Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

Shortcut WP:FAC v t e Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Featured article candidates (FAC) Featured article criteria Featured article log Featured article statistics Featured article review (FAR) Former featured articles Unreviewed featured articles/2020 Today's featured article (TFA): This month's queue About Today's featured article Recent TFAs and statistics Current TFA requests Potential TFA requests TFA oddities Most viewed TFAs Featured articles yet to appear as TFA Script to track TFA recent changes Featured article tools: Mentoring for FAC Nominators of featured articles promoted Recent changes to featured articles Random featured article

Nominating [edit] 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 [edit] Commenting, supporting and opposing Supporting and opposing Shortcut Wikipedia:FACSUPPORTOPPOSE 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.

Nominator(s): Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the word's most endangered birds, with currently only 20 individuals known. I was able to get permission to use three photographs; previously we didn't had a single one. The article just passed a detailed GA review (thanks to User:Esculenta), and I now believe it is ready. Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• File:Nemosia_rourei_1872,_colour_balanced.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second time's hopefully the charm. This volcano is in a remote area of northwestern Argentina and southeastern Bolivia, it bears no traces of recent activity but it is an important member of a regional volcano group. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to support with regard to the prose, and the article seems comprehensive. I think the actions suggested in the previous nomination and a recent copyedit have contrinuted much in bringing this contribution to FA level. Graham Beards (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also support per my review in the previous FAC. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I did what was essentially a pre-FAC review on the article talk page and have nothing to add to those comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang is the only non-Bond novel that Ian Fleming wrote. He did so shortly after suffering a heart attack and while he was supposed to be convalescing. Although he planned to release a story a year, he never saw this first one published, dying two months before it hit the shops. This has been through a re-write recently and all constructive comments from good faith editors are welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:ChittyChittyBangBang.jpg: source link is dead, needs a more expansive FUR
• File:Count_Zborowski_With_Chitty_Bang_Bang_1_At_Brooklands.jpg needs a US tag and author date of death. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  File:ChittyChittyBangBang.jpg: updated both link and FUR

  File:Count_Zborowski_With_Chitty_Bang_Bang_1_At_Brooklands.jpg: the earliest I can get publication is 1956 (although it's highly likely this was published before), so I've swapped this out for File:Zborowski in the driving seat of Chitty Bang Bang 1.jpg, which is a worse image, but should pass the review. - SchroCat (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Had my say at the peer review, and on rereading for FAC I see nothing to add. Happy to support promotion to FA. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 21:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments - they were much appreciated, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, I loved this movie growing up!

• cliff hanger - just to confirm, no hyphen in the original?

  There isn't, but as we're able to make minor typographical corrections, and as it's hyphenated few words later, I've added one. - SchroCat (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Has there been any commentary on how subsequent adaptations have abandoned the novel's names and styling for the film's (as in the sequels being Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and not Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang)?

  Nothing at all - they just disappeared without anyone saying anything. - SchroCat (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Roald Dahl - If I remember my history correctly, he and Ian Fleming had been friends. Is there any discussion of this, and the role of their friendship in his adaptation of the novel? (And, of course, would it be a weight issue if anything were included here?)

  There is passing reference to the fact they knew each other, but nothing about any possible impact it had on Dahl's work. - SchroCat (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I've made some small edits; please review.

Overall, nothing but nit-picks from me.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Chris, much obliged. - SchroCat (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Excellent work as always. Am supporting.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an uncultured millennial who's never seen the movie or read the book, but put me down for a review nonetheless :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): NØ 15:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Olivia Rodrigo's song "Can't Catch Me Now". Just two months after raking in massive critical acclaim with her second studio album, Guts, Rodrigo contributed this lush folk ballad to The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes. The song, which consistently escalates in intensity throughout its duration, drew positive reviews for its sound and Rodrigo's vocal performance. Oscar buzz soon followed but the competition was unfortunately too tough. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.NØ 15:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soon. I hope... λ NegativeMP1 17:20, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): λ NegativeMP1 07:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about "Wake Me Up When September Ends", a song by Green Day from their critically acclaimed album American Idiot. Initially written as a song about the death of the bands front mans father in 1982, it has been interpreted as a song about the September 11 attacks, and was given a sort of third-life after an edit went viral pairing it with footage of Hurricane Katrina. It's probably the second most popular song off the album, as well as my personal favorite song, which motivated me to start working on the article for it about two months ago. Since then, all worthwhile sourcing and relevant available information that I could find as been added to the article, and it became a GA in late August. I now firmly believe that this article has little in the way of the star. This is also my first FAC on a music article, and my third FAC overall. I look forward to addressing any comments. λ NegativeMP1 07:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't shoot the messenger, but the prose needs more work. Here are some issues:

• "with some viewing it" This a fused participle that good writers try to avoid. (See WP:PLUSING).
• "It charted in several countries, reaching number one in countries such as the Czech Republic and Croatia, while reaching number six on the US Billboard Hot 100" The second "in countries" is redundant
• "with critics highlighting" this is another fused participle
• "It depicts a young couple (played by Jamie Bell and Evan Rachel Wood) that is split up" Here "couple" is a discretionary plural and should take the plural verb "are".
• "Bayer stated that" The word "stated" is overused in Wikipedia articles, (particularly by writers from the US), most often they simply "said" something.
• "band's concerts and tours" I think the "and tours" is redundant padding.
• "form into" This sounds odd to my ears
• "with Rob Sheffield of Rolling Stone considering" Thus is another fused participle.
• "and his life since that day" Here, "that day" is redundant padding
• "Armstrong emphasizes the time that had occurred since then" Does time really occur?
• "a weekly segment of the youth radio station Triple J" This sounds awkward and the meaning is not clear (at least to me).
• "Another version of the song, covered by Australian pop-punk band" Why "another" and not just "a"?
• "though believed that some of the songs lyrics" is there a word missing here?
• "Consequentially, the band sees increased profits during those days" I think a better word is "revenue" and does the money come in on the days or later?

I think other reviewers might find other issues, so please treat these as examples. Graham Beards (talk) 09:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you taking the time to bring these issues up, and I've fixed them and conducted more copyedits with some of the advice you gave. I'm still trying to get the grasp of FA-level writing to some extent. λ NegativeMP1 15:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

America's #2 novelist travels to London in 1823 to become #1 and reverse British disdain for US literature. Pretending to be English, he hooks up with a Scottish publisher and becomes a regular contributor for a leading Edinburgh magazine – the first American to do so! One of his submissions is the first attempt anywhere at a history of American literature and the first critical survey of the new nation's authors. British readers appreciate it and American readers go nuts in their hatred, the biggest hater being a young newspaper apprentice named William Lloyd Garrison. In the long run, the words bear influence and the critic is to a degree absolved by scholarship. This is my 9th FA nomination (7th on a John Neal (writer) topic). I very much appreciate reviewers taking the time to read the article and leave comments. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dugan Murphy, happy to do the image review. The article contains the following images:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spine_of_American_Writers_by_John_Neal_edited_by_Fred_Lewis_Pattee_1937.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:John_Neal_by_Sarah_Miriam_Peale_1823_Portland_Museum_of_Art.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:William_Blackwood.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blackwoods_Edinburgh_Magazine_title_page_volume_16.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Broadside_Decrying_John_Neal_1827_in_Portland_Maine.jpg

They are all in public domain, mainly because the underlying works are not covered by copyright anymore due to their age. All images are relevant to the article and placed at appropriate locations. They all have captions and alt texts. The only minor issue I spotted is that the caption of "John Neal by Sarah Miriam Peale 1823 Portland Museum of Art.jpg" says "1823" but wiki commons page says "circa 1823". Phlsph7 (talk) 16:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Phlsph7: Thanks for the image review and for picking up on the Peale painting date issue. I just made the recommended change to that image caption. Does the image review pass? Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that takes care of the remaining concern. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave some comments soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 06:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the earliest known members of Ornithischia, one of the three major groups of dinosaurs. It's a very important picture of their evolution and the first time a primitive ornithischian rather than one of the more famous later forms has made it up to FAC—though hopefully not the last. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 06:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I would heavily, heavily recommend using SFNs or some other form of page notation for every book/journal cite. This makes it a lot easier for both readers and reviewers.

  As far as I understand citation style between full and short notation is a matter of preference; I've always found them needlessly obtuse and, on a more objective note, they see next to no use within the Dinosaur WikiProject, especially at the FA level. The current citation approach is consistent with these other articles.

• A lot of these paragraphs are a bit too large to be easily readable in my eyes; the penultimate paragraph of the Discovery and naming section is the worst offender here.

  Breaking up all of the paragraphs, which are separated based on content, would be very damaging to the flow in my opinion. I have however moved a sentence out of the specific paragraph you highlighted to a smaller paragraph in the section in order to alleviate the worst case.

• Lede seems a bit short relative to the total length of the body, might be good to beef it up a little.

  I was initially skeptical how much of an introduction could be written about such a simple taxon, but I've expanded it significant and am quite happy with the result.

• All images are appropriately licensed. This isn't a FA requirement, but I'd recommend adding alt-text.

  Added; I don't have a lot of experience with alt text so I hope I did alright.

That's all at first check. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 07:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not realize how prominent country locations were for Dinosaurs, despite fact that Earth/geopolitics has changed a lot since. For example Lesotho is enclaved within South Africa. But if this is the convention, I accept it.

  I wasn't aware of guidelines surrounding country linking; removed the links.

• Use straight quotes ie wiki conventions for MOS:APOSTROPHE e.g not ‘’

  I've fixed what I think is the only problem case here, but let me know if I've missed one.

• a partial left ischium

  Fixed.

• Place image of skull in Section about features, particularly passage about uniform teeth

  No free images of the skull material are available, but I will see if any of our usual palaeo diagram makers can whip up one of the teeth since they're the distinctive portion.

  Never mind, I mixed up what is represented in File:Lesothosaurus sp skull 3894.jpg

• In the diagram, why do other names e.g Parapredentata preview to Ornithischia?

  They do not have their own pages and so redirect to their parent clade, which is considered to be similar enough in topic that it would be redundant to give them all pages. Either way it's not particularly the concern of this article how the higher clades are organized on the site.

• Putting two wide charts in same row is inaccessible on desktop and certainly mobile. Move them to separate and avoid language like "left/right" chart and instead refer to first/second charts.

  It can certainly be made sequential if it's a dealbreaker issue, but it's been used in dinosaur FAs such as Lythronax and Spinophorosaurus before. Desktop setups will vary but the mobile app does not have any issue displaying the two cladograms for me.

  Formally WP:ACCESSIBILITY is not part of FA criteria, but I find it very unreadable on mobile (web view) and think it could be improved with a table title for each.

  How does this version with sequential cladograms look?

• Section named Palaeoecology does not make it obvious what Palaeoecology even is.

  This is a standard section in many dinosaurs FAs (sometimes substituted for palaeoenvironment), and does not usually include an explicit explanation. But as soon as I track down a citation I can add a link to the paleoecology page if necessary.

  I can open the article on Palaeoecology, if I know to search/click for it. So a short 1-2 line intro helps. Readers might be avid paleo-enthusiasts or completely new to the topic, so should cater to both audiences.

• I like the layout of Theropoda where it has a Biology section, and within each is organized by section for easier navigation.

  While a dinosaur article would usually include a "palaeobiology" section touching on the various physiological functions of the animal, this research simply doesn't exist in Laquintasaura. The only potential contents would be the couple sentences of histological information currently within the [physical] description section instead.

Sourcing and references

• Wiki link all journals/websites mentioned in sourcing

  Done.

• Consistently link to DOI

  As far as I can tell this is already the case.

  You are right. I was checking in edit mode

• Consistent author names Breeden III, Bejamin T. and Breeden, Benjamin T.

  Fixed.

• Inline body, is it normal to quote full name of first author and only last name of second author? Example A later 2021 study by Carlos-Manuel Herrera-Castillo, Sánchez-Villagra

  I'd consider that an oversight, I'll change it.

  Oh, I actually see why this was written that was now. Sanchez-Villagra was already introduced with his full name earlier in the section, and so just used his last name afterwards. Herrera-Castillo is first referred to in this sentence and uses a full name.

• Some incorrect source parameters including incorrect pages e.g pages=e75248, pages=e1791894 and pages=e12619.

  I was under the impression this was how the way to implement those codes for digital publications, but perhaps I am incorrect.

~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll have a look soon, some preliminary comments below. FunkMonk (talk) 10:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Modern countries are usually not linked, per WP:What generally should not be linked.

  Fixed.

• I see some WP:duplinks, they can be highlighted with this script:[1] Ignore those duplicated from the cladograms, of course.
• Could pipelink paleoart at restoration, since often that term causes confusion among layreaders.

  Done.

• Why are Thyreophora and Neornithischia bolded in the cladogram?

  I imported it from the Ornithischia article where they're highlighted as major clades and overlooked removing the bolding. Now fixed.

• "whose remains are found in the same bonebed as Laquintasaura" Were found? Why present tense?

• "showing a distinct triangular shape" Its triangular shape?

• "Holotype tooth of Laquintasaura" Link holotype.

• "it may have shared omnivorous behaviour" Diet instead of behaviour?

• "and a quadrate" Link and spell out quadrate bone, even explain where in the skull it is located in parenthesis.

• You can link anatomical terms to the Dinogloss.

• "an early ornithischian" Link this and other terms at first mention always.

• "Finding no vertebrate fossils" Link vertebrate.

• Unlink Argentina.

• Link fossil preparation.

• "by a team of French palaeontologists" Who led this expedition?

• "Several years later in the late 1990s, he would become aware" Who is "he"? You mention no people in the preceding sentence.

• "their return to Venezuela as well, when they were deposited in the collections of the Museu de Biología de la Universidad de Zulia (MBLUZ)." "where" make more sense than "when"?

• "conduct additional expeditions to find additional material" The double "additional" is repetitive.

• " they were referred to the genus Lesothosaurus" In what what? As L. sp. or to a specific species?

• "became aware he was no longer permitted to study it there" Do we know why and what happened to the material?

• "obtained a grant from the Jurassic Foundation" Where is this organisation?

• Do we really need to know in what journals studies were published in? Doesn't really seem to add much to the story, and can just be checked in the citations.

• "Tibia and ischium of Tachiraptor, whose remains are found in the same bonebed as Laquintasaura" Do we know when and during which expeditions?

• Link more bone articles when you list the known elements under discovery. Many of the are also uncommon enough that they could need in-text explanation in parenthesis.

• It would make more chronological sense to list what the type specimen(s) is in the paragraph where you deal with the naming and material than in the subsequent paragraph where it seems unrelated to the surrounding text.

• "later described with a newly recognized tibia" Newly means little if you don't give a date.

• "Locality of the bonebed" You could add the name of the country or the formation to the caption.

• You start by mentioning a French team, and the go on to mention another team that appears to be local, but without giving their nationality. Could be good to mention for context. And since much of this seems to be "parachute-science", perhaps also for other people mentioned.

• Looks like many generic names need italics in citation titles.

• "The small size and conservative skeletal anatomy of the species" Since you mainly use the generic name, including in the preceding sentences, it seems off that you say species and not genus.

• "with traits with armor and quadrupedality" With traits like?

Nominator(s): ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Chagatai, the second son of Genghis Khan and Börte (and the third to be brought to FAC). He lived a fairly good life—probably better than any of his brothers—and was the only one to get a state named after him personally; not even Genghis managed that. If successful, this nomination will be used in the WikiCup. I hope you enjoy. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Funérailles_de_Tchaghataï.jpeg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed Nikkimaria. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly short article for the founder of a Khanate! Shows you something about Mongol records I suppose.

• Very interesting to see the Tsagaadai Khan transliteration in the image. I suggest that this nametag is included in the alt text as well, so screenreaders may share this interest.
  • I had an idea that this should be done, but I wasn't entirely sure.
• Speaking of that transliteration, it's not in the lead note on transcriptions. A quick google seems to indicate it is not unheard of.
  • It is a Mongolian transliteration which has fallen out of use as worldwide scholars interact more and standardised forms have emerged. I could remove Ca'adai for the same reason.
    • Is there a particular reason not to include old prominent transliterations in the note, appropriately noted as outdated?
• The lead somewhat begs the question as to who excluded him from succession. It also implies that there was a sort of formal succession. Is this how the sources word it? Assuming the default is passing along to the eldest male, the body also doesn't explicitly explain why he was in contention, ie. why Jochi wasn't, given his legitimacy was apparently accepted.
  • Succession relied both on the thoughts of the previous ruler and the skills/experiences/popularity of the next. All a ruler's primary sons, and even occasionally his brothers, were eligible. As mentioned later, although Ögedei was Genghis's successor, the support of key figures such as Chagatai were essential in ensuring his accession. I have clarified that Genghis excluded Chagatai from succession in the lead; would more detail in the body be helpful?
    • More succession detail in the body would be helpful. Questions that immediately come to mind are what were societal expectations around succession, what happened to Jochi's position, what happened during the two year(?) transition from Genghis to Ögedei.
• "first son definitely", should this be "definitively"?
  • I think both work, but changed.
• Do we know the mothers of Balgashi, Sarban, Yesu-Mongke, and Baidar?
• Do we know how he built (or commanded to be built) and maintained these roads?
  • No to both, sadly. Blame the records.
• Is it possible to get more clarity on which parts of the narrative exactly Atwood disputes? The way the Siege of Guranj paragraph is written, I came away with the impression the story of Jochi Chagatai disunity being solved by Ögedei was historical fiction, but the next paragraph implies that it was at least partially true.
  • That is the difficulty—even if Atwood is correct in his theory of revisionism/propaganda, it is entirely possible that divisions between Jochi and Chagatai did delay the capture of the city. I have tried to focus a little; let me know if that works.
• Given the land ruled is described as reaching a river in Transoxiana, "governors of the sedentary lands in Transoxiana" has an unclear geographic scope.
  • I think "settlements" is more understandable, even if it loses a tiny bit of accuracy.
    • I think the more immediate question is, did Chagatai lack control of just the cities in Transoxiana, or within all his territory? (Was his territory synonymous with the concept of Transoxiana?)
• It should be made clearer that Khorasan was not a sedentary city.
  • Done.
• "mother of his heir Güyük", I assume this was Ögedei's heir, but are talking explicitly designated heir, presumptive heir, or eventual heir?
  • The latter two; Ögedei did not have an explicitly designated heir.
    • Could the text say "presumptive heir" then? Perhaps earlier succession info would also help contextualise this. Relatedly, what is the "However," in the next sentence for. The word is a chekhov's gun for Ögedei's succession that is never resolved.
• "Yesülün accused one of his stewards", the subject of "his" is unclear, I thought it was Batu.
• "Chagatai was succeeded" should probably specify succeeded "in central Asia" or similar, given the text already covers succession as senior Genghisid prince.
• "Although Chagatai's loyalty to nomadic customs meant that he constructed no more than pools for waterfowl, storehouses, and small villages". Didn't he construct a highway system through western China?
  • Clarified all; for the latter, I presume they were military constructions which served well in the short-term but were not necessary for trade or other non-military movements.

Absolute classic move by Ögedei with that cup. The navbox at the bottom says he was the "Khan of Chagatai Khanate", I suppose that's a tricky anachronism to avoid. CMD (talk) 08:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed on both counts. Thanks for the comments Chipmunkdavis; responses above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some replies above. CMD (talk) 15:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AirshipJungleman29, my comments:

• Link to Al Altan (Alaltun) as done for the other Genghisid siblings?
• "by his father, Balgashi, Sarban": suffix "as well as" after "his father", so we know that these are Chagatai's named sons and not those given little regard.
• Could we add some details here on the siege of Otrar, say a small paragraph?
• When did Chagatai and Ögedei join Genghis at Samarkand, and when did the city surrender? Consider adding?
• How did he utilise the Uighur officials in his realm, as we have mentioned here?
• In the biblio, link to Hodong Kim and Peter Jackson?

That's all from. Will try to do a source review soon. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 10:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will comment within a week or so. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an international team chess tournament in the spirit of the Olympic Games that took place in Budapest, Hungary in September 2024. The featured article on the 44th Chess Olympiad was used as a model.Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size

• Some images are missing alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I've corrected the image formatting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was quick, it only just ended. I shall review in a few days time, once the frequency of edits has gone down. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just commenting on the lead for now:

• (Hungarian: 45. sakkolimpia) ==> if I read MOS:LEAD and MOS:LEADLANG correctly then this should be removed. I can see that the other Olympiad articles do this as well, but it just clutters the opening sentence with virtually no benefit
• It was the first Chess Olympiad in Hungary since Budapest hosted the 2nd unofficial Chess Olympiad in 1926. ==> I don't see why this is so important to make it into the lead. MOS:LEADREL
• A number of national teams ==> why not give the actual number?
• Additionally, this was also the first Chess Olympiad in which teams of refugees ==> this info seems better placed a bit earlier on, right after the counts of participating nations
• first Chess Olympiad in which teams of refugees were participating in both sections ==> this is ambiguous: did previously only in one section?
• India won ==> if you look at for instance FA UEFA Euro 2016 final you see that nation names link to the article about their national team. If an equivalent article for chess exists, you can link there (I couldn't find one for India).
• I would expect silver and bronze winners in the lead as well
• I would recommend mentioning in the lead the fact that in the Open, India were the only unbeaten team.
• Also missing in the lead: 21 out of 22 possible match points was record breaking (it seems it's even missing from the body as well)
• Also missing in the lead: 11 rounds
• Also missing in the lead: 4 players per round (chess isn't by definition a team sport, so a bit of help to understand the reader how it works is needed)

More soon. Edwininlondon (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon: Thanks for your comments. I've taken care of them all.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see award-winning journalist Leonard Barden has written a review of this event in his Guardian column. Seems an important source. This is what I take from it:

• India being 4 points clear in the Open is noteworthy enough to go in the lead
• India winning four individual golds is noteworthy enough to go in the lead
• Barden calls it a "seminal moment in chess history"
• not necessarily in the lead, but it should be mentioned that "For the first time in any Olympiad, no European team reached the podium in either the Open or the Women’s event"
• consider using somewhere the gist of this "The Norwegian’s ambition of eliminating one of the few gaps in his career record remains unfulfilled"
• consider using Erigasi reaching 3rd on FIDE ranking as a result of his performance
• consider using the gist of this "India’s prime minister, Narendra Modi, received the two Indian teams at his residence to congratulate them"
• not necessarily in the lead, but it should be mentioned that "Gukesh’s win against China’s Wei Yi has been awarded the Olympiad Best Game prize"
• consider using Barden's view of Vishy Anand's role
• consider using the gist of this "The result was redemption for the 2022 Olympiad at Chennai, when on home ground India faltered in the final rounds and were passed by Uzbekistan"
• consider using the gist of "Nakamura identified Wesley So as a weak link, but the former Filipino, after a shaky start, scored the win against China which ensured silver medals for the US."

I see the article has dropped from the Main page, so should be more stable now. I shall shortly begin my review of the body. Edwininlondon (talk) 11:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Make sure that all paragraphs (apart from the lead) have inline citations (not the case in "Fair play regulations")
• The section "Kyrgyz proposal to restore full membership" is outdated (the decision has already been made). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jens Lallensack: Thanks for your comments. I’ve re-arranged the “Fair play regulations” section so that every paragraph is referenced. The decision on the Kyrgyz proposal is mentioned in the “FIDE Congress” section, but it’s good to keep it under “Concerns and controversies” as the proposal was really controversial and raised a lot of concerns that FIDE might lose its affiliation with IOC and that chess federations might lose government funding. I wasn’t sure if the decision should be repeated there. What do you suggest?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): ~ Tails Wx 15:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya! This article regards a historic winter storm across the Southern United States in December 2017, which produced unusual amounts of snowfall across multiple states across the region. Developing from a cooled atmosphere and the resulting effects from cold temperatures and a cold front over Texas on December 5–7, the low-pressure area associated with the winter storm also caused heavy snowfall across the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern regions of the United States, before moving offshore into The Maritimes and eventually over the Atlantic Ocean as a low-pressure system. After traversing the open waters, the low-pressure system also caused high wind gusts and severe weather across Germany and Switzerland. Overall, this winter storm caused eight fatalities, 45 injuries, and $1.06 million in damage. This article is currently a GA and has passed a GAN on March 31 this year. This is also my first FAC nomination, and am looking forward to any comments or suggestions regarding this article! ~ Tails Wx 15:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment: can we do no better for a map than File:Vapor imagery December winter storm 2017.png? It is rather low-quality and has a misleading GIF icon in the corner. Given that the data is in the public domain, I'm sure it's possible to find or even create a better visualization. Good luck on your first FAC! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, got that image switched out and replaced with File:December 2017 winter storm snowfall map SE US.jpg. Thanks, TechnoSquirrel69! ~ Tails Wx 03:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the map

• Some images are missing alt text

• File:Picture_of_snow-covered_Jackson,_Mississippi_from_above_December_2017.jpg is tagged as being under licensing review. Ditto File:Pilot_Mountain,_North_Carolina_December_2017_North_American_winter_storm.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I did scale up the map a bit; let me know if any further changes are needed for that image in terms of resizing or scaling (courtesy link to that respective section: #Meteorological synopsis). I did add alt text to the remaining images that didn't have them, and for now, I hid the two images and don't plan on changing that until either the licensing review is done or the files are deleted for whatever reason. Thanks! ~ Tails Wx 04:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, scaling should be done using |upright= in order to respect user preferences - see MOS:IMGSIZE. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done here - I did set it to 1.6, as a side note. ~ Tails Wx 04:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Otto Hahn, the German chemist who was awarded the 1944 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the discovery of nuclear fission. Today Hahn is something of a divisive figure. A century ago, there was much less of a distinction between chemistry and physics. Hahn was involved early in the chemistry of radioactive substances. Their presence could be detected from their radioactivity, and their unique half lives. Unfortunately, most of the new elements he discovered turned out to be isotopes, a concept that had not been invented when he began. He also had to deal with a lot of disapproval from more traditional chemists, for whom chemistry involved substances you could see, and smell and taste. Early on he formed a professional relationship with a physicist, Lise Meitner. Among his generation, he was regarded as progressive in his attitudes towards women, even a feminist. But women like Meitner still considered him a male chauvinist pig, and their historians have been much less reticent about publicly calling him one. After World War II, his cause was to resurrect the reputation of German science, which had been tarnished (to say the least) in the Nazi period. In this role, he sought publicity and downplayed uncomfortable truths. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:Otto_Hahn_1970.jpg: where is that licensing coming from?

  Image was donated by the Dutch national archive. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there UTRS or other confirmation of the licensing? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  See Commons:Nationaal Archief for details. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:William_Ramsay.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US tag

  Added URAA and archive link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Ernest_Rutherford_1905.jpg: source link is dead

  Dead. Unable to locate in archive. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Can the licensing be otherwise confirmed? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I found the book on the Internet Archive, and can confirm it is on p. 132

• File:Otto_Hahn_und_Lise_Meitner.jpg: what is the author's date of death?

  Not known. Otto Hahn had the negative, and it was published in his memoirs in 1966. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In that case tagging will need to be changed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Berliner_Physiker_u_Chemiker_1920.jpg: when and where was this first published and what is the author's date of death?

  Not known. Otto Hahn published in his memoirs in 1966, so he had a copy, but other copies exist. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In that case tagging will need to be changed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Ottohahn1915.jpg: when and where was this first published and what is its status in country of origin?

  Not known when it was published. (Probably Hahn in 1966 again) Donated to Max Planck Society, who released it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Released it under what license? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Otto_Hahn_Nobelpreis_1945-a.jpg needs a US tag

  Not sure what tag applies. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Edith_and_Otto_Hahn,_1959.jpg: the uploader has a large number of files deleted for copyright-related issues - why are they believed to be able to license this?

  No idea. I can remove it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Hahnfch.jpg is tagged as being not PD.

  Not attached to this one either. Under review on Commons and will remove if Commons decides to delete. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 04:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LittleLazyLass

• This is just a flyby, but I really think could do with more organization. Currently it had a whole nineteen major top level sections and zero subsections. A quick look at other FA biographies within the Science and Academia subject area doesn't seem to indicate this is a standard I'm not aware of. Some basic level of consolidation with his scientific advances in one section, personal life in another, and the Nobel Prize could probably make a section with his other honours seems doable and would make a big difference. Failing that even rudimentary sorting the events into subsections by time period would be an improvement of being bombarded with everything separate. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite correct; there is no standard. There are 33 featured article biographies of physicists and chemists, of which I brought 23 of them to featured. The article is written in chronological order and follows the layout guideline in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout. I will consider your proposal. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following the disastrous loss of the entire Taxi Driver collection to, er, negligence, McQueen was still uncertain about launching his own label. After some dithering, he gathered up every odd and end he'd created since then and put them together in the primal scream that was Nihilism. Not yet capable of the sweeping narratives that would characterise his later career, and on a budget of approximately zero, he went for pure shock tactics. Models smeared in filth and fake blood stalked down the runway, wrapped in cling film, breasts and genitals flashing. The audience was struck dumb and even photographers quit snapping, aghast at the sight. Reviews were mixed, with many accusing McQueen of misogyny while others recognized the burgeoning talent beneath the gore. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nihilism_from_Alexander_McQueen_Savage_Beauty.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Logo_of_Alexander_McQueen.svg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:People_queueing_to_get_into_Blue_Bird,_Kings_Road_(geograph_4104023).jpg

The logo is in public domain per https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Threshold_of_originality. The other two images are licensed under CC BY 2.0 and CC BY-SA 2.0. All images have captions and alt texts. They are relevant to the article and placed at appropriate locations. The description on the wiki commons page of "File:Nihilism from Alexander McQueen Savage Beauty.jpg" should be updated: it listed 5 items but the image is a cropped version that only shows one item. I'm confused since the wiki commons description says "Savage Beauty exhibition, 2011" but our caption says "2015 staging". The file was uploaded in 2011 so that date is probably correct. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Phlsph7, thanks for the image review! I've fixed the description for the Nihilism jacket and the caption. I think I'm just so used to images being from the 2015 staging that I forgot to double check. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the changes, that takes care of all the concerns. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through the prose and sources during the GAN review. I think a secondary source review is in order for FAC, but I can definitely Support on prose here; this is an extremely solid and thorough article. I noticed a couple cites were out of order, so I went ahead and fixed those. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As always, suggestions not demands, etc. etc.

• Only one clothing-related image is annoyingly little. Some of your other McQueen FAs have images illustrating inspirations or resemblances; is that not possible here? Or you could argue for fair use for an image from the show, like the one on Watt 2012 p. 60. Would really help people like myself.
  • Yeah, the lack of images for early McQueen is very frustrating. It's early enough that a lot of it isn't uploaded online, and what is is so rare that people aren't willing to free license it. (Or they've abandoned whatever Flickr account and aren't responding to comments). I think you're right in saying a fair use runway one could be justified, I've added one from Fairer's book.
• "Quest for Fire (1981), famous 18th century" shouldn't there be a "the" before famous?
  • There should and now there is :)
• "There was a degree of primitivism" slightly unfocused phrasing, maybe "it featured" or similar?
  • Added
• When you say "beetle blood", does it literally mean the blood of beetles? How many beetles do you need to squish to get a usable amount of blood? Also, link shellac?
• The fourth paragraph of "Runway show" feels like it belongs in the previous subsection, and indeed duplicates some content from its last paragraph.
• "Many models were wrapped in cling film because McQueen and Niland realised at the last minute that there was no budget to purchase underwear for them." How does cling film ... help?
  • Ahahaha, I wondered about that myself. It's hard to see in the runway show, and they don't go into more detail in that source, so I'm guessing here, but I think... picture wrapping something a bunch of times, untidily so the plastic crinkles up a bit. It doesn't become completely opaque, but it obscures what's underneath.
• "She wrote: "Themes of anxiety and distress continue to be combined with a latent sexuality in his work."" little confused about the tenses
• "Press coverage continued to be mostly appalled" for how long? did it ever stop?
  • Oop, this was intended as a continuation of the prev sentence about the next few collections. I've combined the sentences; they shared a ref anyway.
    McQueen's relationship with the press was always messy. For his early career, reviews almost always said something like "he's talented, but he should stop being so fucked-up". That persisted until roughly Joan, where he got into performance art and the press started declaring that he'd ~matured~. The "talented but fucked-up" response was no longer the default, but it resurfaced whenever he got up to Antics™, which was pretty often throughout the rest of his career, up to and including his last collection in life.

Very tight article. Nice work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): AA (talk) 10:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Anglo-Irish sportsman and military officer Robert Poore. Hailing from an Ango-Irish family of some standing, he was a prolific first-class cricketer who, interestingly, played Test cricket for South Africa. Mostly associated at first-class level with Hampshire, he was known for his outstanding 1899 season when, between June and August he was the highest first-class run-scorer in England and averaged 116.58. In that time he made 304 against Somerset, which was the highest individual first-class score for Hampshire until it was surpassed by Dick Moore's 316 in 1937. His average in 21 innings across the season was 91.23, which was a record average for an English season, that was not broken until Don Bradman averaged 98.66 in 1930, and not surpassed by an English batsman until Herbert Sutcliffe averaged 96.96 in 1931. He was a multi-talented sportsman, having success in polo, tennis, racquets, squash, and was the best-man-at-arms in several of the British Armed Forces Royal Tournaments. He had a long and distinguished career in the British Army, serving in the Second Boer War and WW1 amongst others, and ending his career as a brigadier-general. The article has been reviewed by WP:CRIC members, who have made suggestions. As a sidenote, I don't think we have any Irish cricketers at FA! AA (talk) 10:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's come up in an article I'm working on at the moment -- the militia wasn't, technically, part of the British Army, but a separate institution (unlike its successors, the TA and the Army Reserve). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: Weren't they amalgamated with the British Army sometime around 1906? AA (talk) 08:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -- reading more carefully, I think you've threaded this needle fine: you have been clear about the distinction between militia and regular service. Might be worth checking whether the militia of the Wiltshire Regiment is accurate, or whether it was a militia battalion under the command of the Wiltshires (but not part of them) -- for example, the Bucks Rifle Volunteers were under the command of the Oxford Light Infantry, but didn't wear the cap badge and were rather protective of their separate identity. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist I've made a slight amendment in the article, linking to the 3rd (Royal Wiltshire Militia) Battalion in both the lede and "Military career" section. AA (talk) 09:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the change has gone slightly the wrong way, unfortunately: if he joined up in 1883, that's before the creation of the TA in 1908, so he would have been part of the Volunteer Force, rather than the British Army, until 1886. That's compatible with the body but not the lead. Being even more picky, in the British military, terms like "3rd (RWM) Battalion" don't make sense without an attached regiment, so you need "of the Wiltshire Regiment". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Poore began his military service in the Volunteer Force with the 3rd (Royal Wiltshire Militia) Battalion of the Wiltshire Regiment in 1883, before gaining a regular commission in the British Army in 1886." And reads along the same lines in the "Military career" section. Does that make more sense?! AA (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that works perfectly. As the Volunteers were (very) part-time, most people who served in them would have either had a day job or been so aristocratic as to not need one: I wonder if we know what else he was doing for those few years? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can find out! Thanks again :) AA (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have had a further look and it appears to be a rather quiet (or unwritten) period of his life. The family were very wealthy, so I wonder if he had need to work? AA (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, trying to do a proper review: may be a bit fragmentary:

• A couple of sources are to Who's Who, which has its issues (see WP:WHOSWHO). This one in particular might be a problem: he was a first-rate swordsman, and polo, tennis, racquets, squash, and shot player.
• On that note: what's a shot player?
  • Seems the source is referring to him as being a good shooter. I do have a source to back this up, but I can't access it fully (appears in the UK there isn't a digital copy available). It's in Breaker Morant: The Final Roundup. AA (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Use an endash, not an emdash, in date ranges (MOS:RANGE)
  • Done. AA (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I find the first paragraph of the lead a little confusing: we get a run of statistics, which are all at different levels (a number of test matches, a run rate in county cricket, a record for a particular county). I wonder if it would be better (and clearer) reworked to focus more on the overall narrative and less on the minutiae, which can be left to the body.
• he commanded the Jhansi Brigade of the British Indian Army with the rank of brigadier-general: advise a cut here, as this was/is the normal rank to command a brigade.
• I find the lack of dates in the second lead paragraph to demand rather a lot of the reader's historical knowledge.
• Juliana Poore née Lowry-Corry: see MOS:NEE
  • Née template added. AA (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Lowry-Corry, (daughter of: rogue comma here.
  • Removed! AA (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "Junior" is normally capitalised in names, isn't it?
  • It is indeed! Done. AA (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Poore joined the Volunteer Force as a lieutenant : is this definitely accurate? Officers normally joined at the rank of second lieutenant (which is one down), sometimes named as ensign.
  • I did wonder the same myself, but the earliest reference to him is in the London Gazette on 14th August 1883 (here), where he is commissioned as a lieutenant. AA (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• South Africa, where he served in the Second Matabele War in Rhodesia: Rhodesia wasn't in South Africa (with the capitals).
• before being promoted two years later to brevet major in May 1898.: would cut two years later: we don't need to say it twice.
  • Removed. AA (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I would explain what a provost marshal is in the text. Was he the provost marshal for all of South Africa?
  • Have briefly explained what it entailed and who he was responsible to. Hope that part makes sense! AA (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• and was mentioned in despatches in March 1900, to which the commander-in-chief, Lord Roberts: not the right preposition. I think it would be wise to take another swing at this section, cutting the long sentence down a few times.
  • Have shortened to include the important snippets. AA (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• He was particularly active on the frontlines in the early years of the conflict: this seems needlessly ambiguous: did he later become particularly active in other parts of the conflict, or particularly lazy on the frontlines?
  • Have removed entirely to eradicate any ambiguity. AA (talk)
• where he was present at the Battles...: an odd way of saying it: this seems to imply that he didn't do very much?
  • You're right, it does imply that. I have reworded to remove any ambiguity that he was a bystander. AA (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• with his diary including contemporary notes on their war crimes case: there are a few of these with phrases throughout. In general, they're best avoided: they usually become either or both of clunky and unclear. Suggest "his diary includes...". Also, hyphenate "war-crimes case" as a compound modifier.
• He returned home aboard the SS Canada in 1902, but would return there on military service until his final departure in 1905: return where?
• he was promoted to colonel in June 1915, and commanded the Jhansi Brigade in the British Indian Army for the remainder of the war, for which he was made a temporary brigadier-general: do I read right that he was promoted in June 1915, then immediately reassigned and promoted again?
• Poore was not initially overly enamoured with cricket, which he had learnt not through classical coaching but the perusal of textbooks, reputedly chiefly from the Badminton Volume of Cricket (1888); it was not until he visited India as a subaltern with the 7th Hussars that he realised his love for cricket: lots of positives phrased as negatives here: I'm not sure the density of them is good either for clarity or for style.
• Styling his game on W. G. Grace,: on that of Grace, surely, unless his game was bearded and medically qualified?
  • Amended. AA (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "called up" and "called off" are not generally hyphenated (but the noun call-up is).
• as being "a remarkable feat of physical endurance", on what was "a sweltering July day".: more concise simply as as "a remarkable feat of physical endurance" on "a sweltering July day"?
• Had Poore met with success in these, he would likely have played Test cricket for England in the latter half of their series against Australia, but no Test cap for England was forthcoming: we've buried the lead here: presumably, he didn't play very well?
• he made two final appearances in first-class cricket for the Europeans cricket team,: I'm not sure we need cricket team here, as they've been introduced further up. We haven't done it for the Parsees, who have a similarly ambiguous name.
• Up until his final years, he ran a cricket school which encouraged the development of young cricketers: I might be missing something, but what else would we expect a cricket school to do?
• Cricket was not the only field in which his sporting talents : it's good practice to restate the name in a new paragraph or section.
• MOS:BIO discourages adding people's dates after their names; if someone's age or date of death is important, state it in prose.
  • Have removed the dates. AA (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Poore's sister Nina Mary Benita Poore (1878–1951), married her brother's brother-in-law: this took me a while. Poore's brother-in-law -- this is the Duke, right?
• and was also a justice of the peace for the county: JPs don't generally cover a whole county; they sit at particular courts within a county.
• a memorial was erected to his memory at Salisbury Cathedral.: as with the cricket school: is there any other sort of memorial? Simply "to him", I think.
• he seems to stand for the Eccentric Ideal: I don't really see, from the article, where this would have come from. What did Cooper see in him that was so eccentric?
• Why does Stern come before Lonsdale in the bibliography (and Lonsdale come in two different places)?
• Why isn't Warner in the bibliography at all?

Nice work -- as usual, lots of pedantry here and, due to my lack of expertise on the subject, mostly quibbles about style and MoS. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:Robert_Poore_c1908.jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I was absolutely confident it was going to be in The Jubilee Book of Cricket (1897) by Ranjitsinhji, but to my surprise it wasn't. The original upload by User:Materialscientist was taken from Getty, and they haven't provided any authorship or publication information. AA (talk) 08:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can a publication old enough to satisfy the terms of the current tagging be found? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would any of these images suffice? AA (talk) 12:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing publication info on those - is it known? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This one has erroneously been listed on ESPNcricinfo as having been published by The Cricketer in 1899, however it wasn't published until 1921. I have located the picture from this volume of Cricket: A Weekly Record of the Game, published in 1899. AA (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that would make it PD in the US for sure. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I rarely upload to the Commons (and when I do, it's always my own cricket photos), so I'm a little unsure if I have done this correctly. The original author is Lafayette, who I am fairly certain is the Irish photographer James Lafayette (deceased 1923). AA (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the wording of the copyright template you've used, it indicates that you'll need an additional tag for US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the PD-US tag to it. AA (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Link first class cricket (I would personally remove "first class" from the opening sentence and then link it on what then becomes the first usage to avoid a sea of blue). Also check it is linked on first usage in the body.
  • Done, have removed "first-class" and linked it later on in the lede. AA (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "at an average of 116.58" - link average here rather than on second usage
  • Done! AA (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "Poore would serve in the Second Matabele War " - why not just "Poore served in the Second Matabele War"
  • Done, much more succinct. AA (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "The son of Major Robert Poore senior and his wife, Juliana Lowry-Corry" - I am assuming that was not her surname by the time the younger Poore was born.....?
  • They were indeed married by Poore's birth, have added "née". AA (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• " it wasn't until," => " it was not until,"
  • Done. AA (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "until, as a subaltern, that he visited India with the 7th Hussars did he realise his love for cricket" - this is hard to read and not grammatically correct. I suggest "until he visited India as a subaltern with the 7th Hussars that he realised his love for cricket"
  • Done. Yes, that was a bit of a tongue twister! I have reworded along the lines of your suggestion. AA (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Also link subaltern (I for one have no idea what it means)
  • Done. A mostly British term for a junior officer. AA (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "he subsequently made his debut in first-class cricket while serving there for the Europeans cricket team" - I would lose "while serving there" as it makes the sentence confusing, and the fact that the game took place in Bombay makes it obvious anyway
  • Done. I agree, reading back it is an unnecessary and overly obvious detail! AA (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "which included a maiden century" - link or explain this cricket jargon (I see that "Hundred" is actually linked on the second usage)
  • Done. I have linked the first usage and changed "hundreds" to "centuries" to avoid any cross-over confusion for readers not familiar with cricket jargon. AA (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "helped the MCC to an innings victory" - link "innings victory"
  • Done. AA (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "The following season, Poore became the highest first-class run-scorer in England" -=> "The following season, Poore was the highest first-class run-scorer in England" ("became" could be taken to mean that he became the highest scorer of all time)
  • Done. This reads much better. AA (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "Poore's innings was described by the Southern Daily Echo" - newspaper article should be in italics
  • Done. Opps missed that :D AA (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "Had Poore met with success in these, he would likely have played Test cricket for England....." - did he not then.......?
  • He did not, had he done so he would have joined a rather exclusive club at the time. I have expanded the sentence by adding " but no Test cap for England was forthcoming". AA (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "Poore played in two matches in the 1906 County Championship,[28] with him scoring a century" => "Poore played in two matches in the 1906 County Championship,[28] scoring a century"
  • Done. AA (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "it was said that with his height and massive frame, that when he struck" => "it was said that, with his height and massive frame, when he struck"
  • Done. AA (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "he was a first-rate swordsman, polo, tennis, racquets, squash, and shot player" => "he was a first-rate swordsman, and polo, tennis, racquets, squash, and shot player" (current wording indicates that he was a first-rate polo)
  • Done. AA (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "1898, 1899, 1906, and 1907 Royal Navy and Military Tournament's" - no reason for apostrophe in tournaments
  • Done. AA (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude:. I have addressed your suggestions :) AA (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - nice one :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AA, my comments:

• Link to Battle of Zand River?
  • Done. Have also linked Vet River, though it appears there is no article for that (I might add it to the MILHIST request page). AA (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Where was the Jhansi Brigade posted during Poore's command? Did they see any combat?
  • I cannot find any written records of where or what the Brigade was up to during WW1 :( AA (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• What was the outcome of the Aldershot match where Poore captained?
  • Result and reference added. It was an A&N victory by 6 wickets. AA (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Did Poore have any success as a shot player like he had for other sports? Also, what does shot mean here, shooting?
  • I have found a source which would support "shot" as meaning shooting, though I don't have direct access to the source at the moment. AA (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Consider adding the location of publication for Humphris & Creagh 1924?
  • Done. AA (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Consider running the Internet Archive Bot on the page once so that archive URLs for weblinks can be automatically added?

That's all from me, I will try to get a source review done soon. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 09:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Fathoms Below (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a virtual reality game released as part of the Five Nights at Freddy's franchise. Last year after I helped promote the original game to FA status, I've been curious on whether another FA could be made with this franchise. This game probably has the best chance overall. In summary, Help Wanted adapts the first five games in the series in an anthology format, while also including some new minigames. So let's see what we can do here. Fathoms Below (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will review. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Add translated titles for Ref 1, 3, 6, 8, 26
• Change Ref 22 website to UploadVR

Done second point, @Vacant0, is there a specific policy requiring the translation of the source titles? Just curious, because I'm not sure if that would be required. My previous FACs used a few non-English sources and I wasn't asked to translate the titles. Fathoms Below (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of one, but I might be wrong. I know that there's a policy about foreign quotations, but not foreign titles. I was told to add translated titles at a GA review some time ago, so I've been doing it since then. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I checked around at some pertinent policies and guidelines (WP:NOENG, and WP:FOOTQUOTE) and it seems like translating the titles into English is not required, though quotes not in English should be translated to English. I might ask around and see if translating the titles to English is preferable or if they should be kept as-is. Fathoms Below (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine then. I do not see it is an issue that should bar the article from becoming FA. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The prose is relatively short so I'll go through and read, and leave any recommendations if I spot any. If the article does not receive a source check, you can ping me and I'll do that too. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Help Wanted is a virtual reality survival horror game" – It's up to you, but I'd change Help Wanted to Five Nights at Freddy's: Help Wanted.

Done

• Optionally wikilink virtual reality (it's already wikilinked in the lede, so why not do it in the body too?)

Done

• Add (VR) as the abbreviation of virtual reality in the same first sentence.

Done

• Jump scare is wikilinked twice. Remove the second wikilink.

Done

• Possibly explain the warped graphics element.

The reviewer says "distorted visuals" and there isn't much that I could find that went into detail on the graphics.

• Who published the game?

Scott Cawthon via his company ScottGames. I'll add that to the infobox

• I'll look at the lede and reception tomorrow.
• There's not too much information about the sequel, so per WP:VGLAYOUT it can stay where it is right now under the Reception section.
• Lede: The downloadable content called Curse of Dreadbear.

reworded

• Reception:
  • I personally feel like the wording could be slightly improved.

A lot of the sources weren't in English and it was hard to summarize their thoughts. This section was the one that I thought might need some extra eyes

I'll have a deeper look in the next few days and leave some comments that could improve the section. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • "UploadVR called it a worthy adaptation or the franchise's games" I assume this is a typo.

Done

• • IGN Italy should be italicised.

Done

• • "the power of the jumpscares"?

Should I change it to "effectiveness"?

Yes, that sounds better. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • "Some reviewers called the jumpscares effective, but said that they would become repetitive over time" – remove said

Done

• • Optionally move "The game was nominated for the Coney Island Dreamland Award for Best AR/VR Game at the New York Game Awards in 2020." to the first paragraph.

Done

• • Do we have reception for the sequel?

Metacritic lists only one review for the sequel from UploadVR. Should I include it?

Sure, why not. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find a great way to integrate the review to be honest. Is there a way you think I should add it somehow. Say something like "UploadVR called the game ___ and ___?" Just curious, I just want to make sure that I'm doing this right.

Vacant09, a few replies above. Fathoms Below (talk) 22:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go paragraph by paragraph.

• The first paragraph does not have any issues.
• Second paragraph:
  • What do you mean by an "accessible" entry?

Easy to get into, especially for people unfamiliar to the franchise

• • "Destructoid felt that it would appease longtime fans and people unfamiliar with the series,[2] and The Games Machine said that it would appeal to players who were not fans of horror media through its simple mechanics" → "Destructoid saw that longtime fans and those unfamiliar with the series would be appeased with the game, while The Games Machine wrote that players previously not fans of the horror genre would be appeased because of its simple mechanics"

Reworded a little to be more in line with the source. Does this work?

Yes. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • "worthy adaptation"?

Decided to add a quote from the article instead. Does this look better?

Yes. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • "IGN Italy said that it was" – change to present tense

Done

• Third paragraph:
  • "UploadVR said the atmosphere was intriguing and increased the power of the jumpscares, writing that the virtual reality made the game feel immersive" → "UploadVR said the game's atmosphere was intriguing and increased the power of jumpscares, and that virtual reality made the game feel immersive"

Reworded. Does this work?

Yes. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • effective, in what sense?

Effective at scaring the player

• Fourth paragraph:
  • I doubt that "the" is needed before "different minigames".

Reworded

• • "The Games Machine called the levels diverse"?

This was a tricky one, but I reworded it. Does the new version make sense? I think I got it more in line with what the reviewer was saying.

Yes, it sounds better. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for addressing my comments. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've done work on every other game in the Five Nights at Freddy's series and conducted several source searches for this article before this FAC at the request of the nom (hell, we nearly co-nom'd), while also reading through it countless times. So knowing the subject matter and what all is out there, I firmly believe that this article clearly meets the FA criteria (though I did choose to wait for Vacant to finish his review before I supported), and I hope that this passes. λ NegativeMP1 07:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. This article is about a 2014 smash hit mobile game, Smash Hit. You shoot balls and break glass and crystals. There's also a virtual reality version of the game. This is my second FAC nomination overall. This article was promoted to GA last month and was then reviewed by three editors in a peer review. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support I was a reviewer at the PR and can say that I have no comments left. 750h+ 23:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This looks interesting! Putting myself down for a review later. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TechnoSquirrel69:. Do you still plan on reviewing this? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay; I am indeed! I have started a source review but haven't gotten an opportunity to wrap it up yet. I'm hoping to do that and post my comments later today. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm putting myself down to take a look at this later this week. Sohom (talk) 04:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, shiny! Gonna review this later. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 23:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about another Neolithic site in England, this one being investigated by a Canadian research team, for some reason; only one excavation so far, so not a lot of findings to report, which is a pity as there's a possible Neolithic longhouse or Anglo-Saxon hall in part of the site, which I'm sure the team are keen to get to. The article has had a very helpful pre-FAC review from UndercoverClassicist. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

very exciting, always happy to see archaeology at FAC! i can commit to a review for this in the next few days. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 12:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

initial suggestions/comments:

• (lead) i'd link person-days (redirect to "man hour" but still useful for those unfamiliar)

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• (lead) it should be "McMaster" not "McMasters" University

  Oops. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• (site) link Anglo-Saxon here as well

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• (discovery, fieldwalking & watching briefs) "though this will require excavation to confirm." i'd change that to something more like "this would require excavation" or maybe "excavation would be required for confirmation".

  I agree that "will" doesn't sound ideal, but I don't think "would" works any better. The problem with "would" is that "X would later be required" can mean "X happened later, as was required"; we need a form of words that can't be misread to indicate it actually happened. I settled on "will", even though it jars a bit with the past tense of the narrative, because it's a true statement -- right now, excavation will be required to confirm what those features are. I thought about reversing it so that instead of saying what will be needed, it says that it hasn't happened: "... some of which could be Saxon sunken-featured buildings, though as they have not yet been excavated this has not been confirmed", but I think that's uglier and less true to the source's point, which is just "here's a theory, but it needs excavation to confirm it". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  fair enough! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 15:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• (finds from 2019 excavation) "acid soil" --> "acidic soil"

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• (sources) i'd add ISSNs to journals/periodicals where available, for consistency & usefulness to the curious reader

  I generally don't add ISSNs, though I often see people adding them to articles I write, and I don't remove them. I don't find them helpful myself. If you think it's necessary I'll add them, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  one citation does already have an ISSN, which is why i suggested it. i like to add them, but if you don't usually, then i have no objection to you removing that singular one! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 15:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I went ahead and added them -- you're right that consistency is valuable, and I don't really object to them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

overall the prose and such is great, not many issues at all. i think i'll do a source review for this as well - if i've not done that by sunday, ping me. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 21:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

in terms of source quality, no complaints. especially for more rural/"obscure" sites like this, these (archaeological journals, books/chapters from university presses, government trust reports, &c.) are definitely the best kinds of sources one can find. if necessary i have real-life access to most of these, but not immediately on my laptop.

comments:

• Palmer (1976) is referenced but not listed in the bibliography. as far as i can tell, this is the only citation with this issue

a spot-check is probably unnecessary what with how many FAs you have, but just for good measure:

• 10 (Curwen 1930) - good
• 14a (Carter et al. 2021) - good
• 20 (Martin 2007) - good, quote matches up
• 32 (Wilson 1975) - good
• 47 (Schofield et al. 2021) - good
• 49 (Carter et al. 2021) - good

... sawyer * he/they * talk 23:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- have fixed Palmer. I can send you a copy of Curwen if you need it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh, sorry lol i forgot to put the "good" down for Curwen initially. now that we have Palmer 1976, support. :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 13:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another archaeology one, I'll be sure to review soon. Hog Farm _Talk 23:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just some random comments for now.

• Freston is a causewayed enclosure,[4] a form of earthwork that was built in northwestern Europe, including the southern British Isles, in the early Neolithic period. I'd drop "including the southern British Isles". It's a long complicated sentence, and given that the entire article is about something in the southern British Isles, that goes without saying.]

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The causeways are difficult to explain in military terms does the source actually say they're difficult to explain, or is that you editorializing?

  The sources do make this point. For example, Cunnington says "It is very difficult to see why the frequent openings in the entrenchment should have been left, when apparently they must weaken it so materially, if it was intended for purposes of defence ... [one theory is] that they had some distinct purpose in the scheme of defence; that they were, indeed, a strengthening and not a weakening factor in this seemingly not very strongly-defended place". She goes on to give other possibilities, including the sally port suggestion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• There is also evidence that they played a role in funeral rites, you need to go back to the previous paragraph to be sure what "they" is referring to; probably better to be more specific here.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• material such as food, pottery, and human remains was deliberately deposited I think this is grammatically correct in a strict way, but it reads funny. The subject of "was" is "material", so it's correct to use the singular form of the verb, but at first scan you see "human remains was" which is jarring. Can this be rephrased to avoid that?

  Had a go at this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• they were built in a single operation what evidence is there for this? I assume the source says so, but enquiring readers will want more.

  The source doesn't say so -- the statement comes in the concluding summary of an article about causewayed enclosures, and doesn't cite a source or give more explanations. I think the source is strong enough to include this, even without further explanation, though I agree I'd like to be able to say more on the point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Since these are found in both continental Europe and the British Isles, the obvious question is how did they get across the water, by whom, and when, and in which direction? I see you touch on this briefly at the ends of the "Background" and "Site" sections, but I think it deserves going into more and earlier in the article.

  I'm not sure I agree -- this is an article about a specific causewayed enclosure, after all, not about the whole class of causewayed enclosures. There's already a fair bit of text in the article that is not specific to this particular site (compare Great Wilbraham (causewayed enclosure) and you'll see what I mean) and I'd rather not go further in that direction if I don't have to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The enclosure is 8.55 ha (21.1 acres) in area, "in area" is redundant.

  That was added in the pre-FAC review on the article talk page, so I'd like to leave it there and see if other reviewers have an opinion one way or another. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Four sherds of pottery were found link sherds -> Glossary of archaeology#potsherd

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All responded to; thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments...

• The Discovery, fieldwalking, and watching briefs section starts out a bit oddly with it not being found in 1944. I'd lead with the key idea, i.e. "The site was discovered in 1969", and then fill in the details about it not being found on earlier photos. Any idea why it wasn't seen in the 1944 photos? Were the 1969 images higher quality? It's also not clear what happened between 1966 and 1969; was there was one set of photos in 1966 and another set in 1969, or were the 1966 photos re-examined three years later using better techniques?

  I can do this if you really think it's necessary, but I like the directly chronological approach, rather than having to step back in time in the second sentence to 1944. To answer your question, the source says there was no sign of earthworks or cropmarks. The article says further down that the earthworks were long gone by the 20th century, and cropmarks are often only visible in very dry conditions, so if the 1944 photos were taken when it wasn't very dry the cropmarks would not have been there. The 1966 photos were taken for the Ordnance Survey and not as part of a search for cropmarks, and nobody noticed the evidence on them. At some point, no later than 1995, someone went back and looked for earlier photos and found the 1966 ones, and realized that the site was identifiable if anyone had paid attention. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This may be outside the scope of WP:FACR, but I wonder if just plain Freston causewayed enclosure would be a better title, per WP:PARENDIS? Looking at Category:Causewayed enclosures I see people have done it both ways, so no strong feeling either way here.

  The sources don't tend to append "causewayed enclosure" to the name, which is why I haven't named the articles I've written that way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• a group from McMaster University organized ... a pedestrian survey This is in the lead, but I don't see anything in the body that talks about a pedestrian survey. Or is this what you refer to as "fieldwalking"? If so, it would be helpful to non-expert readers (like me!) to either use the same term in both places, or explain the linkage.

  Added "(surveying the site on foot)" after the first use in the body. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Freston is about 13 km (8 mi) from the sea; it would have been about 18 km (11 mi) from the sea at the start of the Neolithic. Why did this change by 5km? I'm guessing rising sea levels, but it would be good to explain that.

  The source doesn't say but it's sure to be sea level changes. I can probably find a source that says something about sea levels in the Neolithic, and might be able to use that, but I'm slightly hesitant about possible synth problems. I'll see what I can find and will report back. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My first look didn't come up with anything I can cite, but this does imply that sea level is the reason -- the North Sea was low enough for Doggerbank to be above water only 2,000 years before the enclosure at Freston was constructed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see this here. I will chip in, though it might be wise to wait until we have a few more reviews (as I left comments on a recent draft): let me know if a good moment comes up, otherwise I'll keep my eye on the page. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Theknine2 (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2014 social simulation game The Sims 4. Initially released to mixed reception due to its limited variety of content and gameplay features, the game has since been significantly expanded upon by its developer Maxis, who has continued to support the game via free updates and many many DLC add-ons (thanks EA!). The game differentiates itself from previous entries in the series in several ways, such as: its stronger representations of gender identities and sexual orientations, fully-featured versions of the game on consoles, built-in online features (thankfully optional, unlike Maxis' SimCity, at launch), and being free-to-play from 2022 onwards.

This article achieved GA status in November 2022, after its third nomination (That was my fault, oops! I was a way more inexperienced editor back then.), and I have done a lot of work to the article to make it happen, including basically re-writing the whole thing. It's my first time attempting an FAC, so I am receptive to feedback and changes (including major ones, if necessary), but I do believe that the article has reached a point where it qualifies for FA status. Thank you in advance! Theknine2 (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to FAC! I'll have a look and review this. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 114: Change title to "The Sims 4 Review", add website: The Escapist
• Add the website for Ref 117, 122
• Ref 143: Change VGC to Video Games Chronicle
• Try to find a replacement for Ref 158 (Dexerto)

@Vacant0: Done. Theknine2 (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Please mention the EU/AU and UK release dates in the prose.
• Remove references for release dates in the infobox.

@Vacant0: Done. Theknine2 (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I first read about Leroy Chollet in a local newspaper that mentioned him as an African American basketball player who played in the Whites-only inaugural NBA Finals because he did not tell anybody that he was Black. That sounded a bit off, so I googled him but didn't find much. The Wikipedia article was a stub. As I read about the guy, I expanded his article. This is my first nomination, so feel free to offer any guidance on this process. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely article. I'll take a look. All of the suggestions listed may be rejected with justification. 750h+ 16:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lead

• and became a teacher and varsity head coach for the school. I'd remove "for the school"; i think the start of the sentence does the job

early life

No problems here. 750h+ 16:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

college carreer

• colleges were segregated, and neither remove the comma
• rival colleges Louisiana State University (LSU) and Tulane remove the acronym "(LSU)", as it's not used later in the article

professional career

• ball to the teams' veteran players ==> "ball to the team's veteran players"

later life

• No problems here. 750h+ 16:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work for a first nomination, short and sweet article, hope we'll be seeing this on the main page as TFA soon! 750h+ 16:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, 750h+, I've addressed the comments above in the article,[2] Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. 750h+ 23:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did the GA review for this and am glad to see it here at FAC. I left some comments on the article talk page in preparation for FAC, and I see those have been dealt with, but rereading the article now I have a couple more comments.

• I can see why the Loyola national championship is mentioned in the first sentence, but it's awkward because the third sentence has to repeat the information, since we're recounting his timeline and that's early in it. It might be best to cut the first sentence all the way down to "was an American professional basketball player", and let the succeeding sentences tell the story.
• Suggest adding "He died in 1998" to the end of the lead.
• In the lead, "When Chollet's African American heritage was revealed" is followed by a note giving the details of his paternal great-grandmother, and that note is used again in the body of the article. I don't see any reason why those details can't be brought into the body, and for the lead I'd suggest something like this: "Chollet had one black great-grandparent, and when this was revealed he was pressured into leaving Loyola. He moved to New York ..."
• Why is note 3 in a note instead of in the body of the article? It's only marginally relevant to Chollet, but if we're going to include it at all I think it's interesting enough to be promoted to the body of the article.
• Similarly can we incorporate notes 4 and 5 into the article? These are good quotes; no reason to bury them; and "could not influence the unfolding events" is not as effective as the quotes it summarizes.
• "Louisiana newspapers did not openly publish their ancestry": what is meant by "openly publish"? I'm sure this isn't in contrast to clandestinely publishing their ancestry, but I don't know what is intended instead.
• Can we get links for the BAA and NBL, and a link in the body for the Syracuse Nationals (currently only linked in the lead and infobox).
• "Chollet was the varsity head coach from 1956 to 1960 and retired from teaching in 1985. He was an administrator for community sports programs at the Lakewood Recreation Department from 1960 to 1980": any reason this is out of chronological order? Can we mention his retirement after his work for Lakewood Recreation Department, in other words?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Mike Christie, addressed in article,^[3] Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support; fixes look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "he became a role player" - what's a "role player"? Is there an appropriate link? I presume it doesn't mean that he played Dungeons & Dragons ;-)
• "Chollet signed with the Syracuse Nationals" - link the Nats
• "In the NBA, Chollet was a reserve guard tasked with facilitating" - are there appropriate links to whatever a "reserve guard" is and whatever "facilitating" is?
• "Chollet was the varsity head coach" - what does this mean? "Varsity" would suggest to me a university, but it was a high school.....?
• That's all I got on prose -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, ChrisTheDude! Linked the Nats. I've added "role player" to the glossary of basketball terms and added a link to this article's lead. In the body, I've tried to explain his role in the NBA with less jargon. Is that more clear? Regarding "varsity", I've specified that he was a high school varsity coach and added piped links to varsity team. In high school, it contrasts with a JV or freshman coach. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images are well placed. Have the newspapers been checked for a copyright notice? Does the ALT text for the second image have to be this long. Source-wise, is there a reason for the inconsistent application of "via newspapers.com."? What makes Statscrew a reliable source? Newspapers seem to be inconsistently formatted, both between the "References" and "Sources" section. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I checked the newspapers for copyright notices.
• The alt text is longer for one image because it includes the caption from the newspaper. This makes the text in the image accessible (Example 3). To shorten it, I'd need to crop out the caption.
• Removed "via newspapers.com".
• I'm basing the reliability of Stats Crew on WP:USEBYOTHERS. It has been cited by a variety of reliable news sources,[4][5][6] and I don't see any doubting it. The article cites it only for the table of ABL stats, so if it doesn't meet FA standards, I can remove that two-line table.
• For consistency, I've used similar parameters for all the newspaper sources.[7] The sources cited inline and left out of the "References" section list are all primary sources.

Thanks for checking it out, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I am questioning Stats Crew is because I don't see a clear editorial mechanism. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Gotcha, I've removed the ABL stats cited to Stats Crew. It's just there as an external link now. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 13:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems OK. Unrelated to sourcing, but ALS should be spelled out IMO. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Done. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like this passes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Volcanoguy 19:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about volcanism of a volcanic complex in British Columbia, Canada, that has been erupting episodically for at least the last 7.4 million years. I'm renominating it for FA because there was no consensus for promotion in the last FAC, not to mention there were incomplete reviews. As I've explained in the previous FAC, the reason this article cites Souther a lot is because he's the only geologist to have studied the Mount Edziza volcanic complex in detail, not because the article isn't well-researched which is 1c of the featured article criteria. Most volcanoes in Canada are not well-studied due to their remote locations; Canada also doesn't have a lot of volcanologists.

Tagging those who were involved in the previous FAC: Arconning, Gog the Mild, Eewilson, Dudley Miles, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Volcanoguy 19:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Everything in Arconning's previous image review still stands; everything seems to be properly licensed and thankfully features alt text. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "It is the second largest " begs the question "what's the largest?"

  Clarified. Volcanoguy 17:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I assume that the reference for that sentence supports this information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. Volcanoguy 19:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "eruption recurrence interval" might warrant an explanation for laypeople.

  Reworded. Volcanoguy 19:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "The most voluminous rocks" I dunno, something sounds unclear/ambiguous about this sentence but I am not sure.

  "The most voluminous rocks" is definitely used in scholar sources. Volcanoguy 18:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but I am not sure if the lay reader would understand this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "conformably" needs glossing.

  Removed "conformably". Volcanoguy 17:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "They reached a maximum thickness of more than 300 metres (980 feet) near their source to only a few metres thick at their terminus" I think this sentence should be split.

  Why split it into two small sentences? Volcanoguy 17:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Relatively large atmospheric contents" this may require explanation.

  Problem is that the source doesn't explain what the "atmospheric contents" are. Volcanoguy 18:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  OK. Wearily familiar with this kind of problem with my own articles... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "An anomalously old potassium–argon date of 10.2 ± 1.4 million years has been obtained from Armadillo comendite" so is it erroneous?

  Apparently, the source doesn't directly say it's erroneous though. Volcanoguy 17:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "The predominantly rhyolitic eruptions were later replaced by the effusion of trachyte lava as deeper parts of the underlying magma chamber were tappe" 'replaced' is an odd word choice here.

  Replaced with "followed". Volcanoguy 17:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "that resulted in the formation of a crater" overlong.

  How? Volcanoguy 17:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "that produced a crater" Or some other word than "produced". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "was substantially eroded " by what?

  The source doesn't say, my guess is glaciers and streams. Volcanoguy 17:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Either the article or File:Pyramid Formation cross section.png have a typo. I believe commons:COM:GL is the place to request a fix.

  Fixed. Volcanoguy 18:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "agglutinated" might require glossing.

  I could change this but "agglutinate" isn't a technical word as far as I'm aware of. Volcanoguy 17:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the article topic is comprehensively covered, maybe one could say something about the research history? Already checked sourcing the last time, so nothing from me to add. I presume that File:Big Raven Formation.png and the other maps weren't copied verbatim from the source? I think with ALT text for maps, we usually try to pass on the information in the map in text form. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, the maps weren't copied verbatim from the source. Not much to say about the research history. Volcanoguy 17:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Since I reviewed the other criteria too, I'll file an official support here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I can find time to review this over the weekend. Hog Farm _Talk 00:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: A review shouldn't take very long; the article text has not changed much since your pre-FAC review in April. Volcanoguy 03:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that several months ago I performed a pre-FAC reviews at Talk:Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex#Pre-FAC review. Hog Farm _Talk 19:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Nido eruptions deposited 127 cubic kilometres (30 cubic miles) of volcanic material, making the Nido Formation the second most voluminous geological formation of the second magmatic cycle" but also "The Spectrum eruptions deposited 119 cubic kilometres (29 cubic miles) of volcanic material, making the Spectrum Formation the second most voluminous geological formation of the second magmatic cycle". I don't see how both of these can be true

  Corrected. Volcanoguy 20:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "However, this possibility cannot be confirmed until additional age-related data are provided for The Neck" - this is to a source over 30 years old. Has any of the more modern literature addressed this possibility?

  Not that I know of. Volcanoes in northern British Columbia (which are probably the most remote in BC) can go decades without much studies. Volcanoguy 21:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Likewise, Level Mountain northwest of the MEVC has not received much geological work since Hamilton's studies in the 1980s. Volcanoguy 21:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Most studies since Souther (which are relatively small) seem to have focused largely on interactions between ice and lava. Volcanoguy 21:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Obsidian from the Hidden Falls archaeological site in Alaska" - is this Hidden Falls (Baranof Island, Alaska)?

  Yes, linked. Volcanoguy 20:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "The subaqueous material was deposited in a lake that may have ponded between the erupting volcano and a lobe of glacial ice." vs "the only recorded volcano-ice deposits of the Nido Formation occur on Idiji Ridge where molten basalt was quenched against ice and formed tuff breccia in meltwater ponds". Maybe I'm misunderstanding these things, but they don't seem to fit together well

  I've removed the second sentence to avoid confusion. Volcanoguy 21:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From some quick looking for sources, it seems unavoidable that Souther is used this heavily. Hog Farm _Talk 19:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• "the latter seven rock types"

Only seven rock types are listed, therefore "latter" should be removed.

Corrected; changed to six. Volcanoguy 17:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your change - retaining "latter" but changing "seven" to "six" is correct. GeoWriter (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Background

• "composite shield volcano consisting of multiple flat-lying lava flows forms the plateau."

How much do you want to keep the word "composite"? I think it is an unnecessary and problematic term here that could confuse readers if e.g. they have been investigating the different types of volcanic landforms. Most sources, including Wikipedia, emphasise that shield volcanoes and composite volcanoes have different features and are not the same type of volcano. Confusingly, "composite volcanoes" are usually assumed to be synonymous with stratovolcanoes; in Wikipedia "composite volcano" redirects to the stratovolcano article. This would probably raise questions in the readers' mind such as "if the Mount Edziza complex includes a composite volcano, how can that volcano be a shield volcano?" and "if the Mt Edziza complex includes a shield volcano, how can that volcano be a composite volcano?" Where will they find the answers to such questions at the moment? Not in this Mount Edziza article. I recommend that it is better to remove the term "composite" from this Mount Edziza article.

Removed "composite". Volcanoguy 17:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eruption rate and composition

• "This would make the MEVC the most active eruptive centre in Canada throughout the Holocene"

"Would" implies either it will happen in the future or it would be true if an (unspecified) condition did not apply. I suggest this should be changed to "This makes the MEVC the most active eruptive centre in Canada throughout the Holocene".

Done. Volcanoguy 18:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raspberry eruptive period

• "Volcanism during Raspberry time did not experience long periods of quiescence"

I suggest that this should be changed to "Volcanism during Raspberry time did not have long periods of quiescence"

Done. Volcanoguy 19:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "but the valleys and lowlands would remain filled with thick piles of basaltic lava flows which would later be overlain by the much younger Mount Edziza ..."

Unnecessary use of some type of historical present/future tense. Past tense is much clearer and simpler. I suggest that this should be changed to "but the valleys and lowlands remained filled with thick piles of basaltic lava flows which later were overlain by the much younger Mount Edziza ..."

Done. Volcanoguy 19:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Little Iskut eruptive period

• "around the parameter"

Should be changed to "around the perimeter".

Done. Volcanoguy 18:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nido eruptive period

• "around the parameter"

Should be changed to "around the perimeter".

Done. Volcanoguy 18:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Peak eruptive period

• "exposing bedded tuff and debris that ponded inside a former crater lake"

I suggest that "ponded" should be changed to "accumulated" or "piled up", similar to what has been written for the Pillow Ridge debris.

Done. Volcanoguy 18:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "A circular volcanic plug called The Neck formed southeast of Ice Peak on the northern side of Sorcery Ridge during this eruptive period. It consists of an older outer ring of fine grained trachyte and a younger inner core of coarse grained trachyte, suggesting The Neck was the source of more than one trachyte eruption. This roughly 300-metre (980-foot) in diameter volcanic conduit has a potassium–argon date of 1.6 ± 0.2 million years which may be due to excess argon."

Is 1.6 ± 0.2 million years is the age for the older or younger part of The Neck? Is there an age available for the other part? Why is The Neck thought to be two masses of trachyte rather than two sections of a single mass with differential cooling features of a slow-cooling core and faster-cooling margins?

Source doesn't specify and 1.6 ± 0.2 million years is the only age given. Volcanoguy 18:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK about the single age, but as you did not comment on my question about whether or not The Neck is two masses versus one mass (of two differently cooled parts), I checked the relevant section in your cited source for details of The Neck. My understanding of the Neck, from the cited source, is: The Neck comprises two distinct sets of structures: (1) an outer set of concentric rings of fine-grained, foliated trachyte with well-developed centripetal horizontal columnar jointing; (2) an inner set of planar or gently curved tabular bodies of coarse-grained, unfoliated trachyte with less well-developed horizontal columnar jointing. The internal stucture suggests that the The Neck is the end result of some volcanic eruptions. The cited source does not explicitly state what was produced by any single eruption. I found no mention of the outer rings being older and the inner cores being younger, nor any mention that a specific core body is paired with any specific outer ring. My understanding of the cited source is not consistent with your sentence: "It consists of an older outer ring of fine grained trachyte and a younger inner core of coarse grained trachyte, suggesting The Neck was the source of more than one trachyte eruption." Can you clarify or explain your current wording? GeoWriter (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did some rewording. Volcanoguy 17:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your revised wording is OK. GeoWriter (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pillow Ridge eruptive period

• "may have been leftover from"

I think "leftover" as a single word is a noun or adjective e.g "to eat the leftovers from a meal" and "to eat the leftover meal". The verb is "to be left over" i.e. two words. I suggest this should be adjusted accordingly for whichever option you intended.

Done. Volcanoguy 19:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edziza eruptive period

• "The lava domes were punctuated by vent-clearing explosions"

Do you really mean "punctuated", or do you mean "punctured" (pierced)?

Source uses "punctuated". I've reworded this sentence a bit maybe it makes more sense now? Volcanoguy 18:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your revised wording is fine. GeoWriter (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "The trachyte erupted during this period straddles near the pantelleritic trachyte and comenditic trachyte boundary."

I've not seen the phrase "straddles near (the boundary)" in formal English. I've only seen "straddles the boundary"; "near" seems to be unnecessary - a boundary is straddled if something lies on one side and the other. "Near" seems to be already implied and "straddle" would be inappropriate if there was no nearness to the boundary.

Removed "near". Volcanoguy 20:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Nanook Dome; lava from this dome flowed down the stratovolcano and into the summit crater to form lava lakes."

Can you clarify why you have used the word "and"? Did lava flow from the summit rim into the summit crater only or did lava flow from the summit rim down the exterior flanks of the mountain and also from the summit rim into the summit crater?

Clarified. Volcanoguy 18:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You changed the wording to "lava from this dome flowed down the exterior flanks of the stratovolcano and into the summit crater to form lava lakes". I think it would be even clearer if you tweaked "and into the summit crater" to "and also into the summit crater". GeoWriter (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Volcanoguy 16:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Triangle Dome and Glacier Dome formed on the western and northeastern flanks of Mount Edziza, respectively, the former of which may be the product of subglacial volcanism"

"The latter" is way to refer to the second member in a set of two members but you have used it to refer to one member (or perhaps one subset of two members) of a set of four members (Triangle Dome, Glacier Dome, western flank, northeastern flank) split into two subsets (domes, flanks) each of two members (Triangle Dome, Glacier Dome) and (western flank, northeastern flank). Therefore "the latter" is too ambiguous. This should be clearer/more explicit. Also, "of which" is unnecessary and should be removed.

Revised. Volcanoguy 18:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The text is now "Triangle Dome and Glacier Dome formed on the western and northeastern flanks of Mount Edziza, respectively; Triangle Dome may be the product of subglacial volcanism. A trachyte flow from the latter dome travelled around the base of the older Pyramid Dome into the head of Pyramid Creek." Your change that fixed the previous point has caused the ambiguity about "the latter" to spread further along the paragraph. Your second mention of Triangle Dome now makes this the latter dome introducing what I think is an error - it implies that the flow around the base of Pyramid Dome has come from Triangle Dome, which I think is an error. I think the flow actually comes from Glacier Dome, so I suggest that you should change "the latter" to "Glacier Dome". I know it's a lot of mentions of the word "dome" but I think the clarity would be greatly helped in this case. GeoWriter (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fixed. Volcanoguy 15:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arctic Lake eruptive period

• "Tadekho Hill, a cinder cone 4 kilometres (2.5 miles) to the south, formed on top of a 180-metre-high (590-foot) remnant of Spectrum trachyte. Lava from Tadekho Hill spread onto the surrounding plateau surface to form a small shield volcano.

Can you clarify how lava erupted from a cinder cone can form a shield volcano?

Removed. Volcanoguy 18:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "during a massive lava eruption" (at Source Hill)

Can you quantify "massive"?

I don't understand this question. Are you asking what "massive" means in this context or how "massive" the eruption was? Volcanoguy 19:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Massive lava eruption" could mean either (1) a very large eruption or (2) eruption of lava that has a homogeneous texture when solidified. So, which do you mean in this case? (Most readers will assume that "massive" means "very large", hence my previous question - how big is very large?) If you mean "very large", I suggest you could reword to "during a massive eruption of lava" or "during a very large eruption of lava" to avoid any possible confusion. GeoWriter (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "during a massive eruption of lava". The source doesn't make it clear how massive the Source Hill eruption was unfortunately. Volcanoguy 16:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Snowshoe Lava Field'

• "massive lava flows"

Can you quantify "massive"?

No, the source doesn't quantify how "massive" the lava flows are. Volcanoguy 19:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The cited source states "a massive effusion of basaltic lava". Therefore, I suggest that, in this case, "massive lava flows" should be changed to "very large lava flows" to avoid anyone thinking it could have the alternative rock texture meaning. GeoWriter (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Volcanoguy 16:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kana Cone and Walkout Creek centres

• "Several pulses of lava took place"

I suggest that this should be changed to "Several episodes of lava eruption occurred".

Done except I used "effusion" instead of "eruption"; using "eruption" twice in the same sentence doesn't sound right. Volcanoguy 19:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. GeoWriter (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sheep Track Member

• "Fission track dating has yielded an age of 950 CE ± 6,000 years for the Fission track dating has yielded an age of 950 CE ± 6,000 years for the Sheep Track pumice"

The error range is ±6000, which is ±600%. The -6000 part of that is so enormous that it makes the date expressed in this specific format a nonsensical and meaningless date in the distant future. It is not worth quoting from the cited source in this format. The error range apparently spans c. 5000 BCE to 7000 CE, which implies that the rock may not have even formed yet but it will form sometime before 7000 CE. An absurdity. Absolute dating error ranges should be meaningful, not just be numbers in an mathematical equation or in a graph. An alternative way to report the age of this particular rock unit is something along the lines of "probably 6000 to 1000 years Before Present" (source: Wilson, A.M. and Kelman, M.C. (2021) "Assessing the relative threats from Canadian volcanoes", Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 8790, https://emrlibrary.gov.yk.ca/gsc/open_files/8790/ (spreadsheet appendix, table A1, row 307, Sheep Track Pumice (Member)) ; https://emrlibrary.gov.yk.ca/gsc/open_files/8790/of_8790.pdf ; https://emrlibrary.gov.yk.ca/gsc/open_files/8790/tables_A1-A2_1-4%20FINAL_Jan%204%202021.xlsx).

What if I reworded it to "Fission track dating indicates the Sheep Track pumice was erupted around 950 CE."? Volcanoguy 20:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could put more emphasis on the uncertainty of the dating, with phrasing along the lines of "Fission track dating indicates the Sheep Track pumice was erupted in the last 7000 years, most likely around 950 CE." GeoWriter (talk) 13:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Volcanoguy 19:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous peoples

• "Obsidian from the Hidden Falls archaeological site in Alaska is dated to 10,000 years old; this suggests that the MEVC was being exploited as an obsidian source soon after ice sheets of the Last Glacial Period retreated."

Please clarify, because these two sentences seem to be a non sequitur - the conclusion in the second sentence does not seem to logically follow from the evidence in the first sentence.

If "10,000 years old" refers only to the age of the obsidian's eruption (and not when part of the obsidian fragment was exposed to sunglight/air as a result of tooling by people - see: obsidian hydration dating), then I think its age suggests nothing about how soon after its eruption it was exploited.

"10,000 years old" refers to an obsidian hydration date. Volcanoguy 20:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you added the hydration dating method to the article's text. Fine. GeoWriter (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

• Note f - "Volcaniclastic rocks are broken fragments (clasts) of volcanic rock."

Volcaniclastic rocks are not clasts, they are rocks consisting of clasts. I suggest changing to "Volcaniclastic rocks are rocks composed of broken fragments (clasts) of volcanic rock."

Done. Volcanoguy 18:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— GeoWriter (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GeoWriter: I've responded to all of your comments. Volcanoguy 20:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My responses to unresolved points are at each of the relevant subsections of my previous comments. GeoWriter (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the nomination because all the points I raised about the geological content of the article have been resolved satisfactorily by the nominator. — GeoWriter (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• "The Mount Edziza volcanic complex (MEVC) in British Columbia, Canada, has a long history of volcanism that spans more than 7 million years" - Why not keep it simple and rephrase as "Volcanism in the MEVC in BC, Canada spans more than 7 million years?

  There's nothing wrong with the current wording, not to mention your proposed rewording doesn't make it clear what MEVC and BC mean; see WP:ACRONYM. Volcanoguy 04:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't mean to literally do the acronyms, but rather than full version. And I think the current phrasing is rather tautological, no ("long history of volcanism that spans more than 7 million years")? ceranthor 01:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I removed "long" from this sentence if that solves anything. If the sentence were to be reworded to "Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex (MEVC) in British Columbia, Canada spans more than 7 million years", "Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex" would have bold text since it's the title of the article and then "Mount Edziza volcanic complex" won't be able to be linked per MOS:BOLDLINK since it is the only sentence in the introduction where it's spelled out. I think "Mount Edziza volcanic complex" should be linked in the introduction since this article is covering volcanism of that complex. Volcanoguy 21:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, I can't start off with the title of the article because according to MOS:BOLDLINK links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the first sentence of a lead. Volcanoguy 20:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "It occurred during five cycles of magmatic activity, each producing less volcanic material than the previous one" - rephrase as "It included five cycles"; occurred is awkward here to my ear

  Magmatic activity isn't limited to volcanism which is only the surface expression of magmatism. Volcanoguy 22:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Right, but the suggestion was related to the word choice, "occurred." ceranthor 01:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Changed to "It has taken place during five cycles" if that solves anything. To say the volcanism "included" five cycles of magmatic activity isn't really correct since volcanic activity is only the surface expression of magmatic activity. Volcanoguy 21:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "The approximately 1,000-square-kilometre (400-square-mile) volcanic plateau forming the base of the MEVC owes its origin" - would rephrase as a little informal; maybe better as "originated from the successive eruptions"

  Done. Volcanoguy 19:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "The fifth magmatic cycle began at least 20,000 years ago and may be continuing to the present;" - better as "may be ongoing"

  Done. Volcanoguy 17:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Background

• "This volcanic province is the most volcanically active area in Canada, having experienced at least three eruptions in the last 500 years" - wordy; what about "undergoing at least three eruptions" or just "with at least three eruptions"?

  The only word I swapped was "experienced" with "undergone"; past tense here since the eruptions occurred in the past. Volcanoguy 18:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eruption rate and composition

• Looks solid.

Magmatic cycles

• " Lost Peak consists of volcanic ejecta that was deposited in both subaerial and subaqueous environments; the subaqueous material was deposited in a lake that may have ponded between the erupting volcano and a lobe of glacial ice" - Not familiar with the word ponded

  Changed to "formed". Volcanoguy 19:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "This roughly 300-metre (980-foot) in diameter volcanic conduit has a potassium–argon date of 1.6 ± 0.2 million years which may be due to excess argon.[95][99]" - -in-diameter should be hyphenated, but I think this would flow better if reworded to "The volcanic conduit, roughly 300 meters in diameter, has a potassium-argon date...

  Done. Volcanoguy 18:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "the cause of this variation in thickness may have been due to changes in viscosity as volcanic gases escaped the erupting magma.[22]" - Can cut out "the cause of"

  Done. Volcanoguy 18:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Pyroclastic rocks erupted during Kakiddi time are exposed on the eastern flank of Mount Edziza; they are in the form of scoria and blocky explosion breccia.[111]" - for more active voice, how about "taking the form of ..."

  Done. Volcanoguy 18:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Klastline River was forced to establish a new route" - Not sure I like the diction here as it makes it seem like the river has agency. Suggest rephrasing

  Rephrase it to what? Volcanoguy 18:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What about "The dam formed a new route for the Klastline River along the northern valley wall where it still flows to this day"? ceranthor 01:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Volcanoguy 19:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Last two sections look fine.

Will likely support once these comments are addressed. Well-written, comprehensive article. ceranthor 00:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceranthor: Replies? Volcanoguy 19:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. ceranthor 01:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceranthor: Replied to your last two comments. Volcanoguy 19:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): XR228 (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Seattle Kraken are a team that competes in the National Hockey League. They are the league's newest team, having been founded in 2018 and playing their first game in 2021. I think this article meets the FA criteria. Also, mind that this is my first FA nomination; I've done some FL nominations before, but nothing like this. Nevertheless, feel free to give a review. Thanks. XR228 (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments the statement that ""Kraken" was a name that was already popular with fans prior to its official adoption" is cited to a spammy promotional article on the NHL website. If this is a reliable source, which I doubt, it would be better to say that the name was chosen as it rated best through market testing or similar. Independent sourcing would be much superior. The para starting with "Buoy, since his introduction, has been in a feud with Bissonnette" is also written in-universe, and oddly presents the mascot as being an actual person rather than a PR thing. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: I have made the changes. I deleted the part about the Kraken being a popular name before announcement, and I edited the paragraph about Buoy and Bissonnette. XR228 (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• There should not normally be citations in the lead, as everything in the lead should also be in the body and cited there. On that note, most of the stuff in the second paragraph is not mentioned anywhere in the body. Nothing should be only in the lead, so you need to find a way to work that into the body. The lead is also quite short and could summarise more of the article - it doesn't contain anything about team identity, for example.

Establishment (2017–2021)

• Literally every paragraph starts "On [date]". Find a way to vary the language. The paragraphs are also incredibly short (two are just a single sentence) so they should be merged into a smaller number of longer paragraphs.
• NHL should be written out in full on the first usage with the abbreviation in brackets (in the body as well as the lead)
• Seattle should be linked on first usage in the body
• "from their respective teams (Edmonton, Dallas, and Florida, respectively.)" - that full stop should be outside the brackets
• "On July 23, The first round" - T on the should not be capitalised mid-sentence
• More to follow....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude: I have made the changes for the establishment section. XR228 (talk) 00:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You still have literally every paragraph in that section starting with "On [date]". There must be a way to vary this a bit.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First seasons (2021–present)

• "the Kraken signed forwards Alexander Wennberg, Jaden Schwartz, and goaltender Philipp Grubauer." => the Kraken signed forwards Alexander Wennberg and Jaden Schwartz, and goaltender Philipp Grubauer.
• In the first paragraph you have four consecutive sentences all starting "The Kraken". Try and rewrite to avoid this. You could use "the team", "the franchise", etc.....
• "Jones led the Kraken through an 8-game win streak" => "Jones led the Kraken through an eight-game win streak"
• "to win their first playoff series against the defending Stanley Cup champions." - in the lead you used "Stanley Cup champion" (singular). Which is correct in US English?

Arena

• "Amazon bought the naming rights to Climate Pledge Arena" - they can't have done, as it wasn't called that at the time
• "Vince Dunn scored the first-ever Kraken goal in the arena's history" => "Vince Dunn scored the first Kraken goal in the arena's history"
• "The Kraken's first-ever shutout win at home" => "The Kraken's first shutout win at home"

Logos and uniforms

• "The event was held under the banner of "Release the Kraken"" - what event? This is literally the start of the section and no "event" has been mentioned.
• "The franchise's promotional materials state that it was adopted" - what is "it"? Presumably the team name?
• "For the 2024 NHL Winter Classic, the Kraken wore a uniform inspired by the Seattle Metropolitans" - link Metropolitans. Also, see my comment above about adding info about the Metropolitans to the body as well as the lead.
• "walked into to their home arena" - there is a stray word in there
• Everything in the "see also" section is already linked in the article, so you can delete this entire section.
• That's what I got right to the end :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude: I have made all the changes except for the changes to the lead, I'll get to work on it soon. XR228 (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude: Just fixed the lead. XR228 (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You still have a citation in the lead, which isn't needed if the info is sourced in the body, and I still feel that "For the 2024 NHL Winter Classic, the Kraken wore a uniform inspired by the Seattle Metropolitans" needs some explanation/context of who/what the Metropolitans are/were. Yes, I realise it's linked, but a reader shouldn't have to click away to another article to find that they were another ice hockey team as opposed to a baseball team or a marching band or any of the many other things that a team's uniform could conceivably pay tribute to...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude: Fixed it. XR228 (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude XR228 (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will review. Hog Farm _Talk 22:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "The only time the Kraken qualified for the Stanley Cup playoffs was in 2023." - I would go with "have qualified"; the past tense is weird for a team that is still active
• "voted 7–1 to approve a memorandum of understanding between the city of Seattle and the Los Angeles-based Oak View Group," is the article text; the source text is " voted 7-1 to approve a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the city and the Los Angeles-based Oak View Group", this is close paraphrasing
• "he led first-time draft-eligible NCAA players in goals, with 10" in article vs "led first-time draft-eligible NCAA players in goals" in source. Yes, there's limited ways to rephrase this, but it's better to at least make some changes rather than go with the direct source wording in places like this
• "Beniers scored 24 points in 24 games during the previous season" - this needs some sort of link or explanation to indicate to non-hockey fans what a point is in hockey
• "Grubauer had been considered one of the top names on the market prior to the beginning of free agency" - considered by whom? Does the source indicate that this is a consensus view, or is attribution to the source of this opinion needed?
• "in what would be a 4–2 loss to the Pacific Northwest rival Vancouver Canucks" - is it really appropriate to call this a rivalry? The source mainly seems to be talking about how this was expected to become a rivalry in the future. How can a team really have a rivalry early on in its first season?
• "Philipp Grubauer recorded the franchise's first shutout, making 19 saves in a 3–0 victory against the New York Islanders" - first, when was this, and second, I think there needs to be some sort of link for saves in here for non-hockey fans
• "in last place of the Pacific Division with a 27–49–6 record and 60 points" - and because "points" here means something different than when discussing the player's 24 points in 24 games earlier, this also needs some sort of explanation
• "In early January, Jones led the Kraken through an eight-game win streak. While doing, so the franchise became the first team to win all seven games of a seven-game road trip" - the source doesn't seem to be pointing out Jones' leadership or performance in this win streak
• "and the first wild card spot in the Western Conference" - link for Western Conference and wild card?
• "On April 30, the Kraken defeated the Colorado Avalanche in the opening round, becoming the first expansion team in NHL history to win their first playoff series against the defending Stanley Cup champion" - so this sounds like they won a single wild card game, while the use of the term "series" leaves open the possibility that this is a multi-game series. Can it be stated directly if this is a single wild card game?
• "The Kraken finished their season with a 34–35–13 record and 81 points" - where does this standing finish within the conference?
• "The arena, at Seattle Center, is a $600 million redevelopment of the former KeyArena" - the $600 million is a planned figure, our article at Climate Pledge Arena states that the final cost was $1.15 billion, see also this Seattle Times headline I can't access
• "The team plays the Nirvana song "Lithium" after every Kraken goal at home" - is this still a thing? The source is from less than two weeks after the team's first season (I know Nirvana had connections to the Seattle area, but that seems like a very odd celebratory song choice)
• "Bell, Demetrius (July 23, 2020). "Seattle Releases The 'Kraken' Nickname, Logos And Colors Ahead Of 2021–22 NHL Debut". Forbes. Retrieved March 23, 2024." - this is a Forbes contributor piece, which is not a reliable source. See WP:FORBESCON
• "he uniform was officially unveiled on November 22, 2023, but was leaked four days earlier when players from the National Basketball Association's Utah Jazz walked into their home arena wearing it" - we can't source something happening on November 22 to a source from November 18
• "the Kraken promoted a "team dog" named Davy Jones. " - why the link to the Pirate of the Caribbean character? The source doesn't mention the Pirates of the Caribbean at all that I can find, and the Davy Jones concept is much older than those movies - see Davy Jones' locker
• "forward and Everett Silvertips commentator Al Kinisky to replace him" - link Everett Silvertips
• "For radio, Kraken games are broadcast on KJR-FM 93.3 and KJR 950 AM, the flagship stations of the Kraken Audio Network. During a schedule conflict, some games may be heard on 96.5 KJAQ." - why is this information in the TV section when there is a radio section, where the same stuff is also stated?
• I think some sort of explanation is needed for the structure of the NHL minor leagues. Otherwise, it is a bit confusing for the reader to read about AHL and ECHL affiliates. I also find it very confusing to read about the team sharing a minor leage affiliate when my main sports fandom is MLB, where such a minor league affiliate sharing would not be possible
• I don't know that all these non-notable people need listed for the minority ownership. There's often quite a few minority owners for sports teams like that and I don't know that this is due detail (I know as a Kansas City Royals fan that the team has a whole bunch of minority owners)
• " Morse, Dan (August 16, 2022). "Alison Lukan & Nick Olczyk to join Kraken broadcast team this season". Davy Jones' Locker Room. Archived from the original on February 6, 2023. Retrieved August 27, 2022." - the SBNation team-centric blogs generally have much lower editorial standards than the main site. What makes this blog a high-quality reliable source?

I think that's it for my first round of comments; due to some of the concerns above I don't plan on entering into a support or oppose declaration until after a source review addressing spot-checks and source reliability. Hog Farm _Talk 23:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: I have made the changes. Also, this morning, the Kraken announced something called the Kraken Hockey Network, so info about that has been added to the broadcast section. XR228 (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take another look at this once it passes its source review. Hog Farm _Talk 22:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I have a type, it's major-market, often network-affiliated TV stations with unusual histories. After a radio detour, I'm back at it, and channel 11 in Minneapolis is one of them. You'll get: the story of two stations on one channel, consolidated by Consolidated; how the Minnesota Twins came along to save the station after it lost its network affiliation; how then-WTCN-TV went from successful independent to NBC affiliate with a disastrous "new news" that the ratings showed to be "about as popular as the measles" (not my words); and how Gannett took the station apart and rebuilt it to viewer acclaim in the 1980s and 1990s.

User:Premeditated Chaos provided a deep GA review in March 2024 in preparation for an eventual FAC (thank you!). This is the second-longest article by references and prose size I've sent to FAC. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this soon. Hog Farm _Talk 00:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "announced it would take over WCCO radio, merge it with channel 4, and divest WTCN radio" - how do you merge a radio station and a TV station? Is this meaning to turn it into a single corporate entity?
• "WMIN and WTCN—each seeking to avoid a lengthy comparative hearing—proposed to share time on channel 11" - I might have missed something, but the WTCNs mentioned above are a radio station and a TV station that was no longer known by the WTCN name, neither of which have been previously mentioned as wanting channel 11
  • The answers on these are related. In 1947, channel 4 went on as WTCN-TV and the sister to WTCN radio. The owner of those two stations, in 1952, bought WCCO, a radio institution in Minnesota (especially in those days). This meant that channel 4 became WCCO-TV and that WTCN had to be sold off. The new owners of WTCN were the ones that wanted channel 11, having already filed for it.
    • Okay, I think I get it now. I had read "at which time channel 4 changed from WTCN-TV to WCCO-TV" as a call sign change, rather than WCCO-TV moving from wherever it had been to channel four, and then WTCN not having a home. (I think I was trying to interpret it in the manner of the KTXR/KWTO-FM changeover that occurred in my home radio market a few years ago). Hog Farm _Talk 02:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Modern radio station format and frequency swaps are not like this case at all, but I can see why if that was your benchmark you were confused.

  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Is Note A about Captain 11 particularly relevant to this topic at hand?
  • I wrote KELO-TV to GA as well, and the program takes up more oxygen there than you'd think. The footnote is intended to reinforce the connection (and since I had already done the research on the South Dakota side). I'd like to keep it.
• Should Casey Jones be linked?
  • Yes. Comments to here, Hog Farm: Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for the NewsCenter 11 section. Hog Farm _Talk 02:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Tonight aired on KMSP until it was returned to WTCN in its original timeslot." - not finding this in the cited source
  • Turns out this addition by MrSchimpf was actually wrong! I've added two references here.
• Is there a reason why the text list of transmittors excludes K35KH-D, which is shown on the map as a second transmittor in Jackson?
  • Almost certainly because an error was in there somewhere. Nathan Obral did the map for me, and this article must have listed two transmitters. RabbitEars says that translator rebroadcasts KSAX-TV. Unless two transmitter sites in a translator system share the same COL, which can happen (e.g. Elko, NV), the listing of two translators for a station in an area is almost always wrong in practice. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's all from me. Hog Farm _Talk 02:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Fixed the other two errors. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:KARE_NBC_11_Minneapolis,_Minnesota_Logo.svg: source link is dead. Ditto File:Roger_Awsumb_as_Casey_Jones_WTCN_poster.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The revision portion of the logo link was broken. Fixed on Commons.
  • The site with the Awsumb image has redesigned and moved the resource to the location https://pavekmuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/roger-awsumb-wtcn-scaled.jpg . Fixed on Commons, Nikkimaria. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since I did prose commentary for the GA, I'll do a source review here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go!

• What makes Northpine a high-quality RS?
  • If Northpine is kept, usage should be made consistent - ref 2 has Northpine.com, but ref 183 has Northpine straight up
• Same question for RabbitEars
  • See my comments in GA reviews at Talk:KLKN/GA1 and Talk:KASA-TV/GA1. The former has my replies to both sites. If you'd rather see Northpine bypassed, the replacements would be an FCC order and a since-unfortunately but understandably-replaced reception guide. (Tegna sites do not archive)
• The vast majority of sources don't have the work linked, except for the following sites/works: FCC, Seattle Times, WaPo, MinnPost, City Pages, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. It doesn't matter which you go with, but it should be consistently linked or consistently not linked
  • Decided to link on first use of any publication.
• Similarly, location inclusion is inconsistent - Minneapolis Tribune and Minneapolis Star all have it whenever they're used, and LA Times does, but some other papers don't
  • Ref 94, 97, 101, 113, 129, 130, 133, 136, 142, 158, 159, 161, 165, 166, 171, 172, 175, 177, 184, and 192 are missing location
  • Removed all locations.
• Ref 49 doesn't specify the work
  • Oops. It's Variety.
• Some inconsistency in Star Tribune/Minneapolis Star and Tribune. Ref 120 uses Star Tribune, but that was 83, so before the rename if I'm reading right. 132 and 138 also predate the rename.
  • Repaired 83, 132, 138. (Any 2024 and on references, as of last month, should be Minnesota Star Tribune, but none of them exist yet.)
• Why does ref 126 include a publisher when no other newspaper includes this?
  • That is an agency, not a publisher. Knight-Ridder syndicated this article to the newspaper.
• Ref 159 lacks publisher info
  • Fixed.

Since I already did a source check in the GAN and found no significant concerns, I'm not going to repeat it here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Replied, Premeditated Chaos. I have fixed all issues, removed location for consistency, gone for link-on-first-use-only for sources, and responded in re: RabbitEars and Northpine. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking good to me, including the rationales for the two noted sites. Passes the source check. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'll review. Steelkamp (talk) 07:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox:

• "KARE 11 (pronounced "Care")" -> "KARE 11 (pronounced "care")" as sentence case should be used.

Lead:

• "that broadcast the Minnesota Twins, " -> "that broadcast the Minnesota Twins baseball team, ".
• "This continued under two successive owners, Chris-Craft Industries and Metromedia." -> "This continued under two successive owners: Chris-Craft Industries and Metromedia."
• "to its Washington, D.C. station." -> "to its Washington, D.C., station." as per MOS:GEOCOMMA
• "ballyhooed" is too informal for Wikipedia I reckon.
• There's nothing on the 1990s or post 2000 history in the lead.
• Why is "St. Paul" used rather than "Saint Paul", which seems to be the city's official name according to Saint Paul, Minnesota?
  • This potato will need more time. I don't have Chicago Manual of Style access to the section that discusses this. AP Style, which while not influential on Wikipedia in most cases is used by most US news outlets, suggests "St." in all cases. If someone has CMOS access, please help.
  • @Steelkamp: I have obtained CMOS access. The relevant section is 10.35 (covering Fort, Mount, and Saint) and reads as follows: Generic terms as elements of geographic names are usually spelled out in formal prose (and in mailing addresses) but can be abbreviated where space is at a premium or to reflect predominant usage (as in the last two examples below). The last two examples mentioned are Saint (St.) Louis (usually St. Louis); Saint (St.) Paul (usually St. Paul). I believe that Chicago, as a major influence on MOS, should be applied here. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok. The reason I asked in the first place is because the Wikipedia article is titled "Saint Paul, Minnesota", but I see there have been some discussion about this on Talk:Saint Paul, Minnesota. As long as the spelling is internally consistent within this article, I think its OK. Steelkamp (talk) 06:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Early years:

• "At 2 p.m." As per MOS:TIME, a non-breaking space should be placed before the p.m. There are a bunch of other places in the article where this should be done.
  • I usually avoid doing this by script as the script likes changing "p.m." to "pm" and is exceedingly inconsistent about it.
• What does master antenna mean?
  • Elaborated a bit in the article. An antenna setup designed to broadcast multiple stations.
• "At that time, Consolidated consolidated". I hate to be the fun police, but can a different word be used here other than consolidated?
• "minor-league baseball" -> "minor league baseball".

As an independent station:

• "WTCN had the only TV news staff in the market without a professional meteorologist." This reads like unusual wording to me. I suggest rewording to "WTCN had the only TV news team in the market without a professional meteorologist.".
  • New items handled, Steelkamp. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Affiliating with NBC

• "and sportscaster Bob Kurtz[b].[83]" I think MOS:CITEPUNCT applies to footnotes as well, so the footnote should be placed after the full stop
  • I've tried to repair everything to here. I do have one question I can't answer right now. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gannett purchase and news overhaul:

• Chicago is linked here but it can be linked higher up under "Chris-Craft ownership" and also in the lead. Also, I notice that Portland, Oregon is not linked at all. There's also Los Angeles and New York, but those fall under MOS:OVERLINK, although I am generally in favour of linking cities and wouldn't be opposed if those two were linked.
• "the station added as many as 40 new staff members[115] to add to the 40 that it had at the time of purchase" -> "the station added as many as 40 new staff members[115] in addition to the 40 that it had at the time of purchase".
• "new news vehicles and cameras." -> "new cameras and news vehicles."
• "The station's newscasts were retitled News 11." Could a date for this change be added. Otherwise, its not clear how long the "11 News" name lasted.
  • I made it clearer with rewording that everything debuted at once in August 1983, Steelkamp. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 12:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Is "Sky 11" the name of the helicopter?
• "It was the first time a tornado had been filmed from creation to dissipation." I'm confused by this. Wasn't the tornado already created when the helicopter arrived there?
  • Reworded for clarity — the sources seem to say that is not the case.
• "Star Tribune" can be linked earlier. Also, is the Star Tribune the same newspaper as the Minneapolis Tribune, mentioned earlier. Can that be linked as well?
  • Fixed.
• "and pushed KARE back to second." I may have missed this, but when did KARE become first?
  • You missed it Magers—the anchor commonly credited with helping KARE remain number one in late evening news
    • I was referring to when KARE became first before it was pushed back to second. Steelkamp (talk) 02:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, earlier. Yes, you did indeed miss it, Steelkamp. The July 1987 sweeps period brought another historic achievement for KARE: it finished first at 10 p.m., with an audience share of 29 percent. This momentum was sustained through late 1987 and early 1988, even as an expansion to the Twin Cities market gave WCCO an edge in counting viewers in Alexandria. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Post-2000:

• No comments.

Those are all the comments I have. Steelkamp (talk) 05:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Steelkamp: Changed or addressed all items. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 15:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support. Steelkamp (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark me down for one. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "It was originally shared by two stations: WMIN-TV in St. Paul and WTCN-TV in Minneapolis, which alternated presenting local programs and shared an affiliation with ABC." Suggest "It was originally shared by WMIN-TV in St. Paul and WTCN-TV in Minneapolis: the two stations were each affiliated with ABC and alternated presenting local programs."
• "that broadcast the Minnesota Twins baseball team": suggest "games" rather than "team" -- I know this is standard terminology but for non-US readers I think this is more natural, and it should be fine for US readers too.
• "More recently": this is a tricky thing to do with the "as of" requirement, but maybe "as of 2024, the station has been a second-place finisher in local news for almost a decade", or whatever the relevant dates and periods are. I had a look in the body for the material that supports this and didn't spot it, but I haven't read through carefully yet -- can you just confirm it is indeed in the body?
• No change necessarily needed, but I'm curious about the sharing arrangement, alternating broadcasts. Is this unusual? Is it unusual enough for the rarity to be commented on in the article?
  • Yes. This isn't like the UK which had really long-running "split broadcasts" (think London ITV), and I suspect to many readers only familiar with modern-day TV it would be hard to explain. Shared-time broadcasting was typically proposed by applicants to get them to air faster.
    There were only a handful of shared-time stations, and their time as such was limited to months or a couple of years before one party sold out: KOOL-TV and KOY-TV, Phoenix; KSBW-TV and KMBY-TV, Salinas/Monterey; KMBC-TV and WHB-TV, Kansas City. There was one longer-running case among these, WHEC-TV and WVET-TV, Rochester, New York, which lasted eight years. There were two later shared-time TV stations: WILX-TV and WMSB, Onondaga, Michigan (1959–1972), which involved an educational and a commercial station, and one in Chicago in the 1980s, WPWR-TV and WBBS-TV (the latter of which is currently covered in WXFT-DT), where the operations did not merge in the end (WBBS was basically undermined by a changing Spanish-language TV market). In each case, the level of integration of the operations was varied. In Phoenix, the channel 10 stations basically operated out of separate wings of the same studio. The channel 11s of the Twin Cities were literally across a river from each other (WMIN-TV was in St. Paul).
• "The transmitter and antenna was the only physical facility shared by the stations": number mismatch between subject and verb. "were" would mismatch with "facility", though, so perhaps "The transmitter and antenna were the only resources shared by the stations"?
• "films had to be airmailed to and from sister station KELO-TV in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, before air": I think "before air" is redundant and could be cut.
• "Captain 11" seems worth a redlink, or a link to a section in the related existing article about the cloned show -- though a bit of googling seems to indicate a separate article could be justified.
  • Turns out Captain 11 is an article, and I think it merits it, too. I've placed this blue link in the footnote because it's about the Sioux Falls version, which is the one that meets the GNG.
• "made for an attractive purchase because it was hampered by its shared status": I'm not sure I follow -- the shared status meant the price was low?
  • Yes, that's how I read that.

More to come; done through the "Early years" section. It might be tomorrow or Monday before I can get back to this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • Changes handled to here. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Amir Ghandi (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recently successful GAN (reviewed by Simongraham, this article is about a Princess in the medieval Iran (Ghaznavid dynasty) who is known as the most politically active woman in her era; namely because of writing a letter to induce her favourite nephew to usurp the throne. Amir Ghandi (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "recorded by Shabankara'i (c. 1298 – c. 1358), a later historian" - I don't think later is really necessary here as we have his rough lifespan. It might create the impression he was latter than Bosworth.--Llewee (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleted it
• "According to Bosworth, she was distinguished from her sisters because of her intelligence and tactfulness, which gave her an influential role in the governmental matters. In an era when the education for women was restricted to only theology, she sought to learn sciences."
  • The two the's aren't needed and look a bit grammatically awkward.--Llewee (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deleted them
  • Is any more information available about how she tried to learn sciences?--Llewee (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately nothing
• "a patriotist rebellion broke out in Khwarazm on March 1017"
  • If the rebels were angry that Khwarazm was under foreign rule then "nationalist" would probably be a more usual term than "patriotist".--Llewee (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Replaced it
  • "In" would probably be a better fit than "on" here.--Llewee (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done
• "the rebels killed Ma'mun for his submission" - a better wording for this might be "the rebels killed Ma'mun; objecting to his submission"--Llewee (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't specifying that they are 'objecting' be redundant? What about 'because of' instead of 'for'?
    • Yes, "because of" should be OK. The original wording just felt a bit vague.--Llewee (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Done Amir Ghandi (talk) 03:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Furthermore, Hurra may have been taken hostage by them." - I don't think "Furthermore" is needed here.--Llewee (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delted
• "and the Turkic military commanders" - Could a link be added to "Turkic" here?--Llewee (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
• "the real power behind Muhammad's government" - Maybe add a link to Power behind the throne here?
  • Done

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the map
  • Done
• File:Mas'udIGhaznavidCoin.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm seeing all these other images of coins (File:Denarius Sextus Pompeius-Scilla.jpg for example) and they have the exact same licenses as this one. Why a tag for original work?

• • • Other similar images should also have one, but sometimes that doesn't happen. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done

• While the article generally looks good, it lacks a lot of context throughout, making it hard for the reader to understand where, how, and why things are happening, but that should be fixable with the suggestions below. FunkMonk (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Link Ghaznavid at first mention in article body, now it's at second.
  • Done

• Since the article is so short, I think you can devote some space to explaining non-English terms in-text (in parenthesis), instead of making readers chase links.
  • I have done that for the majority of the foreign words. Sultan, Amir and Harem aren't obscure terms and don't need explanation

• "from Ma'munid dynasty" From the.
  • Done

• Where was she from and where did she live? The article gives very little geographical context in modern terms. Even your blurb here gives clearer location info than the article itself (medieval Iran).
  • Done

• Anything on er ethnicity and religion? Since the article is so short, there is plenty of room for more context. Could be something as simple as saying her dynasty was Muslim of Turkic Mamluk origin or whatever fits.
  • Done

• "ruler of Khwarazm" State where this is in modern terms too.
  • Done

• "Abu al-Hasan died at an uncertain date between 1006 to 1010" From what?
  • Unknown, meaning the source itself doesn't even say 'from unknown causes'

• "However, a nationalist rebellion broke out on Khwarazm" I see this was discussed above, but does this really count as "nationalism"? What does the actual source say? I'm very doubtful that any regional identity of this time could be called "nationalism".
  • The source says 'patriotist'

I think we have to stick to that, because the concept of nationalism didn't really exist back then, so applying it retroactively is WP:OR. FunkMonk (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "broke out on Khwarazm" In?
  • Done

• "and repeatedly sent him luxurious gifts" After she was married and moved away? Could be specified, as it gives context.
  • The source does not specify

• "In 1030, after Mahmud's death" What did he die from?
  • Is this necessary to add?

Depends on how he died. If he died in battle, it adds context to the story. If he died from disease, not so much. FunkMonk (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THe cause of death was a combination of diseases, so I won't add it

• "Hurra-yi Khuttali, along with her younger brother" Why randomly give her full name again? Shouldn't be needed after first mention in the article body. Also happens elsewhere in the article.
  • Changed all to Hurra

• How many siblings did she have?
  • We know how many brothers he had, but for sisters it is unknown. Should I add this into the article?

If the source specifically states this, yes. FunkMonk (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then no, the source I have only says her father had six sons

• Who was her mother?
  • Unknown

• "receive letters from Hurra and his mother" Who was his mother?
  • Unknown

• "may have had him blinded" Could link Blinding (punishment).
  • Done

• "with Khorasan in second place" You never explain or link Khorasan before this point, needs context. What does all this have to do with Khorasan?
  • Done

• "As a result, Turkoman tribes migrated into the region" From where? You should establish whether these were sent specifically by Mas'ud.
  • Done

• "by Beyhaqi" But you haven't presented him before (or here), so the readr doesn't know there have been previous mentions of her by him, or even that he is aparticularly important source about her.
  • Done

• "and his throne was usurped by Muhammad" But wasn't he blind? How did he rule, and how long after?
  • Only allegedly. Also wrote some information about his second tenure.

• "From a feminist outlook" This could be given in-text author attribution, who speaks on behalf of feminism here?

Doesn't seem to have been addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done

• "I and the women of the harem are all in the citadel of Ghazna." This detail could be mentioned in the article body itself, with link to the citadel.
  • Done

• "in the Ghaznavid politics" The is unneeded.
  • Done

• The intro also needs modern geographical terms for context.
  • Done

• "leaving Ghazna for India, her ultimate fate is unknown." The comma should be a semicolon.
  • Done

• The intro should mention it's unknown if she had children.
  • Done

• Mention in the intro that her husbands were brothers and where they ruled.
  • Done for brothers; I've already mentioned that they ruled Khwarazm

• Changes look good, I've added some comments above. FunkMonk (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - looking nice with the added context. FunkMonk (talk) 10:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 10:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3 May 2015, one of the best days of my life. My favourite (local) football club winning something for the first (and thus far, only) time. Travelling down to Rotterdam with several family members, seeing people on viaducts waving and cheering on the passing buses with us fans (even ca. 100 km down the route), and the incredible (but tense) atmosphere in the stadium, is something I won't forget. There's one image in the article, which is not mine, as the few pictures I took were all a bit blurry ;) I've used online and newspaper articles to try and give a comprehensive (and of course unbiased) view. All comments are appreciated! Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 10:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I will take a look at this one but probably not till after the weekend -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Image is appropriate licensed, but the article would benefit from having additional imagery. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: I agree, added another image. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 11:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Groningen reached the final of the competition once before" => "Groningen had reached the final of the competition once before"
• "PEC Zwolle began, as a professional side and defending KNVB Cup champions, their campaign" => "As a professional side, defending KNVB Cup champions PEC Zwolle began their campaign"
• "In the last minutes of the match" - I think "In the closing minutes of the match" works better
• "VVV equalised, but the goal was disallowed" - if it was disallowed then they didn't equalise. I suggest "VVV appeared to have equalised, but the goal was disallowed"
• "it was the sixth time it happened since 1956" => "it was only the sixth time it had happened since 1956"
• "It was the seventh time both sides met" => "It was the seventh time the two sides met"
• "Groningen also entered the 2014–15 KNVB Cup in the second round" would suffice, I think
• "found the back of the Vitesse net in the rebound" => "found the back of the Vitesse net on the rebound"
• "showed his squad video messages of their family members before the match" => "showed his squad video messages from their family members before the match"
• "Jans was hailed as a "motivator"" => "he was hailed as a "motivator"" (avoids repetition of his name)
• "Groningen were already 1–0 down after two minutes when Romário scored, the fastest goal in KNVB Cup final history" - this is slightly confusing as a standalone sentence. I suggest joining it to the previous sentence as "reached the final once before when they lost 4–1 to PSV in 1989;[25] PSV's Romário scored after two minutes, the fastest goal in KNVB Cup final history"
• "played each other once in the Eredivisie during the season, with Zwolle winning 2–0 at home" - is the league not a double round-robin? Why did they only play each other once?
• Jans image caption needs a full stop
• "but played since 2012 for PEC" => "but had played for PEC since 2012"
• "Van de Looi was pleased for the fans that they claimed the club's first major honour" => "Van de Looi was pleased for the fans that the team had claimed the club's first major honour" (avoids the suggestion that it was the fans who had claimed it)
• That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ChrisTheDude, thanks very much Chris! Addressed your comments, and tried to clarify/expand on the point that PEC and Groningen had played each other once in the league (the next league meeting between the two was a week later). Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

T6 was a dinky little steam-driven torpedo boat that started life as an Austro-Hungarian vessel. She saw extensive service in the Adriatic Sea in the latter stages of WWI, performing convoy, escort, patrol and minesweeping tasks, and anti-submarine operations. After WWI she was taken over by the new South Slav state, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes – which was renamed Yugoslavia in 1929. She was captured by the Italians during the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941, and despite her age the Italians put her to good use on coastal and second-line escort duties in the Adriatic. When the Italians capitulated in September 1943, her crew tried to reach an Allied port, but scuttled her when this proved impossible. This article is part of the 36-article Featured topic, Ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy, that I am slowing improving to the point where every article and list is Featured (I'm about two-thirds of the way there). Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yugoslav torpedo boat T3.jpg - a reprint of the source just credits the image to "Photo, Official" - could you please explain where the indication is that this is a British official photo, rather than a Yugoslav one?

The answer to this is with reference to the captions of photographs of RN ships in the same book, which have exactly the same annotation, "Photo, Official", whereas French ships for example, have "French Navy, Official" (see page 139 for an example of the latter). I consider it is entirely reasonable to assume that because it does not say "Yugoslav Navy, Official", but uses the same annotation as RN vessels, that it was taken by a RN source (probably the naval attache, or by a RN ship on a show the flag visit). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will also note that the caption doesn't quite work right now - it's technically unsourced since the distinction is never made in this article that T-3 was of the T type instead of the F type. The same source this image is from does include a photo of one of the two-funnel models of these torpedo boats, but it's of much lower quality so I can understand why it is not used. Hog Farm _Talk 23:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is necessary to cite the fact that T3 was a T-group boat as it is very unlikely to be challenged. I could add it and a citation to the caption if you think it is necessary, but it seems like overkill to me. An explanation of the distinction is made per "The F-group had two funnels rather than the single funnel of the T-group" under Description and construction. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Hog Farm. See what you think of my responses above. Thanks so much for having a look! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solid article. Paragraphs and sentences occasionally need splitting, and I have some thoughts on commas. Ping me when all of this is handled. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

• she was armed with two 66 mm (2.6 in) guns and four 450 mm (17.7 in) torpedo tubes, and could carry 10–12 naval mines One subject: "she". Remove the comma. WP:CINS

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Background:

• Would a paragraph split be useful?

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• In such circumstances, there would be a need for a torpedo boat that could sail from the Austro-Hungarian Navy (German: kaiserliche und königliche Kriegsmarine, Hungarian: Császári és Királyi Haditengerészet) base at the Bocche di Cattaro (the Bocche or Bay of Kotor) to the strait during the night, locate and attack blockading ships and return to port before morning. Consider converting the translation note to a footnote to improve readability in this complex sentence.
• as diesels with the necessary power were not available, and the Austro-Hungarian Navy did not have the practical experience to run turbo-electric boats Remove comma as this is part of one clause.

Description and construction:

• The 250t-class F-group boats had short raised forecastles and an open bridge, and were fast and agile Remove comma CinS
• I'd recommend splitting the first paragraph unless it is like this in other articles of the FT.
• with the forward gun mounted on the forecastle, and the aft gun on the quarterdeck Remove comma
• with one pair mounted between the forecastle and bridge, and the other aft of the mainmast Remove comma
• 93 F was laid down on 9 January 1915, launched on 25 November, and commissioned on 4 April 1916 Remove comma after 25 November to be consistent with this article's non-use of serial comma. (There is one serial comma later that is fine because of the complexity of the phrase)

Career:

• The original concept of operation for the 250t-class boats was that they would sail in a flotilla at the rear of a cruising battle formation, and were to intervene Remove comma
• On 29 October she underwent Comma after "29 October" for consistency with the other date prepositional clauses in this paragraph
• In June, 93, along with 96, and Csikós and her sister ships Wildfang and Velebit were try the comma order In June, 93, along with 96 as well as Csikós and her sister ships Wildfang and Velebit, were
• During 1917, 93 conducted further minesweeping missions, and escorted 36 convoys. Remove comma before "and" (CinS). Think of it this way. Is the part after the conjunction a standalone sentence conceivably? Not "Escorted 36 convoys.".
• of Pag, but had to terminate Remove comma.
• On 20 August, 93 was transferred to the Bocche, and was part of the 1st Torpedo Flotilla Remove comma (CinS)
• On 29 September, 93 along with 82, 87 and 96, and the Ersatz Triglav-class destroyers Lika, Dukla and Uzsok try On 29 September, 93 along with 82, 87 and 96 plus the Ersatz Triglav-class destroyers Lika, Dukla and Uzsok,
• As the end of the war approached in November and the Austro-Hungarian Empire broke apart, on 1 November 93 was ceded to the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs Restructure so "1 November 93" is not stuck together and could be mistaken for a date. Splitting the description of the SSCS into its own sentence ("This was...") will help.
• Skradin where the population begged them to leave the harbour to avoid the town being bombed by the Italians. Add comma after Skradin for readability
• In response, Kern ordered T6 to escort Perun to the Bay of Kotor, and the two vessels arrived there the next day without incident, where T6's malfunctioning gun was repaired and she was loaded with weapons, supplies and extra men and sent to Šibenik. Split this sentence: In response, Kern ordered T6 to escort Perun to the Bay of Kotor; the two vessels arrived there the next day without incident. There, T6's malfunctioning gun was repaired; she was loaded with weapons, supplies and extra men and sent to Šibenik.
• the Axis puppet fascist state, the Independent State of Croatia (NDH) try the Independent State of Croatia (NDH), an Axis puppet fascist state
• T6's commander, a Slovene, was not interested in serving in a Croatian navy, and abandoned Remove comma after "navy" CinS
• join NDH navy missing "the"

Placeholder - Pendright (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peacemaker67, my comments:

• Why have we not linked to the Skoda 7 cm gun article in the lead when we have linked to it in the infobox?
• "...Schwarzlose M.7/12 machine gun carried for anti-aircraft work": prefix "carried" with "was" for grammatical accuracy?
• In the WWI subsection, "the naval historian Zvonimir Freivogel" is too long, just "Freivogel" may bw enough since he was introduced just two paragraphs ago.
• Link to Brijuni islands?
• Link to Strojne Tovarne (Iskra)?
• How exactly did the ship make a good impression in Malta? Was it the sailors' conduct, the ship's power or something else?
• Link to Zablaće (Šabac) or Zablaće (Čačak), whichever one the source is referring to?
• "so took the": "so he took the"?
• "join NDH navy": "join the NDH navy"?
• In the biblio, link to Norman Friedman and Velimir Terzić?
• Add 44888337 as the JSTOR ID for Vego 1982?
• As an aside, would you be ok with adding DOIs for the books? These enable easier access than ISBNs and I faintly recall that there is an MOS on providing as many access options as possible. If you do wish to, then Djukanović 2023 and Ramet 2006 do have DOIs available.

That's all from me, will do a source review soon. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 09:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): JokEobard (talk) 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 22:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a character from the Resident Evil game and film series; who is known for her red dress.

The article has undergone a lot of changes due to the reviewers at the 2nd peer review. It received several reviews from Aoba47, PanagiotisZois, Panini!, and Crisco 1492 (thanks for their help). Because of it, I feel like the article is ready for the FA criteria. Thank you! 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 22:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given my involvement with heavily rewriting the content of the "Reception" section, could I even take part in this FAC? I feel like a "conflict-of-interest" situation might arise.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I don't think thats a problem in fact some reviewers wants to assist nominators more in a different way so that they can easily resolve any issues. Additionally, you were also not the author. Just in case you don't want to continue the review, you can strike it out. Thanks! Regards 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 14:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will review this again. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 43 missing page(s).

Hi Vacant0. I don't think they need book pages since the book itself contains almost everything about the RE plot; and as usual almost the entire book pages mentions Ada (same with the usage of that sources from Jill Valentine). 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not see any particular issues with references and their reliability. Valnet sources are used, though TheGamer is now considered reliable.

I only used two TheGamer, but it is marked reliable unlike the content before. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• First ref in the Ref 46 is still confusing me. Do you have an issue number or ISSN of the comic book?

Not at all. I ended up removing the Chinese comic book source. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecked:

• In Resident Evil series: Ref 14, 15, 18, 20, 22, 25 (only mentions "Also, completion of Separate Ways will further flesh out new information files which get added to "Ada's Report."")

Nice caught! I Ended up removing the claim of ref 25 because I cannot support the claim. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Other appearances: Ref 31, 33, 39, 47
• Concept and design: Ref 49, 54, 56, 58, 62
• Voice-over and live-action actresses: Ref 4, 12
• Reception: Ref 8, 66, 75, 76

I'll take another look at the prose by the end of the week and will then decide my vote. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Take your time 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I gave the article another read. It has certainly been improved since the last FAC, so, again, you have my support. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a quick question - I'll have another read later, as this has changed a lot since the peer review. Does Jennings offer any arguments for why Ada "demonstrate[s] the intersectional potential of the feminine gaze?" The next line, that Jennings criticized the game's whitewashing of her heritage, suggests to me that Jennings was arguing that Ada's representation as both a woman and as a person of Asian descent brought more potential agency to the character. Why, though? Is this worth a footnote, or even just a bit of a more explicit clause explaining her argument?  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Woodrich I expanded a bit [8], and yeah she mentioned about her representation as a woman. I hope this is fine for you as a non-native English speaker. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 02:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)<[reply]

• To avoid too much mark-up, we had some discussion of Jennings' arguments at my talk page. Linked here for transparency.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

• Worth mentioning in the lede that Lily Gao has reprised the role in the most recent release?

I'm not sure if this is needed as this may be potentially being removed by my co-nom, but I added it [9] 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there any way to avoid mentioning Resident Evil 2 twice in two sentences? I had reworked it to use "latter", but that was reverted. Maybe "the prototype for the sequel"? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My conom reverted it. I replaced it now with "sequel". 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 09:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appearances

• After the restructuring, it's not clear who Alice is on first mention.

Added [10] 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• What's the distinction between an alternate skin and a costume? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced the "costume" as an "alternate skin" [11]. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concept and design

• "randomly and without much thought" - This is a bit awkwardly phrased. Any means of rewording this? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, not sure how since Kadoi said he "randomly thought her name without much thought" in the first Resident Evil. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If that's the word he used, we may stray too much if we rephrase it. It's a minor quibble, anyways. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Separate Ways" is mentioned three times in three sentences. Any chance of reworking this to avoid the repetition?

Honestly, I prefer to repeat than to say DLC imor minigame because it confuses readers. In the original RE4, it is a minigame; but in the remake it is now DLC. Or you got any suggestion? 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I reworked it with this edit. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

• For the feminist critiques of the character, I was wondering if there is any consideration of the deuteragonist in Ada's chapter in Resident Evil 6 vis-a-vis Ada herself. She has a name, a face, and a known story, whereas the faceless male-coded deuteragonist in her chapter is there simply to ensure that the game's co-play mechanics are available (he isn't even H.U.N.K.) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Woodrich You mean if I can find more reception about her appearance in RE6? Nope. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It was more wondering if anyone had contrasted Ada with the Player 2 character in that chapter, but given that the character is essentially a non-entity, makes sense that nobody has.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Probably not, but I will recheck it again to make sure in Saturday since I couldn't access my computer yet this time. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overall, this article is looking really solid right now.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, based on the peer review and review here. This appears to be a thorough review of the sources available, and it feels accessible to the average reader (though as someone who has played the games since release, and whose first edits were RElated, I might not be the best judge of that) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will do a thorough read-through of the article later in the week. I have a few quick comments for now.

• I would avoid repeating "video game" in the following sentence as it does make the prose unnecessarily repetitive: (Video game publications have positively responded to Ada as a video game character.)
• I would move the Resident Evil 4 link up to this part, (a remake of the original game), as that is the first time that the game is mentioned. I would also include the year up there as well.
• The source links for File:Early concept art of Ada.jpg are both dead (at least for me). Both links go to blank images for me.

Please ping me in a week if I have not posted anything further. Best of luck with the FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• RE: Source link, I have cited the PC port of RE2 as that was where the copies I provided the nominators came from. I have also fixed the links to Fandom – hopefully they work now.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks Chris! Also, I already replaced "video game publications" and about the link of RE4, it was later removed per [12] 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the responses. Aoba47 (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this part, (the character that would later become Ada was initially depicted as Linda), could be condensed to something like (Ada was initially depicted as Linda) to be more concise.

  Thank you for your comments! The reason I phrased this sentence the way that I did is because the final version of Ada that debuted in RE2 is an amalgamation of two prototypical characters that (initially) had no relation whatsoever: John Clemens girlfriend "Ada", who was only mentioned by name in RE1; and the Umbrella researcher Linda. Writer Noboru Sugimura ultimately gave Linda's role as Leon's supporting character to Ada in the final build, so Ada and Linda were never the same characters at all. I therefore feel that it is more appropriate to say that the (prototypical) character that was (eventually) transformed into Ada was initially depicted as Linda. I hope I'm adequately getting my meaning across, and I would be more than happy to discuss this further. :)JokEobard (talk) 08:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the explanation. That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• For this part, (After the prototype was scrapped), I would avoid the word "scrapped" as it is too informal for Wikipedia.
• I do not think the director link is needed for (director Hideki Kamiya) as it does create an instead of a WP:SEAOFBLUE.
• This could be a matter of personal preference, but I would revise this sentence, (Ada's appearance was designed by artists Isao Ohishi and Ryoji Shimogama), to a more active tense: (i.e. Artists Isao Ohishi and Ryoji Shimogama designed Ada's appearance.)
• I would better attribute the quote in this sentence: (Recognizing Ada's minimal role in the main campaign and her being a "very strong character" that "deserves to really stand out" in Resident Evil 4, Capcom developed a short campaign dedicated to her.) The sentence attributes it to Capcom in general, but the source makes it clear that it is from Masachika Kawata.
• I have two comments on this part, (who helps protagonist Ethan Winters, such as helping him escape one of his trials early in the game). I would avoid repeating helps / helping in the same sentence as it is too repetitive. Also, is there a better and clearer descriptor for Ethan Winters? It would be helpful to give readers a better understanding of who this character is in the game itself.

These are my comments up to the "Reception" section. I hope that this is helpful and let me know if you have any questions. Aoba47 (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aoba47. It seems like all of them are already resolved by @JokEobard (Thanks to him). Though, I don't know what's the best descriptor for Ethan Winters. Replacing "protagonist" into "civilian" seems kinda odd for you or not? Thanks! 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. I am likely just over-thinking it. "Protagonist" is likely the best word choice as it would clearly let readers know that Ethan is the primary character from that game. I agree that "civilian" would not really work in this instance, and after looking through the article about him, I could not really come up with a better word choice so I believe your current version is the best in regards to this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Would it be possible to use a more specific descriptor for Jenny Platz other than "critic". I would say that even something like "scholar" is more precise, but that is already used for Andrei Nae later in the same paragraph. I just think that the "critic" word choice is a bit too broad for this instance, and it is already used three times in close proximity to one another as well.

Replaced 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The word "femme fatale" gets repeated quite a bit at the end of the first paragraph and for the second paragraph as well. I would see if there are ways to avoid such repetition if possible.
• I think that the prose for the Andrei Nae parts could use some further revision. It has some great information and I find it very interesting, but I think that it could flow better overall. Let me know if further clarification is needed for this. One suggestion is that I do not think this part, (Concerning Ada's portrayal as a femme fatale), is really needed. I do understand how it is being used as a transition and to make things flow better, but it does feel a bit repetitious as the previous sentence already makes it clear that the discussion will be on Ada's role as a femme fatale and the subsequent reviews about it.

Removed 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe that when discussing the critic's opinions, the past tense should be used. This is pretty consistent throughout the "Reception" section, but I would revise this part, (scholar Andrei Nae notes), to be in the past tense and to double-check this section in case there are other instances of this that I missed.
• I am not sure if "appeal" is the right word choice for this part, (makes her accentuated sexuality as a femme fatale appeal to Orientalist clichés of East-Asian erotic femininity). Maybe something like "conform to Orientalist clichés" or "continue Orientalist clichés". Neither of my suggestions are particularly good either, but I did keep coming back to this part as I am not sure you can really appeal to cliches. I am also not sure if femininity really needs a link here. I would think one for East Asian would be best. Also should that be hyphenated? It is not done for the Wikipedia article, but I am honestly the worst when it comes to this.

Replaced 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I would suggest that you remove the stereotypical link as most readers would be familiar with this concept and it would avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE as it is next to "Dragon Lady", which is a more beneficial link.

Removed 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I would give some sort of descriptor for Stephanie Jennings to provide some background and context for readers.

Added, but not sure if this is the best descriptor for her after checking here [13]. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that is better than nothing. It can be difficult to find a good descriptor for this if the person does not have a clear focus in their overall research. It should be fine in my opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I am uncertain about the structure of the following sentence: (Ada's presence as one of the series' few multiracial characters, she opined, demonstrates the intersectional potential of the feminine gaze, albeit without exploration of the character's racial identity.) The placement of "she opined" in the middle does not seem particularly beneficial for readers. I would also avoid "opined" in general, but that could be a matter of personal preference. I do not have any strong opinions about it, but I believe that I have seen it discussed in other FACs. That being said, I think the sentence structure is more of my issue here.

Already restructured by other editor. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Should the criticism for Lily Gao's vocal performance be mentioned in the lead as it has a separate paragraph in this section? It is a shame to hear that Gao got this kind of harassment in general.

Added 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would clarify that Gao was the one that received the criticism, not the character itself. It may also be worth briefly noting the review bombing as well to provide that additional context for readers. Aoba47 (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I would make sure that authors are linked in the citations if they have a Wikipedia article. Anita Sarkeesian and Esther MacCallum-Stewart should be linked in their citations.

Done 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patience with my review. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure that I have not missed anything. I hope that is helpful. I have really enjoyed reading through this article. Ada has always been a character from RE that stood out to me the most so it was nice to finally learn more about her. I am a huge fan of spies in general. It would have been cool to see a RE game lean more into the spy stuff with Ada as a lead, but I doubt most people would want that lol. I hope you are having a great start to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd play the ever-loving... out of an Ada-centric game. On topic, as I had proposed the sentences summarizing Jennings' arguments, I've rephrased the last one to "She suggested that Ada's presence as one of the series' few multiracial characters demonstrates the intersectional potential of the feminine gaze, albeit undermined by the limited exploration of the character's racial identity."  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for being sincere. This character as a spy is my favorite thing to the franchise. I'm glad Aoba enjoyed reading it. I am attempting to work on it. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that I am not the only one who would want an Ada-centric game lol. I just love spies in general, and I cannot really think of anything zombie-related taking that kind of angle. The rephrase looks great to me. Thank you for being patient and understanding with my comments. I have a minor comment on the citations. I have been told in past FACs to be consistent with whether or not citation titles use title case or not. I am mostly raising it to your attention, and it would not affect my review as it is more so focused on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 02:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment and yeah thanks to Chris Woodrich for rephrasing it. I already did italized the game or film titles before and I am not sure if there are still other citations that have been overlooked or you mean this type of capitalization [14]? 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 02:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am referencing how words in the citation titles are capitalized. See MOS:TITLECAPS. I do not believe that it is required, but I will leave that up to the source reviewer. Again, this is just something that I wanted to raise to your attention and it is not a requirement for my review. I will read through the article later in the weekend. I do not imagine that I will find anything major, but I want to make sure to be thorough. Aoba47 (talk) 02:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I will attempt to go through all the citation titles on what is needed to change. Thanks a lot for reviewing! 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 02:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with the nomination. I was debating on asking if the "a mysterious masked figure" description for Ada's planned appearance in Resident Evil Village should be more specific and mention the plague doctor element, but it may be getting too specific for something that was ultimately cut. Otherwise, everything looks good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 02:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing! 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 02:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Early concept art of Ada.jpg has the problem that it seems to illustrate a part of the article subject more than the whole, and thus doesn't meet the "significantly" part of WP:NFCC#8. Otherwise the image placement and stuff is fine. Source-wise: Are these Twitter accounts and Terasaki, Kimberly associated with the franchise? #58 and the sources under #70 throw an error message that must be suppressed. The bibliography seems reliable, while the rest of the sourcing is conditional, so to speak, on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. One thing that jumps out to me is that we don't have much description of her appearance, even though there are one or two paragraphs discussing the reception of her appearance. Also, the games themselves aren't cited as sources anywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Jojo. Just a comment about the FU image. I proposed it at the peer review because the 1.5 concept art and the art for the model ultimately used shows some shifts in the character from "Linda" to "Ada". The left image shows the researcher design, including an Umbrella logo on the jacket, while the right image shows her in the design that was ultimately used. A similar comparison FU image is used at Jill Valentine, though in that case the image highlights a particular outfit rather than two iterations of the character.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus The two twitter sources are associated to the franchise like Vicky voiced her in DBD, while the terasaki source supports the claim that Sally Cahill vliced RE2, RE4 and RE Dark Chronicles. I don't understand why the sources at #58 and #70 are error to you since it was sourced fine; I don't know what needs to "suppressed" with that (You need to clarify what it is since other editors didn't spot any error at those sources at all). Also, there's nothing more that can be found to add about her description and most of it are now already at the "appearances section" and there are some games are cited like who designed her appearance. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation" warning at 58 and 70. My question about the Twitter sources was more what makes them reliable sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation" at us from our POV? (I also asked my conom if he saw the "error" or "harv warning", but nope) Also, the Twitter sources came from the voice actors themselves (Other FA also uses that kind of tweet as a source), so I will say that they're fine. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 07:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like it's a function on which userscripts one has. I also note that archiving Google Books links is pointless. Did some spotchecking, nothing jumped out to me but I must stress that I don't have much confidence in my assessments of the reliability of typical video game sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. When I use the sources, I did make sure to check it first at WP:VG/RS before using it. I will say all of them are reliable. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 09:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are they high-quality, though? That's a bit of a tougher question. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus Yes. I did not include any inconclusive sources. The 2 sources of TheGamer are the only ones that may be controversial cause its Valnet, but it says "News posts and original content after August 2020 are considered generally reliable." + that sources were also used in the recent promoted article Raichu. So, it will be fine. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Boneless Pizza! - just confirming I see the errors as well, at 46, 58, and 70. I think it's from the way that these references have been nested. The script seems to be coded to ignore harv references generated automatically by the citation family of templates if and only if the reference is on its own between REF tags. By having extra formatting, the script is returning error messages. To fix this, each nested ref should have the field |ref=none added to the template. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Its kinda odd that other people can't see it, but thanks for informing me. Now I know what @Jo-Jo Eumerus mean. I already added it. Does it resolved the issues? Chris Woodrich 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As Jo-Jo said, it isn't enabled by default; you have to have a particular script (User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors) enabled. Since SFN is my preferred citation style, I installed it a while ago. Returning to Ada, this appears to have been fixed.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I see. Thanks! 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): K. Peake 07:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy (2010), the fifth studio album by American rapper Kanye West. It was recorded during West's exile in Hawaii after a period of controversy through 2009, resulting in a maximalist style with elements of his previous work. The album was met with widespread critical acclaim and also received much retrospective praise, including being ranked as one of the greatest albums of all time. West promoted the album with four singles that were top 40 hits in the United States and the film Runaway, while it reached the top 10 in countries like the US and Canada. The article became a GA back in 2011, more than five years before I joined this site, though I have monitored it over the years and put in extensive work back in both 2022 for the first FAC and even more so for the multiple candidacies of 2024. The prevention of FAC on the last occasions were mainly the book sources not included and too much close phrasing, although I have put in a massive effort to clean these up and also worked on the reception to have concise themes. Clearly having waited over a month after the last candidacy had closed, I had brought this to the maximum potential and would appreciate any users commenting to follow this constructively with whatever suggestions since last few times, it appears the same ones commented with concerns in one candidacy but saved others until the next. West's magnum ops surely deserves FA; we can do this, fans! K. Peake 07:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave some comments soon. If I don't follow up by Wednesday, please ping me. ~ HAL333 19:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Certain retailers would not carry the original cover" --> "Certain retailers did not carry the original cover"
• Why wikilink "Burbank, California" but not "New York City"? (Both in the lead and body)
• "reviewers lauded the maximalism" might be unclear to the average reader. Maybe "maximalist sound" or "maximalist approach"?
• "the top 10 in numerous other countries" - can you give the actual number?
• Reword to avoid the passive tense: "It has been ranked in lists"
• The meaning of the clause "for challenging through contributions and inspiration" doesn't make sense to me...
• What is "alien electronics"?
• "West dedicates himself to expressing his emotions" seems a little fluffy
• "West ventures into the id of his ego" seems like it should be credited to someone.
• "shrinking world" - shrinking in what way?
• "African-American" - shouldn't be hyphenated

More comments to come. ~ HAL333 20:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HAL333 Thanks for these comments, took me over a week but I checked back happily to find them – I've covered everything now. Please let me know if you want to clarify anything, look forward to seeing your further comments! --K. Peake 18:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Gould Stephenson might just be the most obscure Librarian of Congress; he was a political appointee with no real experience with libraries, spent most of his time in office serving in the Union Army, and is mostly known for his appointee of the far more important Ainsworth Rand Spofford as assistant librarian during his tenure. Despite all this, he managed to lead an interesting (if poorly-documented at some points) life. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:John_g_stephenson.jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could find no evidence it was published, so put the unpublished PD tag instead. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll comment later. Steelkamp (talk) 10:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Steelkamp: I implemented all of these! Ty very much. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I aim to complete this review by the end of the week. I will have some more comments, which will take some time. Steelkamp (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• There are some instances of "Librarian of Congress" that go against MOS:JOBTITLES.
• "he attended education at" -> "he was educated at"
• "He moved to Terre Haute, Indiana, in the early 1850s, where he became active in the temperance movement and the nascent Republican Party. He campaigned for Abraham Lincoln in the 1859 Senate race in Illinois and the 1860 presidential election. He pursued an appointment of Librarian of Congress immediately following Lincoln's election, possibly due to his brother's work as a librarian in Cincinnati." -> "Stephenson moved to Terre Haute, Indiana, in the early 1850s, where he became active in the temperance movement and the nascent Republican Party. He campaigned for Abraham Lincoln in the 1859 Senate race in Illinois and the 1860 presidential election, and pursued an appointment of Librarian of Congress immediately following Lincoln's election, possibly due to his brother's work as a librarian in Cincinnati." This avoids there being three sentences in a row that begin with the same word, and makes it so that Stephenson is mentioned by name more than once in the entire paragraph.
  • Good, but now there are a bunch of terms that are no longer linked which probably should be.
• Cincinatti can be linked.
• "Lincoln appointed him" -> "Lincoln appointed Stephenson".
• "He died on November 11, 1883, after several months of illness" -> "He died after several months of illness" as the date is redundant to the first sentence of the lead.
• "J. G. Stephenson". Use a non-breaking space between the J and G as per MOS:INITIALS.
• "additionally serving variously as a selectman, county coroner, deputy sheriff, constable, fire warden, and high sheriff." -> "additionally serving as a selectman, county coroner, deputy sheriff, constable, fire warden, and high sheriff."
• "He was one of Lincoln's earliest advocates" -> "Stephenson was one of Lincoln's earliest advocates"
• Does Patriarch have to have a capital P?
  • Fixed. - G
• Chicago can be linked.
  • Fixed. - G
• "beginning within a few weeks of the election". Is this a few weeks before or after the election?
  • Clarified. - G
• "In March 1861, Senator Henry S. Lane also wrote to Lincoln in support" -> "in March 1861, Senator Henry S. Lane wrote to Lincoln in support".
  • Fixed. - G
• "Stephenson arrived in Washington". Should this be Washington, D.C.? Also, it can be linked.
  • Fixed. - G
• "Dole, Lincoln's Commissioner of Indian Affairs, described meeting with Lincoln to urge Stephenson's appointment." This sentence should end with a colon instead.
  • Fixed. - G
• "His longtime ally and associate" -> "Meehan's longtime ally and associate"
  • Fixed. - G
• "and asked Caleb B. Smith if Stephenson had resigned." Why did Lincoln think that Stephenson had resigned?
  • Unfortunately, the sources don't elaborate on Lincoln's worry. If I had to guess, he had just heard that large numbers of staff had left and wondered if this included Stephenson. - G
• Is the 19th Indiana Regiment and the 19th Indiana Infantry the same thing?
  • Ooh, yeps. Clarified. - G
• "Stephenson began to spend extended periods in military service soon after his appointment as Librarian of Congress." Maybe add that this was due to the Civil War.
  • Clarified. - G
• "He is recorded as a resident of Washington". Is this still Washington, D.C.? It should be clarified.
  • Fixed. - G
• "where he stated he was discharged without a given cause." -> "where he was discharged without a given cause."
  • Fixed. - G
• "he entered employment" -> "Stephenson entered employment".
  • Fixed. - G

Those are the only comments I have. Steelkamp (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Steelkamp: Thank you very much! Fixed up things. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support. All my comments have been adequately addressed. Steelkamp (talk) 05:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Committing to a review; should have a few comments by end of today! I'll have a more full-bodied review posted tomorrow after work. joeyquism (talk) 02:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Below are a few things I've noted. As with most of my reviews, many comments are nit; feel free to refuse any as you wish.

Lead

• "he attended education at Dartmouth" - I'll admit, I haven't seen this wording used before; perhaps this could do without "education at"?
• "nascent" - while I would personally be comfortable using this word in regular conversation, I would opt for "newly-formed" in the lead.
• "Stephenson begun" - should this be "began"?
• "He served in various positions as a clerk" - would "law clerk" or "judicial clerk" be accurate here?

Early life and career

• "He initially pursued further education at Dartmouth Medical School, before transferring" - I don't think there should be a comma between "School" and "before"

Will finish tomorrow. Work demands I be there early tomorrow, so I've gotta clock out earlier than I wanted. I'll strike this out later. joeyquism (talk) 03:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments are listed below. I'll admit I'm in a reviewing slump, so forgive me if any of these seem silly.

• "(becoming a Patriarch of the local Sons of Temperance chapter)" - Any particular reason why this phrase is in parentheses?
  • No clue why, removed this. - G
• "A February 1860 notice in the Wabash Express attempted to clarify a controversial political statement from him, printing "J. G. Stephenson did not say that all men were created free and equal. He held just what the writers and signers of the Declaration of Independence held, namely, 'that all men are created equal.'"" - Is there any more context to this sentence? I understand that the paragraph it belongs to is laying out the beginning of his political career, but I feel like this particular sentence could benefit from a little more outlining - i.e. is there more background to what prompted him to give such a statement?
  • Not really with the source... I realized it's kinda nonsensical; it probably is him trying to couch abolitionist sentiments, but since the author doesnt expand on this point, I'll just remove it. - G

Librarian of Congress

• "While the number of other candidates for the position is unknown, at least three people wrote to Lincoln asking for Hezekiah Lord Hosmer to be appointed as librarian." - This seems extraneous?
  • Yeah, reduced this. - G
• "Stephenson himself arrived in Washington..." - Not sure if "himself" is needed, as there's no prior mention of anyone else arriving in Washington
  • Removed. - G
• "Although publicly apolitical, Meehan himself faced rumors of southern sympathies." - Also not sure of "himself" here; should "southern" be capitalized as well?
• "Stephenson was infuriated by the presence of the War Department's bakeries in the Capitol basement" - Wikilinking "bakeries" might be overlinking
  • Removed. - G
• Rest looks great.

Later life and death

• Just out of curiousity, is there any more background on why there's such a large gap between the suspected years Stephenson joined the Bureau of Pensions? Nothing here I can see in need of fixing otherwise; just wondering about this sentence.
  • No clue! The two sources give conflicting dates and neither seems clearly correct. - g

@Joeyquism: Forgot to say I corrected these! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good on the fixes! Sorry for getting back to you past the time I promised; life's been getting the best of me lately. Will have some more comments down and a finished review tonight. joeyquism (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima: Left just a few more comments above; everything seems to be in great shape otherwise. Just a few minor things that may or may not need addressing and I'll likely come back to support. joeyquism (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Joeyquism: Okay! Looks like I got to everything. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Everything looks great! Glad to give my support. joeyquism (talk) 16:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will be doing a source review for this article. I do this in a table format to keep things organized. I will update the table as I go and ping the nominator when done. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review

Section	Status	Sources I couldn't access	Comments
Early life and career	Done	None	"On March 1, 1828, John Gould Stephenson was born in Lancaster, New Hampshire, to Reuben and Mary King Stephenson (née Baker), the fourth of eight children." Not seeing "née Baker" on page 77 of the source but I may be missing something. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] "née" means her maiden name is Baker, which was provided on p. 77. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] "Reuben Stephenson was a merchant who operated a general store in Lancaster" Not seeing the general store part in either sources. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] "dry goods and variety store" - alternate name for a general store. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] "where he was described as an "efficient speaker" by Indiana politician William P. Dole" I do see the quote in both sources but not that it was said by William P. Dole. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] Its in the footnote (tho I guess I should also list the page the footnotes are on)
Librarian of Congress	Done	None	The first paragraph under "Appointment" is sourced by Carter 1976, pp. 79–80. I don't think anything in this paragraph comes from page 79 so I think you could change this to just p. 80. IntentionallyDense (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] Done. - G Same thing with the first half of the second paragraph in this section. IntentionallyDense (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] Done. - G "The incumbent librarian, John Silva Meehan, had held the position since 1829." Not seeing the 1829 part in the two pages you listed here. IntentionallyDense (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] Expanded page range. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Later life and death	Done	None	Is there a reason why ref33 does not have a page number? IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] Cause it's a link to a page on the Library of Congress website. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima: I have finished my source review. Overall sourcing is great but I like to nitpick so I've brought up some tiny things that I noticed. Of course, there are things I could have missed, and I'll be honest I was a bit less thorough with the second half of the article because my source checks were coming back clean every time. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @IntentionallyDense: Responded! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks good! As I kind of guessed some of my comments came from the perspective of me not knowing things (such as the maidan name thing). Thanks for adjusting those page ranges and the library of congress website thing makes sense I just got a bit confused since there is 3 sources with the name "Cole". IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I did the source review for this article and didn't find any major issues which led me to support this article for FA status. All text is put into the writer's own words. Sources are properly cited in an organized and consistent way. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read the article and write something here soon. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Why include "practiced physic & surgery for ten years" as a quotation and who said it?
  • I don't know why I included the quote; removed that. - G
• he became involved with the temperance movement, becoming a patriarch: I recommend rewording to avoid having "became" and "becoming" together like that in the same sentence.
  • Reworded. - G
• he became involved with the temperance movement, becoming a patriarch: How is "patriarch" being used here?
  • It's a rank within the chapter, but I realized that it doesn't need to be mentioned and is kinda confusing. -G
• where he was described: Since there are three men mentioned in the sentence, I think it is worth replacing this "he" with "stephenson".
  • Done. - G
• He actively campaigned: Is "actively" necessary?
  • Guess not. - G
• that he had spent: Removing "had" would change this from past perfecr tense to simple past tense, which sounds more appropriate to me.
  • fixed. - G
• political appointment as the librarian of Congress using connections: Seems like there should be a comma after "Congress".
  • Done. - G
• The Meehan image caption should have an uncapitalized "librarian", I think.
  • Fixed. - G
• Why are the ellipses in the block quote in brackets?
  • Quoting from the source, as I don't have access to the original document; presumably used to indicate that a section has been skipped. - G
    • According to MOS:ELLIPSIS, putting square brackets around an ellipsis is what you do to distinguish that ellipsis as a stand-in for omitted text versus another ellipsis in the same quote that is is part of the quote. In this quote, both ellipses are used in the standard omitted-text-way, so including the brackets is against the MOS. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikilink Union (American Civil War)?
  • Good idea. - G
• Meehan calmly accepted his dismissal, and left his duties at the end of May. I don't think that comma is necessary.
  • Fixed. - G
• deemed as low-quality books: The "as" doesn't seem necessary.
  • Removed. - G
• defended his actions against the Joint Committee: I think "against" should be "to", if I'm reading this sentence correctly.
  • Fixed. - G
• I think was "[because] his conviction would make more sense as was because "his conviction
  • Fixed. - G

I'll read more and leave more comments later. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dugan Murphy: Thank you very much for your comments; I got to everything so far! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're welcome. It looks like all my above comments were addressed, though there is one that warrants further discussion. See my new comment above. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more comments, having read through the rest of the article:

• The first time Spofford is mentioned, he is named without anything saying who he is. The second time he comes up he is introduced to the reader as a journalist. I think it should be the other way around.
• Who said "intimated an offer"?
• Do we know why Stephenson left Washington for 2 months in 1861?
• Resignation section: I had to read the 2nd and 3rd sentences a few times. I now have the impression that Spofford and Lanman were both vying for Stephenson's position, but I think this could be reworded to make that more clear. At first reading, I was asking, "Spofford was soliciting endorsements for what?".
• Charles Lanman, the former librarian: Not a big deal, but "the" doesn't seem necessary here.
• Stephenson announced his resignation from his post as Librarian of Congress on December 22, 1864,: I don't think you need to include "from his post as Librarian of Congress". That's already clear.
• Can you find any more detail on what war speculations that Stephenson was allegedly up to? If not, is there a general contextual sentence you could add about the kind of war speculation that was common at the time or that people were being accused of at the time?
• Librarian Keyes Metcalf described him ... describing his appointment: That's one too many described/describing.
• Because we're mostly talking about Stephenson's librarian contemporaries, I would like to see Metcalf introduced as "Twentieth-century librarian Keyes Metcalf" or something like that so it is clear we're talking about an expert opinion with historical perspective.
• I find two instances in which "Library" is capitalized as a standalone word and many more times when it is not capitalized. I think you could go either way, but you need to go either way consistently. I think uncapitalized seems more appropriate to me.
• in a 1871 edition of Boyd's Directory, as well as in two: The "as well as" would read better as "and".
• where he was discharged without a given cause: I think "where" should be "when"; and how about "stated cause" instead of "given cause"?
• he approached a physician due to persistent insomnia: "Approached" seems an odd word choice. How about: "he saw a physician for persistent insomnia"?
• How did Stephenson serve as a naval surgeon in an army unit?
• attended college at Dartmouth Medical College and Castleton Medical College: "college at" seems extraneous.
• Why not Wikilink Republican Party, Abraham Lincoln, and colonel in the lead?
• The sentence in the lead that starts "He campaigned for Abraham Lincoln" is a bit unwieldy. I recommend rewording, possibly splitting.
• Believing that the library: "that" is extraneous.
• several months of illness: This statement in the lead is not sufficiently supported by the body. You should reword one or the other, making sure to stay true to what the sources say.
• I don't suppose there are any other images of Stephenson you can add to the article?
• The Library of Congress would occupy: That would read better if you replaced "would occupy" with "occupied".
• Why does the gravestone pic need citations?
• This article is included in the "American abolitionists" category, but I don't see anything in the article to support that.

In summary: This looks like a great article and is generally well-written. The coverage seems reasonably comprehensive, acknowledging where scholarship cannot confirm parts of Stephenson's life, but also not going into too much detail on any one aspect of his life. The language is neutral and the article seems stable. Earwig thinks plagiarism is unlikely. The lead does a good job of summarizing the body. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jochi was, and remains, the most mysterious of the sons of Genghis Khan (I haven't got around to his sisters yet). The disputed circumstances of his birth, his conflicts with his brothers, his growing independence and estrangement from his father, his early death... all have contributed to a murky image of the man. Hopefully, this article will bring some clarity. If successful, this nomination will be used in the WikiCup. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest adding alt text

• Don't use fixed px size

• File:Batu_Khan_on_the_Throne_by_Rashid_al-Din.jpg needs a US tag

• File:Khwarezmian_Empire_1190_-_1220_(AD).PNG needs a source for the data presented

• File:Dzhuchi_khan_mausoleum.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • All fixed Nikkimaria except the last, which I don't really know what's being asked for. The building itself wasn't ever copyrighted? Could you please explain? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • It will be in the public domain due to age, but just needs a tag for that. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you please specify what type of tag is applicable Nikkimaria? I'm a bit stuck. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Would this align with what is known about the building? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • It does. Many thanks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this soon. Hog Farm _Talk 23:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Religion of Tengrism seems only to be mentioned in the infobox
  • Removed as not fitting MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE
• I don't think the 1227 deaths category is strictly appropriate, Category:1220s deaths seems preferable given the uncertainty over the date of his death
  • Adjusted
• Check the page range on Dafeng & Jianyi - the short citation is to p. 190 but this page is outside of the range given in the long citation
  • Ah, a typo.

I am very much not familiar with the subject matter, so the review is more surface-level than I prefer my reviews to be, but this appears to be an excellent article. From a nonexpert look, the sourcing all appears to be reputable. Hog Farm _Talk 00:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the comments Hog Farm—any and all improvements are always helpful. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AirshipJungleman29, my comments:

• "one of their number": "members" instead of number?
  • I believe they mean the same thing; what's the improvement?
• "excluded from succession": prefix a "the" before "succession"?
  • Adjusted.
• In the infobox, can we list the campaigns Jochi participated in?
  • {{Infobox royalty}} is used, not {{Infobox military person}}. If you have a way to fit the parameters of the latter into the former, much appreciated.
    • Is there any reason you can't fit it into the module? I've gotten the military infobox to work as a module for {{Infobox scientist}} on this article. ThaesOfereode (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "badly contradictory": "highly" instead of "badly"?
• "named Qutlugh Khatun...": "namely" instead of "named"?
• "reorder his new nation, dividing the nation": "it" instead of "the nation"? The latter is repetitive.
• "in the expectation": "with" instead of "in"?
• Link to Christopher Atwood in the body?
  • All done.
• "triumphant return from battle": do we know which battle this was? Does the SHM reveal this?
  • Clarified.
• "captured Otrar": link to Otrar Catastrophe?
• "Upon the city's eventual fall": "after" instead of "upon"? Idk why but the latter seems grammatically incorrect.
• "take his time hunting": "spend" instead of "take"?
• "greatly fond of": "very" instead of "greatly"?
  • All done.
• "Sources for 1225:[46]

Sources for 1227:[47]" -> Add spaces after 1225 and 1227?

• • I don't think that's necessary, but done.
• "Ulytau Region, Kazakhstan, has...": rephrase to "Ulytau Region in Kazakhstan has..."?
  • Done.
• Could we add images of the Siege of Gurganj/Gurganj Fort, and the courses of the Irtysh and Angara rivers? I believe these will better illustrate their respective text.
  • We don't have high-quality depictions of the siege. Added a map of the Irtysh.

I'll have to check for comprehensiveness, because I somehow feel something is missing in the article. I don't know what though. Matarisvan (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A support from me on the general text then. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AirshipJungleman29, I got infobox military person to work as a module so I added it myself to the article. Lmk if you're ok with this addition. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 09:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite helpful Matarisvan, really appreciate it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• All sources are from reliable publishers and authors.
• Thinking of doing spot checks for 10 refs, about 20% of total refs. Will try to get these done within this week. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Spot checks:

  • #5, #51, #45, #38, #37, #32, #28, #21, #9: ok.
  • #41: Source doesn't explicitly say "designed to buttress Ögedei's rule as khan of the empire", it just says "harmonization between the "standard narrative"".
    • Adjusted page numbers.

  On comprehensivess, why don't we have these details:

  • "Jochi also accompanied SÜBE’ETEI BA’TUR’s first campaign against the Qipchaqs (1218–19)", the dates from "Jochi campaigned with Cha’adai and Ögedei in southwest Inner Mongolia (November 1211) and in Hebei and Shanxi (autumn 1213)", and "Chinggis Khan assigned to Jochi KHORAZM and the steppes from the river Chu on west, intending them as a base for the conquest of the Qipchaqs" from Atwood 2004.
    • Added the dates for the Chinese campaigns. The other details are in the article.
  • Dunnell 2023 also confirms: "Discord among Chaghadai, Jochi, and Ögödei prolonged the siege (it lasted at least five months), causing a high Mongol casualty rate. When Urgench finally fell in spring of 1221 after great slaughter, the survivors were driven out, divided up, and dispatched in the usual fashion. Jochi parted ways with his brothers and moved north into the steppes, ostensibly to subdue the Qipchaq tribes."
    • All of this is in the article.
  • Also, we should list the probable Mongol casualties at Gurganj to give context on why Genghis considered it a failure. Matarisvan (talk) 09:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't believe I am aware of any estimates. Thanks for the comments Matarisvan; much appreciated. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      I had not seen that the Qangli are considered to be of Kipchak origin. That makes the latter part of the following sentence included: "Chinggis Khan assigned to Jochi KHORAZM and the steppes from the river Chu on west, intending them as a base for the conquest of the Qipchaqs". But we haven't included in the article the details that Jochi was assigned Khwarazm and the river Chu's western steppes, even though we say Jochi preferred a less destructive approach during the siege of Gurganj, we don't say who eventually got control of the territories conquered. I believe this is the only detail left to be included. Matarisvan (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      • Added Matarisvan. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        The source review is a pass then. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Within the week hopefully. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Premeditated Chaos gentle poke ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technically I'm only a day out :P

• "However, during" - ditch however
• "had begun to" - "began to"
  • Done both.
• "were considered highly controversial" - were, past tense, as in not anymore?
  • Not really—you won't find any academics arguing passionately for or against Genghis's paternity, and the whole matter is marked down under "we will never know". Back then however ...
• I think you can ditch both uses of "highly" in this sentence as well
  • Good call.
• You've told us that the events are controversial and contradictory, but then provided one straight narrative. Whose narrative are we using, and why do we trust that one?
  • That is the accepted narrative, containing elements from both the SHM and Rashid al-Din. I have specified that in text.
• "this proposal was taken as insulting" I assume because of Mr Jochi's messy parentage?
  • Not entirely—there was also the question of whether Temüjin was important enough to propose that in the first place; included both in text.
• "He also began" think you can ditch "also" here
  • Done.
• insert here my usual complaint about breaking the left header with images
  • insert my usual rejoinder that I don't mind it in moderation.
• "requested him to decide" not sure the grammar works here. "asked him to" would work, or "requested that he decide", but I don't think you can use "requested him"
  • Done the latter.
• "After the brawling brothers were pulled apart" you've gone from shouting one insult to breaking up a brawl with no intervening mention of the actual brawl occurring.
  • It was a fairly short one, but done.
• " Jochi's failure to give him his rightful share of the loot" did we establish earlier that Jochi did this? Feels like it comes out of nowhere
  • We did not, but it happened (or didn't, I suppose) following the siege, so it fits better afterwards I think. Rewritten anyway, let me know what you think.
• "One account states...this account" I know you've got the semi-colon, but you still have "account" twice in one sentence
  • Removed.
• Suggest subbing in File:Dzhuchi khan mausoleum (cropped).jpg (which I've just made), which trims out a lot of the empty space and the random family to close in on the building
  • Done, and thanks muchly for the crop.

That's all I have. A nice tightly-written little article, great work as usual. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks very much for the comments Premeditated Chaos, responses above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good to me, I'm a support. (As a side note, if you have any interest in commenting, I have another McQueen collection at FAC) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Will do shortly – Aza24 (talk) 01:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably will not get to this until the weekend, so if the coordinators see the nomination fit to promote before then, no need to wait for me. – Aza24 (talk) 03:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• In my mind, it's a bit odd to not include the birth date, c. 1182, in the actual article content. We wouldn't want to send readers back to the lead/infobox :)
  • I think I removed that while editing and forgot to put it back in. Anyway, it's there now.
• "turbulent adolescence" is a bit vague—maybe "violent" or "warfare-ridden"?
  • Done.
• Is there any geographical clarifier that could be used for the Merkits? e.g. the northwestern Merkits (not sure where they were)
  • You're correct!—northwest is probably the best estimate. Added.
• "while the two that did" – to my eyes, makes it sound like they also omitted the events, with the "while" being extranaeous. Maybe "that did include them..." Ignore this if it seems nonsensical
  • No, I think that's perfectly clear and the article lacked the clarity. Good spot.
• Might be worth restating Jochi's birthplace in the 3rd para of "Birth and paternity". I'm not exactly sure where in the world we are at this point
  • Sorry, "in Jamukha's camp" is all the sources (historical or modern) provide. Somewhere in the Mongol heartland.
• I'm assuming nothing is known between 1182 and 1203? If there is a source that says this, it would seem worth clarifying, so the reader doesn't think the article is just missing information
  • You're in luck! Added.
• "After Toghrul's defeat"—do we know when this is?
  • We do.
• Any dates for the marriages or births? Assuming not for the former, at least
  • Sadly not.
• Your Genghis Khan article doesn't seem to refer to the title in quotes, like here: "Genghis Khan"
  • It was supposed to; added it there.
• "After the city's eventual fall"... in ?
  • Added year; estimates for the month do not agree.
• "Whichever narrative is preferred" — not sure about this phrasing, perhaps "Regardless of the narrative discrepancies". Not a huge deal
  • I prefer your formulation.
• Nice work overall, the above are small details and nothing essential. My main complaint is an occasional lack of specific dates and locations, but I understand many of these are likely unavailable. Aza24 (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks very much Aza24; responses above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excellent. Happy to support this nomination – Aza24 (talk) 02:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: could I nominate another article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Hog Farm _Talk 03:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a long-term goal to get all of the articles related to the Vicksburg campaign to featured article status, in the manner of Wikipedia:Featured topics/Guadalcanal Campaign. Hopefully this will become the fourth FA of the direct project, after Battle of Grand Gulf, Battle of Raymond, and Battle of Helena, with Grant's Canal and Duckport Canal as supporting FAs. This isn't the meatiest article of the group, but I believe it is as comprehensive as can be. This winter, when I have more time on my hands, I hope to tackle some of the bigger ones. Hog Farm _Talk 03:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have attempted to add alt text, and have also added File:Map of Plantations in Carroll Parish, Louisiana and Issaquena County, Mississippi (cropped).jpg. I think the licensing is pretty airtight on the new addition. Hog Farm _Talk 16:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the read. The comments below are part clarificatory questions, rather than being a point by point list of needed actions.

• Is there a pattern behind the name abbreviations of Hugh T. Reid, Paul O. Hébert, and E. Kirby Smith? Just convention among historians?
  • This is how the individuals are named in the sources Hog Farm _Talk 21:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "Bartlett's force crossed Bayou Macon two days late" does not come with context as to what the expected time was. Coordination with the other prongs? Same in the body.
  • This is addressed in the body - "Major General John George Walker's troops reached Richmond on June 6, and Taylor planned a three-pronged strike for the next day: Confederate troops were to attack Milliken's Bend, Young's Point, and Lake Providence". I've added to the lead a statement that the attacks were scheduled to take place on June 7. Hog Farm _Talk 21:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "The Confederate were forced to halt" in the lead doesn't seem to align with "Bartlett halted his cavalry at the bridge in order to allow the infantry to catch up" in the body, with the latter implying it was a choice rather than something forced.
  • Rephrased. Hog Farm _Talk 21:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Without going into a huge amount of detail, could Background provide a bit more context as to the situation in Louisiana at this time? The Union forces are described as attacking Vicksburg from Louisiana, which is to the west, and Confederate forces also come from the west, including apparently taking over Richmond.
  • @Chipmunkdavis: - I've added several sentences for greater context of the operations - is that an improvement? Hog Farm _Talk 23:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, that's helpful geographical context. CMD (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• What sort of place is "Caledonia"? The article seems to append ", STATE" to towns and cities, which made me curious what Caledonia was, and I was unable to find it in a quick search (outside of this unhelpful mention in civil war coverage).
  • After quite a bit of searching, I turned up this which calls it a "post-hamlet" as of 1902, but there's no way of knowing if this was a post-hamlet in 1863. The only detail I can find about Caledonia in the various sources related to this battle are references that it had a brick kiln and "Negro quarters". I've delinked it, as there's essentially no chance that an article on this place could be developed. Hog Farm _Talk 21:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The map in "Battle" is not too helpful, but perhaps better than nothing. The caption could use some expansion, "Walker's operations in support of Vicksburg" makes me assume it would show Milliken's Bend and Young's Point, which are described as the three operational prongs, but instead it shows Richmond (and Vicksburg of course).
  • Would File:Map of Plantations in Carroll Parish, Louisiana and Issaquena County, Mississippi (cropped).jpg be better? It shows Bunch's Bend, Bayou Baxter, and Bayou Tensas, along with Lake Providence. I can't find a period map of the western portion of Carroll Parish showing Floyd and Caledonia (which is surprising to me because Floyd was the county seat at the time) and the first USGS topographic map of the Floyd area I can find is from the 1950s. Hog Farm _Talk 21:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • It would be a helpful addition, if only for confirming the location of a couple of places I was guessing on google maps. CMD (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Chipmunkdavis: - this has been added now, although I'm not entirely happy with how it breaks over into the section heading below. Hog Farm _Talk 16:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • It doesn't break over when I look in Vector2022. To make sure, why not move the Louisiana map to background where Richmond is mentioned? CMD (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • On my screen, that would cause MOS:SANDWICH issues with the infobox and campaign navbox. Hog Farm _Talk 19:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      • Hmm, I wonder why. I see the campaign navbox ending within the first paragraph of Background, or I wouldn't have suggested it. CMD (talk) 07:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• What was the "Union outpost at Bunch's Bend", just a few troops smaller than a picket?
  • Winters has "Bartlett crossed Bayou Macon and moved over to Bunch's Bend on the Mississippi, capturing the Federal outpost at that point". Bearss does not mention this, nor does Reid or the NPS source. Hog Farm _Talk 21:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "The Confederates reached the wrecked bridge", does this mean the infantry, given Bartlett was already there?
  • I have heavily rewritten this sentence. Hog Farm _Talk 21:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Would it be possible to explicitly mention the shooting engagement was across the Bayou Tensas?
  • Done. Hog Farm _Talk 21:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best, CMD (talk) 08:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Are "The Confederate did..." and "The Confederate finally crossed..." structures correct?
  • No, those are not correct. I have made corrections. Hog Farm _Talk 00:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from that, on a fresh reread, I think the article meets the FACR. It certainly more comprehensive than Grabau 2000. Best, CMD (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll have a closer look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "Period map showing" Add the exact year instead? Commons say 1860.
  • I've corrected that - there's no date on the map, and the LOC page this came from has [1860?] Hog Farm _Talk 02:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Nowhere is Vicksburg, Mississippi itself linked in the article.
  • Oops - linked in the lead and body now. Hog Farm _Talk 02:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "Vicksburg, Richmond, and Lake Providence" Link places mentioned in caption?
  • All linked now. Hog Farm _Talk 02:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Link Milliken's Bend, Louisiana in intro and article body?
  • Linked. The Milliken's Bend article didn't exist until recently. Hog Farm _Talk 21:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "Grant still kept minor supply points at there, Young's Point, and Lake Providence in Louisiana" The placement of "at" seems a bit off, perhaps before Young's Point would be better?
  • This was a suggestion by Zawed in their review. The "there" here is referring to Milliken's Bend. I don't know that there's a way to get around the awkward phrasing here without the frequent use of Milliken's Bend in this section. Hog Farm _Talk 21:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, the presence of the "at" in my suggested change was a typo on my part. It isn't meant to be there and I have removed it. Sorry HF, that was my bad. Zawed (talk) 08:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "take some of the pressure off of Vicksburg" is the "of" needed?
  • Remove the second "of" Hog Farm _Talk 21:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Link Slave rebellion?
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 21:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Link bayou?
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 21:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Anything to link Caledonia to?
  • Not that I'm aware of. All I've been able to find about this was that it was a "post-hamlet" in 1902 and that it had a brick kiln and "negro quarters" in 1863. Hog Farm _Talk 21:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - looks good, not much to nitpick anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Background

• ...but by the time of the siege, Grant had...: perhaps "he had" since Grant is already named earlier in the sentence?
  • done Hog Farm _Talk 18:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Milikin's Bend is named a few times in close succession. Perhaps rephrase, e.g. "During the early part of the campaign, Grant had operated a supply depot at Milliken's Bend in Louisiana,[3] but this decreased in importance due to his establishment of a different supply line. Grant still kept minor supply points at there, and at Young's Point and... "
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 18:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• link infantry division to [Division (military)]?
  • Linked Hog Farm _Talk 18:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Taylor's reinforced command was...: how was it reinforced?
  • That would be Walker - I've rephrased this to be clearer. Hog Farm _Talk 18:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Confederates viewed the training of USCT at Lake Providence...: to avoid repetition, suggest "Confederates viewed the training of USCT at there..."
• I've gone with the broader and more accurate "Confederates viewed the training of USCT to be the fomenting of a slave rebellion" Hog Farm _Talk 18:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The Major General link on Walker should be moved to first mention of Taylor, since that usage is the first time the CSA rank is used.
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 18:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• link Brigadier General
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 18:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle

• Link Caledonia, even if it is a redlink?
  • I really don't think Caledonia is a possible future article topic (see some notes in a review above about attempted research into the nature of Caledonia), so I don't think this would meet WP:REDYES. Hog Farm _Talk 18:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The Union unit fired several volleys into the Confederates...: for greater specificity suggest "the Confederate rearguard"
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 18:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• did not attempt to cross Bayou Tensas at any points downstream: seems to me that "at any points" is redundant?
  • Removed Hog Farm _Talk 18:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it for me. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: - Thanks for the review! Replies are above. Hog Farm _Talk 18:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good so have added my support. Zawed (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pulling up a chair...

• Probably worth spelling out "six" in the convert template for "six miles".
  • done Hog Farm _Talk 20:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "Taylor preferred a strike against New Orleans, Louisiana, and" do we really need to specify in what state New Orleans is?
  • I think so. From an American perspective this is well-known, but I don't know that New Orleans is well-known as being in Louisiana elsewhere). Maybe Gog the Mild has thoughts from a British perspective on this? Hog Farm _Talk 20:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just for myself, I would think that if a reader has no clue as to where New Orleans is, adding "Louisiana" is (highly) unlikely to help them, so you should feel free to skip it. Others may disagree. @Sammi Brie: for info. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Confederate cavalry occupied Richmond, Louisiana, on June 3, Major General John George Walker's troops reached Richmond on June 6, and Taylor planned a three-pronged strike for the next day" The complexity of this sentence and the GEOCOMMA demand semicolons between list items.
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 20:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "The regiment had no prior combat experience, and had been dismounted in early 1863." Classic CINS remove comma
  • Removed. Hog Farm _Talk 20:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "Bartlett struck a Union outpost at Bunch's Bend on the Mississippi River, and then continued" another CINS
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 20:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "Outnumbered, the Kansans withdrew and a messenger informed Brigadier General Hugh T. Reid, the Union commander at Lake Providence, of the Confederate advance." add comma after "withdrew"
  • Added Hog Farm _Talk 20:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Link "lodgment"
  • Done. I was not aware that this was a technical term. Hog Farm _Talk 20:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "Bartlett believed that Reid had more men than he actually had, and did" remove comma
  • Removed Hog Farm _Talk 20:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "the Confederates lost two men killed and five wounded" is this "lost two men killed" phrasing typical in military history?
  • Yes. Hog Farm _Talk 20:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "Confederate troops captured a small Union camp in the area in the Battle of Goodrich's Landing on June 29, but were driven off the next day." remove comma
  • Removed Hog Farm _Talk 20:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly comma fixes and one or two copy flow items. Ping when done. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammi Brie: - Thanks for your review! I'm not very good with comma usage - I blame the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education somewhat. Hog Farm _Talk 20:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • Support. Not going to quibble on the New Orleans location item — it's just a question, less a thing needing fixing. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will leave comments. 750h+ 10:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC) Feel free to refuse the suggestions with justification.[reply]

lead

• Taylor, primarily utilizing Walker's ==> "Taylor, primarily using Walker's": i learnt this from SC: per an essay by Orwell, it's worse to use a long word where a short one would do
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 21:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• and Lake Providence which was scheduled i'd add a comma before "which" (but this is personal preference)
  • Added Hog Farm _Talk 21:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

background

• No problems here. 750h+ 11:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

battle

• at the bridge in order to allow ==> "at the bridge to allow"
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 21:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• of an oxbow lake also known as Lake Providence. add a comma after after the first "lake"
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 21:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

aftermath

• the field by a different ==> "the field in a different"
  • I prefer this as it is. At least in my mind, "by a different way" would generally be referring to a different route back, while "in a different way" could more naturally refer to getting back by a different method. Hog Farm _Talk 21:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all i got. fine work. 750h+ 11:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@750h+: - Thanks for the review! My replies are above. Hog Farm _Talk 21:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support. 750h+ 00:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shelby Foote seems to be a somewhat questionable source; was this accounted for when the article was written? John D. Winters raises similar doubts but to a lesser degree. "The Civil War Battlefield Guide" is being cited in two different formats. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: - as to the Battlefield Guide matter, are you talking about Bearss 1998 and Winschel 1998 vs Kennedy 1998, this is due to a peculiarity of this work. The more important battles receive longer writeups from established and recognized historians like Bearss and Winschel, while the smaller battles have no byline and I guess were written by Kennedy? The smaller ones sometimes are pretty similar to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission battle summaries. I agree that Foote should probably go; his work is still respected as probably the single best piece of pure writing about the war, but is non-scholarly and is getting dated. I'm aware from my books right now, but once I get back I'll find replacements for the two citations to Foote. I will defend the usage of Winters, though. Winters is very heavily cited, even and is still being cited in post-2019 works. The main factual problem that I'm aware of is that his estimate of free blacks that served in the Confederacy is rejected by modern scholarship, but that error does not have any bearing on the topic at hand. Winters' views on certain subjects are not politically correct, but I've intentionally avoided using Winters for anything directly involving the USCT. As much as Winters is cited in the late 20th and 21st century literature on the war in Louisiana, I'm worried that it would be a WP:FACR #1c issue to not use Winters. Hog Farm _Talk 02:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I think, but am not positive, that INTEXT attribution should be used or perhaps additional sources to corroborate Winters' claims if they are both questionable and yet necessary for completeness. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unaware of anyone who has questioned Winters' combat descriptions. I think this is more of a circumstance where Winters is only FA-usable for certain classes of statements, and the material Winters is cited for falls into those classifications. Hog Farm _Talk 03:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus - both citations to Shelby Foote have been replaced - one by a citation to Miller, and another to a book written by Timothy B. Smith (one of the leading experts on the campaign) and published by the University of Kansas. Hog Farm _Talk 22:29, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems OK then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hog Farm, my comments:

• "minor supply points there, Young's Point, ...": prefix "Young's Point" with "and also at" so the grammar is better?
  • Have gone with "Grant still kept minor supply points there and also at Young's Point and Lake Providence". Hog Farm _Talk 22:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "The withdrawal crossed Bayou Tensas, where the Union forces destroyed the bridge over the bayou": Would "The withdrawing Union forces crossed Bayou Tensas, where they destroyed the bridge over it" be better?
  • How about "The withdrawing Union forces crossed Bayou Tensas and destroyed the bridge over it", which is even more concise? Hog Farm _Talk 22:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Consider running the InternetArchive Bot through the page once, so that archive URLs for refs #18, #24 and #32 will be automatically added?
  • Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Google Books web archive links and IABot contains some statements that indicate this is a controversial practice, so I would prefer not to. Hog Farm _Talk 22:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well @Hog Farm you may have to add the archive URLs manually then. Matarisvan (talk) 09:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider linking to UTenn Press and LSU Press as done for other publishers?
  • I've linked all of the publishers in the citations except for the Morningside Bookshop, which doesn't have an article. Hog Farm _Talk 22:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 08:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matarisvan: - Thanks for the review! My replies are above. Hog Farm _Talk 22:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about another skyscraper in New York City. This one was constructed as an office building for the McGraw-Hill Companies in 1931. Because of its distinctive color, 330 West 42nd has been called the "green monster", though it has also been held up as an early example of the International Style of architecture. After going through some ownership changes over the years, it was extensively renovated a few years ago, and the building's owners recently started converting the upper stories to apartments.

This page became a Good Article three years ago after a Good Article review by Filmgoer, for which I am very grateful. After some more recent copyedits, I think the page is up to FA quality. I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this one - please ping me in a week if I haven't started. Hog Farm _Talk 23:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "The terracotta panels were built to the minimum thickness required by city building codes" - source has "the important architectural elements formed by the smooth bands of colored terra cotta spandrels are nothing more than the strict minimum requirement of the building regulations-namely masonry filling between window heads and sills". When I first read the sentence in the article, I understood this as a reference as to how thick the panels were from outer surface to the back of the panel, but the source seems to be referring to the amount of paneling between each window (so the thickness of the terracotta panels in a different sense). Is there a way that this can be clarified?
  • I've changed "minimum thickness" to "minimum dimensions", but I still have to think on this, as the wording in the source is a bit convoluted. The source implies that some terracotta had to be included and Hood wanted to include the smallest possible pieces, but it could also be interpreted to mean that Hood used as few pieces of terracotta as possible. Epicgenius (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "They were painted white with orange stripes, but that color was removed when McGraw-Hill sold the building" - is "removed" really the right word? Per the NPS source, instead of the color being taken away, it was covered up
  • I reworded the sentence to reflect that the color was hidden. Epicgenius (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "were rented out as office space at a rate of $0.90 per square foot ($9.7/m2)." - do any of the sources compare this price to that charged by other skyscrapers in the area at the time?
  • I'll try to look for some sources. Epicgenius (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, I can't find sources for contemporary rental rates in the area. I've moved the price to a hidden comment, in case I end up finding a source. Epicgenius (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "There was a reception area to the left and a large seating area to the right. Gerard Nocera, a managing partner for the asset manager that controlled the building, said at the time:" - the location of this sentence implie that this is referring to features of the modern lobby, while the use of "was" suggests this is referring to the old lobby.
  • Oops, I've changed the tense. Epicgenius (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "Industrial uses were placed on the second through tenth floors," - I don't think "industrial uses" works as a noun when used like this
  • I've reworded this to "industrial tenants occupied...". Epicgenius (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "These stories were converted to standard office space by 1933" - the source just says that the printing equipment was removed in 1933 and that by the end of the decade, the McGraw-Hill space had gone from 75% to 34%, with the remainder attempting to be filled by tenants. I don't think we can really say that it was all standard office space by 1933 using this source
  • I have changed the sentence to more accurately reflect that the equipment was removed. Epicgenius (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "With the onset of the Great Depression, the industrial equipment on the lower floors became obsolete and was sold in January 1931" - two gripes on this one. First, based on the source this should be 1933 not 1931. And also, I don't think "obsolete" is the right word here. That suggests that the equipment became outdated, when what the source is saying is that McGraw-Hill just didn't have enough business to justify the continued ownership and use of the machines
  • Good point. I think I typed the wrong year, so I've changed that. The sentence now reads, "With the onset of the Great Depression, the industrial equipment on the lower floors was sold in January 1933" Epicgenius (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "These tenants included a trading floor of Paine Webber[132] as well as the New York City Department of Cultural Affairs" - this is referring to the agency as one of Gural's large tenants in the 1980s, but then we get "The New York City Department of Cultural Affairs (DCLA) moved to a 13,000-square-foot (1,200 m2) space at 330 West 42nd Street in 1998,". So did the DCLA move to the site in the 1980s, move out, and then move back in in '98, or are these two sentences referring to the same event?
  • Nope, I apparently listed the DCLA twice by accident. These are referring to the same event. I've removed the duplicate. Epicgenius (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "and the building's owner, Resolution Real Estate, started leasing office space" - I thought the building was owned by Deco Towers?
  • Yeah. Resolution Real Estate is actually the asset manager for Deco Towers, so I've fixed that as well. Epicgenius (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• " Pitts, Carolyn. (February 9, 1989) National Register of Historic Places Registration: McGraw Hill Building, National Park Service and Template:NHLS Url" - something has gone wrong with the citation formatting
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it from me. Hog Farm _Talk 21:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments HF. I'll take a look at these by Monday. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm, thanks for the review. I've now addressed everything that you raised. Epicgenius (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Mcgraw-hill-42nd-st 1.jpg: CC-BY-SA
• File:Mcgraw-hill-42nd-st.jpg: CC-BY-SA
• File:The_old_McGraw-Hill_Art_Deco_building._(48162190537).jpg: CC-BY
• File:McGraw_Hill_Building,_from_42nd_Street_and_Ninth_Avenue_looking_east,_Manhattan_(NYPL_b13668355-482670).jpg: PD, correct license
• File:McGraw-Hill_building,_Manhattan.jpg: CC-BY-SA
• File:The_Orion_and_330_West_42nd_Street_Oct_2011.jpg: CC-BY-SA

All images are appropriate to the article. They're laid out correctly, captioned well, and have alt-text. Support on image review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will review after Hog Farm finishes his. 750h+ 02:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lead

• link the first instance of facade
• green metal-framed windows, with a strongly remove comma
• in floor plan, except for remove the comma
• The building subsequently served as the headquarters of Group Health Insurance (GHI). ==> "The building subsequently became the headquarters of Group Health Insurance (GHI)." (WP:SERVEDAS)

site

• Tower's upper stories would have been so small as to be economically infeasible, and critics also disapproved of what was then an extreme height, leading to its cancellation in 1930. because these sentences ta;l about two different things i'd split this to "Tower's upper stories would have been so small as to be economically infeasible. Critics also disapproved of what was then an extreme height, leading to its cancellation in 1930." (or something like that.

architecture

• and J. André Fouilhoux, of the firm Hood remove the comma
• "The requirements peculiar to a publishing business have formed the basis for the entire structure—in plan, section and elevation." even though this is a quote, i think you'd still change this to "in plan, section[,] and elevation."
• link the first instance of facade
• Nash likened the massing to that of an ocean liner. i'd remove "that of"
• contains what were originally a pair of three-bay-wide change "were" to "was". If you said "contains what were originally two three-bay-wide" then you'd keep "were" but because you say "pair" that's a singular noun, so it should be "was"
• doorway with five doors, recessed within remove the comma
• considered several different colors for remove "different"
• There were doorways that led to the bookstore on the left ==> "Some doorways led to the bookstore on the left"
• on the left (east) wall and to the bank on the remove "to"

history

• The LPC had declined to preserve the lobby i'd find a synonym for preserve since it's used in the previous sentence.

reception

• nothing here

No other problems. Fine work, @Epicgenius:. 750h+ 09:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I might get to these by Wednesday or Thursday. Epicgenius (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, @750h+, I was just able to fix all of the issues you raised above. Thanks again for the comments. Epicgenius (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support 750h+ 16:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incoming. - SchroCat (talk) 12:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Refs formatted consistently
• Sources are of high and reliable quality
• Searches show no additional sources that are either stronger than those used, or that show anything missing
• Pass source review - SchroCat (talk) 13:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read through the article and write out some comments soon. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC) Here they are:[reply]

• The first paragraph of the Architecture section has two quotes that MOS:QUOTEPUNCT recommends but does not require are preceded by a colon instead of a comma, as the article has it. I would also recommend this unless you feel attached to the commas. Same for the North quote and the Architecture Plus quote and the Koolhaas quote in the Reception section.
  • I have rephrased some of the quotes to use colons rather than commas. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• MOS:NUMNOTES says to avoid starting sentences with numbers. That happens 6 times in this article. I recommend giving another look and deciding if that 6 number can be reduced. Otherwise, I would judge 6 is not egregious given the topic. Perhaps you could replace some of those 6 instances with "The McGraw-Hill Building"? I say that used in the article.
  • You would be right in almost all cases. However, MOS:NUMNOTES does include an exception ("Proper names, technical terms, and the like are never altered"), giving 10 Downing Street, which is also an address, as an example. In this case, 330 West 42nd Street can be treated as a proper name as well. Although it is historically also referred to as the McGraw-Hill Building, this name also refers to 1221 Avenue of the Americas, so I used the address to avoid confusion. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The building was largely designed with a plain facade, except for the original ground level and the upper stories. I'm not sure how to interpret this sentence. It seems to be telling me that the design was plain, except for on every story. Maybe it means that it was plain in the middle? If so, maybe changing "upper" to "uppermost" or "top" would clarify.
  • I've changed this to "The building was largely designed with a plain facade; the original ground level and the topmost stories are more elaborately decorated than the middle stories." Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• MOS:SMALLCAPS says: "Reduce names of companies or other trademarks from all caps to sentence case, unless they are acronyms or initialisms, even if the company normally writes them in all caps." That tells me to remove the use of small caps for describing the McGraw-Hill signage. Do you have an overriding reason for using small caps here?
  • Nope. I've removed the small caps. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Reading the description of the storefront level and lobby, I'm wondering what they look like. Can you add photos of wither? As well-illustrated as this article is, none of these photos show the first floor or interior.
  • Unfortunately, the first floor is physically closed to the public right now (which is ironic, given that I go past there every day). I could probably take pictures of the exterior storefronts, though. I also realized that there is a serious dearth of pictures of this building on Commons, which is very weird, since I usually take dozens of pictures for buildings that I write about. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Having "appalled" raises the question of whether this is WP:SCAREQUOTES (especially when paired with "supposedly") or a James H. McGraw Jr. quote or the quote of a scholar or contemporary. I'm guessing you could replace with "reportedly appalled" without quotation marks, which would nix all of these questions.
  • Good point. I've removed the quotes and changed this to "reportedly appalled"; this was meant to be a direct quote. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Who came up with the building's nicknames? Can they be attributed to journalists or others?
  • These nicknames were given by members of the public. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• contains a frame: I think "includes" would be a better word choice.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikilink Mullion?
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The building is sometimes described as the "McGraw-Hill Building". Has there been much thought or discussion already paid to whether it is more appropriate for this article to bear that name?
  • The current title does function as a WP:NATURALDIS, since there are two McGraw-Hill Buildings in Manhattan. If the common name were "McGraw-Hill Building", then perhaps the article could be moved to McGraw-Hill Building (42nd Street) (which is substantially longer than the current name but is the shortest one that's not ambiguous). However, from what I can tell, more-recent sources tend to refer to the building both by its address and by its name. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Who came up with and/or uses the term "Raymond Hood Colonial"?
  • I've added a mention of the magazine that used this term. Epicgenius (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• the natural light: I think "the" is extraneous.
  • Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Furthermore, there are several tenant lounges,: "Furthermore" doesn't look right here. I think the paragraph would work better without it.
  • Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Early on in the Architecture section, the article says the building uses sash windows, but later on in the same section, it says that the windows were eventually replaced with windows that could open and close. Don't sash windows open and close?
  • I shortened this to "the windows were replaced". I don't know whether the original windows could open and close, but this detail seems unnecessary. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The term "clockwise from the north" doesn't seem necessary for orienting the reader.
  • Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• hoped that the building: "That" is unecessary.
  • Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Who considered West 42nd Street tawdry?
  • This is a quote from the NY Times, which I've now added. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Is the period in "three times over in ten minutes." part of the quote? If not, it should be moved outside the quotation marks per MOS:INOROUT.
  • It is not. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• What are amenity spaces?
  • Basically, these are spaces with tenant amenities *e.g. outdoor terraces, fitness center, event rooms). I've now mentioned these specifically. Epicgenius (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Rather than putting "nonhistorical windows" in quotation marks, I think maybe "windows they didn't consider historically significant" or something like that.
  • I have rephrased this. Epicgenius (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• McGraw-Hill Companies is Wikilinked twice in the lead. The second instance should be removed per MOS:DUPLINK.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• GHI is spelled out as both Group Health Insurance and Group Health Inc. Which is it?
  • It is supposed to be Group Health Insurance. Epicgenius (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• GHI is redlinked in the lead, so I think its first instance in the body should also be redlinked.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• My feeling is that the infobox should only pull from info that is already in the body, which would mean it doesn't need citations. Of the four significant dates, the first and fourth are already in the body, the second just needs the month and day added to the body, and the third doesn't appear to be mentioned anywhere. What do you think about adding the missing info to the body and removing the infobox citations?
  • Good point. I've moved all the dates and their corresponding refs to the body. Epicgenius (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: This article is really well-written, neutral throughout, and very comprehensive, without undue attention to any one aspect of the topic, I think. The lead does a great job of summarizing the body. It also appears to be stable and well-illustrated. Earwig doesn't find anything that looks like plagiarism.

Thank you very much for the comments. I will get to these over the next few days. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dugan Murphy, thanks again for the detailed review. I've actually been able to address all of your feedback now. Epicgenius (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. This article is in great shape, so I support this nomination. If you are willing to do some reviewing yourself, I have an active FAC nomination that hasn't received any reviews yet beyond an image review. You'll find that here. Thanks in advance if you decide to take a look! Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. And sure, I can take a look at your nomination soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): SnowFire (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you flip to the back of a Christian Bible these days, you'll find the Book of Revelation as the final book in the New Testament. But did you know that over in some rather plausible alternate timelines, there would be TWO books of Revelation in the back - the Revelation of John, and the Revelation of Peter? It took centuries to come up with a consensus New Testament; the contents weren't obvious. Our oldest surviving list that is close-ish to the New Testament, the Muratorian fragment, actually includes the Revelation of Peter as part of its canon! Some other early Christian writers seem to have thought it deserved canonical status, too. That didn't happen, of course, but it's interesting. (Although given some of the content, Christianity may have dodged a bullet here...)

This article includes the latest scholarship, as there's been decent interest lately - Eric Beck wrote a 2019 book on it (the thesis it's based on is open-access, link in the article), Bart Ehrman covered it pretty heavily in a 2022 book on katabases in general, and a monograph collection on the topic just dropped just a few months ago, also free & open-access (link in article). I ran the article past Beck over email and he didn't have any complaints, so hopefully a good sign. SnowFire (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that I'll be able to do a full review here, but I do own and have read a copy of Edmon L. Gallagher's and John D. Meade's The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity, published by Oxford University Press (I own the 2019 paperback edition).

• "Two other short Greek fragments of the work have been discovered: a 5th-century fragment at the Bodleian library that had been discovered in Egypt in 1895, and the Rainer fragment at the Rainer collection in Vienna which perhaps comes from the 3rd or 4th century" - we're presenting these dates as a scholarly consensus (sourced to something from the 1960s?) but I don't know that this is actually the scholarly consensus. Gallagher & Meade refer to these as both fourth-century, and contains the following interesting footnote: These two fragments [Bodleian and Rainer] possibly (definitely, according to Van Minnen 2003: 35) derive from the same manuscript; see Bauckham 1998: 257. The Bauckham citation they are referring to is the Fate of the Dead book cited here and Van Minnen 2003 is "The Greek 'Apocalypse of Peter' which is apparently pp. 15-39 in the Bremmer and Czachesz 2003 source cited in this article.
• Gallagher and Meade also specificy that the Ethiopic versions are in Ge'ez
• "The Apocalypse of Peter is listed in the catalog of the 6th-century Codex Claromontanus, which was probably copying a 3rd- or 4th-century source" - this seems to be a bit misleading, per Gallagher & Meade p. 184 There are also some books beyond the traditional New Testament; the list concludes with mention of the Epistle of Barnabas, the Revelation of John, the Acts of the Apostles, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Acts of Paul, and the Revelation of Peter, but the first and last three of these titles are preceded by a horizontal stroke that appears to be an obelus, probably indicating their dubious status
• I do wonder if the text should contain an explicit reference to the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter being a separate work given the similar names and ages. At least in my opinion, there is a greater degree of potential confusion between these two things than what most subjects handled with a simple hatnote would be
• Is it worth noting that the Akhmim manuscript also contains the Gospel of Peter and I Enoch?
• A bit more detail on the reception by Eusebius - Eusebius of Caesarea (Hist. eccl. 3.3.2) claims that no ecclesiastical writer ever made use of the Petrine apocrypha, [elsewhere in the work Gallagher & Meade do mention that Eusebius actually attests to usage of the work by Clement] and in his canon list he classifies the Apocalype of Peter as a spurious antilegomenon, but not a heretical work (Hist. eccl. 3.25.4)
• Lastly (for now) Gallagher & Meade cite Elliott, J.K. 1993 The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation Based on M.R. James by OUP pp. 598-600 as collecting seven patristic citations. This article references all but one set of two citations: Theophilus of Antioch in Ad Autolycum 2.19

I'm not sure how helpful this might be, but that's what I can contribute to this. I've been considering acquiring and reading a copy of Metzger's work on the canon for awhile; I liked his work on the textual history. Hog Farm _Talk 01:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy feedback!

• The Maurer 1965 write-up is a good one IMO, but it's just there as a supporting chorus and more proof of what goes in the shorter write-ups (one problem that happens sometime when compressing 300 page books into Wikipedia articles is that it isn't obvious it is the "most important" stuff; citing some shorter articles helps cut against that). (Side note, on age of references... similarly, all of the citations to M. R. James generally are "extras" that are conveniently available online, except when citing opinions attributed to James, as a little too dated; there's a "real" current-scholarship citation next to all of them. But I figured he was good to throw in thanks to Wikisource scans for easy verifiability on a few, along with general historic flavor.) Van Minnen 2003 is definitely cited in the article (ref 3 in the version of Aug 29), although annoyingly enough I don't own a copy and my interlibrary loan long since expired for easily re-checking it - was a good article though. Yes, I've read the theory that Rainer & Bodleian are from the same manuscript, but my thought at the time was I didn't want to stick in every bit of scholarly speculation. That said, checking... it looks like both Beck 2019 and Dochhorn 2024 buy it, and so does Kraus/Nicklas 2004, the most recent full book-length treatment of just the Greek. So it seems you're right that most recent scholars have switched over - updated the phrasing. (A little annoying since various other sources refer to the Rainer fragment as the "oldest" which wouldn't be quite true if Rainer = Bodleian is accurate, but oh well.)
• Ethiopic and Ge'ez are the same thing (see Geʽez). For reasons that I do not know, scholarship on the Apocalypse of Peter calls the language of the d'Abaddie / Lake Tana manuscripts "Ethiopic" 99% of the time - perhaps there's some technical distinction that makes Ethiopic correct and Ge'ez incorrect? I figured I should honor that and just use Ethiopic everywhere as well. (And even if they're pure synonyms, it's one less term for a reader to keep track of.)
• Hmm, what's misleading here? That Gallagher & Meade sentence sounds like what is trying to be communicated. If you meant "in the codex itself" I'd argue that's already implicitly indicated by specifying that it was (only) in the "catalog" (if a copy of ApocPeter was in it, that'd have made the scholarship way easier!). If you meant the "dubious" part, the topic of that paragraph is "indications ApocPeter was used, but disputed", so that's keeping with the general sense of examples the paragraph is trying to provide. Open to suggestions for rephrasing if that isn't being communicated as well as it could be.
  • Side note: Now, there IS something that I'd like to go into more detail if this was really scholarly-paper certified... specifically, that the idea that the Catalog was copying a 3rd- or 4th- century document is circular. That is, we think that's true precisely because we think the Apoc Peter would still have been current at the time (and 2nd century is too early for such a full catalog of the New Testament), but would have been unlikely in the 5th century... basically it's scholarship on ApocPeter informing the dating of the Codex, not the other way around. But I figure that point is too minor for a general audience (and besides, this isn't the "Date of authorship" section so it's not being used as faux-evidence there).
• On the Gnostic Apocalypse: Hmm. I did include two sentences in Gnostic_Apocalypse_of_Peter#Literary_influences, because this text preceded that one and an obvious question is if the Gnostic Apoc. Peter author read "this" ApocPeter. But since most scholars think "no", it feels a little artificial to include here... "there's another work with the same title written later that has nothing to do with this?" Especially since the Gnostic work appears to have been obscure - until it was dug up, we had no idea it existed. I'd prefer not to add it, but can add a similar statement if really desired - I just have no idea where it won't stand out as irrelevant. ("Later influence"? Except about a work it didn't influence?)
• On Akhmim & Eusebius: Same answer here for both - I was just trying to keep the length of the article under control, and be a summary and not a total deep dive. The Akhmim manuscript including the Gospel of Peter is mentioned indirectly in "Manuscript History" when it's relevant for how the Akhmim version was probably rewritten, but I don't think including Enoch is that relevant (the Ethiopic manuscripts include a bunch of other stuff not mentioned here too - see [15] & [16]), just it feels off-topic to mention them. Eusebius is simply wrong when he says nobody else quotes Apoc Peter, but beating up on him for overstating the case seems petty. And I figure people interested in Eusebius dividing books into good; disputed; orthodox-but-spurious (our ApocPeter in this category); and heretical can hit the references for more. I can certainly expand it into a full sentence if desired, just that paragraph is already on the long side, and I thought "dubious" gets the gist of Eusebius's opinion across.
• On Theophilus: Buchholz deep dives all the patristic references and alleged references, and is rather skeptical of this one (and in the realm of side chatter, so am I, this is a total stretch). Both Theophilus's line and Akhmim Gr. 15 talk about a cool place with both light and beautiful plants, but to quote Buchholz p. 49, "The evidence is not convincing because it was normal at that time to describe paradise with much light and beautiful plants." It'd be an indirect reference at best that suggested Theophilus had read ApocPeter and was loosely quoting it. I suppose I can add it, but I'd rather kick it to a note, similar to the Acts of Paul and Thecla possible reference. (But even then, that one is more "interesting" because it's touching on a theological issue. This one is just vaguely similar flowery descriptions that could have easily happened by chance with no particular significance.)
• diff changes here. SnowFire (talk) 03:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with your replies above except on two points - as to the mention in the Codex Claromontanus, for the other references here the article is indicating generally how the list or church father viewed the work. For instance, in the next sentence it doesn't just say that Stichometry of Nicephorus lists the work, it states the general classification that it gave it. I don't think much is needed to add here, but it's necessary I think to indicate how this was actually viewed, given that the early canon lists covered a fair bit of ground. Likewise, I think "Eusebius considered the work spurious but not heretical" is more informative and useful to the reader than just a simple statement that he found it dubious. I think there's a way to provide clarification in both of those cases without meaningfully adding to the length. Hog Farm _Talk 23:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough; expanded the Eusebius bit into two sentences, but I don't think the overall length was blown up. (I'll also try and get ahold of Gallagher & Meade myself and make sure I didn't miss anything in there.) SnowFire (talk) 08:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unless I'm missing something, I think everything significant in Gallagher & Meade is currently being included. I still think we need a brief clarification for the Codex Claromontanus listing to indicate how exactly this canon list viewed the apocalypse. I'll try to complete a full review after UC finishes their review below. Hog Farm _Talk 19:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I added another sentence on Claromontanus. (The ApocPeter-specific sources don't see fit to talk about it - my suspicion is that it's because they're interested in the hypothetical original 4th-century catalog that was being copied that we don't have, which probably had no such mark because why would you even bother including such a work if you already don't fully trust it. But still useful to note that the later scribe marked it up.) It's unfortunate that the sources don't seem to clarify which obelus, presumably because it was obvious to them - I presume the dagger version, but I linked it to the top-level Obelus page since I'm not fully sure. SnowFire (talk) 07:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll try to do a full review soon. I'm probably not going to have time this weekend, though. Hog Farm _Talk 13:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @Hog Farm: Do you think you'll be able to perform a fuller review? (No problem if not, just a reminder ping.) SnowFire (talk) 04:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have the time tonight. I'm hoping I'll be able to tomorrow or Wednesday, but I can't make promises. Hog Farm _Talk 02:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "The author also appears to be familiar with the Gospel of Matthew and no other;" - but yet this is stated to include an account of the ascension, which is not directly found in Matthew. Is the argument here that this reference to the ascension is drawing on independent Christian tradition from outside the Gospels? But how exactly does one confidently demonstrate this and not that the account of the ascension is being taken from another gospel? I'd be interested to see what Bauckham is using to draw this conclusion.
  • It's page 173 of Bauckham, where he's citing himself on 4723-4724 of this article (on Wikipedia library). Checking... "Dependence on Matthew is especially clear in E1-2 (cf. Mt. 24:3-33) and E15—17 (cf. Mt. 17:1—8), with possible further allusions in E3, E5—6, and E14=R" (the R is "Rainer" here, and the E#s are Ethiopic chapter numbers). It does seem to be something of an argument from silence though - that because there aren't direct Lukan literary references, it wasn't used, even if the author knew of some circulating stories that also ended up in Luke. It looks like Bauckham goes into more detail in "The Two Fig Tree Parables in the Apocalypse of Peter" (on Wikipedia library as well)... as mentioned, the author seems to be quoting specifically Matthew's version of the Little Apocalypse. On the Lukan Parable of the barren fig tree, Bauckham says that there are no direct quotes, and further the version quoted seems to have "considerable differences", which suggests knowing of the parable from independent tradition rather than reading Luke. (He doesn't discuss the ascension, but my understanding is that this was thought to be a common piece of Christian tradition in the era, and the literary dependence is clearly Matthew's transfiguration.)
  • I should add that there is at least one scholar who argues against this, but in the reverse direction... Beck brings up Robert C. Helmer arguing that the author wasn't familiar with Matthew, either, and was only working with "Tradition" and lost sources! This was for an unpublished dissertation, though, that is inexplicably listed as "withdrawn" on the website ([17] - maybe only from e-publication?). Considering the high-quality of sources elsewhere, I'm not sure an unpublished view is important enough to discuss. I've repeated Bauckham's Fig Tree journal article as a reference to this line though, since that seems relevant.
• Is the link to wheel of fire really useful? Besides the fact that that article is currently a mass of OR ranging from Ixion to Frodo, it seems bold to pick a specific link for a topic that the scholars are considering to be unclear
  • The reasoning behind a wheel of fire being involved is unclear, but the punishment being a wheel of fire is clear enough. As is, the link is kinda worthless since the article is worthless, but given that there is an "In mythology" section, it seems potentially relevant? It's not a big deal and I'm happy to remove it, but if hypothetically the wheel of fire article was improved and sourced and continued to have a myth / religion section, I think the wikilink would be fine.
• "Sinners who perished in the Great Flood are brought back as well: probably a reference to the Nephilim, the children of the Watchers (fallen angels) and mortal women described in the Book of Enoch, Book of Jubilees, and Genesis." - I don't know that there's an easy way to rephrase this, but I'm not sure that this is the best way to approach this. Yes, the Nephilim are described in Genesis, but they are not described as "children of the Watchers (fallen angels) and mortal women" in Genesis; yes this is how some traditions have interpreted "when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them" but we can't say that this is what the Genesis narrative explicitly describes
  • Fair enough. I was worried that not including Genesis might imply that this was entirely an Enochian tradition with no basis in the Torah, but I suppose the Genesis connection is already in the footnote. Removed the mention of Genesis here.
• One last thought I have with this - from what I've read, there seems to be a fair number of scholars who take the stance that apostolic authorship was part of the criteria for determining the canon in the early church. Does any of the scholarship on the apocalypse bear on this idea? Another angle is whether or not the scholarship gives any thought to considerations of if this work was recognized as pseudepigrapha in the early church, or if there was belief that this was an authentic Petrine revelation.
  • Absolutely! The canonicity section was refactored recently to include " A common criticism of those who opposed the canonicity of these works was to accuse them of lacking apostolic authorship" - hopefully that's enough for casual readers, but can add another line to add the reverse that canonical works had apostolic authorship if you think it'd help. As best we can tell, the number one argument used to buttress the authority of a document was to claim apostolic authorship for it, and the number one argument used against the authority of a document that did claim apostolic authorship was that it wasn't really written by apostles. Eusebius calling the Apocalypse spurious-if-orthodox probably indicates he doubts Peter wrote it, yeah. However, while this was the argument used, few surviving ancient authors approached the question like a modern scholar would - i.e. examining grammar, word choice, attestation. Rather, it was the somewhat circular criterion of "if it speaks the Word of God, then an apostle might have written it, and if it spreads heresy, then an apostle couldn't possibly have written it." Or more cynically, if you disagree with the content, then that means Peter didn't write this. So Apostolic authorship is the criteria, but most writers used theological criteria to decide the matter, rather than literary criteria.
  • Ehrman cites Serapion of Antioch saying as much about the Gospel of Peter - Serapion directly argues that because the Gospel of Peter could be read docetically (not even necessarily advocating docetism outright!), obviously the real Peter couldn't have written it. Ehrman's argument in reasoning by analogy is that if "could be read as promoting heresy" = "no aposotolic authorship", and we have condemnations of Rainer Fragment-ish universal salvation, maybe there was some influential Church figure condemning the Apocalypse of Peter as not apostolically authored, a la the Serapion example.
  • Anyway, any ancient authors positively quoting the Apocalypse should be assumed to think Peter really wrote it (or dictated it, or had some Mark-esque secretary record the story, etc.), and anyone speaking poorly of it should be assumed to think it was pseudepigrapha.

SnowFire - I think that's all of my thoughts on this. I guess as full disclosure, I'm approaching this from an evangelical Christian perspective, although I think I've kept my personal religious beliefs out of this. Hog Farm _Talk 02:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hog Farm: No worries. (And Bauckham is usually considered somewhat on the traditionalist side of scholarship FWIW, although not to the degree of the strongest and most traditional of apologist-scholars, i.e. the Talbot folks.) Thanks for the review; made a few changes and can easily make a few more if you think it'd help. SnowFire (talk) 04:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some impressive scholarship on display here. I think my comments will mostly have to stick with Wikipedia minutiae rather than really getting to grips with the subject matter, but I hope they are useful. If you wouldn't mind, could you answer the points below each one, rather than in a list at the end -- I can see this review getting even longer and more confusing otherwise!

• • Thank you so much for the prompt and detailed review! I wouldn't disclaim your subject matter knowledge too much - you clearly know plenty here, and more than me on the matters of Koine Greek itself. (There are a few points I have some pushback, but don't take my whining too seriously - if you feel strongly on it, I'm happy to adjust anyway. Just figured I'd just raise the "other side" first on the ones I disagree on.) SnowFire (talk) 07:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• be pierced by sharp fiery stones as would beggars: not sure what as would beggars means in this context -- do beggars get the same punishment, or is this (apparently) what happens to beggars in the real world?
  • What happens to beggars in the real world, yes. i.e. "clothed in filthy rags and having calloused feet from stones cutting through their bad shoes". The burning part maybe not as much, but that's kinda the standard hell addition in ApocPeter. (Although who knows, the ground can get pretty hot in the Middle East...) Fun fact on the side: I forget where exactly, but someone wrote an article with a long analogy about how this was fore-runner of the medieval Danse Macabre, i.e. in the sense that noble & commoner alike do the dance, and maybe the rich people are being forced to dance into the stones? I didn't really buy the connection, but it was cool anyway.
    • I think that could do with a little bit of clarification -- at the moment, what is written isn't quite compatible with that (very good) explanation. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've expanded this to make the analogy more clear.
        • I'm afraid I still found it a bit unclear in the lead; I've made a tentative edit there to assist. I now don't see anything about mirroring the existence of beggars in the body? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Added a sentence in the "lex talionis" section. I also switched "beggars" to "poor"... I personally think beggars are fine, but the text uses "widows and orphans" which seems to be synecdoche for the poor in general. So beggars might be over-specific.
• Two other short Greek fragments of the work have been discovered: a 5th-century fragment at the Bodleian library that had been discovered in Egypt in 1895, and the Rainer fragment at the Rainer collection in Vienna: as phrased, this sounds as though the second fragment was discovered in Vienna. Suggest adding "held by..." or similar to the institutions.
  • Rephrased the sentence; take a look.
• The Rainer fragment was originally dated to the 3rd or 4th century; later analysis: can we put dates on these?
  • For the first, yes, and done. For the second, I'm not so sure there's a clean date when this becomes accepted (there are still recent-ish publications that use the old date), nor do I think it's that relevant - it seems like it started as a hypothesis that got better backing with later close analysis.
    • Right, but are we talking (more or less) about the early medieval period, or more or less about modern academia? I'm not suggesting that we need to pin it down to the 24th of March, 1893, but giving the reader an idea of vaguely what sort of timescale they're imagining would be helpful. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Went with "2003" as when Van Minnen published his chapter in "The Apocalypse of Peter," although see disclaimer above. (I'd rather go for either pure hand-waving in this case or one specific event, as I don't think I have a source that says "over the course of the 2000s decade and 2010s...", although that's my personal guess).
• the Stichometry of Nicephorus: can we explain what this is and why it matters? We sort of introduce it right at the end of the article.
  • I feel that this is off-topic. I agree most readers won't have a clue what this is, but context provides everything that the reader needs to know - there was a source saying the Apoc Peter should have X lines, and the Ethiopic version is pretty close to that, and here's a wikilink to the source if you want to learn what a Stichometry is.
• Note 2 is long and generally well formed, but I think we should put in the body the fact that Bauckham's views have been challenged.
  • Open to suggestions, but the fact that this is attributed in-line to a specific scholar and uses "argues" (rather than just stating as a fact it's from Palestine) hopefully communicates it's not a scholarly consensus already (along with "Other scholars suggest [something else]"). I feel like that might also make the Egypt theory seem stronger than it really is - Bauckham's views have been challenged because a lot of people buy them, while the Egypt origin view doesn't seem as popular and thus people don't bother to swat it down. (The main competing view, as best I can tell, is flat "we don't know." But I'm not sure we need to write that one out.)
    • I'm not sure I agree -- it sounds like there's a debate with two sides, both of which have equal levels of scholarly acceptance, so WP:DUEWEIGHT says we should present both equally. Putting one in the body text and relegating the other to a footnote places greater weight on the first, which we should not do unless it is clearly the majority position (WP:FRINGE). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • But both are in the body text? Both the possibility of a Egyptian and a Palestinian origin are discussed in the body. Unless you mean the "we don't know" option? That's just some OR from me, nobody publishes a paper arguing "I've unsolved the problem, we have no idea." I've added a brief sentence cited to Bremmer acknowledging that provenance is still a matter of scholarly debate and uncertainty, with Palestine & Egypt the lead two options - does that work? (p. 153 here if curious)
• File:Near East 0100AD.svg -- political maps like this are a very tricky business. I can't find any sign of the source data for this one, and we definitely need some reliable source to be making claims about territorial boundaries and levels of effective control in this period. A smaller thing, but I'm very unconvinced by some of their Latinisations (like Myos Hormus for Myos Hormos), and they've used a frustrating variety of fonts.
  • I was just doing some basic translation of German from a map and leaving the Latin alone. @Enyavar: who created this series. From looking at the upload, a list of sources are at File:Ancient_Orient_History_Map_basis.de.svg#Beschreibung - anything else to be aware of in using the map?
    • That list seems to be specifically about the Bronze Age -- wherever a page is cited, it's specifically BA material. It does cite books that we would expect to have maps of the Roman period in them, but I don't see a definitive statement that those maps were used in the map we have. Of course, if you can find other sources which verify the information and append them to the Commons page, it doesn't particularly matter whether they were originally consulted, but we do need something for the included claims like, for example, "the Roman Empire had only weak influence over Nabataea in 100 CE". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I asked Enyavar directly - stay tuned. As for Nabatea itself, it looks like Rome only took over in 106 CE (Nabataean_Kingdom#Roman_annexation), so to the extent the map is "exactly 100 AD", it seems sorta justified as a heavily Roman-influenced but client-y state.
        • I'm not disputing any of the ideas in the map (except possibly that anyone ever called it Myos Hormus), only that we need to cite those claims, just as we would in text. We couldn't write "Nabataea was a Roman client state in 100 CE" without a citation, and it's the same to do so with an image. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry about that! My own maps I try to carefully document (File:BattleofTordesillas.PNG for an old example), but this one was pre-existing, hence it being tricky for me to do directly. Enyavar replied at Benutzer_Diskussion:Enyavar#Question_on_Ancient_Near_East_maps, and I used that to add this addition to the file description. Is that enough information, do you think?
            • As I read it, it's (slightly harshly put) a vague handwave towards "go check the bibliography in the relevant Wikipedia article?" I don't think that's enough, really: one, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, two, that bibliography isn't necessarily stable, three, "it's somewhere in at least some of this huge list of books" isn't really precise enough. Really, we need something at the level of "For the geographical information, see maps on [these pages] of [these books]; see also a discussion of toponyms in [this gazetteer], and I've followed the view of [this book chapter] on the matter of [whatever]". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (de-indent) Haven't forgotten about this, just was traveling over the weekend and am back at work now. I put in requests at the library for atlases & maps; we'll see what they turn up. Unfortunately the easy-to-access batch was mostly not showing much detail, or was dated like the 1923 Shepherd map. (Side fun fact: did you know that the 2023 Atlas of the Classical World has a "Rome under Trajan" map advertised in its Table of Contents? It's a map of... the city of Rome, specifically, during the reign of Trajan. Sad trombone noises go here.) SnowFire (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. Attempting to make an entirely new map at the level of detail of the original map is way, way too much work, so there's no way that's going to finish "in time" here. I've elected to just use a less detailed map instead. I've uploaded File:Eastern Mediterranean 125 political map eastern med.svg which has the original sources in the original map, and I've adjusted some of the city names to follow Talbert (2023) and verified a few others with other recent atlases. The Arabia Petraea region also follows the more conservative territory seen in most maps of the Roman Empire after 106 than the old 100 AD map. Hopefully this is considered sufficient enough sourcing. SnowFire (talk) 04:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• a Greek katabasis or nekyia: how come only the second gets italicised? I don't think katabasis is quite naturalised in English, at least among those who aren't Greek scholars. Smaller, but is a nekyia the right comparison here -- that usually involves, as Odysseus's does, standing more-or-less in the "real" world, being approached by the dead and asking questions of them?
  • I'm mostly mimicking Ehrman 2022 here. He leaves "katabasis" unitalicized (except on the very first introduction of the Greek term) but italicizes nekuia (with a u) everywhere. Bauckham 1998 does italicize katabasis though, and a quick search through the 2024 "In Context" shows two italicizations by Bremmer. I suppose I can switch it over, it's not a big deal. And I don't think there's a firm distinction, it's borderline, but to the extent that Peter & the disciples are tripping on a spiritual vision but while on Earth, you can argue it's a nekyia if your criteria is "happens on Earth" and if your criteria it that a true katabasis would involve actually VISITING a la Dante / ApocPaul, which is of course impossible in this case as it'd involve time travel.
• The link to Jewish Christians shouldn't cover "and achieve martyrdom", since being a martyr is, thankfully, not necessarily part of being a Jewish Christian.
  • Done, although now I'm a little worried it looks like the shoots are achieving martyrdom (when in the text, it's definitely the Jewish Christians).
• One theological issue of note: I would rephrase this sentence -- we generally avoid saying that things are notable, or should be noted -- it's taken as read that everything in a Wikipedia article is notable, and we do well to minimise the volume of our editorial voice.
  • I think this is a good general rule of Wikipedia writing, but similar to the concerns on "popular" above, this one I think needs some sort of callout. This is the theological issue and half the reason people are still writing about the Apoc Peter still today. It consumes a huge amount of what Beck, Ehrman, Bauckham, etc. have to say on the work; Ilaria Ramelli wrote a whole book on early Christian universalism that cites ApocPeter as an example for her thesis. Open to suggestions, but I think the importance of this passage needs to be emphasized in some way that makes it distinct from comparatively piddly stuff also discussed, like the names of angels.
    • OK, so let's say as much -- Beck writes that "the central theological issue of the text" is.... If we can't find anyone actually willing to put it in writing that it's so important, it's WP:SYNTH to infer it simply from the volume of scholarly writing on it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • We can, it's just that qualifying it in-text makes it sound like it's just one scholar's take, and it's broader in this case. It also calls even more attention to the matter up front before even describing it, rather than a brief side comment that's promising "read on and you'll find out why." Hence me preferring to simply state it as a fact - it's proven by all the referenced stuff later on to the pages and pages written on it.
      • I've removed it for now, though - the proper person to cite, if anyone, is Ilaria Ramelli here (for all that others think she overstates her case), and the Brill access for the Wikipedia Library is still down. :( If it comes back up, I'll re-check her $405 book to see if there's a suitably saucy quote to use, in the reference if nothing else.
• The Greek word "apocalypse": technically speaking, apocalypse is not a Greek word: I would transliterate apokalypsis here (and see note above on Greek words).
  • Done. Good idea, agree we should use the raw Romanized Greek here rather than the Latinized version.
• the work is pseudepigrapha: pseudepigrapha is plural, so I think you're on safer grammatical grounds to make this an adjective: pseudepigraphical.
  • Done.
• Christian-Jewish: this should be an endash, but I'm not sure what the join is meant to be here. Are we saying that it belongs to Jewish Christianity -- in which case, Jewish-Christian (with hyphen) would be better?
  • Switched to an ndash. And it wasn't restricted to Jewish Christianity, so that wasn't the intent... it's more like it belongs to Christianity, but had major Jewish influences.
    • Generally speaking, these kind of doublets are better written out with a full explanation. (I think MOS:DASH or MOS:HYPHEN says something to that effect. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just cut "Jewish" - it's probably accurate, but it can be covered in the section on Himmelfarb's opinions.
• Plato's Phaedo is often held as a major example of the forerunning Hellenistic beliefs: this needs a bit more supporting material -- Plato's Phaedo is not Hellenistic.
  • It could be misread, but I feel that anyone capable of that misreading also knows enough to know what is "really" meant, that Plato was still current in the Hellenistic era and there were people called Platonists etc.? I switched it to the simple "Greek" though to avoid confusion.
    • Oh, yes, and Neoplatonism is a huge deal that might well need some sort of mention here. Switching to "Greek" solves the problem, I think. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Later scholarship by Martha Himmelfarb and others: as before, can we be more specific as to the date?
  • Himmelfarb's book was published in 1983, but "others" is harder to pin down. I suspect picking a date would be problematic though - it's not like everyone instantly agreed Himmelfarb was right (in fact, just as Dieterich was a maximalist "everything was Greek with minor Jewish flavor" that was probably wrong, Himmelfarb's maximalist "this is all based on lost Jewish stuff" hasn't actually found much support at the other end of the spectrum), and the process was probably somewhat gradual as people filtered in the parts of Himmelfarb's argument that were the best supported in the 1980s & 90s. (And I'm sure there were some scholars in the 1960s arguing for more Jewish influence who are annoyed if Himmelfarb took all the credit.) I think this one is best left for "click the wikilink on Himmelfarb, or hit the references, for more."
    • As above -- would "twentieth-century" of similar work? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rephrased to include that.
• Some scholars get introductions, others don't -- who was Albrecht Dieterich, for example? There are arguments on either side, but I think it's best to pick a lane -- either introduce everyone, or only those who aren't what you'd expect. This essay puts forward one common and very sensible approach -- essentially, if it's (e.g.) a classicist doing a work of classical scholarship, leave out the introduction as obvious, but do introduce them if they aren't' a conventional subject-matter expert -- for example, if a poet or mystic commented on the text.
  • I've usually used the "no intro" style except for very early in the article. I removed "The scholar" before Bauckham - if I missed any others, happy to remove them. The one intro I believe remains is for M. R. James, and that's because I want to mention he was English (but reading French translations of Ethiopic documents for fun, and connecting them to German translations of Greek he read & translated earlier. Just normal stuff).
• I struggled to get my head around the layout of the Predecessors section -- the chronology and provenance of texts involved seems very mixed, there's a lot of "probably" and "maybe" going on, and a few very short paragraphs. What's the logic at work here?
  • Unfortunately, there isn't really a "story" to tell here past the Greek vs. Jewish influence debate. It's more like "Scholar A detected a claimed influence here. Scholar B detected a claimed influence over here. Scholar C..." And some of these claimed influences really do need a "probable" disclaimer, because it's not like the passage says "As Ezra said in that one Greek book of his work..." Beck writes "It is important to acknowledge the uncertainty of source critical discussions". I've done my best to have something of a "narrative" here, but also want to avoid SYNTH.
  • On short paragraphs, here and elsewhere: My stance favors the "paragraphs should have a topic" writing style. Sometimes this leads to long paragraphs (as in the Canonicity section), but sometimes it leads to short paragraphs if there's just one person making one claim or the like. I'd rather avoid glomming together unrelated thoughts that suggests the Psalm 24 quote is linked with the postmortem baptism or the like. (And looking back, including Matthew in the "Greek katabasis vs. Jewish apocalypses" section is a little loose as is... Matthew does have an apocalyptic section but I don't go into that here.)
• the Apocalypse of Peter is distinct among extant literature of the period, and may well have been unique at the time: aren't all works of literature unique in some respect? I'm not a fan of the distinction between "being unique" and "adapting earlier writings" -- leaving aside people like Virgil, Dante and so on, we have things like the Cento Vergilianus de laudibus Christi, which is entirely original and unique despite not containing a single original line. Suggest getting to the meaty material as to what's distinctive about it sooner, and ideally offering more than one example.
  • I think Beck would agree with you! ("It is important to recognise the originality of the Apoc Pet"). The reason he's bringing up this seemingly anodyne point is... well, a lot of earlier scholarly literature is obsessed with proving X copied from Y and Y was stealing from Z and the like. He was agreeing with this sentiment, that let the work stand on its own (and implicitly criticizing all of the previous paragraphs of claimed sources).
  • As far as offering more examples - that's a little fraught. Honestly the example that's there is not great, because Beck himself is very much on the "ApocPeter is 80% mercy and 20% judgment" side of the debate, yet I've included an example on the judgment side (it's not sourced to Beck, but it is placed right after his statement). Beck's example is, of course, the extent of post-mortem salvation, that ApocPeter is a unique early proponent of universal-ish salvation. But that's already covered in detail elsewhere, so bringing it up in "Predecessors" too would feel a little odd.
• it is not known when the Clementine sections of the Ethiopic manuscripts containing the Apocalypse of Peter were originally written. Daniel Maier proposes an Egyptian origin in the 6th–10th centuries as an estimate, while Richard Bauckham suggests the author was familiar with the Arabic Apocalypse of Peter and proposes an origin in the 8th century or later.: this seems like it belongs in the section on manuscripts -- I don't really see its relevance in a section on the work's influence.
  • I'd say it counts. This isn't about the manuscript so much as the content of "The Second Coming of Christ and the Resurrection of the Dead" and "The Mystery of the Judgment of Sinners" - i.e. when were they written (probably before the manuscript itself) and what were they based on? Since it's right next to the ApocPeter and seems to mention it, it seems clear ApocPeter was a huge influence, in the same way that a 2024 sequel to a Shakespeare play is influenced by, well, the Shakespeare play itself it's adding to. That said, this section was called out as a bit confusing in the GAN review too, so maybe there's clearly an issue. Perhaps it could be demoted to a footnote? That feels a little Western-centric though, these Ethiopic additions were the only attention ApocPeter was getting for centuries, even if the Ethiopian church of the 8th-18th centuries isn't well covered in English.
• Later apocalyptic works inspired by it include the Apocalypse of Thomas in the 2nd–4th century, and more importantly, the Apocalypse of Paul in the 4th century: more importantly reads as pretty strong editorialising to me.
  • See above comments on the lead. I've changed it to "more influentially" to perhaps make less bold claims about Importance with a capital I, but make no mistake, the Apoc Paul was the important one here. It's really hard to understate how weirdly popular ApocPaul was - while most surviving apocrypha involve scholars poring over just 1 or 2 manuscripts carefully, we've got hundreds of surviving ApocPaul manuscripts in a variety of languages. It'd be like writing "The noodle incident inspired a number of early 20th century authors, including Fergus MacForgotten, Bob Irrelevant, and Agatha Christie." For the reader not familiar, there should be some call out that one member of this list is way, way more important the others.
• One notable tweak that the Apocalypse of Paul makes; see above re. notable, and MOS:IDIOM -- I would just axe this perambulatory clause.
  • While the origin might be as an origin to real-life things, I think a "tweak" as a term for any "small change" is fine? I checked Merriam-Webster, and it has "a small change or adjustment" and its first example is to tweaking a menu (which clearly is more metaphorical than a radio dial). I removed "notable". Can switch "tweak" to "change" if desired, but since this is on ApocPeter's influence on ApocPaul, I think "tweak" hints that ApocPaul was modifying an already-existing framework better, while a change could simply be a difference.
    • To me, "tweak" reads as more informal than we're going for: I think "change" would work. On the other hand, a more direct sentence structure might be even better -- something like The Apocalypse of Paul diverges from that of Peter in describing personal judgments to bliss or torment as happening immediately after death (the bold bit is I think a necessary change for clarity, in any case). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• medieval monks that copied and preserved manuscripts in the turbulent centuries following the fall of the Western Roman Empire: I would do without turbulent centuries -- the third, fourth and fifth centuries were hardly serene and peaceful by comparison with the sixth, seventh and eighth.
  • Hmm, from the perspective of my armchair, I'm more convinced by the "the Roman Empire's fall was followed by a substantial crash in living conditions and economic disaster" camp. Not trying to imply that the 4th-5th century Western Roman Empire was particularly peaceful (3rd is too early for ApocPaul) of course, but they probably were substantially better for book preservation? My understanding is that these early centuries post-Fall were indeed very rough for manuscript preservation in the West by non-monks, since there were fewer rich nobles, scribes working for government officials, etc. that might have done it otherwise. And even if we take it as accepted that the 4th & 5th centuries were bad, that just means they were also turbulent. Despite the above, I'm happy to cut it if you feel strongly, just don't see the issue with a little bit of context that seems non-controversially true. (Really the best fix would be if we had a term that meant "late antique and Medieval" and we could just apply that modifier to the monks and then say "ever since it was published", but I can't think of any. And my vague understanding is that knowledge of ApocPaul in its first centuries is real vague anyway.)
    • It's really not non-controversially true, though -- it's not that the Early Medieval period was rosy, it's that the Late Roman period was pretty chaotic too. As I've said a few times, if you have a concrete statement in mind, like the idea that this was a particularly bad time for book preservation, it would be a good idea to say and cite that directly -- what we have at the moment is vague and fluffy, so it gives the reader an impression without actually presenting anything that could be falsified, and therefore without saying anything that could really be verified either. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I mean is that this statement, strictly speaking, doesn't say anything about the late Roman period at all, just the periods afterward (and thus does not take a stand on exactly how bad the late Roman period was). It doesn't seem that vague and fluffy to me (it is bringing up the role of monks / monasteries in book preservation, yes), but as this is on a side topic anyway, I'm happy to kick it to the Apoc Paul article and let people click the wikilink. Cut to just "medieval monks".
        • Improved, I think. Now we have Despite this, it would go on to be popular and influential for centuries, possibly due to its popularity: firstly, this is a tautology (it was popular because it was popular -- what attracted monks to it in the first place?); secondly, can we adjust the repetition? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Rephrased to avoid the close repetition.
          • On why it was popular: I was happy to spend some text on explaining why monks mattered more than you'd expect (book copying / preservation), but going into why exactly the monks liked it is getting off-topic IMO. It's in the Apoc Paul article, but the short version is that it's very flattering to monks and spends time on monk interests - like, if you finish your vow of fasting, you will get a super-awesome apartment in the City of God near the center, but if you screw it up, you will be super-punished and thrown in a hole. Clergy & ascetics are the stars and get different fates than vanilla Christians - either much worse if they screw it up because expectations were higher, or much better if they do it well. But I don't think that's the relevant part for a section on ApocPeter's influence. I've tried to focus on the parts of ApocPaul that were clearly modifying existing Peter frameworks, but this aspect was just kinda new. (See Beck's comment elsewhere on Peter perceiving the righteous as a unified group - it's definitely a difference between Peter & Paul, as Paul thinks there's winners & losers even among the saved.)
          • On if it's a tautology: The current passage is describing who the "base" of support was (e.g. the equivalent of the Rocky Horror Picture Show superfans who kept would could have been an obscure commercial failure of a movie alive). Something like "Roger Ebert's strong advocacy of Hoop Dreams helped win the work wider popularity and acclaim." If you have a better suggestion on how to phrase that kind of message, happy to hear it, but as is I think it gets the point across?

More to follow -- greatly enjoying it so far, having just dipped my toe into apocalyptic literature for another (much less impressive) article. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The damned themselves admit from their own lips: from their own lips is tautological here, and a bit flowery for an encyclopaedia. This sentence might also be clearer if in a dialogue with the angel Tatirokos, the keeper of Tartarus were moved to the front.
  • Switched the order. And while flowery (in an evil flower kinda way), it's definitely a powerful rhetorical technique still used today (in the same way that, say, political parties love to quote whenever a rival agrees with them, or just make up a quote on Twitter of the other side confessing to being super evil). See? They admitted it themselves, therefore we're right and it's okay.
    • I don't disagree, but powerful rhetorical techniques aren't our wheelhouse: neither the purpose of the website nor the (zero) authority claimed by its authors suits them, unfortunately. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cut.
• It is possible that where there is no logical correspondence, the punishment has come from the Orphic tradition and has simply been clumsily attached to a vice by a Jewish redactor.: can we give some examples? I also think we could perhaps have done more to introduce Orphism further up.
  • We could, but the problem is that for every example, there will be someone else arguing that no, this one totally makes sense. Fiensy offers "unchaste maidens are clad in darkness and have their flesh torn and sorcerers are tormented on wheels of fire" but we actually introduce proposed explanations for these later (i.e. bodily correspondence in that the skin/flesh that sinned is torn, and mirror punishment for sorcerers). I've seen elsewhere that the punishment for usurers is weirdly lenient compared to the others (up to the... knees in excrement? That's not fun, but it's not nearly as horrible as some of the other stuff.) and is also rather disconnected, but it'd be weird to offer that as an example when Fiensy doesn't. Maybe I just need a better reference for this than Fiensy - will look for one, stay tuned.
  • As for introducing Orphism, I'm not even sure where to start. I'm not sure there's even a consistent canonical Orphism to go over - it'd be like introducing 1st century Judaism, there are entire books written on it. I think we may be stuck with "click on the wikilink for more".
  • SF from the future: I added in a line in Callon's paragraph clarifying that the sorcerers example is one of the ones Fiensy thought made no sense. Still trying to figure out if there's any way to sneak in a better descriptive bit for Orphism that doesn't side-track, but I feel like I'd need to read a book to turn that into a non-contentious, non-distracting adjective other than the existing "er it was Greek-philosophy influenced tradition."
• contests classifying the ethics of the Apocalypse as being that of lex talionis: those of, since ethics is plural. A short paragraph: can we close it up with something else?
  • I guess we could combine with the Callon paragraph as an "alternative non-lex-talionis views" but I don't think Ehrman and Callon actually agree. Would rather let them stand on their own, but I'm willing to do the merge if you feel strongly.
• often more symbolic in nature: more symbolic than what?
  • Than simple eye-for-an-eye. In Callon's example, eye-for-an-eye would be sorcerers suffering whatever harm their spells inflicted on others to themselves, while a poetic justice approach is more like the tool they used to gain power is now used to torture them, isn't that ironic.
    • So "more symbolic than reciprocal" or similar, or perhaps "determined more by symbolism than by the lex talionis? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Went with your second suggestion.
• The text also specifies "ten" girls are punished: better to lose the quotes her per MOS:QUOTEPOV.
  • These aren't scare quotes though; it has the number "ten" in the text, it's an actual quote. I'd read it without the quotes as potentially implying that the actual text lists 10 specific women (a la Dante calling out specific people for punishment) but the Wikipedia article isn't bothering to list them. Normally I would fix this by making the quote longer and thus more obviously a quote, but the problem is the text literally says "10 virgins" or "10 maidens" are having premarital sex which I presume reads fine in Ethiopic, but will read confusingly in English where it'll sound illogical/impossible.
    • Well, yes, but "John states that he ate ten apples" also implies that John said the word "ten". If you want to make clear that it's ten fungible women, "a total of ten" would do well. The quotes don't strike the right tone -- they read as scare quotes, even if they aren't (this is the point of MOS:QUOTEPOV). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just went with dropping the quotes - "a total of" seems to draw even more attention to it and raise questions.
• {{Green|The Apocalypse of Peter is one of the earliest pieces of Christian literature to feature an anti-abortion message}: another very short paragraph.
  • Attaching this to another "thought" seems unwise; it's not really that connected. I'd rather keep it separate.
• The "Christology" section is very short indeed. Is that really the sum of all that has been written on the topic? If so, suggest rolling it in with another section. Ditto the "Literary merits" section, which could perhaps be repurposed as a sort of introduction to the "Analysis" section, without the subhead, unless there is more to say. Per MOS:FIGURES, don't start a sentence with a numeral.
  • Switched the sentence order.
  • I think placing the Literary Analysis section up front would give too much prominence to James' poison pen, IMO (The Ehrman reference discusses James opinion here only to criticize it as overly the-right-canon-prevailed triumphalist). I used the pre-section bit as an "intro" in Contents / Influences, but there isn't really much of an overall "Analysis" to be had which is already something of a grab-bag for "other stuff scholars talk about." I don't think these are that linked so would rather just have short, one-paragraph sections.
• which might have partially explained a lack of elite enthusiasm for canonizing it later: we haven't actually talked about this yet, so it comes across as vague and confusing.
  • A bit, but I don't think this is THAT confusing. We did mention already in the lede that it wasn't in the canon, so it's a minor flash-forward. More generally, I think this section is mostly on the "do scholars think this is actually well-written, coherent, etc." with the canonicity bit more a side comment. I think the article has a strong ending currently with the canonicity debate - moving this afterward would add a side "eh and here's another thought" afterward would dull the impact.
• One of the theological messages of the Apocalypse of Peter is generally considered clear enough: there are a couple of perambulatory phrases and sentences in the article like this one -- as in previous notes, I would advise simply cutting them and getting to the point of what we want to say. If you mean to indicate that most of the other theological points are unclear, state that explicitly.
  • I think you're reading this a bit more harshly than intended. I do describe a scholarly debate later in this paragraph on the "real" intent of the ApocPeter (both in its author and its early readers), but just wanted to set up that there do exist some baseline grounds scholars do agree on. And there's a subtle difference between "unclear" and "there is a scholarly debate" - the scholars on side A say it's very clear and obvious, just side B is wrong, and vice versa. I think it'd be a little bit editorializing to throw my hands up and declare that the problem is the text is unclear. (But yes, there is internal-to-the-text dissension on many of the messages, but the "monitory" message is clear. I'm citing Beck here because he is very much on the "ApocPeter as a scary morality play is overrated, it's not just about scaring people into compliance with the threat of hellfire" 'side', but even he grants that there's something of that in the story, just not the main thrust to him.)
• how can God allow persecution of the righteous on Earth and still be both sovereign and just?: similarly, in an encyclopaedia article (rather than an essay or an academic book chapter), we generally avoid direct/rhetorical questions in Wikivoice.
  • It's definitely not a rhetorical question, but a very hard one! Open to suggestions, but I cannot think of any other way to explain theodicy that doesn't introduce theology in Wikivoice, which is presumably worse. The article on the problem of evil even introduces the topic as a "question", and older theodicies were often explanations for major practical questions like "Why did God allow (disaster to happen)? Because...". Presumably atheists & Christians alike can agree that this is an issue that the author was trying to address, but elevating it from a question to a statement seems like it'd inherently annoy one side (e.g. simply stating the problem as a fact would annoy atheists as assuming a God did indeed allow anything, while including qualifiers like "so-called" would annoy theists).
    • We should make it an indirect question: "the problem of how God can allow...", to quieten down the authorial voice and make it clear that it isn't a rhetorical question. I'm sure the theodicy article does it a few times. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rephrased as you suggested - take a look.
• and contains elements of both messages: similarly, this is simply a rephrasing of what was said before -- best cut.
  • Strong disagree here. Your wording is certainly more concise, but concision isn't everything; this one is intentional, for emphasis and clarity, and does indeed add something IMO. It's not as if there's a mercy-o-meter that there's a single setting for consistent across the work; the extra comment is hinting that while passage A might strongly indicate a preference for justice, passage B might do so for mercy, and passage C for both simultaneously. I think it's better writing to include this, and makes the sentence read much better to my eyes. (Side note: I'm not an expert here, but while on the topic of old religious writings, a theme seen in old Hebrew is repetition-for-emphasis as well - random Psalms will say something like "God is [X] and [CLOSE SYNONYM FOR X]". I don't think it's a mistake, and it can read rather well in English too.) I dunno, this might be a weird one to plant my flag on, but this one I feel significantly stronger about than the others - this passage is my writing style and I'd rather keep it like this unless there's an outright error here. We're allowed a few spare words to dress things up, and this particular issue is one of the top most useful places to spend them IMO. (Apologies in advance if I come across as an eccentric on this!)
• may not have fit the mood: I think this is a bit too informal, and perhaps on the wrong side of MOS:IDIOM.
  • You say "informal", I say "accessible to a general audience." ;-) But more seriously, I could replace with "intellectual milieu" or "zeitgeist" or the like but those seems both less accessible and less accurate, so I'm not super keen on doing so. Do you have any suggestions? It's tricky because Christianity was hardly a monolith in that era, so it needs to be a word indicating a similarly vague current-of-thought.
• three tabernacles here on Earth: here is best cut for concision -- those few people who read this article on the International Space Station can complain on the Talk page if needed.
  • In a vacuum, I agree, but there's an issue here. The text actually just says "My Lord, do you wish that I make three tabernacles here, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah?" In other words, "here" is the word original to the text, and "on Earth" is an in-sentence gloss. I think we'd need to cut "on Earth" first if we wanted to shorten this, but then Jesus's objections would come across as somewhat nonsensical, hence clarifying Peter's proposed tabernacles were in the mortal realm and Jesus's tabernacle was heavenly.
• Make sure that Latin titles, such as Hypotyposes, are in lang templates.
  • Done.
• Quite a few of the citation templates used in footnotes are throwing Harvard errors -- use this script to catch them, then add |ref=none to fix them.
  • (I saw this, but will hold off, since it involves installing scripts. To be edited later.)
  • Well, these were warnings not errors, and they're acceptable warnings in this case IMO. Still, I fixed this in the "Bibliography" section. Elsewhere, I'm more inclined to "blame" the script - User_talk:Trappist_the_monk/HarvErrors#Citation_bundles indicates that this is a known quirk, where the script doesn't get that citation bundles shouldn't have such a warning. I can still change it if truly desired, but per above, it doesn't appear to actually be an error in the citation.
    • Adding |ref=none solves the "problem" in either case, and improves readability for those regular editors who use that script with no real loss for anyone else. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added ref=None for the remaining warnings.

That's my lot on a first pass -- quite a few comments, but please don't take the quantity as a reflection of the quality of the article -- most are very small and will be quickly resolved. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the extensive review! Here's a diff of changes so far (no section swap), and the section order swap separate diff. Will investigate the other comments as well. SnowFire (talk) 07:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt replies -- I haven't got to all of them; most are absolutely find and need no reply, and I've put a few responses above where I think one is needed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I haven't forgotten about this - just had an unexpectedly busy Labor Day weekend & travel + not wanting to do some of these fixes before I could hit the books again. Will hopefully respond soon-ish now that I have a tad more free time. SnowFire (talk) 08:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all -- I still have a few of your replies that I need to get my head around. If they're still below the "Resolved" collapse box, I'm meaning to get to them. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies! Did another pass - see diff. SnowFire (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- I'm working my way through; it's going a bit slowly but hopefully steadily. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• A small one, but we're inconsistent about whether scholarship should be related in the present or past tense. I was taught to use the present for "live" views and the past when discussing the history of scholarship (with the implication that views related in the past tense were no longer considered mainstream), but as ever with these things any consistent system is fine. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did a tense pass. Here's the tentative rules I applied: Dead scholars get past tense. Scholars who argued a position notably but later changed their mind also get past tense (don't think that ever comes up - maybe Bauckham softening some on 2 Peter vs. ApocPeter timing? That's hidden in a reference anyway.). Living scholars get present tense. Scholarly summations - your system sounds good, so went with past tense for when the vibes are this position is dated, but kept present tense if there are notable scholars still propounding the position. Some constructions not directly about scholarly views remained as is (i.e. "the fragment is dated" where it's talking about something else).
  • Anyway, most recent diff. Also feel free to speak up if I said I did something but then didn't do it - that's probably just an error (I seem to find myself responding to these at 3-4 AM while unable to sleep...). SnowFire (talk) 09:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Just gone through looking to close this off -- I've made some copyedit suggestions, including one to the "fit the mood" problem above. One remaining issue: I see considering the reservations various church authors had on the Apocalypse of John (the Book of Revelation), it is possible similar considerations were in play. -- do we ever say what those considerations were? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Your changes look fine to me.

    On Revelation: Unfortunately, I don't think either set of considerations / objections are known (hence the "it is possible" wording). That said, that line was added very early in my expansion and it looks like I was a little loose on sourcing it at the time. I do think it's true but should probably get a direct attribution to scholar XYZ - I've commented it out for now. If I find a good source to restore it, I'll see what it says and if it includes any hypotheses. (Just it's often speculating at gaps - why did writer XYZ not mention it? and why did writer ABC just call it disputed? Very vague.) . SnowFire (talk) 06:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Has nobody taken a stab at it -- or said that it's unknown? I think one or the other would help: as we've phrased it, it sounds like there are known reasons about Revelation, which might apply to ApocPeter. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @UndercoverClassicist: I've reorganized the section and placed in a reference to "The Oxford Handbook of Revelation." It's still mildly sketchy since it's tying together a thought spread across two sources, but I think it's fine given that Nicklas does directly raise the matter of the Apocalypse of Peter's status as being comparable to Revelation.
      • Also, on an earlier note, I've snuck in a reference outside the Hatnote to the Gnostic & Arabic Apocalypses of Peter - in the name footnote, of all places. Added in another 2022 source as well (Batovici) - it's nothing new, but useful as another layer of verification. Also, see above, but I've uploaded a new map and verified it against recent Atlases, and have more pictures of scholarly Atlases if really required. SnowFire (talk) 04:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        Support: almost all of this article is well outside my area of expertise, but it certainly has the look, feel and flavour of an FA, and I'm satisfied with all the amendments and fixes made during this (lengthy!) review. Credit to SnowFire for their patience and good humour with the process, and I hope they feel it has been of benefit to the article. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The citation style of the article is inconsistent. Several sources referred to in the "Reference" section, are not listed in section "Bibliography" (for instance, Metzger). Some references are rather notes (I refer to, for example, references 16 and 43). Do not verify a statement with a note (for instance, this is the case in the two last sentences in section "Date of authorship").
  • I explained my citation style above in discussion with UC, and it's consistent and keeping with WP:CITEVAR. I'll copy-paste what I wrote there:
    • The citation style I use is that sources that are cited a lot over multiple page ranges go in the Bibliography, and everything else is a normal reference. There is a method to the madness here - when seeing the reference previews from hover (desktop) or press (mobile), the strict page ranges are a little less helpful than a full reference. So if everything can fit in a single reference (say JK Elliot's Apocryphal New Testament writeup, or Maurer / Mueller's, or random journal articles), I stick it there. I personally consider it an antipattern that if there's a source only used in one spot, a strict "everything in the bibliography, short references only" style forces a secondary lookup / hover to track it down when it could have just been connected at the start. This also has the benefit of the Bibliography being a genuine "read these 6 books to learn about ApocPeter" bibliography that cuts to the core, most-used sources recommended to read, rather than a grab-bag.
    • Now, there is one quirk with this article, which is that there's two heavily cited monograph collections in the Bibliography (the 2003 Apocalypse of Peter edited by Bremmer, and the 2024 collection edited by Maier et al). For those, I stuck them there anyway due to their importance, but all of the references are separated out as citations to individual chapters, since the chapters have different authors. And those are usual full citations.
  • Metzger is used in more than one spot but it's not mostly on the Apocalypse of Peter, while the sources listed in Bibliography are. I'd rather keep it as is unless you feel this is truly a problem, but I'd be curious why it's a problem - clicking a Metzger page range will show the Metzger book just fine.
  • On long references: 16 isn't really appropriate as a note, IMO. It's a "see these original sources for more" which is exactly what a reference is. I've reserved notes for "prose that a reader might be interested in, but keeping it in the main article would distract the flow on a minor point and it isn't strictly required." A bunch of links to old journal articles is useful IMO, hence including it, but it's clearly a reference. 43 is more borderline, but that is again a reference IMO. I'm trying to avoid the antipattern many articles use of, when there's scholarly dissension, just citing both and letting the reader figure things out by saying up front that you can see different slants at different references. I could see a reverse complaint where if I only had the scholarly references, someone might complain about text-source integrity that actually, this other reference says something slightly different than what the text does. A more fully explained reference fixes the problem IMO. I believe my style is valid per CITEVAR where explaining some references does not automatically qualify something for footnote status. WP:EXPLNOTESECT explicitly says that having a notes section at all is optional, and there are FAs that entirely eschew a notes section and stick everything in references, including detailed note-like references. Given that, I have to assume that there is discretion on the article author to choose what qualifies for a note and what qualifies as a reference.
  • The notes in "Date of Authorship" all have detailed references (5 refs in the Bar-Kokhba note, say). I suppose I can replicate all of them again in-prose, but I really don't see the point, and it makes it harder for a well-meaning reader to actually get sent to the note of approachable prose I want them to read, rather than the reference that they probably don't care about. I checked 3 FAs at random, and all 3 of them were using notes-with-references-in-the-note as well, suggesting this isn't an unknown style (and not just "middle of the paragraph" stuff - I'm talking notes at the end of the paragraph, with the ref in the note).
• Introduce people when they are first mentioned in the text: Richard Bauckham > the theologian/Biblical scholar Richard Bauckham; Gaston Maspéro > the Egyptologist Gaston Maspéro, etc.
  • Unfortunately, if you read Undercover Classicist above, he recommended doing precisely the reverse of this in his review and not introducing anyone unless it's surprising or out-of-field, and so I just went around removing some of these recently. I can't comply with both requests. If someone wants to offer a third opinion, I'll vary it up with whatever the majority says, as I think this is purely a stylistic preference where both ways can work.
• Why are not the titles of works/texts italicised?
  • See MOS:NEITHER, where "religious texts" aren't italicized. e.g. Revelation, not Revelation.
• The first section's title does not reflect the text.
  • I've switched the title to "Authorship and date" if that helps better make clear the scope.
• The Apocalypse of Peter seems to have been written between 100 AD and 150 AD. 1. Another cited source writes of a different timeframe (Metzger (1987), p. 184). 2. None of the two years mentioned in the sentence are certain. 3. Rephrase to avoid PoV language.
  • For 1, I wasn't citing Metzger there? He's writing a 3-page short summary. I'm trying to use the highest quality sources for the main topic, which means scholars who have dedicated a bit more space to ApocPeter. There is already some dissension here that is already discussed (i.e. Bauckham arguing for a more specific dating); I didn't feel Metzger's narrower range was worth going into because he doesn't explain why at all and he's not an ApocPeter expert. It's just a difference, that happens all the time, it'd blow the article up to 5x the length if every small scholarly difference was discussed. (Metzger is a fantastic source overall on the topic of the formation of the canon, but the scholarly estimates of when precisely ApocPeter was written? Probably not. More sources say 100 as the start date, or even earlier if the 4 Esdras reference is discarded as too weak.)
  • For 2, I absolutely agree, but that's why I wrote "Seems". I guess you're arguing for a "circa"? But having both "seems" and "Circa" would be essentially repeating, and including only "circa" would be too subtle for some casual readers who might not catch the abbreviation.
  • For 3, I don't see anything POV here at all. If this means "seems" again, to be clear, the authors themselves acknowledge a range of possibilities. Text-source integrity requires communicating this uncertainty in text.
• These Ethiopic versions appear to have been translated from an Arabic version, which itself was translated from the lost Greek original. Who says this and why?
  • First off - I refactored this section during the FAC, and I think the ref to this got shuffled around. I've replaced it; Bauckham p. 162 covers it (as well as p.254, but that's just repeating it). I also threw in a ref to Müller 1991 (Which is a bit more acknowledging of the possibility of it not being accurate.)
  • As for who says it: Everyone, pretty much. Beck writes "if the Ethiopic text of the Apoc Pet was translated from Arabic, as many have suggested" (p. 161 of his thesis) and then cites 7 full sources. While it's not proven (no Arabic manuscript exists; Müller writes "That the Ethiopic translation could be very old, and made directly from the Greek, remains a possibility"), most scholars seem to accept it as the most likely, and it's not controversial to my knowledge. As to why: well most of the scholars don't go into this, just pass by as accepted knowledge. Since I haven't seen any scholars argue against it, I didn't go into detail, but used the weaker verb "Appears" to indicate it wasn't conclusively shown.
  • As for why: This is a frustrating question! Lots of scholars said this as already noted, but the references often go to just other scholars saying it too (and one to a very bum reference... the 2010 paper on Z'RL cites Bratke 1893, who was fruitlessly searching for an Arabic-Ethiopic Apocalypse of Peter via mishmash of quotes before d'Abbadie was publicized, i.e. worthless). Well, from SnowFire, Buchholz talks about how essentially many works in Ethiopic came from Arabic translations, so it wouldn't be weird. And the Ezreal thing already mentioned in-article seems like it'd fit with coming from Arabic / Islam. But I'm not seeing a lot here. The best I can say is that C. D. G. Müller was specifically an Ethiopanist and linguist of languages of the region, not a scholar of religion who happened to be interested in an Ethiopic document, and if he thinks that the document was probably a translation from Arabic, I'm fine with deferring to him. (And he's a recent-ish source, writing in the 1980s.)
• The d'Abbadie manuscript is estimated to have been created ... By whom and why?
• ...the Lake Tana manuscript is from perhaps the 18th century According to whom?
  • These are both in the reference already given for the sentence. Buchholz cites Carlo Conti Rossini for dating the d'Abbadie manuscript (a 1912 article just ~2 years after Grebaut's publication), and Ernst Hammerschmidt for dating the Lake Tana manuscript (the same 1973 Hammerschmidt paper already mentioned in another reference, actually). I can add these details to the reference if desired but I figured that as an overview article rather than a book, these details are too much in the weeds. In general, the style I've gone for is to only cite people who are arguing for controversial positions, and state uncontroversial stuff as fact with "who said this" in the reference. (The dating of Akhmim was attributed in prose only because there are a wide range of estimates there, so those more specific estimates had to be attributed.)
• Mention that the Bodleian library is in Oxford. Borsoka (talk) 02:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
• Despite some pushback above, thanks for taking a look and doing a review! Happy to answer any questions or discuss the above further. SnowFire (talk) 06:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has been open for more than three weeks now without a single support for promotion. I'm afraid it's at the risk of archival if there's no significant progress over the next three days or so. FrB.TG (talk) 15:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Curlymanjaro (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Gedling Town Football Club, a small Nottinghamshire team that last competed at the tenth tier of the English football pyramid before disbanding in 2011. The article passed GA requirements in June and has since featured on DYK. I now think the article is ready for FAC comments. Just a few preliminary points arising from the imperfect and fragmentary nature of sources covering smaller football clubs:

• You will see mentions of "at least" etc. when I have been unable to find the exact start and/or end of something being implemented at the club. This is the best I can do, unfortunately.
• I cannot say for sure why Gedling was denied promotion in 2001–02. The British Newspaper Archive only runs sources up to 1999 and online reporting on the Northern Counties East Football League (NCEL) only started in 2002.
• In some of the older archived NCEL pages, there's no separate URL to take you to the info on Gedling Town specifically. You will first need to click on "Clubs" and then "Div One".

If all of that has failed to scare you off (or torpedo my bid from the start), I look forward to receiving your feedback. Curlymanjaro (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nikkimaria. Done. Curlymanjaro (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to figure out the 2002 failure to promote. The only possible clue I have is in this article in NewsBank: "Pikes drop points to finish in fourth place". North Yorkshire County Publications. 9 May 2002.

The promoted sides from the first division will the champions Gedling Town and runners-up Bridlington Town, provided both grounds meet the relevant criteria.

Given that ground issues had dogged the club before, that would be a prime candidate for the promotion blocker.

With that piece of business out of the way, let's give this a look:

• The team were nicknamed "The Ferrymen" and their colours were primarily yellow and blue. Needs a comma after Ferrymen. WP:CINS
• Gedling Town was founded as R & R Scaffolding in 1985, the works team of a construction firm from Netherfield. Flip to Gedling Town was founded in 1985 as R & R Scaffolding, the works team of a construction firm from Netherfield. so the appositive properly connects.
• In the 1988–89 season, R & R Scaffolding contested the final of the league's Senior Cup, but lost 1–0 Remove comma after Cup (one subject, not two)
• The team led the league for much of the season before finishing runners-up to Slack & Parr, but were still promoted to the CML Supreme Division Remove unneeded comma
• Hyphenate "biggest-ever"
• This season marked the arrival of full-back Gary Ball from Arnold Town, a player... Arnold Town is not a player. Reorganize: This season marked the arrival from Arnold Town of full-back Gary Ball, a player...
• the team was eliminated from title contention by January and manager Dave Sands was sacked to be replaced by Ray Sully Comma after January
• Floodlights were installed by 1993 and accidental damage to these in 1997 Needs a comma after 1993

Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sammi Brie. Everything done. If you're happy with putting the failed promotion down to ground issues, then so am I. I'll write it up if you could kindly provide the full citation. Curlymanjaro (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Curlymanjaro The full citation has been included above (there's a Cite news template if you edit source). No byline or page number is given for this article by NewsBank. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammi Brie. Thanks - it's in. Do you have a URL perchance? Curlymanjaro (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Curlymanjaro Not with NewsBank. It does not produce nice URLs. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sammi Brie- sorry to nudge. Any final verdict on the nom? Curlymanjaro (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was waiting for you to reply all this time... I'm a Support. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although the use of "it"/"they" to refer to a football club/team in UK English can be" a bit nebulous, I feel there are some cases where the wrong one is being used in terms of how football people would speak......

• "Gedling played its first four seasons" => "Gedling played their first four seasons"
• "the club competed in the Northern Counties East Football League (NCEL) Division One and three Central Midlands Football League (CML) divisions before that" - last two words are redundant as you already used "before" at the start of the sentence
• "Promoted to Division Two, 1986–87 saw" - it wasn't 1986-87 that got promoted. Suggest "After being promoted to Division Two, R & R Scaffolding reached the final of the league's Junior Cup in the 1986–87 season"
• Netherfield image caption needs a full stop
• " the team delivered on its own slim promotion hopes" => " the team delivered on their slim promotion hopes"
• "Becoming champions on the first attempt" => "Becoming champions at the first attempt"
• " later led it in the new year" - what's "it"?
• "the team was eliminated from title contention by January" => "the team were eliminated from title contention by January"
• "by his assistant, player-manager Jamie Brodie" - he wasn't player-manager when he was his assistant. Suggest "by his assistant, Jamie Brodie, who became player-manager "
• Watnall Road image caption needs a full stop
• "While aiming for back-to-back championships, 1998–99 saw Gedling" - it wasn't 1998-99 that was doing the aiming. Suggest "Although the club was aiming for back-to-back championships, 1998–99 saw Gedling"
• Devon White image caption needs a full stop
• "Much of the team departed also" => "Much of the team also departed"
• "a move that, joined by assistant Tony Cox, saw John Humphries return to management for the rest of the season" - this is a bit hard to follow. Suggest "a move that saw John Humphries return to management for the rest of the season, joined by assistant Tony Cox, "
• "Gedling was a founder member of the tenth-tier East Midlands Counties Football League (EMCFL) and its sole Premier Division, transferring to it for 2008–09." => "Gedling was a founder member of the tenth-tier East Midlands Counties Football League (EMCFL) and its sole Premier Division for 2008–09."
• Lee Wilson image caption needs a full stop
• "Inclusion in the 2010–11 season was jeopardised in October " - I think simply "The club's future was jeopardised in October 2010" would read better
• "The club's previous badge, used from 1997 at least" - "previous" doesn't work here because you haven't mentioned any other badge for it to be previous to
• "The estimated cost had risen to £1 million" - the sums in the last sentence of the previous paragraph add up to £1M, so saying it had risen to £1M is odd
• NCEFL is massively overlinked in the notes
• That's what I got. Nice to see such dedication put into an article on a non-League team! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, ChrisTheDude. Everything done - and thanks for your kind words. Curlymanjaro (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - sorry for forgetting to come back sooner..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To follow. - SchroCat (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources are of high and reliable quality
• Searches show no additional sources that are either stronger than those used, or that show anything missing
• There is a bit of an issue with the formatting of the refs. Some refs are in sentence case, others have each word capitalised (sometimes in the same citation!), and these should be made consistent – ensuring that prepositions are lower case, (which they aren't in a couple of places). – SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @SchroCat! I just wrote the titles out verbatim. Anyway, they should all be standardised now. :) Curlymanjaro (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• All good now: pass the source review. - SchroCat (talk) 03:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it would be worth that Gedling is a village and borough near Stoke Bardolph. Is there any information on why the team changed its name? And I think it would be worth giving the date of the name change in the lead.
• "SSR" is an odd name for a team -- do we know what it stands for? Was it a works-based team?
• No change necessary, but I'm curious: why were their first two seasons in the CML "technically separate" from the nationwide league system, as note c says? Our article on the CML says it's part of the NLS.
• Are Clifton Town worth a redlink?
• "was not promoted consecutively": since they were in fact promoted the two previous consecutive seasons, I think this would be less ambiguous as something like "was not promoted in their first season in the division".
• "Staged in November "under gruelling conditions", Notts won the match 2–1": needs rephrasing; as it stands this says Notts were staged in November, not the match.
• "the team had found form by the following month": why "had"? We've been in simple past for most of this. Since the sentence ends with a statement of their finishing position, I can see there's a "looking back" from that point, but it doesn't parse well because the reader doesn't find that out till the end of the sentence.
• "Gedling was one of four non-League clubs served by former England international Chris Waddle during this season": he played for them? The source isn't very specific, I see. Is there any other evidence of this? I had a look in our article on him and didn't find any mention of these teams. I would have thought local papers would mention this if he actually went out on the pitch for them.
• "Division dropped by default due to creation of Conference North at level six": this refers to the 2004-05 season? The tier doesn't drop to 10 till after the season on which this note is placed; perhaps make it "Division dropped to 10 after this season as Conference North was created at level six" or something similar.
• "In August 2012, the ground was taken over by Real United, a Nottingham-based football team aiming to keep young people away from drugs and gang culture. Real United in-turn renamed it as the Inspire Stadium." Suggest "In August 2012, Real United, a Nottingham-based football team aiming to keep young people away from drugs and gang culture, took over the ground and renamed it the Inspire Stadium."

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 10:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meurig ab Arthfael was a king in south-east Wales in the ninth century, but the extent of his territory is disputed by historians. Although little is known of him, he is mentioned in Asser's life of Alfred the Great, and he is described as one of the few kings who tried to protect the church against lawlessness and abuse of power. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed, though the second could have a better alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nikki. Expanded alt text a bit. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears to be in a good condition. It is a little short but I assume not much information is available about this individual's life. I would suggest adding a Template:Subject bar at the end with links to Portal:Middle Ages, Portal:Wales and Portal:Monarchy.--Llewee (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Llewee. I think I will leave this pending comments from other editors. I have never added portal bars and it has never previously been suggested to me. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not totally sold on the prose, as yet. I appreciate there's not masses of information about Meurig and much is unsound, but there are a few bits where the grammar isn't quite right, and/or the flow doesn't quite, well, flow as neatly as I would like -- it's slightly tough going to get through and I'm not sure I fully understand what's being said.

The usual pointers and nitpicks below:

• Note 1: I would advise adding that ab/ap are both contractions of mab ('son'), and that the consonant/vowel rule is only mostly true -- see here p. 8, with note).

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hywel ap Rhys, King of Glywysing: this came up in previous FACs -- the MoS is tricky here, but I'd advise decapitalising for consistency.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think "Book of Llandaff" is generally italicised -- neither Sims-Williams nor the National Library of Wales do this.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Two charters state that he ordered all churches were to be free from obligations to laymen: I found this difficult to parse -- better as "he freed all churches from their obligations..."?

• Done, but not the word "their". Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• in the view of the historian Wendy Davies, he was one of the few kings who attempted to guarantee ecclesiastical immunity: "kings" is a big crowd -- can we narrow this down to Welsh kings, medieval kings, British kings...?

• Specified king mentioned in the charters. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• from widespread lawlessness and arbitrary use of power: this implies that his kingdom had widespread lawlessness and arbitrary use of power; is that correct?

• Covered by edit above. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Historians disagree about his death date. Some ... think that the Meurig whose death is recorded in 849 is also possible: the grammar has gone a bit wonky here.

• Revised for clarity. OK now? Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• later Morgannwg and then Glamorgan: when is later here -- are these terms that postdate the subject of this article by a long way?

• I should have written "or", not "and then". Morgannwg is a term which has been used as a post-Roman name for the area, but it is not recorded before the eleventh century and historians now think that it is named after a late tenth century king. Glamorgan appears to be an anglicisation of the Welsh name, although I cannot find this spelled out specifically. It is used by historians for all periods, even though it is also based on the late tenth century king. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• However, they are undated, and it is not always clear which Meurig is being referred to.: does they refer to all the charters, or just the possibly-genuine ones? I think the second/third clause might be clearer if it stepped back and said more explicitly that there are several people called Meurig named in the charters.

• Revised for clarity. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The n of e.g. n. 27 needs a space after it, just like the p. when it stands for "page".

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• two independent sources: independent of what? Not of the Book of Llandaff, since one of them is a charter from it, though we only indirectly say that.

• Independent of each other - Asser and a charter. This seems clear to me. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• We need a date for Asser, I think.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Almost nothing is known of history in south-east Wales immediately before his time as his reign follows a gap in the Llandaff charters of some fifty years: so the Llandaff charters are the only way we know anything about Welsh history? That sounds surprising, put mildly, and I'm sure would put some archaeologists' noses out of joint.

• Changed "history" to "kings". I am not sure that archaeologists' noses would be put out of joint - they probably would not be able to say anything specific about south-east Wales between 800 and 850. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• cording to a Harleian genealogy: I think we need to give the reader some idea of what they're working with here.

• Added. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Charles-Edwards suggests that he and his brother Rhys ab Arthfael probably ruled Glywysing successively: as written, it sounds as though C-E has been moonlighting as an early medieval warlord.

• Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• You could consider dropping the patronymic from names where the sentence explicitly sets them up as the son of someone, such as Meurig ab Arthfael and his sons, Brochfael ap Meurig and Ffernfael ap Meurig,.

• I think it is helpful to spell out the full names. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patronymics are, strictly, disambiguators rather than part of a full name (they're not surnames in the modern sense), so wouldn't routinely be included in contexts where there's no ambiguity. It's not wrong to do so, it's just redundant -- though this is hardly a major issue. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• OED defines patronymic as "A name derived from that of a father or male ancestor, esp. by addition of an affix indicating such descent; a family name. Also: an affix used to form such a name." I take this to mean that it is part of the full name, and it is correct to give the full name at first mention of a person. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• When we mean "the Church" as in the big institution headquartered in Rome, I would capitalise, to distinguish from when we're talking about the stone building in the village.

• I do not mean the church in Rome. The grants are to bishops, and I thought of saying so, but this could mean to them personally, whereas they are ot them as representatives of their dioceses. "church" seems to me to convey the grants' nature, but I am open to suggestions. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we're not thinking of "the church" as a single institution (though I must admit I'm not sure I see the distinction you're drawing here), we shouldn't use a singular noun for it -- "to bishops" works, or alternatively you could do some other phrasing to the effect that he placed lands under ecclesiastical control? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: did you see this one? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry I missed this. Davies refers to grants to church (without "the"), but this reads awkwardly to me, so I have revised to say grants to bishops. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That makes sense (and sounds like a typo on Davies's part). Good solution. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are the names in the "Charters" section italicised?

• They are italicised in the sources, presumably as foreign language. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Right, but we haven't done that for any other non-English names in the article. Nor do we routinely italicise other names where the non-English name is their common name in English, like Marcus Aurelius, Ibn Sina or Kongzi. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• OK. So we don't italicise foreign personal names. How about place names? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The question isn't what sort of word it is, but whether it's the same word in English. In most of these cases, the toponym isn't specifically English or Welsh -- it's just the name of the place. Compare:

  • Paris is the capital city of France
  • El Dorado is a mythical place in South America.
  • Corpus Christi is a city in Texas
  • In front of Wellington's line was the farmhouse of La Haye Sainte

  Barring an exception where MOS:WORDSASWORDS applies, in general, we don't italicise any of these. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Removed italics. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm a little wary of how hard we dive into charters after the warning that most of them might be fraudulent. Do we have a particular reason to trust the authenticity of the ones mentioned here?

• Davies, who is the chief authority, labels ones that she considers fraudulent or dubious. I have left out any which are dubious, and also cited other sources on them. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• From the "Charters" section, the tone gets a bit more insiderish than I think we want here -- it's the sort of writing you would expect from an academic in the field to other academics, but not really the right stuff for a general encyclopaedia whose writers claim no scholarly authority. For instance, (Little Dewchurch?) -- we would do better to replace the question mark with an explanation of what it's doing there -- maybe "conjectured to be the village of..."? Similarly the Annales Cambriae for 873, recte 874): recte isn't quite right here, as we normally use it when correcting scribal errors -- do we mean the entry for 874, which is written under the number 873? If so, I'd give it in text as 874, and footnote the detail -- most readers won't be very interested in it, quite frankly, and we lose less by relegating it to the notes than we do by making them all read Latin.

• Fixed. recte is the term used in the sources, but I agree that it is not needed here. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "the claims of the relative chronology of the witness sequence are such as to suggest that Meurig ab Arthfael, the King Meurig of grants 169b-171b, 199bii (214?), 216b, 225 died in 874 rather than 849": not sure I see the reason for a long quote here -- why not just "Davies argues that Meurig died in 874, rather than 849, on the basis of [a slightly clearer explanation of what he claims to have seen in the charters]"?

• I think it is worth spelling out with the quote that Davies provides a detailed explanation for her view, unlike other historians who give no reason. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The royal line descended from Meurig appears to have ended with Brochfael: remind the reader of when he died?

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Check the abbreviation of AD in the title of Bartrum 1993.

• Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• What's the need for the Lloyd citation -- it seems to appear only once, and to be triple-cited with two much more recent works?

• Lloyd's book is the source of the map. It is the only suitable one I could find which is not copyright. The other citations are for points in the explanatory note. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks UndercoverClassicist. Replies above. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• UndercoverClassicist do you have any further comments? Dudley Miles (talk) 06:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Pinged you on one comment; in general I think I still have the same worries I wrote about in the preamble about prose and clarity. I'm sure this will improve as more reviewers come in and are able to give more specific advice on improvement. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Will review soonish. FunkMonk (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "Folio from the Book of Llandaff" Give more context for its relation to the story in the caption?

• "it was divided between Glywysing (Glamorgan)" It's unclear at this point what the parenthesis means in this context. A bit clearer in the article body, but not much.

• " (later Morgannwg or Glamorgan[4])" Later what? Renamed? A successor kingdom?

• Many thanks FunkMonk. All fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Link ecclesiastical?

• There is no article with that title. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "may be the Meurig whose died" Who died?

• Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "and in the view of the historian Wendy Davies". You present one modern historian in the intro, could be nice for context if this was done for the people mentioned in the article body too.

• I do not think this is necessary. In the lead I only mention Davies. In main text I say that historians disagree and then list them. I think that covers it. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Link Welsh and Wales in article body too?

• Changed link in lead to Wales in the early Middle Ages and linked to the same article in the main text. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks FunkMonk. Further replies. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - looks good to me. FunkMonk (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand what Sims-Williams means by "amount to the same thing"; the two theories seem different to me.

• He does not explain, but I take him to mean that in his view there is no real difference between a kingdom with a king and sub-kings and two kingdoms with one king having superior status. The problem seems to be that Davies says that there was only one kingdom, but she also refers to the rulers of the (later small) Gwent as kings, so she must see them as sub-kings, but she does not spell this out. I could clarify that Davies sees the eastern kings as sub-kings, though this verges on SYNTH as she does not say so. What do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that Brochfael and Ffernfael are Meurig's sons is mentioned three times in two sentences at the end of the first paragraph of "Kingship"; this could be compressed.

• I think it is worth spelling out the nature of the confirmation and this cannot be done without repetition, but I can delete this information if editors think it is excessive. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "According to a Harleian genealogy (Old Welsh genealogy preserved": suggest either "(Old Welsh genealogy ..." or "(an Old Welsh genealogy ...".

Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "his cousins, Meurig's sons, had an inferior status as kings of Gwent": it seems this interpretation requires us to follow Charles-Edwards' argument that old Gwent was divided; presumably Davies would not agree with this description? If so, shouldn't the conditionality be apparent to the reader?

• See above. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "he cannot have been wholly successful as charters continued to grant churches in the tenth and eleventh centuries": looks like a word is missing? Or else I don't understand the intended meaning. He granted land to the churches, perhaps? And I don't really see how this is connected to the previous sentence.

• Changed to "kings continued to grant churches". Does this clarify? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No change necessarily needed, but I'd be curious to know how Charles-Edwards argues that Meurig died in 849 given the existence of the charters with later dates.

• This puzzles me. He does not query Davies's dating of Meurig's charters. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Any reason not to promote note [c] to the body of the article? It seems relevant enough.

• It is very speculative and not mentioned by later historians. It depends on someone mentioned in an early genealogy really being someone who lived later and was son of one king and father of another, with no evidence but the names. Promoting it to the main text would seem to me UNDUE. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Mike. Replies above. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about 1997 science fiction film Starship Troopers, one of director Paul Verhoeven's last works in the western studio system and the unofficial third and final installment in his anti-authority trilogy including RoboCop and Total Recall. The film was widely derided on its release as a pro-fascist film despite its intention to satirize fascism, which was blamed both on poor marketing and contemporary cultural leanings. It's reputation has grown over time once the satire became evident and is now considered a cult classic. Last nomination had no participation, pinging Bneu2013 who expressed an interest in reviewing prior to its closure. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe no one reviewed it last time given the love this movie has accrued over the years, especially compared to its negative release. I've never seen this movie, nor read the book, so feel free to push back on anything I misunderstand or critique improperly. Beginning with prose:

Lede

• science fiction action film – WP:SEAOFBLUE. Recommend de-linking action film.
• Johnny Rico and his friends – More comrades than friends, no?
• an alien species of Arachnids – Consider an alien species called Arachnids, since they aren't arachnids. Optional, link alien species?
• Despite these efforts development was slow, with studios hesitant [...] – Comma after efforts.

Plot

• highly evolved – Hyphen
• mobile infantryman – Is this somehow different than a regular infantryman?
• Carl Jenkins joins Military Intelligence – Why "military intelligence" capitalized here but not anywhere else in the whole article?
• while Isabelle "Dizzy" Flores, who is in love with Rico, deliberately transfers to his squad – Consider endashes here to break up the commas.
• Carmen eventually ends her relationship with Rico
• for fellow pilot Zander Barcalow → for a fellow pilot, Zander Barcalow
• Rico impresses drill sergeant Zim → Rico impresses the drill sergeant, Zim or Rico impresses his drill sergeant, Zim – If this is a rank, capitalize. But don't mix caps as drill Sergeant.
• However, a mistake during – A mistake or Rico's mistake?
• Rico quits but – Comma after quits.
• leading to thousands of casualties – Human casualties? Both sides?
• lieutenant Jean Rasczak – Capitalize lieutenant.
• "Roughnecks" – I don't think this needs quotations, unless they have another official name in the movie (e.g., 151st Armed Batallion, etc.).
• Rico's valor in battle earns him the rank of Corporal, particularly after he defeats a gigantic "Tanker Bug" on Tango Urilla, and he develops a romantic relationship with Dizzy. → After Rico defeats a gigantic "Tanker Bug" on Tango Urilla, he is elevated to the rank of corporal for his valor and begins a romantic relationship with Dizzy. – In its current form, it is structurally ambiguous (i.e., that he earned his rank both from his valor on the battlefield and from his relationship with Dizzy). Perhaps a goofy rationale, but I think this sentence flows better anyway.
• rank of Corporal – Decapitalize Corporal.
• distress signal on Planet P – What is Planet P? Human-owned? Unclaimed?
• but not before Dizzy is mortally wounded and Rico mercy kills the mutilated Rasczak. – How is Dizzy wounded? Surely, if Rico kills Rasczak (as a mercy), he is mortally wounded too, no? Consider Dizzy and Rasczak are mortally wounded and, after Dizzy succumbs to her wounds, Rico mercy kills a mutilated Rasczak. instead.
  • Reviewer comment - IIRC, Rico kills Rasczak before Dizzy is both mortally wounded and dies. Both are fatally wounded by two separate arachnids. Rico is not wounded, and shoots Rasczak after Rasczak asks him to do so. The best I remember, there is a scene earlier in the film where Rasczak mercy kills another character, and explains that he would expect others to do the same to him. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The group returns to the fleet assembled in orbit above P, where Dizzy is eulogized. – But Rasczak isn't? Odd.
• an intelligent Arachnid strategically directing the others – If this is a hive-mind, consider saying so and linking as appropriate.
• Arachnids, and the escape – Change and the to but an.
• the Brain Bug, and the – Remove comma.

Cast

• I'd do away with the colon structure here and replace it with a comma. If you keep the colon or not, all those a's and an's should be lowercase.
• Not much else to critique here, but you're missing Timothy Omundson's role as a psychic in the movie. It may be worth mentioning since he later played Carlton Lassiter in the show Psych, who is a curmudgeonly detective who doubts the psychic ability of the show's lead, and the show poked fun at Omundson's role reversal a few times IIRC.

Production

• Link jingoistic. Consider linking xenophobia and war film.
• TriStar executives determined that to move forward – Soft recommendation to put a comma after that.
• comic-book–style – I think it's just comic book–style
• filming locations but rejected – Comma before but.
• Link Hell's Half Acre (Wyoming) as first mention. Link buttes.
• an hours drive → an hour's drive or an hour drive
• the Nazi propaganda films Triumph of the Will – WP:SEAOFBLUE. Consider removing "films" from the pipe to fix.
• for the adience → for the audience
• like a Vietnam war veteran → like a Vietnam War veteran – Odd piping choice bordering on an Easter egg.
• Clancy Brown portrays Sgt. Zim – Spell out Sergeant like you've done with the rest of the ranks.
• twelve days of military training from Dale Dye – Last name only here.
• not in the Infantry cast – Decapitalize. Comm after cast.
• Link heatstroke.
• On the crew's flight to Los Angeles on June 29 – Comma after the date.
• stunts for the scene apart – Either comma after apart or delete the comma in somersaults,.
• A separate nude scene was written for Richards but she refused to take part – Comma after Richards.
• The fight between Rico and Zander was mainly performed by their actors – What does this mean? Their stunt doubles? If so, clarify and link as appropriate.
• Soft push, but back of a gigantic, moving, fiberglass doesn't really need any commas, does it?
• his ribs over the 3 1⁄2 days of filming → his ribs over the three and a half days of filming
• Only one take was done, and they were told that if someone tripped to pick them up and keep moving. – Grammatically fine (if you remove the comma after done), but I had to double-take to get the meaning. Consider Only one take was done and they were told that if someone tripped, they should pick them up and keep moving.
• only slightly over schedule – Any idea by how much?
• Davison wanted to use other studios but it was – Comma after studios.
• Poledouris' → Poledouris's, per MOS:'S

Release

• Everything looks good here.

Reception

• Turan and Berardinelli – Who? You link Kenneth Turan later in the paragraph. Flip the link/full name usage. Same with Berardinelli.
• Berardinelli said that at its best – Comma after that.
• Starship Troopers' → Starship Troopers's, per MOS:'S and use {{'s}} after the italics.
• others, such as Jonathan Rosenbaum and Ebert, wrote – Strongly encourage endashes here.

Post-release

• Starship Troopers' – Ut supra, passim.
• connect with either both critics or and audiences
• science-fiction adventure – Dehyphenate.
• Link neo-Nazism.

Themes and analysis

• Period needed at the end of the photos' caption.
• director's own war experiences – I don't believe Verhoeven was a combatant, so director's own wartime experiences is better, I think.
• Mobile Infantry – Hasn't been capitalized, probably shouldn't be capitalized here either. Two instances.
• Perhaps link Aryan ideal of beauty to Aryanism or something similar.
• seduce the audience into joining [Starship Troopers'] society ... but then ask, 'What are you really joining up for?'" – Starship Troopers's, per MOS:'S and use {{'s}}; use {{'"}} for the quotation.
• Link progressive politics and gender norms.
• asking "would you like to know more?" → asking: "Would you like to know more?"
• many rights are reserved only for citizens, those who have served in the military → many rights are reserved only for citizens comprising only those who have served in the military
• Voting is presented as an act of force, of supreme authority, a right that must be taken instead of given → Voting is presented as an act of force and supreme authority, a right that must be taken instead of given
• As Rasczak tells his students, "violence → As Rasczak tells his students: "Violence
• Strzelczyk – Who? You only cite her full name in the next paragraph, so that should be switched up. Also, when she is introduced, the academic.
• Author Leighton Grist → The author Leighton Grist
• Soft suggestion to link "full-scale war" with total war.
• inhuman, and strategic – No comma.
• Writer Lloyd Farley → The writer Lloyd Farley
• Arachnids are not significantly different to, and are justified in exterminating humanity – No comma.

Legacy

• science-fiction action – Dehyphenate.
• its critiques of right-wing militarism, the military–industrial complex, reactionary violence and American jingoism, made it seem ahead of its time – Move the comma from after jingoism to after violence.
• Link police brutality. Soft suggestion to link dehumanization.
• someone going 'Rico!'" – Use {{'"}}
• as a strong female → as a strong female character

Sequels and remake

• Nothing to critique here.

And that's about all I got. Overall, this is a monster page full of excellent information that I thoroughly enjoyed reading. The biggest issues are comma usage and pretty obvious examples of moving parts of the page around, but both are simple fixes. Hopefully someone with more love for this movie (or the book) will be able to step in for any gaps, if there are any. I learned a lot about the movie and virtually everything on the page was either interesting to me or will be interesting to someone else. I look forward to seeing this on the main page sometime in the near future. A few fixes (mostly commas!) and I'll be happy to throw my support behind the article based on prose. You've done excellent work on this page, I'm sorry this didn't get the review it should have on its first volley here, and I hope you will bring this kind of quality work to FAC again. Cheers, ThaesOfereode (talk) 02:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ThaesOfereode, thanks for your kind words, yes I think no reviews at all is probably worse than bad reviews as it just wastes time and takes time before you can try again, so I appreciate your early involvement.

I have done most of the notes above minus the following which I've provided some explanations for, so let me know if my answers suffice or you need more clarity.

• mobile infantryman – Is this somehow different than a regular infantryman? Not as far as I'm aware, it's just the in-universe term for them
• but not before Dizzy is mortally wounded and Rico mercy kills the mutilated Rasczak. – How is Dizzy wounded? Surely, if Rico kills Rasczak (as a mercy), he is mortally wounded too, no? Consider Dizzy and Rasczak are mortally wounded and, after Dizzy succumbs to her wounds, Rico mercy kills a mutilated Rasczak. instead. - So I have changed this around a bit to "but not before Dizzy is fatally impaled by an Arachnid and Rico mercy kills the mutilated Rasczak." That might just sound the same tbh. In the context of the film I don't believe the implication is that Racszak is mortally wounded, he's heavily disfigured and basically incapacitated with no legs in the middle of a battle so Rico follows his earlier advice and puts him out of his misery before the bugs can get to him since there's no option to extract him at that point and he's almost literally dead weight. Dizzy on the other hand is impaled through the torso and dies on the shuttle while professing her love for Rico.
• The group returns to the fleet assembled in orbit above P, where Dizzy is eulogized. – But Rasczak isn't? Odd. - Rico gives the eulogy so I think it's just more personal, plus they have her body so they can hold a funeral while Racszak is still on Planet P. To this day!
• an intelligent Arachnid strategically directing the others – If this is a hive-mind, consider saying so and linking as appropriate. - Unless this is established in later films I don't believe it's a hive mind, there's no discussion for how the bugs communicate, they screech for example, but the Brain Bug is just like a human commander but smarter as far as I'm aware from the in-film context.
• only slightly over schedule – Any idea by how much? - Sadly, no

Thanks again ThaesOfereode. Oh, remembered, I linked "xenophobic" but not "war film" since it would fall into the seaofblue trap. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through your replies, all of them seem defensible to me. All other critiques were addressed adequately in the article (or I fixed myself after realizing what I had wrote was a little ambiguous or I should have caught it on the first volley). Support on prose. Best of luck with other reviews! ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much ThaesOfereode! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I missed this the first time around, but also a favourite of mine. Marking my spot for now, but in the meantime, I see a bunch of seemingly unnecessary duplinks that can be highlighted with this script:[18] FunkMonk (talk) 08:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FunkMonk, are you waiting for Bneu to complete his review before starting yours or just been busy? Thanks Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had limited time until now, will try to start today. FunkMonk (talk) 04:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "and the Brain Bug consumes Zander's brain, absorbing his knowledge" Perhaps I just don't remember, but when is this implied?

• "firing of many of its studios executives." Studio? Studio's?

• "decided to produce test footage to demonstrate their intended visual style and tone" Who made the effects for this? You mention many other details about it, and later you state two different companies did the effects for the movie itself, so could be good to be specific.

• "Preliminary designs were madefor the capsules" Made for?

• "removal of the Bounce and "the Drop"" Why is only the latter in quotation marks? You do use quotation marks for the former earlier. Check for consistency throughout, seems to jump around.

• "who visually embodied the caucasian, blonde, blue-eyed" The sources used don't seem to say "Caucasian", but "Aryan", the two terms are not synonyms (the former is much less specific), so it should use something like "Aryan race" instead.

• "Brown based his performance on archetypical drill instructors from older American films such as The D.I. (1957) and Full Metal Jacket (1987)" Sounds a bit odd calling a film released ten years earlier as "older", what does the source say?

• "military training from Dye from April 17, 1996" the from from is repetitive, "under Dye/led by Dye" or similar?

Done all these FunkMonk. Re: the Brain Bug, it's in the scene on...Planet P I believe, they find that general hiding in the cupboard, they talk about how the brain of that one soldier was eaten and the general is freaking out because he knows all kinds of vital information. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "SPI would lead to production problems" Using/choosing SPI would?

• "Realizing the wide variety of effects for the spaceship scenes required the efforts of SPI, Industrial Light & Magic (ILM), and Boss Film Studios." This seems to be disjointed from the earlier text that said only SPI was used, but now you mention more companies. If this was due to SPI's problems, that should be mentioned explicitly.

• "and severely injuring Rachel Campos, a crew member's girlfriend" I wondered if that crewmember was one of the dead ones, turns out it was, could be mentioned ("a dead crew member's").

• Could we get years for all the retrospective critical opinions as you do for the first one listed?

• While the article mentions that the film is recognised more today as a warning against fascism, it appears that the opposite is also true, and that some people, at least online, are actually identifying with those values as presented in the film (thereby also misunderstanding it)? Any sources on this?

Done except for the last one. Did you have a particular example in mind? There are several sections in the article noting it's fascist themes are taken literally but I'm not aware of any major examples of people identifying with it? I tried googling but without success so I'm not 100% what I need to search for. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I may have been mixing up a few things, but it at least seems that the game Helldivers 2 has renewed interest in the film[19][20][21], perhaps worth a mention? FunkMonk (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - looking good to me. Added one comment above. FunkMonk (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much FunkMonk, I've incorporated your references as well. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also missed this my first time around, and will have my first comments later today. Bneu2013 (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead

• Link "action film" in first sentence for consistency with other film FAs.

• • Update - didn't see the other comment above. However, all of your other film FAs link both. Personally I don't think linking both violates SEAOFBLUE. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Earth world government" sounds kind of redundant, although I realize it's not. Maybe "a world government based on Earth that is engaged in interstellar war..." would work better.

• I would suggest linking "computer-generated" instead of "(CGI)" unless this is a common practice and/or there is consensus for the current form.

• Link first use of "fascism" in lead.

Plot

• Citizenship is exclusively earned through federal service, - does anything other than military service constitute "federal service"?

• "social scientists" is kind of vague, although I'd say leave as is if this is all that the sources infer.

• Humans, who are now spacefaring, conduct colonization missions throughout the galaxy, bringing them into conflict with a race of highly-evolved insectoid creatures dubbed "Arachnids" or, derisively, "bugs". - humans have been "spacefaring" since the 1950s; I think what you mean is capable of interstellar travel.

• I don't think "high-school" needs to be hyphenated. I've never seen it hyphenated in the U.S., and since this is an American film, we should use American English conventions, per MOS:S.

• Since it is specified that Planet P is Arachnid-controlled, you might consider clarifying the same for Tango Urilla.

• Is it ever explained what the Brain Bug is afraid of?

Cast

• Military infantry characters include Katrina (Blake Lindsley), Djana'd (Tami-Adrian George),[8][9] Eric Bruskotter as Breckinridge, Matt Levin as Kitten Smith, and Anthony Ruivivar as Shujumi. - is there a reason for the inconsistent use of parentheses in this sentence? I would recommend using the same convention for each actor and character in this sentence.

Thanks for your comments Bneu2013, I have actioned all the above minus your queries:

No, I believe military service is the only way to earn citizenship. There's some implication that Rico's family is rich and can kind of buy their way into certain things under the table, but officially only military service gives you important rights like voting and breeding.

"Social scientists" is how Rasczak refers to them, I assume the inference is socialists. There is an article, Social science which I arrived at after searching "social scientist" so I could maybe add that link. It's not expressly detailed in the film what they did wrong but given the film is a satire of fascism, I believe it means socialism failed.

The Brain Bug is just afraid because it's been caught, it's like any prisoner of war, I guess the twist is it's smart enough to be afraid when the humans treat them like large cockroaches. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping Bneu2013 Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me. I'm extremely busy right now, but I will have additional comments tomorrow. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Production

• Change "Ed Neumeier" to "Edward Neumeier", for consistency and the fact that this appears to be the name he most commonly goes by. Also, since it is linked in the previous paragraph, linking here could be perceived as overlink, but since it is a different section you could probably leave as is. I might get a second opinion on this before changing.

• Wording of Since RoboCop, Neumeier and his co-writer Michael Miner struggled to develop new story ideas is kind of repetitive, since previous sentence starts with Since the release of RoboCop (1987),.

• It sounds like Neumeier was more effective at developing new ideas on his own than with Davison, Tippett, Miner, etc. You might want to clarify this.

• Change "Neumeier's treatment" to "His treatment".

• Remove comma after "head of production,"

• Is a date available for when the rights to Starship Troopers were purchased? I'm guessing it was in late 1992 or shortly thereafter.

• Progress was slow as TriStar regularly replaced executives, including Medavoy, and high cost or risk projects were more closely scrutinized. - I'm guessing this film was considered a high cost and risky project, considering the following paragraph. It wouldn't hurt to specify that here, however, but no need to go into detail here, since that is what the second paragraph is for.

• By 1994, Tristar remained reluctant to move Starship Troopers into pre-production - was this because of the (then-expected) high budget or some other reason? Did Verhoeven's unrealized projects and the mixed reviews of Basic Instinct also play a factor here?

Done all these Bneu2013 apart from the last one. The source doesn't really specify, it's easy to assume it's for the same reasons as the previous paragraph given it's only a year later but as the source isn't specific I'd just be making an educated guess. As for the rights purchase, again I believe the sources suggest 1992, as per the opening of it's paragraph "By late 1992" and the Sammon source says in the fall of 1992 they approached the studio with the Outpost 7 treatment, then later on says by early 1993 he'd been working on the starship troopers script for 3-4 months, but it depends how you interpet "early". For me that'd be the first 3 months of the year so it would seem the rights were bought in Fall/December 1992, but it's not specific. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'll try to finish my review today.

Production (cntd.)

• He identified elements he considered essential, including the high school opening, boot camp, battles, and the underlying philosophy and sociopolitics, and compensated for the novel's second act by expanding on concepts such as the teenage romance, based on his own experiences of pursuing women with no interest in him. - run-on sentence, suggest splitting in two. Preceding sentence is also borderline run-on.

• Consider elaborating on what the "Bounce" is; it's not clear if this is for personal mobility or something used by vehicles.

• Link "romantic triangles" to love triangle".

• Does "Neo-dogs" need to be capitalized?

• Neumeier completed his third and final draft by early 1995 - no direct mention of the second draft, but I'm guessing the changes described in the previous paragraphs were part of it? When was it finished?

• I'm guessing it was Neumeier who said The characters of Starship Troopers were "fascists who don't know they're fascists"?

• Many key crew members were hired in 1996, including Verhoeven's long-time cinematographer Jost Vacano,[58][59] as well as Vic Armstrong (second unit director and stunt coordinator), Mark Goldblatt (editor), John Richardson (special effects supervisor), Basil Poledouris (music composer), Stacey McIntosh (construction coordinator), Karen Higgins (construction foreman), Gregg Goldstone (first assistant director), Kenneth Silverstein (second assistant director), John Blake (makeup artist), Kathy Blondell (hair stylist), William Petrotta (prop master), Robert Galotti (weapons coordinator),[60] production manager Robert Latham Brown, production coordinator Daren Hicks, and assistant production coordinators Janet Campolito and Lisa Hackler. - inconsistent use of parentheses for descriptors; I prefer not using them. Ditto the succeeding sentence.

• The location was remote, about 45 mi (72 km) or an hour's drive from the Astaire Building or hotels for the cast and crew. It offered other logistical challenges as it was generally undeveloped land, requiring the production to build roads for the trucks carrying necessary gear into the canyons for filming. - a previous sentence says the Astaire Building is in California. Wyoming is not 45 miles from California.

• Change "which could portray Tango Urilla" to "which was chosen to portray Tango Urilla" or something similar.

• Apostrophe in "TriStars".

• but he realized that many of the contemporary stars...

• Link "screen testing" to "screen test"

• Part of she thought she could convey the character's "heart" and vulnerability at being overlooked by Rico because her toughness makes her seem like just another guy sounds like it could be a quote.

• Comma after "harsh conditions".

• Did Rupkalvis have a background in the military that made her qualified to help with the training?

• but she chose to anyway, later remarking

• The crew returned two weeks later to find that miles of electrical cables, some equipment, and even cars had sunk into the mud. Alternatively, The crew returned two weeks later to find miles of electrical cables, some equipment, and even cars had sunken into the mud.

• The conditions also caused respiratory and exhaustion issues among the crew, and many were treated for heatstroke after wearing heavy costumes in the 115 °F (46 °C) heat, including Busey, resulting in production pausing for a week—costing $1.5 million a day—while he recovered. - run-on sentence.

• Suggest adding "television personality" in front of "Rachel Campos".

• The exam results scene and the prom were both filmed at Kaiser Permanente - I'm guessing this was at Kaiser Permanente's headquarters or another one of their office buildings. Suggest elaborating, since most people probably aren't going to know where this is located.

• Additional scenes were filmed during this period, including the FedNet propaganda sequences - were these considered pick-up shots?

• I read somewhere that this film was initially given an NC-17 rating. Since you mention this for Robocop and Total Recall, I would suggest a sentence or two about this in the first post-production paragraph.

• but Verhoeven wanted the music to offer a realistic background for the character's experiences. - Change to "characters'", since this appears to refer to all of the film's characters.

• Hey Bneu2013, I have done the above apart from the following:
• Neumeier completed his third and final draft by early 1995 - no direct mention of the second draft, but I'm guessing the changes described in the previous paragraphs were part of it? When was it finished?

• The second draft is mentioned ("His contributions to Neumeier's second draft included...") although the sources for the 4th paragraph under writing aren't specific about what is in the 2nd or 3rd drafts. Though I wouldn't expect someone to be going THAT wild in their final draft, you'd expect that to be the clean and refine what you did in your last draft phase. But that's just me guessing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If you can't find anything, then leave as is. Although it would be nice if you could find a date for when the second draft was finished, since we have this for 1 and 3. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional scenes were filmed during this period, including the FedNet propaganda sequences - were these considered pick-up shots?

• Reading the description of pick-ups, I don't believe so, but I may be wrong. It describes pick ups as additional filming to correct existing scenes, while the Fed Net filming was original content they did not have time to film during the main photography Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sources I've read state that pick-up shots are scenes filmed after principal photography has ended, meaning these could be considered such by that definition. But unless any reliable sources refer to these shots as such, describing them as such would constitute original research. However, I'd recommend wording them to explicitly state that they were less important scenes that were not part of principal photography. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Many key crew members were hired in 1996, including Verhoeven's long-time cinematographer Jost Vacano,[58][59] as well as Vic Armstrong (second unit director and stunt coordinator), Mark Goldblatt (editor), John Richardson (special effects supervisor), Basil Poledouris (music composer), Stacey McIntosh (construction coordinator), Karen Higgins (construction foreman), Gregg Goldstone (first assistant director), Kenneth Silverstein (second assistant director), John Blake (makeup artist), Kathy Blondell (hair stylist), William Petrotta (prop master), Robert Galotti (weapons coordinator),[60] production manager Robert Latham Brown, production coordinator Daren Hicks, and assistant production coordinators Janet Campolito and Lisa Hackler. - inconsistent use of parentheses for descriptors; I prefer not using them. Ditto the succeeding sentence.

• I get where you're coming from, I have switched them all to parentheses (for now) just because I am concerned of creating a SEAOFBLUE issue with things like second unit director and stunt director Vic Armstrong. Let me know your thoughts. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That should work. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Part of she thought she could convey the character's "heart" and vulnerability at being overlooked by Rico because her toughness makes her seem like just another guy sounds like it could be a quote.

• No it's not a quote, it's about two paragraphs of content I've boiled down to the main point Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I read somewhere that this film was initially given an NC-17 rating. Since you mention this for Robocop and Total Recall, I would suggest a sentence or two about this in the first post-production paragraph.

• So I don't believe this was given an NC-17 rating, the times had changed a bit since the days of RoboCop and Total Recall. The only mention I can find at all is a 4 second decapitation scene was removed to avoid receiving an NC-17 rating but that this was pre-emptive and it's from a listicle article so not super reliable. I've googled for NC-17, deleted scenes, censorship, etc, relating to the film but not had any results. I can add mention of the scene's removal though. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So if I understand correctly, what you're saying is it wasn't actually submitted to the MPAA and given an NC-17 rating; they just cut a scene out of suspicion that it would likely get it an NC-17 rating. This was not the case with RoboCop and Total Recall, if I understand. This article actually does seem to imply that it was given an NC-17 rating, although I don't get the impression the authors know that for certain. As such, I would recommend mentioning this, but wording it something like "x scene was removed to avoid an NC-17 rating". On a related note, I do remember two decapitation scenes towards the end of the film, but I'm not sure which version I saw. Was that by any chance a different version than the theatrical with the cut scene? Note that I haven't gotten to the post release section, and am aware this may be discussed there. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would've been too young to see this in cinemas, I think, I can only assume the decapitation refers to the Planet P battle while Rasczak is still alive because one of the flying bugs does outright decapitate someone and it only lasts a few seconds, but I can't find any real discussion about it, even in the books I've got, outside of forum and reddit posts. There's this comparison between the theatrical and Workprint (not a reliable source) which does not show any differences in terms of violent content, but you can see how much they had to change regarding Carmen because the test audiences hated her guts. They basically cut her whole Zander romance.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since it does not appear the film was ever given an NC-17 rating, I guess my recommendation stands. Also multiple clips of the scene you are referring to are available on YouTube, and are consistent with what I remember seeing. I doubt these, and what I first saw years ago, are any different than what was shown in the theaters in 1997. So I guess just word it as "scene... was trimmed to avoid an NC-17 rating". Note that I would recommend "trimmed" as opposed to removed, as it is unclear whether or not this was a complete removal of a decapitation scene or a trimming of a decapitation that made it into the final cut (there are indeed two in the scene in question). Bneu2013 (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkwarriorblake: - thought I might go ahead and let you know I've responded to a few of your replies since my last comments. I'm also working on the release section, and will have comments shortly. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll be looking at these tomorrow now, bed time! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Release

• Not a requirement, but I recommend flipping refs 122 and 21 into their sequential order. Ditto anywhere else.

• Alan Marshall stated that no one involved in Starship Troopers was happy about delaying an anticipated blockbuster to after the peak theatrical season. - was this widely expected to be a blockbuster?

• The first trailer for Starship Troopers was released in November 1996, - is a more precise date available, and was this first shown with any specific movie(s) like the second one?

• grossing approximately $22.1 million from 2,971 theaters, an average of $7,424 per theater. - was this just on the opening day, or weekend?

• with a total box office gross of about $54.8 million, making it the 33rd highest-grossing film of the year. - based on the following paragraph, this ranking appears to be just for the United States.

• Was this film considered a box office bomb?

Reception

• Again, not a requirement, but I suggest ordering refs 138, 137, and 139 and 140, 139, and 142, respectively.

• While Berardinelli and Maslin praised the tension, scale, and impressive visuals of the action sequences, in which Verhoeven revels in the contrast between his characters' earnestness and the violent and gorey imagery,[138][140][143] others—such as Jonathan Rosenbaum and Ebert—wrote that the scenes grew tiresome because the alien creatures had no personality, lacking any culture or discernible language, which rendered them idelogically "boring ciphers" inhabiting uninteresting planets. - run-on sentence.

• Responses to above

• So I've done all the above bar:

• Alan Marshall stated that no one involved in Starship Troopers was happy about delaying an anticipated blockbuster to after the peak theatrical season. - was this widely expected to be a blockbuster?

• According to the LA times and the book yes, although they refer to it as "hit", and in the post production section it discusses how the studio was already looking at a sequel. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Was this film considered a box office bomb?

• I have had a look around and not found many sources saying so and I'm not sure I'd trust them, for instance, Screen Rant calls it a bomb but also compares it's US gross only (about $50 million) to it's $100 million budget. Starship Troopers might have not met expectations but it did make more than its budget, even if that may mean it lost money on marketing or whatever, it'd be hard to say since the distribution costs were shared between Tristar and Touchstone. The only 3 other sources I've found that use the term "box office bomb" are Collider, which mentions it briefly in a listicle and includes a quote from a "user" so I'm not sure how reliable that is, MovieWeb, which unequivocably calls it a box office bomb but doesn't mention any figures so I don't know if it's doing the same as Screen Rant, and The Washington Blade which is a speciality newspaper, I can't say I've heard of it before so I'm not 100% on its reliability, and it doesn't call Starship Troopers a bomb, just a flop. Cutthroat Island is usually something I would describe as an easy bomb, $100 milly budget, $11 milly box office. They also went on to develop multiple sequels to Starship Troopers which isn't usually what happens with a flop. So I'm open to your opinion on this, I'm not sure the sourcing I can find is strong enough to make a bold claim like it being a bomb, it definitely didn't do gangbusters but I'm not sure it'd be considered a bomb.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources don't describe it as a bomb, then leave as is. Since it sounds like a film is considered a bomb if it's theatrical revenues do not exceed its production cost, then this film would not meet that definition. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Post-release

• Cut comma after compact disc (CD) in 1997

Themes and analysis

• including patriotism, authoritarianism, militarism, colonialism, and xenophobia - shouldn't these be linked?

• Change comma after "Nazi coat of arms" to a semicolon.

• a right that must be taken instead of given. - what does "taken" mean here? I'm guessing it doesn't mean "taken away", although someone could mistake it for this.

Legacy

• Suggest changing The Atlantic and The Verge (2020) to "The Atlantic and The Verge in 2020".

• Remove comma after "2020 retrospective".

• Suggest Starship Troopers is now considered a cult classic. Not sure this was true initially.

• Starship Troopers has continued to generate interest in the decades since its release because of elements which came to reflect future events such as the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and the subsequent actions of the U.S. government and president George W. Bush to convince the American people to surrender certain liberties to enable a war and defeat their enemies. - comma after "events, MOS:DATECOMMA after "2001", and link "George W. Bush. Also suggest changing war to "the subsequent War on Terror".

Sequels and remake

• Consider adding a sentence at the end of the sequels paragraph summarizing the reception and relative success of the sequels compared to the original.

• Was the proposed reboot in the early 2010s a film or television series?

@Darkwarriorblake: - I've finished my review. I should be able to support once all of my remaining comments are addressed and I see no other remaining issues. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bneu2013 Hi, I've done most of these. Xenophobia and GW Bush are already linked earlier in the article. I did look when writing up the article, and I've had another look just now, for information about the sequels. The difficulty is that because they are all straight to video there's no real financials to review, and the most recent two films don't even have enough reviews on Rotten Tomatoes to generate a percentage score. Box Office Mojo doesn't cover the franchise at all, and The Numbers DOES but only has figures for Starship Troopers, not for all the sequels and the figures are so low they can't possibly be accurate. There's no real discussion as far as I can find about the films post Starship Troopers. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, all I have left to do now should be to just skim over the article to make sure there are no remaining issues. Bneu2013 (talk) 09:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly pingminder for Bneu2013, have you had any more thoughts or been busy? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been extremely busy. Unfortunate I'm not as active as I once was. But I've finished my review, and don't see any remaining issues, and am ready to support. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support pending completion of source review. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thorough review Bneu2013 Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images seem all well-placed. Regarding File:Starship Troopers 1997 film - Klendathu Drop.ogg, is the track of outstanding significance to the film as a whole, instead of just being part of the film? File:Emblem of Italian Blackshirts.svg and File:Heer - decal for helmet 1942.svg need a licence for the symbol. ALT text is OK. Source-wise: What makes #29, #220 and #168 a reliable source? #216 is a bare URL. Some URLs like https://www.denofgeek.com/games/starship-troopers-strategy-game-release-date/, https://www.avclub.com/content/node/24776, https://www.avclub.com/article/a-decade-of-underrated-movies-1486, https://theasc.com/articles/needs-pics-starship-maneuvers, https://theasc.com/articles/pest-control-on-starship-troopers, https://ascmag.com/articles/starship-troopers-interstellar-exterminators, https://www.cbr.com/starship-troopers-unknown/, https://deadspin.com/the-grisly-goofy-starship-troopers-played-dumb-to-make-1741600229 and https://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/tabletop/11532-8-Avalon-Hill-Board-Games-That-Deserve-New-Life.5 should be marked as broken. There are a fair amount of reviewers being cited like Den of Geek, SyFy (not sure here) and Deadspin that don't seem to be that prominent, which makes me wonder about their qualification as "high-quality reliable sources" - there is probably more but that source list is so long that I might have missed some. The books and stuff are reliable sources, however. Formatting seems consistent too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The Klendathu Drop track is the basis for the entire rest of the score, so that one piece provides context of tone and theme for the entire film, and it is also discussed in the body text.
• So I have added public domain tag to the Heer one but the Blackshirt one appears to be a vector image based on the original logo, but it obviously wasn't vector based and clean back then, so I believe the creator owns the copyright. I believe the original design should fall in the public domain and what the editor has created is unique but derivative of the original design. The editor has added their own free-use tag with attribution, so I'm honestly unclear if I am allowed to add a public domain tag to it for the design basis. I've asked for help on the mediawiki village pump but had no luck so far.
• The CBR, ASC, and Deadspin links all work for me, dunno if there was a temporary issue when you tried. I've marked the other ones and ran the bot to try and tag any dead links.
• Fixed the bare URL
• SyFy is what used to be the Sci-Fi Channel, it's been around for 32 years, and Tim Grierson is currently a senior critic for Screen Daily so I believe it's a reliable source. Deadspin is by the same people behind The A.V. Club and, I believe, Kotaku, so I don't believe there should be any concerns relating to it and Tom Breihan is the senior editor of Stereogum. It's another long-lived news source. On a previous FA nomination (I can go find it but please don't make me), it was agreed that Den of Geek is fine when written by site staff only, not contributors. Ryan Lambie was deputy editor of the site, and Matthew Byrd is their games editor with the article he authored being focused on that speciality theme (board game in this case). It does also have a staff and hierarchy page.
• If those answers are satisfactory, I could just use some feedback regarding the Blackshirts emblem based on my above comments. Thanks Jo-Jo Eumerus Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The issue with the images is that it's not clear by which right the uploader holds the copyright. Is this a coats of arms like situation where one distinguishes between blazon and emblazon (sp?)? Regarding the sources, I sometimes feel like I have been overly lenient when reviewing certain kinds of sources. I'll ask Ealdgyth's input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have any luck Jo-Jo Eumerus Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, doesn't seem like. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What would you like to do then Jo-Jo Eumerus? I can understand your viewpoint but I don't think you're being lenient in this situation, I have learned from previous nominations to be pretty strict on my sourcing even if it means sacrificing interesting information so I do believe the references are solid. I do take some personal pride in elevating these articles so I do try to avoid shortcuts as I want them to stand as reliable. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:36, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see how the coordinators handle this. I know it's buck-passing but I don't feel certain enough on these sources to say yes or no explicitly. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing my part! Very interesting, I have been wondering how the differences between the book and the film came to be. I think the article reads well and there are only two sections which break the flow. With "Box office" it's expected, but the other one is the second paragraph below "Pre-production" listing various crew members. Since more than a dozen of these are never mentioned again it makes me wonder whether they are all due for a mention. With no other concerns for me across these 16 pages I'm happy to pledge right away. Draken Bowser (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Draken Bowser, Bneu mentioned something similar above so I have removed crew members who don't have an article and moved them to the Special Effects sub-article. This trims the section down considerably. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to emerge from my little abode to offer my support on this current nomination. As per usual, the writing and sourcing here is very strong as mentioned above by other reviewers. I do not see any errors or nitpicks to point out. I did alittle looking around and found an additional source though it is not necessary that contains some interviews with Verhoeven called Paul Verhoeven: Interviews editied by Margaret Barton-Fumo. Again, it is not needed but might be useful if you ever need another source to back up what you already have. Cheers!--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Paleface Jack, found the book and implemented it where I could Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Paleface Jack (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about unionization efforts at Tesla in different countries and Tesla's relation to trade unions more broadly. A lot of attention is brought to Elon Musk's commentary, but this Wikipedia article authoritatively brings attention to older campaigns and countries in order to WP:GLOBALIZE coverage. It is a GA and has continued to be expanded since. This is my first WP:FAC so I am appreciative of any assistance/guidance along the way. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shushugah and welcome to FAC. I'll do the image review. The article contains the following images:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:IG_Metall_brochures_for_Tesla_employees.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tesla_IG_Metall_building.jpg

They are own works published under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. They are relevant and placed at appropriate locations. Both images are from Germany. Since Tesla is an American company, it would be good to have America also represented image-wise. The images lack alt-texts, see MOS:ALT. The captions are fine. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

📸 Done! I agree more photos would be nice. I have contacted United Auto Workers and IndustriALL Global Union to WP:DONATE some photos because there are nice ones that show diversity and breadth of Tesla workers movement. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the alt text. It would be great if it works out with the photos from the unions. If not, alternatives would be to use a picture of a Tesla factory where workers tried to unionize, like Gigafactory New York, or to have a multiple image of the logos of the different unions that made attempts. The article is relatively short so we don't need many images. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Phlsph7 using logos of unions would violate WP:NFCC rationale. I do not think the differing logos add contextual understanding to the differences between the unions, their efforts. The logo usages would need to be minimal, and this article is akin to a list of different union efforts (me thinks). I did also consider whether creating a geographic map with different union logos would be possible, but I believe that would be improper WP:Derivative work. Generally I think the File:IG Metall brochures for Tesla employees.jpg is the best image for the moment, being prominent in both English/German and representing the largest/most active union campaign. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about adding an image of Gigafactory New York (like https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tesla_sign_2.jpg) to the subsection "Giga New York"? Phlsph7 (talk) 07:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added it with captions and accessibility text. I note in Giga New York image caption, this is months before first union effort there. I opted to leave Fremont without a photo as the Tesla Fremont Factory and NUMMMI have numerous photos, and immediately above it I added a dynamic photo from 2023 United Auto Workers strike using File:United Auto Workers Strike 2023.jpg which plays an important role in overall enthusiasm for UAW union revitalization at non-union automobile manufacturers. Images are CC-BY-SA 4.0 and PD respectively. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for including the images, they help add variety. I think it would it be better to move the image of the 2023 strike to the last paragraph of the section "Fremont Factory", where it is discussed. Otherwise, looks fine. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Phlsph7 ✅ Done! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That solves the remaining problem. I moved the image a little down so that it is closer to the paragraph discussing the strike but feel free to revert if you prefer the original placement. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely article. My initial comments:

• Do we have any information about China? With 20,000 Tesla workers, it would be interesting to know if they are part of the All-China Federation of Trade Unions.

  Does not seem like it. Formally speaking, every mid-sized company in China should have representation on ACFTU, but in practice this does not always happen The PwC report summarizes inconsistent enforcement. Walmart did not get a union until 2006, despite being in the country since 1990s. I have asked 2 China Labor scholars, who both indicated it is unlike that Tesla has a union at this stage and they're not aware of any such efforts.

Further more, I checked the both the US-based China Labor Watch and the Hong Kong based China Labour Bulletin for any related news about Tesla. There are several articles about employee dissatisfaction at Tesla, but nothing about collective action (strikes -- which are formally illegal anyways in China) or worker representation. I will contact CLB and CLW for any hints to the contrary as well, but as far as I can tell to best of my research, no there is not. I have written Volkswagen_and_unions#China and Apple Inc. and unions#China where there was more to write/say. I am also keeping an eye, if anything changes/appears in terms of sourcing from the Netherlands. This paragraph was rightfully so removed. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Do we know why the New York case was withdrawn?

  No idea. I cannot find any further mention or context. I can remove it if it is WP:UNDUE. The union effort (and its fizzling) are notable, but withdrawn NLRB complaints are quite common. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• This article about the strikes in Sweden talks about Tesla's intimidation tactics. Should that be included?

  Done ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• In the description of Sweden, you give the reader some background (such as sympathy strikes being legal in the country). I think the article would benefit with the same amount of background in the US and Germany.

  Excellent suggestion. I have added backgrounds for Germany and USA. I aimed to avoid WP:SYNTH or getting overly WP:Technical. I hope I struck a decent balance. Will re-read it a few times. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

  Looks better. I think mentioning the detail of "codified in the Works Constitution Act" is unnecessary. Do we need to use jargon like "protected concerted activity", or can that jargon be hidden in a wikilink? It seems like you forgot to add a source to describe the US situation? The LAT source doesn't go into the details of the general situation with unions in the US. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it's now gone too much in the opposite direction (too much background for the US). Can you limit it to one paragraph? The first paragraph seems a bit too detailed in particular. I'm pretty sure the main template (labor unions in the US), should not be in the middle of the section. I think it's best to delete it, but you can also change it into a further at the top of the paragraph. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Like, how is it possible that with 400,000 dollars, no union is formed? Do you need a certain percentage of the workers to vote in favour? Are there other barriers?

  I cannot explain (with available sourcing) whether $400,000 is a lot or not (my personal feeling is it not) but I added a contrast to it with the $40 million UAW announced in 2023 for 13 non-union workplaces over 2 years. That won't all go to Tesla, but it's a marked increase and change in UAW organizing philosophy (Shawn Fain makes that very clear). ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

  • What is a Works Council in Germany?

  Explained in the background added for Germany. (Note: while I am a central works council and works council chair myself and also a member of IG Metall, I exclusively rely on what sourcing explain about them, do share if the prose/clarity can be further improved. The distinction between works council/union and works agreement/collective agreement are key imho to understanding Tesla dispute and structural tensions. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

  • Are non-disclosure agreements legal in Germany for work conditions?

  Basically no...but I cannot easily find sourcing for that, and more importantly what legal consequences that has. Depends on very particular/archaic court rulings. What's clear in any case is culture of fear/intimidation, and overall pattern of Tesla willing to bend the law. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• Prose quabbles:
  • In October 2017, Tesla fired Richard Ortiz who was organizing (alongside Moran, one of the union organizers), which the NLRB later ruled to be illegal retaliation. --> do we need the parenthesis here. Not quite clear if both were fired.

  I removed paragraphed quote, Moran was not fired as far as I can tell. His experience was very much part of NLRB's 2021 ruling about unfair labor practices. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

  • and discussing with workers their opinion on unions --> this text is not quite clear.

  Expanded, basically Captive audience meetings where employer grills workers about their views of unions and discourages unionization. Which previously had legally ambiguous status, but was cemented as illegal by current NLRB general counsel ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

  • I'm not sure I follow the connection between the two sentences here: " Electric vehicle production requires 30 percent fewer workers than traditional combustion-engine vehicles. As a result, a non-unionized Tesla weakens IG Metall's bargaining power in the overall automotive sector in Germany due to fewer union members and a higher labor supply."

  Expanded in the background explanation. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

  • In January 2023, IG Metall called for an investigation after stating that workers had called the organization to report that they were being made to work longer hours, with less time between shifts. --> I think we can be closer to WP:Wikivoice here for conciseness (called for an investigation after workers had called).

  Done ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

  • The Berlin-Brandenburg State Labor Court [de] overruled the lower court, keeping the original Works Council election date. --> The text is not saying what the lower court decided —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Thank you for my first FAC prose review! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

  • I dislike the new first sentence, with the addition of "(half in the United States)". You're trying too put too much in, making readability worse. Try to be more conservative with parentheses too, they can impede flow. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Femke I've slimmed it down by half. A good background should provide necessary context to understand the Tesla union specific challenges which are different in each country. In the case of US me thinks it is about challenges of unsuccessful unionization, renewed momentum of UAW organising non-union shops in 2023 which is further contextualized in the body. I have slimmed usage of parentheses as well and rewritten them to flow with sentence structure. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Formatting & sourcing squibbles:
  • I've removed some fullstops per MOS:PERIOD.
  • Make sure you use the right parameters in your cite news/web. A newspaper should be in italics. An organisation (like the Finnish Transport Workers' Union or National Labor Relations Board should not be italics. Typically, if the Wikipedia article about something is in italics, that's how it needs to be formatted. You can change the formatting by moving it from work to publisher.
• The union dues are not exactly 1%, but typically 1%. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you and addressed all of the above squibbles! It appears both website/work= parameters italicize, while publisher= does not. It does not feel very semantic, but I have formatted all of them accordingly. Medium.com, SEC, NLRB and Finnish Transport Workers' Union were the 4 instances where I kept Template:Cite web instead of Template:Cite newsso I formatted them accordingly along with publisher parameter. I also removed language=en-* which is a default. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• In terms of consistent source formatting:
  • Be consistent in omitting ISSNs (or including them all)
  • Source 7 doesn't have an archive yet.
  • Use pp. for source 15. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Archives added everywhere including external links, ISSN added for NYTimes, pluralized pages used. I have rephrases sentences where parenthesis was impeding, and kept them where they did not impede. I have expanded a larger section about US background of labor. The sources are high quality, but it's still a challenge to summarize them in a meaningful and succinct manner. Will get some rest myself and re-read them for clarity.

Support. With Mike's comments addressed, I'm happy to support. I would still remove at least one of the Tweets from Musk as it's given undue attention to this framing. Instead, incorporate it into the text? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings @Gog the Mild, would a time extension be possible as this is my first FAC and I've only had the chance to receive and respond to generous feedback from Femke in the past 4 days. As you can see above, we have been collaborating extensively since. My hope is that some more editors will opine now that the ice has been broken. Kind regards ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a further review or two are started, then I and my fellow coordinators will certainly consider extending the time scale, we have no wish to close any nomination down prematurely. But do note the "if". Regards. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild this is moving along. There are currently 3 supports and an image pass. One thing I was wondering about is source review. I've seen several source reviews, where people mainly comment on the formatting of source review, rather than in-depth review of text verification/source integrity. In my opinion, Mike Christie generously and thoroughly reviewed the content of the sourcing, and there have been numerous discussions back and forth with all the reviewers either about presence/absence of certain sources. Do I need to explicitly solicit a source review, in addition other reviews? ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I was the GA reviewer for this.

• The first paragraph of the "United States" section is repeated as the second paragraph of the lead. There's occasionally call for repeating sentences from the body exactly in the lead, but a whole paragraph is too much, particularly when only a handful of sentences separate the first occurrence from the second. I would compress and rephrase this (and there's no need for the citations in the lead).

  Done ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• "Union busting is common": I think we should use more neutral language -- "union busting" brings to my mind some of the bloody and brutal violence from the US's history, and our own article on it says it's the term used by the workers, not the corporations. Perhaps "US corporations often oppose unions, sometimes using methods outlawed by the NLRA, but there are no criminal consequences if they are found to have done so." Assuming you can source something like that?

  Done. I switched to civil enforcement (ability to impose fines), since that is what existing and newly added EPI articles emphasis, which is unique compared to other federal agencies. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

  The text used to say there are no criminal penalties, and now it says there are no civil penalties -- is that correct? And I think "in the US" is necessary after "is common". I know we're in a section about the US but as written the statement seems more general than that. And can we make it "Opposition to unions" rather than "Union oppositions", which could be read as unions opposing something? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I initially read enforcement to be criminal in other source, since it is true NLRB has no criminal enforcement capability as well. Some federal agencies do, like the Environmental Protection Agency, but to lack even civil enforcement is quite unique. The EPI source laments how NLRB is one of the weakest federal agencies period. Even the adjacent Occupational Safety and Health Administration has ability to impose fines. So emphasizing even the weaker enforcement shows how little enforcement power NLRB has. Out of the scope here, but when a company does not comply with NLRB order, they need to seek enforcement from another court or agency with criminal enforcement capability, e.g US Marshals. See example here. I will change to opposition to unions in the United States. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• Per WP:PULLQUOTE, you should not repeat the tweet from Musk in a quote box.

  I retain the full tweet in a quote box, but removed it from the body and managed to condense as a result, including removing parenthesis. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• "Tesla appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which affirmed the original NLRB order, in 2023": I think that last comma needs to go -- if I understand correctly the appeal was in 2021 and the affirmed decision was in 2023.

  Your understanding is correct. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• "UAW president Ray Curry responded that if Tesla was serious about supporting organizing, Tesla would acknowledge it broke the law": can we say what Curry is referring to?

  Added Ortiz and unlawful tweet, which is mentioned earlier so brevity should be ok. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• "Later, in June 2022": "later" is redundant since the date is given and it's later than the previous date.

  Done ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• "The new UAW president Shawn Fain attributes": needs "as of" or "in <date>" and past tense.

  Done ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• "attributes past unionizing failures due to".

  Changed to attributed previous unionizing failures to ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• "alleging that Tesla illegally surveilled and fired 6 workers in retaliation": this says the illegal surveillance was only of the six workers they fired; is that the case? And MOS:NUMERAL recommends words rather than numerals for numbers under ten.

  Changed to illegally surveilled workers and fired six in retaliation ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• "employees who participated with Workers United": what does "participated" mean here?

  Changed to 18 employees involved with the Workers United campaign ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• "and captive audience meetings where the employer discuss with employees their opinions on unions and persuade them against it": the last few words of this are just a definition for readers who don't know the term. I think this might be better as a footnote.

  I simply deleted everything past captive audience meetings. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• In the discussion of Grohmann Engineering, was Herzig saying that the salaries went down by 25‒30% under Tesla's management, or that they were already that low under Grohmann?

  Source does not specify. My personal hunch is a bit of Grohmann being below the pay-bands and also with renewed annual IG Metall bargaining raises (5-10% each year) Tesla Automation would have fell behind regardless. We cannot speculate why, but only present relevant info, that the pay disparity was there, whether as inherited or newly introduced. Would not change anything ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

  I had a look at the source; I think it should be clearer to the reader that Herzig's statement is only three months after the acquisition since that makes it unlikely that the whole gap was caused by Tesla falling behind -- there hadn't been time to miss more than at most one collective bargaining raise. Can we add "In April" to that sentence? It would be good to find a way to introduce the "5-10% each year" that you mention. Can you sources that, for this time period? I assume that "matched employee salaries with the regional Metal Industry collective agreements" means that the salary increases were expected to continue year-to-year? If so, that would be a reason to quote the expected increases. And I've just noticed the two mentions of "Metal Industry"; should this be "IG Metall"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I can clarify that this is in April and shortly after the acquisition so not an effect of Tesla directly so much. The analysis re IG Metall is way too much synthesis and complex. These sectoral agreements in the Electronics and Metal Industry differ state to state, with various exceptions/expansion/deviation clauses, and the salary increases are assuming a certain pay-bracket that each employee matches in. This is way too much original research to do, without having sufficient analysis of Grohmann employee salaries. My assumption would be they are referring to the Entgeltrahmentarifvertrag (Wage Framework Agreement) that is common in IG Metall. In case you are curious, this salary estimator in English can give you a feel, for select jobs in the tech sector. Re Metal industry, no it refers to the defined sector that both IG Metall and the employer association Gesammtmetal sign collective agreements for, as opposed to say textile workers which IG Metall also represents, or individual company agreements like Volkswagen which are too powerful to be part of the Metal Industry. I can try expand/clarify this, since it is confusing. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

  I think it's fine as is if you just remove the initial capitals from "Metal and Electronics Industry"; the caps make it look like we're talking about a specific organization. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Employees expressed concern after former CEO Klaus Grohmann was ousted and business contracts with clients were cancelled": why is this relevant to this article? It's not clear what they were expressing concern about. Did these actions imply anti-union attitudes in some way?

  Removed, it's speculative and employee fear/dissatisfaction is common after any restructuring. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• "seven non-union employees of Giga Berlin initiated the works council process": does this mean "started organizing a works council for the factory"?

  I welcome feedback on improving vernacular clarity. Here, initiate has special legal meaning and title. It is the precursor to forming an electoral board (works council), which is precursor to running actual election. Similar to Wikipedia elections in some ways. The German phrase is Initiator eines Betriebsrats and I've rephrased it as initiated the legal process to form a works council which is more wordy but maybe more clear.

• The Giga Berlin material feels a bit out of sequence. We don't find out Tesla is hiring 12,000 new employees until after we've mentioned "the first 1,800 hires". I realize you say "new" Gigafactory, but perhaps we could move the statement about the 12,000 hires to the first paragraph?

  Rephrased chronologically. I am much happier with An employee is eligible to run as a works council candidate if they have at least six-months tenure. Tesla eventually planned to hire 12,000 employees in total. In the first six months, Tesla hired 1,800 employees, mostly middle–management personnel. IG Metall expressed concern about the future works council being dominated by management, because only those with six-months tenure would be eligible to run. Also switch to MOS:NUMERAL ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

  I think that's much improved, but now I'm curious as to why it's relevant that the next works council election might be in two years instead of four -- why does the reader care about this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If management dominates the works council because they are the only eligible ones, then the possibility of an election happening sooner is relevant to workers having another chance. Given that the actual works council election did indeed happen 2 years later and is mentioned in lawsuit (for other reasons too of depriving candidates time) it can be removed here to reduce undue emphasis. So will move it to next section (see subsequent discussion). ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 08:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "employees voted their first works council": should be "elected", surely?

  Done ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• "with fewer rest-time between shifts": "less", not "fewer", or else "fewer breaks"; "fewer" is only used for things that can be enumerated, not for things with different sizes or durations.

  Done and emphasized rephrase with less resting time ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• "Strikes are incredibly rare": not encyclopedic tone; suggest just "very rare".

  Done, though I think could have been kept here given it's Sweden. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• "At some point, unidentified individuals suspected to be strikebreakers arrived at Tesla service centers, prompting concerns about their impact on the labor dispute." This is a bit vague -- do we know what actually happened?

  Rephrased to Strikebreakers arrived at Tesla service centers, prompting concerns about their impact on the labor dispute. Their exact identity is unknown, but reused existing source to confirm strikebreakers and trimmed down language using WEASELWORDS of unknown etc.. The negative impact of strike breakers on strike is the key point. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• "and some strikers were contacted by Tesla after Tesla found photos uploaded by the strikers' families, contributing to a climate of fear of reprisal": again, "contacted" is vague -- it could be anything from "We're watching you, strikers" to "Merry Christmas"; I assume it felt like surveillance to the strikers but we should be as specific as we can be.

  Photos was incorrect sourcing. Specifically had chilling effect on non-union members from participating. I can attribute quote as well. According to union leader Gabriel Kuhn, individual strikers were contacted by Tesla after company found social media posts by the strikers' families, which had a chilling effect on non-union members in particular.

• "only a third of the 130 Tesla mechanics in Sweden had joined the strike": I assume this refers to the strike mentioned in the previous sentence; if so can we make this "joined this strike" to be clear?

  Moved this higher to the top, and also expand that about half of them were union members. I refrain from calling it a single strike, since none of the sources do, but it's a continuous period and I tie them closer together in paragraph.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you again Mike, and thank you for your in-depth reviews both times round! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 02:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Have struck most of the above, and left a couple of replies. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to all of them now! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One minor point left. I will read through the article again, probably later today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie Done! Guess I will need to write Metal and Electronics Industry article right? For consistency all wiki links ought to be blue or red (WP:HUMOR). Looking forward to your final review and appreciative of all the time you, Femke and Phlsph7 put in.~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "There were three unsuccessful unionization efforts in Fremont Factory and Gigafactory New York": I was going to suggest that we give the year range for these three in the lead, but when I look down at the body I only see two that are in the past: the fall 2016 campaign at Fremont, and the 2018 drive at Giga NY. The third seems to be the the early 2023 campaign implying that that's in the past, but the subsection on Giga doesn't give the results. Presumably that's still underway? In which case I don't think it should be past tense; it seems from the body that there are active campaigns at both Fremont and Giga, and only two past campaigns that have concluded (with failure). Or have I missed one?

  😝 I suppose the two phrasings none were succesfull and were unsuccesfull are not equivalent tautologies. I rephrased text with None of the unionization efforts in Fremont Factory and Gigafactory New York were succesfull which can ambiguously incorporate campaigns regardless of whether they fizzled/failed or not.

~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

OK -- I think the language you now have works, given that as you say it probably won't quickly become clear whether the most recent campaign can be said to have failed or ceased. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Tesla poses a structural challenge to IG Metall in the automotive sector, because electric vehicle production requires 30 percent fewer workers than traditional combustion-engine vehicles. As a result, the electrification of vehicles and a non-unionized Tesla weakens IG Metall's bargaining power in the overall automotive sector in Germany due to overall shrinking union membership base and lower union density, resulting in reduced bargaining leverage." The source cites electric vehicle production in general, not just by Tesla, as reducing the "labor density", and I don't understand the point it makes. Surely IG Metall's influence depends on percentage of unionization, not the absolute number of members? Wouldn't IG Metall rather have 90% unionization of half-a-million workers generating the same revenue for their employees than 50% of a million workers? Wouldn't they get more leverage in the former case? That's the point of "Every plant that opens that's not unionized hurts [IG Metall's] power." I see the source says "It's especially crucial that IG Metall preserve all the sway it can at a time when carmakers are pivoting to EV production, which, Wheaton said, requires roughly 30% fewer workers than traditional auto manufacturing" so you're certainly following the source, but why does that matter?

  🤓 You are asking tough but good questions here. How to phrase this in a meaningful way in the article remains a challenge it seems. In short address by removing this misleading/reductive line , resulting in reduced bargaining leverage. I do not wish to reduce the challenges to any one factor when it is least seven different factors as shown above. Ultimately reduced membership/lower union density are two most important ones. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

Thanks for the detailed thoughts; the union dues point is a very good one that I hadn't thought of. I think you're right that removing "resulting in reduced bargaining leverage" is a good idea -- it's still in the article at the moment but it sounds like you intended to remove it? I would also remove "As a result", since it's already clear to the reader that that sentence follows naturally from the previous one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie replaced with shorter sentence (removing also a second overall) of The electrification of vehicles and a non-unionized Tesla weakens IG Metall's bargaining power in the overall automotive sector in Germany due to shrinking union membership and lower union density. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "crediting the threat of strikes and internal pressure to bolster the signed works agreements": is "bolster" the right word here? It means "reinforce", but I think what is meant is that the threats and pressure helped get the signature; once the agreements were signed no bolstering was needed. How about "crediting the threat of strikes and internal pressure as having helped influence Tesla to sign the works agreements"? Although I'm also not clear what "internal pressure" means beyond "threat of strikes"; looking at the source no other pressure seems to be mentioned.

  ✅ Agreed. I rephrased as IG Metall acknowledged that there were "good negotiation results" and credited the threat of strikes with pressuring Tesla to sign the works agreements. which also has same grammar tense throughout ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• "The initial headcount of 1,800 employees surpassed more than two fold since the first works council election": assuming I understand the rule correctly, suggest rephrasing as "The initial headcount of 1,800 employees doubled quickly enough to trigger a rule requiring another works council election two years after the first election, rather than after the usual four years".

  ✅ Much clearer. I finalized with Giga Berlin's initial workforce of 1,800 employees doubled quickly enough to trigger a rule requiring another works council election two years after the first one, instead of the usual four years.~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• "234 candidates from nine lists ran": per MOS:NUMNOTES we should avoid starting sentences with a figure.

  ✅ Combined sentences for On March 20, the election concluded with 234 candidates from nine lists.

• "Michaela Schmitz, the incumbent works council chair": needs an "as of" date. And I take it from this paragraph that Schmitz was the chair from the 2022 election onwards? If so I'd change the description of her from "incumbent" to something like "who had been elected as works council chair in 2022". Then I don't think we need "incumbent" at all because we mention her election on April 4 after that.

  ✅ I changed it to Schmitz, the current works council chair. It is most likely she was the chair from day one of the works council in 2022, but the sources don't verify that. The chair of the works council is customarily one person, but it can rotate either by vote, or when someone steps down, e.g Daniela Cavallo replacing Berthold Huber in middle of a term. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• We have "as of May 2024" for the Swedish strike; is it still ongoing? If the point is that May is when it became the longest in Sweden for 80 years, then I would suggest making it "In May 2024, the ongoing strike became the longest ..."

  ✅ Removed dated claim. Not exactly clear nor important when exactly it became the longest strike within 80 years. I have removed the "as of" claims, and replaced it with a more recent update, including a delegation that visited the strike in September. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• "prompting concerns about their impact on the labor dispute": suggest "prompting concerns among the strikers about their impact on the labor dispute".

  ✅ Done ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• turningpointmag.org has an editorial board, and I don't see any reason to distrust its factual reporting, but I see it's used to support "which had a chilling effect on non-union members in particular". The source has "This created a climate of fear that few non-union members were willing to bear". Turning Point says in its about page that it supports radical change, so it's a leftist source. I don't see how they could know about the climate of fear among non-union members without having spoken to some of them, and I suspect this is speculation on their part, since there's nothing in the article about having spoken to individual workers, union or otherwise. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I could imagine they'd speak with workers, given how historic and rare strikes are in Sweden. But I've rephrased with the following According to union leader Gabriel Kuhn, individual strikers were contacted by Tesla after the company found social media posts made by the strikers' families, which also hampered non-union participation in the strike. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

One point left above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck the last point above. That takes care of everything with regard to the content. Looking through again, I see quite a few consecutive paragraphs starting with "In <date> ..." which isn't the most engaging prose style. I think this could be improved. I can take a crack at it, probably later today, if you like? Or if you want to, go ahead before I get there. I'm asking for a bit more variety in presentation of the sequence of events, to avoid WP:PROSELINE. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie I will take a crack at it. Something like Modifiers "Later in X" as well as moving dates to end/middle of sentences to help with variation and removing dates when not absolutely essential altogether? ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, generally that sounds right. Sometimes joining short paragraphs can help, since you can then say things like "the following year", or "eighteen months later". I think this is my last complaint and I feel confident of supporting once we've addressed this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie Done! I removed two mentions of date, since they were not crucial/could be reasonably re-summarized as "three years later" or in other cases, moved it to the back/middle of paragraph. Curious for your feedback. Also found gnarly American/British inconsistency with successful and succesfull. My current text editor shows both as correct. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've done a copyedit which you're free to revert if you want to; I did put back in one instance of "In <date>" to avoid starting a sentence with a figure. Looks good; thanks for your patience with my nitpicks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No comment besides commending Shushugah for their excellent work in preparing this article for its inevitable FA status! QRep2020 (talk) 08:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article looks in good overall shape. A few (good faith) suggestions.

This version of the article reviewed, no previous reviews read.

• Link "high injury rates" to Occupational injury, or perhaps Occupational safety and health.

  Done

• Likewise Labor dispute.

  Done

• Labor unions in the United States should probably be linked somewhere, possibly at "not represented by a union".

  Done

• Unionization.

  Done

• The sentence "In cases where there is..." could be clearer. I know unfair labor practice is linked, but a quick gloss (e.g., "In cases where there is illegal interference such as ULPs, the National Labor Relations Act—codifying worker rights—is unenforceable in civil law". (The "which" changes the meaning, disadvantageously).

  Replaced with Employer opposition to unions is common in the United States. In cases where there is illegal interference such as unfair labor practices, the National Labor Relations Act, which codifies worker rights—is not enforceable by civil law, such as penalties

• After Ortiz's firing was legally reversed, did Tesla obey? Did Ortiz or anyone comment on the NLRB decision?

  Existing source mentioned his statement, so included In a published response, Ortiz stated "I look forward to returning to work at Tesla and working with my co-workers to finish the job of forming a union"

  Solid attitude!

• "coziness with management" sounds a little... informal?

  I wrapped "coziness" in quotes to make it clear it's Fain's words.

• "In contrast in 2017, UAW spent $422,000" > "In contrast, in 2017 UAW had spent $422,000".

  Done

• Suggest the line about UAW winning 30% payrises should come before Fain's attribution remarks, as it keeps it chronologic, moving as it does on to the later organizing drive.

  Done

• Any ideas why the USW case was withdrawn in NY?

  No idea. I've checked carefully since a reviewer above asked same question

  Of course, no problem.

• Absorb the run on sentence: "Workers United is affiliated to Service Employees International Union, and had previously led the first successful unionization drive at Starbucks, also in Buffalo..." or something.

  Done. Also removed SEIU mention altogether, not crucial to understanding anything.

• Since Works Council is alsready a page, is Establishment (works council) a viable relink per WP:REDYES? What is the difference?

  I replaced red link with workplace. Any worker under a specific works council is part of its "works" or Betrieb. It's basically a German bargaining unit. It is usually is a workplace, but can be more complex/custom. It is unnecessarily complex, so no need for red link.

• "IG Metall pushed... IG Metall acknowledged..." remove duplication, perhaps with "IG Metall pushed for formal ratification, while acknowledging..."

  Done

• I'd also make the strike threat a new sentence: "It also credited..."

  Done

• "Nearly half of the employee" > "Nearly half the employees"

  Shouldn't the be removed instead of of? I adjusted elsewhere, Nearly half of the employee voted for the manager

  It's totally up to you. To my ears, they both sound fine, so it could be a Br/Eng thing.

• Curiosity, but would a Frankfurt (Oder) article say much more than the overarching Federal Labour Court does already?

  I kept the Template:ill but created redirects so that both the German article is clickable, but also an English link (Federal Labour Court) is available. Did same thing for the Berlin-Brandenburg State Labourt court too.

  The redirects are a good idea.

• What was the net effect of teh March 2024 election? On the one hand, a union seems to have won most seats, but on the other, an anti-unionist (and presumably mangement?) runs the Works Council? Suggest a sentence clarifying the result: at the moment a short sentence identifies IGM as having a majority, but then most of the remaining paragraph is about their opponent.

  We cannot stray into original research. How close are the non-union lists with each other? Unclear. We can only speculate with Schmitz being re-elected, that no other lists considered supporting IG Metall.

  Indeed!

• Link "banned from the company premises" to Lockout (industry).

  Done

• When Tesla contacted individual strikers, do we know what they said? Threats or bribes normally!

  Not done. Sources don't say, I checked.

• Did Tesla successfully recruit their Swedish lobbyist?

  No confirmation found. Can leave it or remove it, if undue.

  It's not doing any harm, and the information might become available in the future.

• There's an abundance of information in the Sweden section, but dates are sparse, and it covers almost a year. A date per paragraph should suffice to form a narrative.

  Done

• "as the strike continued more than 10 months": Well, it's now 11 months; suggest rephrasing this so as to avoid haveing to update it every month. Or maybe just removing it.

  It would be accurate regardless because it's about time between strike and past Ford visit, but I removed to avoid ambiguity.

If nothing else, the article succeeds in telling us everything we need to know about Mr Musk's concern for those who make him his profits. It's a good read, and maintains an absolute neutrality—an achievement in this kind of topic! Cheers, SerialNumber54129 15:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Serial Number 54129 for kind words and review! I have addressed the above feedback and also took liberty to add some other grammar rewrites. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 03:20, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Shushugah, your changes are all well-thought out. I'm happy to support this article's promotion: it casts an important light on the underbelly of supposedly modern industrial relations. SerialNumber54129 11:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way—and not part of the review—you might consider a page move to e.g. Tesla and trades unions, as just 'unions' could refer to other kinds of union. In any case, leave it until after promotion. SerialNumber54129 15:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129 labor unions, labour unions, trade unions are all possible expanded variants of unions. I think creating redirects in case people search for it is pragmatic solution, while keeping the article target as succinct as possible. And given all the other similar articles, I'd prefer to keep it consistent if possible and have a wider RfC on that (Microsoft and unions, SAP and unions etc.. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I keep forgetting the AmEng usage; you're absolutely correct, of course, Tesla and labor unions would be best. SerialNumber54129 18:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Party: The Top 100 is a 2017 party video game developed by NDcube and published by Nintendo for the Nintendo 3DS; it is the fifth handheld game in the Mario Party series, as well as the third and final Mario Party game for the Nintendo 3DS family of systems. I previously successfully nominated this article for GA status just over a week ago for initial suggestions. I tried to model this article after FA Mario Party DS, and although it isn't as long as that for MPDS, I feel that it is well-written and covers all necessary information about the subject. As always, I am willing to hear any feedback and implement it as needed. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• File:Mario_Party_The_Top_100.png needs a better FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added alt text for the infobox image and revised the other file's justification to the best of my ability. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the GA reviewer, I believe that some improvement can be made to fit the FA criteria. I will leave comments during this week and perform spotchecks. --Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The genre in the infobox is already sourced in the prose, and no one disputes this, so I'd recommend removing the reference from the infobox. The same goes for release dates.
• "Mario Party: The Top 100 is a party video game that mainly serves as a compilation of 100 minigames that were introduced in earlier games in the Mario Party series, namely the home console entries" → "Mario Party: The Top 100 is a party video game that is a compilation of 100 minigames that were introduced in the first ten home console Mario Party games." The reference mentions that the minigames are from the first ten numbered games.
• The first paragraph already begins with "Mario Party: The Top 100", so you could change the second paragraph to begin with "The game".
• Link "game modes" to game modes.
• Ref 9 also mentions that Toad and Toadette guide the player in minigames. This is a primary reference, so try finding a non-primary one. Also not everything in the sentence is backed up by the reference (there are no mentions of rules and the "most of which" part). I'd recommend changing the whole sentence to just "The game offers several game modes, in most of which Toad or Toadette guide the player." if you find a better source. In the other case, cut the sentence to just "The game also features game modes, in which Toad or Toadette guide the player".
• "In Minigame Match" → "In the Minigame Match game mode"
• Ref 1 (Nintendo World Report) calls Minigame Match the game's "biggest disappointment". You could possibly add this to the reception.
• "hold the most coins and Stars" → "collect the most coins and Stars".
• Specify the last sentence in the second paragraph occurs within the Minigame Match game mode.
• I don't see "four worlds" being mentioned in Ref 5 (Nintendo Life).
• "Playing through Minigame Island is required to unlock 45 of the game's 100 minigames" Fails verification.
• "Championship Battles involves playing three or five minigames from a selected pack, with the player(s) winning the most minigames being declared the winner(s)" Fails verification, though the game mode itself is mentioned in the ref.
• "Decathlon consists of playing five or ten minigames to earn the most points" Only mentions "number of minigames", not "five or "ten". Please look through other sources and see whether they back up any of these three bullet points.
• Are four sources really needed for the multiplayer sentence, Ref 1 (Nintendo World Report) and Ref 6 (Destructoid) back this up. Cut the other three refs.
• What can the user do with the Amiibo compatibility?
• I've spotchecked the gameplay section. I've listed parts that I could not verify above, but besides that, the majority of the section can be verified.
• Again, why have 5 references for a simple announcement? Are there any other details from the Nintendo Direct, besides a simple announcement?
• Were there any reactions on the game's trailer?
• Primary Ref 4 is not needed, the release date is already backed up by Ref 1.
• The development and release section is fully verifiable. It's up to you to rename the section to just "Release" because the section, for now, only mentions the announcement, trailer, and release dates. Very little info on the actual game development. If its possible, expand this section pls.
• Do we need two people agreeing that the game has elements of nostalgia? The Polygon ref itself does not mention the word directly, Destructoid does.
• Jordan Biordi of Computer Games Magazine is already described in the third paragraph. Change his mention in the fifth paragraph to just Biordi.

Vacant0, I have looked at all of your suggestions, and I believe that I was able to implement all of them. Although I was unable to find a significant amount of information pertaining to the game's development, I was able to find several additional references, including one that verifies the information about the game modes that was previously unsupported by the Hardcore Gamer citation. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take another look at the article in a few days. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• There are still FIVE references for a simple sentence: "The game was first announced in September 2017 during a Nintendo Direct". One is enough for the announcement. I do not see any other issues with the article. All of my comments have been addressed (besides the one I just mentioned), so I'll support. Issues with verifiability have also been addressed. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As always, thank you for your feedback and support. I have also condensed the five citations to one. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The article has definitely been improved. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review coming in a few days. lunaeclipse ⚧ ^(talk) 11:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• As Vacant0 said in his review, there are some inconsistencies with this article's sourcing and verifiability. Ref formatting is ok though. Apologies, but I'll have to oppose for now. lunaeclipse ⚧ ^(talk) 00:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback, LunaEclipse. I have taken all of Vacant0's suggestions into account, including finding a source that verifies the previously unsupported information about the game modes. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 ⚧ ^{【=◈︿◈=】} 12:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The first thing I've noticed is that many of the paragraphs in the lead, "Gameplay" and "Development" are very short and could be merged.
• "in November 2017, and was released in PAL regions and in Japan in December 2017." — why not include the exact date, or the Japanese release date?
• "However," — why "However"?
• In "Gameplay" it is not mentioned that the game is a compilation. The first sentence of that section should also mention that it is a party game.
• "visually and audibly updated" is strange, could be more direct with "received upgraded graphics and audio"?
• Include "(AI)" after "artificial intelligence", as you use the acronym AI later in the article
• "most of which are hosted by..." — what does hosting mean?
• "NPC" should be explained.
• Link "multiplayer"
• "3DS download play" should be a proper noun? ("3DS Download Play")
• "supports Amiibo compatibility" is redundant; should be either "has Amiibo compatibility" or "supports Amiibo".
• "Development" should be renamed to "Development and release"
• "in which it was revealed" through the end of the paragraph just repeats what already was in Gameplay, so it should be removed, except that "An overview trailer [was] released the following month".
• "Less than two months after it was announced" — I don't think this is relevant
• "The game succeeded Mario Party: Star Rush..." seems unnecessary
• "Like all Mario Party games from Mario Party 9 onwards" seems unnecessary
• "Mario Party: The Top 100 was developed by NDcube and published by Nintendo" should be the first sentence of that section, chronologically
• "(as well as five game boards)" seems unnecessary
• "though Matt West of Nintendo World Report suggested that the control schemes..." this is not related to "graphical and audio enhancements" and shouldn't be placed here
• "Even" doesn't seem like a neutral word to use here
• "As with most entries in the Mario Party series" — is this confirmed by the sources, or relevant?
• You went with two quotes for the last paragraph of "Critical response"; why give so much emphasis to these? Is it possible to merge them in other paragraphs or paraphrase?
• The Common Sense Media review should be used if it's in the article.

Skyshiftertalk 18:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions for improving the article. I have implemented most of them and will do my best to explain the rest here:

• The game was released in PAL regions and in Japan in the same month (December), but not on the same date (December 22 and 28, respectively). "November 2017" is used for the time of release in North America instead of "November 10, 2017" for consistency.
• "However" is intended to note the difference between the game being a minigame compilation and most games in the series being oriented on board game play. If it would suffice, "Mario Party: The Top 100 is primarily a compilation of 100 minigames from across the series, specifically ones from the home console installments." could be changed to "Mario Party: The Top 100 deviates from the classic Mario Party format in that it primarily serves as a compilation of 100 minigames from across the series, specifically ones from the home console installments." or something to that effect.
• Two months is a very short period of time between a Mario game's announcement and its release, and to my knowledge, it is one of the shortest spans for a game in the entire franchise, so I feel that this is worth including.
• Computer Games Magazine's Jordan Biordi does allude to frustration with games throughout the series relying on luck, stating: "It is pointlessly roundabout and in keeping with the series' progress, more reliant on dumb luck than anything you actually did." Additionally, Polygon's Allegra Frank writes: "Mario Party gets a bad rap. Yes, Nintendo's virtual board game can be aggravating — much of it is left up to chance, after all, and it's hard not to feel personally slighted by the random algorithm."

The two quotes at the end of the "Critical response" section are intended to summarize both the game and its impact on the future of the Mario Party series as a whole.

★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I may ask, Skyshifter, are there any other ways in which I could further improve the article, or any suggestions you still want to see implemented? ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Skyshifter, 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) 10:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, I forgot to state my Support. Skyshiftertalk 11:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concise and to the point, which seems appropriate for a less prominent installment of a long-running series. There are a few instances where I'd like for the text to be just a lil' bit longer to get the relevant points across.

• Second paragraph of the lead: as a reader I experience a sort of reversal from getting told that it's about the compilation of a 100 minigames, and only then being told that it uses traditional board gameplay. Perhaps it's not even about the reversal but rather that the ensemble of other game modes is not mentioned? With this short of an article lead length is probably a balancing act, but at 172 words I think a few more would be fine.
• The player earns one Star for every ten coins collected - but how are coins collected/awarded?
• or a player pops a Minigame Balloon - where/how does the player encounter these?

Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the second paragraph of the lead slightly to focus more on the game modes, mentioning that one of them features traditional gameplay from the series. I also specified that coins are earned from playing minigames in the "Gameplay" section. Minigame Balloons are simply encountered on the game board players navigate in Minigame Match, though none of the sources I've come across appear to specify this, unfortunately. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page 6 of the game's manual does state that "Landing on different spaces will trigger different minigames or events", so the sentence could be revised to communicate this. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose, I'll leave that up to you. No more concerns from me. Draken Bowser (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): joeyquism (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Motherland Calls is, without a doubt, the quintessential post-Soviet Russian statue. Dedicated to the Soviet soldiers that died in the Battle of Stalingrad, it depicts Mother Russia holding a sword aloft, calling out to the Soviet people to take up arms and fight against the enemy, and stands at a mammoth height of 85 meters (279 ft). Despite its cultural importance, it has faced its fair share of disrepair and poor maintenance in the many years following its dedication, and has been the subject of a number of incidents, some of which are, in my opinion, a bit funny (albeit unfortunate) to read about.

Took this to GA on July 30 - courtesy pings to Jaguarnik and Vacant0, who both assisted in the review. This is also my first non-music FAC!

• "although post-renovation critiques and new structural issues have since persisted": "persisted" doesn't seem like the right word, since it implies the issues previously existed, but we say the structural issues are new and the critiques date from after the renovation.
  • Changed to "arisen".
• "was historicised as the turning point in the war": I don't know what "historicised" is intended to convey here.
  • Contextualized more in the given sentence. I more so meant to say that Soviet history textbooks were referring to the battle as the turning point in the war.
• "the first museum honoring the Great Patriotic War had been established as early as March 1943": I think "was established" would work better; we haven't got a later time frame from which we're looking back at this point in the paragraph.
  • Changed to "was established"
• "Vuchetich started petitioning for the commission to design the monument in the early 1950s": as written this says he wanted the commission to do the design. I suspect we want something like "Vuchetich started petitioning the commission for permission [or "authorization"] to design the monument in the early 1950s", depending on what the source will support.
  • The source states that "Vuchetich began actively lobbying to secure what was arguably the USSR's most prized commission: the appointment to design a monument commemorating the Battle of Stalingrad", so the way it's written seems correct to me. If I'm missing something, please let me know and I'll fix it.

    The problem is that it's easy to misread the current wording as saying that Vuchetich was petitioning the commission with a request "for the commission to design the monument", when the intended meaning is that he's petitioning the commision to appoint him to design it. Can we do "Vuchetich started petitioning the commission to appoint him design the monument in the early 1950s"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ah, I see what's going on here - my usage of the word "commission" is as in "order to do something" rather than "group of people". I get the confusion here; I've changed it to "petitioning high-ranking Soviet officials for permission" so as to disambiguate and condense the sentence. joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "took heavy inspiration from": "heavy" doesn't seem like the right word here. Perhaps "much of their inspiration"?
  • Yeah, that sounds better. Done.
• Some of the details in the first paragraph of "Design and style" seem to belong in Mamayev Kurgan#Memorial Complex rather than here, as they're not about this statue. Obviously some summary is necessary, but there's quite a bit of detail here that doesn't seem necessary for this article.
  • I agree with you there, although I will say that I did try my best at cutting down the details when I was initially writing the article. If you have any suggestions as to what I should cut, please let me know - either way, I'll get to condensing this tonight.

    This is an example of what I was thinking, thought to be honest I think more could be cut. I self-reverted so take from that anything you want -- also I didn't check that I was preserving sourcing in the appropriate places so if you do use that edit please check. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • I was very fond of your revision, so I've mostly taken after that in my revision to this paragraph. joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "Vuchetich refused this proposition": not very natural phrasing; and did Vuchetich have the authority to refuse unilaterally? Or would it be more accurate to say he disagreed, or persuaded them otherwise?
  • I think it would be more accurate to say "objected to the proposition", as that would be more true to the source material. The degree of his authority is never explicitly mentioned in the Palmer source, but there are mentions of him being able to boss around the Volgograd oblast government executives and even some of the Politburo members, so I think it's safe to assume (in general, not for the purposes of this article) that Vuchetich was the big man in charge of the project.
• "the already-excessive budget": "excessive" is a value judgement we shouldn't make in Wikipedia's voice. Do you mean that the budget was large and it grew larger, or specifically that the budget had already been overrun and that this increased the overrun?
  • This is what the source says:

The project's expenses were spiraling out of control. In early October 1960 a revised estimate ordered by the Council of Ministers set the price of the memorial complex at 48.2 million rubles, nearly 9 million rubles (22 percent) over its initial budget... The matter did not end here. When a subsequent audit in mid-1961 produced an even higher figure, the Council of Ministers was forced to make a dramatic decision. All of the complex's sculptural elements would now be constructed entirely of concrete... the revised estimates to complete the project stood at 53.9 million rubles, a 30-percent increase over the amount originally budgeted in 1958. Resigned to this reality, on September 6, 1961, the Council of Ministers approved the new amount. Ironically, however, even as some state officials moved to curtail rapidly rising expenses a problematic and costly new requirement was imposed on the design. The height of the main monument was nearly doubled from its original 100 feet to just over 170 feet (30 meters to 52 meters).

From what I can discern, the budget had already been overrun multiple times, and the height increase had only served to exacerbate those costs. I'll come up with a better way to word/contextualize this if needed.

How about "a decision that further increased the project's cost, which had already substantially overrun its budget"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That works. Done. joeyquism (talk) 21:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Might be worth mentioning the height of the Statue of Liberty since it's relevant at that point.
  • Done. I feel that the way I've worded it ("the Statue of Liberty, which stands at 46 metres (151 ft) tall") is a bit awkward; let me know your thoughts on this.

    How about "ordered it to be taller than the 46 m (151 ft) tall Statue of Liberty"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Done. Apologies for taking forever to get back to you Mike Christie; I'm starting work soon and I've been quite stressed out recently. I'll get to the rest of your comments promptly. joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "After rejections from the Sculptural Group of the Artistic Fund and the Volgogradgidrostroi": I don't understand this -- these two groups were approached to lead the construction, and they said no? And what is the Volgogradgidrostroi?
  • Your assumption here is mostly correct - the Sculptural Group was initially tasked with construction and later asked to be relieved of its construction duty and Volgogradgidrostroi was asked to take over. The latter then "expressed reservation" about the project, after which Nikitin was appointed to head construction. Volgogradgidrostroi is a construction firm. I've since revised to "After the Sculptural Group of the Artistic Fund requested to be relieved of their construction duties and the construction firm Volgogradgidrostroi expressed reservations about taking over the project, structural engineer Nikolai Nikitin was appointed to lead the construction efforts." A bit wordy, but a lot more accurate. joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "Throughout 1963, Nikitin's design team meticulously planned the construction process for the monument, finalizing their designs by August": if they were done by August the planning did not last throughout 1963. And I don't think you can say "meticulously planned" over a period of time; it's a statement about a completed process.
  • Revised to "In 1963, Nikitin's design team began planning..." Let me know if this still leaves a bad taste, and I can get to wording it differently. joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The second paragraph of the "Construction" subsection seems to repeat itself a little -- we get "the need to ensure the foundation's ... soil stability", then "the hill could only support the structure if the moisture of its soil remained low" and then "was essential to prevent structural instability", within three sentences. The drainage is mentioned more than once too.
  • If I recall correctly, "the hill could only support the structure if the moisture of its soil remained low" was something that was not there prior to the GA review. That being said, I like its placement there, as not everyone would expect to know why mellite clays are something of concern. I'll remove "soil" before stability, and I've removed "Addressing these concerns was essential to prevent structural instability and ensure proper drainage on the hill", as the first part is redundant and the drainage issues are addressed later. joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "The statue ... would utilize" and "The statue's structure would feature": why "would" rather than just "used" and "featured"? If this refers to plans that did not come to pass, I'd go with something like "was intended to". There are several other uses of "would" in the paragraph; I think they would all be better structured as statements of intention -- for example "A radio transmitter was installed in the statue's head in order to transmit data on ...".
  • Most instances of "would [verb]" have been fixed, with the exception of the last instance. The usage of "would" is just a stylistic fault of mine that I need to fix. joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "that was previously developed": suggest "that had been developed".
  • Sounds a lot better. Done. joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "between 25–60 centimetres (9.8–23.6 in)": see MOS:RANGE: "Do not mix en dashes with between or from".
  • Fixed. joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "yet challenges persisted": I think this can be cut -- the following paragraph takes us back to May 1966, to describe the issues with the sword, so the reader doesn't know what this refers to.
  • Removed. joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "and the Pantheon, which had replaced the Panorama due to issues with its own foundation": as written "its own foundation" refers to the Pantheon's foundation, but I think you mean the Panorama's foundation.
  • Revised to "the latter's foundation", which I'm still a bit iffy on. Apologies for creating all these possibilities for back-and-forth; I haven't been in my element as of late. joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Why do we get the details of the problems with the Pantheon's glass? This seems like it belongs with in Mamayev Kurgan#Memorial Complex, though since it was a risk to the opening date I can see some mention is needed.
  • Removed "resulting in a checkerboard-like appearance of alternating light and dark sections. Under immense pressure to complete the project, workers had not pooled the tiles to ensure uniformity but had applied them as they arrived", as this seems to be more extraneous to me. joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "describing its purpose as a tribute to the heroism of Stalingrad's defenders": I think this is imprecise. The statue's purpose is to act as a tribute; the tribute is the statue, not the statue's purpose.
  • I'll get back to this. Not sure how to word it right now, but I'll come up with something later. No need for assistance; I feel like I'd be asking too much of you if I requested it. Thank you for your prior help on wording! joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Revised to "describing the statue as a tribute to the heroism of Stalingrad's defenders". I'll admit, I'm still a bit confused by what you mean here, so if this isn't what you were looking for please let me know! joeyquism (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      That looks fine. I wasn't very clear, I admit; what I meant to say was that there's a difference between the statue and the statue's purpose. The original wording was that the purpose was a tribute, but purposes aren't things, they're intentions. A purpose can't be a tribute; the statue can be a tribute, though. The statue's purpose is to be a tribute; the statue is a tribute. Anyway, it's fixed now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "were to be treated with a waterproofing agent once a year": this describes an intention, but if this happened we should say so.
  • The source says that it did happen (though personally I don't believe that it did - that may have subconsciously influenced my decision to write it the way that it was). Fixed. joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "its height had deviated an additional 60 millimetres (2.4 in) from its original axis": a height doesn't have an axis. Do you mean that the statue was tilting, enough so that the top of the statue presumably the tip of the sword) had moved 60 mm to one side?
  • The statue was tilting. I've changed it to "it had tilted an additional 60 millimetres (2.4 in) from its original vertical axis since its initial assessment in 1966". joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "was subsiding as a result of rising water levels": I don't know if the sources will let you say more, but this seems odd -- there can't be much hydrology at the top of a hill.
  • I was initially confused by this too, though unfortunately the source doesn't elaborate on it much at all. If I can find a way around this, I'll revise, though I feel like I have to leave it as it so as to stay true to the source. joeyquism (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "Estimated costs to repair the structural issues required over 7 million USD": the estimated costs didn't require this much money; they were this much money; or say that the repairs required this much.
  • Changed "required" to "were". joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "previous attempts to allocate government funds for restoration had been undermined by misappropriation": does the source give any time period for this? It seems out of chronological order where it is now, because of the "had been".
  • Unfortunately, there isn't any given time period - the source states that funds that were allocated for repairs had been stolen "in the past", with no further elaboration on when that was. joeyquism (talk)
• I think "piezometric network" needs a few words of inline explanation; a typical reader of an article about a statue won't know what this is about.
  • This confused me too, as there seems to be very little on what this actually means. I'll do a bit more research and get back to this. joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, after a bit of admittedly original research, I've come to find that "piezometric network" should be in reference to a system for monitoring groundwater pressure. The used source doesn't explicitly state this other than a mention of monitoring the state of the groundwater; however, "piezometric" (or "piezometer", rather) seems to be defined by Merriam-Webster as "an instrument for measuring pressure or compressibility, especially one for measuring the change of pressure of a material subjected to hydrostatic pressure" - could "Initial steps included replacing the piezometric network for measuring groundwater pressure and allowing hydrogeological monitoring" be apt here? joeyquism (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      I share your reluctance to add anything not in the source. The existing wording is just "piezometric network to allow for hydrogeological monitoring"; I'll assume that's supported by the source. Then maybe just inserting "(a system for measuring pressure)" after "piezometric network" would be enough? Sourced to the MW def you found? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      I'm personally not a fan of citing the dictionary, but I feel as if enabling others' understanding of the concept of a piezometric network trumps that sense of distaste. I've included both the parenthetical description and the MW source. joeyquism (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "after the end of the 2018 FIFA World Cup": suggest "which was held in Russia" to make it clear to the reader why this is relevant.
  • Done. joeyquism (talk)
• Is the article in British English or American English? I see "mythologised" and "historicised", but several instances of "meter" rather than "metre".
  • It's supposed to be in British English; I am not British, so this is an oversight. Only chose British English because I didn't think American English would have been appropriate given the current tension between the US and Russia - a bit of a silly decision on my part. Fixed. joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "the pedestal's slabs permanently excluded": I don't understand this.
  • The scaffolding was removed along with the pedestal's slabs. Revised to "In November, the scaffolding and the pedestal's slabs were removed". joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "his comments received backlash": I don't think you can use "backlash" as a mass noun in this way.
  • Revised to "his comments were criticised". joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Can we get a word or two to explain who Navalny is?
  • Changed to "Russian opposition leader" as that's what the source labels him. Still not entirely sure of the rules about corroboration of titles and other defining information about people and events - for example, does labelling him as a "political activist" require sourcing? joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Why was Cruz criticized for including a picture of the sculpture? What was the basis for the criticism?
  • Cruz was criticized for including an image of a statue commemorating Soviet victory on the cover of a book about "how the US legal system isn't right wing enough yet". It's redundant and not succinct by any means, but "United States Senator Ted Cruz faced criticism for featuring an image of the sculpture, which commemorates Soviet victory in the Battle of Stalingrad, on the cover of his book Justice Corrupted: How the Left Weaponized Our Legal System, which critiques the perceived lack of right-wing influence in the U.S. legal system" is what I have written right now. Let me know if this works, or if it needs more work. joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure the video games are worth mentioning, unless a source about the statue (not primarily about the video games) mentions the connection.
  • Removed the video game content. joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, Mike Christie. I'll get to these in the next few days or so - I've addressed a few of them already. joeyquism (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most points struck; a couple left -- and no worries about being slow to respond; real life usually has to take priority. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: I believe I've addressed the rest of the points now. Seems like there should just a few more replies left as I've left some comments open for queries. joeyquism (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One more question: I just noticed that there's an exclamation point in the Russian title. Can I just confirm that it is definitely not in the English version? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian sources overwhelmingly include the exclamation mark, whereas most English sources including Palmer 2009 - the most cited English source in the article - omit it. The Scotsman, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Newsweek, The Independent, and the New York Times also omit the exclamation mark; the only exception to this seems to be UNESCO. Granted, this means that the English name formatting on wiki will be solely based on the frequency of a certain stylization, though I am personally comfortable with this. Let me know your thoughts on the matter. joeyquism (talk) 22:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that seems fine to me.

Support. Happy to support; I think this is worth the star. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your wonderful review and your support! joeyquism (talk) 02:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:The Motherland Calls detail - Volgograd, October 2018.jpg: Fair use with quality rationale.
• File:Berlin Treptow Ehrenmal 07.jpg: Good to use with attribution.
• File:Victoire de Samothrace - Musee du Louvre - 20190812.jpg: CC0
• File:Héroes de la batalla de Stalingrado.jpg: CC attribution 4.0 (the russian military CC-licenses its photos? fascinating)
• File:The Motherland Calls, 2019.jpg: CC attribution 4.0
• File:Родина Мать в городе Маньчжурия.jpg: CC-BY-SA-4.0
• File:Coat of Arms of Volgograd oblast small.svg: PD
• File:1973 CPA 4208.jpg: PD
• File:RR5217-0042R.jpg: PD

@Joeyquism: All images seem high quality and useful for the article. However, many lack alt-text. Once that is resolved, I'm all good to support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 04:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Generalissima, just sticking my nose in to say that alt text isn't actually part of the FAC criteria -- it's come up a couple of times and there's never been consensus to add it. Not to say you shouldn't suggest it -- I always add it when an image reviewer reminds me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I am so used to Nikkimaria's suggestions to add it I forgot those are just suggestions. Support on image review then. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Regardless, I'll get to adding alt text sometime soon. joeyquism (talk) 23:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah heck, looks like you need another prose review; I'll give it a lookover.

• Lede is very solid.
• Is there any estimate on how old the Mamayev Kurgan? It might be good to add "ancient" or some other adjective to note that it wasn't a burial mound from the battle.
• I think the sentence ending with Stand To the Death! doesn't need the period after the exclamation point.
• The second paragraph in Design and Construction is massive, I think you might want to split it down the middle.
• Ditto with the third paragraph of Construction, the second paragraph of Work and Completion, and the third and fourth paragraphs of Post-dedication; this will make it easier to read.

@Joeyquism: Otherwise, don't see any outstanding issues. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've addressed everything here! Thank you so much for the prose review :) let me know if anything else comes to your attention! joeyquism (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me! Support on the prose review too. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will leave a review in the following days. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 25 is missing pages.
• Ref 62 and 63 (Riabov et al.) are missing pages.
• The lede already mentions twice the fact that it was completed in October 1967. I think that it's better to mention the fact only once, it's up to you to change it however you want. If you end up keeping the latter sentence, then I have a recommendation: "Despite these obstacles, the memorial was completed in October 1967 for the 50th anniversary of the October Revolution" – I think that it's enough just to mention the year, because the latter part already implies that it was completed during the 50th anniversary.
• The article has certainly been improved since the last time I took a look at it. These are the issues that I've stumbled up on. I'm positive that it meets the FA criteria now, so you have my support. Good job! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed all of these. Thank you for the review and support! joeyquism (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll additionally perform a source review, considering that the article already received an image review. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No issues with reference formatting.
• Listed references are reliable.
• Missing pages were already addressed in my review above.
• Spotcheck
  • Background: Ref 1, 4, 8, 9–all verify the cited content.
  • Design and construction: Ref 11, 18, 19, 22, 28, 31, 33, 34, 37, 39–all verify the cited content.
  • Post-dedication: Ref 41, 45, 46, 51, 54, 61, 65, 68–all verify the cited content.
  • Depictions: Ref 71, 73–all verify the cited content.
• Looks good to me. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your source review :) joeyquism (talk) 03:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Vacant0, from an abundance of caution can I have confirmation that this is a pass for the source review? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes it is! Sorry if I did not make it obvious. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 19:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the second largest Nazi mass killing, also one of the least known. I'm not a fan of the title, but I think the article is now ready for FAC after going through GAN and GOCE, for which I thank Catlemur and Miniapolis (t · c) buidhe 19:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was a good point brought up on this article's talk page about its title. What I'm primarily concerned about is WP:NPOV with regards to the word "atrocities" - while anyone with a working conscience would, of course, label these acts as atrocities, I'm not sure if this is neutral phrasing. There's mention of using the term "war crimes" instead; perhaps this would be a better descriptor? If that term is incorrect due to sources saying otherwise/definitions imposed by authoritative bodies or simply just not to your taste (it would make the title longer and introduce another instance of the word "war"), let me know. joeyquism (talk) 03:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe: I might add that I should be able to commit to a full review soon, and I will likely start after my move in a couple of days (though moving efforts will ultimately take precedence). If I don't get anything down here within the next one-and-a-half to two weeks, you are welcome to ping me liberally. joeyquism (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. My main objection to the title is that the article's scope is more broad—it covers the totality of experiences of prisoners of war, which were not necessarily atrocities or war crimes. In a lot of cases, the sources don't specify whether something is a war crime, although they are clear that many violations of the Geneva conventions occurred. (t · c) buidhe 03:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This reasoning seems fair enough. I will not press on the title any further. joeyquism (talk) 04:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to come back for a "proper" review, but two small points for now:

• As we only have the one map in the article, I worry that it gives the impression of representing the total scale of German advances into the USSR, when of course it shows only quite a small fraction of it. Two options, I think -- either add another one later on, to show advances up to Moscow/Stalingrad, or replace it with one that shows the whole campaign, perhaps phased by year.
• If we're going to use a German noun, like Blitzkrieg, as a native word in italics, we need to capitalise it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The map was chosen to show the quick advances at the beginning of the camp which enabled the Germans to capture so many prisoners. I'm not attached to that map in particular, but I didn't see any others that made the speed of the advance as clear. I wonder if any confusion could be alleviated by explicitly pointing it out in the caption. Fixed the capitalization issue. (t · c) buidhe 22:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm imagining one with nice labelled lines, or coloured waves, showing the frontline at the end of each year, but I'm not sure if Commons has one of those. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this map exists but I thought it was harder for readers to take in than the one I used. (t · c) buidhe 12:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, pros and cons to each. Two maps might be the way to go? I might have a look on Commons and see if I can suggest anything sensible. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Captured Red Army soldiers (in infobox): is this quite complete -- wouldn't some prisoners have come from e.g. NKVD formations or the naval infantry? Suggest "Captured Soviet troops".
  • Ok
• The Nazi leadership believed that war with its ideological enemy was inevitable: consider expanding this a little -- I know it's a long story, but it's somewhat germane to the point why the Nazis thought of the USSR as such an inevitable and hated enemy.
  • Clarified the reasons the source gives for this belief
• preventative killings: sounds a little euphemistic: is this the term used in the literature?
  • Yes, well, the source says "preemptive killings"
    • Even worse, perhaps! But the point is clear enough, and perhaps "murders intended to terrorise the population into compliance" is a little mealy-mouthed: what we've got here works fine. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• War aims included securing natural resources, including agricultural land to feed Germany, metals and mineral oil for German industry: cadence is better if you either lose the first comma or add one before the final and: at the moment, it's a little loose as to how each part flows together.
  • I shortened the sentence by removing the last clause
• The vast majority of German military manpower and materiel was devoted to the invasion, which was carried out as a war of extermination with complete disregard for the laws and customs of war.: changing tone a little, can I just put on record my approval of this kind of phrasing -- it would be easy to shy away from being so straightforward about it out of mistaken NPOV concerns, but you do an excellent job of being absolutely explicit about what we are talking about while keeping everything well within what can be supported from the evidence.
• Informed by Nazi racial theory and Germany's experience during World War I,: I understand the first bit, but what does Germany's experience in WWI have to do with the idea that Muslims are "better" than Ukrainians?
  • This factor was separate from Nazi racial theory (according to the source), which doesn't elaborate much but cites another highly reliable source that I can't check. During WWI the Germans recruited some nationalities into the war effort, but faced problems with "unreliability". (t · c) buidhe 13:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• by killing communist functionaries and Soviet Jews, it was expected that resistance would quickly collapse: the passive voice is tricky here ("by whom?"): suggest "they expected".
  • Done
• Soviet prisoners of war were held under tighter control, and had a higher death rate: as this is a comparative statement, I would make it an explicit comparison: "than those of other nations"; "than those of western European ethnicity"? I'd be interested to know what the Nazis made of e.g. African and Asian troops fighting for the western Allies.
  • Compared to those mentioned in the last couple of sentences : Soviet urbanites and ghettoised Jews. Made it more clear
• generally adhered to it with prisoners of other nationalities: perhaps not totally to the point here, but did this apply to e.g. black American soldiers, those believed to be gay, or Jews?
  • Violations of the Geneva Convention with regard to other nationalities besides Soviet and Italian were the exception. Even yugoslav Jewish soldiers were not mistreated. It's true that there were some homosexuality cases involving pows but it was rare and probably not violating the Geneva Convention.
    • That's ... good, I suppose? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• there were no legal gray areas: consider ambiguities per MOS:CLICHE?
  • done
• Helmuth James Graf von Moltke was one of the few high-ranking officials: can we say what his position was?
  • As the article says he supported treating all prisoners according to the Geneva Convention, is there a way to make this more clear?
    • Sorry, I meant “position” as in his rank, job etc — we’ve said he was important, but can we be more specific? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • he was in the Abwehr (t · c) buidhe 20:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        Just looking at his Wikipedia page -- was he really all that high ranking? His job seems to have been fairly ordinary: when I hear "high-ranking", I think senior government ministers, generals, heads of agencies and so on: was he anything close to that? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        Pohl says that "hardly anyone" (presumably on the German side) supported treating POWs according to the Geneva Convention. Revised (t · c) buidhe 13:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        • As we've presented it, we've claimed to know that almost all people in Germany supported war crimes against Soviets. That's a big claim -- is that something Pohl a) alleges and b) could reasonably be able to prove? Otherwise, something like "Nazi officials", "figures within the regime", or similar might help. I don't think the point is wrong at all, but that makes it all the more important to be ironclad on the details. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

          @Buidhe: I think this is the last unresolved issue here? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

          Sorry I missed this. The reason I wrote it the way I did originally was that I thought he was referring to officials with some influence on the actual policy, but technically there isn't explicit support for this in the text. After looking at the context I think it's clear that he is referring to views within the Wehrmacht, but it's unclear exactly which group of Wehrmacht personnel he is referring to. "The murder of Soviet prisoners of war was undoubtedly controversial within the Wehrmacht... Hardly anyone, however, advocated treatment of Soviet prisoners of war that was fully in line with international law; one of the few who did so was Helmut James Graf von Moltke." (t · c) buidhe 14:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

          Current phrasing is good, I think. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• the rapid encirclement actions that the German commanders expected in the blitzkrieg: you will know more about this than me, but I gather that military historians are increasingly sceptical of the idea that Blitzkrieg was a coherent doctrine, rather than a post-facto myth that conveniently explained the rather inadequate Allied response to the invasion of France.
  • I don't have any knowledge of this, actually, so I rewrote not to use the word blitzkrieg.

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Mark Edele gets the microphone for practically all of the section on why Soviet soldiers surrendered. Does this represent WP:DUEWEIGHT -- are there other voices of equal/greater weight that could/should be brought in here?
  • None of the other books really address this topic.
• The Waffen part of Waffen-SS needs to be italicised (really, the whole thing should be in a lang template, but I'm not sure how well that plays with links plus regular italicisation).
  • When Oxford, cambridge, Taylor&Francis and Elsevier don't italicize, I think Wikipedia should follow the more common usage.
• Red Army soldiers overtaken by the German advance without being captured were ordered to present themselves to the Wehrmacht: we've usually avoided gratuitously Germanising perfectly normal terms, which I think is the right way to go (I think this reddit thread puts the case quite well), but this seems to be an exception: why not "German Army" (or "German armed forces" vel sim), as we have used elsewhere? If we are desperate to use a German word, we should italicise and use lang templates.
  • I've taken out all mentions of Wehrmacht in the article
• The number of Soviet soldiers captured fell dramatically after the Battle of Moscow in late 1941: is it worth being explicit that this was because the Germans started losing at this point?
  • Pohl doesn't make this connection, I searched through the relevant chapter in Hartmann and he doesn't either. I will check if it's in the Quinkert book.
• Why does Dulag get an explanation but stalag not? The latter also needs a capital letter.
  • Rewrote
• , when the Commissar Order was rescinded: I would rework this section a little, to initially explain what the Commissar Order was, then what happened under it, then what happened after it was rescinded. At the moment, we rely on the reader knowing or being able to infer what the order demanded.
  • Done
• Contradictory orders were issued for the execution of female combatants in the Soviet army, who defied German gender expectations, but the orders were not always followed: can we be a little clearer as to what some of these orders were -- presumably, as with the commissars, a spectrum between "kill them all" and "treat them with particular respect"?
  • Rewrite
• the OKW's Allgemeines Wehrmachtsamt.: see comment earlier about German terms -- if this one is really untranslatable, we should at least explain what it was in English.
• the Korücks,: likewise -- can we explain who these people were?
  • To be honest, I don't really understand. I may do more research, or it may be that the intricacies of the chain of command are not WP:DUE (given that they aren't even mentioned in most of the sources). Update: I decided take out these couple sentences. (t · c) buidhe 13:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• A figure of 200,000 to 250,000 deaths in transit is provided in Russian estimates: we imply here that other estimates are available, or that these might not be above suspicion -- can we expand on either side?
  • I only put it this way because both of the cited sources state explicitly that it is a "Russian estimate" (apparently from Rossija i SSSR ν vojnach XX veka. Statisticeskoe issledovanie. Red. G. F. Krivoseev. Moskva 2001)
• Make sure that date ranges, including in work titles, have endashes (I noticed Moore 2022).
  • Fixed
• "barbed-wire fences" should have a hyphen, as a compound modifier.
  • Done
• the encirclements of Vyazma and Bryansk: can we put an explicit date on this?
  • Done
• The vast majority of prisoners (ethnic Russians) : I think this would be more grammatical as "Ethnic Russians, the vast majority of the prisoners, were not..."
  • Done
• prisoners were released so they could volunteer for the Wehrmacht or the police: see my point earlier about the word Wehrmacht.
• About one-third became Hiwis: suggest explaining what Hiwis were.
  • Reworded
• Wehrmacht soldiers often conducted the executions: as above.
• a stereotypically-Jewish appearance: MOS:HYPHEN says not to use a hyphen when the compound modifier is formed by a regular -ly adverb.
  • done
• With Wehrmacht cooperation, Einsatzgruppen units: I think Einsatzgruppen may have to stay as untranslatable, but see earlier comments about Wehrmacht and lang templates.
  • As with Waffen-SS, the majority of scholarly English language sources don't italicize.
    • Very well, but we should then use lang templates (with |italic=no) to ensure that screen readers handle them correctly. Apologies if you've already done that. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• five to 25 percent escaped detection: MOS:NUM would like consistency.
  • Done
• Invalid soldiers were in particular danger when the front approached. invalid meaning "sick" is only usually a noun: suggest "disabled", "soldiers too sick to work", or similar.
  • Done
• if their responses were unsatisfactory, they were discharged from prisoner-of-war status: I think we should be a little more explicit as to what this means -- "discharged" often means "released", especially in a military context.
  • Done
• Suggest knocking the "were" out of the "killed at Mauthausen" link to break the sea of blue.
  • Done
• Hitler opposed recruiting Soviet collaborators for military and police functions, blaming non-German recruits for defeat in World War I.: would this point be useful further up to explain what we meant about Germany's WWI experience causing animosity to certain eastern European ethnicities?
  • I could move it up but then it wouldn't explain in this section why Hitler opposed their recruitment, but his underlings disagreed.
• some having living conditions similar to Wehrmacht soldiers: another beat on the same drum, I'm afraid.
• 14 in the Turkestan Legion, nine in the Armenian Legion, eight each in the Azerbaijani and Georgian Legions, and seven in the North Caucasian and Idel-Ural Legions.: MOS:FIGURES again.
  • Fixed
• Employers paid RM0.54 per day per man This and similar values a little later -- it seems intuitive that these are small amounts, but can we contextualise them vs. the price of something worth buying, or the wages of someone like a soldier?
  • Add currency conversion, although I'm not sure how meaningful it is.
• the Channel Islands, where many died: my impression is that Jersey, at least, was a fairly 'tame' (by Nazi standards!) place to be, both for the soldiers and for the prisoners, at least until Germany started losing badly and food became more scarce. Is the conflation of Norway and the CI justified here?
  • Maybe not for Soviet POWs because the cited source says "They also suffered the same privations and treatment as other Soviet prisoners". And according to another source hundreds or thousands of Soviet citizens died there.
    • I stand enlightened. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Unlike the Holocaust, where killings occurred far from Germany's borders : we need a mostly in here -- Dachau and Ravensbrück, for example, were certainly in Germany.
  • The vast, vast majority of Jewish holocaust victims were killed east of Germany's 1937 borders. None of the death camps, ghettos, or mass execution sites were located in Germany's prewar territory. Unless they were in the army, a German could well have seen their Jewish neighbors rounded up but would not have witnessed anyone being killed, except perhaps at the very end of the war. Dachau and Ravensbrück, and other concentration camps (except Auschwitz and Majdanek which were located in Poland) were not used for mass executions of Jews.
    • No, but Jews died in Dachau and Ravensbrück, didn't they? I agree there's a difference of degree, but we still surely need something like "almost all", unless we mean to exclude someone who starved or was beaten to death there from the victims of the Holocaust. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • What the cited source says is: "After 1945, many Germans claimed that they had not known about the murder of Jews, which had happened far away... Soviet POWs were dying in huge numbers in camps inside Germany by 1941 – a fact that was widely known and was occurring before most of the Jews had been deported and killed"
        • I'm only going on what you have quoted here, but the word claimed is doing a lot of work there. I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that most Germans must at least have had a very strong inkling of what was happening to Jews (see e.g. here), even if they hadn't physically seen a death camp. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • We have an entire article on the subject, but I have rephrased the text. (t · c) buidhe 03:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The caption on the Hess at Minsk photo has a lot of links on common terms that were linked much earlier -- and, I'm afraid, I must ask about "Wehrmacht" again...
  • It's often recommended to repeat links in captions
• About 500,000 prisoners had been freed by Allied armies by February 1945: is this just on the Eastern Front, or in the West as well?
  • Only the Red Army, clarified
• German Army scorched-earth tactics: I would cut Army, as the air force played its role too. One might even consider cutting German too -- didn't the Soviets carry out scorched earth tactics as they withdrew?
  • Source says German Army. I don't know if the Red Army used scorched earth tactics but the vast majority of war destruction seems to be attributed to the German occupiers.
• who fell into enemy hands or was encircled without capture: this seems rather harsh! Am I reading correctly that being surrounded made you a traitor if you didn't surrender?
  • While Moore states, "Servicemen who had been captured and escaped, or who had been encircled but not captured—something that may have applied to up to a million men in the first weeks of the conflict—had been dealt with under the Soviet criminal code as though they had committed high treason and were therefore subject to execution and the confiscation of their property." I was curious about this and tracked down the source he cited (Pavel Polian, ‘The Internment of Returning Soviet Prisoners-of-War after 1945’, in Bob Moore and Barbara Hately-Broad (eds), Prisoners of War, Prisoners of Peace (Oxford: Berg, 2005) p. 127.) Polian does not say that this class of people was considered universally traitors, only that they were screened after the war to find traitors. I rewrote the sentence based on Edele and Polian; it seems like in theory you were not a traitor if you surrendered due to the impossibility of continuing resistance, but in practice you would fall under suspicion.
    • That makes more sense: I suppose the (twisted) Soviet logic would have been that getting yourself encircled might show a less-than-stellar desire to fight and win: perhaps you only got into that situation because you weren't aggressive enough, or were hoping to be captured. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• classified all surrendering commanders and political officers culpable deserters : better as as culpable deserters, or culpable as deserters. If the former, could cut culpable -- you can't be a not-culpable deserter.
  • Done
• Trawniki men were typically sentenced : I would explain who these people were.
  • It's explained in the military collaboration section. Should I repeat it here?
    • I must admit that I missed it, so take from that what you will. It is quite a way up, even for more attentive readers. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• According to official statistics, "57.8 per cent were sent home, 19.1 per cent were remobilized into the army, 14.5 per cent were transferred to labour battalions of the People's Commissariat for Defence, 6.5 per cent were transferred to the NKVD 'for disposal', and 2.1 per cent were deployed in Soviet military offices abroad".: an odd place to quote -- this is just bare facts, so better as a paraphrase. It's minor, but the WP:NONFREE case here is not strong.
  • Rewrote
• Different figures appear in the book Dimensions of a Crime. Soviet Prisoners of War in World War II: better as a colon, not a full stop, between title and subtitle -- but why give the title at all, rather than the author, as we've normally done with scholars' opinions?
  • Non-notable authors, rephrased
• They were excluded from the Foundation Remembrance, Responsibility and Future fund: this could do with a bit of explanation -- it sounds from the article as though this was a Soviet thing.
  • Done
• others belonged to the NKVD, People's Militia, were from uniformed civilian services: not grammatical: "to the NKVD or People's Militia, were from..."
  • Done
• Christian Streit's landmark Keine Kameraden : landmark is a bit WP:PROMO, and I would translate the title for Anglophone readers.
  • Rewrote

That's a first pass -- my admiration continues. Clear and authoritative throughout: purely on prose, I found the "death toll" section slightly less sparkling than the rest, but that may be a reflection of the difficulty of conveying what is essentially a long list of (rather harrowing) statistics. As ever, my respect for taking on such a challenging and important topic and conveying it so well. I hope these comments are helpful, and please do take them as the beginning rather than the end of a conversation. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- apologies for a long and no doubt torturous review, but I hope it's been to the article's benefit. Once again, huge respect for doing an excellent job with such a challenging subject. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appear to be liable to assist, for various reasons of past personal reading. And in that matter, if people believe my past editing in historiography of state murders would bias me or cause the appearance of bias, please ask me to cease my contributions immediately? I haven't done one of these in a while, so this may take some time, and my standards may be out of alignment with current standards (I did check back on customs and practices last year). If I can have 4 days to get through the major headings? Fifelfoo (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• General query: Why skip MILHIST-A? Not enough review contributors? Fifelfoo (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I am aware that I'm reviewing a GA
• Now that is a lede sentence. That's a masterful lede sentence. It is also a masterful lede.
• "Among the criminal orders issued before the invasion was the execution of captured Soviet commissars." => "Among the criminal orders issued before the invasion was the order for the execution of captured Soviet commissars." Otherwise it appears that the executions happened before the war due to verb chaining issues across comparative verbal clauses.
• "military planners decided to breach it with the Soviet prisoners" => "with Soviet prisoners" the collective noun doesn't need an article
• "Soviet Jews, political commissars, and some officers, communists, intellectuals, Asians, and female combatants" => ", some officers," unnecessary "and" within a comma separated noun list.
  • Unsolicited advice, but the point has been missed here: the and is needed to clarify that the some applies to officers, communists etc, but that all Jews and commissars are included. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is correct. (t · c) buidhe 01:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Completely agree with decision to exclude historiography from lede: article isn't "Historiography of…". The implicit historiographical summary of "but far less studied" is an appropriate historical conclusion of interest to the general reader. Really well handled here. Historiography is often too danke for the general reader, but necessary in body. Picked the right lede point in complex terrain.
• "To increase the speed of conquest, the Germans" do note that I'm reading for stuff like this. The correct noun choices based on the historiographical arguments around "Ordinary men" are observed by readers like me, and I have read for these observations of "avoidance of Clean Wehrmacht" type myths. Correctly handled here, as a note, will observe if ever incorrectly handled (do not expect it to be.) I note that merely a paragraph later Nazi is used correctly to typify a view not universally held, compared to standard German myths of the East. This reinforces my belief that tonal choices of collective agent nouns will be correct.
• "World War I led to increased antisemitism" => "World War I had lead to increased antisemitism" consider? My en_AU_scholarly views of which English past tense to use may be atypical though. The point being that WWI didn't simply produce a result, but was an active process producing a result in the past.
• "and recognition of the need to secure food supplies" whose need? Unnamed noun. Suggest "recognition of Germany's need" as this dolchstosselegende myth isn't Nazi specific.
• "they were less effective than expected because of flight" whose flight? "because of civilian flight" missing noun. Alternately civilian and military flight if more representative of HQRS scholarly judgement? Scholars may have generalised all kinds of flight, regardless of STAVKA's hopes.
  • The source says : "Many managed to flee other large Soviet cities that were under German occupation" so I cannot explicitly say civilian if the source doesn't.
• "Although the mass deaths of prisoners in 1941 were controversial within the military, Abwehr officer Helmuth James Graf von Moltke was one of the few who favored treating Soviet prisoners according to the law." This is a bit of a mess. Complex multivalued expression with subtle nods to variations. "Although the virtue of mass deaths of prisoners…was controversial… [for purely instrumental reasons of policy?], Abwehr…according to law." I'm not sure what I'm meant to read here as a reader? Sure von Moltke might be admirable because he likes law of war, but what's the controversy about then?: Shoot them now or shoot them later?; Oh we don't want to starve slaves to death, we want to work them to death, work them in conditions of life unworthy of life, demonstratively punish them indefinitely, while your racial views are admirable they are of military detriment to defeating our enemy? Dangling an implicit controversy without explaining it in the sentence leads me unable to read von Moltke's legalism appropriately. Was he legalist in comparison to now/later policy views; was he legalist in comparison to military efficacy is death/ military efficacy is preservation of surrender as possible? This one is really troubling for me as I can't read it to an adequate conclusion of what kind of barbarism OKW/OKH policy level leaders were controverting over.
  • The source does not allow me to elaborate on Moltke's views, which would probably be WP:UNDUE because the article is not about Moltke.
• "Little planning was made for housing and feeding the millions of soldiers to be captured as part of the rapid encirclement actions that German generals were planning." I've read enough mass human death studies to understand what "little planning" indicates. The general reader may not have? "were planning, the absence of plans implied necessarily deficient ad hoc solutions regardless of intention."? I'm reading here for language, not for OR/HQRS representation obviously. The follow on sentence implies the hermeneutic gap: absence of planning results in deficient outcomes regardless of intention. (With the intentions I'd anticipate supplied below during implementation).
  • I'm not sure what you want me to add here. Some sources highlight the lack of planning and suggest that the mass death was driven by logistical factors rather than malice. Others imply the lack of planning is indicative of malice, or at best depraved, callous, and criminal disregard for human life. But there is one point on which they agree and that's what is encyclopedically included as an undisputed fact; my inclination is to WP:Let the reader decide on the rest.
• I love the section headings. I hate that I love the section headings (appropriate for the article). They are perfectly chosen, encyclopaedic, representative, NPOV.
• "In 1941, three or four Soviet soldiers were captured for each one killed in action;" comma unnecessary for clause, "In 1941 three or four Soviet…"
• "the ratio of prisoners was reduced later in the war" agents "reduce" ratios. Which agent decided to kill more prisoners? Passive voice here is an enemy to good writing in an agentic situation. "German forces reduced the number of captures later in the war." "Soviet operational and strategic art reduced the capacity for German forces to capture more POWs later in…". Do you see what I'm getting at here? Dangling an unspecified agent might be "safe" but it isn't "safe" for a history encyclopaedia article in an area of history where agents ordered people not to surrender or invited people out for a nice clean "partisan" hunt to be off the front lines?
  • Edele's argument isn't that more captured soldiers were killed—but that fewer defected and others were more inclined to put up a fight rather than surrender. (t · c) buidhe 14:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC) I have clarified this point (t · c) buidhe 02:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "By mid-December 1941, 79 percent of prisoners (more than two million) had been captured". 79% of what period? All of the GPW? Of 1941? Of the period of rout and retreat to the turning point? And which prisoners? I know it is implied by the article title but it's a dangling absent noun. "in thirteen major cauldron battles."? 79% of prisoners to mid-December 1941 were captured in cauldron battles specifically?
• "military factors such as poor leadership, lack of arms and ammunition, and being completely overwhelmed by" "and [who] being completely". Soviet soldiers? Soviet commands?
  • I could add another couple "Soviet" modifiers here but that would be repetitive and I believe that the intended meaning is 100% clear from context.
• "The [] Error: [undefined] Error: {{Lang}}: no text (help): no text (help) " lmftfy. Why is there a de link against Waffen-SS? What editorial decision led to this? does this indicate cross-wiki porting? I'd appreciate an answer as it would go to another section (plagiarism detailed detection). Not a threat by the way, but a request for explanation of the editorial decision.
  • No, the article is entirely original (not translated); this template was suggested by UndercoverClassicist above. (t · c) buidhe 14:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "The Red Army shot prisoners [less often]", German aligned combatant prisoners? Soviet or formerly soviet-aligned prisoners?
  • Clarified
• "this contributed to a mutual escalation of violence" how did the Red Army shooting fewer prisoners contribute to escalation? It violates the conceptual structure of the initial verbal comparative. Try breaking into separate sentences?
• "Killings before reaching the collection point [de] are not counted as part of the figures for Soviet prisoner deaths." Okay… so why is there a trailing de link? Whose figures for Soviet deaths? Where has this content come from? Seriously, from a plagiarism basis where has this come from? Stranded sentences that are incoherent in the paragraphs' argument that reference cross-wiki content make me really bloody worried about copyvio/closepara. Separate from cv/cp issues, whose figures, and why do we care? "OKH compiled figures ignored deaths prior to concentration at collection points." "Post-war Soviet figures neglected as POW deaths deaths prior to collection by OKH POW authorities." See the issue with a lack of a collective noun?
  • The link is a result of trying to avoid jargon (see some of UC's comments above), not copyvio from a foreign language source. The death statistics referred to are the German ones, since Soviet collection of information naturally cannot distinguish between missing and prisoners. Nevertheless, I have clarified. (t · c) buidhe 06:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "overtaken by the German advance without being captured were ordered to present themselves to the German authorities under the threat of summary execution" were ordered by whom? STAVKA? OKH? Kinda matters there. One's a lawful order, the other is an order given to unsurrendered combatants by OPFOR. The collapsed nouns are causing real problems in reading. I know what you're saying because I'm already aware of which institutional authority is responsible for which abhorrent preventable killings, but "average reader" won't be.
  • The interpretation that Soviet authorities would order their soldiers to surrender hadn't occurred to me, but I rewrote to clarify. (t · c) buidhe 14:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "Despite the Supreme Command of Ground Forces (OKH) order, prisoners were often taken under such circumstances;[57][54] thousands of Red Army soldiers were executed on the spot as "partisans" or "irregulars"". So we have a comparative between "Despite X: prisoners were taken; thousands of Soldiers were shot." That's not a good construction. Break into sentences to avoid spanning comparatives. "OKH ordered shootings. Prisoners were often taken by Heer units despite OKH commands. Yet thousands of Red Army soldiers were executed." Breaking into sentences prevents OKH orders spanning opposed comparatives.
• "Others evaded capture " which others? OKH, Heer, Soviet soldiers? There are three major nouns in the prior multi clause sentence, you need to reestablish the central noun.
• I have reached "Processing." I believe this is a sufficient basis to oppose on 1a. Failed noun targets, verbal clauses which avoid comparatives correctly, and passive voice avoiding assigning agentic power to responsible state authorities is sufficient. The clarity of the lede isn't present in the body where implied subjects and objects have to be read for aggressively exist. I will of course continue the review in other areas I identified I'd review, and expect good results there. (rest of 1, 2, plagiarism). Generalised editing on the points above throughout the article would be required for reassessment of this criteria (which I'd be happy to do.) Fifelfoo (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've rephrased in most of the above cases, while there are a few where I felt the suggestion was not an improvement. While I appreciate your feedback helping to improve the article and reduce the potential for misunderstanding, other editors seem to feel there is sufficient clarity from context. Some vagueness is inevitable, indeed appropriate, when dealing with many agencies issuing conflicting orders and people on the ground not necessarily following any of them. (t · c) buidhe 06:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not attacking the sources selected, or the choice to make a calculation for the purposes of the readers' benefit. Nor am I attacking the choice of calculation for comparison (USCPI). But there are two problems with the inflations: US cents are not specified (a wide variety of nations use cents); Current footnote 190abc Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis 2019. doesn't indicate that the calculation was a triviality performed by editorial staff. Consider "Approximately 13 cents in contemporary US dollars,[189] or $2 today." and "Calculated using Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis 2019." Fifelfoo (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, I'm not attached to this way of indicating inflation, but I used it because it was already in other featured articles, including the Holocaust in Slovakia. I did add "United States" for clarification. (t · c) buidhe 14:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not troubled by the editorial decision to use a post-war interstate arbitration of values between RM and USD, or your choice of CPI as appropriate inflator: these are good editorial decisions in inflation. Wages of unskilled workers (as Soviet POWS were forced to labour) is an appropriate CPI inflation use. I'm concerned about attribution of the calculation, and indication that the "modern comparator" is in USD. I think many people across the world can readily recognise USD values in beer and skittles, rent and hours of labour. Please see this edit: attempted indication of calculation for me indicating a fix. If you like the fix, please incorporate it. I am going to indicate that I'd 1c Inflation Only oppose over attribution of calculation, by I understand FAC moderators know who I am, and what bee I have in my bonnet over inflation calculation and the potential for original research in this domain, and that in my oppose they would read that I do not consider the underlying choice of inter-state value transformation or CPI as incorrect. They would weight my oppose on 1c inflation only appropriately. (compared to my expectation that every other category of my review would be support / resolved). Do you see what I'm getting at with the sample edit? We're showing that the calculation is Wikipedia's because the calculation is trivial here. Trivial equalling "not OR". Thank you for indicating the reference cents are USD cents.
  • Additionally in relation to other FAs: "Other stuff exists." I'm reviewing the high quality article that your editorial community has put time into on its merits in front of my eyes: FAC coordinators know how to value my opinion and would not overweight it. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm convinced the article is stable, I noted a series of 3K additions, and removals, the talk page appears to have been functioning when these emerged and raised them, and editors on the talk page sought as editors to reach a proper editorial resolution including asking for external assistance without prompting or conflict requiring such. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered using blockquotes drawn from primary sources which are themselves used in secondary sources as "typifying" of individual experiences? Text can act as media. It is useful for blending "colour" with "personal experience" and "voice from the era"? This is a query only, not a decline. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure that the encyclopedia's goals include capturing "colour", "personal experience" and "voice from the era". Furthermore, you don't find many similar quotations in a lot of related articles, including FAs. I'm not opposed to quotations but I only add them if I feel that it increases the reader's encyclopedic understanding more than paraphrasing/rewriting, per MOS:QUOTE. (t · c) buidhe 14:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for responding to this query. I was following MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE's concept of media as "an important illustrative aid to understanding." While I've got the reading to experience the illustrative affect (emotional reaction) to the image files presented. From your MOS:QUOTE: "Quotation should be used, with attribution, to present emotive opinions that cannot be expressed in Wikipedia's own voice, but never to present cultural norms as simply opinional." My personal editorial opinion is that History articles can benefit from illustrative blockquotes from primary sources acting "as Media," for the purposes we use other media for. I must admit that I contributed significantly to the essay, which includes the observation at WP:HISTIP, "A fact qualifies for illustration when a major scholarly text explicitly demonstrates a point by reference to a primary source, or quotes a primary source in demonstration of a major (as weighted) fact." Text causes me to react in ways illustrative image media doesn't. I'm not suggesting quoting Idi i smotri. As the sponsoring editor you may have read the most reputable scholarly sources who themselves cannot avoid quoting primary sources to illustrate the impact on humans that encamped starvation or sub-survival calorie slave labour do not have when referred to technically. I trust your judgement entirely here, but was suggesting a category of historical media that is sometimes neglected. If a more versed editor than I could recommend an example of a recent historical FA that quotes a primary source in terms of WP:HISTIP's suggestions I would value their example of style, as I've been on an extended wikibreak. Thank you again for considering this query, I've noted it as resolved based on your consideration. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Statistical graphic "Soviet prisoners of war by year of capture" almost certainly requires sourcing for its stats. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The data is cited in the Commons image description as recommended, which you get to by clicking on the image. (t · c) buidhe 14:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am satisfied the length suits the topic, and the section lengths suit the importance of the sections to the encyclopaedic presentation. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I appreciate your review. (t · c) buidhe 14:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Fifelfoo, can I just confirm that your oppose still stands, on the basis of criteria 1a and 1c? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Specify USD$ in the footnotes
  • Done
• Consistently italicize and capitalize the German words used, e.g Abwher -> Abwher and lebensraum -> Lebensraum
  • I capitalized lebensraum but I don't agree with italicizing when most English sources don't (Abwehr, Waffen-SS, etc.)
• Use Umlaut consistently or not (ä replaced with ae etc..) e.g Flossenbürg becomes Flossenbuerg
  • where is it not used?
    • Militaergeschichtliche Zeitschrift, Wuelfel, (note: Neuengamme is correct)
  • Fixed both thx (t · c) buidhe 19:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I understood the comparison of Polish/Russian prisons of war, but given it mentions other civilians of Russian citizenry, I am surprised by lack of mention of World War II casualties of Poland which is one of the highest in WW2.
  • why is this relevant to include? It's certainly not true in absolute terms, where the Soviet losses dwarfed everyone else's. Losses were proportionally higher in the western Soviet union as well
• I was confused by the racial hierarchy paragraph; Nazi racial theories § Slavs left me more confused what is meant by Asians, and what is meant by Russian, particularly with counter-examples of Georgians being consider Aryan potentially on one hand, and Ukrainians being called "Untermentsch" on the other.
  • Where Soviet citizens were concerned there was a clear hierarchy of treatment in practice, which was only partly based on Nazi racial theories." Asian does not mean Georgian but Central Asians, Siberians who looked" Mongoloid ". I can try to source more explanation on that point
• @Buidhe and Shushugah: is there more to come from either of you here? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Gog the Mild @Buidhe thanks for the ping! The link to Mongoloids for Asians helped me better understand what is being referred within local racial hierarchies. I am happy to give my suppport and wanted to mention some small nitpicks (not blockers for my support)

  • Wikilink military or police collaboration and recruiting Soviet collaborators for military and police functions with link Collaboration in the German-occupied Soviet Union
  • Remove MOS:FULLSTOP from images captions. Some have them, some don't. Better to be consistent and remove all of them.

  ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Shushugah. Without actually checking the captions, I assume that the perceived problem is because they adhere to MOS:CAPFRAG ? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild exactly. I see that consistency between sentence and caption fragment is not explicitly required. Some of the captions could easily be converted into sentences, but not required nor beneficial. So strike my feedback on MOS:CAPFRAG. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the wikilink, appreciate feedback and your support :) (t · c) buidhe 03:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's great to see a high quality article on this very important topic. I'd like to offer the following comments:

• I agree that the article seems miss-titled given it covers all aspects of how the Germans treated Soviet POWs. The current title could give readers the impression that only some Soviet POWs were subjected to atrocities or that this was a sub-set of the German policies.
• There's a fair bit of over-linking. I'd suggest using one of the tools to identify duplicate links.
  • Guidance on MOS:REPEATLINK has changed and I believe the article fulfills the new standards (it's now recommended to repeat links each section where that aids reader understanding): many readers don't go in order.
• "To increase the speed of conquest, the German invaders planned to feed their army by looting" - from memory, Adam Tooze argues in The Wages of Destruction that this was also due to the weakness of the German war economy
  • I'm not sure if that is worth mentioning in this article, it's not mainly about pillage.
    • The statement that this was done only to "increase the speed of conquest" is an oversimplification. The strain that the German war economy was under is relevant to the topic of this article, so it seems a good idea to get details like this right. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Great, thanks for the tip. I mined the Tooze source for information and revised the sentence in the article. (t · c) buidhe 12:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "Because prisoners of war were held under tighter control than urban or Jewish civilians, they had a higher death rate from starvation" - this seems out of place
  • How so? It is intended to build on the previous sentences and explain similarities and differences between Nazi policies
    • This looks fine on second reading Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The text starting with "It is disputed if the German command" doesn't really cover the differing views and who holds them
  • OK, I have attempted to rewrite. I think sources agree that as time went on the labor of prisoners was prioritized, but where they differ is emphasizing logistical vs ideological factors, and whether it is a "mass killing" or only "mass death".
• "Especially in 1941, the German Army often refused to take prisoners on the Eastern Front and shot Soviet soldiers who tried to surrender." - this sentence seems far too categorical. It would also be good to explain whether this was the actions of individual soldiers or whether they were directed to not take prisoners (or a bit of both)
  • clarified that these do not seem to be ordered from above, but tacitly tolerated by the military leadership
• "Red Army soldiers overtaken by the German advance without being captured were ordered by the Supreme Command of Ground Forces (OKH) to present themselves to the German authorities under the threat of summary execution" - how could and did the German high command order Soviet soldiers to do this?
  • "Schon am 25. Juli 1941 befahl das OKH, versprengte Rotarmisten hätten „sich sofort bei der nächsten deutschen Wehrmachtsdienststelle zu melden. Geschieht das nicht, sind sie von einem gebietsweise festzusetzenden Zeitpunkt ab als Freischärler anzusehen und entsprechend zu behandeln."" and what was the result? "Im Rahmen der Partisanenbekämpfung wurde nicht nur in Zivil untergetauchten Soldaten, sondern sogar aufgegriffenen Uniformierten die Erschießung angedroht." Yes, the order was actually directed at Red Army soldiers, although the extent to which it reached them was debatable: "Mit Hilfe von Fristen sollte das deutsche Besatzungsgebiet „von Versprengten gereinigt" werden53. Aber war es realistisch und vor allem fair, die in den Wäldern und Sümpfen vagabundierenden Uberlebenskünstler mittels Plakaten und Flugblättern erreichen zu wollen?"
• "An estimated 20 percent or more" - what is this a proportion of? The total POWs taken during this period or something else?
  • Clarified
• "Shooting prisoners was encouraged." - by whom, and who were they encouraging to do this?
  • Clarified
• "about half were recaptured,[92] and around 10,000 reached Switzerland." - surely far more would have returned home to German occupied territory, cross the front line to Soviet territory or become partisans?
  • that's true but we have no figures for that.
• "Due to its clear-cut criminality, the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war was mentioned in the International Military Tribunal's indictment" - can you say why?
  • It was particularly illegal because the Geneva Convention was very clear, in contrast to other crimes some of which were less well defined and others that were invented almost from whole cloth at Nuremberg
    • Sorry, I miss-read the text here to include a 'not' between 'was' and 'mentioned'. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "Viktor Zemskov says" - I'd suggest identifying who this person is (e.g. is he a historian?)
  • Done
• "Thousands of books have been published about the Holocaust, but in 2016 there were no books in English about the fate of Soviet prisoners of war." - this seems over-simplistic given that the topic is routinely covered in English language works on the Soviet-German war, sometimes in quite a bit of detail.
  • While it's not a perfect metric, I've seen it in multiple sources. It's clear to me that the topic is vastly under studied compared to the number of deaths, even in comparison to other atrocities that killed large numbers of Soviet citizens - such as anti-partisan warfare. (t · c) buidhe 21:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surely something can be said that acknowledges that there is in fact a sizable English language literature on this topic while also noting the lack of dedicated books? (the English language literature on the Soviet Union's war experiences continues to be very patchy across the board). The topic is usually covered as part of popular works on the war, so English language people with an interest in the conflict should be aware of it as a result. For instance, I first became aware of his issue in the 1990s through Anthony Beevor's enormously popular book Stalingrad, which includes a focus on the experiances of the Soviet prisoners who ended up fighting with the Germans at Stalingrad. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      While that's true, I don't think it's verifiable to make such a claim about the English language literature specifically. Quinkert et al. discuss Russian and German literatures but not publications in English. (t · c) buidhe 01:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      • I've had a poke around academic journal databases, and haven't hard any luck here either. I really don't like this text as it misrepresents the literature, but I guess it's technically accurate. I'd suggest continuing to look for sources here, perhaps in PhD thesis literature review sections and the like. Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd suggest briefly noting the far right narrative that has attempted to present the way in which the western Allies held German POWs in 1945 as being directly comparable to the treatment of Soviet POWs. Nick-D (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems UNDUE given that I didn't see this anywhere in the sources and even the crank stuff like Other Losses doesn't focus on this comparison. (t · c) buidhe 02:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. I needed to weed a lot of it out of Wikipedia articles a few years ago, and some sources on Holocaust denial note that this comparison gets made. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review (t · c) buidhe 04:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Nick-D, 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) 10:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've posted some replies above. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed, though I've left a further response above. Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised that there has not been an image review so far. Here goes my attempt at one, Buidhe:

• All images have appropriate sources and licenses. Only the link in the German advances map is no longer online, you will have to add an archive URL. Matarisvan (talk) 09:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest adding an alt for the infobox image. All other images have appropriate alts. Matarisvan (talk) 09:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added archive link (t · c) buidhe 12:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The image review is a pass then. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Text review:

• "Although more than a million": "Although" is not necessary here, consider removing?
• "mass death of prisoners, with": prefix "along" before "with", since we have a conjuctive here?
• "Little planning was made": "done" instead of "made"?
• "that was fewer": "the actual number" instead of "that"?
• "ordered from above": "by the high command" instead of "from above"?
• "while escaped": "after their escape" would be better grammatically?
• Link to Gestapo on first use instead of second?
• "1,487 calories": consider providing the required calories per day for an adult male as a comparable?
  • This is a bit difficult. Many were required to perform hard labor which increases calorie requirements. I did mention that it's a starvation amount even if the POWs received it, which they didn't.
• "and by the end of the war around a million were": "and the total number released was around a million by the end of the war" would be grammatically better, wdyt?
• "With the army's cooperation, [] Error: [undefined] Error: {{Lang}}: no text (help): no text (help) units": Fix the lang template?
• "Soviet Muslims mistaken for Jews were sometimes killed": are any numbers available? If so, consider adding?
  • No
• "when the front approached": what does "front" mean here? Frontline? Do we intend to say "when the frontline was closer to the camps"?
  • Linked Front (military)
• "advocating the transfer": add "for" after "advocating"?
• "under the control of the SS": "to" instead of under?
• "Officers were over-represented": are any percentages known?
  • Not in any of the sources consulted
• Link to Hanover-Wülfel?
  • There isn't a good link, even on de wikipedia the closest is de:Döhren-Wülfel, no en wiki article for that
• Is the 2015 reparations amount known? If so, consider adding along with an inflation adjusted figure?
  • Done (still recent enough that I'm not sure inflation is helpful to include)
• "Hartmann's 3 million": Introduce and link to Hartmann here instead of in the legacy section?

Source formatting review:

• Would you consider adding DOIs and JSTOR IDs for books? If so, I can provide them. Many sources are from OUP, CUP or other university presses which allow access through The Wikipedia Library that is easier than accessing through ISBNs.
  • I have no objection if you want to do it.
• For Quinkert, Keller, Kozlova, Meier & Winkel and Latyschew 2021, I don't think the following text is necessary if you're using harvc: "Dimensionen eines Verbrechens: Sowjetische Kriegsgefangene im Zweiten Weltkrieg | Dimensions of a Crime. Soviet Prisoners of War in World War II (in German and English). Metropol Verlag. ISBN 978-3-86331-582-5." Just using in1, in2 and year parameters would be enough.
  • I don't understand in1 and the documentation doesn't explain it, as far as I can tell. Could you reformat one of the refs so I can see what you mean?
• Add archive URLs for "Consumer Price Index, 1800–", Foreign Claims Settlement Commission 1968, Otto & Keller 2019?
  • I don't have the script or bot that does this, but I don't have any objection to it.
• Remove the links to USGPO, Cambridge University Press, Yale University Press, Militärgeschichtliche Zeitschrift and Russian History? Otherwise you will have to link to all other publishers and journals to maintain consistency.
  • I should now have bluelinked everything that has an enwiki article.
• Consider adding series and volume numbers for sources which provide these? For example, Pohl 2012, Otto & Keller 2019 etc.
  • I guess I'm not convinced that this is particularly helpful (it isn't needed to find the book) and I try to keep the info in bibliographies to what is actually going to be useful.
• Is there any material in Keller 2011 which we could add here? Otherwise, if it is similar to the works cited here, then you may have to remove it.
  • It goes into a lot of detail on a particular group of Soviet POWs that are a minority of the total, thus WP:UNDUE to add. We already cite a bunch of info from his summary of his research in Keller 2021. The full book is listed for readers desiring more information on that specifically. If there was a separate article for Soviet prisoners of war in Germany I would remove it and list in there instead.

I'll try to do a source review with spot checks soon. Overall, I found the article impressive and well written, congratulations to you on writing such a great article. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 09:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your review, I have actioned everything except some of what I mentioned above. (t · c) buidhe 13:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi, I have done the biblio formatting, please let me know if my format is ok with you. On the text and source formatting, a support from me. Will try to get the spotchecks done in 1-2 days. Matarisvan (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks! All the formatting looks good. Note: I added a source, Westermann 2023, in response to comments above (t · c) buidhe 01:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I should be able to get you pdfs of almost all the sources if you can't access them (t · c) buidhe 14:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not a problem, I had noticed that addition during my edit and formatted it too. For the spot checks, I will be going through 15 refs which is roughly 6% of the total refs. For generating the ref numbers I will use a random number generator to get as random numbers as possible. Here goes the source review, @Buidhe:

  • All sources are from reliable publishers and authors.
  • #9, #14, #39, #43, #47, #49, #80, #93, #106, #117, #134, #156, #190: all ok
  • #28: mostly ok but I couldn't find the supporting text for "several weeks after the start of the war", since no date is given for Hitler's rejection of POW terms.
  • #254: The second sentence is ok, but the first is not. The source says "Post-war German rationalizations and apologia for the Soviet mortality even included claims that it was the long-term undernourishment of Soviet soldiers by their own Government that had led to their widespread deaths in German captivity" while the article says "After the war, some Germans made apologetic statements about the 1941 causes of mass death". I think you misunderstood what apologia means here, the Germans were not apologizing for the Soviet deaths but trying to defend themselves, one definition of apologia can be "a formal written defence of one's opinions or conduct". So you will have to change the first sentence to some variant of "After the war, there were some German attempts to deflect the blame for the 1941 mass deaths".

  Matarisvan (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For #28, based on the text it occurred before another Soviet order that was dated in August. I'm looking for another source that gives the time frame more explicitly. It is supposed to be in Streim's chapter of this book, but I cannot access it :(

  For #254, I mean apologetic in the second sense listed in the dictionary, but evidently that's not clear so I rewrote it. (t · c) buidhe 20:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't find anything else for #28, but I could remove it if you want. (t · c) buidhe 20:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No, let me check by using Streim's book's DOI and JSTOR, I'll wikimail you the page or page range. Matarisvan (talk) 05:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Buidhe, Google Books has the access to the relevant pages, namely 295-296, but these also do not have any dates. I think you will have to remove the phrase "several weeks after the start of the war". Matarisvan (talk) 08:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If you look at page 296, these diplomatic communication are dated to July and August 1941—aka within the first several weeks of the war. (t · c) buidhe 13:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The source review a pass then, @Buidhe. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are redundancies in the prose. I have made some edits to the Lead as examples [22]. The main problem is the excessive use of "numbers" as in "numbers of" and so forth. Can we check that these are needed and for variations where possible? Graham Beards (talk) 11:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the copyedits. I went through the body and reduced the use of the word "numbers", but I cannot think of a better rephrasing in the remaining cases. Although some could be replaced by "amount", I don't think it would be an improvement. (t · c) buidhe 16:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am pleased to add my Support. Well done. Graham Beards (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "The German military did not record Soviet prisoner deaths that occurred prior to arriving at the collection points." Slightly clumsy. Perhaps a slight rephrase? Eg 'The German military did not record Soviet deaths that occurred prior to prisoners arriving at the collection points' or similar.
• Only one work has a publisher location (Foreign Claims Settlement Commission). Could we have consistency?
• "Two-thirds of them died from starvation, exposure, and disease by early 1942". Perhaps 'Two-thirds of them had died from starvation, exposure, and disease by early 1942'.
• "ranking as one of the highest death rates from mass atrocity in history." Really! Surely there were plenty with a 100% death rate? I note that the same phrase is used in the main article, but the greater context makes it more reasonable to take "rate" as meaning 'number'. I suggest tweaking the wording in both cases, certainly in the lead.
  • "Death rate" doesn't refer to the percentage of people who died, but the ratio of deaths per unit of time, in this case deaths per month: "one of the highest rates of human destruction in history". Is there a way to rephrase it so it's clearer what the source means? (t · c) buidhe 03:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so currently you have "Two-thirds of them had died from starvation, exposure, and disease by early 1942—ranking as one of the highest death rates from mass atrocity in history." I think that if you are going to go with this it needs to be based on a number rather than a fraction. Eg 'By early 1942 over two-thirds of the more than three million Soviet military personal taken prisoner had died.' Then, perhaps in a separate sentence, 'This is one of the highest sustained rates of killing for any mass atrocity in history.' How does this or something like it sound? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done (t · c) buidhe 03:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "More prisoners were shot for being wounded, ill, or unable to keep up with forced marches." Optional, → 'More prisoners were shot because they were wounded, ill, or unable to keep up with forced marches.'

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Actioned everything else besides that raised above. Thank you. (t · c) buidhe 03:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Llewee (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People who grew up in the UK might remember attending an infant school or the "infants" of their primary school. What they might not be aware of is that the concept has a long and complicated history; stretching from New York to New Zealand.

This is my second featured nomination. The article has recently been promoted to good status (See:Talk:Infant school/GA1). Thank you to anyone who decides to review it.Llewee (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Since the movement began in Scotland, could some lead mention be done as to whether infant schools flourished in Scotland?

• Frustratingly, I haven't been able to find much information about Scotland. Charitable infant schools certainly existed there in the early part of the movement but Scotland seems to drop out of the story at the middle of the 19th century. Presumably infant schools weren't adopted into the state system there to the same extent.--Llewee (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not a complete picture but I have added more information about the history in Scotland into the body of the article.--Llewee (talk) 10:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• According to David Salmon and Winifred Hindshaw," What is their profession?

• The source says they were as senior staff at a teacher training college. I have described them as "educationalists in the early 20th century".--Llewee (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "manager Robert Owen". Is manager the proper term or was the the owner or some such?

• The source says manager. I have added some additional detail and dealt with the false title issue.--Llewee (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "He saw child labour as damaging and forbid children under the age of ten from working in his factory." Should forbid be forbade.

• done--Llewee (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Various other figures — including Robert Pole, David Goyder, William Wilson, William Allen and Thomas Bilby — also established infant schools and wrote books about the subject." Given that these are apparently not notable, though I did not check, are they worth naming?

• Taken them out, Goyder comes up in the US section but mentioning him here doesn't really add much additional info.--Llewee (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Academic David Turner" this and also Owen above, I thought false titles were disfavoured in British English?

• tweaked wording--Llewee (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "T.B Stephens" Is this properly punctuated?

• Changed to "T.B."--Llewee (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "making it easier for them to pay infant schools relatively low fees.[47]" An apostrophe somewhere, likely after schools

• reworded sentence--Llewee (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "The number of children under seven in schools for older children also rose." I'm not a fan of having "also rose" refer back to a previous section. Perhaps begin, "Like workers' wages, the number of ..."

• I've changed "also rose" to "increased".--Llewee (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "it would be sometime" some time?

• done--Llewee (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Some teachers failed to teach reading to poorer pupils, with no reason to develop an interest in the subject outside of school. " This sentence doesn't read as complete.

• Combined with previous sentence.--Llewee (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "For instance, an employee of the Board of Education, Lord Eustace Percy later wrote in his memoirs:" He appears to have been president of the Board of Education (and earlier, parliamentary secretary), which are political positions held by members of Parliament. He was not an employee.

• Sorry I missed this one, changed to "political appointment".--Llewee (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Infant-stage children solving puzzles at a school in Dominion of New Zealand (c. 1900 – c. 1947)" I would omit "Dominion of".

• done--Llewee (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "In order to encourage the freed workers to remain working there and spread Christianity among their children." Not a sentence.

• Combined with previous sentence.--Llewee (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• the owners power: missing apostrophe

• reworded--Llewee (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "a system of state funded schooling in Ireland " redirects to Stanley letter. WP:EASTEREGG would seem to have some relevance.

• I've changed the link to "establish a system" to try to make clearer what the linked article is about.--Llewee (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm surprised throughout the Ireland section, there is no mention of religion.

• The Catholic Church is mentioned a lot in the book. I've added more information about its influence into the article but I'm trying to keep the focus on topics that are specifically relevant to infant schools/classes.--Llewee (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "skepticism". I thought this was "scepticism" in BrEng.

• Yes, changed--Llewee (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overtime maybe over time

• done--Llewee (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. I guess what strikes me at first glance is that this seems mostly about the past, the history, without much discussion of what present-day infant schools are like. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt I think less information specific to infant schools exists for more recent times because they have gradually lost some of their separate identity. I have tried to flesh out the "part of primary education" section with more information.--Llewee (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support certainly on prose. I'm hedging some on comprehensiveness for the reasons stated above, but hope to be able to enter a full support following additional reviews. Wehwalt (talk) 13:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some general notes:

• I'm not sure thefreedictionary.com is the best source to use for the first ref; also, Collins and Merriam-Webster both state that its simply in use "in the UK". Since these have at least some history in Scotland, I think that'll be better to use.

• I have tidied up the terminology section and added a few dictionary sources.--Llewee (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 98 has an error that needs fixing.

• done--Llewee (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Grimshaw (1931) and Morgan (1936) needs the publisher put in title case.

• done--Llewee (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Capitalise Co in Longmans, Green, and Co.

• done--Llewee (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• You wikilink RTE News in bibliography, but not BBC News. Try for consistency one way or another here.

• done--Llewee (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of your sources aren't in title case and need to be converted to such; Garland, Keane et al, Lehane, Lewis, Pence, and Salmon.

• done--Llewee (talk) 13:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• University of Wales Press needs a location (Cardiff), as does Palgrave Macmillan (London), Routledge (Abingdon), Peter Lang (Laussane), and Taylor & Francis (Milton Park). Alternatively, remove location from all the cites that have it.

• Taken out the existing locations.--Llewee (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• You need to wikilink either all publishers or none of them.

• I think I have got all the ones that have articles now.--Llewee (talk) 11:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Take "others=Internet Archive" out of the Pence cite. They didn't make the book. Also take out the via, since you (rightfully) Yaren't saying Via Jstor for the JSTOR cites.

• done--Llewee (talk) 23:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Add a space between the initials T.B Turner.

• done--Llewee (talk) 11:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• May et al Doesn't have an ISBN.

• added--Llewee (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a very broad article in a field thats well-studied, so obviously we can't use all sourcing. I do feel like you're underusing modern educational journal articles though, and there might be some good ones we can find. Some sources that came up from a search which might be useful:
  • Shannon, R. L., & Shannon, D. M. (1992). The British Infant School: A Reconsideration. The Educational Forum, 56(1), 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131729109335177 - Good sourcing for its influence outside of the UK.
  • Monks, Claire P., and Sarah O’Toole. "Bullying in preschool and infant school." The Wiley Blackwell handbook of bullying: A comprehensive and international review of research and intervention 2 (2021): 2-19.
  • Burger, Kaspar. "Entanglement and transnational transfer in the history of infant schools in Great Britain and salles d’asile in France, 1816–1881." History of Education 43, no. 3 (2014): 304-333.
  • Luc, Jean-Noël. "The spread of infant school models in Europe during the first half of the nineteenth century." In The Development of Early Childhood Education in Europe and North America: Historical and Comparative Perspectives, pp. 31-50. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2015.
  • Raveaud, Maroussia. "Assessment in French and English infant schools: assessing the work, the child or the culture?." Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 11, no. 2 (2004): 193-211.
  • Blatchford, Peter, Viv Moriarty, Suzanne Edmonds, and Clare Martin. "Relationships between class size and teaching: A multimethod analysis of English infant schools." American Educational Research Journal 39, no. 1 (2002): 101-132.

That's about it for now. Let me know when you want me to take a second look, @Llewee:. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Generalissima, I have responded to each of your points now and expanded the article with information from journals. I hope you will be able to have another look when you have time.--Llewee (talk) 11:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Took a look back over - apologies that this took a while - but I think it's in a lot better spot now! Happy to support on source review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:British_Central_School_Borough_Road.png: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Infant_gallery.png, File:Beckside_Infants_c.1900s_(archive_ref_DDPD-2-2-8)_(25384528296).jpg, File:First_Infant_School_in_Green_Street,_New_York_MET_MM82866.jpg

• The second image is from a book published in 1840 (See:https://archive.org/details/asystemforeduca00wildgoog/page/n130/mode/1up). I will have a look for the other ones in a moment.--Llewee (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I found this which says the first image was published in 1834 in London.--Llewee (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't know about the third. I'm not sure if it was ever published before it was released on Flickr.--Llewee (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I've replaced this image with File:St Marys Infants School children in Saturday Market, Beverley for Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee 1899 (archive ref DDPD-2-2-8) (25381071806).jpg. It was taken in 1897 and does not appear to have been published until it was released on Flickr in 2016.--Llewee (talk) 10:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I assumed the fourth one was 1828 in New York based on the information in the Wikicommons page and source.--Llewee (talk) 23:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Which_is_your_Right_Hand%3F_A_study_in_an_Infant_School._(Graphic,_1898).jpg: copyright terms turn over on the new year, so life+100 tagging won't be correct until 1 January 2025.

• Changed to 95--Llewee (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:The_dog_(BM_1846,1219.12).jpg: the permission field and the licensing tags are contradictory here - NC images are considered non-free for our purposes

• The British museum gives this information on how to use it which links to CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 does that mean it's not available to use?--Llewee (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I have just taken this image out.--Llewee (talk) 11:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:The_Infant_Model_School,_with_Owen's_Original_clocktower.png: what is the specific source?

• This museum website says it was from The Teacher's Manual for Infant Schools and Preparatory Classes but I can't find the image in this copy of the book.--Llewee (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, not an image issue, but I would suggest a thorough review of the article for style. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• There are 9,279 words, which will take half an hour to read. That's 0.3 tomats, so a third of a short novel. This is pushing the upper end of WP:SIZE, and reduces the odds that the whole article will get read.

• I have split of Spread of infant schools outside Britain and Ireland into its own article. The original article is now 7778 words. Is that short enough or do I need to split it further?--Llewee (talk) 10:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It is missing obvious links to articles such as Moral education, Physical exercise, and Playground. I've looked at a sample of 188 randomly selected articles over 5,000 words in length, and they typically have between 200 and 500 links to other articles (median of 312, mean of 376). Infant school is at the low end, so it could be a case of needing more links, or it could be a case of not choosing the right links. I think that the former is more likely than the latter.

• I have a number of additional links to the article, including the ones you suggested.--Llewee (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that this article really is what it says on the tin -- there is comparatively little, indeed almost nothing as far as I can see, about what an infant school actually is in the modern day, how they work, what it's like inside them, how important they are, the problems facing them, and so on. What we currently have, I think, is closer to an article like History of primary education in the United Kingdom.

Similarly, I think the section on Ireland would be better re-thought: as the scope of the article is currently conceived, we need one, and yet it really doesn't have the substance to do what it needs to do -- we have barely anything there after the 1960s, which clearly won't do for an article that purports to be the port of call for infant schools in Ireland as they exist right now.

Unfortunately, I am not sure that these issues can be easily remedied, at least not within the scope of an FAC. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist I have added more information on present day infant schools in the UK and will do more research into them in Ireland. I think the overall structure of the article is inevitable as they are mainly notable for their historic role. There aren't that many separate infant schools left and the term doesn't seem to be used much officially.--Llewee (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our article says that 10% of children of the relevant age attended one in 2018, and there are 1,700 of them -- that's not a small number, though it is obviously much smaller than the figure for primary schools. More generally, throughout the article, I think the distinction between those two things often gets muddy: as alluded above, I don't get the sense that the article really knows how it defines its scope between "infant schools" and "the education of children under about 8". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part, with the exception of the earliest infant schools, I don't think there is much distinction between the two. The article says the term infant school "might refer to a separate school or a department within a larger school". The UK government uses the term infant classes for all children in the relevant age group.--Llewee (talk) 12:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but we have this article (Infant school), a separate article for primary education (Primary school), a specific article for primary education in Wales and a lengthy article on education in England with relevant sections that don't fully overlap any of those categorisations. We then have History of education in Ireland and Education in the Republic of Ireland on the Irish material.

In my view, this is a scope-of-article problem, not a scope-of-subject one -- I think it would help for you to have a look at that set of articles, work out how they do (or should) fit together, and then think about where the material you want to write about would be best located. As it stands, I think this article is quite a comprehensive history of how young children have been educated in Britain, but it wouldn't be enough for the article about cars to be primarily a history of how cars used to be built. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has been open for over six weeks and hasn't garnered a consensus to promote, and comments seem to have stalled. I have added it to Urgents, but unless it receives several further in depth reviews over the next week or so I am afraid that it is going to be archived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 18:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the turn of the century, Phil Elverum of the Microphones released the folk album It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water. Although frequently overlooked in the following years (overshadowed by its younger sibling), the album still received critical acclaim, going on to be "widely regarded as [an] indie pop classic" and inspire "weirdo singer/songwriter[s]" everywhere. Thanks to @Gen. Quon: for mentorship on this nomination. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 18:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I worked with PerfectSoundWhatever to punch up the article prior to this nom, and I think it's in a solid spot. The references are good, the prose (imho) reads nicely, and the topic is comprehensive without being unnecessarily exhaustive.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 00:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will review. 750h+ 14:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lead

• make the lead two paragraphs (per MOS:LEADLENGTH)
• The album was recorded on analogue tape ==> "The album was recorded on analog tape" (AmEng)
• The album was recorded on analog tape, and Elverum embraced the medium's technical imperfections. ==> "Recorded on analog tape, Elverum embraced the medium's technical imperfections"

background and recording

• came to increasingly trust his musical abilities. ==> "came to trust his musical abilities increasingly."
• Prior to It Was Hot's release ==> "Before It Was Hot's release" (conciseness)
• between September 24, 1999, and March 6, 2000 at Dub add a comma after "2000"
• on analogue tape, which ==> "on analog tape, which"

music and themes

• merge the first paragraph and second paragraph (single-sentence paragraphs are generally unfavorable)

release and reception

• droning, distorted guitars and organs" ==> "droning, distorted guitars[,] and organs"

That's all i got. Fine work on the article! 750h+ 08:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@750h+: Thank you for the review! All comments implemented. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 17:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. 750h+ 00:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ""The Glow" acts as the album's climax and introduces the concept of the "glow", which was explored in more depth on 2001's The Glow Pt. 2." - this reads a tiny bit oddly, as you refer to this album in the present tense but then a later album in past tense. Maybe this could be dodged by saying "which would be explored".......?
• "as well as the extended play Window:." - is that colon part of the title, rather than a typo.....?
• Check for overlinking - drones is linked multiple times, as are K Records, Phil Elverum, the Microphones, PopMatters, and more....
• That's all I got. Great work overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the comments! "was" changed to "would be". The colon is intentional.

  Per MOS:REPEATLINK, repeat links are allowed if in different sections. I don't think removing many of the links you mentioned would be beneficial to the reader, although I removed some. Let me know your thoughts. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 22:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images seem well-placed. File:ItWasHotWeStayedInTheWaterCover.jpg has a broken source URL. Where on the source for File:Will Oldham 2017.jpg is the licence? File:The Pull - The Microphones.ogg's rationale probably needs to describe a bit more why a sample is needed. File:Eric'striplive.jpg from which one file is derived has a broken source. I don't see ALT text anywhere. Source-wise (spot-check contained therein):

Thanks for the review: will reply to each point in order. Source URL fixed; per diario.madrid.es website, "With few exceptions expressly indicated, the contents of the daily website.madrid.es are published under Creative Commons CC by 4.0 license" (google translate); file rationale expanded; can't find the Eric's trip file anywhere else, not sure what else I can do, deadlinked content doesnt necessitate removal; alt text added. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 04:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• #1 doesn't mention "The Pull" anywhere. It also doesn't say that "The Glow" is the climax or that it has segments.
  • It Was Hot opens with lightly-strummed acoustic guitar switching rhythmically from the right to left channel of your speaker. Don't need to cite that the opener is "The Pull".
  • leading up perfectly to the album's climax, the laid-back yet riveting charms of the Microphones' otherworldly cover of Eric's Trip's "Sand," and the epic "The Glow." [...] The latter [...] weaves several loosely connected segments together into a disjointed, yet brilliantly self-referential epic.— PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
• Where does #2 speak of liner notes?
  • It's kind of a WP:BLUE. The liner notes not giving individual contributions is an obvious fact and is used to introduce the following quote. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
• In #3, the article text resembles the source's "It was his first LP in a streak to revolve around an element of nature – here, of course, water — before 2001’s The Glow pt. II captured fire and air and 2003’s Mount Eerie did rock. " a bit much. Is the "B" in the sidebar supposed to source the 4 out of 5 star thing?
  • 4/5 changed to B. For the wording, honestly, I disagree. The parts that are similar are mostly the parts that are facts and have to be kept— the albums, the element names, use of the word "element". I don't see ways to reword without making the sentence less clear but open to ideas. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
• #4's "because even though he collaborated with other musicians on the project throughout the years, the Microphones name is really synonymous with Elverum himself. " might resemble "Although the project has involved many collaborations with other musicians, it is considered synonymous with Elverum" too much.
• #6 Again sentence structure very similar to source. What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
• #8 I'll assume good faith that it isn't too-closely-paraphrased or misrepresented.
• #9 Does Johnson still own the studio?
• #10 What makes this podcast a reliable source?
• #11 I'll assume good faith that it isn't too-closely-paraphrased or misrepresented.
• #12 What makes this website a reliable source?
• #13 Archive is broken.
• #15 says "chaos", not "noise"
• #16 What makes Heather Phares a reliable source? "presents delicate, almost folky melodies wrapped up in and surrounded by waves of droning, distorted guitars" isn't there, either.
• #17 where does it say that The Breeze has experimental bits?
• #18 I'll assume good faith that it isn't too-closely-paraphrased or misrepresented.
• #20 I'll assume good faith that it isn't too-closely-paraphrased or misrepresented.
• #21 I'll assume good faith that it isn't too-closely-paraphrased or misrepresented, but the URL may not be working.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I adjusted the formatting of the bullet points, hope you don't mind. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 04:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 05:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a little-known song by Taylor Swift, who is an indie artist. Any and all comments would be much appreciated :) Ippantekina (talk) 05:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(i wouldn't say "little-known", it has 1.6 billion views on YouTube, but that's irrelevant) 750h+ 13:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was sarcasm. AryKun (talk) 14:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irony? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The following sentence is not grammatically correct: (A pop song with hip hop beats and keyboards, the lyrics are about betrayal by a close friend.) It is describing the lyrics as "a pop song ..." and not the song itself so it would need to be revised.

• Done. Ippantekina (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Since Taylor Swift and Kendrick Lamar are identified with their nationalities, shouldn't the same be done for Max Martin and Shellback (i.e. saying "the Swedish producers" as opposed to just "the producers"). It would be best to be consistent.

• Done. Ippantekina (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies in advance if I am just overlooking this, but I was curious about this part, (demonstrated a new aspect of Swift's artistry), and I could not really locate it in the "Critical reception" section. Could you clarify where this is supported? I see positive reviews describing "Bad Blood" as a 1989 highlight, but I do not see any larger consensus to support the "new aspect" discussed in the lead.

• I paraphrased that bit :) Ippantekina (talk) 04:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I am uncertain about the following in the lead, (featured among the best songs of 2015 on lists by NME and PopMatters). Are these two specific lists notable enough to highlight in the lead?

• I think the lists provide a good counterpart to the fact that "Bad Blood" is often considered the worst song from 1989. Both NME and PopMatters are reliable sources as well. Ippantekina (talk) 08:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• That is understandable. Thank you for the response. Aoba47 (talk) 01:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• For this part, (consisting of many singers, actresses, and fashion models), I would cut "many" as it comes across more as a filler word. I can understand that it is likely there to convey just how many people are crammed into the video, but I think that readers can understand that without the "some".

• Done. Ippantekina (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't the Ryan Adams cover be mentioned in the lead as it does have its own section?
• Apologies for not catching this in previous FACs, but I have a comment about this part, (Taylor Swift had identified as a country musician). The source describes Swift as "the country/pop star", but I do not see where it says that Swift herself identified as a country singer until releasing Red. I think a stronger source will be needed to support this information unless I am overlooking something in the current citation.

• I added a stronger ref to support the country artist claim. Ippantekina (talk) 04:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is Ilya used for the lead and infobox but Ilya Salmanzadeh used in the article?

• Done. Ippantekina (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It may be beneficial to cut back on some of the quotes in the "Critical reception" section. The information itself is very good, but certain parts feel quite quote-heavy. That being said, I could just be over-thinking this so feel free to disagree with me.

• I paraphrased here and there - hope it looks OK now. Ippantekina (talk) 08:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I am a bit confused by the WP:FUR for File:Bad blood taylor video.png. The rationale points out that it is "a single look in a very fashion-oriented video", but is fashion really one of the main reason for its inclusion? While looking at the caption and the section, I'd think the screenshot is more so about the "squad" and action movie vibes.

• Tweaked to FUR. Ippantekina (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• For this part, (consisting of female singers and fashion models), shouldn't it include "actresses" to both match the lead and better represent the video (as people like Ellen Pompeo are neither a singer nor a model).

• Done. Ippantekina (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I remember that the video for "Bitch I'm Madonna" received a lot of comparisons to the one for "Bad Blood". I think that information would be beneficial here as it would show the impact that this particular video had.

• I think unless Madonna said it herself that "Bad Blood" did indeed influence "Bitch I'm Madonna", I'd leave that out as it might be a little out of scope for this song. Ippantekina (talk) 04:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• There have been other parody versions of this song (i.e." Good Blood", a tampon-related one, one from the show Great News, and another about motherhood). It is probably worth looking into this further to make sure it is comprehensive.

• I'm dubious if all of these warrant inclusion per WP:SONGTRIVIA but I'll look into them case-by-case to make sure notable versions are not missing. Ippantekina (talk) 09:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The article currently includes a parody version from How It Should Have Ended , which is only supported by a single citation. Why is this cover more notable than the other ones that I mentioned above, which are all supported by reliable, third-party citations? WP:SONGTRIVIA states the use of a song can be mentioned if it "is discussed by a reliable source". For each of the citations that I included above, the cover versions are the main subject of the articles. What are you defining as "notable" in the context of this FAC? If a cover version needs to be covered by multiple citations or have further support to be deemed notable, then that would call into question the inclusion of the How It Should Have Ended parody version (which again is only supported by a single citation). The criteria for inclusion is unclear. Aoba47 (talk) 11:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes I'm not saying to not include them, I'm saying I'll look into them case by case to see what to include and what not. Ippantekina (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That makes sense. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• For this part, (and that he wanted to sing the songs from his perspective), I would avoid sing / songs in the same sentence.

• Rephrased. Ippantekina (talk) 04:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I am a bit uncertain about this sentence: (Swift expressed her attitude towards Lamar on social media and called the event "surreal and bewildering".) It seems a tad overly wordy and I am not sure about calling this an "event".

• Done. Ippantekina (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The article says that Taylor's Version has an identical arrangement to the original and then goes on to discuss the differences so it seems a bit contradictory.

• Arrangement means the backbone of the song so the production differences are the embellishments and not the backbone (I hope my explanation makes sense...) Ippantekina (talk) 04:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This citation is missing the publication date: here.

• Done. Ippantekina (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• These citations are missing the author: here, here, here, and here

• Done. Ippantekina (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This citation is no longer active: here

• Replaced with a new ref. Ippantekina (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, I am working from this version of the article. I hope that this review is helpful. Once all of my comments are addressed, I will read through the article more thoroughly to make sure that I have not missed anything. Best of luck with this FAC, and I hope that you are doing well. Aoba47 (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: thanks very much for your comments. I likewise hope that you are doing well :) Let me get back to you asap. Ippantekina (talk) 09:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words. Take as much time as you need. Aoba47 (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, please let me know when you have addressed all of the comments. I also wanted to add that I agree with the below suggestion that the liner notes should be used as citations for the credits and personnel just to clarify to the reader where this information is being supported. Aoba47 (talk) 01:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Aoba, I've addressed all of your concerns :) Let me know if there are any points that I overlooked. Ippantekina (talk) 04:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. I noticed one more thing, and I think that should be it for me. The infobox includes both pop and hip hop for the genres and the Category:American hip hop songs is used, but the lead says that the song has "hip hop beats", which is also later used in the article alongside "prominent hip hop styling". The article currently does not support "Bad Blood" being described as a hip hop song as there is not an instance where a critic explicitly says this (as using things like styling and beats is not the same). I would either remove the genre from the infobox and the category or revise the prose (with an appropriate citation) that explicitly refers to this song as hip hop. Aoba47 (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aoba47, thanks for the comment. I concur with your explanation, and I've removed the Hip-hop categorisation from the Infobox and the Categories. Let me know if everything's ok now :) Ippantekina (talk) 06:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing that. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look at this one but it's probably best if I wait till all of Aoba's comments are addressed so that I don't duplicate things they said..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: pinging because Aoba has finished their review :) Ippantekina (talk) 03:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. A bit tied up today but will definitely take a look when I get a chance -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "In its next five weeks, it charted at number two" - I can't read the source, so can you clarify what this means? That after a single week at number one it then spent five consecutive weeks at number two? For me the wording is unclear.
• That's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the comment! I've tweaked the wording, let me know if it's clearer now :) Ippantekina (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris, just so you know this is here. :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have an active FAC, so I figured I should review something. Why not thing song?

• "Critics have retrospectively considered "Bad Blood" one of Swift's worst songs." - I was lukewarm on reviewing this article because I wasn't a big fan of the song, with the repetitive lyrics, which I was pleasantly surprised to see mentioned. No note here, I'm just really glad the lead goes very well with my thoughts on the song. I'm a musician, not the biggest Taylor Swift fan but I think she has some solid bops (just not this one), just for reference of objectivity.
• "It incorporates surging keyboards" - as a musician I have no idea what a "surging keyboard" is

• Reworded. Ippantekina (talk) 07:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "When Rolling Stone asked him in 2017 whether he was "taking sides in a pop beef", he responded that he was unaware of it." - what does this have to do this with this song?

• I think it adds some background info which is potentially useful to readers. After all the Katy Perry beef dominated the narrative of this song :) Ippantekina (talk) 04:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "it marked one of the largest jumps to the top in Billboard chart history" - by the very Wikipedia article linked here, Swift herself had two other songs with bigger leaps, so I'm not sure if this is accurate.

• Removed this bit. Ippantekina (talk) 07:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "It peaked within the top five on charts of South Africa (two),[48] Lebanon (four),[49] and the United Kingdom (four).[50] The song also reach the top ten in Hungary, Finland and Ireland." - the parenthesis take up just as much time as saying them individually, and #2 is nice, but there aren't any Wikipedia lists for "List of #2 singles". I suggest having the list here including all of the countries as top ten.

• Tweaked. Ippantekina (talk) 07:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "the musicologist James E. Perone" - why the "the"?

• Per WP:FALSETITLE; I know this is not an official MOS but as this article follows the advice here throughout, this is for consistency. Ippantekina (talk) 09:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it worth mentioning that the Youtube video has more than 1 billion views? I mention this because the article talks about Vevo, but doesn't follow up with the platform that Vevo was probably on.

• Swift's videos routinely hit 1 billion views so I don't think it's worth mentioning. Ippantekina (talk) 07:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• " Judy L. Isaksen and Nahed Eltantawy—scholars in popular culture and journalism, and Hannelore Roth—a scholar in literature argued that Swift's idea of feminism was only applicable to famous and wealthy women. " - great point, but you might need another dash after Hannelore Roth - a scholar in literature.

• Done. Ippantekina (talk) 07:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Roth added that by casting Lamar as the ringleader behind the female squad" - I didn't realize until this moment that Lamar was in the music video. Yes, I see his mention earlier in the long list of people, but that came after this: "The video features an ensemble cast consisting of female singers, actresses, and fashion models who were dubbed by the media as Swift's "squad".[79][80] Each member of the cast chose her character's name." So I thought it was a bunch of females who I weren't aware of. You might want to highlight this better, as opposed to it coming so late in the narrative.

• Adjusted, thanks for pointing this out. Ippantekina (talk) 09:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• " In 2016, "Bad Blood" was nominated for Best Pop Duo/Group Performance and won Best Music Video at the 58th Annual Grammy Awards,[103] and the single was recognized as one of the biggest songs of the year at both the ASCAP Pop Music Awards by the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP)[104] and the 64th Annual BMI Pop Awards by Broadcast Music, Inc." - this is a lot for one sentence.

• Done. Ippantekina (talk) 07:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• A quick Google search suggests there have been a lot more covers. It even appeared in a TV show (or two).

• Replied above per WP:SONGTRIVIA, I'll make sure to only include ones that are notable. Ippantekina (talk) 09:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you add a source for the "Credits and personnel" section? If it's the liner notes, is there a ref for that? Same for remix.

• Any luck on this? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, a great read! There were only a few small spots where I wondered "huh what's up with that". Let me know if you have any questions Ippantekina (talk · contribs). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hurricane, thanks for the review. I've addressed all of your comments. Let me know if there's anything that I missed. Ippantekina (talk) 04:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Thanks, you got them all! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forthcoming, will try to have this done over the weekend. λ NegativeMP1 16:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still working on this. I've started it, though. λ NegativeMP1 17:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the long wait. I've Spotchecked specific uses of about a fifth of the article's references (46), plus a few extra in areas where I felt was needed. I did not check SFNs as I have no method of verifying those. Hopefully that’s satisfactory. Specific checks:

Generally the sourcing looks good, but there’s some areas that I think need to be addressed, primarily 27 as it failed verification. λ NegativeMP1 17:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for the source review! I've addressed the issues and found a replacement ref for #27. Ippantekina (talk) 02:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, looks good. Support λ NegativeMP1 16:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image placement seems OK. Does the sample File:Bad Blood.ogg discuss an aspect of the song that drew particular attention? Since this article is mainly about the song, I am not sure that File:Bad blood taylor video.png meets the "significantly enhances the understanding of the article topic" prong of WP:NFCC#8. The ogg file has no ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do ogg files require ALT texts? The screenshot of the video provides context for the music video itself -- a significant portion of the article is devoted to that. Ippantekina (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Merytat3n (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the funerary monuments and burial of the ancient Egyptian official Kha and his wife, Merit. Their ruined funerary chapel in Deir el-Medina was known since the early 1800s but their tomb, hidden at the base of the cliffs opposite the chapel, was discovered in 1906, intact after more than 3000 years. The majority of the contents (over 440 items) were awarded to the Italian Archaeological Mission's director, Ernesto Schiaparelli, and are housed in the Museo Egizio in Turin, Italy. Being unrobbed, the tomb gives a glimpse of what a well-stocked middle class burial looked like during the height of the Eighteenth Dynasty, during the reign of Amenhotep III.

I took this article to GA last year, and through peer review earlier in the year. After picking at it a while, and with the kind mentorship of Iry-hor, I am nominating it for FAC. Merytat3n (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a top-notch article and a delight to read (as I would expect from a protégée of Iry-Hor). These few comments are all I can come up with by way of criticism:

• The article is evidently in BrE, in which case "modeled" should be "modelled".
• The work "likely" occurs 19 times in the text, and a few variations such as "probably", "possibly", "may have been" etc would relieve the monotony.
• Similarly we have seven "due to"s. A few "because of"s or "owing to"s (both, on the whole better in formal English) would help the prose along.
• "Sem-priest" – a link or explanation would be welcome.
• "further restoration was carried out in 2002, before being placed on a new padded mount in 2004" – could do with a tweak – what was placed on a new mount was not further restoration, but that which was restored.
• "the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, France" – as opposed to the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, Peru? Paris, Outer Mongolia? Paris, Azerbaijan? And I'd be sparing, à la français, with the capital letters, here and in the Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale.
• "kiosk" – in the UK a kiosk is the booth where you buy your newspapers and cigarettes outside the railway station: a brief explanation of what the term meant to the Ancient Egyptians, as at Philae, would be helpful here.

I hope these few points are helpful, and apologies if my tone is a bit tetchy: it's beastly hot and sticky in London today. Tim riley talk 18:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words and helpful comments! I have addressed them as best I can ^_^ Merytat3n (talk) 11:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All admirably addressed. I'm happy to support the elevation of this article to FA: it meets every criterion in my view, and I hope we shall be seeing more from the nominator in due course. Tim riley talk 11:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On first glance, seems a superb article. As always, these are suggestions, not demands; feel free to refuse with justification.

Kha and Merit

• "but this probably reflects the use of this king's name long after his reign" is this the general consensus of scholars or the view of one? if the latter, his/her view should be attributed.

Trapani (2012) says: "The prenomen of Thutmosis III (Men-kheper-Re) in effect was often used on scarabs or other objects much later than the Eighteenth Dynasty, signifying that his seal-name had acquired a protective power of its own." She cites C. Adriano, The Cretulae from the Tomb of Kha and their Administrative Signiicance in a Funeral Context, CRIPEL 22 (2001), 109–122, which I don't have access to. However, page 4 of Kathyln M. Cooney's "Scarab" chapter in the UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology (2008) does back this up: "Even scarab inscriptions with royal names cannot necessarily be dated to the reigns of those rulers, because such names are often inscribed long after a ruler’s death—particularly those of the 4th-Dynasty king Sneferu, the 18th-Dynasty Thutmose III (Jaeger 1982), and the 19th-Dynasty Ramesses II." Added a citation to Cooney for academic robustness. I've also clarified why Kha is unlikely to have been working in Thutmose III's reign. Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "obtained a bronze pan" couple of things: 1) by "pan", I assume of the cooking variety? 2) "obtained" normally means he asked, whereas the previous sentence indicates it was a gift.

1) swapped to "bowl" 2) swapped to "received" Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "a "gold of honour"" ... I'm not entirely sure what this means.

Oh OOPS! Defined (+ common alternative name and translit). Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Preparations for his tomb likely began in the reign of Thutmose IV, as his name occurs most frequently as a seal on vessels." The second "his" is made more ambiguous by the fact that we have referred to Kha only as he/his for a few sentences now. Would suggest changing "as his" to "whose".

Done Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • "on the style of his coffins" absolutely no clue whether this "his" refers to Kha or Amenhotep III.

Swapped sentence around to be "Based on the style of his coffins...Kha probably died in the third decade of Amenhotep III's rule" to make it clear. Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "the juvenilising art style seen on the painted funerary chests" as we previously haven't discussed the funerary chests, we could remove the "the" and clearly define them as in the tomb?

Done Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Merit (also transcribed as Meryt[1])" I believe it's normal practice for the citation to follow the parentheses, but I could be wrong.

It is but if the citation in question refers specifically to the contents of the parentheses, the citation goes inside. In this case, the [1] citation refers to her as Meryt not Merit as the main citation does (although technically Meryt is more correct to the hieros (mryt)). Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "She seems to have predeceased Kha. Her death was probably unexpected as she is buried in a coffin intended for him." these closely-linked sentences could be combined; if not, "she was buried" seems more natural than "she is buried", although the latter is technically correct...

Done Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chapel

• Might be worth adding a clarification for the unlearned, such as I, that the chapel and tomb are separate from each other.

I mention that they are separate in the last paragraph of that section, just before "Decoration" but I can mention it again, at the risk of duplication. Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see if other reviewers bring it up.

• "time of European interest in it, during" can be cut

Done Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "the stele now in the Museo Egizio in Turin, Italy" should probably be "a stele"

Done Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The back wall being damaged during the stele's removal is mentioned twice.

Kept the "second" mention of damage in the decoration section and removed the "first" mention. Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Would suggest linking Register (art).

Done Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tomb

• This section contains several long paragraphs; I would suggest they be split in half, especially those which comprise individual sections by themselves (MOS:OVERSECTION).

So far I have only split up the large first paragraph in "Discovery and clearance". Merytat3n (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:A TT8 Kha sírja Dejr-el-Medinében.jpeg is a very unhelpful picture+caption. First, are we to assume the yellow dot covers up the location of the tomb? Surely an arrow would be better?
  Second, the latter part of the caption (viz. "visible diagonally to the left of the tomb, partially obscured by the hill") is just confusing. After around five minutes of searching, I think I can see a flat-topped structure, next to some terrace-like walls, on a bearing of 250° from the yellow dot—is that the chapel?
  If so, note that readers will naturally see "obscured by hill" and assume you mean the big ones at the back of the photo, where I spent the first four minutes playing I spy. You could alleviate this problem by saying "closer to the camera" or something.

Yeah, it sucks. Honestly, I will probably just remove the image. I would love to use a simple plan view of the area, such as appears in the general plan of Deir el-Medina in Bruyère's 1925 publication (chapel labelled 8A and tomb 8B, upper centre of image) but alas I believe they are still in copyright as Bruyère only died in 1971. Merytat3n (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That does seem to be the case. I ran into the same problem with Ai-Khanoum, but in that case others had uploaded their own renditions (presumably allowable per commons:COM:TOO France). If you are any good with a pen or with online software, you could probably do the same thing. If you can't, not a big deal. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will see what I can do this weekend : ) Merytat3n (talk) 09:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wasn't satisfied with my weekend attempts but it's not strictly necessary, just a nice to have. I can always keep trying : ) Merytat3n (talk) 09:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "the discoloured limestone fill was mixed with bone, pottery, and cloth" is this necessary information?

Nope. Removed.Merytat3n (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The fourth paragraph duplicates the contents of the ... "Contents" section below. Most of the middle bit could be removed.

Done.Merytat3n (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "published the discovery" as in he published an account of the discovery,?

Fixed (and expanded this section a little). Merytat3n (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "of the discovery" is repeated twice within two phrases.

Reworded.Merytat3n (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "leading to confusion" resolved or unresolved?

Unresolved, but I have resolved the wording : )Merytat3n (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "A cubit rod ... may have been an award from [Amenhotep II]" this uncertainty is at odds with the "Kha and Merit" section, which shows no such lack of surety.

Source checked and surety established.Merytat3n (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will continue. If you have time and the inclination, I have a current FAC I would appreciate comments on. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you want to add anything, AJ? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support nothing really worth quibbling about. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think a note explaining the meaning of Ꜥ (from KhaꜤ) would be appropriate. In general, in the first section, a note at the first appearance of italicized transliterations linking to the system used or similar would be helpful.

I've addressed this in a roundabout way by adding translit for Kha and Merit's names, putting Kha's alt renderings in a note and adding the ayin link there. Let me know if this is ok. Merytat3n (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Kha presumably employed his own skilled workmen to execute the decoration - this is interesting and suggests that the chapel was completed or built during his life, which I don't think was mentioned before. Would that have been typical? I think a little more context would be valuable.

Yes, the chapel and tomb (and coffins, and other burial goods) were generally (ideally) completed during the owner's life. I will see if I can dig out anything from a more general source before I add context, but at the very least, Vassilika (2010 pp.8, 10) says that Kha started tomb prep during his life, and may have worked on the chapel and tomb with his own men, or perhaps his sons.Merytat3n (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added : ) Merytat3n (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a rare example of an intact middle class burial from the height of the Eighteenth Dynasty - what does the term middle class mean in context here? A note might be helpful - is anyone non-royal and non-peasant middle class?

Great question. Tentatively yes. The sources seem a little unsure on how exactly to categorise Kha and Merit, and TT8. Vassilika (2010) calls the tomb "the best surviving furnished, non royal tomb" (p.7) and says Kha is middle class and it has been suggested he was the lowest level of the elite (p.10), which Russo also follows, suggesting he integrated into the elite administration at the end of his life (Russo 2012 pp. 63, 78). Based on his coffins, he had access to royal workshops (Vassilika, Russo, Forbes, and Kozloff). Forbes calls Kha "upper-middle class" (pp.107, 113) and "high-status" (p.132). In light of this, I can change "middle class" to "non-royal", which is perhaps the easiest and safest wording : ) Merytat3n (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Since 2017, the tomb's contents have been the subject of the "TT8 Project", a multidisciplinary and non-invasive study of all the objects, the full publication of which is planned for 2024 - has this study been published?

Not as far as I am aware : ( (unless it refers to the trickle of publications on various classes of objects that have come out over the last few years, in which case, perhaps.) Merytat3n (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• half-full of fat with the wick burning when the tomb was closed - how was this determined? Do the sources say?

I think they just assume it. Schiaparelli says that (pp.17, 45) "The lamp was still two thirds full of grease. The relatives had left it lit when they closed the tomb and it illuminated the chamber while the wick lasted; it had gone out when this burnt down." Figure 127 of The Intact Tomb of Kha shows the lamp, with its wick and fat or oil. His account has its known flaws so perhaps he was being overly romantic. Weigall, who was also there (and can also exaggerate), says something similar in his 1911 account: "...was a small copper dish, in which were the ashes of incense, and the little stick used for stirring them. One asked oneself in bewilderment whether the ashes here, seemingly not cold, had truly ceased to glow at a time when Rome and Greece were undreamt of, when Assyiria did not exist..." (p.180) Sousa (2019 p.61) also repeats Schiaparelli, saying "...the last visitor, who swept [the floor] before closing the door leaving behind a papyrus-column lamp-stand burning". Vassilika simply says (p.108) that the lamp was found with the half-burnt wick in place.

Tl;dr: the lamp still has oil/fat in it and a burnt wick suggesting that, at the very least, it was used prior to burial, and assume it was left burning inside the tomb. Happy to reword to follow Vassilika (2010) more and Schiaparelli less, and just say lamp had oil/fat and the wick was burnt. Merytat3n (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would make the most sense. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done : ) Merytat3n (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• others were made into various shapes such as triangles, jars or trussed animals, or have grooves or holes that may suggest fertility this is a little grammatically awkward, suggest splitting the sentence.

Done! Merytat3n (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• There is one retrospective comment on Schiaparelli's handling of the discovery, but no detail about how it was received at publication in 1927 other than that it attracted attention. I see he died just the next year. How did this discovery fit into the context of what was known in the 1920s, and how was it viewed over time? The article describes that it was all given to the Museo Egizio, but doesn't mention (unless I missed it) that Schiaparelli was director of that museum, which seems relevant. Are there any modern discussions re: the split where a few items remained in Cairo?

I have added a 1928 review of Schiaparelli's publication and some more about his use of photography. (It is praised for the many images but generally is not up to the standard expected for Egyptological publications of the 1920s.) I have added that Schiaparelli was director in a couple of places. There don't seem to be many modern discussions of the split but I have tried to expand on what is there - general speculation about the type of tomb, the other recent finds, space in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, etc. Merytat3n (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overall, a very interesting and generally well put-together article. I may have a few further comments on a second reading but nothing too dramatic. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• A second read-through produces no significant concerns. The issues I raised have been addressed by the nominator. Happy to support promotion to FA status. —Ganesha811 (talk) 09:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• You mention in the infobox that it is a Theban Tomb, but not in the lead. This should be in the lead and the explanation of "TT" (not just a link).

Added to lead as "Theban Tomb 8 or TT8". It is not often spelled out, like the KV numbers used for the Valley of the Kings tombs. Just clarifying here that the linked "Theban tomb" in the infobox is a product of the "theban=yes" field of the Infobox Egyptian tomb template. Merytat3n (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "during the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty" It would be helpful also to mention here that it was the early New Kingdom.

Done. Merytat3n (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "The texts of the chapel were defaced during the reign of Akhenaten and later restored, indicating it was one of the oldest chapels in the village cemetery." Why indication one of the oldest? This needs explanation.

It's a bit of a meh sentence anyway so I have tried to rework it to focus on the damage instead: "The decoration has been damaged over the millennia, deteriorating due to structural decay and human actions; the texts were defaced during the reign of Akhenaten, and scenes were later damaged by modern robbers." Merytat3n (talk) 12:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It has been displayed in the Museo Egizio in Turin since its arrival and the exhibition has been reworked several times, most recently in 2015, where an entire gallery is dedicated to the tomb of Kha and Merit." This wording is confusing. Maybe "It has been displayed in the Museo Egizio in Turin since its arrival, and an entire gallery is devoted to it. This has been been redesigned several times."

Done Merytat3n (talk) 12:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Given Kha's estimated age at death, it is unlikely that he was a mature professional over 50 years earlier during the rule of Thutmose III." This is unclear. What was his age at death (not stated in the main text at this point) and why would he have had to have been a mature professional, not just a young man, in Thutmose III's reign?

Schiaparelli thought Kha was born in the early Eighteenth Dynasty, during the reign of Thutmose I, and that he spent most of his career (and reached the peak of it) under Thutmose III. As evidence, Schiaparelli points to a box sealed with "Menkheperre", Thutmose III's throne name, and the absence of a royal gift from that king. He thought one definitely existed but there is no evidence for it because it was too precious to be included in the burial. This would put Kha in his mid-80s by the time of his death, which Schiaparelli placed in the early part of Amenhotep III's reign. This, of course, doesn't mesh with examination of Kha's mummy, which estimates he died in his 60s.

To be honest the entire two sentences are kind of null information, Schiaparelli is the only one who thinks he's active this early. All the other sources say Amenhotep II-Amenhotep III, and only a few mention the seals (as an aside), or Schiaparelli's opinion. I've turned it into a note but its not crucial and can easily be deleted.Merytat3n (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "juvenilising art style" What art style? Can it be linked?

After Amenhotep III's first jubilee festival in year 30 of his reign, the official art style changed, depicting figures in a "juvenilising" style. Faces were depicted with child-like features, such as over-large almond-shaped eyes, small mouths, and short, slightly upturned noses. As far as wiki is concerned, I don't think there is a page I can link to. It is not mentioned on Amenhotep III's page or art of Ancient Egypt. Instead of explaining, I will just remove "juvenilising" to leave only "art style". Merytat3n (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Heading 'Kha and Merit'. This heading is vague. Maybe "Kha's career and family'.

Done. Merytat3n (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "after clearing two thirds of the valley". Presumably the whole valley was not covered - two thirds of the debris?

Tried to clarify as "after clearing debris along two thirds of the valley's length". Merytat3n (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Done to end of Contents. More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "The two sarcophagi are nearly identical," They are not identical as you say below that they are different sizes, so you need to specify in what respect. Shape? Decoration?

Specified. "The two sarcophagi are nearly identical in form, both being shaped like..." Merytat3n (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Given their large size, they were brought into the tomb in sections and reassembled". "Given is an odd word here. Maybe "Due to their large size".

Done. Merytat3n (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Below the collar and hands, a vulture goddess (identified as Nekhbet[139] or Nut[140]) spreads her wings over the torso above horizontal and vertical bands of text imitate the fabric bindings seen on mummy wrappings." This is ungrammatical.

Separated into two sentences. Merytat3n (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Horizontal and vertical bands of text imitate the fabric bindings seen on mummy wrappings." "imitate" is a strange word here. Do you mean that the same text is on many mummy wrappings? Dudley Miles (talk) 08:04, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe "simulate" or "emulate" would be better. I'll try to explain. On mummies, the shroud is often secured by vertical bands of fabric running vertically down the centre of the body from head to foot (and along the sides of the body), and horizontal bands going across the body at the level of the chest, elbows, hips, knees and ankles. The coffin is shaped like a wrapped mummy and its decoration mimics its appearance, including the bands. On coffins, the bands are often filled with texts but on mummies themselves, they are most often plain (unless you are Tutankhamun and have gold bands with inlaid texts atop of the functional fabric ones). Merytat3n (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you need to spell this out for clarity. E.g. "As with many other burials, the coffin has horizontal and vertical bands similar to the fabric bindings on mummy wrappings, but with text whereas mummy wrappings are usually plain." This is a bit clumsy and could probably be improved. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about something like "The coffin has vertical and horizontal bands of text whose positions, at centre front and sides, bicep, hip, knee and ankle, reference the plain fabric bindings on mummy wrappings." Merytat3n (talk) 02:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"reference" is not clear in this context. How about "are similar to those of". Dudley Miles (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, done :) Merytat3n (talk) 03:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Chemical analysis of textile samples from their mummies". This is unclear. Maybe "Chemical analysis of samples of textiles covering the mummies".

How about "Chemical analysis of samples of their mummy wrappings"? Merytat3n (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "The 2005 CT examination identified that Kha fractured his first lumbar vertebra, an injury which left it flattened.[165] 2014 X-ray analysis considers this injury to have occurred after his death." This is confusing and ungrammatical. Maybe "The 2005 CT examination showed that the first lumbar vertebra is fractured, leaving it flattened.[165] An X-ray analysis in 2014 suggested that the damage occurred after his death."

Done! Merytat3n (talk)

• Who is Susanne Binder? You need to say. Ditto Susanne Töpfer and Dennis C. Forbes and Dimitri Laboury.

Specified. Merytat3n (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Merit's coffin, intended for Kha, is much too large for her". You have said this above.

Removed. Merytat3n (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• pectoral - what is this? You should wikilink.

Clarified as "pectoral necklace" and wikilinked pectoral. Merytat3n (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "This item is not without parallel as there are occasional examples from other contemporary non-noble Theban tombs. However, given the number of similar wooden statuettes known, this practice was likely much more common." You appear to say in the first sentence that they are rare, and in the second that they are common.

They are rarely found in context but many are known, they just have no provenance. Hopefully clarified as "There are occasional examples of such figures found in other contemporary non-noble Theban tombs; their inclusion may have been more common than these finds suggest, as many unprovenanced statuettes are known from museum collections." Merytat3n (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Following the discovery, Gaston Maspero, director of the Antiquities Service". Presumably of the Egyptian service, but you should say so.

Stated. Merytat3n (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 06:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image seem to be well-placed. I wonder if the hieroglyphs can be sourced somehow. File:TT8 Plan.jpg needs a translation somewhere; is it explained in-text? File:TT8 Chapel exterior C02053.jpg, File:TT8 chapel interior.jpg, File:Forms of bread from TT8.jpg, File:TT8 burial chamber 01.jpg can probably be licenced as PD-1923 as well. File:Upper wall and ceiling motif MET 30.4.3.jpg, File:Funerary stela of Kha.jpg should give a licence (PD-old) for the motif too, and I am not sure I see the licence on the source page ... the metmuseum seems to be inconsistent in that regard. A fair many images have naked URLs on the file page, which makes it difficult to repair them if they break. File:Ay receiving the Gold of Honor.jpg also ought to have a licence for the motif (PD-old). Source-wise: Some ISBNs are with hyphens and others without; likewise, retrieval dates and accessibility icons are inconsistently applied. "Backdirt: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology" is not, to my knowledge, the name of the journal. Otherwise, the sources seem reliable and suitable to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Jo-Jo and thanks for the source review. The nomination also needs a first timer's source to text spot check and a plagiarism review; do you fancy obliging? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The little [1] immediately below the hieroglyphs is the source for them but it is hard to see. I have moved it to the text at the bottom of the hiero box where is displays as "Kha and Merit[1] in hieroglyphs".

TT8 plan now translated in caption. I've also added what the numbers refer to (wall scenes).

PD-old licenses added to the images.

Adding hyphens to ISBNs that didn't have them and checked all ISBNs valid.

Removed all urls that weren't free access or free registration and added access dates to the ones that didn't have them.

Fixed journal name.

Thanks! Merytat3n (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of this version: * 5 OK, wonder if we should source the "New Kingdom" bit too. Also pretty sure that Deir el-Medina isn't the contemporary name.

If we do source that the Eighteenth Dynasty is part of the New Kingdom, would Rice 1999 p. xivii, where he says Eighteenth D. is part of the New Kingdom, or p.I, where he lists the dynasties and their larger periods, be ok?

The contemporary name for Deir el-Medina was simply "The Village" (pA dmi) (citing UCLA Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt). (Wiki's Deir el-Medina page currently cites Lesko (1994) p.7 who says the ancient name was "the Place of Truth", but on p.119 that its inhabitants always called it "The Village"). I can change it to "the workmen's village known today as Deir el-Medina". Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd do that rename. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 15 While this supports that Iuy is the father's name, I have to wonder if #14 explicitly says that nothing is known otherwise. A source not discussing a topic doesn't mean that said topic wasn't covered anywhere.

[15] (Russo 2012 p.67) says: "The name of Kha's father, Awy, is quoted four times on the papyrus with chapters of the Book of the Dead (Suppl. no. 8438 Fondazione Museo Antichità Egizie, Turin), with three different spellings. Nothing else is known about his title and position in the central administration and at Deir el-Medina."

This is also supported by Vassilika (2010 p.76) who says: "Schiaparelli noted the rare mention of Kha's father Aui (4 times), the absence of his mother, and deduced that Kha was a man of modest background, without inherited titles, who was perhaps self made." Biannuci et al (2015) say the same thing. In La Tomba di Kha e Merit (2018 pp. 85-86), Ferraris devotes only one line to Kha's father, saying the only other thing we know about Iuy - that he was dead when Kha's papyrus was written: "Il papiro è inoltre l’unica fonte a restituire il nome del padre di Kha, Auy/Iuy, che è indicato con il solo titolo di “giusto di voce”, intendendo che questi è già deceduto al momento della redazione del Libro dei Morti." Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 21 It says that Schiaparelli assumed Kha was a centenarian, not in his 80es.

Fixed Merytat3n (talk)

• 23 OK
• 42 OK
• 43 Where does it say chapel?

I'm assuming I confused Meskell saying "However, in the Eighteenth Dynasty only a handful of tombs at Deir el Medina appear to have substantive superstructures [chapels]" for saying TT8 was one of a few surviving Eighteenth Dynasty chapels. Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 54 OK
• 56 Can I have a copy of this page?

Sure, it is short enough that I can also quote it here. Russo 2012 p.22: "It has yet to be established with certainty when Kha's chapel was decorated. The stylistic study undertaken by Cherpion of TT 340 and TT 354 suggests similarities between TT 354 (anonymous) and TT 8. In her view, some parts of TT 8 were decorated at the end of Thutmosis IV's reign, while others were completed early in the reign of Amenhotep III. Kozloff supposed that the decoration of Kha's chapel was most likely completed after the burial chambers of Nakht (TT 52), Menna (TT 69) and TT 226, probably in the second half of Amenhotep III's reign." Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 64 Can I have a copy of this page?

  Got it, but I am not sure what this supports. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is basically an extra (English language) source for the back wall decoration, especially the jackals, bouquet, and priest in leopard skin offering to Neferhebef and Taiunes as Porter & Moss are very brief, and I'm machine translating Vandier d'Abbadie. The other English sources I have used don't mention it much as they are focused more on the tomb - Sousa (2019) only mentions the decoration very briefly, Forbes (1998) only shows photos of the decoration, and Vassilika (2010) doesn't mention the decoration at all. Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 68 Where is the grave robbing and stele removal mentioned?

Oh sorry, stele removal is actually mentioned on p.4. Robbery is describing the removal of the stele but may be too strong a word. Happy to delete that sentence and just leave the "The back wall was damaged..." Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to replace it, yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done : ) Merytat3n (talk) 10:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 79 Supports some of the content, but can I have a copy of #78?

Sure. Looking at the source, I see it is only pp.16-17, not pp.15-17. Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I must ask if #90 supports the sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. 90 Sousa 2019 pp.63, 89. Dunno why I'm citing p.63, which is talking about the form of the chapel, removed. But relevant part of p.89: "This circumstance became a most fortunate one, as a rock landslide eventually covered and sealed the burial shaft in antiquity, protecting it from tomb robbers until it was discovered in 1906." (Before this sentence, Sousa suggests Kha originally built his chapel where the tomb is situated and later rebuilt it in its current location. No other source that I have read suggests this so I haven't gone into it.) Merytat3n (talk) 11:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 95 I was about to ask for a copy of this page, but it seems like #74 alone supports everything or am I missing anything?

It mostly does, and [94] and [95] say very similar things. I just wanted to have more than one source for a statement like that seeing as, when I checked #74's source (Smith 1992), I couldn't find it saying anything that specific about TT8. Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 105 Can I have a copy of this page?

Sure (2 pages). Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where is "He worked on the western bank of Thebes, presumably the Deir el-Medina area, and the gift was in recognition of Kha's high status at the height of his career"? Also, it seems like there is disagreement about which Sitamun the finding refers to. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russo (2012) p.47, last sentence of third paragraph from the bottom and first sentence of second paragraph from the bottom: "It seems likely that Userhat practiced his priestly duties at Deir el-Medina or in the Ramesseum area. Userhat was a contemporary of Kha and presented him with the tribute as an acknowledgement of his importance, most likely when Kha was was at the top of his career."

With regards to Sitamun, although Russo goes on, on page 47, to discuss all the opinions by various scholars of which Sitamun it might be, I have followed Russo in what they say first, on p.46: "The most probable is that Sitamun was one of Ahmose's daughters, and a sister of Amenhotep I, known from other sources." Merytat3n (talk) 04:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably should qualify it in the article, if even Russo doesn't say "The only candidate is this Sitamun" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've couched it as "in this case most likely referring to the daughter of Ahmose I". Merytat3n (talk) 06:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 114 Can I have a copy of this page? Might need #115 too.

Sure (2 pages each). Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK.

• 117 Can I have a copy of this page? Might need #116 too.

Sure, these are both multiple pages. Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't mention inlay nor that multicoloured glass was rare. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

117 (Vassilika 2010) p.45, 48: "The front [continued on p.48] panel is decorated with black and white rectangles within a diamond patterned border imitating bone and ebony intarsia [inlay] work." (last 2 words on p.45 and first sentence of p.48)

P.50, top of the page: "...an alabastron, is actually of blue glass, which was a relatively new and rare material." The next sentence, which is about the kohl tube, and mentions both glass vessels are multicoloured ("also of blue glass and likewise with a zig-zagged yellow and white trailed decoration".) Merytat3n (talk) 07:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 119 Can I have a copy of this page? Might need #51 too.

Sure. I can quote #51 in full here too (Vassilika 2010 p.10): "Given Kha's station as Director of the Royal Works, and given the amount of furniture in his tomb that was derived from life, it is unlikely that he had a permanent abode in the village of little houses at Deir el-Medina, where the tomb builders lived (perhaps only during specific projects in this period) at the expense of the royal purse, but that he lodged there only when he was working."

Relevant parts of #119 (Russo 2012 p.65): "At the present stage it is not possible to establish if Kha lived in one of the small residences in the settlement. The fact that he was buried in the western necropolis implies a strong link with the community area nearby... It is intriguing to consider the possibility that Kha had a residence outside the settlement." Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't discuss the function of furniture. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because, in note G, [119] and [51] are primarily sourcing of the discussion of if Kha and Merit lived in the village full time or not. I assume by function you mean the types of furniture (stools, chair, beds, etc), which are all mentioned by [120] (Schiaparelli 2008 pp.37-40) and [121] (Forbes 1998 pp.88-92) at the bottom of the paragraph. Merytat3n (talk) Merytat3n (talk) 04:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 121 Can I have a copy of this page? Might need #120 too.

Sure, these are multiple pages each. Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, while bunching references up like that improves readability, it kinda makes verifying them hard. In particular I can't find the papyrus and senet thing. It doesn't say that the bed was outside the tomb for space reasons or that the sons gave offerings. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, in that case, shall I return to my instincts and cite everything in this section (and food and drink) individually? (Take that uni lecturer who told me a decade ago that I used too many citations and listed every single one they thought was unnecessary XD)

Looks like "papyrus" is a mistake on my part - Forbes (1998) p.90 says they are made of rushwork and one has a papyrus tray. Schiaparelli says they are made of cane, as does Vassilika. Slatted table holding senet (game) board is Forbes (1998) p. 90, end of the third paragraph: "When found it was holding a game board (described below), which may have been its practical use, in any case." Bed outside tomb for space reasons is another mistake on my part, Forbes (1998) mentions it on p.144. Schiaparelli (2008) p.40, right column, about halfway down, mentions the depictions of the sons (well, children really but most often the son(s), Merit only appears once) giving offerings: "in one of the scenes, a daughter presents a libation jar and a son offers a flower, while only the son appears in the other two scenes, again in the act of offering a lotus". Merytat3n (talk) 05:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 137 OK
• 170 It says the custom of earrings began around his time, not that he was one of the first Egyptian men to wear them.

He is one of the earliest known examples though, which is what the source says: "Kha is one of the earliest known examples of an Egyptian man wearing large ear-rings [35,42]." The earliest known depiction of ancient Egyptian men wearing earrings is from the tomb of Tekty, TT15, from the very start of the Eighteenth Dynasty. The next is Sennefer (TT96), who is approx contemporary with Kha. (Eaton-Krauss, M. (1998). Four Notes on the Early Eighteenth Dynasty. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 84(1), 205-210. https://doi.org/10.1177/030751339808400118)

• 177 Can I have a copy of this page?

Sure, I will also quote the relevant sentence here (Forbes 1998 p.75): "Despite all of this padding, the body sloped to its left, no doubt having shifted somewhat during transport to (or from) the tomb".

To be honest, I have been thinking about removing this line or altering it, even though 3 sources mention it. Schiaparelli says this about her position (p.22): "After raising the lid, Merit's mummy appeared like a vision, her head and part of the chest covered with a fine gilded mask and the head and body leaning slightly to the left, in the arms of the Goddess Nut, painted on the inside of the box". Vassilika says (p.38) "According to Schiaparelli, Merit was found lying on her left side (although early pictures show her flat on her back) as if embraced by the goddess [Nut]." Fig. 30 of Schiaparelli's publication indeed shows her flat on her back in the centre of her coffin, but her mask has fallen to her left. Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of (full) pages requested here so I have interpreted your request for copies of pages literally and photographed them (badly), named them all with their footnote number and source publication, and put them in a Google Drive. I hope this is what you wanted. I can email the link if this suits? Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'fraid that the Google Drive file is protected in some fashion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should work now : ) Merytat3n (talk) 09:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Phlsph7 (talk) 08:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most people are familiar with algebra from their school days, where they learned to solve equations like ${\displaystyle x^{2}-3x-10=0}$. However, there is also a more abstract form of algebra, which is of particular interest to mathematicians because it provides a general framework for understanding operations on mathematical objects. Thanks to Bilorv for their in-depth GA review and to Mathwriter2718 and Chatul for their peer reviews. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• As an administrative note, I noticed this page had been semi-protected since 2008. 16 years of protection seemed excessive, so I unprotected it.
• I'm still looking at this, but I do want to say that it's a joy to see a math article which is so approachable. My training is in engineering; I'm a user of math, but not a mathematician. Most math articles (Lie algebra being a good example) make my eyes glaze ever before I get past the first sentence. In this article, I'm down to Linear algebra and I'm still following every detail. This is wonderful!

  Hello RoySmith and thanks for reviewing the article! The parts on abstract and universal algebra will get a little more challenging but this is not entirely avoidable and I hope they are still accessible enough to grasp the main ideas without feeling overwhelmed. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I'm working on Abstract algebra now. Slower going than before, but I'm still hanging in there :-) RoySmith (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The word algebra comes from the Arabic term الجبر (al-jabr), which originally referred to the surgical treatment of bonesetting You can't just leave the reader hanging without giving at least some explanation of how we got from bonesetting to a high-school math class. You link to Traditional bone-setting, but that doesn't say anything about it. I did a bit of searching. "The Origin of the Term "Algebra" on JSTOR". jstor.org. Retrieved 6 August 2024. talks about this a bit while "Simplifying equations in Arabic algebra". sciencedirect.com. Retrieved 6 August 2024. suggests the connection may be entirely accidental. Either way, I think it's worth a sentence or two.

  That's a good idea and the sources are helpful. I put it in a footnote since there is no consensus on the exact meaning. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• x-y-pair do you need both hyphens? I would think "x-y pair".

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• An equation is linear if ... no operations like exponentiation, extraction of roots, and logarithm are applied to variables why the equivocation, i.e. "operations like"? Which operations are like those and which are unlike? My understanding is that an equation is linear if there's no power greater than 1, and things like logs and roots get included in that implicitly via their Taylor series. I think this would be better written as an explicit list of operations that are allowed, rather than a vague "stuff like this isn't allowed".

  Done: I added the general form and cut the "stuff like this isn't allowed" down to a short side remark. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• An operation[k] is associative if the order of several applications does not matter, i.e., if (a circle b) circle c ... This is the first time you use the circle notation. A little earlier when you introduce N for Natural Numbers, you do a good job of explaining what the notation means; you should do similarly here. My understanding is that it's just "an arbitrary binary operation", but that should be clarified.

  That explanation is given in a footnote, which was unfortunately positioned in a rather unintuitive place. I moved it right after the first use of the circle symbol so that the connection is clearer. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• An operation admits inverse elements... explain what it means to "admit" an element.

  I reformulated the expression to make it simpler. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The natural numbers ... contain only positive numbers Why not "positive integers"?

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Group theory is the subdiscipline of abstract algebra studying groups. studying -> which studies.

  Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure how File:Magma to group4.svg relates to the rest of the article, or at least to the text it's near. It's near a section that talks about rings and fields, but the diagram only shows relationships for groups. Perhaps it should go with the following paragraph, where magmas et al are discussed?

  You are right, I moved it to the following paragraph. I expanded the caption to make it easier to see how it is relevant to the discussion. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• They differ from each other in regard to the types of objects they describe and the requirements that their operations fulfill To me, this is the key sentence in this whole section. To go back to my comment about my eyes glazing over when I read articles like Lie algebra, this lays out the logical foundation that helps me read " a Lie algebra (pronounced /liː/ LEE) is a vector space ... together with an operation called the Lie bracket, an alternating bilinear map ... that satisfies the Jacobi identity}} and really start to get my head around what it's saying. By analogy, I have a rudimentary knowledge of Spanish, but I can usually read something well enough to say, "OK, that's a conjugated verb. I don't recognize the verb, and I'm not sure about the tense, but at least I can get past that and keep going with the sentence, knowing I can always go back and look up the verb later". The same thing here. I don't know what an "alternating bilinear map" is, but with your explanation in mind, I can say, "OK, I don't know what that is, but at least I recognize it's describing "the requirements the operation fulfills" and I can keep making progress, knowing I can come back later and dig deeper. The point of this rambling note is just to say that I think this sentence needs more prominent placement, perhaps in the first paragraph of this section. Then you can still conclude the section by saying that you've only described the three most basic structures, and lots of other ones exist, such as magmas, etc.

  I found a way to mention this characterization in the first paragraph. I very much agree with you about the accessibility problems of several math articles. Some of them read as if they were written primarily for mathematicians, which becomes a problem specifically for the lead if an educated non-expert reader can't figure out what the topic of the article is. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm done with Major Branches. I'll pick up with History another day)

I couldn't stay away, so I finished this up today. I really can't find anything else to complain about in the rest of the article. I'll just leave you with a couple of suggestions which you can take or leave at your pleasure. One is that in Other branches of mathematics where you talk about algebraic solutions to geometric problems, you might want to mention that origami has been used to solve algebraic problems using geometry, see for example https://sites.math.washington.edu/~morrow/336_09/papers/Sheri.pdf. The other is that I don't think you can talk about Gerolamo Cardano without at least mentioning that he has been credited with inventing (or at least accepting the existance of) imaginary numbers.

I added a short side remark about origami and mentioned imaginary numbers. Thanks a lot for all the helpful suggestions! Phlsph7 (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not qualified to review this for the quality of the research or comprehensiveness, but I'm happy to give my support for general structure and "prose is engaging and of a professional standard".

• File:Muḥammad_ibn_Mūsā_al-Khwārizmī.png: the fine print on the licensing tag suggests a cropped image like this might not be covered by the copyright exception

  I removed the image since there were also other concerns about it in the comments below. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Rhind_Mathematical_Papyrus.jpg needs a US tag

  I added an US tag. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Francois_Viete.jpg needs a US tag, and why is this linked to the article? Ditto File:Frans_Hals_-_Portret_van_René_Descartes.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I added US tags and removed the links. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• On the former, the version that's actually in this article is File:Francois_Viete.jpeg - the one you changed is the version that's in the article that was previously linked (apologies for the confusion). The version in this article still needs tagging and also has a dead source link. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's confusing indeed, thanks for catching it. I added the US tag and replaced the dead link. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There was a similar problem with Descartes's image. To avoid future confusion, the images currently linked in the article are https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Francois_Viete.jpeg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Frans_Hals_-_Portret_van_Ren%C3%A9_Descartes_(cropped).jpg. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know even less about this one than ethics, so a more sensible person would stay away -- a few comments regardless:

• Linear algebra is a closely related field investigating variables that appear in several linear equations, called a system of linear equations. It tries to discover the values that solve all equations at the same time.: "all equations in the system"? As phrased, it sounds like we mean all equations in existence.

  Good catch. Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Algebraic methods were first studied in the ancient period: as with ethics, I think we could do with being a little more precise. Are we happy, for instance, that the Rhind papyrus is the earliest document to concern algebra, and/or that none exists older than the 2nd millennium BCE, or that the oldest known studies are from Egypt?

  We could mention the example of the Rhind Papyrus with a date in this lead paragraph. But I'm not sure that we want to go into those details in the lead. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• A matter of taste, maybe, but I'm not sure about a 1980s postage stamp (especially as the likeness is almost certainly totally fictitious) for al-Khwarizmi, especially if we're not going to tell the reader what the image is (some will, I'm sure, assume it's a contemporary portrait). Elsewhere, we have this, which is a page (I think the first page?) from the text we're discussing -- would that be a better illustration here?

  Good idea, I replaced the image, especially since there were also some copyright concerns above. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Transliterated Arabic should be in a transliteration template.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• A higher level of abstraction is achieved in abstract algebra: is is achieved the right phrase here -- it sounds like we're saying that abstract algebra is better than elementary algebra, when surely they're each trying to do slightly different things? "Abstract algebra uses/creates/allows a higher level of abstraction"?

  Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest linking countable noun.

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Very pedantic, but the link on " a certain type of binary operation" covers the "a", while the one on "a specific type of algebraic structure" doesn't. Usual form is to include it, I think.

  I included the "a" in the wikilink scope. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a little odd that note c mentions al-Khwarizmi before we've introduced him, and when we're talking about the use of the term prior to his work. I'd move it to the end of the following sentence.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This changed in the course of the 19th century: why not, simply, in the nineteenth century?

  Simplified. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note e (definition of constants vs. variables) does strictly need a citation, even though it's not exactly controversial. There are a couple of others -- I noticed l and s.

  Done, I hope I got all. I reformulated footnote l to be only about this article. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not going to kick up a huge fuss on this point, but it would be reassuring to provide a citation to show that other people do this too (in other words, that it's not our own idea). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The lowercase letters a and b are usually used for constants and coefficients. For example, the expression 5x+3 is an algebraic expression created by multiplying the number 5 with the variable and adding the number 3 to the result. I don't really understand the use of "for example" here -- I think we need to introduce this as a new thought.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• An equation is a statement formed by comparing two expressions with an equals sign ... Inequations are formed with symbols like the less-than sign (), the greater-than sign (), and the inequality sign (). : would it be better to explain this in terms of meaning rather than symbology? After all, the statement "the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the squares on the other two sides" was as much as passed for an equation for a large part of mathematical history, and we can imagine some other form of notation that expresses equations with a different sign or none at all.

  I reformulated it to take a middle path, covering both meaning and symbols. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Some algebraic expressions take the form of statements that relate two expressions to one another: two or more?

  Two is the typical format in algebra. Our formulation leaves it open whether there are other alternatives. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It does. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The main goal of elementary algebra is to determine for which values a statement is true: more idiomatic, to me, as "the values for which a statement is true".

  Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• In a similar way, if one knows the exact value of one variable one may be able to use it to determine the value of other variables.: do we lose anything important by cutting exact here?

  Not really. Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It bothers me that the graph example uses the wrong symbol for subtraction (the dash is too short), but that's not really your problem. Do consider, however, MOS:COLOUR in describing the line as red (not everyone can see its colour) -- perhaps also add that it slopes upwards to the right? I appreciate that there's only one line that graph-literate readers could identify, but we're rightly pitching this article to complete beginners, and it's not impossible that some won't know what the axes are.

  I updated the image file to use a longer symbol for subtraction (I had to close and re-open my browser for it show the new version). I also followed your suggestion to identify the line not only by color but also by slope. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This means that no variables are multiplied with each other and no powers of variables occur.: or that no variables are raised to a power greater than one?

  Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• A system of equations that has solutions is called consistent. This is the case if the equations do not contradict each other: better as A system of equations that has solutions is called consistent if the equations do not contradict each other? At the moment, we state something, and then immediately seem to state that it isn't (always) true. If I've got it right, we're saying that it's impossible to be inconsistent and to have any solutions, so it might even be clearer to state that first -- something like If two or more equations contradict each other, the system of equations is called inconsistent and has no solutions. For example, the equations ${\displaystyle x_{1}-3x_{2}=0}$ and ${\displaystyle x_{1}-3x_{2}=7}$ contradict each other since no values of ${\displaystyle x_{1}}$ and ${\displaystyle x_{2}}$ exist that solve both equations at the same time. If two or more equations contradict each other, the system of equations is inconsistent and has no solutions. A system of equations that has solutions is called consistent.

  I implemented a similar reformulation. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• LU Decomposition: decap decomposition, and consider spelling out lower–upper?

  Decap done. I kept the "LU" since this is the more common way of referring to it and also the name of our article. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• On a geometric level, systems of equations can be interpreted as geometric figures: do we need the first bit? Seems repetitive, given the end of the sentence.

  Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• For systems with two variables, each equation represents a line in two-dimensional space. The point where the two lines intersect is the solution: can we briefly explain why this is so?

  I added a short explanation. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• binary operations, which take two objects as input: as inputs, surely, or as their input?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The date of the Rhind papyrus -- can we give an idea of the "error bars" on the debate -- does everyone agree it's C17th, for example, or do some people think it's much later, or a modern forgery?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• These developments happened in the ancient period in diverse regions such as Babylonia, Egypt, Greece, China, and India: our phrasing here implies that this list isn't exhaustive. Is that what's intended?

  Simplified. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• In ancient China: I know the date of The Nine Chapters on the Mathematical Art isn't totally straightforward, but we should give it one anyway, if the Greeks get them.

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• On Vector 22, I have quite a lot of sandwiching between the Al-Khwarizmi manuscript and the double portrait. I realise I've earlier suggested using it in place of Al-Khwarizmi's face, so that would solve this problem as well.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• We get a lot of people described as "the nationality mathematician": you could consider dropping mathematician in these contexts, and take it as read that we're generally talking about mathematicians (see User:Caeciliusinhorto/Context considered harmful for an argument for this). Very much a matter of taste, though.
• the German mathematicians ... Emil Artin -- he was Austrian.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• to solve puzzles like Sudoku and Rubik's cube: we generally speak of a Rubik's cube, so I'd pluralise it here (especially as there are different variations on the form).

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Algebra education mostly focuses on elementary algebra, which is one of the reasons why it is also called school algebra. It is usually not introduced -- the series of its may not be totally clear -- we seem to be swapping antecedent here (the first one is elementary algebra, the second algebra education).

  I replaced the first "it". Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• unlike arithmetic calculations, algebraic expressions often cannot be directly solved: you might add an easily in here -- you can solve most school problems by trial and error, or simply by spotting the answer, but it's much easier to do it "properly".

  I guess it depends on whether we read "often cannot" as "in many cases, there is no logical possibility" or as "in many cases, there is no reliable way to do so". I would add it but "easily directly solved" sounds a bit odd. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To me, often cannot easily be directly solved is good English -- or perhaps "are often difficult to solve directly"? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• On the education side -- how worldwide is the use of balance scales? We've cited a single school textbook here, which to me is verging on WP:PRIMARY -- I'd be more comfortable with a survey article on the use of the technique in (American?) mathematical education. I've never seen it in UK schools, outside isolated word problems -- function machines are more common over here as a basic introduction to the ideas of algebra. I'd be interested to know how things are done in places like Shanghai and Hong Kong, which generally seem to outperform both systems, at least as far as concerns producing students who can solve school-algebra problems.

  I added two more sources that that examine some research on this approach. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Both of these sources (particularly Kaput 2018) consider balance scales as one tool among many -- Kieran talks about other manipulatives (cups and sticks, for example), and Kaput talks about a whole bunch of visualisations (including function machines), particularly those which they feel to be appropriate for use with a computer. I think the discussion here needs to be broadened to reflect those sources -- there's a good point to be made that teaching algebra often involves using conceptual tools, often ones with which students can interact physically, before introducing abstract concepts such as variables, but we shouldn't frame that entirely through one of those tools (balance scales). There's an interesting booklet for teachers here, with extensive bibliography, which recommends the use of representations but also acknowledges that the evidence for their effectiveness (like everything else in education!) is minimal. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I added some additional context to the discussion by mentioning manipulatives and visualizations. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've made a small and slightly pedantic fix (computers aren't visualisations), but I think this works well now. Feel free to counter-tweak. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks good. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I echo Roy's praise for the clarity and approachability of this article -- I'll admit that I skipped fairly lightly over the abstract algebra section, but the rest was absolutely clear and manageable, and I suspect I'm going to be one of the least qualified mathematicians to review this here. Excellent work once again. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for yet another detailed review and for taking a leap to provide a non-expert opinion on the article! Given that Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, this is also an important perspective to consider. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I am hugely impressed by the writing and clarity here, and while I am not qualified to vouch for the mathematics, everything within my expertise looks excellent. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support! Phlsph7 (talk) 08:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am neither an expert in the field nor a native speaker, I have a few comments. Overall I very much appreciated the clarity and structure.

• Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies algebraic structures --> while I like overall how clearly topics are being described, there are a few cases where I get a sense of recursion. Is there a way to avoid using algebraic in the definition of algebra?

  You are right that this sounds circular, but I'm not sure that there is a good alternative. There was already a detailed discussion on this point in the GA review that resulted in consensus on the current formulation. It sounds circular but it isn't circular since the technical term "algebraic structure" is defined without reference to algebra. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• called a system of linear equations. --> why italics?

  This is per MOS:WORDSASWORDS since we talk about the term "system of linear equations". Phlsph7 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• that appear in several linear equations --> a definition of linear would be good

  We could add a footnote but I'm not sure that we should get into this in the lead section. The first paragraph of the subsection "Linear algebra" provides a definition. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies algebraic operations[a] and algebraic structures --> too recursive for me. A question: do I understand it correctly that algebraic structures include lgebraic operations? If so, do we really need to say "algebraic operations[a] and algebraic structures" or can it just use structures?

  You are right, the operations are already included. I found a way to reformulate the sentence to take this into account while cutting down on the repetitive language. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Arithmetic studies arithmetic operations --> too recursive for me

  I removed the term "arithmetic" since we already list the main operations. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• first use of axiom in body is not linked. Perhaps do this: together with their underlying axioms, the laws they follow.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The natural numbers, by contrast, do not form a group --> should the + operation not be mentioned?

  Correct, I added it. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• One of the earliest documents is the Rhind Papyrus --> One of the earliest mathematical documents is the Rhind Papyrus

  I implemented the idea in a slightly different way. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• several generations between the 10th century BCE and the 2nd century CE --> I don't think 1000+ years can be described as several generations

  Agreed, this is an understatement. I adjusted the text. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thābit ibn Qurra in the 9th century --> I assume there is no more accurate estimate? Since 825 CE is also the 9th century, perhaps something like "also in the 9th century"?

  I think he made contributions in several works so we would have to list several dates. I added the "also". Phlsph7 (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• In 1247, the Chinese mathematician Qin Jiushao --> how come this is not with the other China info?

  For chronological reasons: roughly speaking, we have two paragraphs on ancient history, two paragraphs on post-classical history, and then modern history. It's not ideal but putting him into the ancient paragraph is not ideal either. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I could see. Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Edwininlondon, I appreciate you taking the time to review this article! Phlsph7 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more:

• x y c – variables/constants --> would be better to make 2 lines and separate the variables from the constant

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• forgive me if this has been agreed already, but is Encyclopedia of Mathematics as a wiki a reliable source?

  Thanks for raising this point. The website use wiki software to display the pages but it is not user-generated. The articles were originally published in book form by Kluwer Academic Publishers/Springer and only later made accessible online. We could cite the original books but the online version is much better accessible for readers. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• inconsistent date formats. Example: "from the original on 4 October 2009. Retrieved 23 October 2023" but also "from the original on 2024-01-12. Retrieved 2024-01-13"

  Done. I hope the script got all. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Walz, Guido (2016) needs a trans-title

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Spotcheck: 37 51 84 85 87 118 all check out
• 80 does indeed give 1550 but somehow I feel this source is not right to make the claim "The exact date is disputed and some historians suggest a later date around 1550 BCE" A more scientific source would be better.

  I replaced it with a better source. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 87 is correct but the link unfortunately does not put me on page 31, nor is that page accessible to me. Perhaps this link is better: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/11540/chapter/4

  I fixed the link, the page preview works for me now. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for this final round. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I hope I was able to address the main concerns. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Almost all fine, except that there still is a lingering sadness in me regarding the opening sentence with its circularity. I don't think the argument that the technical term "algebraic structure" is defined without reference to algebra is particularly strong. But I lack the expertise to provide something useful. Perhaps it is something like "Algebra is ..., known as algebraic structures, ... I was thinking perhaps the part "manipulation of statements within those structures" can be dropped, as that surely is encompassed by the word "studies". But maybe the phrase "manipulation of statements" is rather critical, as it conveys the essence of the field. Sorry, I can't express what is better. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current first sentence is: "Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies algebraic structures and the manipulation of statements within those structures". This definition is not circular since "algebraic structure" has a precise definition that does not refer to the field of algebra. So it's not a problem with the definition itself but only with the linguistic level since it is preferable to avoid repeating the words algebra-algebraic.

I'll brainstorm some alternatives:

1. Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies abstract structures and the manipulation of statements within those structures

   The expression "abstract structures" does not have a precise definition and could mean all kinds of things, so this formulation sacrifices information for linguistic improvements

2. Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies operations from a Cartesian power of a set into that set and the manipulation of statements using these operations.

   This is precise but most readers will have difficulties figuring out what "operations from a Cartesian power of a set into that set" means. Especially for the first sentence, this is not a good idea.

3. Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies operations on mathematical objects and the manipulation of statements using these operations.

   This is a less detailed and more accessible version of (2). Instead of repeating algebra-algebraic, this formulation repeats mathematics-mathematical.

When compared to these alternatives, I prefer the current version, but I'm also open to other ideas. Option 3 would be my second choice.

Roughly speaking, the first clause on algebraic structures covers abstract/universal algebra while the second clause on the manipulation of statements covers elementary/linear algebra. If we removed the second clause, we would focus only on the more abstract side of algebra. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for generating alternatives, much appreciated. I'd be curious to hear what other FAC reviewers think. In my mini-sample of 2 non-maths people, both raised an eyebrow at "algebraic". Alternative 2 is too technical indeed. Number 3 would be my preferred option. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any mileage in "certain abstract structures, known as algebraic structures", or similar? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4. Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies certain abstract structures, known as algebraic structures, and the manipulation of statements within those structures.

5. Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies certain abstract systems, known as algebraic structures, and the manipulation of statements within those systems.

6. Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies certain abstract frameworks, known as algebraic structures, and the manipulation of statements within those frameworks.

All of them are a little bit longer than the original. Maybe they could work without the word "certain". In (4), the repeated use of the word "structure" might be a problem. Of these three, (5) would be my preference. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like (5). Edwininlondon (talk) 08:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5 makes sense to me as a layman, though obviously I can't speak for its technical accuracy/completeness. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I implemented the suggestion. It's a little longer but should be more accessible. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I Support on prose. My uni algebra is too long ago to fully vouch for the technical aspect, but it looks very convincing. A nice piece of work. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helpful comments and the support! Phlsph7 (talk) 07:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am here in my capacity as a mathematical expert. My goal is to review the mathematical content of this page and make sure it is accurate and clear. Others have already done more comprehensive reviews of other aspects.

I think this article is excellent. I have a few extremely minor concerns and one bigger concern, but none will take so long to address. For the big concern, Let us look at the descriptions of linear algebra, abstract algebra, and universal algebra in this article.

"Linear algebra is a closely related field investigating variables that appear in several linear equations, called a system of linear equations. It tries to discover the values that solve all equations in the system at the same time. Abstract algebra studies algebraic structures, which consist of a set of mathematical objects together with one or several binary operations defined on that set. It is a generalization of elementary and linear algebra since it allows mathematical objects other than numbers and non-arithmetic operations. ... Universal algebra constitutes a further level of generalization that is not limited to binary operations and investigates more abstract patterns that characterize different classes of algebraic structures."

"Abstract algebra usually restricts itself to binary operations that take any two objects from the underlying set as inputs and map them to another object from this set as output."

"Universal algebra is the study of algebraic structures in general. It is a generalization of abstract algebra that is not limited to binary operations and allows operations with more inputs as well, such as ternary operations."

I think many mathematicians define linear algebra as the study of finite-dimensional vector spaces. The description of linear algebra in this article is pretty different on the surface, but still a valid POV, and not actually as different as it may appear. Anyway, it would be nice to put in somewhere that the algebraic structure linear algebra studies is a finite-dimensional vector space. The bigger issue is that everyone thinks vector spaces are under the domain of abstract algebra, and scalar multiplication is not a binary operation on a single set, so the descriptions of abstract algebra and universal algebra are wrong. Even if you expanded abstract algebra to be about binary operations where the input sets can be different, this would still not be how mathematicians view abstract algebra.

I think the way mathematicians view abstract algebra vs universal algebra vs linear algebra is like this:

Abstract algebra is the broad field of math that studies algebraic structures.

Linear algebra is the study of a specific algebraic structure that is important in the study of systems of linear equations: finite-dimensional vector spaces.

Universal algebra is the study of a specific algebraic structure called a universal algebra. This structure is kind of unusual in that its instantiations include many of the most important algebraic structures.

I think we should just remove the offending content and not change things too much otherwise. I am merely arguing that we should avoid explicitly limiting "abstract algebra" to binary operations on a single set, and that we should avoid thinking of universal algebra as a generalization of abstract algebra, but rather as the study of a structure that encases many of the most important algebraic structures. If there are no objections, I can make these changes.

@Mathwriter2718: Thanks for taking a look at the article! I followed your suggestion to mention that linear algebra can also be defined in terms of vector spaces. I included the reference to linear maps in the definition so it is more focused. I put it in a footnote since I have the impression that it is difficult to understand for the average reader but we could try to work it into the main text if that is preferable.

Concerning abstract algebra, one problem is that some sources restrict abstract algebra to binary operations. In order to avoid taking sides, I softened this claim by saying that it is "primarily interested in binary operations".

The relation between abstract and universal algebra is tricky. Pratt 2022 says "Universal algebra is the next level of abstraction after abstract algebra". Other sources also emphasize the general nature of universal algebra but don't make the relation to abstract algebra this explicit. I reformulated some passages to emphasize the generality. I tried not to imply that universal algebra is distinct from and more general than abstract algebra. I also added a footnote covering the alternative definition of universal algebra as the study of universal algebras, as you suggested.

I hope these changes are roughly what you had in mind. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a good compromise to me. Thanks. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Less important comments:

• Consider replacing

  For example, the expression 7x − 3x can be replaced with the expression 4x.

with

For example, the expression 7x − 3x can be replaced with the expression 4x, since 7x - 3x = (7-3)x = 4x by the distributive property.

Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider replacing

  This technique is common for polynomials to determine for which values the expression is zero.

with

This technique is commonly used to determine the values of a polynomial that evaluate to zero.

Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The article uses the term "x-y pair". I don't think I've seen this before, but it perhaps isn't wrong? I would expect to see (x,y)-pair or (x,y) pair, I think.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe it could be good to put in some image of a symmetry group when the article is talking about symmetry groups, though I didn't find an image on dihedral group that really stood out to me.

Mathwriter2718 (talk) 13:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After a short look, I didn't find a good image either. This part of the article already has several images so we might have to remove an image to create space for a new one. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathwriter2718: I appreciate the insightful suggestions. I hope I was able to address your main concerns. I was wondering whether, from the mathematical perspective, you would support the nomination. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Phlsph7 I hope that I can read up more on universal algebra before giving an answer. This might take a bit. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking another look at the subsection "Universal algebra". The main challenge for this subsection is to make the abstract topic accessible to the reader without oversimplifying too much. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phlsph7, is this ready for the reviewer to take another look at yet? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: The article is ready and, as far as I'm aware, there are no outstanding comments to be addressed. Mathwriter2718 said that they needed more time to familiarize themselves with the literature before wrapping up the review.

@Mathwriter2718: Just checking to see how things are progressing. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Phlsph7 I am very sorry for not getting back to you sooner!! I have recently become extremely busy and I have had trouble finding the time to review the mathematical literature and decide whether I support/don't support this nomination. I will give myself a deadline of tonight to finish this and if I can't get it done by then, then I think I can declare I just don't have enough time right now to do this. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathwriter2718: Thanks for taking another look! If turns out that you don't have the time to review the part on universal algebra, you could explicitly exclude that part from your assessment. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Phlsph7 @Gog the Mild I have finished my review of the mathematical content of the article except for the "Universal algebra" section and I support the FA nomination based on the content that I have reviewed. Maybe there is someone else who can review that section but I am not sure if there are many Wikipedians familiar with universal algebra. Looking at the history of the page Universal algebra one can maybe find people who are familiar with the subject. @Jochen Burghardt has a decent number of edits there. Personally, I'm just not qualified to offer my perspective on that area and I am too busy at this time to really become familiar in the way I would like to before offering an opinion. I'm sorry I couldn't be of more assistance here. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 03:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support and all the time and energy you have poured into this review! Phlsph7 (talk) 07:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, this is one of these broad topics where it's hard to tell for an outsider whether the coverage is representative. So I'll qualify that I am not reviewing that aspect of a source review. I wonder why some page numbers have Google Books links and others don't. Google Books serves up different results to different people, so I am not sure that these links are very helpful at all. By the same principle, I don't think that Google Books needs archive links. Springer is referred to by various names, is there a need for consistency? Are Jones & Bartlett Publishers and Linus Learning a prominent publisher? What makes "Edwards, C. H. (2012). Advanced Calculus of Several Variables. Courier Corporation. ISBN 978-0-486-13195-5. Archived from the original on January 24, 2024. Retrieved January 24, 2024." a high-quality reliable source? "Majewski, Miroslaw (2004). MuPAD Pro Computing Essentials (2 ed.). Springer. ISBN 978-3-540-21943-9.", "Nicholson, W. Keith (2012). Introduction to Abstract Algebra. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-118-13535-8." and "Mishra, Sanjay (2016). Fundamentals of Mathematics: Algebra. Pearson India. ISBN 978-93-325-5891-5." don't have the retrieval dates where other sources have, although with books and papers I don't think we need these at all. Otherwise we are using prominent publishers and series, although I notice the overrepresentation of Western sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks for taking care of the source review! I usually add links to google book pages that offer page previews if I'm aware of them. For some books, google books does not offer previews, in which case I can't add links. It could depend on the reader's geo-region whether a page preview is available. If it is available, it is a convenient way for the reader to verify the material without needing to buy the book. I removed all the google book webarchive links. The problem is that IABot adds them automatically when it runs, so they could be back soon. I implemented a more consistent approach for referring to Springer. I replaced the sources by Jones & Bartlett Publishers, Linus Learning, and Edwards 2012 with alternatives. I added an access/retrieval date for Nicholson 2012. Majewski 2004 and Mishra 2016 don't have access dates because they have no links to a website. The overrepresentation of sources by Western publishers in the article reflects the general prevalence of Western publishers regarding high-quality English-language sources on the subject.

Phlsph7 (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me like we need some discussion somewhere about IAbot adding archives to Google Books. But not an issue for a FAC I figure. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, this has already come up several times. I started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Google_Books_web_archive_links_and_IABot. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Jo-Jo, sorry to drag you back to this again. Would I be correct in understanding this to be a source review pass so far as FAC is concerned? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but note the caveats "So I'll qualify that I am not reviewing [the thorough and representative survey] aspect of a source review." and "overrepresentation of Western sources." I am not sure that limiting oneself to English sources justifies incompleteness, although we can't expect editors to be polylingual. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not follow the changes of the article done by Phlsph7 since January 2023. My first impression is that the new vesion is much better. Nevertheless it is too much biased toward educational aspects of algebra. I'll discuss this in several items in order to makes improvements easier.

• Abstract algebra: Presently, this phrase is almost never used outside mathematical education. This must be said in the article, and in many occurences of this phrase the word "algebraabstract" must be removed.

  Hello D.Lazard and thanks for taking a look at the article! I found a source that talks about how the term "abstract algebra" is used in the educational context and added a sentence on it. I'm not sure if this is what you had in mind. If you know of a source that spells your point out in more detail, I would be happy to have a look at it. Most of the sources that I'm aware of define abstract algebra as a field of inquiry rather than a math course in undergraduate studies.

  Clearly, I have no source saying "I do not use abstract algebra because this is reserved to educational context", but, AFAIK, there is no recent sources (say, not older than 50 years) that use "abstract algebra" outside educational or historical context. D.Lazard (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You seem to suggest the addition of a sentence like the following: "In the last 50 years, the term abstract algebra has only been used in educational and historical contexts." I'm not opposed in principle, but we would need to figure out how to source this sentence and how to deal with possible counterexamples like [23], [24] and [25]. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't get what you mean by in many occurences of this phrase the word "algebra" must be removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course, it was a typo, I meant "abstract". D.Lazard (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, I see. Depending on the context, the term algebra is sometimes used to refer only to elementary algebra or only to abstract algebra, as explained in our section "Definition and etymology". I think it's in the best interest of the readers to use the more specific names to avoid confusing them. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, reading the article again, I do not find any improper use of "abstract algebra", except in the last paragraph of section "abstract algebra", which is controversial for other reasons, for example, by asserting implicitly that, say, the the study of groups of geometric transformations belong to abstract algebra. D.Lazard (talk) 10:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Major branches: Presently, this section has only 4 subsections: "Elementary algebra", "Linear algebra", "Abstract algebra", "Universal algebra".
  For defining branches of algebra, the most authoritative source is the Mathematics Subject Classification. The previous version of the article referred to this source by writing: Today algebra includes section 08-General algebraic systems, 12-Field theory and polynomials, 13-Commutative algebra, 15-Linear and multilinear algebra; matrix theory, 16-Associative rings and algebras, 17-Nonassociative rings and algebras, 18-Category theory; homological algebra, 19-K-theory and 20-Group theory. Algebra is also used extensively in 11-Number theory and 14-Algebraic geometry.
  Three of the four major areas belong to 08-General algebraic systems, and very little is said about the seven other major areas of algebra. So, without sections on other major branches of areas, this article fails the second criterion of featured articles: comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context

  As far as I'm aware, the Mathematics Subject Classification does not provide a general definition or subdivision of algebra. The sentences you cited from an older version of our article were unsourced. If you know of a source that supports this subdivision of algebra, I would be interested to read it. The sources that I'm aware of do not divide it this way, but there may be different ways of dividing it.

  Most of the categories you mention are covered in one form or another in our article. For example, polynomials are covered by the section "Linear algebra", algebraic geometry and algebraic number theory are mentioned in the subsection "Other branches of mathematics", and the different rings, fields, and algebras would be belong to the section "Abstract algebra". The last paragraph of the section "Abstract algebra" gives various examples of different algebraic structures. We could add more if you feel that this would help comprehensiveness, but we probably shouldn't overdo it. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As Mathematics Subject Classification was elaborated by the whole mathematical community, this is a reliable source for subdivision of mathematics; it is undoubtly much more reliable than any text written by a single author. So, it is wrong to say that the old paragraph was unsourced. Per WP:BLUE, no source is needed for asserting that field theory, polynomial theory, commutative algebra, associative rings and algebras, nonassociative rings, homological algebra, and group theory are branches of algebra. Nevertheless it suffices to open any textbook having these subjects in their title to see that these subjects belong to algebra. So, the present state of the article breaks policy WP:NPOV by giving much less place to all these subjects together than to universal algebra, a subject that is not really used outside itself (it has been replaced by the much more powerful category theory). D.Lazard (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have my doubts that this is a WP:BLUE-statement. The Mathematics Subject Classification is a reliable source but does not support the claim about how algebra is divided into the main branches. Of the items you mentioned, our article provides a detailed explanation of the basics of groups, rings, fields, and polynomials. It also mentions some of the more specific algebras without going too much into detail. I think it's not the responsibility of this type of overview article to go into the more advanced details of these subjects.

  Universal algebra is usually given more weight in reliable sources than the other areas you mentioned so I don't think this violates WP:NPOV. For example, Pratt 2022 discusses it as one of the main branches, without characterizing any of the other areas you mentioned as main branches. Bronshtein's "Handbook of Mathematics" paints a similar picture: in its division "5 Algebra and Discrete Mathematics", universal algebra gets the main subdivision "5.3 Univeral algebra" but none of the other fields you mention get main subdivisions. But you are right that universal algebra is not as important as abstract algebra. I could try to reduce the length of the section "Univeral algebra" by boiling it down to 2 paragraphs. Would that address your main concern? I was thinking about adding a few sentences on homological algebra but this topic could be quite challenging to the average reader. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The most influential graduate textbooks in algebra are probably Van der Waerden's Algebra and Lang's Algebra. They are probably the most reliable sources for this subjects. In particular, Lang has more than 10,000 citations. It is unbelievable that none of these books is cited in our article. Clearly, they do not contain everything that belongs to algebra, but they are certainly reliable sources for the important branches of algebra. I have not these books under hand, but the phrases abstract algebra and universal algebra do not appear in the table of content of Lang nor in the list of Van der Waerden's chapters. On the other hand, all the branches that are cited above appear, at least in Lang (which is more recent). So, the fact that the above cited branches belong to algebra is supported by reliable sources. They support also the fact that "abstact algebra" is not used outside educational level, and that universal algebra is not a major branch of algebra (Lang knew universal algebra, since he is an author of an article on this subject, and did not included the subkect in his book). D.Lazard (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sections "Abstract algebra" and "Universal algebra" are both devoted to the general study of algebraic structures. So, there must be merged and shortened for making place to (presently lacking) other major branches that are much more active.
• Theorems: The article is misleading by suggesting wrongly that there are no important theorems in algebra. As an example, one thinks immediatly of Feit–Thompson theorem, which is the theorem of algebra with the longest proof (the complete proof of Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is probably longer, and contains much algebra, but is not limited to this area of mathematics). Other examples are Hilbert's basis theorem, Hilbert's Nullstellensatz and Hilbert's syzygy theorem. Beside their historical importance, they are interesting here, since they predate "abstract algebra", and are therefore difficult to classify in this branch of algebra.

  I responded to this and the two preceding points on the article talk page, which is probably a better place for this type of discussion. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A drive-by comment: the claim in the universal algebra section that "Two algebraic structures that share all their identities are said to belong to the same variety." and the examples that follow this claim do not match my understanding of the subject. As I understand it, and as Variety (universal algebra) describes, a variety is defined by any set of identities, and an algebra belongs to a variety when it obeys all those identities (even when it might also obey others). So a single algebra might belong to many varieties, not merely the single variety defined by all its identities. Two algebras might belong to one variety, and differ in their membership of another variety. In this same section, "the ring of polynomials" is ambiguous: polynomials over what domain? Footnote [74] appears off-topic; neither linked reference page is about membership of integers, polynomial rings, or rationals in varieties. (One of the two pages uses "variety" in a different sense, from algebraic geometry rather than universal algebra.) The claim that the integers and ring of polynomials (over whatever domain) obey the same identities is unsourced, and may be false depending on the domain of the polynomials. For instance polynomials over GF(2) obey the identity x+x=0 that the integers do not.

Hello David Eppstein and thanks for your comments! I had a look at a few sources and I think your interpretation of varieties is correct. I reformulated the passage to avoid the misleading formulation used earlier. I added the sources I consulted and replaced the example with another. It's a simplified version of the one found in Rosen 2012. If this is still controversial, we could either use the full example from Rosen 2012 or leave it out. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There another issue in this section: it is not said explicitely that not all algebraic structure belong to a variety. For example, fields do not form a variety since division by zero is not defined. D.Lazard (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added a footnote to mention this. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Wtfiv (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Battle of Saipan in June 1944. Because it was underway at the same time as the Normandy landings in France, it is less well known. It was the first invasion of the Mariana and Palau Islands campaign. The invasion triggered the Battle of the Philippine Sea, which effectively destroyed the Japanese navy's airpower. The island's capture pierced the Japanese defense perimeter and provided the American forces with an island base that put the Japanese home islands in range of the B-29 bombers. The fall of the island led to the collapse of the Japanese cabinet with the resignation of Hideki Tōjō, the prime minister of Japan.

The article has passed an A-class review and the images have been reviewed by Hawkeye7. Wtfiv (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the maps

• Updated three maps of campaign progress to upright =1.2

• Some images are missing alt text

• Alt text added to 27th infantry moving inland, troops moving through Garapan in flames

• File:Garapan_Fire,_Saipan,_3_July_1944.jpg: the licensing here is contradictory - is this PD or CC? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Updated licensing to PD; it is part of the Marine archives.Wtfiv (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was one of the reviewers at A class and found this article to be a comprehensive review of the battle. I can happily support for promotion to A class on the general text quality. On source formatting, I would suggest adding archive URLs for the National Park Service source in the Online sources section, and also for Trefalt 2018, the only two sources we don't have archive URLs for. I will be doing a source review tomorrow. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Matarisvan,

I added the archive link for the National Park Service. I couldn't archive the convenience link for Trefalt as it is behind academia.edu's server, but the doi is available for readers, who have access to the journal. Wtfiv (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source formatting review is a pass then. Here goes the source review:

• All sources are from reliable publishers.
• #3, #8, #21, #68, #81, #172, #267, #287: all ok.
• #124: ok but only Shaw, Nalty and Turbladh 1989 has the required supporting text, I could not find any in Harmsen 2021. Perhaps you should remove the latter.
• #153: For this text, "Less than a half hour after the start of the amphibious invasion", p. 63 would be the correct one, not p. 64. For the other use of this ref number, p. 64 is correct. You will have to separate the two.

Matarisvan (talk) 07:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For #124, The Harmsen citation and its associated convenience link were corrected to p. 62, which discusses the first night's assault; #153 was corrected to p. 63. Wtfiv (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source review is a pass then. Also I'd really appreciate it if you could check out a PR I opened recently, linked here. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed this at A-class and looks good to me. But to prove I read it:

• "Nagumo" is misspelt as "Nagamo"

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Hawkeye7! I fixed it. Wtfiv (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I figured I should review it since I have an FAC open too.

• "Organized resistance ended when at least 3,000 Japanese soldiers died in the final gyokusai attack" - eesh I had to look up what gyokusai was. I'm not sure what I expected, but I think a brief description here, either wave or swarming. I also noticed that gyokusai redirects to Banzai charge. Any reason for this particular wording here? I'm not familiar with the subject matter, just the first thing I've noticed.
• " and left Japan vulnerable to strategic bombing" - you mention this in the third lead paragraph, but it's also in the first. I'm not sure if the material in the first paragraph should be moved to the third, since that all kind of lumps together the aftermath of the battle.

• removed repeat of strategic bombing in lead, taking out mention of strategic bombing from the fourth paragraph, but left it in the first since it is important.

• Is it worth mentioning the brief history of Saipan being taken by Japan/Germany/US as part of the background? The US was kind of taking the island back, and it never gave it up after the war. Or furthermore, there isn't even much of a background to the Pacific campaign, just starting the narrative in 1944. I see you mention more history under "geography", but that kind of feels like "background" to me.

• Changed section name to "History and Geography". The US occupied Guam before the war, but not Saipan. The Saipan became a Japanese possession, part of the mandates, immediately after World War I.

• I notice that two times you use "nmi", without ever using the term "nautical mile". I was only familiar with the abbreviation because tropical cyclone articles (which I usually focus on) often have their units listed in nautical miles/knots, which we always convert since the average reader probably doesn't know what they are. Considering you mostly use imperial with metric units in parenthesis, I don't think you need the nmi, unless you think otherwise.
• " 81 and 91 inches" - convert to metric please. Ditto "seven miles"

• nmi removed, rainfall has cm conversions, seven miles now has kilometers.

• "The largest towns on the island–the administrative center of Garapan with its population of 10,000, Charan Kanoa, and Tanapag–were on the western coast of the island, which was where the best landing beaches for an invasion were. " clunky wording here

• reworded, breaking it into two sentences.

• "Nimitz assigned Admiral Raymond Spruance, " - I had to scroll up to remember who Nimitz was. Maybe remind the reader his significance, since it's the start of a section (Opposing forces). Kinda similarly when you say "the amphibious landings of Forager". I had to look up what Forager was again. Not a huge deal, but to a non-military expert, it might be helpful to have a few more reminders.

• added that Nimitz was commander of the Pacific Fleet. Replaced "Forager" with "Mariana Islands"

• Over 60,000 troops were assigned to the assault:[b] Approximately 22,000 were in each Marine division and 16,500 in the 27th Infantry Division. - I'm not sure the use of the colon after assault:

• Colon deleted

• "6 June 1944" - this stood out to me that your date format is European. Saipan is a US territory now, and most of the US uses Month and Day, not Day then Month. Is there a reason you chose this date format?

• I wanted to keep the format consistent with this article's companion article, Battle of Tinian. Tinian was the next island invaded a month after Saipan. (It's about three miles from Saipan.) I kept the format of that article because it passed both the A-class review and is a featured article using the DD Month Year format.

• "This made the defenses brittle." - is "brittle" the best word here? I'm not familiar with military terms here, and I'm not sure if "weak" is better, but maybe there's a better word out there than a word that makes me think of brittle candy.

• "brittle" changed to "weak"

Battle

• "On 11 June, over 200 F6F Hellcats from the Fast Carrier Task Force launched a surprise attack on Japanese airfields in Saipan and Tinian..." - we don't have an exact number?
• "which began around 08:40" - timezone? Is this local time? Washington time? Coordinated Universal Time?

  Here I followed MOS:TIMEZONE which states that event times should be given in the time zone in which the event occurred.

  That's fair, but anytime I deal with anything time specific, it's helpful to clarify with a note. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricanehink, I assume that for the American sources, time would be based on the WWII version of Military time zone (Zulu time) Saipan's military time zone falls within K time (or Kilo time), GMT+10. But none of the sources clarify this. Wtfiv (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a reason "8000 men" doesn't have a comma for 8,000? Also, is this exact or about?

• Added "around" before 8000. Followed MOS:DIGITS, which states that commas are optional for four digit numbers.(Added comma)

• I see "pillbox" is linked in the pic farther down in the article than when it's mentioned for the first time in prose.

• Linked first occurrence of pillbox in main text.

• "He proposed to indefinitely postpone the 18 June invasion of Guam." - I'm guessing that happened? There's nothing else of this

• Added footnote that the Invasion of Guam took place on 21 July.

• "Intelligence had estimated that there were no more than 300 Japanese soldiers in the area" - do we know what intelligence? It might be better saying "Advanced reconnaissance" or "Spies" or however they estimated that, than starting with "Intelligence", which is odd to me as a civilian.

• Replaced "Intelligence" with "Smith". This follow's Lacey's wording.

• Why does the "American firepower" section appear under "25-30 June: Central Saipan, breakthrough"? I noticed that the Sherman tanks were already mentioned previously, just not in as much detail. I wonder if the "American firepower" should appear under "Opposing forces" under the American section? I think I see the logic having it where it is now: the American firepower allowed for this turning point. Right now parts of the section feels like it disrupts the narrative, considering what came before it. All of that said, the tanks with flamethrowers sounds fucking badass, which is partly why I think that needs to be highlighted better in the article than where it is. This section is what caught my eye:

• "The Americans had other assets as well. Over 150 tanks–over 100 of which were M4 Sherman tanks–had been committed to the invasion.[204] The M4 Sherman tank was superior to the Japanese Type 97 tank.[205] It was primarily used to support infantry and was considered one of the most effective weapons for destroying enemy emplacements.[206] Flame throwers were extensively used. Smith had seen the need for motorized flamethrowers and had requested that the Army's Chemical Warfare Service (CWS) in Hawaii install them in M3 Stuart tanks. Seabees with the CWS had 24 tanks, nicknamed "Satans", converted to flamethrowing in time for the invasion. They were very effective for destroying pillboxes, cave defenses, buildings, canefields, and brush."

• Moved the section on the tanks to "Opposing Forces". Kept the sections on artillery and portable flame-throwers in this section, as this is when they were actively deployed.

• "But his army's cohesion was disintegrating. Some of the remaining forces moved north, others holed up in whatever caves they could find and put up sporadic, disorganized resistance." - I noticed a few times earlier where a sentence started with "But", which felt clunky. And then the second part felt like it was missing a word, or a semicolon. Maybe "while others holed up"?

• Reworded sentences. Removed initial "But". Removed some of the other lead "But's" too.

• "On 4 July, the 27th Infantry Division and 4th Marine Division headed northwest. The 27th division reached the east coast at Flores Point, south of Tanapag" - wait is the 27th the same for both sentences here? How did it go northwest and end up east? Going around the tip of the island, I'm guessing? If so, maybe clarify that?

• That should have read "west coast at Flores Point". Fixed

• "and inflicting 80% casualties" - the rest of the article used exact number of casualties, not percentages, so I suggest using an exact number if you can.

  Added "about 900 casualties". I left 80% as a clause to illustrate the magnitude of the loss.

• "who survived the last banzai charge" - see my earlier comment about gyokusai or banzai, as long as it's consistent.

• Changed to gyokusai.

• "Eventually 1700" - why no comma?

• Added comma. (MOS:DIGITS states that commas are optional for four digit numbers.)

• " It was the Americans' most costly battle in the Pacific up to that time." - seems to have been deadly, not costly, unless I'm mistaken

• Changed to "deadly"

• What is "ordnance "?

• replaced with "shells during the battle".

• "Hirohito only accepted Saipan's eventual fall on 25 June when his advisors told him all was lost" - in 1944 or 1945? The last year mentioned was 1945, so I have to ask

• added 1944

All in all an interesting read about a battle I knew nothing about! Well done all around. Most of my notes should be pretty easy to fix/address (I hope). Lemme know if you have any questions. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, Hurricanehink. I've responded. Do these address the issues you pointed out? Wtfiv (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, thanks so much for the quick responses! Happy to support now. Good work on this. I don't usually read military articles, but I found this fairly easy to follow. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source formatting seems consistent. Are "free Press" and "Metro books" really lowercase? Is Samuel Eliot Morison a reliable source? Some of what it says raises questions. Is http://www.historytoday.com/ a high-quality reliable source? In terms of reliability, it seems like we are working with good sources ... but even with WP:NONENG the fact that English and US-affiliated sources are almost the entire source body raises some WP:UNDUE concerns. Are there really no Japanese sources on the battle? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Capitalization: "Free Press" and "Metro Books" have been fixed.
• Morison as a source: "New Guinea and the Marianas, March 1944–August 1944." is part of the History of United States Naval Operations in World War II. It is not a perfect source, as that article points out. Unlike the United States Marines and the United States Army, the United States Navy never published an official history. Morison's is the closest it comes. The Navy stated that Morison's history was not its official history. His advantage however, is that the navy gave him access to its records, gave him an office office in the Navy Department under the Director of Naval Records and History while writing the book, and a staff of assistance. See the Naval Command and Heritage site for a review of Morison. Morison's strength is clearly one of the reference sources for later histories of the Pacific War, including Ian Toll's Pacific War Trilogy and Hornfischer. (see Hornfischer's review of Morison here.) In using Morison as a source, I did not use his analyses or assumptions of motivations. I used what he had access to, (e.g., ship number, troops, information about plans, and the like.)

• Just to add here, Morison continues to be widely used by professional historians so is clearly a reliable source. He shouldn't be used in isolation as the books can be dated at times (and sometimes can be slightly eccentric), but that's not the case here. I've referenced Morrison in several FAs that passed with no concerns being raised over the source. The series remains the most detailed account of the US Navy in World War II. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Japanese sources: My contributions tend to aim to a close adherence WP:NONENG when possible, though I will provide foreign language sources with a quote and translation when they make a critical point (see Frederick the Great or Joan of Arc). One of the major problems in most writing about the island warfare in the Pacific is that almost all the Japanese witnesses died. Testimony from Japanese survivors interrogated by the military is included in the article. I did include English-language works from Japanese-speaking scholars studying the Pacific War. These include Tanaka, Irokawa, Kawamura, and Hiroyuki. The former three have author links with their sources. They mainly focus on how the battle impacted Japanese decision making at the grand strategic level.

• Ironically, one of the major sources for the Japanese military perspective on the island-as cited in the English-language sources- was Takashi Hirakushi. Almost all contemporary histories still cite him as a source, but as a footnote in the article suggests, his first-person testimony may not be reliable. Much of his testimony was initially shared under the name of an officer who had actually died in the fighting, and his story changed over time (cf., Hoffman's version written in the 1950s and Toland's summary based his interviews with Hirakushi in World War II), and some statements are contradicted by interrogations of other survivors. Problems with the details can be found in footnote h in the article. The sources in the footnote provide more information. I've provided convenience links to the sources wherever possible so English-speaking readers can verify the information themselves.

Wtfiv (talk) 15:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• oops, forgot about the Hughes. Removed it and replaced with Atroth.
• Also,with respect to Japanese sources: Trefalt is an English-speaking source, but her article gives a critical treatment of civilians in Saipan in her analysis of civilian survivor's diaries. Wtfiv (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I've replaced the Hughes from history today with the peer-reviewed article by him in the Journal of Military History. It's more in-depth and fully cited.
• Interestingly, Hughes on pg 102 (with a footnote with specific references) also points out that the Japanese sources remain thin, though they would be useful. Very little of the Senshi Sōsho, the Japanese multivolume official history of the war has been translated, and it doesn't include the sections on Saipan Most personal memoirs by Japanese people who were at Saipan have not been translated either. Hughes mentions two untranslated memoirs about Saipan.

Wtfiv (talk) 23:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hughes also mentions Saburō Ienaga's work, which was translated into English, The Pacific War: World War II and the Japanese, 1931–45 (1968; New York: Pantheon, 1978). I had access to this book when writing the article. It gives an overview of a Japanese perspective, but Saipan is not discussed. The closest he comes is a passing mention of the Battle of the Philippine sea as part of the Japanese military being ground down by overwhelming American production. Wtfiv (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Jo-Jo, how is this looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Good but I wonder if there are other sources (non-military ones) here that could be used. I'll also stress that I am less adept at analyzing military sources than academic ones, so if there is some subtle bias I won't necessarily spot it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jo-Jo, I am moderately up to speed with the Pacific Campaign, so I will reread the article with this in mind. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, did you get a chance to do this yet? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late response, I missed this until now. When working on the article, I looked for relevant articles in journals without a military focus when researching the article in the academic search engines of had access to, including Google Scholar. They were few. I used Trefalt (2018) in The Journal of Pacific History analyses Japanese civilian's experience using Japanese diaries and memoirs, Plung (2021) in the Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus discusses Saipan in the context of evacuation policies in Japan, Giangreco (2003) in the Pacific Historical Review discusses American casualties in terms of policy decisions in the war. The Tanaka (2023) chapter in the edited volume The Modern Japanese Nation and Empire c. 1868 to the Twenty-First Century described where Saipan fit into Japanese defense strategy at the governmental level. Though Astroth (2019), Mass Suicides on Saipan and Tinian, 1944: An Examination of the Civilian Deaths in Historical Context. is a book, not a journal, its is an in-depth about civilian casualties in a larger historical context. Wtfiv (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also reviewed this in its A-class review. I'd like to offer the following comments in regards to meeting the FA criteria:

• The article appears to have been considerably expanded and copy edited since the ACR. It is clearly of FA standard - I can't find much to comment on, though I've made a few minor tweaks to tidy up the article.
• The lead is excellent, and a model of how they should be structured.
• As a very minor suggestion, I'd suggest replacing "took out" with something more formal, liked "destroyed" Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

done! Thank you for the review Nick-D! Wtfiv (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): SerialNumber54129 17:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One prince promised a throne, another prince denied a throne, a queen spurned, a king humiliated, and all because of an agreement that satisfied no one and angered most. Accord... it didn't.

Let me know what you think! Many thanks! Cheers! SerialNumber54129 17:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• What's the benefit of the footers on the multi-images? They seem to duplicate captions

• File:EdwardPrinceOfWalesBeauchampPagaent.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nikkimaria, I've linked to the original publication, all PD by now. I have also removed the duplicate footers. They was, as you say, not achieving much. SerialNumber54129 12:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"One prince promised a throne, another prince denied a throne, a queen spurned, a king humiliated, and all because of an agreement that satisfied no one and angered most: sounds like a slightly stretched metaphor for the Tories at the time of Brexit. Have a couple of other things on my plate at the moment, but will be along to look over this. - SchroCat (talk) 10:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, great analogy! With the rest of the country all looking at em and wondering how much more they can completely balls things up! SerialNumber54129 12:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General

• There are seven uses of "however" in the text, which is probably at least six too many! I've skipped the lead for now, but will finish off with it

Only one 'however' left, in a footnote.

Background

• Note one seems a bit out of place here. It starts off talking about 'The labels "York and Lancaster"' , when neither of the terms have yet been used in the body.

Indeed. Moved to 2nd para; now note 2.

• "when a York had won": again, the York-Lancs division hasn't been raised in the body yet, and the reader needs to pre-understand the situation before getting to this. I think a sentence or two explaining why the politics was "partisan and factional" and who was involved in the "intermittent rises in violence and local disorder". It's a background section, so you're allowed to give a bit of potted history for people to understand rest.

Expanded the recent history; always clearly of getting carried away on the old hobbyhorse.

• "Salisbury marched": A fleeting image of a whole town (houses and all), marching cross country popped into my mind here! Maybe full title and link (plus identification of what side he's on)

Clarified in discussion of Yorkists.

• "York went into exile": ditto

Ditto.

• "Warwick and Edward of March": Ditto

Ditto

• "in Calais": probably best to add that this is in France – not everyone will know it's in a different country to the rest of the action

Done.

• "In the nine months since the Yorkists' exile": I know the tense sits well with the subsequent quote, but the grammar is a little off. "In the nine months following the Yorkists' exile" would be more in line with expectations

Thanks, adjusted.

• "The Calais lords returned to England in May 1459": Just checking on the date: they returned before they were attainted by the Parliament of Devils?

H'mm Ludlow castle a time machine? Bigger on the inside that on the out?! but changed, just in case it wasn't  :)

More to follow - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

York's claim

• There's a bit of a mismatch between the text and the tree which jars a bit. The text refers to John of Gaunt who isn't named as such in the tree, but as John, Duke of Lancaster. It took a long moment for me to dredge that up from my memory, and others—particularly who haven't been through the British education system—won't be able to make the connection at all. Same problem for Richard of Conisburgh of the text, who is the tree's Richard, Earl of Cambridge.

Adjusted their titles; added ordinal numbers for York, Lancaster and March, added death dates. Mass complicated table tab

• " Anne's grandmother, Philippa of Clarence, was the daughter of Lionel of Antwerp": Do we need to know this? I can't see the relevance

No, removed.

• "argues Brondarbit": who he?

New York comedian and PhD Winchester. Nice bloke. Knows what to do with cold canapes and warm wine.

• "when he landed": who is the 'he' here? I'm a bit lost in this bit with a plethora of names and a lot of 'he's being used – may need just a bit of a brush up for clarity

Hopefully, some names have been clarified? Replacing 'he'.

• "says Ross": who?

Linked.

• "but having been unable to do so": grammar ever so slightly off here. Maybe "but had been unable to do so"?
• Excellent, thanks.

Next sections and more to come. I can only echo Tim's words that I think this would possibly have done better with a PR first to iron out some of the wrinkles. – SchroCat (talk) 07:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recommencing with some minor tweaks and a support. Once comment, however: you need to decide whether you use King or king, as you have, for example, "The King was weak-willed" and "the king's efforts at reconciliation" running throughout. Consistency would be best. - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SchroCat, and I appreciate the edits. Well caught! On K/kings, my personal preference—I think an increasingly popular one today—is king for a no name, but King when named. So, e.g., 'the king said', 'the king went', etc, but 'King Henry said' and 'King Henry went'. but do the MOS:HEADS preclude such simplicity in favour of something more esoteric that allows them all to argue for 5,000 words at a time?  ;) I'm not absolutely pro or con any style, just whatever either a) makes it easier for me, or b) what we can all agree on! But I totally agree about consistency. SerialNumber54129 12:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think user:UndercoverClassicist gave a most succinct and helpful summary of how to turn the precepts of MOS:CAPS into practice, in a comment at another recent FAC: "... if the title stands in for someone's name (so "I met the Pope last Thursday" -> "I met Francis last Thursday"), it's capitalised, so most cases like "the Prime Minister did such-and-such" should be". Tim riley talk 07:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not yet of FA standard: there are too many things wrong with the prose. It would, in my view, have been helpful if the article had been taken to peer review before coming here.

• "he and Henry were both direct descendents of Edward III"–"descendants" (OED and Chambers recommended spelling).

Absolutely.

• "York possessed two claims, through both the male and female lines"– but later we say "Unlike the Lancastrian claim, the Yorkist claim on the throne was based upon the female line of descent" – I can't make these two statements square with each other

I've recast that whole paragraph, which hopefully clears things up but also simplifies the explanation?

Much clearer now. Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "broke out into open battle, when a York had won a skirmish"– can one have "a York" tout court?

Not that one would want to, certainly!

• "In the nine months since the Yorkists' exile, "the political situation in England had again been transformed" – needs an attribution inline.

Check.

• "And coming there he walked straight on ..." –unclear why this big quote is given in modern English but the other one – "At which parlement the commones of the reame..." – is in medieval English.

Fair point: it's literally the sources. One transliterated, the other... don't, I'm afraid. I could do it, but at some point, it stops being merely mechanical and starts being original work.

Fair enough. Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "York's claim and right to the throne had long been recognised by the Royal council and in law, although it was theoretical until Edward of Westminster had also died childless." –I find this impenetrable. We need either a family tree or a clearer exposition of where the likes of Edward of Westminster fit in to the scheme of things.

Family tree, check.

Excellent! Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "the Nevilles knew of York's plan prior to his arrival" –"before"?

Done.

• "Warwick's keenness to disassociate himself with York's plan" – "dissociate" and "from"?

Yes. Odd one that dis/as/sociate, I probably use them synonymously.

• "the Lords requested that the royal justices examine the matter ...The lords next turned the matter over " – capital or lower case for Lords/lords?

UC for House of, lc for people.

• "the king's god-given " – the OED prescribes a capital for "God-given".

Done.

• "Having to achieve popular acclamation, York had to push his case on a strictly legal basis" – Is there a word, such as "failed", missing here?

Quite an important word!

• "the prince of Wales own patrimony" – possessive apostrophe required

Done.

• Caption: "Richard of York, a descendent of Edward III's" – spelling ;of "descendant" and do we need the apostrophe-ess?

Check x2.

• "removal by forceable means"– "forcible" (OED and Chambers)

done.

• "Having sworn to protect the king's life, York presumably expected the king to do likewise" – doesn't say what I think you mean: not that the king would swear to protect the king's own life, but that he would swear to protect York's.

Changed to "expected the king to reciprocate".

Fine. Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• " Queen Margaret into York's implacable enemy ... became more implacable in their resistance to the Yorkist government" – two implacables in one paragraph? Perhaps "resolute" or some such the second time?

Good choice.

• "it could also have driven Yorkist loyalists away" – either a different stop before "it" or a capital letter needed.

Semi-c'd.

• "Margaret could not accept the disinheritance of her son and perhaps encouraged her and her supporters to see York's death as now the only chance of returning Edward" – seems to be a missing word such as "this" after the first "and". And is "could" rather than "would" the correct word?

Both good.

• "stymied " – jarringly inappropriate word, suitable for 20th-century golf but not for medieval history

Glad to say I've never set foot on a golf course in either century... except in anger perhaps. Changed to 'prevented', although it doesn't convey quite the sense of 'stalled in her tracks'...

"thwarted" perhaps? Just a suggestion. Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thwarted is just right.

• "Henry's supporters who were behind this malcontent" – in modern English "malcontent" means a disgruntled person; the state of being discontented is "discontent".

Thanks.

• "Rutland was probably probably knifed by Lord Clifford on Wakefield Bridge" – very probably.

Check.

• "while Salisbury was captured and later executed at Pontefract Castle." – does "while" mean "simultaneously" or just "and"? Needs clarification.

How bout "and Salisbury was captured after the battle, to be later executed"?

Absolutely fine, though just "and" would be fine too, I think. Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Wakefield was a decisive blow for the Yorkists" – "for"? "to", surely? And as they eventually won, in what sense can it be called "decisive"?

True, it wasn't. Rm 'decisive'. For the other, I went with 'a hard blow to the Yorkists...', but I'm not sure that sounds right either!

If it were my prose, which of course it isn't, I'd say "a severe blow", but as always it's just a suggestion. Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Severe, also good thanks.

• "The Lancastrians' supposed breach of the Act of Accord, including York's death at Wakefield, and how made them responsible" – missing a word, by the look of it; perhaps "it" after "how".

Indeed.

• "He was both inept as a ruler – presumably "he" is Henry, but this needs to be clear.

Named Henry.

• "Refectory.[31]" – I cannot work out the point, if any, of this footnote.

I admit, that was completely bizarre. going back to the source, I realise it was to clarify that the room they were in was their refectory!

That's all for now. Tim riley talk 10:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Tim riley and SchroCat, I have spent much of the last decade carefully fashioning a circle of enemies, rather than friends.
  What happened here was that I forgot about the final—basic, if fundamental—stage of my approach: leave it overnight and do a final copyedit with fresh eyes. Sometimes, the last c/e might be light—typos, dup links, etc.—and sometimes heavy, such as moving stuff around and rewriting for clarity. This had a little of both. Still, Mutandis Mutatis is the cry around the hillside, and both your (much appreciated) comments above, often acting as a springboard to further development, have improved the article on how you would have found it had I not forgotten the final stage. What a palaver, though. Thanks again! SerialNumber54129 16:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Order, order! I'm not an enemy and nor is our mutual friend Schrocat. We are on your side, but must do our duty as reviewers. Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: Thanks for your word suggestions, just the ticket. Re the above. Apologies: I don't see you as enemies at all, I was just putting myself down so as to save anyone else the trouble  :) as you say, the duty of the reviewer is sacrosanct. Thanks for your help. SerialNumber54129 15:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I'll look in again for another read-through soon. Tim riley talk 17:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second batch of comments from TR.

Coming on nicely. Nearly there, I think. A few odds and ends:

• Lead

• "They, in turn, were defeated three months later" – "They" presumably being the Lancastrians, but you could make that clear, I think.

• Done.

• Background

• "that it impacted national politics ... Less impactful nationally" – two impacts in close proximity: perhaps change one or the other?

• "began interfering in government business"?

• "By 1459 ... despite the king's efforts at reconciliation" – but earlier you tell us that the King had become mentally incapacitated, comatose and unable to recognise his companions. Had he recovered somewhat? If so is there a source for that?

• Right. Opened the 3rd para of the section explaining that the king recovered his health, and sacked York.

• York's claim to the throne

• "the fourth surviving son of Edward Gaunt's younger brother" – I wondered for a moment who Edward Gaunt was, but I think a comma will make your meaning clear.

• Good spot!

• "Warwick had met with York in Dublin" – I generally maintain that in BrE (unlike AmE) one meets with things – fate, success, trouble etc, but just meets people, but here I can see that the profusion of geographical labels might be a touch dizzying. I wonder if "Warwick and York had met while they were both in exile in Dublin" might be smoother, but I don't press the point.

• OK...thanks, firstly for a clear way of remembering that difference. The only thing here that makes me pause is that, while they were both in their exiles, they were exiled to different places—Warwick to Calais, York to Dublin. Thoughts?

Good point (ahem!). Your original wording will suffice, but I wonder if it is necessary to mention the location at all? ""Warwick and York had met while they were in exile..."? I leave the ball in your court. Tim riley talk 17:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Negotiations and the act of Parliament

• "he bore the Langley arms ... he had never worn the Langley arms" – if he had never worn them in what sense did he bear them? Does this just mean he claimed entitlement to them?

• Butting in here - this looks to have been a typo, as Ross says it was the Clarence arms he never bore; I've gone and corrected it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• That's dead right, and many thanks, PMC, for fielding that! Absolutely correct, of course. SerialNumber54129 15:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot, I think. I'll look in again shortly. Tim riley talk 08:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim; all of your suggestions adopted; just the matter of their exiles that's tripping me up a little. SerialNumber54129 15:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With the recent improvements to the article it seems to me to meet all the FA criteria and I am happy to add my support. But peer review first next time, perhaps? (Speaking of which—hint). Tim riley talk 17:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forthcoming within the week. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caveat - my comments are made with fairly minimal knowledge of the entire War of the Roses, so if I ask something particularly stupid, forgive me (but feel free to say so)

Lead

• Why was the king absent?

• No idea; in Berkhampstead, IIRC, bt he'd only opened the blooming parliament three days earlier, and since it seemed a bit of extraneous detail, all mention of his or York's absence is now... absent.

• "The queen, Margaret of Anjou, refused to accept the disinheritance of her son, although her husband had publicly supported the act." I might swap the clauses here so we flow from king's support to queen's refusal to the next sentence's opener of "she was joined"

• Thanks, reads much better.

• I've never heard of Margaret before but I think I love her already.

She was more King than her husband could ever hope to be!

• What was Henry doing while his wife was raising hell? Might be worth mentioning in the lead

Well, he's still in London; he was still king, but York and the Nevilles were running the government. He was a catspaw.

• "was crowned King Edward IV" - when? Right then, or later?

Dated.

Background

• I recognize that the situation is complicated, but this article is ~3500 words and the background is ~1100. The section about York's claiming of the throne is another 500. That's just shy of half the article all together just to set the scene, before the Act even comes up. Is it possible to condense any of these details?

Aaghh :) would it be OK, and the comradely act of a fellow editor, to throw SchroCat under the bus at this point ("Miss! It was his fault! He made me do it!")... I may have taken his suggestion of expanding the background too literally. I guess some words probably can be cut; can I take a deeper look into this point.

We'll have to cut his catnip rations for sure. No worries though, I realize I'm kind of being a hypocrite here, complaining about the length and then asking for several clarifying points :P

• "heir to the throne until 1453" - what changed?

Hh and the queen did their duty  :)

It is embarrassing to admit that "queen had a baby" genuinely didn't come to mind.

• "the maintenance of God's Peace" is "God's Peace" a specific notion distinct from just "peace", or would "peace" suffice?

Of course, absolutely.

• Henry was utterly incapacitated in 1453, but in 1455, he's able to raise a great council. When did he recover?

I think my clarification to Tim above (his 2nd trance, 2nd point under 'Background') might cover this; he asked something similar. Can you see if it's satisfactory to you too?

Looks good to me

• "King Henry was captured by the Yorkists after the battle" later he's taken prisoner again. when did he get let go?

Clarified that it was only for a couple of months.

• Both pairs of images are so tiny, I think you could safely make them bigger

Done. Yes, much better.

• "Henry Bolingbroke" who

Glossed him in that sentence.

York claims the throne

• The lead mentions that the king is absent when York makes the claim, but the body doesn't establish this (was the king still a captive at this time?)

see above, re. absenting.

I can see it being removed in the lead, but in the body of the article, not addressing where the king was during this moment really begs the question of why he didn't object to someone else strolling up and calling dibs on his chair

• This whole second paragraph is giving me just the worst secondhand embarrassment for York, it's like a Blackadder bit

Totally. Thought of the theme song at the time! "His great grandfather was a king / if only for 30 seconds" :D

• "York appears to have had Henry removed from his lodgings" - was the king still a prisoner or how did he do this?

Not really, they were the royal apartments, which York threw henry out of so he could live there. Nice attitude!

Negotiations

• Double checked Ross and Ross says he never bore the Clarence arms, so I've corrected that

Thanks again.

• "The resulting compromise was modelled on the 1420 Treaty of Troyes, which it mirrored;" "modelled on" feels redundant to "mirrored", I think we could pick just one

"The resulting compromise mirrored the 1420..."

• "York's political opponents could now legally be classed as traitors" this is likely a question from ignorance, but how did the Act give him this power?

Not at all. Clarified, hopefully, that it had always been treason to attack the heir to the throne, and now that was York, it applied to him.

• "The Act of Accord neither stopped the civil war..." - the second half of this sentence feels redundant to the first (mainly "nor resolved anything"). I see what you're doing, stylistically, but I don't see what it adds to the reader's understanding

Duly cut.

• "If she had been looking" - this sentence feels a bit knotted up in itself

Yes, verbose. Have tweaked.

Aftermath

• Same question as in the lead - where is Henry while Margaret is raising hell?

Still in London 'supporting' York's government...

• "Henry was accused of breaching the act long before that date" - in what way?

point. Have clarified what Henry was now accused of in breach of the act (and, I imagine, his coronation oath).

Okay, that's what I've got on first read-through. Again, I apologize for any questions that arise out of ignorance of English history, although I hope an outsider's perspective is helpful in terms of spotting things that may feel obvious to a more knowledgeable person. No rush on responses, cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: That's a great review, really helpful. To be honest, an outsider's review can be the most useful because that's 99% of the readership, I guess. Also, you hit (annoyingly!) on broad themes along with prose. I think I've addressed your points—all improvements—except where I'm sharpening a penknife! Cheers! SerialNumber54129 15:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The changes look good to me, there's just the background section and the question of the king's status during York's throne-touching incident that remains. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the few days' grace, Premeditated Chaos. I had another look and reduced the backgound section by 25%. I've also added a couple of sentences on what Henry was (not!!!) doing or thinking while this was going on. It's very vague, unfortunately. With no thought at all for the 21st-century historian, contempories didn't seem interested in what people weren't doing, only in what they were doing  :) but this should help clarify things a bit. Thoughts? SerialNumber54129 13:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a quick re-read and I think all of my concerns have been addressed. The top half of the background I think is much better in terms of setting the stage for someone with minimal knowledge. Happy to support this one! (Unbelievably rude of people to not have been thinking of Wikipedia editors when they were writing stuff down in the 1400s, we should put in a complaint)

By the by, unrelated to my support, I have another McQueen collection at FAC. I found your commentary on The Hunger very helpful; if you have the time and interest to have a look at this one, I'd be very grateful. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review and support, PMC; I enjoy your McQueen articles and will be happy to look in! Cheers, SerialNumber54129 14:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

What does this sentence mean?

Following much discussion—in which the king's serjeants-at-law and justices claimed that under the act, Henry was to retain the crown for life, but York and his heirs were to succeed him.

Background

In Late Medieval England, strong kings were seen as essential to sound governance and the maintenance of God's Peace.[5] Likewise, weak government was perceived as encouraging the collapse of law and order, and contemporaries saw this as happening in the last years of Henry's reign.

"Likewise" isn't right here. I'd just make a longer sentence and use "and".

Done.

York's claim to the throne

Warwick had met with York in Dublin while in their respective exiles.

Would "...while they were both in exile" be better?

Done.

York claims the throne

"When York entered London, he had his sword, and the Arms of England, born aloft before him, rather than the traditional Mortimer quarterings, emblazoned on his trumpeters' banners, in the manner of a king." I'm lost by the end of that sentence. What does it mean?

It was rather turgid! I've turned it into a couple of shorter sentences now?

Parliament

"Forty years later, the Act of Accord similarly decreed that Henry would retain the throne for his life, but that on his death, instead of descending to his son, Edward, Prince of Wales, it would do to York or York's heirs." "Do to" sounds awkward. I would reword this.

Done.

Aftermath

"Elsewhere in the country, events necessitated urgent government intervention. In Scotland, James II had captured Roxburgh Castle and was poised to march on Berwick." Scotland and England are different countries and were all the more so in the 15th century.

Blush!

"The Lancastrians' supposed breach of the Act of Accord, including York's death at Wakefield, and how it made them responsible for the civil war, became a mantra of Yorkist propaganda until the end of the dynasty in 1485." A mantra is something else. Would "theme" be a better word here?

Absolutely.

John (talk) 10:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for looking in, John, and for the suggestions. I've actioned them all—with a guilt trip for doing to Scotland in a couple of keystrokes what Edward I couldn't do in 30 years... SerialNumber54129 13:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. Any objections if I just take a general hack at the prose? As others have pointed out, it isn't quite there yet. John (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The encyclopedia anyone can hack at, John  :) SerialNumber54129 15:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I'm owed that for spotting the England/Scotland thing. Still smarting from the Euros... John (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Done, and please carefully inspect my edits to ensure I have not inadvertently changed any meaning. There may be one or two other bits and pieces, but those were the issues that were jumping out at me. John (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No John, that all looks good to me and reads nicely. Can't believe I never even mentioned the Wars of the Roses! The Homer Simpson of FAC, after all... SerialNumber54129 17:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, not at all, it's an excellent and well-written article, it just needed a little polish. Still ok? John (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks John, appreciated. SerialNumber54129 12:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi John, 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) 19:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: you should not ask; it is an impossibility. John can neither support nor oppose and to ask is infamia. The important thing is, the article underwent solid improvements and, as a result, the project wins. Thanks to all who took part on this page. Cheers! SerialNumber54129 20:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page range of #21 seems pretty large. Is Boardman, A. and Boardman, A.W. the same author? Is there a logic behind some sources having an ISBN and others an OCLC? Regarding "The English Nobility in the Late Middle Ages: The Fourteenth-Century Political Community." there seems to be a 1987 and a 2002 edition, or is that just Google Scholar acting up? A similar question about "Historical Writing in England: c. 1307 to the Early Sixteenth Century". "Shadow King: The Life and Death of Henry VI" seems to be seldom cited in the wider world. Does "The House of Lords in the Middle Ages: A History of the English House of Lords to 1540" have a publisher? Seems like we are using major publishers, although I can't speak much about completeness or the authors. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, JJE, taking your queries in turn:

1. Ha! Especially as the book is <200 pages long in total. A couple of other numbers fell in there; now corrected.
2. Boardman: yes. I tend to go by what's on the actual book I'm using, so sometimes just Andrew, sometimes A. W. Consistency is good though, so changed to the latter.
3. ISBNs: Well, since they've only been in common use since the late 70s, WorldCat ascribes an OCLC number to works predating this, a form of digital object identifier for books and journals I guess, available from Worldcat (I pass no comment on the fact that Worldcat is owned by, err, OCLC inc; no COI there, then, even though Wikipedia treats Worldcat as gospel!). In this case, you'll see that only the pre-70s books (Armstrong, Bellamy, Brie) use OCLCs, the rest are journals.
   I'm sure this is pretty much standard practice at FAC these days, isn't it, using OCLCs to predate ISBN? Apologies @FAC coordinators: if I've been doing it wrong all this time.
   • Strictly speaking I'm answering from FA editing experience as opposed to FAC coord knowledge but I think in this case it amounts to the same thing. I’ve long employed OCLC for books that have no ISBN, and it's always met with everyone's approval. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   That's a good reason, but when I see inconsistencies, I generally query them unless the reason for the inconsistency is obvious. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4. Given-Wilson: Indeed, acc. Worldcat it's been reprinted several times, although not necessarily revised; I used the 1987 edition because it's the one that I bought when it came out, and I'm still lugging the tatty thing around since :)
5. Gransden vol. II: Pretty much ditto; although, per WorldCat again, there have been several printings between 1982 and the present day. I use the 1996 printing of vol. II.
6. Sacked Johnson; not sure what I was thinking of. There's a Winter King] by the highly reputable RS Thomas Penn, on Henry VII; could've been that. Anyway, I replaced it and tweaked the language accordingly.
7. Enoch: yes, both publisher and location now filled. It's odd that the script didn't highlight it for me, though.

Thanks for looking it over, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Hopefully, all your points are clarified/addressed. Cheers, SerialNumber54129 17:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jo-Jo Eumerus is this a pass for you now? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @FAC coordinators: For the record, I'm holding out for five supporting reviews. Cheers! SerialNumber54129 10:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Serial_Number_54129, a delightful article on a topic I know very little about. And a very accessible rewad, despite all the number of people.

• Although her husband had publicly supported the act, the queen, Margaret of Anjou, refused to accept the disinheritance of her son. In this, she was joined by the majority of the English nobility, who also opposed York. -> explicitly state who her Husband is and change to their son unless there's a good reason.

  Agree with both—done.

• Wiki link Yorkist government with House_of_York

  Done.

• Wiki link the queen with Margaret of Anjou

  Done (sort of); I thought it was unfair that all the men were first-named (Henry, Richard etc) but she was just a noun! So linked her directly.

• Include pages where it's part of a larger book, e.g Horrox SFN

  I'm guessing this is her ODNB article (and so also Pollard and Watts). It has something to do with the template; even though the version used is online, it presents it like a book. So it appears to need a page range but actually doesn't have one. And I got bored some years ago—as I think others did!—of fighting the bot that would randomly come along and regularly change it  :)

• The diagram is incredibly helpful and I wish more articles had them. Relying on colors is not super accessible (for both screen-reader users and non users). That said, I still noticed color mismatches. I would replace the color maps {{Cyan|Light blue}} with {{color|#0eacf8}} and {{blue|Dark blue}} with {{color|#047cb6}}. See the corresponding color coded examples for matching dark blue light blue?. The red/black are matching as is. I need to think more what is best way to make them accessible. Perhaps also corresponding border styles (dotted, dashed, thickness) etc...

  Thanks for the kind words! the table was kind of fun but also a complete PITA considering I haven't got a technical bone in my body. I've replaced the light blue with Purple as a possibly temporary measure; but if you have any further suggestions along the lines you propose I'd appreciate hearing them! ACCESS hasn't, I'm afraid, embedded itself in the general FAC mindset yet.

• Is York Protector, Lord Protector and Protector all referring to same title? If so, use full name the first time instead of third time

  Done.

• Change Further readings to External links per MOS:LAYOUT

  The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away  :)

• Thanks very much for looking in, Shushugah, a very pleasant surprise. Thank you, too, for your comments, which are appreciated. I've actioned them, except where I've explained otherwise. And I'm interested in your suggestions re. the chart. Cheers! SerialNumber54129 12:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129 giving this a final round of reviews. I always find a few days in between helps me catch stuff I missed the first time round.

• Replace This began systematically destroying York's and the Nevilles' Yorkshire estates with This began the systematic destruction of York's and the Nevilles' Yorkshire estates

  Done.

• Lede can be shortened from son Edward, Earl of March, who was crowned King Edward IV on 28 June 1461 to son was crowned King Edward IV on 28 June 1461. We don't need his original title in the lede.

  Done.

• Either italicize The Brut Chronicle in the quote, or remove The here

  Adjusted (although per the actual page name, not what I had previously guessed it to be).

• suggest replacing had not attended and so argued that they did not consent to the act and nor were they bound by it with had not been in attendance, and thus had not consented to the act, nor were they bound by it

  This is slightly more tricky: "nor were they bound by it" sounds a definitive statement being given in wikivoice, whereas the source is more ambiguous: "...and could not be regarded as bound by [the act]". Perhaps a direct quote would better represent the opinion of a single historian.

• I made accessibility adjustments to the graph. Still not exactly screen-reader accessible. Am thinking of ideas there

  Open to any improvements, of course.

• What is the sort logic for orders of certain pairs? e.g (Philippa/Edmund Mortimer), (Henry Bolingbroke/Earl of Derby) and (Henry VI/Margaret of Anjou)

  Could you clarify, please? Basically, the first listed is the the relevant descendant. So, regarding Philippa and Edmund, she was the daughter, he merely her husband; Henry VI likewise the son of his father and Margaret, his wife; and to be honest, I can't see how Henry IV (an only (surviving) son) is a pair at all unless you mean his titles?

• Haigh, P. A. and Haigh, P. not consistent in Works Cited

  Done.

• Lewis, K. J is out of order ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well spotted, she got lost amid the Laynesmiths.

• Thanks Shushugah, and no worries about waiting. If I were in a rush, I would have given up years ago  :) Thanks for these suggestions, I've got a couple of queries but nothing drastic. Thanks again, SerialNumber54129 20:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support this nomination, even though there is no deadline 🎉 ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks very much Shushugah, I appreciate your comments and edits, especially around MOS:ACCESS. If you've got any suggestions for my replies above, I'd like to implement them, but it's up to you, of course. Cheers! 🍻 SerialNumber54129 00:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SN, can you add sourcing for the family tree? If everything was also in the text and sourced there I wouldn't ask but not every member/relationship is, e.g. Philippa of Hainault. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian Rose, is this what you were thinking, or a footnote? (Apologies for miscapitalising your name there.) Thanks for the suggestion! SerialNumber54129 13:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, tks. FTR, this was part of my coord-y pre-promotion checks, which I'll continue later today. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing... Most quotes are attributed, and some that aren't seem fine as is, but:

• "take the full part" with York -- perhaps just paraphrase?
• "find ... all such things as might be objected and laid against the claim" -- is this actually Henry, or the source?
• "through the sinister labours of persons intending the king's destruction" -- said who?
• "unrest, inward war and trouble, unrightwiseness, shedding and effusion of innocent blood, abusion of the laws, partiality, riot, extortion, murder, rape and vicious living" -- said who?

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Ian. Unless you're absolutely determined, well, I'm rather keen on the first quote, context etc. The second one is Henry, or more accurately, the parliamentary record of what he said, but obviously, that's more or less the same thing. (Here's a modern transcription). The third and fourth are also the parliamentary record (again, more accurately, the last is the record of a petition of the Commons presented to the King, but again, it's effectively the same thing as they all get recorded in the Rot Parl). I've added inline attribution for these three. Any good? SerialNumber54129 17:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edith Roosevelt was a lifelong companion to President Theodore Roosevelt, from childhood until Theodore's death. Shying from the spotlight as her husband became increasingly famous, she found herself thrown into the role of first lady over a matter of days when Theodore unexpectedly became president of the United States. As first lady, she ruled Washington's social life with an iron fist, holding meetings with the wives of Theodore's cabinetmembers to determine when and how they were to hold events—and who they weren't allowed to invite. Edith took charge of the White House's first major renovation, and she was the first of the first ladies to hire her own employee.

This is the fourth article of my U.S. first ladies project that I'm submitting as a featured article candidate. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest adding alt text

• File:Edith_Kermit_Carow_Roosevelt_by_Frances_Benjamin_Johnston.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Edith_Roosevelt.jpg, File:Theodore_Roosevelt_and_family,_1903.jpg, File:Edith_and_Ethel_Roosevelt_cph.3b42358.jpg

• File:Theodore_Roosevelt_and_family._"From_a_father_of_five_to_a_father_of_five"_-_Gilbert_Studios._LCCN2015650317.jpg: when and where was this first published and what is the author's date of death? Ditto File:Mrs._Theodore_Roosevelt_LCCN2009631530_(cropped).jpg, File:Mrs._Theodore_Roosevelt_LCCN2009631491_(cropped).jpg

• File:Mrs._Roosevelt,_Quentin.jpg: where is that licensing coming from? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Edith_Kermit_Carow_Roosevelt_by_Frances_Benjamin_Johnston.jpg, File:Edith_Roosevelt.jpg, File:Mrs. Theodore Roosevelt LCCN2009631491 (cropped).jpg – These are all from the same source, which doesn't provide that info, and a Google search for each image didn't turn anything up.
  • File:Theodore_Roosevelt_and_family._"From_a_father_of_five_to_a_father_of_five"_-_Gilbert_Studios._LCCN2015650317.jpg – Same as the others, but it's from Gilbert Studios, which was apparently owned by commons:Category:C. M. Gilbert. I don't know whether that's enough to call him the author though.
  • File:Mrs._Theodore_Roosevelt_LCCN2009631530_(cropped).jpg – Figured out the author and added to the Commons page
  • File:Mrs._Roosevelt,_Quentin.jpg – Yeah, that wasn't ideal. I switched the description to the standard format used by the other images, and I swapped the CC tag with a standard PD tag. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • So for all the images with tagging indicating a publication date prior to 1929, is it actually possible to demonstrate that? Or should the tagging be changed? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Yeah, they're all from Library of Congress which doesn't provide the publication info, and I haven't been able to verify them separately. Is there an alternative tag to use in this case, or should I just remove the tags (and would the images need to be removed from the article in that case)? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      • What's the earliest publication date that can be confirmed? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TBUA, just a reminder that Nikkimaria's outstanding comments need addressing. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said previously, I am unable to verify publication. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki, TBUA, can you bring me up to speed on this? If publication can't be verified, have the image tags been altered, or the images removed? Or are we good to go with the image review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We still have several images present with unverified tagging. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm here from the Discord after TBUA asked on the #commons channel about the images. I'm not sure why it would need something to demonstrate that it's public domain or when it was first published, especially as it came from the Library of Congress IMO, I would assume that the LoC would know what they're doing, but some of the licenses can be changed.

• File:Theodore Roosevelt and family. "From a father of five to a father of five" - Gilbert Studios. LCCN2015650317.jpg – can use {{Library of Congress-no known copyright restrictions}}; website directly states "No known restrictions on publication."
• File:Edith Kermit Carow Roosevelt by Frances Benjamin Johnston.jpg – can use {{PD-Johnston}}; website directly states "No known restrictions on publication."
• File:Edith Roosevelt.jpg – Part of the Bain Collection, and can (and does uses) {{PD-Bain}}, or can use {{Library of Congress-no known copyright restrictions}}; website directly states "No known restrictions on publication."
• File:Mrs. Theodore Roosevelt LCCN2009631491 (cropped).jpg – can use {{Library of Congress-no known copyright restrictions}}; website directly states "No known restrictions on publication. No renewal in Copyright office."
• File:Mrs. Roosevelt, Quentin.jpg – can use {{PD-Johnston}}; website directly states "No known restrictions on publication."
• File:Edith and Ethel Roosevelt cph.3b42358.jpg – can use {{Library of Congress-no known copyright restrictions}}; website directly states "No known restrictions on publication."
• File:Theodore Roosevelt and family, 1903.jpg – can use {{Library of Congress-no known copyright restrictions}}; website directly states "No known restrictions on publication."
• File:Mrs. Theodore Roosevelt LCCN2009631530 (cropped).jpg – can use {{Library of Congress-no known copyright restrictions}}; website directly states "No known restrictions on publication. No renewal in Copyright office."

According to this guide by the LoC, "No known restrictions on publication" generally means that a) there was copyright but it wasn't renewed or expired; b) no copyright markings or indications; c) no records or indications of any copyright registration; d) Acquisition paperwork for collection doesn't have evidence of restriction; and e) They were published extensively without any claimed rights by someone. It notes that these do not exclusively mean that it's public domain, but there's no evidence of restrictions in the first place. reppop^talk 20:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

reppop, thank you for the straightforward explanation of what changes might be needed. Since there's been no comment regarding these suggestions, I've implemented them. Also just letting you know that I've moved your comment to the bottom of the discussion because it intersected with the outdent. Pinging the reviewer: Nikkimaria. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you've added the suggested tags to what was already present, rather than changing the tagging? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you several weeks ago whether the tags would need to be removed/replaced, and you never responded. I am not active participant at Wikimedia Commons and I've basically had to feel my way around in the dark throughout this review. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I was looking for more detail to answer your question about alternative tagging, but essentially if a tag can't be verified to be correct, it shouldn't be used. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've now removed all of the publication date tags where only the date of the photo is known. I've also removed the author death tag where the studio is known but the specific author hasn't been proven. This is in addition to the tags I added per reppop's explanation. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by from Kavyansh

• link White House in the lead
• "came to be her most enduring legacies." — I feel we are stating a widespread scholarly opinion as a fact. I would have written it as "are considered by scholars/historians/authors<whatever deeps appropriate> to be her most enduring legacies."
• "Managing the family became a large responsibility, as she also considered her husband to be one of the children for his involvement in the children's trouble-making," — Interesting! But do we need this in an encyclopaedic article?

I might add a few more comments, but I won't be supporting or opposing the nomination, primarily because these are just drive-by comments. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback, always appreciated! I've made the first two changes. For my part, I've always liked having a few more personal details to give a better picture of the subject's family life and personal thoughts, but I have no objection to changing how it's presented or just removing it if others agree that it doesn't work as it currently stands. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Placeholder for the time being. Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • She then became second lady of the United States when Theodore was elected Vice President, and she became first lady when the assassination of President William McKinley propelled Theodore to the presidency later that year. The specific year or month-year might be mentioned as it has not been done previously in the paragraph.

  Done. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Edith resented the press, so she used her influence to control its coverage of the family and had photographs taken of the Roosevelts so she could provide them to the press at her discretion. Can this sentence be reconstructed to make its meaning clearer?

  This sentence gave me a lot of grief when I was writing the lead. I've given it another try and split it into two sentences. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Nothing more for the lead. I will return with further suggestions later. MSincccc (talk) 14:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thebiguglyalien More comments below. Looking forward to hearing your response.

  Legacy

  • Historians have little information about Edith's own state of mind while studying her life,...

  Done. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The historian Stacy A. Cordery said that the White House renovations organized by Edith were one of her "most important legacies",... Grammatically correct, now.

  Done. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Edith has been ranked:... Can this sentence be rephrased into one sentence?

  Done. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  MSincccc (talk) 07:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thebiguglyalien Further travel and political involvement

  • Over 300 letters celebrating Franklin's nomination arrived as Sagamore Hill. The last phrase "...arrived as Sagamore Hill" is vague. Could you please explain it to me? The rest of the section is fine.

  Typo. Should have been "at Sagamore Hill". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  MSincccc (talk) 02:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Return to Sagamore Hill

  • She temporarily lost her taste and permanently lost her smell from the accident.

  Rephrased sentence. MSincccc (talk) 03:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To me this makes it sound like she enjoyed kitsch art and her body odor was cured. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc, I've replied to everything to this point. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First lady of the United States

• Rather than hiring a housekeeper, she took personal responsibility for the care of the mansion. I suppose it should be "hiring" instead of "hire".
• Each Tuesday, Edith organized a meeting with wives of all the cabinet members to run concurrently with cabinet meetings.
• For two months beginning in April 1903, Theodore ventured off on a trip to the west, and Edith cared for the children on her own, first on a cruise aboard the USS Mayflower and then in the White House. What do you mean by the "White House" here? Was it a vehicle for him to travel to the West?
• Besides her own children, Edith also ensured to dedicate time to her stepdaughter Alice, who felt neglected by Theodore.

@Thebiguglyalien Till here for now. I will return with further suggestions later. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 03:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"ensured to dedicate time" doesn't sound right to me, but I've made the other changes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien Fine. I do not have any major suggestions for improvement at the time being. Keeping that in mind, I will not hold back my opinion for this article's FAC. Support. MSincccc (talk) 10:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding work as usual; as usual, this is nothing but a list of minor nitpicks and I expect to support once these are dealt with or argued away.

• "until after Theodore was engaged to Alice Hathaway Lee": suggest making this "until after Theodore was engaged to his first wife, Alice Hathaway Lee". I suspect I know more about Teddy than most Americans (I live near Sagamore Hill and have visited it several times) but I still had to click through to remind myself that he did marry Alice.
• "and got elected governor of New York": suggest "and was elected" as a little more formal in tone.
• "She then became second lady of the United States when Theodore was elected Vice President, and she became first lady when the assassination of President William McKinley propelled Theodore to the presidency later that year." A bit repetitive in structure, and I'm not keen on the "then". I also think it would help to have one or two dates in this paragraph. How about inverting the first half: "When Theodore was elected Vice President in March 1901 she became second lady of the United States for six months, and then became first lady when the assassination of President William McKinley propelled Theodore to the presidency in September of that year"? Mentioning a year once or twice earlier in that paragraph wouldn't hurt either.
• "she featured various musical artists at the White House": perhaps "invited to" rather than "featured"?
• "held a mutual animosity toward his wife Helen Herron Taft": I don't think there's a good verb that you can use in the form "she Xed animosity towards". If you want to keep "animosity", I would suggest "and there was mutual animosity between Edith and Taft's wife, Helen Herron Taft". If you'd rather avoid the passive, maybe "and she and his wife, Helen Herron Taft, strongly disliked each other".
• "She remained politically active, supporting Warren G. Harding in 1920 and Herbert Hoover in 1932—the latter being an effort to distance herself from Hoover's opponent ...": this doesn't work syntactically -- "the latter" refers to Hoover himself, not her support for him. Maybe "She remained politically active, supporting Warren G. Harding in 1920 and Herbert Hoover in 1932. Her support for the latter was an effort to distance herself from Hoover's opponent ...".
• "Edith's early schooling took place at the Roosevelt home": can we give the location?
  • It says in the previous paragraph that they were in Norwich, Connecticut. I don't want to be redundant, and this is how the source handles it.
• "Managing the family became a large responsibility, as she also considered her husband to be one of the children for his involvement in the children's trouble-making". I don't think "as" works unless the source is clear that it would not have been a large responsibility without Theodore's attitude, which seems unlikely given the number of children and the expectation of the day that mothers were responsible for day-to-day parenting. Suggest "Managing the family became an increasing responsibility, and she counted her husband as one of the children because of his involvement in the children's trouble-making".
  • I went with "in part because", does that work?
• "cared for their family friend Cecil Spring Rice during his visits": this makes it sound as if he was an invalid?
• "Fischer's antique shop": this is mentioned as if it's well-known. Is it a candidate for a redlink?
  • The source makes it seem this way, but I also can't find any sources with a surface level search.
• "Attending several receptions in 1890, Edith was received at the White House with her husband, now as a guest rather than a tourist": suggest "She attended several receptions in 1890, and was received at the White House with her husband, now as a guest rather than a tourist". I assume some of these receptions were not at the White House? If they all were at the White House then that could be made definite with "She attended several receptions at the White House in 1890 with her husband, and was now received as a guest rather than a tourist".
• "on February 1, 1894, by President Grover Cleveland, where Edith was sat directly next to the president": suggest "on February 1, 1894; Edith was seated directly next to the president, Grover Cleveland". I don't think we need to say Cleveland personally issued the invitation (and he probably didn't, anyway).

  Is "sat" formal AmEng usage? In BrEng it would have to be "seated"; "sat" sounds very odd to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "The promise proved to be short-lived." This doesn't sound right to me; promises don't last -- they are kept for a long time or a short time. Perhaps "The promise was not kept for long"?
• Is the link for Friday Morning Club correct? That article is about a building in Los Angeles.
• "Edith was uncomfortable with the proposition of Theodore running for Vice President of the United States": I think it would be better to start with the vice presidential opportunity as context rather than assume the reader knows what's coming -- e.g. "In 1900 Theodore was urged by Henry Cabot Lodge and others to accept the vice-presidential role on the Republican national ticket" (stealing from our article on Theodore). Then we can say Edith was uncomfortable with the idea.
• Our article on Theodore says he actually did issue a public statement that he would not accept the nomination, but here you say he only drafted one -- is one of the articles wrong?
  • Schneider & Schneider (2010) and Morris (1980) both say they drafted it together and then skip straight to him accepting the nomination. Gould (2013) says "Yet, Theodore never went the final step of saying he would decline the vice presidency if it were offered to him."
• I don't doubt your adherence to the sources, but Cleveland's reassurance to Edith seems odd as it doesn't seem to address any of the concerns listed -- it's as if Cleveland was reassuring her that Theodore could cope.
  • It's possible that I didn't convey it very well, but it tracks in my mind. She was worried for his safety and about how much he was doing, and Cleveland assured her that he could handle all of it.

    But the list of her concerns doesn't include "how much he was doing", which is what Cleveland's reassurance seems to be mostly aimed at. Can we add that to her list of concerns? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "For her sitting room, Edith used an oval library adjacent to the president's office". Was this the Yellow Oval Room?
  • It's possible, but I don't want to assume, especially since the White House has been redone a few times.
• "Edith seemed to regret how her role as first lady": suggest "that" rather than "how".
• "with new obligations that brought her displeasure: suggest simplifying, e.g. "that she disliked".
• "commenting on how it ruined the grass": suggest "saying that it". I think "how" in these constructions is more useful when the intended meaning is "the manner in which" rather than just "that".
• "Because of a lack of historical records": does this really add anything?
• I don't understand the account of her interactions with Frances Metcalfe Wolcott. If the Wolcotts were divorced and stayed so, in what way did she "help ... fix her marriage"?
• "the handkerchiefs were scrutinized and criticized": I don't know that more details are worth including, but I am curious as to what the criticisms were -- poor fashion choices?
  • The source doesn't give much. It quotes one person as saying they were "tacky" and mentions one women's group in Texas that liked Varina Davis's handkerchief better.
• "Edith featured the famous German composer Engelbert Humperdinck when he visited the United States": what does "featured" mean here?
• "She exerted her influence over journalists, such as occasions when she wore the same dress multiple times but convinced the reporters to describe it differently": suggest "She exerted her influence over journalists: for example, when she wore the same dress on multiple occasions, she convinced the reporters to describe it differently each time."
• "Edith and Helen had developed a rivalry over the years, both distrusting each other and the other's husband. This rivalry contributed to a rivalry between Theodore and William in the following years." Repetition of "rivalry"; can we eliminate at least one?
• Suggest linking Richard Derby Jr to Ethel Roosevelt Derby#Marriage and family, to satisfy the curiosity of readers who wonder via which child Richard was a grandchild.
• "Then in 1927, Edith ferried across the Paraná River in Argentina until she reached the Iguazu Falls in Brazil". I don't think "then" is necessary; and this phrasing makes it sound as if she piloted the ferry. Could we say "took a ferry" or even just "crossed"? I had to look at the linked article on the falls to understand why the sentence is constructed this way -- is the intended meaning something like "she took a ferry across the Paraná River in order to reach the Iguazu Falls"? If so I would suggest that phrasing, with "on the border between Argentina and Brazil" at the end to simplify the first half of the sentence.
• "By this time, Edith began having": either "had begun to have" or "was beginning to have", or cut "By this time".
• "Knowing that her health would not let her travel as frequently": suggest "Knowing that her health would no longer let her travel frequently".
• "as it had been thoroughly furnished": surely "refurnished"?
• "and her allowance of racist songs to be performed at the White House to suggest strong anti-black views": suggest "and the fact that she allowed racist songs to be performed".
• Steinmetz is in the list of references but does not appear to have been used.
• Not a FAC requirement but you might add "|ref=none" to the further reading citation templates to avoid harv errors for those who have them enabled.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie I've made changes for each point except for the ones I've replied to above. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most points struck; a couple of minor queries above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie, agree that "seated" makes more sense. And I went back to the source and looked to see what concern it raised immediately before Cleveland's comment, so that should be fixed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A nice piece of work. Reads well and looks very comprehensive. I tried my best to nitpick and managed a few. Please ignore as you wish, especially since I am not a native speaker.

• Edith Carow began a romance with Theodore Roosevelt --> the body text is more neutral about who took the initiative
  • I don't read this as her taking initiative, just that he was the person she was with when it happened.
• she participated in New York social life --> just wondering if a 's would be better
• but she preserved only one of these letters --> the but makes it sound there is an intriguing story here
  • I'm not sure what you mean.
    • Sorry for not being clear. Let me try again: Why is the word "but" here? This to me hints at something of a controversy among historians whether they were or were not in contact. If there is some kind of controversy, this should be explained. If none such is the case, I wonder what the value of adding "but she preserved only one of these letters" is.
• because they could not count on a mayor's salary --> sorry I don't understand count: could it be that NYC's finances were shaky or something?
• in Albany --> link?
• incredibly thin --> not sure I would use incredibly, I think "very thin" sounds more like WP's tone
• subsequently had lunch with the McKinleys --> I had to look up who had won the 1900 election. Would be nice to tell the reader at some stage, so that this lunch is understood to be with the top cheeses
• he would experience as presidency --> president?
• former president Cleveland --> we have a P in President McKinley, which is definitely good, but is it former president Cleveland or former President. I'm not sure, I suspect you are.
  • In this case I'm not sure if "former president" is a common noun descriptor and "Cleveland" is the object, or if "former" is a modifier and "President Cleveland" is the object. MOS:JOBTITLE has never been intuitive to me.
    • MOS:JOBTITLE does not seem to help. If I had to guess, I'd go for former president Cleveland
• Edith was confident in Theodore's chances for his reelection --> when was this?
• moved back in to --> moved back into
• by Caroline Harrison --> by former first lady Caroline Harrison
  • Done, but the JOBTITLE issue might also be relevant here.
• Republican Party --> link?
• been granted the right to vote --> link perhaps to Women's suffrage in the United States
• Franklin D. Roosevelt --> should be linked. I realise this may generate a sea of blue, so perhaps a little rejigging of words is possible?
• "Everything she did was for the happiness of others". --> "Everything she did was for the happiness of others."
• nineteenth century --> earlier we have 19th

That looks to be it. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon I've replied to a few above, and I made the suggested changes for all of the others. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. The only quibble I have left is the odd "but" in "but she preserved only one of these letters". However, that does not stop my support. Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Sferrazza Anthony isn't linked even though Betty Boyd Caroli is. Likewise, the two citations to scri.siena.edu are inconsistently formatted. With the exception of Morris, Sylvia it seems like we are using prominent authors and biographers as sources. I wonder if there are other sources (academic publications that aren't books etc) that could be used. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus Thanks for the feedback! I believe I've fixed these issues. To get a quick sense of what else might exist, I did a Google Scholar search for "Edith Roosevelt" (with quotes) and nothing about her came up except sources already in the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that leaves only Morris, Sylvia - is she a high-quality reliable source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus, I believe so. The publisher of the book appears reputable, and she's also published with Random House as a biographer. I found her Wikipedia article while checking this, so I linked it in the reference as well. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is OK then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus, just to make sure everything is addressed, I'm good to go on sourcing? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead is too long. Could it be rewritten in summary style. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, it was a little long. I've trimmed it by about one third. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an Afro-Cuban religion revolving around spirits that are housed in cauldrons and fed with blood. Much of the tradition derives from the Kongo religion of Central Africa, so there is much here to interest Africanists as well as those intrigued by religions of the Americas. This has been a Good Article since August 2023 and I am now hoping to bring it to FA status, having already done so for two other Afro-Caribbean religion articles, Santería and Rastafari. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest editing captions for grammar

• I've gone through and made some tweaks to the image captions. Any further recommendations on these captions would of course be welcome. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest adding alt text

• I've gone through the article and added these to the images. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:WLA_metmuseum_Power_Figure_Male_Nkisi.jpg: what is the copyright status of the work pictured?

• In this case, the creator of the original nkisi being photographed will probably never be known; nor will the exact date when it was made, although it is dated to between 1800 and 1950. The object is nevertheless on display in a public museum and the photograph has been issued under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic license. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The photograph's licensing is not an issue, but as the US does not have freedom of panorama for non-buildings, we do need to account for the copyright status of the work as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• As we don't have access to the copyright status of the original object (as the creator is now de facto anonymous), could we maybe use a picture of a nkisi from a museum in a different country that does have freedom of panorama for non-buildings? Could we use this (File:Nkisi-Songye (British Museum).jpg) image from the UK, for instance? Or this one (File:Nkisi figure, Congo, DR Congo, early 20th century - Rautenstrauch-Joest-Museum - Cologne, Germany.jpg) from Germany? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Goetia_seals.jpg: are these taken directly from the Lesser Key, or are they original works?

• The explanation given by the original uploader claims that they are their own original illustrations, but looking closely, the fact that there are numbers right by them suggests that this is actually a scan from a printed edition of the Lesser Key, which will probably be late 19th or early-to-mid 20th-century in date. I think the safest bet is just to get rid of this image from the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Fétiche_du_Bas-Congo.jpg: what is the copyright status of the work pictured, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago?

• I've changed the licensing on this one; as it was published in Belgium in the first decade of the 20th century, we should be able to use the following: "This image is in the public domain in the United States because it was first published outside the United States prior to January 1, 1929." Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• What about the author question? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately we will almost certainly never know who the author was. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Adechina.jpg needs a US tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 100 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I've removed this image from the article; while the photograph is late 19th-century in origin, I am unsure when it was first published, which raises issues when trying to determine its copyright status. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Nikkimaria, how is this looking now? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:WLA_metmuseum_Power_Figure_Male_Nkisi.jpg and File:Fétiche_du_Bas-Congo.jpg are still pending. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Midnightblueowl ? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and removed the two images in question. It's a shame to lose them, but there's just no way of ascertaining who the creators of the objects photographed were, and thus when they died. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has been open for over three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless there's substantial progress in the next few days, it is liable to be archived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been waiting for the right moment to review this one, will it postpone it being archived if I begin soon? FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the nomination seems to have been "saved" by three reviews beginning before I got the time, but feel free to ping me if it somehow stalls. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey FunkMonk the nomination has picked up more reviews but it would only be improved by additional commentary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Midnightblueowl any update on addressing the comments provided by reviewers below? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I've just logged in and will address those comments now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already started on this a few days ago. Very difficult for me to find any issues here (it is an excellent and very solid work as always), but here is what I got so far, more soon:

• link "orthodoxy"?
  • Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• meaning "a person who works a nganga" – Nganga is mentioned here for the first time in the main text, not sure if this needs a short gloss?
  • A good idea. I've added the following to the end of the sentence: ", the latter being the spirit-vessel central to the religion." Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• From reading the article it seems to me that this religion has more connections to forests than similar African diasporic religions, maybe because the Bakongo originally depended on the African rainforest? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is possible, although even among certain West African groups like the Fon, initiatory rituals will take place in the forest (Timothy Landry's book discusses this), so the Bakongo were not alone in regarding the forest as a place ideally suited for spirit contact. Moreover, even in more West African-derived diasporic traditions, such as Santería and Candomblé, there is some importance placed on going into the forest to collect healing plants. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Caption: human skull and bones displayed in the Museo de Orishas in Havana. Human remains are included in the nganga of Palo. – Does this particular specimen on display have any connections with Palo? If so, could these be pointed out?
  • Unfortunately I'm not sure exactly what this specimen actually represents. I chose it because we lack good photographs at Wikimedia Commons to illustrate this article (we could really do with a photo of an actual nganga), so have had to use less relevant imagery. Do you think this image should be removed? Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• judíasto – space missing
  • Well spotted; corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• When a new nganga is created for a padre or madre, – I couldn't follow here; "padre" and "madre" are mentioned here for the first time but are not explained. Maybe they can be avoided here (maybe replace with "senior practitioner")?
  • Good point. I've just gone with "practitioner" as a replacement, as it is simpler. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• and draw marks on their body, often in cascarilla – what does this mean? Cascarilla is a plant? What is "draw in cascarilla"?
  • I don't have Ochoa's book to hand, but I assume that the marks are drawn in a paste made from cascarilla. I'll remove mention of the plant for now, however, until I can confirm this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Practitioners kneel before the ngangas in greeting; they often greet it – should "it" be "them" so that the plural matches?
  • Yes, that makes sense. I'll change it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• they often greet it with the words "Salaam alaakem, malkem salaam." – Can this be translated?
  • Dodson doesn't give a translation in his text, unfortunately, which is the only reliable source I have found to support this statement. It seems obvious that the phrase comes from the Arabic greeting that means "peace be upon you", but I am unsure if Palo practitioners (very few of whom are likely to speak Arabic) would use it to convey the same exact meaning. It may be that they are simply repeating a phrase that bears ritual significance but for which the original connotations (perhaps brought over by enslaved African Muslims) has been lost. If the latter scenario is the case, a comparison could be made with the term nganga, which means something quite different in Palo from what it meant to Kikongo speakers in Central Africa. To try and deal with the situation, what I have done here is added a link to the Wikipedia article on As-salamu alaykum. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• does its keeper's bidding, the latter sometimes threaten it, – "threatens"?
  • Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• In "Beliefs", there is this sentence: Senior practitioners may have multiple ngangas, some of which they have inherited from their own teachers. In "Practises", this is stated: At their initiation ceremony to the level of padre or madre, a palero/palera will often be given their own nganga. – This now sounds as if most paleros don't have their own nganga? That's not what I imagined after reading the "beliefs" section. Maybe this could be shortly mentioned in the "beliefs" section too.
  • I've added the following to the Beliefs section: "A practitioner may receive a nganga only once they have reached a certain level of seniority in the tradition,". Hopefully that makes things clearer at an earlier stage in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Some practitioners are content to remain at this level and do not pursue further initiation to reach the level of padre or madre. – This contradicts the earlier statement that initiation into padre or madre is "rare". Should it be "Most practitioners are content to remain at this level"?
  • There might be some difference in emphasis on these points because we are citing two separate authors, who will obviously have worked with different Palo groups. To try and deal with this, maybe I should change "some" to "many" here? That shifts the emphasis without being as definitive as "most" suggests. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that sounds reasonable to me. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• When the tata or yayi or a house is close to death, – How can a house be dead?
  • "or" should be "of" here! Corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• After this leader's death, other senior initiates often have the option – Is this indeed only referring to the death of the new leader, and does not apply when the original leader dies?
  • I've changed this sentence to the following: "Alternatively, at a leader's death, the senior initiates of the house may leave to join another or establish their own." Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• it is also expected that sacrifices one the ngangas cumplimiento – please check grammar
  • Oh dear, what happened here. It's a mess. I've reworded it so that it makes sense. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there any membership fee for being part of a house? Or how do the leaders sustain themselves?
  • I suspect that there is a fee for initiation, as this is common in African diasporic traditions. House leaders may also offer ritual services to clients, again something common in related religions. It is also possible that they will have employment separate from their ritual tasks. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• A practitioner may later experience a second rayamiento, enabling them to become a full-ranking initiate of the praise house and thus create their own nganga. – Does this mean becoming "padre" or "madre" (terms that were used earlier)?
  • Yes, I believe so. Do you think that we need to make this clear? Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it would be a bit clearer if you use the same terms here (madre, padre) that you used earlier. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Will do! Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• the Cuban anthropologist Lydia Cabrera studied made a study of Palo – remove one "study"
  • Oops, yes, I was meant to delete the latter in my final read-through/edit before taking this to FAC. Removed now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Palo is found all over Cuba, although is particularly strong in the island's eastern provinces. – "it" missing?
  • I've added the "it" into the sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @Midnightblueowl: That's all from me. Fascinating article, and I expect to support this soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jens Lallensack: I really appreciate you taking the time to read through the article and offer your thoughts on how to improve it. I'm glad that you found it interesting. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, looks good! A few replies above. There is one point you did not yet reply to ("Salaam alaakem, malkem salaam"). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oops, I was going to go back to that one and address it, but clearly forgot. I have now added a response. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It may be worth saying that ramas is Spanish for "branches".

• I've added this into the Definitions section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• paleros if male, paleras in female

• Well spotted! Corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• A similarly pejorative term embraced by some adherents is brujo (witch) - I think "witch" is generally only used to refer to women, whereas brujo is a masculine term.

• Historically, "witch" has been a gender neutral term in English, if one used more often for women than men. In some popular fiction from the last century or so we do see the term used only for women (in Harry Potter etc), but elsewhere (as in Wicca) we still see it used for both men and women. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understood. Alavense (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• which has its origins among the secret male societies practiced among the Efik-Ibibio. - Maybe it would read more clearly if "which has its origins among the secret male societies and is practiced among the Efik-Ibibio".

• I've reworded this to the following: "which has its origins in the Ekpe society of West Africa's Efik-Ibibio peoples." Do you think that works okay? Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does. Alavense (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• it is sometimes said that they have "cruzar palo con cha" - That doesn't quite work, because cruzar is the infinitive, not the participle as in "crossed".

• I have amended the sentence to the following: "When an individual practises both Santería and Palo, it is sometimes said that they "cruzar palo con cha" ("cross Palo with Ocha")." Do you think that works okay? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not quite. So both they have "cruzado palo con cha" and they "cruzan palo con cha" would work, but not the way you have it now. If you want to avaoid that issue, rearranging the sentence might work: "Cruzar palo con cha" ("cross Palo with Ocha") is a phrase used to indicate that an individual practises both Santería and Palo or something along those lines. Besides, why is it Ocha in the English translation? Alavense (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've gone with your proposed latter wording; I've also added a brief explanation of the term Ocha, sourced to Hagedorn. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The anthropologist Todd Ramón Ochoa, an initiate of Palo Briyumba, described Nsambi - I think "describes" would be better.

• Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Mama canata is the only term in which the second word is spelled in lowercase. Is this due to anything in particular?

• To be honest, I just don't know why this is the case. It is possible that it is an error in the original source that is cited; at the same time there may be a particular reason which I am unaware of. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's an important issue. Alavense (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• with Kerestetzi observing that one of Palo's central features was its belief - Again, I think "is" would be more suitable. There are other instances of this.

• I've changed the tense here, and again at a later spot in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• rinconcito ("little corners") - rinconcito is singular.

• I've made the correction here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Is casuela spelt like that in the sources?

• The two cited sources use different spellings: Kerestetzi uses casuela, Bettelheim instead uses cazuela. Is the latter spelling more appropriate? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do think cazuela is more appropiate, yes. Alavense (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case I've made the change to cazuela. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• it is the divine itself[...] - A space is missing there.

• Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sometimes, the bones of a criminal or mad person are deliberately sought - Why? It feels a bit counterintuitive, doesn't it?

• I'll need to double check if Ochoa actually offers an explanation; it would probably be out of a perception that these individuals are more dangerous and thus more useful in carrying out attacks on enemies etc, if that is what the palero or palera requires. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first time I read it, it felt a bit counterintuitive, so I think it would be better to explain a little further if the source allows it. Alavense (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've checked the source (Ochoa) and it is apparent that these bones are used only for the un-baptised ngangas. That being the case, I've moved the sentence in question to the paragraph discussing those; I think it works much better there. Unfortunately, Ochoa still doesn't give an explicit reason why these bones would be favoured. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Is trata the word used in the sources?

• I'll be able to double-check these sources in a few days time but I would have taken the word directly from them, so the answer is almost certainly affirmative. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'll let me know, because I'd expect trato rather than trata. Alavense (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've checked and Stefan Palmié uses trata. We could remove the term altogether and just use the English pact? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• attempts to "cool" and settle them - Why use quotation marks for cool? There's more than one instance of this.

• I've added marks to indicate that these concepts of coolness and hotness are not literal references to temperature. It's a conceptual idea, stemming from West African traditional worldviews, with 'heat' as something that is associated with action, violence, motion, etc, and 'coolness' as conversely linked with peace, calm, etc. ;We could really do with a distinct article on this particular concept. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. In that case, wouldn't it be better to use italics? Alavense (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "cerré el pacto" literally means "I sealed the deal".

• I've reworded this sentence, as part of which I have taken out the Spanish words altogether. It is simpler to just convey the meaning in English. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The human remains included in them is - Are?

• Good idea. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• it is said to be nacer - "it is said to nacer" would work, as it is in the infinitive.

• Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• that the power of nganga cristianas are - Is?

• I think "are" works better here, as we dealing with these spirit-vessels in the plural, although I'm happy to make a change if there is a general consensus that "is" would be more appropriate here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't the verb agree with "power", though? Alavense (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case I've changed "power" to "powers". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Havana is not linked anywhere.

• I've added a wikinink in at the first mention.

• Munanso congo form familias de religion - I guess this will depend on the sources, but in standard Spanish religion is spelt with a tilde, religión.

• I'll make that change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• mayordomo is Spanish for "steward" or "butler", in case you may want to add that.

• Good idea. Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Drawings called firmas, their name derived from the Spanish for "signature" - firmas is literally signatures, so can that be really said to be "derived"?

• I've changed "derived" to "taken from the", which hopefully deals with this issue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• firmas's - firmas being plural, I guess it should be either "firmas'" or "firma's".

• Corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The creation of these drawings are - Is?

• Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Is cumplimiento in the sources?

• Yes, it is definitely used in the Kerestetzi source; I don't have the Ochoa book to hand, but can check that in a few days time to see if that uses the same exact word. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never seen cumplimiento used as "birthday", but if the source says so, no problem. Alavense (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ochoa doesn't use the term cumplimiento so we could remove the word altogether if you think it is misleading in this context? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Animal sacrifice is thus a key part of Palo ritual, where it is known by the Spanish language term matanza - Maybe it ought to be said that matanza doesn't mean sacrifice.

• I have added "slaughter" in brackets after matanza here; hopefully that does the trick. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does. Thanks. Alavense (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• in the el Cuarto de religión - in el cuarto de religión, given that el already means "the". And I don't see why "Cuarto" has to be uppercase in any of the two instances.

• I've changed these both to lower case. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great, but in the el cuarto de religión should be in el cuarto de religión. Alavense (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Students are instructed in Palo through stories, songs, and the recollections of elders; they will also watch their elders and seek to decipher the latter's riddles - What does "latter" refer to there?

• It refers to the elders; I can change this to "decipher their riddles" as that may be clearer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it might be, yes. Alavense (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "muertos oscuros entities" reads a bit weird. Maybe a comma after the parenthesis would do the trick.

• I've added a comma here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It's nación in the singular but naciones, without the tilde, in the plural, not naciónes.

• Corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If Esteban Montejo is the one you are referring to, you can link the article.

• I did initially look at adding this link a while back but I am not 100 percent confident it is the same individual. Let me double-check Brandon's book (I'll be able to do this in a few days time) and try to ascertain whether it is or not. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem at all with that. Don't include it if you are not sure. Alavense (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've checked Brandon and yes, it is the same Esteban Montejo so I'll add the wikilink. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• cofradias should be cofradías.

• Corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• placing their victim's bones in Palo cauldrons - If there were 14 people killed, then "victims'", no?

• Well spotted and corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Is Louis Bertrand (saint) the saint you mention?

• Looks like it; thanks for the link. I've added the wikilink to the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• You could use {{ill}} to link Adiós Hemingway.

• Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Alavense - it's been excellent to have someone with a good grasp of Spanish take a look at this article. As you can probably tell, my Spanish is not good at all. I've responded to all of your comments, although in a few cases I will have to consult Ochoa's book, which I should be able to do in a few days time. Thanks again. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your responses, Midnightblueowl. I've replied to a few above. Excellent work! Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Alavense. I think I have now addressed all of your concerns. I appreciate the time you have spent on this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the excellent work on this, it was an engaging read. I think you should just use the English pact and get rid of trata, as you say, and remove cumplimiento. The rest is looking great, so I'm going to go ahead and support already. Thank you very much and kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "It arose amid a process of syncretism": shouldn't this be "via" or "through", rather than "amid"?
  • This is a bit of a tricky one. There are various scholarly debates on the validity of syncretism as a concept, although the term has long been heavily used in the study of African diasporic religions. My concern about "through" or "via" is that it might imply a simplistic idea that Palo = Kongo religion + Catholicism. The reality is more complex like that; Palo is a new religion that drew upon both Kongo religion and (to a lesser extent) Catholicism, but also made noted innovations of its own. My use of "amid" was an attempt to reflect that Palo emerges from the interaction of these religious traditions but is not just a product of one being stuck on to the other. Do you think there is a better way of phrasing this? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If there's some hesitancy about using the word "syncretism", it might be better to drop it, but it sounds like the sources use it enough that we need to reflect that. One thing that bothers me about the current formulation in the lead is that it doesn't have the nuances that you provide in your answer to me here; it reads as if "amid" is a poor word choice for "via", because it's not clear what it else it could mean for something to arise amid a process. Could you add some of that nuance to the statement in the lead? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've changed the sentence to the following: "It draws heavily upon the traditional Kongo religion of Central Africa, with additional influences taken from the Roman Catholic branch of Christianity and from Spiritism." That evades the "syncretism" term altogether; do you think it works okay? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "A key ingredient are sticks, called palos, which are selected from specific species of tree": suggest "Sticks, called palos, are key ingredients; palos are selected from specific species of tree" to avoid the awkward singular subject with plural verb.
  • Good idea. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, but now I realize that "specific species" is a little ugly. Perhaps "certain species"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Good idea. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Soil from various locations is added, for instance from a graveyard, hospital, prison, and a market, as may water from": this sort of parallel constructions requires "is ... is" or "may ... may" if the verb is to be avoided, but the sense here won't allow that. How about "Soil from various locations is added, for instance from a graveyard, hospital, prison, and a market, and water may also be added, from sources such as ..."
  • Looks good, I'll make that change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, another point here too -- should those lists end with "or", rather than "and"? They're not adding soil from a graveyard and also from a prison and also ... are they? And the same for the water? If they are, that's not clear. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sometimes a single nganga may contain soil from various locations so I have tried to reword the sentence to better reflect that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "the more significant they are often regarded": suggest "the more significant they are often considered to be".
  • That works well. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "The senior practitioner creating the nganga may ask a madre or padre to assist them, something considered a great privilege": this comes before we have said what madre and padre refer to.
  • I've changed this sentence to the following: "The senior practitioner creating the nganga may ask a high-ranking initiate to assist them, something considered a great privilege." Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "will divine to ensure that everything is going okay": "okay" is a bit colloquial for encyclopedic tone; how about "going well"?
  • Agreed and changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "the tata or yayi may not tell the padre/madre": do you mean they are not permitted to tell, or it is possible that they will not tell? I think the latter but it's not clear. If I'm right, how about "may choose not to tell"?
  • The latter is indeed correct, and your suggested wording makes things much clearer. I've made the change in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "Styles of drumming that have been transmitted within Palo include the ritmas congos and influencias bantu." Without either an explanation of the styles or a translation of the words this doesn't really tell the reader anything.
  • I've reworded the sentence to the following: "Various styles of drumming have been transmitted within Palo, including the ritmas congos ("Congo rhythms") and influencias bantu ("Bantu influences")." While I think that this sits better in the paragraph, it perhaps does not really respond to your main point. We could remove the sentence altogether, although readers with a particular interest in ethnomusicology or drumming may find this material interesting; I suppose it possible that one day we might have articles on these particular drumming styles. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    No, I think that's fine -- the reader has at least a tidbit of information about the styles. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "On arriving in Cuba, many enslaved Bakongo people would have brought their traditional religions with them": suggest "Many of the enslaved Bakongo people who arrived in Cuba would have brought their traditional religions with them" - there's no connection to the moment of arrival.
  • Good idea. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "The histories of these objects in Cuba is unclear": number mismatch between "histories" and "is".
  • I've changed "histories" to "history". Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Have any estimates been made of the number of adherents, in Cuba or elsewhere?
  • Not that I've seen, unfortunately. That would be just the sort of information that I would want in the Demographics section; the situation is a little better for Santería, but generally we lack good numerical estimates for African diasporic religions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally this is in great shape and I expect to support once these minor points are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mike Christie: thank you so much for giving this article a read through. I hope that you found it interesting and it is definitely stronger as a result of your comments. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Mostly struck; a couple of replies above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, Mike. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The last couple of replies above look fine to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability-wise, I decided to inspect Ochoa 2010 and Espírito Santo, Diana; Kerestetzi, Katerina; Panagiotopoulos, Anastasios (2013) a bit more closely because they seem to be the most used sources here. On the former this review seems approbatory although it notes it was written by a practicioner? This one is more neutral but doesn't raise many questions about reliability. This one I can see only piecemeal. Todd Ramón Ochoa doesn't have much of a footprint but barring impersonation it seems like they have good credentials. On the latter, not much about the paper itself but the authors seem to have written a number of articles around this field. TLDR nothing that jumps out as unreliable. I notice though that of the sources, they seem to be pretty US-centric. Source formatting seems consistent and nothing jumps out to me as unsuitable, although I wonder if the few news media sources could be replaced. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Jo-Jo Eumerus. The US-centrism of the sources is probably reflective of the topic in general. This is a North American religion and I've only used English-language sources; it's inevitable that most of the scholarly literature in that language is therefore going to be American. Regarding Ochoa, it is true that he is a practitioner, although that should not undermine his work as a source, given that he is also a professional anthropologist and his study has been published by a respected academic press. Scholars who are simultaneously practitioners are a common feature in religious studies (the entire field of theology comprises nothing but practitioner-scholars) and in a case like Palo, which is an initiatory tradition, an initiate/practitioner is the only person who is going to be in a position capable of collecting much of the pertinent information. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, my impression is that this religion is originally Cuban, where to my understanding the main language is Spanish. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But English sources will have more distance to the topic, and could therefore be more neutral, so relying on them is not necessarily bad, no? Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but in practice I think completeness would suffer a lot. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a terrible, no-good idea, since I'm dealing with both depression and a hurricane headed for my city, but if I were a reasonable person I wouldn't be editing Wikipedia. So let's get this started.

• Overall: the lede badly needs an image or sidebar of some kind. The article as a whole needs more images and stuff to relieve the dense prose.

• A lede image would be great, but we just don't have anything appropriate over at Wikimedia Commons. There are images of ngangas circulating online, but on the whole there are not a lot given that this is a fairly closed, initiatory religion. Barring a Palo practitioner photographing their nganga or other elements of their ritual practice, the only other images we could potentially use would be some of the ritual drawings used in the religion. Perhaps we could replicate some of those for usage at the article? Do we have any editors who are good at that and willing to do it? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• What English variant is this written in? Just asking for clarity and to check for consistency.

• It would make sense to use American English, as we are dealing with a religion from the North American continent. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

• It arose amid a process of syncretism between.. This is clunky wording. I suggest rephrasing, perhaps to "It originated from a syncretism of..."

• I'm currently discussing this above, in conversation with Mike Christie, so feel free to chime in there. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there somewhere to link initiatory religion?

• I can't see any relevant articles at Wikipedia, but it might be worth someone producing one at some point. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure if there's a reasonable way to fix this, but I initially thought the creator deity was called "Nsambi or Sambia", rather than what you meant, "Nsambi, also called Sambia"

• That's a good point. I've cut Sambia from the lead altogether and changed that wording to "commonly called Nsambi,". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be continued... SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to read the article, SilverTiger12. I hope the hurricane did not prove too destructive. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The hurricane has not yet arrived; thus far the only casualties are the grocery stores' shelves. As for this article, it has proved a fascinating read. SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi SilverTiger12, just checking to see if there is more to come? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey Gog, and yes.
• Definitions section- this is fantastic. I skimmed it on my first read-through and half the rest of the article didn't make sense. I read it closely the second go and everything was crystal clear. My only quibble is that I'd like to know how to pronounce these words.
• Beliefs:
  • "In Palo, veneration is directed towards both ancestors and to spirits of the natural world,"

• I've now trimmed the unnecessary words out in that sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • You give examples of bad things nganga can supposedly do (madness, misfortune, disaster, death) but no examples of the good they can do.

• We include some discussion of the topic in the "Healing and hexing" subsection. At what point in the article do you think more could be said about the benevolent actions of the nganga? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hm, poking at it, it seems more nebulous than I thought. If you can't find a place, then nevermind. SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • By this point, I'm wishing you'd explained more about the different branches of Palo earlier on because right now all I know is that there are different branches.

• It's often tricky knowing where in a Wikipedia article to bring in information on the internal variation of a religion. On the one hand we need to reflect the religion's internal diversity; on the other we don't want to put the cart before the horses, hence why our section on denominations comes near the end of our FA-rated article on Rastafari, for instance. Are there particular instances in this article where you feel that information on the ramas could be moved? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I kind of feel like some stuff in the Definitions section might work. But even just more information about them and their differences in the Denominations section would be good, plus some history stuff in the History section. SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately, the sources currently available at the moment just don't give the level of additional detail on the ramas that we could use here. Hopefully more information will become apparent in future and can be integrated into the article at the points you mention. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Denominations - same issue. You mention that there are different ones but don't describe what makes them different except for Kimbisa.

• Unfortunately, the academic literature currently available doesn't really give a lot of information on the differences between the varying denominations/ramas. I've pretty much summarised everything on the subject that I could find in that scholarly literature. Fingers crossed, further research will come to light in forthcoming decades that can be utilised in this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• And please link El Espiritismo Cruzao?

• Done. It's a redlink for now, but hopefully in future an article on the topic can be established. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've also made some minor changes while reading through. The prose is largely good and I found little to nitpick about. SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your further thoughts, SilverTiger12. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Although teaching the existence of a creator divinity, commonly called Nsambi, Palo regards this entity as being uninvolved in human affairs and thus focuses its attention on the spirits of the dead." Why "thus"? I don't see how one requires the other. Perhaps delete, or replace with 'instead'?

• "Instead" works well here, so I'll make that change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "On Congo Cults of Bantu Origin in Cuba" needs an identifier. (The OCLC is 4657598041.)

• I've added this OCLC number to the citation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Central to Palo is the nganga, a vessel usually made from an iron cauldron." You say "made from". How is the cauldron altered to cause this to be the case?

• The cauldron itself is the material container for various objects that collectively become the nganga spirit-vessel, but the cauldron is not physically altered itself. Do you think the wording should be adapted here? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• mpungu, nganga etc. Foreign language words should use lang templates, not just italics. See MOS:NONENGITALIC.

• The trouble in this instance is that the ritual language generally used in Palo, often called Palo Kikongo, doesn't seem to be recognised by the {{lang}} template. We have the same issue with the FA-rated Santería article, with that religion's ritual language, Lucumí, also not being recognised by the system. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "permitted on the island by the Spanish colonial government". Suggest "the island" → 'Cuba'; assuming this is the case.

• It is the case, but my concern with this change is that it would introduce a level of repetition into that sentence, with "to Cuba" then being followed by "on Cuba" in fairly quick succession. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time, Gog. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]