?

• Yep, and Marvin supports that timeline, so I have adjusted the sentence. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Para 4: "Solomon married David Young, a Wyandot man who had adopted a Christian name after becoming a Methodist preacher. They were married in the mission church on February 4, 1833, by the priest Thomas Simms" - I suggest finding some way to reword the sentences, so you don't repeat the fact that they were married in consecutive sentences (which in turn makes it sound a little unwieldy). Also, is it relevant to mention the name of the priest who married them?

• Reworded and removed the name. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Epicgenius, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I was really busy last week.

Wyandot removal to Kansas:

• Para 1: Would it be feasible to condense this? As far as I can tell, it isn't related to Mother Solomon herself and is only tangentially related to Squire (who's only mentioned in the last two sentences). I'm concerned that someone might see this as a WP:COATRACK addition, especially seeing as how the Indian Removal Act has its own article.

• Makes sense: I used a source unrelated to Solomon to include a bit more background about the act. I still stand by that, but I think the Summundewat detail isn't too important, so I removed it. I also combined the first two sentences. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Paras 1, 3: "25,000 acres" - I'd either use Template:Convert or provide a manual conversion for at least the first mention of this.

• Done. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Para 4: "The two settled in a small house built around December 1843 then" - I'm nitpicking at this point, but there should be a comma after "1843", as it's setting off a new clause.

• Done. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Para 5: "She had only three living daughters by 1851" - A few more nitpicky questions. Does this mean that the only living children she had at that point were daughters, or was the third son alive at that point too? Also, does this mean that there were other daughters who were born beforehand, but then died?

• Clarified. The first case was intended. But I now realize that only Marsh supported "three living daughters", so I've broadened it to "living children". That should be the last picky detail left over from her. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Para 6: " worth 295$" - Usually the dollar sign is placed before the number.

• Fixed. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Just curious, after Young's death, did the sources say how Mother Solomon received income (e.g. did she farm)?

• Couldn't find this in the sources. Marsh says that she continued to keep cows and chickens, but doesn't say if it was commercial or if she did other farming. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Return to Ohio:

• Para 1: "The two-acre land tract" - I'd put a conversion here too.

• Done. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Para 2: "John worked as a tailor until his death on December 14, 1876." - This would be a trivial detail, but do the sources say how he died?

• Couldn't find this in the sources. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Para 3: "She gave away paintings of the Wyandot chiefs Mononcue and Between-the-Logs in 1883, and allowed them to be reproduced." - Per the essay WP:CINS, I would recommend removing the comma after "1883", as the clause after it is not a complete sentence.

• Done.

• Para 3: "On September 21, 1889, the Central Ohio Conference held a rededication ceremony.[40][41] An estimated 3,000 people attended.[42]" - I would suggest combining these sentences.

• Done. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Para 4: It seems like this entire paragraph is about the rededication ceremony. I'm not sure if this should be combined with the previous paragraph, since it would make the third paragraph quite long, but I'd consider it. Additionally (and not related to the FAC), it's interesting that a musical performance like this would receive so much news coverage for the time.

• I'm kind of neutral towards this. Since PMC asked me to split it and you note that it would make a long paragraph, I think I'll leave it. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Death and legacy:

• Para 1: "Mr. and Mrs. Jacob Hayman" - Who are they?

• Local millowners. Added. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Para 1: "She died on August 18, 1890. Her funeral was held at the Wyandot Mission Church two days later." - I suggest combining these.

• Done. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Para 4: "The McCutchen Overland Inn Museum displayed her saddle in the Anderson General Store in May 2021." - Since this is unrelated to the two sentences preceding it, I would suggest starting this sentence with a conjunction like "in addition".

• Sounds good. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

That's it for me. Sorry for the delay in my comments. Overall, this looks pretty good; I couldn't find much to nitpick, relatively speaking. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@Averageuntitleduser, my bad. I forgot to ping you. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Great review, and replies above. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Support. Looks good to me. Epicgenius (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Airship

As always, these are suggestions not demands; feel free to refuse with justification.

• In what way was she a cultural activist? I see some sentences about promoting Wyandot culture and language in her village and gatherings, but that seems an (understandable) misunderstanding of the common definition of cultural activism.
  • Good point, and I'm not sure where I stand on it. I think there are enough actions and intent/context to satisfy a looser understanding of "activist". I do think another term could be more accurate, but I haven't found one that is widely used. Or, we could try something like: "was a Wyandot nanny known for..." What do you think? Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• "She was too afraid to explore them, but understood the importance of the site and learned that generations of Wyandots held councils or hid from enemies in the caves." this sentence treads uncomfortably close to WP:CLOP on a couple of occasions, and the source's "importance of visiting these historic places" is misrepresented as "importance of the site". A good way to resolve these issues is by knowing that you don't need to give every detail in the source—do we really need to know that she said several decades later that she was too afraid to explore, for example? Similarly for "He emphasized to his audience the importance of maintaining Wyandot culture" on the CLOP front.
  • Good idea for the first sentence. I have tried to vary it, too. The second sentence is short, and in my opinion, there are few ways to restate it, so I think it is OK. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• "befriended each of its pastors"; source says "becoming acquainted with all the missionaries", so I think both "befriended" and "pastors" are overselling it a bit. Probably best cut.
  • OK. Done. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• Is it possible to have a map showing the movement of the Wyandot, either custom or on Commons?
  • I made one, and in the process mentioned just one more city in the article. Please tweak it if you'd like. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• Kelly 2024 appears to be a PhD thesis. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, it's best if such sources are only used if they "have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties". Is any of that correct here?
  • Little is a thesis too, though I think hers is being turned into a book. The theses aren't cited elsewhere, but they were supervised by Labelle and an oral defense is a requirement in the program, attended by an external and university examiner. I think that satisfies the second point and partially the third one. I tried to defer to other sources wherever possible, and the remaining citations to them are often repeating Marsh's book. I would be willing to cut back if needed, though. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Labelle states that she worked tirelessly every day in her childcare" why does this sentence in particular need attribution? See the third example pair of WP:INTEXT.
  • Removed attribution. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• "the chiefs Mononcue and Between-the-Logs" Wyandots?
  • Yep. Added. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• Marvin Jr. mentions that "a small collection was taken up on her behalf" following her song at the rededication ceremony. Could this be mentioned?
  • Added. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Labelle refers to the coverage as a "momentary acknowledgement of [Wyandot] resilience in Ohio", but also notes that many stories falsely called Solomon "the last of the Wyandots". She views this as an attempt at erasing the Wyandots from Ohio, bolstered by the prominent misconception of Native Americans as a vanishing people." this seems less relevant to Solomon's biography and more an invocation of Labelle's general theme of "cultural healing, resistance, and resilience". Would suggest combining and trimming these two sentences.
  • I see where this is coming from. Done, hopefully. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Nice article, I look forward to supporting after you respond to the above. In case you're interested, I also have an open FAC at the moment. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: Replies above. This was very helpful! I like taking requests, so I'll see if I have enough time this week to review yours. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @AirshipJungleman29:, how is this looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Support, happy with the responses. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Source review

Are late 20th century newspapers reliable sources for Native Americans? I am not well-versed with US history but my sense is that one needs to be doubly critical of contemporary sourcing in these matters. For example, "Western Christian Advocate" might be a reliable source. Or it might be overselling the role of the missionary, given that it was a church-sponsored newspaper. Which is it? Have the Little, Tarisa Dawn and Kelly, Mckelvey theses gained significant influence in the field? From what I know that's a key requirement for using theses as sources.