This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.
Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ.
Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time.
The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, David Fuchs and FrB.TG—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:
actionable objections have not been resolved;
consensus for promotion has not been reached;
insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or
a nomination is unprepared.
It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.
Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as Done and Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed.
An editor is normally allowed to be the sole nominator of one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. An editor may ask the approval of the coordinators to add a second sole nomination after the first has gained significant support. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback.
Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}}notification template elsewhere.
A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}.
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.
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.
Just shuffled the pages around to maintain the archive order, hope you don't mind. I unfortunately cannot commit to a full review right now, but good luck with the nomination, electric boogaloo! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:14, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Userkare, second ruler of the Sixth Dynasty of Egypt in the 24th century BC. Userkare is poorly known owing to the brevity of his reign. He may have been an usurper and there is a lingering suspicion that he was involved in the murder of his predecessor Teti. There is however no strong evidence favoring this hypothesis and he may well have been a fully legitimate albeit short-lived ruler. Next to nothing is known for certain about his ties to the other rulers of his dynasty and the location of his tomb is not known. Consequently Egyptologists disagree about almost everything regarding him ! Iry-Hor (talk) 10:59, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although he is attested in some historical sources, Userkare is completely absent from the tomb of the Egyptian officials who lived during his reign and usually report the names of the kings whom they served This sentence is a little unclear at the end; maybe "as they usually" instead of "as usually"?
Done I wrote "Although he is attested in some historical sources, Userkare is completely absent from the tomb of the Egyptian officials who lived during his reign and who usually report the names of the kings whom they served".Iry-Hor (talk) 08:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lot of commas in the sentence beginning with The copper mallet. Wadjet, a nome of Upper Egypt located around Tjebu would save you one.
When you have more than three citations in a row, try using Template:Sfnm to aid readability.
WOWOW I did not know about this template, thanks a lot this is completely amazing !! I updated everything with this here. That will also completely change the way I cite things in my next articles ! I will now be able to put tons more cites... and it will look clean and also I will be able to choose the order of the cites, whereas until now I had to sort by ref number ! Iry-Hor (talk) 08:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would briefly explain what a Damnatio memoriae is.
Done I added to the sentence "[...], whereby Pepi might have tried to erase all memory of Userkare from official records, monuments, tombs and artefacts.".Iry-Hor (talk) 08:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Accessibility per MOS:IT; use Template:Em when italicizing for emphasis.
So I did not find any emphasis in the article, I mean everything italicized is either because it is a book title or a Latin word.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Also accessibility thing) use Template:Lang for italicizing Damnatio memoriae
"disturbing" shouldn't be said in wikivoice here; maybe rephrase it to say "both he and Theis called the silence in contemporaneous private biographies "disturbing", with no official of the time period mentioning serving under Userkare. Same deal with "lowly", where it's unclear what academic described him as that (or you can just drop it and replace it with the more objective "low-ranking")
Fixed thanks I updated with your sentence, and changed the sentence with the lowly to read that it was said by the Egyptologist Peter J. Brand.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually now that I look back on it, you quote single words from scholars a lot. I think it might be better to just paraphrase for most of these.
Actually I try to do it only when the word they employ is strong/surprinsing/unexpected etc. That explains the direct quotations for "lowly" and "disturbing", as I would never have employed such a word myself. Do you see other examples that seem over the top ? Note that some quotes are just reporting ancient Egyptian court titles.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A brief parenthetical definition of Architrave would be helpful.
Done, I added "[...]—the lintel that rests on the capitals of columns—[...]" and also moved the wikilink to the first instance of architrave, which was earlier in the text.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Roth's interpretation of "Kh[en]t[...]" in a footnote, but others are in-text?
Fixed You are quite right, I do not know why I did that (did I unconsciously disagree with Roth?). I moved it to the main text.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You link Wadjet nome at the end, but you mention it early on without linking.
Berlev 1989 is a weird cite. Why is "Académie des sciences de l'URSS" in French? Also, is the title of the article originally in Russian, or is this a translation?
Done so the ref was from the French National Library, hence the French in the publisher, but I found the original names of the publisher and location so updated the ref in consequence. The article is actually in Russian but unfortunately I do not know what the non-translated Russian title is.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Include the trans-title parameter for works with titles not in English
Unfortunately I cannot do so because I do not know the original title in Russian and the template is saying trans-title needs the original title.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, for that one work it makes sense (though it you are citing it from another source without having access to it, it would fall under guidance of WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT and require a special formatted citation), I'm more saying stuff like Zur Chronologie der sogennanten "Erste Zwischenzeit or Travaux et recherches à Saqqara. Campagnes 1966-67 et 1967-68, these should be given English translations of their titles.-G
Some books have their series listed for some books, but these are not consistent. Routledge's Who's Who appears to be a series, for instance.
I gave the series whenever I was aware the book was part of one. If you know which book (except for Rice's Who's who) is part of a series that I did not indicate, please let me know.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Various books, chapters, and publishers have variant capitalization; these should all be consistent.
I do not know how to proceed: I tried to keep the title capitalization as presented in OCLC, indeed a consistent choice seems difficult otherwise, for example with all the German words that are capitalized and the proper nouns in titles. Do you have a suggestion for the uniformization ?Iry-Hor (talk) 08:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, not for the foreign language titles (those can use whatever capitalization is standard) but the English ones should be consistent with one another in terms of whether they're in sentence case or title case. For example A companion to ancient Egypt and Blackwell companions to the ancient world should be in title case if you also have Template:Greeen or Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization. Or vice versa, you could convert everything to sentence case. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing I noticed: i assume from the name Untersuchungen zu den ägyptischen Königinnen der Frühzeit und des alten Reiches. Quellen und historische Einordnung. Dissertation is a dissertation? if so it should use template:Cite thesis, and say what degree it was in (presumably PhD) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Independence Day is an annual public holiday in Nigeria observed on 1 October to mark the country's independence from the United Kingdom in 1960. It is observed nationwide with official ceremonies, military parades, cultural displays, and public events. The holiday's origins are linked to Nigeria's constitutional developments under British colonial administration.
This had extensive reviews in the previous nominations, and a lot has been worked on, and now a GA. I hope it now meets the FAC criteria. I will appreciate feedback. Thank you! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:32, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some initial comments on source quality and reference formatting below. Further comments including spot checks to follow. MCE89 (talk) 10:22, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing
Yola (2010) appears to be a working paper that was written by an author who was a PhD student at the time. Was the working paper ever published in a peer-reviewed journal?
As advised by UndercoverClassisist, this seems to be the publication of a conference talk under the auspices of IFRA [fr], one of the French overseas research institutes; the author is a university academic. That would seem to meet WP:RS on the surface of it.
I had missed that the author was a graduate student at the time: we do allow PhD theses under WP:THESIS, but the advice there is to look for corroborating evidence of review and to prefer theses that have been cited in academic literature. I'd suggest that it would be a good idea to apply similar standards here, and to look into whether the talk was ever published in any form, or cited more widely, or whether the author ended up putting the same ideas into an unquestionably reliable source later. UndercoverClassicistT·C17:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with UndercoverClassicist. I would expect that a final version of this paper would likely have been published elsewhere, which would be preferable to cite instead. In my experience, presenting a working paper at a conference typically involves much less scrutiny than final publication in a journal (although it does vary), since it's often intended to be an opportunity to get feedback on a work-in-progress piece of research. Often the review process will just involve a panel screening your abstract, not a proper peer review of the paper itself. Unless there's any information about this particular conference's review process or evidence that the working paper has been cited elsewhere, I'd be a little hesitant to use it. MCE89 (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "Further reading" section is very long, and I'm not sure most of these sources would help the reader to learn more about the subject. For instance, I don’t think this relatively insubstantial article about a church choir singing for Independence Day is useful further reading. I would suggest incorporating any sources that are useful into the article as references, and cutting most or all of the remaining sources in "Further reading"
Done. I trimmed the section.
There are a few pieces of information cited to primary sources that I'm not sure are WP:DUE for inclusion. If there are secondary sources available I would suggest that they be used instead, and if not I would query whether the information should be included:
In Canada, the Province of Manitoba formally recognised Nigerian Independence Day in 2024, citing contributions made by Nigerians to the province. - This feels like a bit of a cherry-picked example, as it seems that many other cities/states/provinces have also taken steps to recognise the occasion. The source also doesn't quite verify the article's claim, as the citation is to an announcement that a bill to recognise the day had been introduced, not that the province had yet officially recognised the day
I replaced the source with a more appropriate one. Speaking of cherry picking, the paragraph actually started with "Nigerian communities abroad also commemorate the day" and I didn't mention only the Manitoba one. I have no problems with removing it entirely if you think so.
During the Cold War, independence anniversaries became opportunities for diplomatic signalling...analysts working for the Central Intelligence Agency described the event as emblematic of Soviet efforts to build influence among newly independent African states. - Is there a better source than this CIA report?
I couldn't find any other.
The third paragraph of the "Interruptions and controversies" section essentially recounts the views of one professor as quoted in one 2010 VoA article, which seems like potentially undue emphasis. Did this article have some kind of influence or secondary attention that demonstrates that these particular views are worthy of this level of focus?
I used this because the individual is a university academic, and on top of it, this piece was also televised/broadcast elsewhere; at the BBC, The Nigerian Voice.
This still feels like quite a lot of focus to give to the views quoted in this one particular article. The fact that he's a professor and that some quotes were pulled by other outlets doesn't really show that this merits a full paragraph of discussion under the heading "Interruptions and controversies". Were there other figures who commented on how Nigeria's development after 50 years compared to its aspirations at independence?
Reference formatting
Capitalisation of titles should be consistent (i.e. title case or sentence case) for sources of the same type
Okay, thank you so much. I maintained title case across all types of sources.
The main list of sources contains some primary sources that should be moved to the "Primary" section of your bibliography (e.g. the 2016 Buhari speech)
Done.
Refs 26 and 29: p -> pp
Done.
Odesanya, Nosayaba (2019a) should have a more specific date, and doesn't need the "a"
Ah got it, I didn't see that there was a 2019b down in further reading. I'd still include the full date for consistency with your other newspaper sources though.
Gero, David (1999): Full title needs to be in title case for consistency with other book sources
Done, thank you.
Adefolaju, Toyin; Adeyemi, Odedokun (30 June 2017): Link is dead, and missing ISSN
Fixed, added ISSN, and direct link to PDF instead.
"Nigeria Becomes Free Nation October 1, As Whole World Watches". Minneapolis Spokesman. - You haven’t included OCLCs for other newspaper sources, is there a reason one is included here?
Removed this one.
Arinde, Nayaba (7 October 2010) and Arinde, Nayaba (1 October 2009) - Inconsistent title capitalisation
I generally find "recently released" and similar wording to persist long after the recency has worn off. I recommend futureproofing with something along the lines "then new" or a specific date.
Done, thank you!
Per MOS:PROFESSOR, I'd advise against "Professor Kabiru Mato", especially since there's an adequate gloss that follows him name.
Done.
The quote attributed to Mato regarding the "$20- to $30-billion dollars" does not appear to be a verbatim quote and should not be attributed to him directly. I recommend paraphrasing. Perhaps this is an Engvar, but I don't believe that numbers are hyphenated, as they are not adjectival.
I checked again, and it is, in fact, verbatim. Did I miss something?
The article says "Mato said, despite the fact the Nigerian government might have spent over $20- to $30-billion dollars during the last 12 years since the beginning of civil rule in 1999, to improve electricity supply, most of the country is always in darkness." The article does not put quotation marks around that statement. It is a summary or paraphrase of something he said and should not be presented as a direct quote from him.
Oh, thank you so much. I understand now. I have worked on that.
"(serial 911)" is perhaps a tad too much detail for this article.
Removed.
I'm only finding some unreliable sources on this, but maybe you know where to look: Coffman Memorial Union seems to have hosted Nigerian Independence Day celebrations in recent years, so it's perhaps worth mentioning that continuity.
Young kids celebrate Nigeria's independence in 1960.png has appropriate PD tag.
Nigerian Air Force C-130 (6837681965).jpg has an appropriate CC tag.
These both pass.
I agree with the comment by Pbritti that NAF911 - Lockheed C-130H Hercules - Nigeria Air Force at Oberpfaffenhofen Airport (OBF) in August 1989.jpg could be used instead. It has an appropriate CC tag. The file notes a discrepancy in the coordinates but that is not material to this article.
I wonder if it is worth including any images of more recent celebrations. Wikimedia has NIGERIA MODELS CELEBRATION OF INDEPENDENCE.jpg and Nigerians celebrating their country's 61st independence anniversary in Mogadishu, Somalia (51539145387).jpg, both with CC licenses, although I am not sure that they are appropriate as the only examples. There may be more at the Online Archive: African Independence Days[1], for example. I suggest it is worth looking at this to see if any are relevant and have appropriate licenses.
The Times on Thursday September 29, 1960, in an article titled "First Steps Towards Balance of Payments" (accessible through the Wikipedia Library[2]) commented that "over 100 manufacturers wll be showing their products in the "Made in Nigeria" section of the Nigeria Exhibition opening in Lagos on Independence Day." (p. 38) I suggest this is worth including.
There is also an interesting report of a statement from Iain Macleod after the day also in The Times, on Thursday October 13, 1960, in "Mr. Macleod's Pledge On Duty To Colonies".[3]
A publication Nigeria: A Special Independence Issue of Nigeria Magazine October 1960 was produced with 232 pages plus appendices. It has this quote "Now that independence has been achieved, the main problem as it is seen by Nigerian leaders is how to encourage those elements in the history and constitution of the country that make for national unity, and how to discourage those that emphasise tribal differences and regional separation." (p. 11).
Suggest looking at Musa and Oyeleye's chapter titled Nigeria: Nationalism, Mass Media, and the Crisis of National Identity in Fuller's book (available on archive here[4]), which gives a critique of the celebration of independence day.
Political philosophy studies the theoretical and conceptual foundations of politics. It examines values guiding political decisions, political ideologies outlining desirable social arrangements, and the legitimacy of political institutions. This is a level-4 vital article with close to 300.000 page views last year. Thanks to The Blue Rider for the in-depth GA review! Phlsph7 (talk) 09:55, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The current tagging says it's PD in the US because it was published before 1930 - is that known to be the case or should a different tag be used? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Edmund Burke EMWEA.jpg:PD due to age-1873 (technically the image is missing the US PD tag, so you can add that if you like on Commons)
John Locke.jpg:PD due to age-1697 portrait
Marx-Engels-Denkmal (Berlin-Mitte).jpg:CC BY SA 4.0, own work of uploader
Portret van Niccolò Machiavelli, RP-P-1909-5432.jpg:PD due to age-1850 portrait
Thomas Hobbes (portrait).jpg:PD due to age-17th "century portrait
Half Portraits of the Great Sage and Virtuous Men of Old - Confucius.jpg:PD due to age-13th century portrait
Bust of Ibn Khaldun (Casbah of Bejaia, Algeria).jpg:CC BY SA 4.0- own work of a statue, but Algeria has freedom of panorama
Hannah Arendt auf dem 1. Kulturkritikerkongress, Barbara Niggl Radloff, FM-2019-1-5-9-16 (cropped) (cropped).jpg:CC BY SA 4.0-was donated to source by original copyright holder
Images in article are all good. However, needs images or diagrams in lead and maybe in "Government, power, and laws". Will pass image review after that is done.
@HSLover/DWF: Thanks for the image review and the support on prose! I added an image to the section "Government, power, and laws". For this type of wide topic, it's difficult to find lead images representative of the topic as a whole without being associated with one specific tradition, so it may be better to have no lead image. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:59, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
New image is great- and PD due to age- copy of a 1509 fresco. What you are saying about lead not having a image does feel correct, so passing the image review. Keep up with the great work! HSLover/DWF (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about one of Madonna’s most underrated singles, and a personal favorite of mine. I believe it now meets the criteria for featured status: the prose has been polished for neutrality and clarity, and the article offers balanced coverage of the song’s background, composition, release, music video, and critical reception. All statements are supported with high-quality reliable sources, and references have been standardized to MOS:CONFORM. Media has been reviewed for compliance.
This article covers the first armored cruiser built by Germany (and the rather tortuous path the Germans took to get there). SMS Fürst Bismarck is one of 3 remaining non-FAs in this Featured Topic, which I hope to complete in short(ish) order. The article just passed a MILHIST A-class review, so it should be in pretty good shape, but no doubt there are still refinements that can be made. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the page! Parsecboy (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Don't use fixed px size
Removed
Suggest adding alt text
File:SMS_Bismarck_01.jpg: when and where was this first published?
I don't know for certain, but according to Nottelmann, the painting was done while the ship was still under construction, as it bears features that were present in the original design, but were changed by the time the ship was completed. That would likely date the painting to 1896. Stoltenberg routinely published his paintings and sketches in local newspapers, so it's reasonable to assume that this was published at around the time he painted it.
There's no author credited in the source page (all the caption indicates is that the illustration was based on a photograph taken by a Hans Breuer of Hamburg). Probably best to replace the one template with {{PD-old-assumed}}, do you think? Thanks for looking the images over, by the way. Parsecboy (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is all about the volcano rabbit, an ancient, rather small species of endangered Mexican rabbit with a rather small distribution. I've worked on a few mammal articles over the past couple years and believe this to be the closest among those I've developed to be around featured article status. -- Reconrabbit19:06, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:Lepus diazi 02.jpg - has alt text. There's some MOS:SANDWICHing going on with the infobox; I'd suggest either removing this image or moving it down to the beginning of the #Behavior and ecology section, as that's the only place it could reasonably fit.
File:Volcán Popocatépetl.jpg - has alt text. From what I'm reading in the prose, nowhere is it directly stated that the rabbit "prefers" Pinus hartwegii (instead that they're "abundant" in volcano rabbit habitats).
I added more to the highway's alt text and clarified the relevance of Pinus hartwegii. If the sandwiching is a major issue, I would prefer to remove the image rather than move it elsewhere, since it pertains to the taxonomy more than anything else. -- Reconrabbit20:27, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I'll do a full review, but I did just notice something that may need tweaking.
" there is evidence that the species loses a significant amount of genetic diversity when it reproduces in such conditions": this phrasing makes it appear that it's the nature of the captive environment that causes the loss of diversity in some way. I can't access the source, but I would expect this to be because the captive population have not been bred as part of a breeding program designed to retain genetic diversity. With a small captive population, inbreeding is almost guaranteed without a management plan. That's the standard approach for captive breeding, and I think the article needs to make it clearer what the cause is of the lack of diversity. If I'm wrong and there really is something else causing the loss of genes, I think we should say what that is.
Montiel et al state in their 2009 work that "The results of this study differ from what was expected", though it does seem self evident that the small founding group of the captive population is the main source of lower genetic variability, they suggest something else contributes. The conclusion gives that "some alleles of the wild population have been lost in the Chapultepec colony, with the average heterozygosis approximately 2.17% greater in the wild population" - is this something that can be readily explained in the text beyond just "evidence"? I tried to expand on what the "significant loss in diversity" is, but genetics are not something I know a lot about -- Reconrabbit17:45, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what I think is the relevant quote: "Although there has been interest in the reproduction of the species both in laboratory conditions and semi-captivity, at this time the only known reproductive nucleus is located in Chapultepec Zoo in Mexico City, which originates from a small number of founders in a random breeding structure during 20 generations. Given this situation, the objective of this study was to estimate the loss of genetic variability in a captive population in relation to the wild population of Romerolagus diazi through the use of a RAPD analysis." This is a clear statement that there was no managed breeding, and a small gene pool to begin with. I would suggest rephrasing the last two sentences of the first "Conservation" paragraph to something like "Since then, further attempts have been met with varying success, but captive-bred infants have high mortality. The only breeding group in captivity, in Chapultepec Zoo, began with a small number of rabbits, and over the course of 20 generations has lost genetic diversity in comparison with the wild population." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:15, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has helped a lot. I will adopt this wording. Captibe breeding is an unfamiliar subject to me, especially since it does not come up often in the main reference book I am using (Smith et al 2018), where it is only referenced in regards to the Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit and Corsican hare, which I haven't really researched. -- Reconrabbit11:24, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the first sentence of "Behavior and ecology". We have "The volcano rabbit lives in groups of 2 to 5 individuals" vs "Zacatuches live in groups of two to five individuals" The wording is too close, see WP:PARAPHRASE. I'd rewrite it as "[volcano rabbit] groups consist of between two and five members". Its still early, so I would check the paraphrasing in the rest of the article to be safe. I made a slight change here. LittleJerry (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did another spotcheck and the term "...relatively slow and vulnerable in open habitats" is taken directly from the source. I will have to oppose this nomination until my concerns are taken seriously. LittleJerry (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to review the entire text as it was before I started working on it in December 2024. I am confident in my ability to summarize sources without copying and any instances of this are almost definitely going to come from the article as it was in this revision. I will ping you once I am done. -- Reconrabbit14:25, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LittleJerry I have tried my best to excise the text from the article as it once was and make source-text integrity more solid in those places where there was close paraphrasing or copied text. -- Reconrabbit17:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
subtraction "2.0.3.31.0.2.3 × 2 = 28 — two" The m-dash after "28" kinda looks like a subtraction sign, as if the arithmetic is continuing after 28 (minus 2?). Is there a way to re-phrase so readers will clearly understand that the numbers end after "28"?
Does substituting the m-dash with ", indicating that it has..." to clarify that the following information is a description of the dental formula in words?
Volcano name "Mt. Pelaco" - Google maps says the name is "Volcán Pelado ", is the latter a better name?
Where does Mt. Pelaco appear? Velázquez (and this later thesis) refers to the mountain as El Pelado, which is why I used that name in the list of habitats "(Cerro Tláloc, Popocatépetl, Iztaccíhuatl, and El Pelado)". A 2018 paper refers to it as simply Pelado. I discounted Volcán because it is often used in texts not as a title, just describing that the feature is a volcano.
The range/location map: very difficult to see the tiny dots. Much better would be using the Template:Location map many. To use this kind of map within the InfoBox (e.g. range_map = Romerolagus diazi distribution.png ) probably need to do a screen capture into a PNG File If you need assistance with that, I can help. E.g.
Would a solution like that which I provided on Helan Shan pika work? In that case, I went to OpenStreetMap and took a screenshot, then overlaid the IUCN range map on top of it. -RR
Yes, that Helan Shan pika solution looks excellent. The current map in Volcano Rabbit article is File:Romerolagus diazi distribution.svg which is a vector diagram that contains the range boundaries, tho probably not in lat/long coords. (PS: I am commenting-out the three sample maps above, because the WP:FAC page transcludes all active nominations, and it is considered rude to have graphics in the nominations. ) Noleander (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cite page number error: The page # field looks wrong: pages=e030738 Cite journal |last1=Iraçabal |first1=Leandro |last2=Barbosa |first2=Matheus R. |last3=Selvatti |first3=Alexandre Pedro |last4=Russo |first4=Claudia Augusta de Moraes |date=2024 |title=Molecular time estimates for the Lagomorpha diversification |journal=[[PLOS One]] |volume=19 |issue=9 | pages=e0307380 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0307380 |doi-access=free |issn=1932-6203 |pmc=11379240 |pmid=39241029
Changed to article-number.
Citation page # range inconsistent format : end with period or not? Needs to be uniform. Rojas Mendoza 1952, p. 22. vs Rojas Mendoza 1952, p. 65 [no period]. I'm guessing the article is using both sfn (includes a period) and harvnb (omits period). It is okay to use both, but you'll need to manually add periods after the harvnb's: e.g. {{harvnb|smith|2003|p=35}}.'
I didn't even notice that, I've standardized all citation templates to harvnb.
Book citations inconsistent: some include location and some do not: {{{1}}}. Needs to be uniform. Probably easiest to remove the location fields.
Locations removed. I also noted that the ISBNS were inconsistently hyphenated, and some were ISBN-10 rather than 13, so that should be standardized now.
Page number in "Red list" cite looks wrong: page=e.T19742A45180356 In: Velázquez, A.; Guerrero, J.A. (2019). "Romerolagus diazi". IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2019 e.T19742A45180356. doi:10.2305/IUCN.UK.2019-2.RLTS.T19742A45180356.en
This one has also been changed to an article-number parameter.
Alphabetize categories: Although not required for FA, alphabetizing the categories (at bottom of article) may look nicer than random order.
The only items that could be seen as copied are the phrases "the habitat of the volcano rabbit", "it is one of the", "analysis of the volcano rabbit". Otherwise, the matches are unabbreviated names (IUCN, CITES) and titles of cited articles.
Prose and MOS: I've gone thru the entire article again, and cannot find anything that could be improved. I did not check images or sources. I am not a biologist or rabbit expert. On prose and MOS: Support. Noleander (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another medieval chap, this time a Mayor of London who encouraged a mob to burn down a prison, who was sacked, imprisoned, promoted and sacked again, all the while managing not to get executed for treason. Clever chap. I'm sure there are plenty of improvements that can be made, though, and I welcome comments and suggestions! —Fortuna, imperatrix12:51, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2021 World Figure Skating Championships was already promoted to Featured Article. This is the next year's installment and was the first to take place after athletes from Russia were banned from all international competitions. The competition results are all sourced and documented, the tables are properly formatted, the background and history have been extensively re-written, the sources are properly formatted and archived where possible, and relevant photographs are used. Please let me know if you have any suggestions or comments, and I look forward to any constructive input. Bgsu98(Talk)08:14, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that jumps out is that the dates of the event are only mentioned in the lead, not the body, and the fact that the event was held in Montpellier is not mentioned in the body other than in the sentence "....flying into neighboring countries and traveling to Montpellier by road" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:27, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The standard in these event-specific articles appears to be that the time and place are specified in the lead, sourced to the event announcement, with the information also provided in the infobox. There doesn't appear to be anywhere else to repeat it without being redundant. Bgsu98(Talk)15:17, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It could be mentioned at the start of the "background" section. I would suggest just repeating the first two sentences of the lead. This info absolutely shouldn't not be in the body
"there were discussions with Russian figure skaters, including those representing other countries, trying to attend the World Championships" => "there were discussions about Russian figure skaters, including those representing other countries, trying to attend the World Championships...."
"Knierim and Frazier were only the third American pairs team to ever win gold at the World Championships" => "Knierim and Frazier were only the third American pairs team to win gold at the World Championships"
"featuring only the music, and like Ivan Shmuratko, they also wore the colors" => "featuring only the music and, like Ivan Shmuratko, they wore the colors"
Ah, season two of Arrested Development, possibly the finest television season of all time. I've been editing Wikipedia for a few months now, and Arrested Development articles have been a significant part of my editing since the very beginning. No episodes of Arrested Development are at FA status yet, and I find that lack of the Bluths to be quite disturbing, so here I am to change that! The article details the second season premiere of the series, going in-depth into it's development with several behind the scenes details, offering poignant analysis of multiple different faucets of the episode, and is held together by a solid reception section
I’m sure concerns will be raised over it's length, so I’d just like to note that there are certainly shorter television episode FAs, and short FAs have been a staple of the process for years at this point. What it lacks in length it more than makes up for in comprehensiveness. Crystal Drawers (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added alt text to both images, and have greatly expanded File:The One Where Michael Leaves.png's sections (purpose, description, etc). Please let me know if any more work is needed Crystal Drawers (talk) 04:29, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Typically on these articles (as far as I have seen), the actors playing characters are mentioned in the leading paragraphs (ex. the first time they are introduced) rather than in parentheticals in the Plot section.
Done
It may flow better to use two commas rather than two 'and's in the sentence that ends "and written by series creator Mitchell Hurwitz and co-executive producer Richard Rosenstock".
I apologize, but I’m not quite sure what you’d want me to change this to? Could you elaborate on what it should become?
I misinterpreted the meaning of this sentence and will strike it out, my mistake - I thought it was "co-executive produced" somehow
Is "Complete Second Season DVD" a proper title for this collection?
The proper title is Complete Second Season, DVD is not part of the title
Okay, makes sense. Thank you.
Fragment starting with "The use of security footage..." - "has been called" by whom?
Done
"Gob's insistence that he has never admitted to a mistake in his life perpetuates his inability to accept his true, selfish nature. He doesn't see a need to be truthful about his actions, and chooses to instead coast through life believing his own lies" This needs to be attributed in some way - currently it is a jarring transition to have this be presented as fact.
Done
"It was Hurwitz's ninth writing credit for the series, and was the first episode of the season to be filmed" only needs the first 'was'
Done
"open marriage" and "open-marriage" are both used in the article, so decide on one
Done
"and it's "ironic" reference to Friends" should be 'its'
Done
"the Arrested Development alumni Russo Brothers" could read better as "Arrested Development alumni the Russo Brothers".
Done
"and was unable to film the appearance, although he expressed sorrow at his inability to do so" The word 'although' is a non-sequitur (there isn't any reason to expect him to be happy to not film the appearance, or ascribe any other emotion to it). Omit this or connect it separately ("he later expressed sorrow at being unable to do so"?).
Done
"people—often while driving—will shout," the 'often while driving' seems like it would break up this sentence less if it was appended at the end instead ("will shout, "I just blue myself" at him, often while driving"). A potential clarification would be if Cross or the shouting people are the drivers (or both?).
Done
This might be my personal preference but the use of "revealed" throughout the article is a little strange, even when it's accurate.
Done
@Reconrabbit: Thank you for taking the time to review the article, I have fixed the majority of them and left comments/questions for the ones I didn't understand. Please let me know if you take issue with any of my changes Crystal Drawers (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pinging. The meaning of the text is now clearer in many places. I noticed that Ian Roberts' name is now only present in the infobox since his parenthetical was removed. This one could be re-added. -- Reconrabbit19:35, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After setting aside some time to work on other projects, contributing (and receiving) some miscellaneous quality-of-life improvements throughout the article, and checking in with various editors involved in this article's past nominations, I've decided to be bold and give this another shot.
Notable changes include the following:
The image in the gameplay section has been moved in accordance with MOS:SANDWICH.
Kazumi Totaka has been added as a contributor to the game's soundtrack, which appears to be supported by Eurogamer's review.
The info about Nintendo Life's Yoshi game rankings has been removed, as many of these lists are apparently unfortunately based on user ratings :(
On this occasion, I offer courtesy pings to every editor who explicitly supported or opposed any of this article's previous nominations (or seemed strongly inclined to either support or oppose): @SchroCat:@UpTheOctave!:@Hahnchen:@Vacant0:@Noleander:@Jo-Jo Eumerus:@Cukie Gherkin: (Please let me know if there's anyone I missed!) Of course, if you participated in any (or none) of this article's previous nominations, your feedback is still strongly encouraged, welcomed, and appreciated. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've already given too much feedback on the talk page and in previous nominations so I won't do another review because barely anything has changed since my previous comments. The article seems to be completely ready now and I don't see anything that would stop this article from becoming a FA. Support from me. Vacant0(talk • contribs)12:53, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as I previously did a source review, I'll provide a few comments on the main body this time.
The paragraphing of the lead looks a bit off, with the discussion of gameplay split over two seperate paragraphs.
Third paragraph of the lead has a clunky repetition of "The game... The game", could we remove this?
Should the link in the infobox be piped as Baby Mario or Baby Mario? I've often seen both words considered as part of the character's name. This applies later as well to Baby Luigi/Baby Luigi and Baby Bowser/Baby Bowser
Structurally, it would make sense to put "If all lives...five lives" at the end the paragraph.
A more precise link could be "stork delivers", but this is a matter of taste.
I think a duplink is warranted for Nintendo 3DS in §Development and release.
I don't think "The Eggdozer concept...more experienced players" works as a list sentence and could benefit from some splittng.
Last paragraph of that section falls into some repetitive "In [date]...In [date]" structures.
Per MOS:NUMNOTES, "eight mandatory levels... two optional levels... total of 60 levels" should be all spelled out or all in figures.
"unlocks a golden variant of the power-up" could flow better as "unlocks its golden variant"
"One of the optional levels in each world...in each level of that world" is quite a clunky phrasing, could this redundancy be removed?
"Other sections revolve around the use of a power-up known as the Yoshi Star, which briefly transforms Yoshi into Super Yoshi": I get the repetition of Yoshi is inevitable here, but this is still quite wordy. I suggest a rephrase, maybe along the lines of "Other sections use the Yoshi Star power-up, which briefly transforms Yoshi into Super Yoshi".
"can travel at high speeds, and can run up walls": any way to remore repetitive "can [thing]" structure?
I wonder if it is worth it to note that the "metal variant of the Mega Eggdozer [] known as the Metal Eggdozer", or if the modifier can be dropped.
These suggestions should now be implemented as well, @UpTheOctave!: The best solution I could find for the repetitive "can be" sentence was changing it to: In this form, Yoshi has invincibility, can travel at high speeds, and is able to run up walls and across ceilings for a short period of time. I also changed the clunky optional levels explanation to: In each world, one optional level is unlocked by obtained every collectible and finishing with full health in each mandatory level, while the other optional level is unlocked after 30 medals are collected by jumping through a roulette ring. Please let me know if this should be broken up further. Thank you! ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 03:58, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First rephrase sounds fine. I wonder if something like this could work for the second: "In each world there are two unlockable optional levels: one is unlocked by obtained every collectible and finishing with full health in each mandatory level, while the other is unlocked after 30 medals are collected by jumping through a roulette ring." Thoughts? UpTheOctave! • 8va?12:34, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UpTheOctave!: Unfortunately, this is a bit redundant due to an earlier sentence: The game features six areas on the island known as worlds, each comprising eight mandatory levels and two optional ones, for a total of sixty levels. Perhaps something along the lines of One of the two optional levels in each world is unlocked by obtaining every collectible and finishing with full health in each mandatory level, while the other is unlocked after 30 medals are collected by jumping through a roulette ring.?
Thank you for bringing such a great game to the FA process, it’s a game I have very fond memories of. Expect comments soon, and please ping me if I have not provided any by Thursday! Crystal Drawers (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I can get through it now actually
Lead:
1. "controlled with the console's gyroscope" - I’d change it to "controlled via the console's gyroscope", but that may be personal preference
2. "The game has sold more than two million copies worldwide as of 2020 and became a Nintendo Selects title in 2016" - I feel like this could be worded a little better, maybe change to "By 2020, the game had sold more than two million copies worldwide, and was reissued as part of the Nintendo Selects line in 2016."
Gameplay:
1. "eight mandatory levels and two optional levels, for a total of 60 levels" - levels is used three times right next to eachother, I'd change it to "eight mandatory levels and two optional ones, for a total of 60 levels"
2. "Each boss is defeated in three hits" is a very short sentence, you could probably add a semi-colon the end of the previous sentence to combine them and make for a smoother read
3. "hovering in midair briefly (known as "flutter jumping"), swallowing" - this is personal preference so feel free to ignore this, but I’d prefer if it were written as "hovering in midair briefly—known as "flutter jumping"—swallowing", as it don’t really like parentheses in Wikipedia articles; again, feel free to ignore if you disagree
Plot:
No notes, quite interesting to read :)
Development and release:
1. "Masamichi Harada was art director" - change to "Masamichi Harada was the art director"
2. "The Eggdozer concept originated from the development team being interested in "creating something big and impactful". Levels were made easier than those in previous Yoshi's Island games, whereas collectibles were intended to provide "a nice challenge for more experienced players"." - both of these sentences end with a direct quote, could you paraphrase at least one of them? I could assist you in paraphrasing if you need help
3. "were revealed in June 2013 at E3 2013" - two uses of 2013 so close to eachother, I’d remove the 2013 from E3; you can still link it to E3 2013, just shorten it to simply "E3"
4. "young actors in California (Benjamin Stockham of About a Boy, Garrett Clayton of Teen Beach Movie, and Bella Thorne of Shake It Up) posed" - same as my 3rd note for the Gameplay section, personal preference
Critical reception:
1. I only found one issue with this section, but it's an issue that spans a lot of sentences. Multiple different statements are directly quoted when paraphrasing would work just fine. I think cutting this down so only 1 or 2 sentences have quotes would be for the best, and would make the writing much more up to FA standards
Sales:
As with the plot section, I don’t have any notes to give :)
Phenomenal work on the article, I see the several previous nominations have clearly done it good, so I don’t have a lot to say! Let me know when you finish addressing the comments Crystal Drawers (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these excellent suggestions, @Crystal Drawers: Let me know if I happened to miss any of them. A couple of notes:
I actually decided to change the last sentence in the lede to The game was reissued as part of the Nintendo Selects line in 2016, and by 2020, it had sold more than two million copies worldwide. – I prefer the chronological order here.
I replaced the parentheses with em dashes in the development and release section, though I kept the parentheses for the flutter jumping part, as I personally feel that this would create an awkward and unnecessary pause.
I replaced direct quotes with paraphrasing throughout the reception section. Let me know if the current state of this section is satisfactory.
Thank you for implementing my suggestions. The paraphrasing in reception has strengthened the section a lot, I’m satisfied with all the changes. Happy to Support
I've read through the article and think it’s very close to FA standard, but I have a few suggestions by section:
Lead: It’s comprehensive, but perhaps a little too weighted toward gameplay specifics (Eggdozers, gyroscope transformations, etc.). A more concise phrasing would prevent it from reading like a mini-gameplay section. Conversely, the reception summary could use slightly more nuance: while mixed reviews is accurate, the division (praise for nostalgia and aesthetics, criticism for soundtrack and originality) feels central to the game's legacy and could be highlighted more. The commercial success (over 2 million copies) is significant enough that it might deserve a clearer spotlight instead of being tucked at the end.
Gameplay: The section is detailed and well-sourced, but sometimes slips into a manual-like tone (e.g., “If damage is taken, Yoshi has 10–30 seconds…”). You might want to streamline into less instructional phrasing while still covering the mechanics. The collectibles and optional levels are described well, though the paragraph could be tightened slightly for flow.
Critical response: This section is one of the article's strengths, pulling in a wide variety of perspectives. I wonder if the structure could be slightly adjusted: for example, grouping the nostalgia/repetition critiques together, then separating the art style debates, then level design, soundtrack, and controls. Right now it’s a bit dense, and clustering would make it easier for readers to grasp the main through-lines of criticism vs. praise.
Overall, the sourcing is excellent and the article is thorough. With a little tightening for prose balance and clarity, this should be in great shape for FA.
@Chrishm21: I've made some tweaks to the lede; would you mind taking another look when you get the chance? To balance out the gameplay and reception sections, I cut a line about the utilization of gyroscope controls (since this isn't as much of a main gimmick as the Eggdozer) and expanded on why critics praised or criticized certain aspects of the game. I'll set to work on the reception section next—mainly trying to split up that second-to-last paragraph. As is, it's mostly about miscellaneous points of criticism among reviewers. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 03:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The revisions to the lead are a definite improvement. Cutting the gyroscope reference keeps it from reading like a gameplay walkthrough, and the expanded reception line now balances the praise, mixed points, and criticisms more effectively. That makes the lede feel closer to FA-ready prose.
In Gameplay, the coverage is strong, but there are still a few places where the text feels a little too much like an instruction manual (e.g., "If damage is taken, Yoshi has 10–30 seconds…"). Streamlining these into more neutral prose would improve flow.
For Critical reception, I think your plan to split the long second-to-last paragraph is exactly right. As it stands, it crams together many smaller criticisms (boss fights, soundtrack, motion controls) that could be clearer if grouped thematically — e.g., one paragraph for audiovisual presentation, one for level design, and one for mechanical/structural criticisms. That would really help readers see the major critical threads.
Overall, the article is very close — a little more restructuring and prose tightening should do it.
As an aside, I also have a FAC open right now. It covers another pop culture topic (music instead of games), and I'd be grateful for any comments or feedback there — even a brief pass would be a huge help. Christian (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about one of the most famous 19th-century murder trials in Scotland. A young farm servant, pregnant by the farmer's son, died of arsenic poisoning in 1826. She was almost certainly murdered by the farmer's wife, Mary Smith, but the best defence money could buy allowed Smith to escape. Trials were different in those days -- a murder trial with 48 witnesses would not be completed in 24 hours nowadays, nor would it finish at 5:30 a.m.
I have a personal interest in the article which I need to declare: the farmer's wife is my distant ancestor (my 5x great-grandmother). That's how I found about the case. I don't think this counts as a conflict of interest, but I have left a note on the article talk page so other editors will be aware, and I feel reviewers here ought to know as well. One side note, which I can't put in the article: this was not the first time one of Mary Smith's sons had made a servant girl pregnant; she had dismissed a girl named Mary Oram several years earlier when she became pregnant by Thomas, another of Smith's sons. I know this because Oram's child is my 3x-great grandmother, but that's all from primary research so I can't include it. I do suspect it contributed to Mary Smith's decision to kill Margaret Warden, though; she'd been through this before and felt that enough was enough.
At least partial ALT text for the pamphlet would be nice.
There is alt text now; do you mean I should include some of the actual text from the pamphlet? I'm not sure a screen-reader user would find that helpful given that it would duplicate a good deal of what's in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:40, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The question is a bit what kind of information you want to give to readers by including the image. If you want to say that it is a weirdly formatted pamphlet on yellowing paper that looks about 200 years old, you don't need a lot of alt text. If you want to give people the opportunity to enjoy the old text, it seems unfair to only allow sighted people. I fully agree that the entire text is far too long to be force-fed to screenreaders, so I was wondering (and I really do not know) what the best way to present this is. One idea I had was to put the first paragraph into ALT text and have a complete version on the image description page. But again, the question is in my view what the image is supposed to do for sighted people, and how to best make that experience accessible. —Kusma (talk) 08:26, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Graham87, I know you use a screen reader, so if you have a moment it would be great to get your input here. The "Trials" section of Poisoning of Margaret Warden has an image of an 1827 pamphlet about the trial. I've added the transcribed text to the file on commons; as you can see there, it's quite long. What would be the best way to handle this? Should some or all of that transcription be in the alt text? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:30, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The age of the sources used made me wonder whether there are modern sources. This one tells the story but mostly mentions the trial as an example of a "not proven" type guilty-but-acquitted verdict. Another modern treatment is this, a PhD thesis (with a handful citations) about poison murders in Scotland; it also cites some contemporary sources that you do not seem to cite. In particular, there is a lengthy report by Christison about the medical evidence at the trial. There are details on the juror who fell ill and later on about the autopsy and the methods they used to prove the presence of arsenic. I think the content about the tests and the lack of experience of (at least one of) the physicians with arsenic (p. 28 of the thesis) could be worth adding; in any case, I mainly wanted to ask whether you are aware of these sources. —Kusma (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I may not have time to finish responding tonight, but I'll just note that from reading various accounts I am pretty certain that Symes, the 1829 source linked in "Further reading" in the article, is the source for every other discussion, including the ones you found. Roughead and Millar clearly draw heavily on it; I used them because they are secondary and more detailed than the later discussions. There are a handful of cases where they mention something not evident from Symes but nothing about the content of the trial. I'll look at the other sources probably tomorrow but I do recall reading about the details of the postmortem and exactly how the arsenic was proven and thinking that it was too detailed for this article. I'll review tomorrow or Friday and recap what I find here to see if you think any of it is worth adding. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:40, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It may very well be too detailed, although I found it quite interesting (and the arsenic discovery methods are discussed in the thesis I linked above, apparently one of the few modern sources not just copying from Symes). Also, the autopsy report confirms a three month old foetus (p. 453 of Christison) and I do think it is worth more than one sentence in the article. In any case I'd think Christison's report from the trial is worth a Further Reading link if you don't use it, even if a lot of the content is also in Symes. —Kusma (talk) 08:26, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've read through Christison's report; I had seen it when I researched the article but going through it again I agree there are a few things worth adding. The lengthy description of the tests for arsenic is interesting but I think would be a digression in the body so I've put it in a note. I've cited the lack of experience (in testing for arsenic) of both Johnston and Ramsey to Christison rather than the thesis as there are more details there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:25, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is a great article. Thank you for including the further details. I do have one question that perhaps isn't really important for FAC: is it correct that the accused's husband David Smith has no role in the whole business whatsoever? —Kusma (talk) 12:30, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The jury returned a verdict of not proven, effectively acquitting Smith of the crime: this is a particular bee in my bonnet that has recently been rendered moot, so I'm glad to have the chance to rant about it here. "Not proven" was an acquittal (as our article correctly states): before the three-verdict system came about, the verdicts were proven and not proven. Not guilty was added in the 18th century to mean that the prosecution had proven that the actions in question happened, but the jury believes that they were not guilty actions because the defendant was right, or at least ought to have been permitted, to do them. From Scott at least it does seem that "not proven" had already taken on its modern de facto meaning of "not guilty and don't do it again", but we should cut still "effectively" for accuracy.
Done. I haven't done much reading about the use of "not proven" in general, but I can say that in the material I've read for this article the authors imply it means, or meant at the time, "probably guilty but not sufficiently proven". That might be just because of the particular cases they discuss, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:41, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See below -- there's a distinction between theory and practice that might be worth drawing out, but one of the problems here is that even judges don't seem to have agreed at the time whether it was a full-throated acquittal or a hair from a guilty verdict. UndercoverClassicistT·C13:17, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The map in the Background section takes up about three quarters of the width of the page on my screen: would it be worth cropping it between the O and the N of MONIKIE, since all the farms are in the western half?
I can if you think it's necessary, but I left MONIKIE in as the only thing on the map that would be easily relatable to a large map, if a reader wanted to locate the farms on a map of Angus, for example. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:41, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
her symptoms included vomiting, thirst, and stomach pain: the serial comma isn't mandatory in BrE as it is in AmerE: generally, writers are less likely to use it when the list items are fairly short, as here, and more likely when they're long or complex.
very indistinct pulsations over the heart—about 150 in a minute: would it be helpful to footnote that a typical resting heart rate is between 60 and 100 bpm?
That's probably fair. I think most readers will parse that this is a lot, but I'm not sure many/all will have a specific sense of how much faster this is than normal (it's not a million miles off the expected maximum for a person of that age). UndercoverClassicistT·C13:15, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Smith gave Warden a small glass of a white creamy mixture, and a lump of sugar: I'm not sure the commas here are wrong, but do read as unusual to me: I would have gone for white, creamy mixture and a lump of sugar.
You're the second person to ask for this, so I have made the change, but let me try to justify it: I would include it if "and a lump of sugar" were not there, but reading out loud the list with those extra words at the end there is no pause between white and creamy. I know commas serve other purposes than pauses in speech, but that is one of their uses. Anyway, changed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:41, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I read it, the longest pause is after creamy, but I suppose we'll all have different cadences. If you really want it, you could swap and for along with, which would then call more strongly for a comma (and create an almost unavoidable pause). UndercoverClassicistT·C13:18, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The samples were tested by Dr. Ramsay and Dr. Johnston, neither of whom had performed tests for arsenic before: hold on, where has arsenic come from? Strictly speaking, we've buried the lead -- we haven't actually said that arsenic was being tested for at all (I'm sure they hadn't performed tests for Covid either). Presumably one of those rumours mentioned above was that she had been poisoned with arsenic?
I hadn't considered this, and I'm not sure what to do about it. Given that in the judge's closing statement he told the jury that they could consider death by arsenic as a settled fact, I could add a mention of arsenic to the lead, but that doesn't directly address your point. I will scan the sources again but I don't think I'm going to find anything that says the rumours were about arsenic (and why would a rumour specify the poison anyway?). My best guess is that death from arsenic fit the symptoms, and arsenic was readily available, but I don't think the sources say that. I'll come back to this after I've done a bit more reading. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:41, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and I added Christison's opinion of the tests Ramsay and Johnston performed to the existing note of their methods. I reread the medical testimony and I can't find any comment about a suspicion of arsenic prior to the testing; they don't even say "the only thing we tested for was arsenic". However, all the tests they list were for arsenic which I think is enough for me to say that's what the tests were intended to detect. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:56, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the link to "bothy" is particularly helpful, since the article entirely discusses the modern sense of a mountain bothy -- presumably, in this case we just mean a small hut, which is the root of the modern usage.
The link was requested at PR, and I suspect that if I remove it someone else will ask for it. Can I point here to whatever guideline it is that says I'm not responsible for the quality of a linked article? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:41, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
she recalled she had acquired some rat poison from Dundee ... She also said she did not know it was poison: this doesn't seem to add up -- was she saying "ah, yes, I asked for 'something to put away rats' -- my goodness, I now realise it was poison!"
invoking habeas corpus rules: just habeas corpus, surely?
I don't think so, though I can't claim to fully understand how the law worked. The effect of "running criminal letters" was to put a time limit on the trial; I used habeas corpus attributively, to characterize the law. If habeas corpus can be used directly for a law not of that name then I can remove "rules", but not being an expert this seemed to me the best way to describe it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:41, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see the difference -- I think you're fine -- it wasn't that they were invoking habeas corpus specifically ("my client isn't getting a trial!"), but rather a specific set of rules intended to ensure the right of habeas corpus ("my client's getting a fair trial, but not quickly enough to satisfy his right"). UndercoverClassicistT·C13:13, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be worth giving some explanation of the various legal titles: it's not obvious, for example, that the Solicitor General is a slightly smaller fish than the Lord Advocate. Speaking of: do we know why the prosecution team was so high-powered? Murder is obviously a bad thing, but was this seen as a particularly henious or complex case? Now that I think about it, the defence team seems rather expensive given that the defendant seems to have been a fairly middling farmer.
At least one source describes David Smith as well-to-do, and I don't think it would be common for a farmer to be a tenant on three farms (the land-owner was an aristocrat, as one would expect). The ballad at the end asserts that Smith bought her way out of a guilty verdict. The secondary sources (i.e. Roughead or Millar) might make that statement directly, and I'll scan again for that, but I don't recall seeing it. For the prosecution, I don't know why the team was so high-powered, and I'm sure the sources don't discuss it. As for the titles, I was hoping that the links would be enough -- the reader will understand that this was a high-profile case with high-powered lawyers on both sides. I think that's the important point for a reader, not the exact duties of the individuals named. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:41, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've had another look at Roughead and Millar, and the only comments I can find are to the effect that Jeffrey and Cockburn were "then the twin ornaments of the Scots bar" in Roughead and something similar in Millar. It's clear the defence advocates were the best that money could buy but neither source says it that way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:08, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about doing something like "The lead defence lawyers were Francis Jeffrey and Henry Cockburn, both among Scotland's leading advocates:[cite "twin ornaments"] Cockburn would be appointed Solicitor General four years later." That would balance the firepower a bit, since at the moment the prosecution has Boyle identified as a big name, while the defence lawyers get no additional credentials except what's in the linked articles. UndercoverClassicistT·C06:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
wad surely do some ill to hersel: we've mostly given quotations in English, for instance something to put away rats and but she would have something for her, be the cost what it would, so the switch into Scots seems odd. I might be tempted to paraphrase/translate this one -- but then maybe the echo of Another servant, Ann Brown, said she had spoken to Warden shortly before her death, and Warden had said she "wad put an ill end to hersel'". is important.
I did think about this, and decided that when the original sources use direct quotes I should do so too unless I had a good reason to change it. Among other reasons, I like the way it gives a direct sense of the period and of what the trial testimony must have sounded like -- there are no other hints in the article (except perhaps the ballad) of the broad accents that must have pervaded all the conversations described. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:41, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but at the moment we have a bunch of Scots, including a few servants, flawlessly speaking the King's, and then two people who stand out for speaking in broad Doric. There are compromises either way, but one that we've accepted at the moment is to imply a distinction between these speakers that almost certainly didn't exist. UndercoverClassicistT·C13:09, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point but I don't see an easy solution. The reported testimony in Symes is rendered without any accents, as you say, but I don't think I can say anything explicitly in the article about the likely accents of most of the witnesses. Excluding or translating the few phonetic transcriptions seems to me to compound the problem by removing the only reminder that the orthography has been regularized. Yes, the selective use of the accent implies a class distinction, but then that class distinction did exist -- Barbara Small's accent was probably distinct from Cockburn's, even if both would be called Scottish accents. Do you have an idea of how this could be better presented? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:31, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think your way is a perfectly good solution to the problem -- as I said, the other would be to paraphrase the quotes in one dialect or another, so that we only have quotes either in Standard English or in Scots, but there are good reasons to prefer your approach. UndercoverClassicistT·C16:55, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1 October the previous year, and again on 2 October: this is more confusing than helpful, I think, given that we're in February, so there's no possible confusion with the October of the current year.
("Not proven" is a verdict available in Scots law in which the jury does not wish to deliver a "not guilty" verdict, but also consider the evidence insufficient to establish guilt. It has the same effect as "not guilty" in that the accused cannot be tried again for the same crime.): not a fan of putting a whole chunk of independent sentences into brackets: if we want to make it parenthetical to the main text, that's what footnotes are for. I'm not sure that the distinction here is quite as strong as you're making it: the linked page points out that they're both acquittals, and that there is no definition of the not proven verdict and nothing in law which defines the difference between the not proven and not guilty verdicts. There are some interesting stats here which imply that not proven was a relatively rare verdict in the early C19th (c. 16% of acquittals), but that may be a bit tangential. It does also have an interesting case from 1815 where a judge admonishes a defendant found not proven to say that this indicates that the jury was refusing to say that he wasn't guilty, but also seems to indicate that there wasn't/isn't a clear sense of what the "right" interpretation of such a verdict was. Seperately (and I know this comment is getting long), the is will be out of date imminently.
I was trying to define it practically, rather than legally, by saying it was available to the jury if they excluded the other two options. I see your point, though. Moving it to a footnote wouldn't resolve that. Should I just delete it and let the reader follow the link? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:41, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll think on this, but my instinct would be to avoid presenting it as an inferior version of "not guilty" (though some, Scott clearly included, saw it as that) -- I would say that it was a verdict of acquittal, with the same effect as "not guilty", and perhaps add that the distinction between the two was never clearly established in law. Equally, Scott's comment might benefit from a footnote to say that it was sometimes regarded as a cop-out, and the article I linked probably has enough material to cite that. UndercoverClassicistT·C13:06, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the commentary to a note and added some more, cited to Barbato. How does that look? It does seem from Barbato that it has generally been interpreted as closer to "guilty" than to "not guilty". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My own Latin was good enough for this so I guess I was unconsciously hoping this did not need the tag. It's not translated in the sources. I will look around for a source for this and come back to it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:41, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look here: people nnoyed with the "ambivalent position" of an intermediate verdict, who prefer a bright line rule or black-letter law. One such person was Sir Walter Scott ... [who] wrote in his diary ... "I hate that Caledonian medium quid. I think that's enough to gloss it as "intermediate position" or similar. UndercoverClassicistT·C13:11, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The phrenological, and frankly pretty sexist, descriptions of Smith leave a bad taste in my mouth. I'm not sure what's to be done about them, given that I assume no modern historian has stepped in to comment, but certainly the line agreed with Scott's description of her, adding that "She was like a vindictive masculine witch probably deserves a bit of thought as to how we present that sort of ideology in Wikivoice.
I am hesitant to soften direct quotes; I don't know if NOTCENSORED applies to this kind of language, but that's the principle I am following. If I had modern commentary about these characterizations then as you suggest that could be added, but I'm not aware of anything. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:41, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One concern: we write agreed with Scott's description of her. Wasn't Scott writing in his diary (which I think calls for a different verb than "said")? Was Cockburn actually agreeing with Scott, or just writing a similarly unkind comment that he didn't like her very much? After all, they're not quite saying the same thing -- Scott is saying that she looked like a murderer; Cockburn that her personality was vindictive and unfeminine. UndercoverClassicistT·C13:24, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Taking the second point first: yes, he does agree -- a fuller quote would be "Lockhart mentions Scott as having gone to see my old client, Mrs. Smith, who was guilty, but acquitted, of murder by poison. The case made a great noise. Scott's description of the woman is very correct. She was like a vindictive masculine witch." For the first point, I think "say" is correct -- it can mean "speak", but it fundamentally means "express", and using "say" to refer to written opinions is a standard usage as far as I know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:18, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I might be a bit allergic to alternatives to said. I've spent a fair amount of time editing reception sections and I see a lot of NOTSAIDisms, and I find myself eliminating almost all of them. "Write" and "state" aren't terrible, but I think they're usually unnecessary: "said" is one of the most invisible words in the language. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:15, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article overwhelmingly relies on Roughead 1913. That's not inherently a problem, but would you like to comment on the sourcing available for the case?
Except for Christison's medical article, Roughead and Millar clearly get all of their details from Symes, the original and official legal record. I don't want to use Symes directly if I can avoid it as that is PRIMARY in a sense. Roughead and Millar take the material and turn it into a narrative; I found Roughead the most helpful but I could certainly cite Millar too for much of it. In a couple of cases I found some details in one of them that did not appear to be in Symes and I took that to be local research they had done, or perhaps local knowledge of the case. There are later sources, easily found on the web, but they are short and sensationalized and seem to draw their information (often inaccurately) from Roughead, or occasionally Millar. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:41, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In BrE, don't put a dot after abbreviated titles that aren't actually the beginning of the full title (so Mrs Smith, Dr Smith, but The Rev. Dr Jones)
@Mike Christie: I realise this is coming late, and I don't want to remove my support, but reading again I wonder whether the lead truly fits MOS:LEAD as an independent summary of the key content. In particular, the trial itself and the forensics are almost totally skipped over. Do you think there's room to expand it? UndercoverClassicistT·C16:38, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely an improvement. Is it worth mentioning that the trial was eventually conducted in a single marathon session between 19 and 20 February? I notice that we don't actually mention in the article that the trial took place in Dundee (rather than Edinburgh, for example), but probably should in both lead and body. UndercoverClassicistT·C06:48, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added a note on the duration to the lead. I also added to both the body and the lead that the trial was in Edinburgh; I hadn't realized that wasn't clear so thanks for commenting on that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:51, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah -- I had been slightly misled by A local paper, the Dundee Courant ... Smith's friends took her to the local prison from the court, in order to protect her from the crowds. Here "local" means two different cities in the space of a paragraph. I don't know whether we could be more specific on the jail -- I presume it was the Old Toolbooth? UndercoverClassicistT·C09:14, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice to identify it but I don't see any clues. I did also try to confirm the courthouse building, thinking that would justify a picture, but I was unable to get more than "the High Court of Justiciary" in Edinburgh, and could not confirm whether that was in Parliament House then, as it is now. From the local paper accounts it's clear it was near there since Parliament Square is mentioned. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:24, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh. Yes, that was the point, wasn't it? I just dropped the first one; that "local" must date from before I realized that the trial was in Edinburgh. Is that technically a zeugma, by the way? I think of zeugmas as applying to verbs -- the standard example is "she left in a rage and a bath-chair". Although I seem to recall it's a term derived from a construction in Greek, so perhaps in Greek it is not so restricted? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:10, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't being totally serious, but as I understand it, zeugma can cover any time when the same word has to be understood in two different senses to parse the sentence, though I can't remember seeing an example where that word wasn't a verb. Mind you, the fact that local was actually repeated technically disqualifies this one anyway. UndercoverClassicistT·C18:04, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather not change this. See here, p. 117, and here, p. 169 -- both times it is in quotes, which I take to mean that neither knew what she meant by it but wanted to preserve her words. I think we should do the same. I would footnote this if I could think of something to say that would help the reader. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:21, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Christison returned to the court and testified that the juror had had ann epileptic fit annd → Christison returned to the court and testified that the juror had had an epileptic fit and
Source review passes. I spot-checked all of the sources except Christison and Rougheed. There were some mini-mini corrections to be done but all of the cited information was there in the sources as claimed, and all non-quotations were paraphrased appropriately. Moisejp (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I read through the article twice and found no issues (besides the mini-issues I corrected as above). The prose is very good and the article appears comprehensive. Support. Moisejp (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Map: File:Map of Angus showing West Denside farm.jpg Caption says "David Smith's three farms, near Monikie in Angus: Dodd, West Denside, and East Denside, shown on a 1946 map" .... I was expecting the map to indicate the location of of the three farms, but (after a couple of minutes of searching) I've concluded they are not specifically named in the map? Suggest either (a) add graphics to the map (circles, arrows, etc) showing the reader where the three farms are; (b) change the caption to day "Murder location" and draw a graphic showing the particular location where she was poisoned; or (c) change caption to be more vague so readers don't hunt for the farms e.g. "Area of Scotland where the David Smith's farms were located" or similar. Option (b) is probably what most readers would want to see. Noleander (talk) 00:05, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All three farms are named on the map, but evidently they're hard to see. I went with option (a), since I can't be certain exactly which little black dot near "W. Denside" is the farmhouse where Warden was poisoned. I've underlined all three farms in red and changed the caption to say so. I can make the red underline a thicker bar if you think that would be better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:37, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better in the Commons image. FYI: I'm not seeing the underlines in the article yet (but I do see the change in Commons). It can take up to three days for a change to an image in Commons to get propagated into a wikipedia article.
Also, some might say that if colors (e.g. "red") are named in an image caption, then the image (or caption) might not be suitable for visually-impaired readers (MOS:COLOR). Noleander (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Try clearing your browser's cache -- I did that and they show up for me. Personally, on an accessibility front, I think we're fine with the colour and the caption -- they are the only features underlined in anything, so a colour-blind user will still be able to make out the symbology and there's no risk of confusion with e.g. a feature underlined in green. UndercoverClassicistT·C14:20, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a mathematical object commonly known to the public as the cube. WikiProject Mathematics has fewer FA than GA, approximately one in seven, especially WikiProject Polyhedra, which has zero FA, excluding the three FA biographies. Since then, I will take this to FAC for the first time. Support, oppose, or any miscellaneous opinion is handed to the participating reviewer.
In the "Appearances" section, it is written that Salvador Dalí's painting Corpus Hypercubus (1954) contains a tesseract unfolding into a six-armed cross; a similar construction is central to Robert A. Heinlein's short story "And He Built a Crooked House" (1940).; however, the lede says that the tesseract is a member of the same family of polytopes as the cube, so I would not expect that this is an appearance of the cube. I would remove this sentence from "Appearances", or at least move some of its content to the mention of the Dalí cross in the "Polycubes" section.
I would rather move out to the polycube sections, while maintaining the fact that the cube is used to stack to form a Dali cross, which is used in popular cultures. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 04:04, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A layman would perhaps expect that "Construction" is more explicit. Something about folding on the edges and gluing the sides might be helpful in the first sentence.
When all of its interior angle (the angle formed inside) are right angles, -- should this be "interior angles" and "angles"?
Angle can vary (dihedral, exterior, interior, etc.). An interior angle is an angle within a polygon; alternatively, you can say it is an "internal angle". No clue if the U.S., U.K., or any English-language countries worldwide actually use it. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 04:04, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant rather to ask whether "interior angle" and "angle" should be plural rather than singular.
Prince Rupert of the Rhine, known for Prince Rupert's drop, questioned whether a cube could pass through a hole cut into the unit cube. Despite having sides approximately 6% longer, such a cube can pass through a copy of itself of the same size or smaller -- what "such cube"? Where does 6% come from? Perhaps this could use more explanation, especially since Prince Rupert's cube is used as an image but not explicitly mentioned, being hidden behind the wikilink in the quote.
Later note: I think that this sentence is simply poorly worded. The sentence Despite having sides... suggests that Prince Rupert's cube has already been introduced; I would instead write something like "In fact, a cube of side length 1.06 can pass through a unit cube". I find the phrase such a cube can pass through a copy of itself of the same size or smaller confusing as well: can't any cube pass through a copy of itself?
You do mention dice at the beginning of the section, which is why I suggest that location. I was wondering if the oldest known manufactured cubes were dice, which I would think is likely, though it seems equally likely that no reliable source discusses this.
I was pleased to see this show up here this morning, since I recently prodded Dedhert.Jr to do so. I left some comments at PR, but doing another pass now...
A cuboid is a polyhedron that consists of ... This is the lead-off sentence of Properties, so I would expect it to start with "A cube is ...". Then drill down into "It is a special case of ..."
every face of a cube has four vertices, each of which connects with three lines of the same length The standard geometric definition of a line is that it's infinitely long, so "three edges of the same length" would be better.
Every three square faces surrounding a vertex are orthogonal to each other "Every three" could be read as "Every third". How about "All of the three ..."?
Other special cases for a cube are ... Between the parentheticals set off by dashes and the list of things, this is quite a complicated sentence. How about, "A cube is also a special case of a parellelepiped, a rhombohedron, and a trigonal trapezohedron." followed by three sentences, each one describing one of those and why a cube is one.
Alternative option, "A cube is also a special case of other cuboids. These include...". At least I have tried to maintain while replacing dashes with commas. Better? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 04:04, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned in the PR, while you can't double the cube with a compass and straightedge, you can do it with origami and I think that's worth mentioning here.
My only comment here is that the last bit, where you talk about the platonic solids, seems to go off on a bit of a tangent with Kepler's model of the solar system. That could probably be trimmed a bit.
In the In orthogonal projection section, I'd start by making a statement about the cube, then going on to explain what it means: "The cube is equiprojective. That means ..." This also seems like it would benefit from a diagram.
The cube is a non-composite polyhedron, meaning there is no plane intersecting its surface only along edges, by which it could be cut into two or more polyhedra this doesn't seem to belong in this section. It seems more like a statement that should go in Properties.
OK, that's it from me. Overall, I think this is wonderful. Most math articles dive into advanced concepts in the first paragraph (if not the first sentence) making them impenetrable to anybody but an expert. This article starts out nice and easy and slowly adds complexity as it goes along. My guess is anybody who took high school geometry should be fine for at least the first few sections (say, up to about Symmetry), so that's pretty good.
Overall, looks like a spectacular article! And it's a level-4 vital article. Illustrations are colorful & informative. Agree with User:RoySmith that it is inviting even to laypeople.
Lead: The cube was discovered in antiquity... "discovered" doesnt sound right. One discovers a planet or island. Consider "identified" or "described" or "documented" or "recorded" etc
Fair enough. What does the source used by this article as the basis for the statement "The cube was discovered in antiquity... " say, verbatim?
Lead: It can be derived differently to create more polyhedra, and it has applicaftions to construct a new polyhedron by attaching others. I gather that this sentence is trying to summarize the body sections "Truncation" and "Other polyhedra's construction", correct? The second part of the sentence kinda makes senswe; but I have no idea at all what "It can be derived differently to create more polyhedra " means. I think the entire sentence needs to be rewritten to be clearer.
Clarify: Some of its types can be derived differently in the following: ... The word "type" here appears to be a term of art. What does it mean in this context? I looked above in the article and could not find a definition. Perhaps link "type" to a WP article that defines what it means.
Clarify: Some of its types can be derived differently in the following: ... The word "derive" here in a math article is confusing me. One can derive a formula; or take the derivative of a function. But the text following this appears to be describing ways new polyhedra can be constructed by altering a cube. I made cardboard models of all the Platonic & Archimedean solids when I was much younger, so I'm familiar with the process. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say Some of its types can be constructed ... Or, if "derived" is a term of art, link to the WP article that defines it.
Clarify: Some of its types can be derived differently in the following: ... What is the purpose of the word "differently"? Suggest reword the sentence e.g. Many polyedra can be constructed based (or "from") on a cube. Examples include: ...
Spell-out more clearly: Both cube and tesseract are known as three-dimensional and four-dimensional hypercubes, respectively. I think readers would benefit from a more basic statement such as A cube is a the 3-dimensinal instance of an n-cube (also called a hypercube). The 2-dimentional n-cube is a square; and the 4-dimensional n-cube is a tesseract.
Plurals improved?? which can be modeled by the arc of great circles, ... That singular "arc" does not sound right to my ears. Maybe ...modeled with great circle arcs... or ... modeled with the arcs of great circles...
Cite uniformity: Need to have ISBN for all books. E.g. Richeson, D. S. (2008). Euler's Gem: The polyhedron formula and the birth of topology. does not have ISBN
Cite uniformity: All or no books should have "location" field. Most do not, but some do e..g Thomson, James (1845). An Elementary Treatise on Algebra: Theoretical and Practical. London: Longman
Cite uniformity: Many journals do not have WP articles; inconsistency in cites: most of them are black text but one is red text: Milan Journal of Mathematics. All should be black.
A cite validation tool is reporting an error "DOI invalid" on this cite: Rudolph, Michael (2022). The Mathematics of Finite Networks: An Introduction to Operator Graph Theory. Cambridge University Press. p. 25. doi:10.1007/9781316466919
Ambiguity: . One of them, the cube, represented the classical element of earth because of its stability. What was stable? the cube? the element? or the earth?
Cubes are also found in natural science and technology... [Science here]... Other technological cubes include the... .[Technology here] Consider changing "Other technological cubes" to "Technological cubes" since the tech is after this, not before.
... leading to the use of the term cubic to mean raising any number to the third power... I know WP is not a dictionary, but perhaps the article could more directly state something like As a verb, cube means to raise a number to the third power in addition to (or instead of?) this green text?
Source titles: capitalization uniformity: Titles of all sources should all use same cap rule. The article has a mixture e.g. "The Mathematics of Finite Networks: An Introduction to Operator Graph Theory" and "Fullerenes and coordination polyhedra versus half-cube embeddings" WP does not require the article to follow the capitalization used by the orig author of the source. Uniformity is preferred.
Clarity & general/special sequence: The cube has a Dehn invariant of zero, meaning that cubes can achieve a honeycomb. It is also a space-filling tile in three-dimensional space in which the construction begins by attaching a polyhedron onto its faces without leaving a gap. Can you improve this to clarify the distinction (if any) between (a) honeycomb; (b) space-filling tile; and (c) 3D tessellation of space? If those descriptors are all synonymous, say so. If not synonymous (and the cube is all three of them) then add a few words distinguishing.
Is the cube special regarding filling space? One of how many? The cube has a Dehn invariant of zero, meaning that cubes can achieve a honeycomb. It is also a space-filling tile in three-dimensional space in which the construction begins by attaching a polyhedron onto its faces without leaving a gap. I understand there are an infinite # of arbitrary polyhedrons that can fill space; but what about plesiohedron/regular/other polyhedrons? How many of them can fill space? Then tell the reader: The cube is one of 500 plesiohedron/regular/other polygons that can fill space. Here, where I have "plesiohedron/regular/other" I'm suggesting the article select one of these that only has a finite # that fill spacae and is interesting.
Color key? Image File:The 11 cubic nets.svg has 3 colors. Either (a) if the colors are significant, then explain the significance and change image to follow MOS:COLOR for color-blind readers; or (b) if colors not significant, then explain that in the caption, or use same color for all. That is an SVG image, so it is easy to change the colors - if you need help, let me know.
I think the current one is the best, it's just a matter of understanding what the colors mean. I did a little poking around and discovered this is a subset of the 35 free Hexominos and the colors represent the symmetry groups, which might be useful to add here (appropriately sourced, of course). Pinging Nonenmac who drew the original image and might have additional insights. RoySmith(talk)11:22, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dedhert.Jr - I don't have a specific preference on blue vs others. To clarify the concerns:
If the images use multiple colors, the colors should be explained
If the images uses multiple colors, the image must comply with MOS:COLOR accessibility color-blindness guideline.
Replacing the colors with patterns (hash lines, dots, solid etc); or
Using varying LIGHTNESS (e.g. white, pink, red) rather than HUE (e.g. red, grey, blue).
MOS:COLOR implies that the image caption should describe the individual color meanings with Template:legend e.g. {{legend|#FF3333|Symmetry class A.}} Caption should not say things like Red means symmetry class A.
Sigh. Regarding Special:Diff/1313280598, this certainly fixes things in the sense that it no longer violates WP:COLOR, but you've fixed it in the wrong direction. You went from "People with color-impaired vision can't see the symmetry information" to "Nobody can see the symmetry information". RoySmith(talk)15:56, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for harping on this, but that's just another example of You went from "People with color-impaired vision can't see the symmetry information" to "Nobody can see the symmetry information". The original image just needed some tweaking to pick three colors would be distinct even in greyscale and add an appropriate legend. RoySmith(talk)19:26, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Symmetry group X
Symmetry group Y
Symmetry group Z
Yes, that was my intention, since Jens Lallensack said that they preferred the original image. But I've made a monochrome image with a legend as well, which I've included here. Pagliaccious (talk)19:48, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with RoySmith. To change the colors in the original image, simply edit the colors in the SVG file:
.t { fill : #AAA } .u { fill : #D99 } .w { fill : #AAD }
For instance, a change to:
.t { fill : #2222BB } .u { fill : #7777FF } .w { fill : #CCCCFF }
Section title? Section "Appearances" has an unusual title. Is that a Math Project thing? I'm accustomed to seeing "In culture" or "In nature" etc. Consider breaking that section into 2 or 3 sections: one for nature/science; one for humans/arts/literature/history.
Appearance is basically where an object appears in real life, in whatever era. Some polyhedral articles are named the section "Applications", indicating an object is used as a tool in real life, but it is incompatible with the discovery of biological shapes. Breaking into two or three subsections seems not a bad idea, as long as there are more sources mentioned about those three individually. This might answer the next comment. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 10:56, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CGH cube sentence location Cubes are also found in various fields of natural science and technology. It is applied to the unit cell of a crystal known as a cubic crystal system. Table salt is an example of a mineral with a commonly cubic shape. Pyrite has the same shape as well, although there are many variations. The radiolarian Lithocubus geometricus, discovered by Ernst Haeckel, has a cubic shape. A historical attempt to unify three physics ideas of relativity, gravitation, and quantum mechanics used the framework of a cube known as a cGh cube. Cubane is a synthetic hydrocarbon consisting of eight carbon atoms arranged at the corners of a cube, with one hydrogen atom attached to each carbon atom. The bold sentence seems out of place ... better in following paragraphs? The green paragr seems to be listing places where cubes are found in nature. The following paragraphs describe situations where humans analyzed a cube or applied the cube shape to nature (to explain/understand nature).
I consider the second paragraph as a section that includes natural science and its concept. Previously, the technological cube was merged into the same paragraph before someone broke in. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 10:56, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lead wording Other related figures involve the construction of polyhedra based on a cube, space-filling and honeycombs, and polycubes, as well as cubes in compounds, spherical, and topological space. "Figures" does not seem broad enough to encpass all items in the following list. Either (a) break into a few sentences with separate thoughts; or (b) change "figures" to a broader term (but that may be impossible .. "uses" or "applications" or "attributes" do not work). I cannot think of a way to reword that sentence to be sensible, since the listed items are so disparate.
See also section: Consider changing Squaring the square's three-dimensional analogue, cubing the cube to Cubing the cube - Squaring the square's three-dimensional analogue "Cubing the Cube" is key, and should be at the start. I understand the cube material is a section within the Square article, but that could change in the future ... imagine if "Cubing the Cube" became its own article some day in the future ... editors should not need to come back and edit the Cube article.
Wording: Instead, this problem could be solved with folding an origami paper by Messer. (a) Should "could be" be "was". (b) "Instead" doesn't sound ideal. Maybe "However" or omit the word "Instead" entirely.
Sections should start with intro/understandable/fun facts first, then move to advanced/boring topics: "Space Filling" section begins Hilbert's third problem asks whether every two equal-volume polyhedra can always... Better for readers is to start with material they will understand (such as "Cubes are space-filling shapes"). Starting with "Hilbert ..." will cause many readers to bail out of the section.
There is a sidebar InfoBox at the bottom: Template:General geometry. It looks odd, lots of white space to its left. Wouldn't the horizontal navBar Template:Geometry look nicer and be consistent with the conventional WP article layout? Also, the horiz NavBars are collapsible.
A cite-check tool is showing an error on cite Akiyama, Jin; Matsunaga, Kiyoko (2015). "Treks Into Intuitive Geometry". Springer Tokyo: 382–388. doi:10.1007/978-4-431-55843-9. ISBN 9784431558415. MR 3380801. The error says that it is using "cite journal" but the source is a book.
Properties section: first sentence is confusing because it acts like the article is about "cuboids" A cuboid is a polyhedron that consists of six quadrilateral faces... Better is to start with "cubes" in that section then move onto cuboids. Yes it is true that they are all related: general to special: POlyhedron -> Cuboid => Rect Cuboid -> Cube. But readers will want the "Properties" section to _start_ with cube then go from there. Something like: A cube is a polyendron with six square faces, each the same size. A cube is a special form of the more general cuboid, which is ...
For a cube whose circumscribed sphere has radius R , and for a given point in its three-dimensional space with distances di from the cube's eight vertices, it is... The wording is very confusing: it ends with "it is:" which is not good. And it is not clear there are eight "di". Consider If a cube's circumscribed sphere has radius "R", and if any point "P" in 3D space is selected, then the eight distances (d1, d2, ... d8) from P to the eight corners of the cube satisfy the following relation: ...
[continuing from prior] Also: is this formula important? Does this formula have a name? Was is discovered by someone famous? Is it controversial? Do multiple 2ndary sources comment on it? I don't doubt it is a correct formula, but there must be 300 bizarre formulas about cubes ... the article should only include ones that multiple source talk about. If any sources say why this formula is noteworthy, that should be included.
Clarify: The polycube is a polyhedron in which the faces of many cubes are attached. Could this be reworeded to paint a better picture in the reader's mind?
@Noleander. Reworded the cube introduction, as suggested by @RoySmith. The formula about "a cube whose circumscribed sphere has radius ..." is not widely recognized in many sources; if it is, there could be a name for the formula, probably not always. Anyway. I have removed. I'll do the polycube section later because of my busyness recently. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article generally has many images relative to its length - not sure all are warranted.
Drive-by comment: I don't think we should be applying numerical limits to images based on article length, but rather evaluating them per MOS:IMAGEREL's requirement that they be significant and relevant in the topic's context. Geometry articles are going to be inherently image-heavy because that's often the best way to present a given concept. That being said, I could see trimming some of the images in Appearances (Skewb and Alamo are largely redundant with the die) and I don't think File:Partial cubic honeycomb.png is adding much. RoySmith(talk)12:05, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will give my opinion about this. It depends. If the article is about a specific polyhedron, then yes, we need to provide numerous illustrations of its shape that can be observed in real life. But that does not mean we have to include all of the images corresponding to the list of applications and/or appearances. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 10:48, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see this here. I had a quick look around for more things that maybe could be added?
pp. 111–112 of this encyclopedia has a few interesting facts about subdividing cubes with planar cuts, which I don't think is currently in the article.
@AirshipJungleman29. The fact that "cubing the cube" has nowhere to be found in some Google Scholars or Google Books, basically leaving the name only in sources without defining it. I will onhold this topic for now.
Replying to other cube concepts: We don't have an article for Guildford's cube, and it might be helpful for someone to create one. CubeSats already existed in the beginning. The rest are mostly cuboids, as far as I'm concerned. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:25, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Guildford's cube added. But apparently, I have no knowledge of understanding psychology, especially when I was giving up on searching for the perfect articles for wikilinks, representing those mental factors. Copyedit may be appreciated. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of the problems with a wide-ranging subject like this is figuring out how to interpret WP:FACR's mandate to "neglect no major facts or details". At some point you need to figure out where to draw the line between "major facts" and "details". One could reel off an almost endless string of possible "might be worth discussing" things: Turner's Cube, Cobalt Qube, Bullion Cube, Ice Cube, Cubic Curve, CubeSmart, etc, but that doesn't mean all of those are worth mentioning. RoySmith(talk)02:41, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not all things can be included. Forgot to which MOS stated it similarly. For temporarily, I could rely on some books and journals to include uranium cubic for nuclear program and CobaltQube. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:41, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for being unclear, but I wasn't actually suggesting that any of those be included. They were all just examples of thing which on the surface appear to be cube-related but wouldn't pass the bar as a major fact or detail. RoySmith(talk)03:44, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the Ford Foundation's headquarters building in Manhattan, New York. Designed by Kevin Roche and John Dinkeloo, two proteges of the famous American architect Eero Saarinen, it was completed in 1967 and became New York City's youngest landmark 30 years later. By far its most prominent feature is an indoor atrium rising the building's entire 12-story height, with plantings and a rooftop skylight. The headquarters also includes offices, but by many accounts these are incidental to the atrium, which was the first in a Manhattan office building.
This page became a Good Article five years ago after a Good Article review by Eddie891, for which I am very grateful. After a copyedit and some other adjustments, I think the page is up to FA quality. I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The original author is Irving Underhill (this is actually shown in the label on the bottom right side of the image). The image was created in 1912 in New York, so it falls under US copyright law and is in the public domain. The relevant info is already on Commons.
The Ford Foundation Building has been critically acclaimed for its design, both after its completion and after the renovation ==> "The Ford Foundation Building has been critically acclaimed for its design, both after its completion and renovation"
site
No problems here.
architecture
building to rise up to 160 feet (49 m) before "up" is redundant
building's developer Ford Foundation wanted it to be ==> "building's developer, the Ford Foundation, wanted it to be"
The concrete are covered ==> "The concrete is covered"
section is clad with granite while the southern ==> "section is clad with granite, while the southern"
The southeast-corner pier should there be a hyphen?
arranged in a similar fashion to Spanish buildings ==> "arranged similarly to Spanish buildings"
The interior spaces were designed by Warren Platner. ==> "Warren Platner designed the interior spaces." (Active voice)
glass roof, composed of greenhouse-like "sawtooth" panels is above the atrium add a comma after "panels"
Despite Roche's intentions, the atrium originally had no benches (to prevent homeless people from sleeping there overnight).[64] though a single bench was subsequently added near the pool.[65] i believe the first full stop should be a comma
could seat 40 persons around a 12-foot-long (3.7 m) table wouldn't it be simpler to use "people" rather than "persons"
Another set of emergency stairs are on the northeast corner. ==> "Another set of emergency stairs is on the northeast corner."
history
disagree over whether it had cost about "had" is redundant
an annual payment in lieu of taxes ==> "an annual payment instead of taxes" (more people understand "instead")
which gathered dust for two years ==> "which had gathered dust for two years"
though it still remained the largest private foundation ==> "though it remained the largest private foundation"
The Ford Foundation Building, the Manufacturers Trust Company Building, and the CBS Building, received landmark designations on October 21, 1997. the comma after "CBS Building" is redundant
having been completed 30 years prior to its designation ==> "having been completed 30 years before its designation"
impact
that the design prior to the renovation had been ==> "that the design before the renovation had been"
The Ford Foundation Building underwent a major renovation → The building underwent a major renovation
Avoids repetitive use of the full name in close succession.
(also known as 321 East 42nd Street, 320 East 43rd Street, or the Ford Foundation Building) → (also known as 320 East 43rd Street, 321 East 42nd Street, or the Ford Foundation Building)
The postal address on 43rd Street is primary; list it first for clarity.
the largest private foundation in the United States at the time of the edifice's construction → the largest private foundation in the United States at the time of its construction
“Its construction” is plainer and avoids the slightly archaic “edifice”.
…includes plants, shrubs, trees, and vines → …includes trees, shrubs, vines, and other plants
Groups greenery more naturally and avoids a tautology (“plants … shrubs, trees…”).
…renovation and restoration project between 2015 and 2018 → …renovation and restoration between 2015 and 2018
“Project” is redundant.
…critical acclaim for its design after both its completion and renovation → …critical acclaim for its design following both its completion and renovation
The site measures 202 by 200 feet (62 by 61 m), of which the building occupies an area measuring 180 by 174 feet (55 by 53 m) → The site measures 202 by 200 feet (62 by 61 m), and the building occupies 180 by 174 feet (55 by 53 m) of it
More concise; avoids repetition of “measuring”.
must travel eastward on 41st Street from Second Avenue, then turn onto Tudor City Plaza (which crosses 42nd Street), and then turn again onto 43rd Street → must travel east on 41st Street from Second Avenue, turn onto Tudor City Plaza (which crosses 42nd Street), and then turn onto 43rd Street
Removes unnecessary “-ward” and repeated “then”.
the spaces between the lot lines and the facades are paved in red-brown bricks → the spaces between the lot lines and the facades are paved with red-brown brick
“With … brick” is standard phrasing in architectural description.
Copyediting as I read through. It might take me a day or two to finish. Feel free to revert any copyedits you don't agree with.
Was the building previously on the plot notable enough to be named and linked? You do give the name of the organization that was there, but no information about the previous building. Actually, I just noticed what might be a discrepancy -- our article on the HSS says "The hospital moved to its present location of 535 East 70th Street in 1955" which doesn't jibe with this article. Can you confirm your source is correct?
Unfortunately the building itself isn't notable, but its occupant (the hospital) is. I rephrased the sentence to clarify that it didn't move out immediately before the Ford Foundation obtained it. - EG
"Kevin Roche, one of the architects, stated that the approach to the building was intended to be similar to that in a rural setting": any reason to attribute this inline? Roche was the design architect; there's no more reliable source for the intent than him, and this is not an opinion. Could we make this just "The approach to the building was intended to be reminiscent of a rural setting", or something like that?
Done. - EG
"and reaches 174 feet (53 m)[12][13] or 180 feet (55 m)". Does Pelkonen cite a source for his differing number?
I'll have to check. - EG
So essentially, it looks like that book was just rounding the figure rather than giving an exact figure (not sure why they decided to round up). I've removed it for now. - EG
"In a 1988 book, Richard Berenholtz wrote that the building was, stylistically, ...": the citation gives two authors so can I just check that it's clear this quote is just from Berenholtz? And could we recast to let the reader know who he is -- maybe "The architectural historian Richard Berenholtz described the building in 1988 as, stylistically, ..."? Assuming he is an architectural historian.
I forgot to add Reynolds's name, which I've now done. - EG
"Roche stated that the building could have been ...": again, why give the source inline?
Done. - EG
"which Roche said were intended to give visitors the impression that ...": I think we could cut the attribution here too: "which were intended to ..."
Done. - EG
'he still perceived the setting as containing "a fairly nice character"': "containing" seems the wrong word. I don't know exactly what the source will support, but does 'he described it as a "fairly nice" setting' work?
"When the building was completed, the western elevation was virtually imperceptible from Second Avenue, as the color of the granite blended in with that of other buildings": I assume "imperceptible" is intended to mean that it wasn't easy to pick the building out from its neighbours, but it doesn't really mean that. Since "blended in" means that already, I think this could be shortened to "When the building was completed, the color of the granite meant that the western elevation blended in almost completely [or "very well", or whatever the source will justify] with its neighbours from Second Avenue".
I've rephrased it a slightly different way. - EG
"of which 290,000 square feet (27,000 m2) could be used as offices": can we make this "can be used"? Or is there some nuance I'm not seeing?
Done. - EG
"Root balls were embedded in the soil": why is this worth saying? Doesn't this just mean "they were planted"?
"Kiley had projected that the garden would have "a Darwinian struggle of the fittest", with only some plants surviving the atrium's difficult climatic conditions. Even so, over the years, many of the original plants have had to be replaced." I think these are in agreement, not in opposition; suggest "difficult climatic conditions, and over the years ..."
Done. - EG
'According to Pelkonen, Roche had indicated in multiple interviews that the atrium's occupants "could not think of themselves as separate from their colleagues"': suggest 'Roche intended that the atrium's occupants "could not think of themselves as separate from their colleagues"' -- I don't think we need the extra level of attribution.
Done. - EG
"To meet fire-safety regulations, the eleventh floor has sprinklers, a fire curtain, and an exhaust system": why just the eleventh floor?
I've reworded it to clarify that these features were added to the 11th floor during a renovation, not that they're only on this floor. - Epicgenius (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"It was one of the first projects that Dinkeloo and Roche designed independently after the firm's previous head, Eero Saarinen, died": I assume "independently" means "without Saarinen", but the current phrasing makes it sound as though they also designed some projects with Saarinen before he died. Can we just cut "independently" or does that change the meaning in some way?
Done. - EG
"At the time, construction was to begin the next month and be finished in 1966." Do we lose anything if we cut this to "Construction was planned to begin the next month and finish in 1966"?
"while a Times reporter stated that the design before the renovation had been "a Mad Men-era version of a Gesamtkunstwerk, a complete work of art". Saying "before the renovation" implies that this reporter felt it was better before, but that's not what the article intends. How about 'while a Times reporter described the building's design as "a Mad Men-era version of a Gesamtkunstwerk, a complete work of art", and said that after the renovation "Roche and Dinkeloo’s geometry sings again.'?
Done. - EG
'while critic Emily Genauer said that she felt "an oppressive and breathless sense of enclosure in a mammoth terrarium", saying its design could be oppressive for employees who had to see it every day': can we avoid the repetition of "oppressive"?
"I truly believe anyone lucky enough to meet Hunter Schafer will feel the immense light that is constantly radiating from her. [...] Hunter is so special, in so many ways that I could go on forever, but this truly is only her beginning. There is no limit to the beauty she will create."- Zendaya
"Trans people are beautiful. We are never going to stop existing. I’m never going to stop being trans."- Hunter Schafer
I'm nominating this article because I think this article meets the FA criteria, and because it is such an important article in so many ways. This is my first FA nomination- so please feel free to go in depth as possible, in case there is a possibility I might have missed something. HSLover/DWF (talk) 09:09, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HSLover/DWF, I see that's the BLP FA you mentioned earlier. While I can't help much with the topic itself, I can do the image review. The article contains the following images:
Elizabeth Alkin was an interesting figure, if only a minor one. A spy during the English civil war, a publisher and a nurse - she gave her time and (very limited) money freely to her causes, risking her life as she did so. This is an article I created a long while ago as part of the work I did for Women in Red and took it to GA at the time. Since then, more sources have become available (and accessible), and it's been beefed up from the rather thin piece we had previously. It's also had a very constructive Peer Review from RoySmith, Tim riley and Mike Christie. Any further constructive comments would be gratefully received. - SchroCat (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Newsbook seller and publisher and spy" is a tad confusing of a section title. We already know she worked as a spy, so you could make it just "Newsbook business" or equivalent
"£3 10 shillings" might be confusing for those unfamiliar with predecimal units - perhaps "£3 and 10 shillings" would be more intelligible
I think I'd prefer to keep it like this, as it's the accepted standard. If someone else complains or suggests this, we can always revisit, if that's ok? - SchroCat (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My comments at the PR were with an eye to FAC, so I don't have much to add here; the only additional point does not affect my support.
I asked at the PR whether Alkin had been spying before her husband's death, and if we know exactly when she became a spy. You replied that the sources fudge this a little so it's hard to be definite. Would it be possible to add a footnote saying something to that effect -- that the sources don't directly say when she began spying?
Thank Mike - both for this and your very helpful comments at the PR. Let me have a think about the footnote: I hate saying what 'the sources' don't say: it's something that could bite us in the rear at some point if someone does find a source that I thought was inaccessible or that I've missed. - SchroCat (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's also available in ProQuest (behind their paywall, unfortunately) with the same hand-written notes and scanning artifacts, so presumably the same image that's been bounced around. SchroCat if you like, I'd be happy to email you the PDF, which includes another five pages of text.
I realize this may not be clear from the sources, but was she spying before her husband was hanged, or did she pick that up only after he died? The lead seems to imply the latter ("Alkin continued his work"), while the body suggests the former ("Alkin carried on her work")
It's not covered in the sources at all, rather annoyingly. I suspect they acted in tandem with him reporting to his superiors until he died after which she took over the whole thing - but that's just pure guesswork and there's nothing in the sources to back it up. - SchroCat (talk) 10:07, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think Mike's suggestion about a footnote on this might be helpful. Even if you don't do with that, I would suggest harmonizing the word choice in the lead and in the body just so as to not create an apparent discrepancy. (You could cheat and go with the slightly less elegant "continued the work" to make it more ambiguous, but I won't fuss if you don't)
I went with "Alkin carried on working in Oxford" in the body, as she was also nursing, so we couldn't say "carried on his work". That should cover all eventualities. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:53, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lightly suggest upping the size on the Siege image, it's a bit mucky and hard to parse right now. Without clicking through, it's difficult to see that the top half is a downhill view of Oxford and its surrounds; I thought it was a weirdly green sky.
"Parliament Joan is a nickname by which Alkin is also commonly known, although her enemies gave her several derogatory labels." feels a bit knotted up in itself. Suggest something like "Although her enemies gave her several derogatory labels, Alkin is most commonly known by the nickname Parliament Joan" or "Alkin's enemies gave her several derogatory labels; the most commonly used was Parliament Joan"
I'm trying to keep the origins and use of the nickname separate from her enemies (if that makes sense), as both her enemies and employers were known to use the moniker. - SchroCat (talk) 10:07, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Para 2 of this section is a bit confusing to me. Para 1 establishes that her enemies called her Parliament Joan, and that she once signed a letter as that. But now in Para 2, her own people are using that name as a means to undermine her? The transition from it being used by enemies to being used by her own side isn't clear.
I've kept to the rule of separate paragraphs for separate points hoping that would be enough. The sources don't make it clear exactly when some simple misogyny led to them also using the term to be dismissive of someone who appears to have been a rather effective agent of theirs. - SchroCat (talk) 10:07, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think a short clarifying sentence or clause in either paragraph would help smooth it out. Even just like, "Alkin's superiors also adopted the nickname".
Slightly grudging support from this Cavalier – SchroCat keeps some dubious company – but this article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. I had a tiny handful of queries at peer review, all of which were addressed, and rereading for FAC I have no more. Willing to support. Tim riley talk15:20, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Roy. arcgis, as I'm sure you appreciate, isn't a reliable source, and it's all a bit dubious. The point about Strof/Stroffe, for example, appears to be sourced to Akkerman, but the name(s) don't appear anywhere in the book (I have the Kindle version, so searching for specific words is a doddle - and nothing comes up for either name). I'm not sure about the image - it's not necessarily when it was written, but when published (as far as I'm aware), but I've asked Nikkimaria if she can advise on this before I upload. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:59, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was the original letter, but it was unpublished. The photo is the first publication. It's probably free, but I just want to hear our resident image expert's opinion before it gets uploaded. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:47, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of it being "out of copyright". The page on the British National Archives where the image is served up says "All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated", and there's nothing else stated. See Open Government Licence. So, I'm all for being careful about copyright, and will certainly defer to Nikkimaria as the expert in these matters, but this one seems really quite obvious. RoySmith(talk)12:52, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While in the US straight reproduction of a 2D work has not garnered additional copyright protection, in the UK until quite recently there was a different standard. OGL covers the potential copyright that might exist in the scan, but might not be intended to cover more than that, since it's not clear the letter would have been under crown copyright in the first place. However, in any case life+70 plus PD-US-unpublished gives PD for the letter itself as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:35, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did a bit more poking around. Williams 1908 mentions the Mrs. Strof nickname with a bit of an explanation of where it came from (page 132). I also found:
which talks about Thomas Budd, but gives a very different account than you do (advocating for his release rather than working to effect his capture). We also learn that he was a Jesuit priest. RoySmith(talk)22:56, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t entirely trust works that are that old, particularly when a much more recent work disagrees with them. Having said that, I’ll add the Stoffe details shortly, although it’s notable that no other sources refer to her use of the name. - SchroCat (talk) 05:36, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the {{inflation}} notes, there's two items.
It's unrealistic to say that £40,000 converts to £8,568,780. Over this span of time, the conversions are nowhere near that precise. Please pick a r= value which yields at most two significant digits.
here's no need for the verbose "equates to approximately ... in 2023, according to calculations based on the Consumer Price Index measure of inflation.[11]" boilerplate on each note. What I generally do is use the full statement the first time in an article and after that I go with just "£6 (£1,300 in 2023)".
I prefer to keep the CPI reference with each one. It clarifies the calculations rather than letting people wonder if they're different, and as it's in a footnote, it doesn't affect the readability of the body. - SchroCat (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that I only specifically called out the single conversion of £40,000 to £8,568,780, but that was meant as one example of a general problem which applied to all your uses of {{inflation}}. The docs, under rounding say It is advisable to avoid false precision; even if the start value is known to be exact, the template's result will not be because the inflation index tables are rarely accurate to more than about 1%. Which means that over a span of 400 years, it's absurd to say things like "£200 in 1648 equates to approximately £33,050 in 2023" or "£10 in 1653 equates to approximately £2,050 in 2023". That is why I suggested an upper bound of two significant digits. As an aside, it is sad that the {{inflation}} template is so complicated to use and its documentation so obtuse. All of this should be completely automatic. But it is what it is so we need to struggle along.
From a purely stylistic point of view, I also disagree with spelling out the whole "according to calculations based on the Consumer Price Index measure of inflation" boilerplate every time. It does not clarify anything. To the contrary, it makes the presentation more difficult to understand by burying the important information in a pile of noise. RoySmith(talk)15:07, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A quick search shows no reviews of Cromwell's Crowning Mercy, but it is used as a source in other academic works, which suggests it is reliable (cfthis).
The ISBN seems to be working okay to me - what issue are you having?
In 2001, the Irish Catholic historian Eamon Duffy was at the height of his popularity, still riding high on the success of his seminal work on medieval English ritual, The Stripping of the Altars. A minor character from that book is the main character of this micro-history of the English Reformation, with Duffy using the records from "a somewhat unamiable busybody" to contradict popular narratives of English Christianity. Despite its dryness, the book has had an outsized impact on both later academic works and cultural memory of faith and rebellion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Out of an abundance of caution, I figured it should be considered fair use. However, my hardcover copy (which I believe is a first impression) gives full credit to Bruegel for the front cover art on both the copyright page and the inside leaf of the dust cover. Perhaps it is public domain. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If credit is solely given to Bruegel on the copyright page, then I would take that as meaning the publisher doesn't claim copyright for the cover, esp. considering this is the US where the threshold of originality tends to be higher. ―Howard • 🌽3318:35, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Howardcorn33: I'll throw a version tagged as public domain on the commons. Beyond the standard {{PD-US-expired}}, I'm assuming I should use {{Trademarked}} and {{PD-textlogo}}. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've not read Duffy's work, but I'm interested in his approach -- this one has been on my to-read list for a while.
These two I think are reasonably "big", and make a material difference to whether the article meets the criteria:
I would generally encourage the use of page numbers when citing paginated sources, even when those are relatively short. Some of the sources we cite are actually quite long -- note 24, for example, can presumably be pinned down very precisely, but we ask the reader to search through 29 pages in order to find it.
I find it a little odd that, for a book with quite a large academic footprint, we don't cite any academic books in response to Morebath. We have a few reviews and small features, many of which come from religious periodicals, but I don't really see any sense of the continuing conversation in works of the same sort of weight.
I don't find the "Reception" section very easy to follow. Part of the problem here is that it's organised by reviewer, when the different reviewers all make lots of different points but tend to tread similar ground. I would suggest re-organising by theme, and including choice examples from different reviews to illustrate common threads in the criticism: this would be much more secure under WP:DUEWEIGHT.
These are smaller points which, on their own, are relatively minor:
the Protestant Elizabethan Religious Settlement.: is the adjective Protestant quite right here? This is not my field, but as I understand it, Anglicanism was (is?) generally considered, at least from within, a via media between Catholicism and (German) Protestantism -- a lot of the "real" Protestants, like the Puritans, were pushed out by it.
Just commenting here. Anglicans, at least the ones I know and from what I read, view themselves as Protestants. Their theology is certainly in line with other Protestant sects (though "Protestant" as a term is... nebulous, to say the least). During the Reformation, Anglicans did see themselves as steering Christendom back towards "true catholicity" by preserving tradition but breaking with the perceived errors of the Church in Rome and there is a lot of theological and ecclesiastical overlap (e.g., Oxford movement didn't come out of thin air), but I would be quite shocked to hear an Anglican describe themselves as non-Protestant. Worth pointing out as well that the Puritans tortured the Quakers (e.g., dismemberment, branding) for not being "real" Protestants as well when they got to the New World. ThaesOfereode (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since the sources on TVOM almost unanimously describe the Elizabethan settlement as establishing a Protestant regime, this is perhaps a question beyond the scope of this article. That said, if you want to learn more, a decent primer on the topic is Haugaard's Elizabeth and the Reformation (CUP, 1968). ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
its coverage of parochial and local matters: why the two adjectives -- what's parochial but not local, or vice-versa?
I used "parochial" here in the sense of referring to matters pertaining to an ecclesiastical parish, evidently forgetting that many places use "parish" just as often for secular localities. Rewritten. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It drew critiques for instances where Duffy uses examples from Morebath to engage in broader discussions, with other reviewers noting that Duffy conceded these limitations.: this isn't wonderfully clear. Firstly, I think the word critique (detailed, close analysis at length) may not be the right word: I think you mean criticism (negative commentary). That aside, the second clause doesn't really fit with the first.
an isolated and impoverished parish (now St George's Church): throughout the article, I think there's some confusion on the distinction between the village, the parish, and the church. A village is a collection of houses and fields, a church is a building, and a parish is an ecclesial administrative division. Hence, the parish cannot now "be" St George's Church, though the latter can be the parish church. However, was it not that at the time?
Sir Christopher Trychay was Morebath's vicar for 54 years, a period during which England: this isn't grammatical. If I were you, I would put the dates in the first part: for 54 years between X and Y, a period...
I would suggest calling him simply Christopher Trychay: I do take the point about "Sir" as a priestly title, but under MOS:HONORIFIC we generally drop these titles anyway, and it'll still be unclear to many readers whether he was (also) a knight. I notice that Binney doesn't get "Father" later on.
I think we need to be explicit at some point about what Exeter has to do with Morebath, as otherwise readers will wonder what the village's records were doing in the town when they were bombed.
Religion played a significant role in the daily lives of Morebath's residents, though they conformed their practices to the oscillating theologies imposed under the monarchies of Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary I, and Elizabeth I.: the first half of this is a bit woolly, bluntly, and the second seems to contradict most of the article: we say a moment later that they joined an armeed rebellion against one of those, which doesn't quite fit with "conformed". I would suggest cutting this or rethinking it somehow.
Duffy recalled that he had discovered Morebath parish during his 1990s countryside trips out of Cambridge: Morebath is a very long drive from Cambridge -- even today it's about 5 hours. He's clearly not talking about a day trip here, so "out of Cambridge" seems a bit out of place.
Not your fault, but the image of the church has an unfortunate camera artefact creating the illustion of wavy lines on the roof. Perhaps better swapped for this one?
That's better. I cropped and rotated the image a bit since we're more interested in the church building than any current burials or walkways. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The center of the story, the center of the village: centre in BrE.
Good catch.
Bruegel's painting, alongside colour plates, woodcuts, and illustrated endpapers included in the book were described: the colour plates etc. Also needs a comma after book, and probably to change were to was.
Did something similar but with dashes.
We mention the second impression, and then jump straight ahead to the fourth. What about the third?
I have looked high and low and found absolutely no mention of the third impression. One presumes that there were no significant differences between the second and third impression.
Note 3: Patrick Collinson said that referring to the records used in The Voices of Morebath "would be misleading, if conventional", as Trychay audited and recorded them for not only the wardens but also other elements of the parish. I don't understand what this is saying -- I wonder if something has dropped out (e.g. "referring to the records as XYZ would be misleading"?)
the villagers grazed the parish's sheep alongside their own flocks and partook in raucous events called church ales, replete with homemade beer and visiting minstrels at the parish's church house, to financially support the congregation -- I don't understand the distinction here. Weren't the villagers and the congregation the same people?
I think this is fixed.
witnessed the dissolution of the monasteries replace the parish's proprietor with speculators: I have very little idea what the second half of this means, or what it would have to do with the first.
Rewritten.
Though complying with Edward VI's religious impositions, Trychay is recorded as having hidden expensive vestments that he had recently purchased after 20 years of saving up for them: again, it takes all of my dim memory of primary-school history lessons to piece together how the two halves of this go together -- we shouldn't assume that all readers will have had such a thorough grounding in Edward's religious policy.
I added a few words that should help carry the reader through the meaning. Unfortunately, few of the sources are written with the average Wikipedia reader in mind, so I'll have to reach into some generalist glossing outside of the sources to say much else.
The parish subsidized five of its congregants to join the calamitous Prayer Book Rebellion at Exeter, after which the parish was gutted of its ornamental items: I found this whole paragraph a bit of a strange ride: I'm not sure it really has a central idea. We've stepped from "religion and everyday life couldn't be separated before the Reformation" (fine, but I'm not sure I like the implication that they could be separated during it), to "Trychay basically went along with what his parishoners believed, and so put up no real resistance to the Reformation" (fine in principle, but I'm not sure that's quite what the book is arguing), to "the parish was so resistant to the Reformation that they sent people to die fighting against it". The way we present the third part of that doesn't seem to be compatible with how we've presented the second.
I've done some splitting/tweaking. There is inherently going to be a tension here, as the parish's involvement in the Prayer Book Rebellion was kind of a out-of-left-field move that many of the sources mention but fair to sufficiently extrapolate on. If that fits a bit better, let me know.
We could do with some dates for the accessions of the various monarchs involved here.
Done.
Early modern English can be placed into lang templates: {{Lang|en-emodeng|at their goyng forthe to sent davys down ys camppe}}. This helps screenreaders pronounce it correctly and (I think) has some benefits for the Wiki software. You could consider a footnoted translation, too.
I'm unsure on the best translation, but I added the language template.
While Collinson said Trychay is described as developing into "some kind of Protestant", Collinson said "to call him a Vicar of Bray [a clergyman who changed his beliefs to match official doctrinal changes] would be an insulting caricature: this is not the most felicitous phrasing, with the repetition. However, how can we read Trychay's faith is shown as reflecting the beliefs of his congregation, with Duffy saying "[h]is religion in the end was the religion of Morebath alongside this note -- I actually thought of the Vicar of Bray as I read it! There seems to be a conflict here.
defenders of "ancient traditions against the King's bad counsellors, not the king: need to pick a lane on capitalisation here.
are presented as likely among those killed in the Battle of Clyst St Mary.: probably is BrE; "likely" here is AmerE.
Carlson's review compared it to a previous Hawthornden Prize winner, Graham Greene's novel The Power and the Glory. Holding that "it is hard to think of Voices of Morebath as a masterpiece equal to Greene's novel", Carlson said that both books "give us the life of an all-too-human priest, an insignificant figure in the grand scheme of history but someone nonetheless rather representative of his time: this is a bit of a non sequitur: it's not a million miles from "holding that the book wasn't anything like as good as Greene's, Carlson said that Greene's book and Duffy's were basically as good as each other". Those two ideas need more seperation, I think.
the 2002 Samuel Johnson Prize for Non-Fiction, an award for non-fiction works: WP:MTAU and all, but I think most of our readers will have figured that one.
It was also shortlisted for the British Academy Book Prize for "accessible scholarly writing within the humanities and social sciences" in that award's second year: MOS:QUOTEPOV would axe the quote marks.
Done.
It was also shortlisted for the British Academy Book Prize ... The judges for the British Academy Book Prize: a touch repetitious.
Done
St George's Church reported that hundreds of people have come to visit after reading about it in Duffy's work: sequence of tenses: had come.
the English rural class: not sure even the hardest Marxist could defend the singular here.
Playwright Alan Bennett listed The Voices of Morebath as a "key work" in 2005: Alan Bennett is certainly a leading light in his field, but this is a bit like citing Eamon Duffy's view of one of his plays -- what's his authority here? Key work for what? If it was a personal inspiration for a particular project, that would be another matter, but I'm not sure "famous person likes book" is necessarily notable in itself.
I understand that it is certainly not enough to qualify as notable, but a leading British literary figure naming an academic monograph as one of his five "key works" strikes me as weighty enough to warrant mention.
What exactly does "key work" mean in this context? One of his favourite books? An influential book upon his writing? What he considers to be one of the most important books on the Reformation? UndercoverClassicistT·C15:51, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
pointing to the book as evidence that Duffy's works as have been focussed on exposing "Puritan propaganda".: something is awry here.
secularization: AmerE: secularisation in BrE (unless you're going to use Oxford spelling, and that way madness liez). See also Post-revisionist historians, such as Alec Ryrie, emphasize and, in the notes, popularized. I'd suggest doing a ctrl-f for "ize".
I tagged this article as Oxford spelling from the outset (that seems to be the average among the sources I used), so I think it's ok to stay.
Moreau said that post-revisionists evaluated Dickens's thesis as not promoting a false conception that the religious revolution came "from the bottom": I've read this a couple of times and I'm not sure what it actually means. The multiple negatives don't help.
Lutton's argument promoted a theory of diverse pieties during this period: this is a bit academic-ese: there must be a more layman-friendly way to put "a theory of diverse pieties".
The Virginia Quarterly Review is put title-first by the template, so alphabetise under Notes.
Biblio: places of publication are inconsistent, as is whether to put state abbreviations after US placenames.
The locations are not included for periodicals, web sources, and journals, but provided for books (as I believe is standard). I believe you're confusing the names of some of reviews (which themselves feature inconsistent abbreviations for Connecticut). ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:27, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, you're right on the Connecticut abbreviation. Tucker 2007 has no location; the other two (Duffy 2001 and Moreau 2004) do. I think these are all the books cited -- as above, I'm a bit surprised that we're only citing two books other than the article's subject, and for that matter very few articles that aren't explicitly about the book itself. Is that really a reflection of its impact in printed scholarship? UndercoverClassicistT·C06:42, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through quite a bit of searching to wrestle up references to TVOM across other published works. While it's cited plenty, there's rarely engagement with the text at any level worthy of mention here (a surprisingly large number of citations merely use TVOM to reference statements about periodization or well-established facts). I've cited a couple monographs or reviews of other works that directly challenge or evaluate TVOM, but it's not like The Stripping of the Altars in terms of reopening a corner of scholarship. If you're aware of additional works I ought to reference, please let me know and I'll work on them. I've been transient these last two days, but will finish your comments tomorrow UTC. Thanks for your help! Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist: Your patience has been greatly appreciated–my life has taken a number of left turns over the last week, so this review's goal of improving the article has become something of a brighter spot in the midst of the chaos. I have substantially reorganized the reception section to conform with your suggestion of a thematic organization. You were right: that really does improve the flow of that section. I also removed one of the shorter reviews from that section as likely undue (or, at the minimum, surplus). I have added a couple other works that engage with the impact of the book. Please offer any additional comments you can! ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not "Authorship": "Top 10 by added text" is a far more accurate analysis as it excludes templates and images, etc., from the total (and they inflate authorship substantially). HTH. —Fortuna, imperatrix16:57, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve never submitted for a featured article, so I’m not quite sure what’s being asked of me here. However I will say this, a lot if not most of the information on the article was found by my research, I spent years and hours looking for new information on the article. It’s my personal favorite album but I didn’t know much about it, since there wasn’t much information on the album on Wikipedia when I started my research. So I took the time to put the pieces together, so I could understand the acclaim and commercial impact of the album. With that said Bronx Langford has since reworked the article and added extensive information as well. So if you’re asking for my support for the nomination, then I can give that. Kanyfug (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—1a. Sorry, but as I've shown from my copyedit of the lede, the article is way too verbose. The prose is also very clunky, as seen in this random sentence: She credited her pregnancy for rejuvenating her songwriting; according to her then-manager Jayson Jackson, the songwriting was prompted by Wendy Williams revealing Hill's pregnancy on her radio show and the intense media scrutiny over the identity of the child's father, as Hill had never publicized her relationship with Marley prior to the pregnancy.
Further, several sections of the article also appear to be extremely densely packed with the names of artists and works. I removed a bunch of names from the Influence section, but reading it there's still an overwhelmingly repetitive pattern going "And then this album by this artist was influenced by it". (Also, "The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill" is a mouthful, so I recommend just saying "Miseducation" after writing out the full title for the first time in every sub-section.)—indopug (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So even if I thoroughly overhauled the article and fixed all those issues, you'd still oppose? Because I'm more than willing to put effort into making the article eligible. Bronx Langford (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Impressive scope and sourcing base, but I don't think the article is at FA standard yet. Some issues I see:
Marketing / Imagery and Touring / Anniversary tours are overly detailed (long lists of guest openers, individual show notes, ticketing anecdotes, last-minute changes). FAC expects concise, representative coverage; trim namedrops and blow-by-blow chronology unless secondary sources treat them as historically significant.
The Influence subsection reads like a long catalogue of artists and albums. Please consolidate to high-quality secondary syntheses (books, major outlets) rather than piling many individual claims.
Superlative/"first" claims (e.g., first number-one album by an unaccompanied female rapper, first debut album by a woman to debut atop the Billboard 200, multiple "most/first" touring and awards records) must be immediately supported by authoritative sources (Billboard, RIAA, Grammy/Recording Academy communications, Nielsen/SoundScan, etc.). Some of these are currently presented in narrative blocks with citations far downstream or to outlets that aren’t the most authoritative. Please verify each superlative, place the inline cite directly after the claim, and consider qualifying language if sources conflict.
Statements like "Album of the Year — often recognized as the most prestigious award in the music industry" are evaluative and need a high-quality source or rephrase to simple fact.
The Legacy/Impact section includes sensitive biographical content (e.g., mentions of bipolar disorder, "erratic performances", "deemed a diva") tied to living persons. Ensure every such assertion is strictly necessary, neutrally worded, and backed by multiple high-quality, independent sources; otherwise trim. BLP requires great care, especially in a legacy section that isn't about contemporaneous coverage of the album.
The article splits appraisal across Criticism, Retrospective commentary, Legacy/Impact, and Influence, with some duplication. Consider:
Legacy and influence (concise, secondary-sourced overview).
This will reduce repetition and make the argument of significance clearer.
For the images present, ensure short, descriptive alt text that doesn't duplicate captions and explains non-decorative elements.
Having said all that, I must oppose at this time. I'm happy to revisit once these are addressed (On a side note, I've just nominated Rain for FAC; if anyone has time, I’d really appreciate comments there as well).
--Christian (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Rihanna, one of the best-selling artists of all time. I began working on this article while working on Beyoncé; I've done some major size reductions on this and now believe that it meets WP:FACR! If successful this will be my 12th FA and fourth biography FA. All feedback is welcomed, looking forward to your comments and enjoy the read! 750h+14:33, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Placeholder-- you are veryyyy productive eh! I missed my chance of working together on this article but I'm happy to review the prose for this FAC; comments to follow soon. Ippantekina (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this isn't a bikeshed problem but can't the lead image of the article be changed? It is of a low technical quality (even if recent). I think in this case an earlier (professional) photograph should be chosen. I've given some potential replacements below.
A: Rihanna at U.S. Embassy in Barbados in 2024 (current photo)
B: Rihanna in a promotional campaign in 2018
C: Rihanna giving a concert in Washington D. C. in 2014
Para 1: "Rihanna is one of the best-selling music artists of all time, with estimated sales of over 250 million records." - As of when?
we usually don't mention "as of"s in the lwad but i've put it where it is summarised below
Para 2: "After signing to Def Jam Recordings in 2005, Rihanna debuted with the Caribbean-inspired records Music of the Sun (2005)..." - Is it worth briefly mentioning her early life before this sentence, e.g. mentioning that she showed an aptitude for the arts?
Para 3: "The albums contained the US number-one singles "Rude Boy", "Only Girl (In the World)", "What's My Name?", "S&M", "We Found Love", "Diamonds", and "Work"." - If you're referring to the albums in the previous sentence, I'd say "These albums..."
Para 4: "One of the wealthiest musicians" - Do we know her approximate net worth? It may be worth mentioning because you already say she's one of the wealthiest musicians.
i added "first female musician to reach billionaire status", if that's all right
Para 4: "the first Black woman to lead a luxury brand for the group" - "The group" being LVMH?
yep
1988–2002: early life:
Para 1: "abuse her mother and retrospectively described her as "one of the strongest women I know, if not the strongest"." - I'd change this to "abuse her mother, retrospectively describing her" to streamline the flow between these two trains of thought.
Para 2: "One of her teachers described her as a "well-behaved student" who stayed out of trouble." - How about "who avoided trouble"?
2003–2006: career beginnings with Music of the Sun and A Girl Like Me:
Para 1: "Impressed, Rogers arranged a second meeting with Rihanna and her mother—this time without the other two girls—and later invited her and her mother to his hometown" - Why not just "them" instead of "her and her mother"? "The other two girls" are already not the object of that sentence.
Para 1: "Rihanna's demo tape included tracks like "Pon de Replay" and "The Last Time"." - Using "like" sounds informal; I suggest "such as".
Para 2: "Although Jay-Z initially thought "Pon de Replay" was too big for a new artist, he invited Rihanna to audition." - How about "he invited her"?
Para 3: ""Pon de Replay" was selected as the lead single for its summer appeal." - Do you mean due to/because of its summer appeal, or something else?
rephrased this
Para 3: "By 2011, the album had sold two million copies worldwide" - Is there a reason we're mentioning sales figures 6 years after the fact, instead of something more contemporary (e.g. sales figures in a year), or something more recent (e.g. sales figures as of the 2020s)?
Para 4: "Soon after releasing Music of the Sun, Rihanna began working on her second studio album. Titled A Girl Like Me, the record was released on April 25, 2006." - Are these worth combining?
i'd say so
2007–2008: Good Girl Gone Bad:
Para 1: "Around early 2007, Rihanna began recording her third studio album" - Should this be "In early 2007"? "Early 2007" is already broad enough that "around" isn't necessary, unless you're unsure if it even happened in early 2007
Para 1: "she worked with producers like Ne-Yo, Timbaland, Justin Timberlake, and Tricky Stewart for the album." - I'd change "like" to "such as" per my comment above.
Para 1: "The lead single from Good Girl Gone Bad, "Umbrella", featuring Jay-Z, topped the charts in several territories; it spent ten consecutive weeks at number one on the UK Singles Chart and seven at number one on the Billboard Hot 100." - First, perhaps ""Umbrella", featuring Jay-Z" should be enclosed in parentheses or set off using dashes before and after it. We typically use commas to set off a parenthesis (rhetoric) only if the parenthetical comment doesn't have a comma itself. Second, since the second half of the sentence contains examples of the chart-topping in question, you could rephrase it as "topped the charts in several territories, spending..."
rephrased first sentence, completed second
Para 3: "Having sold nine million copies as of 2023, Good Girl Gone Bad is her best-selling album worldwide." - This feels like it belongs at the end of the previous paragraph.
Para 3: "In April 2008, Rihanna joined Kanye West as a supporting act on his Glow in the Dark Tour." - Just curious, is being a supporting act notable enough to mention here? Usually I would only see this in a singer's article if being a supporting act is itself a notable part of the singer's career. Which, given Rihanna's stature, may not apply here.
Fair point, however Rihanna was a relatively new artist at the time, with Good Girl Gone Bad being her first worldwide success, so i'd say sure
2009–2011: domestic violence case, Rated R, and Loud:
Para 1: "He later turned himself in to authorities and was booked on suspicion of making criminal threats." - Would "detained" work better than "booked", which sounds a bit informal?
Para 1: "In response to the breach of privacy, the advocacy group Stoparazzi proposed "Rihanna's Law", aimed at preventing law enforcement personnel from releasing sensitive images or information that exploit crime victims" - Do you know if the proposal made it into law, or was it merely a proposal?
I believe it was simply a proposal
Para 2: "Rihanna was later subpoenaed to testify at a preliminary hearing in Los Angeles on June 22, 2009" - Since we give the date, we don't need "later".
Para 3: "Rihanna entered an on-and-off relationship" - In American English, which is used in this article, we usually say "on-again, off-again relationship".
Para 3: "In June 2010, she collaborated with rapper Eminem on the single "Love the Way You Lie". It topped the Billboard Hot 100 for seven consecutive weeks and peaked at number two in the UK, becoming the country's best-selling song of 2010." - Is it worth combining these?
Para 4: "At the 53rd Grammy Awards in 2010, "Only Girl (In the World)" won Best Dance Recording." - The 53rd Grammy Awards took place in 2011.
2011–2013: Talk That Talk and Unapologetic:
Para 1: "The lattermost peaked at number five in the US." - In the US, we usually say "the last of these", not "the lattermost", which is technically correct but not common.
I replaced it with the song title
Para 2: "In March, Rihanna and Brown released two controversial remixes—her track "Birthday Cake" and his "Turn Up the Music"—which were criticized due to their history of domestic violence" - The word "controversial" is redundant here because you then say why they were criticized.
Para 3: "In January 2013, Rihanna and Brown had rekindled their relationship" - "Had" is unnecessary, unless you mean by a certain date (e.g. "By January 2013, Rihanna and Brown had rekindled their relationship"), in which case it would be fine.
2014–2017: standalone releases and Anti
Para 1: "In 2014, Rihanna featured on Shakira's single "Can't Remember to Forget You"" - Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the US, I usually hear that singers are featured (passive voice) rather than feature (active voice) on another singer's song.
Para 1: "In May of that year," - Why not "That May"?
Para 1: "While working on her eighth studio album, Rihanna released the singles "FourFiveSeconds"—a collaboration with West and Paul McCartney—"Bitch Better Have My Money", and "American Oxygen"" - Technically this is correct, but I personally would've used parentheses instead of dashes, i.e. "While working on her eighth studio album, Rihanna released the singles "FourFiveSeconds" (a collaboration with West and Paul McCartney), "Bitch Better Have My Money", and "American Oxygen"".
Para 2: "The album was released exclusively on Tidal " - Can you gloss "Tidal" for people who haven't heard of it?
Para 2: "An eclectic blend of genres like pop" - I suggest "such as" rather than "like".
Para 3: "The former peaked at number two in the US, while the latter won the her and Lamar the Grammy Award for Best Rap/Sung Performance." - This should be "won her and Lamar" (no "the" before "her").
Para 4: "in a space station club; she starred alongside Dane DeHaan and Cara Delevingne" - I suggest "in a space station club, starring alongside Dane DeHaan and Cara Delevingne" for better flow.
2018–present: hiatus, motherhood, and Super Bowl LVII halftime show:
Para 1: "Rihanna alluded to her album being complete in December, indefinitely withholding the release date in an Instagram post" - She alluded in December, not that the album was complete in December. I suggest "In December, Rihanna alluded to her album being complete, indefinitely withholding the release date in an Instagram post"
Para 2: "Initial reports stated that the performance drew 118.7 million viewers across television and digital platforms" - Do we need this if we have the final figures later on?
Para 2: "making it the most-watched Super Bowl halftime show in history at the time, surpassing Katy Perry's Super Bowl XLIX performance." - Do we need "at the time"? (I know, I sometimes use "at the time" myself, but here, this is already implied by the context and the mention of a specific record that it surpassed.
Para 3: "Rihanna gave birth to her and Rocky's second son in 2023, having revealed her pregnancy during the halftime performance, making her the first person to headline a Super Bowl halftime show while pregnant." - To me, it seems a little strange to go from discussing the Super Bowl, to discussing her son's birth, to discussing the fact that it set some Super Bowl record. Can this be streamlined to put the record first?
Para 3: Related to the above, I'm not sure if we call A$AP Rocky just "Rocky" for short. His own article refers to him as "Mayers" (his surname) actually. I'd either put his full stage name, or introduce his full name earlier on and then use his surname here.
More in a bit. Sorry for the wall of text; this may seem like a lot, but most of these are comparatively minor comments. Please let me know when you get around to these. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is pretty fast, thanks for doing these and sorry for such a huge wall of text. I may have some new comments tomorrow or Friday. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:15, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Para 2: "Raised in Barbados, Rihanna drew early inspiration from reggae, soca, and hip-hop," - I suggest something like "In Barbados, Rihanna drew early inspiration..." for concision. We already know she was raised in Barbados.
Para 2: "the influence of Rihanna's musical heritage of the Caribbean" - How about "the influence of her Caribbean musical heritage"?
Para 2: "Aiming for artistic growth, A Girl Like Me expresses personal experiences that typical young adult women go through with ballads that were described as elegant and mature." - Instead of "go through with", I suggest something like "undergo with". "Go through with" has multiple meanings that can be easily misconstrued here. Or maybe sidestep with something like "Aiming for artistic growth, A Girl Like Me expresses personal experiences typical of young adult women with ballads described as elegant and mature"?
Para 3: "After the assault by her then-boyfriend, Chris Brown, her rock-imbued record Rated R (2009) had a much darker tone and was filled with various emotions she experienced throughout the year." - I would say "with the various emotions" because it is referring to specific emotions. Or you can streamline this entire sentence with something like "Her rock-imbued record Rated R (2009), released after the assault by her then-boyfriend, Chris Brown, had a much darker tone and was filled with various emotions she experienced throughout the year."
Para 4: "eclectic influences like soul and trap" - Should this be "such as soul and trap"?
Influences:
Para 1: A lot of the sentences begin with "Rihanna". I suggest varying it a bit.
Para 1: "She expressed her aspiration to become the "Black Madonna" and commended her talent for continually reinventing herself throughout her career. Rihanna commended Madonna's ability to change her fashion and music repeatedly, while remaining a "real force in entertainment"." - The word "commended" is repeated in short succession here.
Para 2: "In her youth, Rihanna often watched Bob Marley on television due to his popularity in the Caribbean" - Was it specifically because of Marley's popularity, or she just saw him and decided she liked him?
popularity, but I guess you could say both
Para 2: "As a child, she would sing" - Should this be "As a child, she sang", since this is in the past? I understand this is intended as a conditional past, but still.
Para 3: "Rihanna was also influenced by artists such as Janet Jackson, Aaliyah, and Beyoncé. Other influences include Celine Dion, Grace Jones, Lil' Kim, Prince, and Brandy. " - Is it possible to combine these? Unless the artists in the first sentence are differentiated from those in the second sentence for some reason that isn't mentioned here.
Videography and stage:
Para 2: "Many of her music videos were shot as short films exploring issues such as love triangles, abuse and substance abuse romance" - Maybe I'm missing something, but what is a "substance abuse romance"? You mean romances involving substance abuse?
yes
Para 3: "Reviewing the Good Girl Gone Bad Tour, The Times compared her stage wardrobe to that of Janet Jackson's" - "That of Janet Jackson" or "Janet Jackson's" is fine. However, "that of Janet Jackson's" is grammatically incorrect because it's a double possessive.
Para 3: "Rihanna's performance of "Disturbia" at the 2008 MTV Video Music Awards was ranked the tenth-best in the show's history in a Billboard readers' poll" - Would it be useful to recast this in active voice?
Para 1: "Known for her changing style and image, her music and fashion choices have been closely followed by the media." - This has a dangling modifier. It is Rihanna, not "her music and fashion choices", who was "known for her changing style and image".
Para 1: "Around the time of her second album A Girl Like Me (2006), critics often compared her style and sound to Beyoncé." - I suggest changing this to "sound to that of Beyoncé" for parallelism, We're comparing Beyonce's and Rihanna's style and sound, not Beyonce as a person with Rihanna's style and sound.
Para 2: "Her appearance and fashion have changed repeatedly since, with each hairstyle and style shift frequently becoming part of her artistic identity." - Not technically an issue in this case, but in general I can't say that I'm a fan of the "X, with Y being Z" grammatical construction (a comma splice with participial phrase). It's grammatically weak and only effective when Z is a simple clause (as it is in this case).
Para 2: Related to the above, can we just say "with each shift frequently becoming part of her artistic identity"? We don't need to specify "hairstyle and style" as her appearance and fashion are already mentioned in the same sentence
Para 3: "She is often labeled as a sex symbol, which she said is flattering but also uncomfortable." - Maybe "She is often labeled as a sex symbol, a title which she said is flattering but also uncomfortable."?
Para 3: "She first attended the Met Gala in 2007 and has since appeared several times since." - "Since" is unnecessarily repeated.
Para 3: "and listed her amongst its list of the Top 100 Most Powerful Women of 2019" - "List" is unnecessarily repeated.
Achievements and impact:
Para 1: "the first—and only—performer to exceed RIAA's 100 million cumulative singles certification threshold." - By definition, if one is the first person to do something, they would, at the time, be the only person to have done that something. Unless you meant to say Rihanna still holds this record?
Para 1: Related to the above, "100-million" should be hyphenated as it's a compound adjective.
Para 2: "In August 2018, Billboard ranked Rihanna as the tenth-most successful Hot 100 artist of all time, and also named her the top Hot 100 artist of the 2010s." - I would add "Billboard" or "it" before "also named her" to avoid a commas-in-sentence issue. E.g. "and it also named her the top Hot 100 artist of the 2010s"
Para 3: "The publication later ranked her at number three on its list of the" - Do we need "later" if we mention that Billboard ranked her in 2024 and 2025? I'd instead use "also" as a connector, i.e. "The publication also ranked her..."
Para 4: There are several consecutive sentences here which begin with dates. I would vary the sentence structure a bit.
Business ventures
Para 1: "The promotional campaign for Rebelle, was shot by director, Anthony Mandler, who also shot the promotional campaign for Reb'l Fleur." - This is a comma splice. You don't need the commas after "director" or "Rebelle". Actually, could this be in the active voice?
Para 2: "A Dog Ate My Homework, representing photographers Erik Asla and Deborah Anderson" - Did it initially represent Asla and Anderson, among others, or were these two the only ones being represented?
the source states that these are the only two being represented, as does this, this, this and this
Fenty:
Para 2: "featuring models like Joan Smalls, Bella Hadid, and Cara Delevingne." - I recommend "such as" rather than "like".
Other ventures
Para 1: " That same year, she released a photo book documenting the Last Girl on Earth tour" - "Same" is not needed here, since you already indicated with "that" that you're talking about the same year.
Philanthropy:
Para 1: "That same year, she performed a series of charity concerts called A Girl's Night Out to" - "Same" is not needed here.
Para 2: "The inaugural event in 2014 raised over $2 million and the second raised over $3 million." - I'd add a comma after "$2 million" per the reasoning in the essay WP:CINS.
Para 3: "matching Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey for a total of $4.2 million" - The $4.2 million figure might introduce confusion because you mention a previous donation by Rihanna for $5 million. I'd recommend revising this to make it clear that it matched Dorsey's $2.1 million donation.
Advocacy:
Para 2: "In January 2017, Rihanna participated in the 2017 Women's March, which took place in New York among protests the day after US President Donald Trump's inauguration" - "2017" is not needed before Women's March in this context. I suggest "In January 2017, Rihanna participated in the Women's March in New York, which took place among protests the day after US President Donald Trump's inauguration"
Para 2: "She later criticized Trump's immigration policies—particularly Executive Order 13769, which sought to bar entry from several Muslim-majority countries—as well as his response to the 2019 mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton." - Technically it would be "anti-immigration policies", would it?
they both work I believe, though i believe "anti-immigration" is more interpretive
Para 3: "In 2024, Rihanna endorsed Kamala Harris during the presidential election." - You should clarify that this is during the US presidential election to avoid US-defaultism (the original wording makes it sound like the US is the only country in the world with a presidential election).
Zhang Jingsheng, frequently nicknamed "Dr. Sex", was a controversial writer, philosopher, and yes, sexologist from early 20th century China. A revolutionary in his youth, he studied in France and became obsessed with Rousseau, eugenics, and scientific racism. He caused a massive public scandal with his 1926 book Sex Histories, after which he fell into complete obscurity.
File:Zhang_Jingsheng,_circa_1906.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Zhang_Jingsheng_with_family_Early_1940s.png, File:Havelock_Ellis_cph.3b08675.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Zhang_Jingsheng,_circa_1906 and Zhang_Jingsheng_with_family_Early_1940s were unpublished and public domain at the time of the URAA date. This seems like it would mean it would be PD in the US as well due to the Bern Convention, but I'm unsure what template this would use.
For File:Havelock_Ellis_cph.3b08675.jpg, LOC says it was "created/published" circa 1913, mentions "no copyright renewal" and says no known restrictions on publication. Does this satisfy publication for copyright purposes? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 07:51, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On Havelock, that tells us LOC considers it out of copyright, but not why, which is what is needed for the current tagging - suggest a tag swap.
Done for Havelock. First known publication appears to be 2019 for the other two (although one appears in Rocha's 2010 doctoral thesis, cited to the Raoping County archives; I assume that doesn't count as publication) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:26, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“confusion on which books” → should be “confusion about which books”
Fixed.-G
“spawned from” → “were spawned by”: The idiom is spawned by; from is ungrammatical.
Rephrased to avoid the idiom. -G
Early life and education
"Zhang was rejected from a government scholarship to study overseas.”
→"Zhang was rejected for a government scholarship to study overseas.”
Fixed.-G
"At Peking, Zhang was introduced to the theory of social Darwinism, to which he would become a strong proponent."
You could use either of the following two versions:
1) "At Peking, Zhang was introduced to the theory of social Darwinism, of which he would become a strong proponent."
Or
2)"...and he would become a strong proponent of it. "
He was forced to resign from his post after only one year → He was forced to resign after only one year
united by a belief that China's weakness to foreign powers had to be overcome → sharing the belief that China's weakness to foreign powers had to be overcome
Fixed.-G
a number of other faculty → several other faculty members
Fixed.-G
Sex Histories
You could 'delink Zhou Zuoren since he has been linked in the previous paragraph (the last paragraph of the previous section).
Fixed.-G
railes against contemporary erotica → rails against contemporary erotica
Fixed.-G
sexual perversion → sexual perversions
No, it works in this context; perversion can be used as an uncountable noun meaning an abnormal view of sexuality in general, rather than one specific view.-G
Zang was aware that young people → Zhang was aware that young people
Fixed.-G
the rest of committee → the rest of the committee
Fixed.-G
Shanghai and the Beauty Bookshop
Ellis has already been introduced as "British sexologist".
Fixed.-G
explicitly scenes → explicit scenes
Done.-G
shitting, to sexual intercourse, and on to thinking and culture → defecation, sexual intercourse, and thinking and culture
In places, I feel like the prose is a little choppier than it could be. I feel this mostly in paragraphs with multiple consecutive short sentences that don't flow together; as an example, the "Zhang was rejected for a government scholarship to study overseas.[...] They were both suspended for one year." passage might read better as "Zhang was rejected for a government scholarship to study overseas, and grew increasingly rebellious against the academy [as a result?]. He cut off his queue ([...]) and advocated that other classmates do the same. After staging a protest with a friend against the school's food service – which he claimed penalized slow eaters – the two were suspended for a year." Of course, you'd know best how to apply this without introducing synthesis or other issues, this is just a general point of feedback.
I tried to cut down on these a bit throughout the article while fixing stuff.-G
destroyed his professional reputation and → destroyed his professional reputation, and (conjunction between two independent clauses)
Fixed.-G
You seem to be using em dashes in this article, so swap over the spaced en dashes in § College education.
Ooh, thank you for linking. I'm incorporating this now. -G
Incorporated.-G
Use |script-title= for Chinese titles, which also suppresses italicization.
Didn't know this existed! Done.-G
Most of the books have ISBNs and DOIs, but some have other identifiers like OCLC or JSTOR numbers instead — can this be made more consistent?
Some (but not all) articles on JSTOR lack DOIs, and for those I have just used the JSTOR numbers (and of course, articles not on JSTOR would not have JSTOR numbers). Likewise, older books lack ISBNs, so I have used OCLCs instead when available. That being said, I could add OCLCs to all of them if that'd be helpful.-G
En dash between the years in Jiao 2017, add the DOI.
Fixed.-G
It seems like Leary and Rocha also published work in academic journals or books, so I'll presume their PhD theses inherit that reliability. Could you say anything about the reliability of Jiao 2017?
Nothing beyond any other PhD thesis, other than that it's been reviewed by a reputable institution. My approach has been that PhD theses from otherwise non-notable scholars are usable as long as they don't contradict academically published works. This seems to roughly correspond with the guidance at WP:THESIS.-G
Use |editor= instead of |author= for Chen 2021 in § Further reading. Since I don't have access to (or know anything about) this book, could you briefly explain why it's not cited in the article?
It's just the most thorough collection of Zhang's published works, but it doesn't seem to have much in the way of original commentary from Chen, so no use here. -G
Spot-checks done for citations 5a, 5b, 8b, 17a, 17b, 58, 85, 91b, 92a, and 92b without issues. Some concerns are below.
I'm seeing a lot of full paragraphs with citations bunched up at the end, which doesn't seem ideal from the perspective of text–source integrity. For example, citation 17c verifies some of the information in the preceding three sentences, but not the names of the publications mentioned. Could you put the citations as close to the text they verify as possible?
Tried to break these up.-G
Citation 8a fails verification entirely, although 8b is fine.
Fixed.-G
Citation 36: Peng says "rumor has it", so I wouldn't use phrasing as confident as "Peng (2002) states that".
Rephrased.-G
Citation 47a doesn't verify much of the paragraph before it, and mentions that raids occurred in school dorms rather than bookstores.
Citation 65: It doesn't look like anything on page 77 is relevant, only 78. "feudedwith Zhang" Use something more neutral here; there's no evidence of a major feud in the source.
Fixed.-G
Citation 85 checks out, but there is a disagreement between it and Rocha 2019, p. 7 — the first and second fluids are swapped, and he claims one kind comes from the labia, not the vaginal walls. I would assume there are other sources that cover this aspect of Zhang's theories that should be checked for a consensus, or at least mentioned in that footnote.
Chiang agrees with Rocha's ordering, added that.-G
Citation 91a's pages seem off. Jiao mentions the "Big Breast Renaissance" on page 83. The other source for this statement, by the way, translates this as "To Restore Big Breasts"; is there a reason one was picked over the other?
Jiao 2017, p. 85, also translates this as "Big Breast Restoration". —TS
I mostly just chose it because it had the best ring to it out of the given translations, and they all seemed to check out.
Citation 110 has only 24 non-bibliography pages in my copy, but you've cited pp. 42–44. Was this for a different source?
Supposed to be Rocha 2015, my bad.-G
Citation 110a does not state that Romantic Generation was "one of the first".
Was missing another cite - fixed.-G
Some of the sources are offline or not in English, so I haven't checked any of those.
The reference list strikes me as a little light on Chinese sources — are there any appropriate scholarly sources from China, contemporaneous or contemporary? Do the English-language sources cite any Chinese works themselves?
All the main English sources are themselves mainly dependent on Chinese sources, both primary and secondary. Several Chinese sources I couldn't use for whatever reason; this is a good example; it cites many of the same sources (including English-language sources) that others do, but mostly retreads ground already covered by the very thorough Rocha 2010. Thus it is discounted by WP:NONENG. (fwiw, Yang 2025 is a Chinese journal article that was translated and republished in a journal dedicated to that.)
Rocha 2015 is missing the editor and chapter page range.
|doi-access=free for Rocha 2019. Could you take your own look through the references and see if similar access-related changes are needed on any others, please?
Done.-G
En dash on Zhang 2011.
Done.-G
Another round of spot-checks since the first one turned up a lot of fixes needed. Going off the same revision, which is still current. —TS
These citations were verified: 31a, 31b, 86a*, 86b, 97, 98*, and 99*. Those with asterisks need text–source integrity fixes as above, but this definitely isn't a comprehensive list.
Citation 30 is okay, expand the page range to 48 to verify the prevalence of sexual discourse in the 1920s.
Fixed.-G
Citation 93 does not verify "an anti-breast binding movement emerged across the political spectrum". (That hyphen should be an en dash, by the way!)
I think I misplaced a Zhang cite but I softened this anyhow.-G
Citation 94 is fine, but why is Hu Shih's speech relevant here? The source is using his statements to contrast with Zhang's, so I don't think they can be grouped together like this.
That's fair. I thought it was important to show that he wasn't the only guy advocating this, but I think it's a bit extraneous. -G
Hsu 2018 is missing the chapter page range. Please do a run through the references list again and include any information missing in the citations.
The infobox lists his birthplace as Darongpu, Fubin, Raoping County, Guangdong, Qing China. That's a lot of commas and not particularly readable, and many readers will struggle to parse what the ascending sequence means. I would suggest cutting it down: either "Daronpu, [Qing] China", or conceivably "Daronpu (near Guangdong), Qing China".
Fixed.-G
Zhang was ridiculed by much of the Chinese media and academia for the book, often referred to by the mocking nickname Dr. Sex: the book was called "Dr. Sex"?
Fixed.-G
sex education texts: MOS:HYPHEN would like one here, as it's a compound modifier.
Fixed.-G
Collections of his writing began to be published during the 1980s, but likely due to obscenity laws, a full republication: this isn't quite grammatical: we really need a comma after but, since likely due to obscenity laws is parenthetical, but that makes the sentence very choppy. How about Collections of his writing began to be published during the 1980s, but full republication of Sex Histories was not made until 2005, likely due to obscenity laws.?
Fixed, good idea.-G
In 1888, Zhang Jiangliu (张江流) was born the third child of a well-to-do merchant family in Darongpu Village, Fubin Town, in Raoping County, a rural county in eastern Guangzhou.: might just be my idiolect, but I'm not sure you can really use "the third child" adverbially like that. Suggest Zhang Jiangliu (张江流) was born in 1888 in Darongpu Village, Fubin Town, in Raoping County, a rural county in eastern Guangzhou. He was the third child of a well-to-do merchant family.
Fixed.-G
Is the term "Overseas Chinese" anachronistic for 1888?
I've seen it in quite a few sources; see for instance the book Schooling Diaspora: Women, Education, and the Overseas Chinese in British Malaya and Singapore, 1850s-1960s or the article Overseas Chinese Nationalism in Singapore and Malaya 1877–1912. -G
As I understand it, it's not usual to invert Chinese names in bibliographies: so Zhang Peizhong should be listed as such, using the |author= parameter, rather than as "Zhang, Peizhong".
Fixed.-G
As Whampoa required the study of a foreign language, Zhang was randomly assigned French.: need to rework the as here: he was not randomly assigned French (rather than German) because the academy required him to study a language. Easy enough to cut as and join with a (semi)colon.
Hi! I'll go ahead and do a prose review. Recommendations in purple, more urgent corrections in red.
Lead
• After he was expelled from Whampoa, he met with the group and entered the Imperial University of Peking.—Not entirely clear what "met with" means here in the lead. Spookyaki (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit unsure how to phrase this unambiguously. -G
• He was ridiculed by much of the Chinese media and academia for the book and was often referred to by the mocking nickname Dr. Sex (性博士; Xìng Bóshì) in the tabloid press.Spookyaki (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• He became a supporter of the Tongmenghui revolutionary organization through its Min Bao (民報) newspaper, which took a socialist, anti-statist position, inspired by a variety of European philosophers.Spookyaki (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Incensed by the school's food service, which he claimed penalized slower eaters, he staged a protest with a friend. They were both suspended for one year.Spookyaki (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.-G
• Zhang returned in 1910, instead seeking to continue his studies. This was only allowed by his father after he was forced to accept an arranged marriage with an illiterate fifteen-year-old girl named Xu Chunjiang.Spookyaki (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think 'instead' is good here because it makes it clear he didn't follow Hu's advice to join the New Army.-
• Zhang deeply resented this marriage, and later wrote that it was a major contributor to his support of freedom of marriage and sex education.Spookyaki (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• At Peking, Zhang was introduced to the theory of social Darwinism, which he became a strong proponent of. or per MSincccc's suggestion. Spookyaki (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Zhang received his doctorate in 1919; alongside biologist Tan Xihong.Out of the twenty-five members of his cohort, he was one of only two to receive a doctoral degree in his overseas study.—MOS:EDITORIALSpookyaki (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• He met with Guangdong warlord Chen Jiongming to advocate for the regional introduction of birth control, which was rejected. Zhang claimed that Chen called him "mentally deranged" when he made the proposal.Spookyaki (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• ...Zhang responds to the academic debate over the value of science and intellectual westernization to China. Some Chinese intellectuals viewed the devastating effects of World War I as evidence of the moral bankruptcy of European civilization caused by a preoccupation with rationality and science as opposed to spiritual matters.Spookyaki (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.-G
• In his book, Zhang advocates for a form of westernization which combines rationalism with the reorganization of society around aesthetic principles.Spookyaki (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.-G
• ...expanding on his vision for a "New China" and "New People" in a society oriented around beauty. The book included a call for "sentimental people from everywhere" to "unite into a front, overthrow the government and people that have no feelings".Spookyaki (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• His aesthetic works were well-received by contemporary academics. The writer Zhou Zuoren praised Zhang's boldness in advocating for beauty in opposition to traditional Confucian society.Spookyaki (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Zhang recommended that the Survey Society collect information on sexuality and sexual customs, but this was vetoed by the rest of committee, who felt that these topics were too controversial to study.Spookyaki (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.-G
• Zhang resolved to continue studying sexuality without the society's sponsorship.—Or something like this. Sentence is a bit hard to read. Spookyaki (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.-G
• ...calling for readers to submit detailed accounts of their sex lives. Prompts included with the advertisement asked readers to recount a variety of experiences, such as their earliest exposure to sexuality, their methods of masturbation, their preferred sexual positions, whether they had had homosexual experiences, and whether they had engaged in bestiality.Spookyaki (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.-G
• He chose seven of these to feature in his book, of which the identities of two respondents are known: Zhang's second wife, Chu Songxue, and novelist Jin Mancheng.Spookyaki (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• In the work, Zhang railes against contemporary erotica, writing that it spreads misconceptions and superstition about sex. He claims that sexual perversions, pornography, and prostitution are the result of the silencing and repression of sexuality; he advocates for a sexual revolution towards openness and "healthy sex", seeing this as an unavoidable prerequisite for the moral and political advancement of the Chinese nation towards equal footing with the western world. Zhang states that sexual openness, especially through the sharing and documentation of sexual experiences, is required to achieve this cultural change.—Use of literary present should be consistent throughout the article. Spookyaki (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Academic opinion turned sharply against Zhang, with scholars dismissing his theories as either nonsensical or pornographic.Hu Shih, his former colleague,was among those who denounced him.—MOS:EDITORIALSpookyaki (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.-G
• Despite the backlash, some academics supported the book. Novelist Lin Yutang wrote that it was instrumental in changing the "physical and mental outlook of Chinese girls".Spookyaki (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.-G
• Conditions for professors at Peking University had worsened by late 1926. The chaotic political climate, characterized by violent events such as the March 18 Massacre, had made Beijing dangerous to academics.Spookyaki (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Likely to avoid legal liability, Zhang was not officially the owner of the bookstore. The largest shareholder and general manager was a man named Xie Yunru...Spookyaki (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The paper ran intermittently for six issues before folding partway through 1927. Two years later, the Beauty Bookshop itself went out of business.Spookyaki (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.-G
• According to Zhang, the police attempted to negotiate with him to remove the nude paintings and pay them a significant bribe. He claimed that when he refused...Spookyaki (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• He was arrested while visiting Hangzhou in 1929 for "corrupting and poisoning the youth". He claimed that his arrest was ordered by Jiang Menglin...Spookyaki (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Runner-ups in this contest would receive elite roles such as concubine and minister. Constituting a new elite alongside the kings and queens, they would be encouraged to form families with one another and serve as role models for the nation.Spookyaki (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.-G
• This new religion would idolize the lives of past heroic ancestors through a continuously updated collection of poems, which would serve as the sole religious text and a core component of education.Spookyaki (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.-G
Aesthetic labor
• Zhang advocates transforming work into play. To this end, he proposes that state-sponsored vocational schools should be established for all fields of work...Spookyaki (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Meanwhile, he believed women (being more emotionally inclined in his view) are best suited for artistic and service work, as well as homemaking and international diplomacy.—NPOV Spookyaki (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• They claimed he was the first person from Chaozhou to receive a doctorate, although this claim is uncertain.—Original wording initially makes it seem like they awarded him a posthumous graduate or something. Also, why is it uncertain? Spookyaki (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• ...comparing him to a contemporary American sexologist, Alfred Kinsey. He bemoaned that "while Kinsey is still pursuing his great work, our Zhang Jingsheng is keeping silent and lying low."Spookyaki (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.-G
• Western scholarly assessments of him have also varied. the Dutch historian Frank Dikötter is largely dismissive of Zhang's role in the history of sexuality in modern China, sarcastically calling him a "sex revolutionary", while the translator Howard Seymour Levy...Spookyaki (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Opifex fuscus, the saltpool mosquito of New Zealand. In their juvenile stages, they live in salt pools (pools of water formed by ocean spray) of rocky coasts throughout most of the country. To survive in this habitat, they have an unusual ability to tolerate high levels of salinity. As juveniles they also have mouthparts that can develop to specialise in filter feeding or grazing, depending on what types of food are available. They are also notable for their unusual mating behaviour. The males sit on the surface of rock pools and grab the cocoons of females and mate with them before they've even matured into adults.
This article passed GA review a couple of months ago and has just received a peer review. I feel it meets the FA criteria and is ready to undergo this process. This would be an excellent addition to the Featured Articles list since flies as a whole are woefully underrepresented. Any comments/critiques on how to improve the article further would be appreciated. AxonsArachnida (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"New Zealand, but have been displaced" - comma not needed
Fixed.
"As adults they are known to feed on blood whereas" -> "As adults they feed on blood whereas"
Fixed.
I would italicize fuscus when you mention its Latin origin.
Fixed.
I don't think the parenthetical explanation of type specimen/species is needed - it's a bit cumbersome.
In fact, I think the use of parentheticals needs to be toned down throughout the article. It's excessive and awkward.
See comments further down in reply chain.
I would add the location of Canterbury Museum (also, is it not the Canterbury Museum?).
Fixed.
"designated it its" -> "designated it as its" for clarity
Fixed.
"The thorax is somewhat wider than the head" - what is meant by "somewhat" here?
Changed to "slightly wider".
"The eggs' dimensions" - should be singular "egg".
I went the other way with this and changed it from "The eggs' dimensions are 0.3 mm by 0.5 mm (0.01 by 0.02 in) and are ovoid in shape" to "The eggs' dimensions are 0.3 mm by 0.5 mm (0.01 by 0.02 in) and they are ovoid in shape".
"The larvae are known to be infected" -> to something more concise like "The larvae can be infected"
@HAL333 just watching this as an interested party. Regarding the use of parentheticals, I think most of them were added at my behest in the peer review. I'm wondering if your objection is based on the details of the formatting, i.e. using parenthesis, or the explanations in general? I hate to put the nominator in the awkward position of being dragged in opposite directions by two different reviewers. RoySmith(talk)22:48, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This issue—whether or not some of the exotic terms on scientific articles should have immediate explanations—has come up on a few scientific FACs before, and I remember one that had an extended discussion from many editors, but the exact FAC escapes me at this time.... The rough consensus (although we may eventually need a more centralized discussion) was that it was impractical to define all the scientific terms that might be unknown to the reader. This is also a hyperlinked digitial encyclopedia. It's alright if a term may be unfamiliar - the reader can click on the wikilink. I am not necessarily opposed to having explanations in the body, but ideally they would be integrated in a more natural, fluid, and encyclopedic way. Britannica doesn't use sporadic parentheticals to define terms. Other featured articles on insects/invertebrates have similarly esoteric terms within (see the recent Megarachne (2020) or Alicella (2025)) but don't typically rely too heavily on parentheticals. There also seemed to be incosistency in terms of what had a parenthetical explanation and what did not. There were a few times where a term that I would consider to be more obscure/less accessible to a lay audience did not have a parenthetical, while more 'popular' ones did. If I were to rework the parentheticals, I would:
Remove the ones in the lead
Done.
"vector (organism that spreads disease)" - just link disease vector and use "disease vector" in place of vector.
Done.
Elsewhere, simple dependent clauses like "(often within a few seconds of capture)", "(which is used in mating)", or "(and is also the largest increase in biomass)" could be taken out of the parentheses and placed after a comma, as they exacerbate the issue of the excess parentheticals.
I went ahead and reduced this. I also toned down the use of parentheses for technical terms where reasonable.
But for more obscure terms like "terminalia", I would be fine with parentheticals. Alternatively, the more basic explanation could be used in the text, and the technical term could be placed in the parentheses at times. ~ HAL33314:52, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HAL333@RoySmith "This issue—whether or not some of the exotic terms on scientific articles should have immediate explanations—has come up on a few scientific FACs before, and I remember one that had an extended discussion from many editors, but the exact FAC escapes me at this time.... The rough consensus (although we may eventually need a more centralized discussion) was that it was impractical to define all the scientific terms that might be unknown to the reader." It would definitely be great to have a centralized discussion around it somewhere. I've been doing a bunch of GA species articles and the various reviewers tend to nudge me towards adding explanations in text for most scientific terms.
Regardless, I've purged most of the parenthetical explanations and replaced them. Any objections if I remove the explanations for "thorax" and "larvae"? I feel those are simple enough that most people either know what it means or can easily figure it out within seconds. AxonsArachnida (talk) 05:31, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh shit, my apologies. I struck that - I had gotten people tell me to fix it so many times I just assumed it was in the MoS without checking. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
but have been displaced from the Otago region by Aedes australis – I think it should be specified in the lead that this is an introduced species.
Done.
As adults they are known to feed on blood whereas the larvae feed on algae and decomposing matter – I suggest to move this up, just before "The larvae have mouthparts that specialize …", otherwise the order of information is confusing.
Done.
but aren't known – "is not known"
Done.
"fuscus" means darkly coloured – suggest to use single quotes for 'darkly coloured' (you could alternatively use the lang and gloss templates which do the same).
However just two years later, this subfamily was later – later is repetitive.
Removed one later.
As adults, they can be distinguished from the rest of New Zealand's mosquitoes by the presence and absence of certain bristles on the abdomen, the shape of the antennae and the absence of scales on the upper surface of the head – this needs wikilinks, some are linked later but should be linked at first mention.
The only think I could think to hyperlink is antennae (which was also linked further down). I don't see what you mean with there being others.
The antennae are blackish and have three long bristles near the base of it. – base of what? "near their base"?
Fixed.
The thorax of the pupae (juvenile stage where the mosquito is in a cocoon-like structure) have – singular/plural mismatch
Fixed.
Optional: I feel that explanation of terms was slightly overdone, or at least not consistent. "Larvae" and "salinity" do not need a gloss in my opinion, wikilink is enough.
Sounds good. Removed explanations for larvae and salinity.
"the permeability of the cuticle was much less – "lower"?
Done.
In lab conditions, the females would spend 5 to 12 minutes feeding on human blood. – before laying the first eggs?
This is just the length of the time they blood feed. It doesn't necessarily mean they immediately go and lay eggs.
pectinate type brushes – I suggest to remove "type", and "pectinate" is a term that I would explain ("comb-shaped"?) or avoid altogether.
Removed type. Pectinate term is explained further up.
Mating begins extremely early for females, with mating usually occurring at the time of emergence. – This reads repetitive. Also, the "begins" does not make sense, as it implies there is continuous mating, which does not seem to be the case? I suggest "Females mate extremely early, usually at the time of emergence."
I've accepted your rewording.
Once a larva pupates it will float to the surface. The males will then grab the pupae – why do you switch to plural here?
No reason. Fixed.
the pupae begin to emerge into an adult – same here.
Fixed.
emerging mosquito is female, then the male will come into contact with its terminalia – if its a male, you write "his", but if its a female, you choose "its"? (I would go for "its" in all cases)
This article is about a small but deadly tropical storm which affected Eastern Visayas, some other regions in the Philippines, and Brunei and Malaysia. This article became a good article on August 25, 2024, and received a big peer review by Hurricanehink. Shortly after, the article was neatly copyedited by Fluffernutter on December 17. Recently, the article was extensively copyedited by Bunnypranav who fixed a large part of the prose.
I believe this article is Featured Article quality because its prose is excellent but has a possibility of having some issues. It also has many images and GIFs which illustrate the article, and it follows MOS guidelines as well as verification for every claim stated in the article. The criterion this article exemplifies the best is its comprehension; the article details the meteorological history down to the hour, describes preparations for the Philippines, Brunei, and Malaysia from all the sources I could find, has a big Impact section for a storm this size and even uses citations of other languages for Brunei and Malaysia. This article has a big Response section, detailing the tools the rescuers use, the money other countries and the Philippine government provided, and the Rebuilding and retirement since the storm. This is my reason why the article exemplifies one of the best Wikipedia can offer. Thanks, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 03:32, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The images are relevant to the text and placed in appropriate locations. They lack alt-texts, so I suggest adding them. They all have captions. I think the caption "A GIF showing..." should be changed to "An animation showing...". It makes sense to mention the full name "Tropical Storm Kai-tak" for the caption of the lead image, but you could consider shortening the name in the following captions to just "Kai-tak". Would it make sense to move the image of the storm warnings to the section "Preparations" since it discusses warnings and doesn't have an image? Phlsph7 (talk) 09:43, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey everyone! This is a relatively niche YA adaptation of the famous fairy tale by Hans Christian Andersen (which received several science fiction magazine reviews, for some reason). I originally created the article for a Women in Red/Women in Green event, but it continued to interest me... and here we are! Thanks to many helpful comments from Rollinginhisgrave, TompaDompa, and Vacant0 at the GAN and PR, I think the article is approaching featured quality. I look forward to your comments! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:52, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Since I haven't yet promoted an FA as a solo nominator, I would welcome a round of text–source integrity/close paraphrasing spot-checks. Please let me know if you'd like pages from Findon 2018, which the article replies on quite a bit, and I'd be happy to send them over. Thanks! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:57, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For now, just a few comments. Not sure how much further I'll be able to dig.
My initial impression is that this is a bit of a wall of text. There's quite a few images in commons:Category:The Snow Queen; even if they're from other adaptations of the story, adding some of them would be a good thing, especially ones which show us the characters.
I couldn't find anything else that was appropriate. I'd actually had this thought as well last year, and added the image that's currently in § Publication and reception after searching in that category. I recall thinking the Edmund Dulac pieces were very pretty, but weren't particularly relevant to this article and didn't read well at smaller sizes. I had also reached out to Kernaghan and her publisher to see if they would freely license a portrait of her for Wikipedia, but didn't hear back. —TS
Where in the article do you think would be a good place to put it? I don't think this scene from the tale happens in the novel, and I'm not seeing any obvious prose that this would illustrate. I also just uploaded this image (and a variation), which I could imagine as an illustration to the discussion of Gerda and Kai's reunion towards the end of § Development and themes. Let me know what you think. —TS
Jumping in a bit here, I think another natural image would be something to go next to the paragraph about the "idea of north". The sources have a lot to say about the importance of the snowy northern setting; either an illustration or a photograph conveying that natural world could be a good fit. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This also seems like a good idea. I looked around a bit this afternoon and shortlisted some potential illustrations. I'm very much a musician and not a visual artist, so a second opinion on the selection would be appreciated! Also, RoySmith, do you have any opinion on these or the illustrations I suggested above?
Effet de neige: very moody and reads fine at small sizes, but doesn't have much snow, and probably doesn't depict Scandinavia.
Winter by the Sea: nice colors and ties into the journey across the ocean in the novel, but does look like random shapes unless viewed in fullscreen; that could lean into the "imaginative landscapes" idea, though.
Moonlight by Nordseter: my personal favorite. It clearly depicts a snowy winter night (in Norway, evidently), but is the most realistic of the bunch.
New Snow: very obviously stylized, which could be an advantage as before, and the imagery of a snowy trail through an evergreen forest struck me as appropriate.
There are others, of course (it's not very difficult to find paintings or photos of snow in the public domain), but these are a few that I liked and thought might work well here. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:02, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The action seems to cover a lot of (physical) ground: the estate in Sweden, a journey north, the abandoned castle, Aurore's palace, a frozen sea. Is there some kind of map which shows all these places and travels, a la Tolkien's maps? If such a thing exists, it would be great to add.
There's no map in the novel, and none of the sources feature one, to my knowledge. I'm also unsure if I could make one; the characters do visit various real-world places, but most of the third act is depicted in completely fantastical locations that aren't on our Earth. —TS
Ah, I see what you mean. Per the licensing tag, a "faithful photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional, public domain work of art" is considered to also be in the public domain, so the publication information for the photograph itself shouldn't matter too much. I'm not sure what consitutes a painting's "first publication" (the first time it was displayed?); its date of creation is the only one I have at the moment. Regardless, Munch died in 1944, meaning the painting should be in the public domain in Norway. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:38, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I already had a thorough look at the article when it was submitted for PR, but I'll take another look by the end of this week just to see if I had missed anything. Vacant0(talk • contribs)10:57, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Vacant0, just a friendly reminder. :) There was a significant reorganization of § Development and themes during LEvalyn's review, but that was just moving text around rather than changing it, for the most part. Please let me know if you have any other suggestions for improvement! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:07, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so... I don't really have anything to add besides saying that the improvements make the article look much better. I think that the article is ready so I'll support on prose. I've already done an image review in the PR but I'll let someone else re-review this again, just in case if I missed anything... Good work! Vacant0(talk • contribs)13:02, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely to see a book article coming through! I've split my verification/copyvio checks and my more general comments apart, since the latter are not a matter of source-text integrity. Citation numbers are from this diff.
[2]a (Schellenberg & Switzer 2006) is good.
[4]a, [4b] (Wolf) both good.
[5]b (Bramwell 2009, p. 102) ok
[7] (Findon 2018, p. 198; Stouck 2002, p. 91.) both good.
[8]a, [8]b (Lehtonen 2019, p. 336) both good.
[10]b, [10]d (Findon 2018, p. 198) ok
[13] (Lehtonen 2019, p. 333) also good. The wikilink to radical feminism is appropriate and supported by the source.
[12]b (Wood 2007, p. 199) is good.
[15] (Findon 2018, p. 204) good.
[27] (Findon 2018, p. 205) good
[31] (D'Ammassa 2000, p. 44) is good. Also supports D'Ammassa's inclusion in [30].
[34] (Dumars 2000) is fine.
[35] (Science Fiction Awards Database) is good. Technically, they name the award as "Best Long-form Work In English" but this does appear to conventionally be considered as synonymous with "Best Novel".
I've switched the name to align with the source, and I believe one or two of the interviews use this name as well. I wonder why our article calls it that. —TS
[36] (Science Fiction Chronicle 2001, p. 6.) raises a question for me. The language in the source is that 28 novels (including Snow Queen) were "entered" for the award, and five (not including Snow Queen) were chosen as the "final nominees". Certainly, it was considered for the award, and if we see the three stages as nominated/shortlist/won, then nominated is where this one falls. But I wonder if it would give a more accurate impression to mark it as "longlisted" instead. Thoughts? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Switched to "longlisted"; I think I was following the title of that article, but your phrasing probably more closely reflects what the source actually states. —TS
Overall, a very clean source check. Everything verifies without copyvio or close paraphrase. The sources themselves are well-chosen RS. Findon 2018 is heavily used but also the most detailed treatment of this novel, so that strikes me as appropriate. Searching GScholar, I do not see any good sources that have been omitted here. I do want to hear your thoughts on the Endeavour award and then I will be happy to pass the source review. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The rest are independent of the "source review" aspect and should be taken as just suggestions. Thanks for the quick turnaround on those quibbles about the awards, your edits look good to me! I'm happy to say the sourcing is a "pass". Thanks for an interesting read! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:44, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The changes look great! I have two more detailed replies below, though the only one I'm going to be really insistent about is including the bibliographic info of the short story somewhere. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:05, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's hard for me to stop myself once I start reading and thinking about an article:
For comprehensiveness it would be good for the "development" section to identify the poem and short story she wrote first, and where they were published. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I unfortunately don't have much information about the poem; it could be any one of the poems on this list (or none of them). The short story is mentioned in Schellenberg & Switzer 2006 and the novel's front matter as "The Robber Maiden's Story", published in one TransVersions (ISSN1480-7394?). Based on my searches, I think it's unlikely a reliable source has mentioned either of these, and none of the sources about the novel linger on them. My thoughts are that it would be undue to go into any more detail here than I already have. —TS
Looking at how she words it in interviews, I now think she wrote a poem but didn't publish it, and worked from the poem draft to write the short story that did get published. I do think at least an explanatory footnote giving the bibliographic info of the short story is warranted, and I think it would be useful to call out in the article prose that the story was published in 1995, since that gives context for how long the story spent in gestational/pre-composition stages. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:03, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a footnote with some of that information and tweaked the prose to reflect that we don't know if the poem was published. The ISFDB is apparently not good enough as a source in this context (see the PR), so I can't include the year until it's been verified against the original magazine. The Internet Archive has several other issues of it, but not the one we're looking for! I'll see if I can track it down. —TS
Now done, with thanks to the volunteers at RX. —TS
It seems stilted to say Snow Queen '"was her favourite work in the style"; I guess I don't think of "fairy tale" as a style. I don't think it would be WP:CLOP to just say it was her favourite fairy tale. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we could go further in articulating Souck's argument that Kernaghan's version has a different moral. I'd say something like, "The characters are also markedly older in Kernaghan's rendition, adolescents rather than children, and the scholar Mary-Ann Stouck wrote that Kernaghan reverses Andersen's [moral/message/"meaning"] by having them transition into adulthood rather than return to an innocent, nescient state at the tale's end." ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "Development and themes" section might be more readable if it was broken up into sub-sections. Or, really, it strikes me as unusual for these to be one section in the first place; I'd consider splitting them, and also having sub-sections within "themes" to identify each theme. I see two core themes that are currently getting a little tangled with each other: the "idea of north" (flowing into specific analysis of the depiction of the Sámi), and feminism. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point out a couple of places where you felt the ideas were getting mixed up? I decided to keep the development and themes together as splitting them would, in my opinion, leave the former rather threadbare and the latter lacking contextually relevant information about the author's writing process. Bramwell and Findon quote Kernaghan in their analyses a few times, so while it might be a little unusual for Wikipedia, I thought following their example was appropriate. I had also considered third-level headers but thought that having relatively little content under each once (a paragraph at most) might risk running into an MOS:OVERSECTION issue. —TS
I found it difficult to really write out what I was seeing, so I took the liberty of sticking an experimental hack job in my sandbox here. I wouldn't insist on this kind of reshuffle, but maybe you can see what I mean? My main idea was to have more focused topic sentences, and to cluster sentences based on topic instead of based on the source. Spending this time with it, I came to appreciate what also works in the current version, so this is really just an idea / different perspective. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:03, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for going above and beyond with this suggestion! I like some of the connections you've made, some of which I hadn't thought of. Let me see if I can marry ideas from the two somehow. —TS
@LEvalyn: I've sandboxed a reorganization based on your ideas! Please let me know if it's a step in the right direction to addressing your concerns. —TS
Yes, I really like this! Thanks for being willing to entertain a large scale change in your approach. Each section feels more clearly “themed” and signposted in your new sandbox version and I think it really helps with the overall clarity. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:49, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would normally interpret commended the portrayal of the Sámi peoples as meaning that the book has an accurate and respectful portrayal of that culture, but I think Dumars' praise is more focused on the narrative excitement of the portrayal, eg, Along the way we see the extraordinary strangeness of the far northern clime, and learn the ways of the Saami people`s mysticism. It is this glimpse into a completely alien world contained right here within our own that makes this story so special. I might propose something like "Dumars compared the novel favourably to the original tale, particularly praising the appeal of the setting and intriguing Sámi culture." ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think quoting a moral force makes Findon's argument unclear -- when the word evil is absent, the phrase suggests to me that she is somehow a force for moral good, but Findon's argument is focused on contrasting evil and nature. I'd suggest something like: "Findon wrote that Madame Aurore – her name itself a reference to the northern lights – is not simply evil, but a representative of nature as "an implacable force that is hostile to humans". ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added — thank you for catching that! For my own research learning, would you mind walking me through how you came across this source? I tried several different search terms in the usual academic databases but I was unable to land at this article independently. —TS
Sure, in Google Scholar I searched "snow queen" Kernaghan and it was on the second page of results. I could easily imagine skimming past it since the title is not very promising (just "And Furthermore") but I noticed it was a librarian trade journal and that piqued my interest. Otherwise that query just turned up a subset of the sources you already found so you may not need to really rethink your search process. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:44, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Good to know I was at least on the right track, and I'll remember to look more carefully at the details in the future. —TS
If the cover art is a re-use of an old PD image, who is the artist? (which could be briefly mentioned using caption and/or cover_artist)
That would be Charles Robinson, and I had put that in the infobox before, but recently removed it as I felt the information had undue weight placed where it was. Readers can access more information about the cover and the original art if they click on the image and view the author line at the bottom (or navigate to Commons). —TS
"She is joined on her journey by a young Sámi woman, Ritva, the daughter to a shamaness and a robber." Some ambiguity here over whether Ritva's parents are a shamaness and a robber, or if you are describing Ritva as a robber who is the daughter to a shamaness.
I considered this reading, but this phrasing is the best option I could think of that didn't seem too stilted or long-winded. Do you have any suggestions for how it could be better? —TS
Why do you describe critics as "mostly positive" in the lead, but simply "positive" in the body?
I was (inconsistently) hedging the adjective to reflect some of the criticism Blackford had for the novel. Made it more consistent with a new source to back it up. —TS
Similarly, in the lead the Kalevala is an "epic poem", while in the body it is "a compilation of Finnish mythology and epic poetry."
Removed from the lead; it's not really needed there. —TS
I'm a bit unclear how "However, Kernaghan felt that her work significantly differs from Andersen's" follows from the previous sentence, particularly with your use of tenses. Can you elaborate?
"opting instead to continue journeying together": I read this as at odds with your plot summary of the ending
Is "from the perspective of ethnic identity" coherent? Replacing ethnic with other groupings (racial/gender) this doesn't seem right.
Can you speak to what "the "imaginative geography" of Arctic landscapes" means?
A few suggestions for concision — interested in literature on the subject — like other adaptations of the tale — attempt by Kernaghan to
I've had a poke around sources. Like LEalyn, it looks like the article does a good job of engaging with the literature, although I did have some comments. Individually, none would hold me from supporting, but taken together I think there is some work to be done:
Reading this review, I see that the note on imaginative geographies I referenced above is referring explicitly to Imagined geographies. A link would be appropriate and probably a gloss, as the meaning of the reference is lost as a flourish.
I think Altmann 2001 should be brought in. I also think Contemporary Authors 2004 has some very good insights, both in an initial summary and in Kernaghan's extended account of the book's development. One part in particular stands out, quoting from this interview: "I wanted to play with the idea -- explicit in the fairy tale -- that Gerda's tenacity, her stubborn refusal to swerve from her purpose, in many ways makes her the stronger of the two." There's a few more choice quotes from that interview, including that she felt she was responding to a need for "adventure stories for girls". Bramwell 2005 finds Rita "empowered by her shamanism", which may be worth mentioning as a perspective (and maybe not)
Reading Stouck, I find out that across the story, Gerda and Ritva move from "ill-concealed fear and enmity to respect, affection and admiration for each other's different gifts and cultures". I had no sense reading of this trajectory from the article, and it seems like I should have. Overall, Stouck highlights the role of the novel in interpreting Anderson's story of "faith and love" in tension with "reason". Stouck writes that the adaptation genders this. I don't see this article engage with this theme, even though it seems really important to Stouck.
Added a bit about their changing relationship to § Feminism and matriarchy. I'll come back to the love and reason. —TS
Thank you for your comments, RIHG! It's a busy week for me, but I'll work through these over the next day or two. I really thought I'd exhausted every source for this novel, but they just keep popping up, it seems. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:27, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about an album by Taylor Swift, best listened to during dark, chilly winter days. Or if it is not winter where you are at, close your eyes and feel the songs while imagining yourself wandering in a winter forest. For me this stands among her top 2 most accomplished albums. I believe this article satisfies FA criteria, and I'm open to any and all comments regarding its candidature. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be beneficial to add to the lead that Folklore was also surprise-released? It could help to draw stronger parallels between Folklore and Evermore as "sister records", but I could also see this making the prose repetitive. It was just a thought I had while reading this part of the lead, so I thought that it was worthy sharing. On a somewhat similar note, surprise-released should be linked on the first mention in the article to be consistent with the link in the lead.
For the part on the "No Body, No Crime" and "Coney Island" radio releases, shouldn't "respectively" be added to the end?
For the images of Aaron Dessner, Matt Berninger, Justin Vernon, Marjorie Finlay, and Paul McCartney, it may be helpful to add the year in which these photos were taken to provide a more complete context for readers. For instance, it could be beneficial for readers to know if these photos of Desnner, Berninger, and Vernon were taken around the time of these collaborations of if they were taken years earlier or after.
I am uncertain about how numbers are represented in the following sentence: On Evermore, Dessner produced 14 out of the 15 tracks on the standard edition and 2 bonus tracks, and Antonoff co-produced 1. On one hand, I see why you kept them all consistently in numerals, but on the other hand, it does look a bit odd to see 2 and 1 represented in this way.
I have a comment about this sentence: They recorded the album in secrecy, using passwords, data encryption, and specific communications when sharing mixes of the tracks. When I first read this sentence, I was uncertain about its value, as I would imagine that most albums are recorded "in secrecy" to try and avoid leaks and the like. I looked at the article, which clarifies this further by saying this type of recording process was done given the huge international interest in Swift. I would clarify this in the prose to give a better indication of why this occurred and why it is notable enough to mention, as it was unclear to me.
Just out of curiosity, do we know where Bryce's studio is in France? I was just curious as a more specific location was given for Long Pong Studios for instance.
What is a rubber-bridge guitar? Is there a way to link that? Maybe it is because I have never played a guitar before, but I have never heard of this.
It may be helpful to link to the sampling (music) article on the first instance that "samples" is mentioned in the article. I could see readers either being unfamiliar with that type of music jargon and wanting to learn more about it.
Wonderful work with the article! I hope that these comments are helpful so far. I have read up to the "Composition" section, and I will continue once everything has been addressed. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be mindful of citation overkill. There is a part in the "Music and production" subsection that uses five citations. I would avoid that by doing something like citation bundling. There is an instance of four citations in the "Critical reception" section. I think that anything over three gets into citation overkill territory, which should be avoided.
Steven Hyden may be a well-known music critic in his own, but the publication in which he published his article should be attributed in the prose to provide the entire context for readers.
I have a question about this part, straightforward "indie", while that of Folklore is "indie"–styled pop music. Could you just use indie without the quotation marks? These are pretty generic statements, so the quotation marks do not really add much in my opinion.
That does make sense. I have seen that "indie" ca be quite contentious, but I honestly did not consider that, so thank you for bringing this up. Aoba47 (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For this sentence, Bryce added orchestration to nearly every song., I think that it would be more beneficial to say how many songs he contributed to for this, as I would imagine that this number would be known.
I would more clearly attribute the quotes in the following sentence as coming from Swift: Whereas Folklore deals with "conflict resolution" and reconciliations, Evermore explores "endings of all sorts, sizes and shapes" and the painful aftermath. It may seem obvious based on context, but I would just avoid using quotations like this without explicit attribution in the prose when possible. On an unrelated note, this sentence and the next one both use "explores" so one should be revised to avoid repetition.
I wonder if Christmas party dinner could incorporate a link to the Christmas dinner article?
It is unclear who is saying the following quote, "feeling unmoored". I would more clearly attribute it in the prose. I have the same comment for this quote, "trying to love someone who is ambivalent", later in the article.
I would not consider Maria Juko to be an "English-language scholar", which I read more as a scholar of the English language and more involved in something in linguistics. When I look her up online, she seems more like an English literature scholar to me.
This part, a revenge plotted by a friend of Este, needs further clarification, as it has not been established who "Este" is. Is this referencing Este Haim? If so, this needs to be clarified. It is just confusing to have a name thrown out without any context for it.
It may be helpful to link banjo and mandolin, which are a bit more of niche instruments compared to something like the flute or string instruments in general, which are both linked in the article.
The phrase "longing memories" just sounds off to me. Is this memories of her longing for grandmother? Are the memories longing in tone? I just think that a different word choice would be better here.
Do we have any further information on which records were sampled for Finlay's vocals other than some "old records"? Even just knowing when these records were released would be helpful.
I think that it would be worthwhile to point out that Folklore also had its title and track listing in all lowercase, just to clarify that this was not something unique down for Evermore.
That is fair. I was likely overthinking this part to be honest. I agree that it is best to avoid anything that is unnecessary or trivial whenever possible. Aoba47 (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If vinyl LPs is linked, then I would do the same for CD and cassette for consistency.
I was confused by this sentence, Reception of the production and sounds was not as uniformly positive., as I thought that this was setting up a paragraph that would include more mixed or even negative reviews, but this paragraph has all positive reviews. The topic sentence seemingly does not support what is in the actual paragraph.
Could you clarify this part for me, defying external expectations on her to create upbeat music? I am curious to know what is meant by "external expectations" Maybe, it is because the only Christina Perri song that I know is a ballad ("A Thousand Years"), so I was a bit surprised that there was expectations for her to release upbeat music. The reference is to a podcast interview, and I would include a timestamp in the reference to when this part is being discussed. It would make this easier for readers to look into.
This is more of an observation, but I cannot help but roll my eyes that Evermore is included on a list of "underrated" albums. That is just beyond silly in my opinion.
Probably or that it got lost in the shuffle with Folklore. I just would never put a Taylor Swift album on an underrated album listicle lol. Aoba47 (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not required for a FAC, but I think that it would be helpful to alphabetize the categories, just so that it would be easier to readers to navigate.
This should be everything from me. I hope that this review helps. I come to this article mostly as an outsider, as the only song that I have heard from this album was "No Body, No Crime", so hopefully that perspective is helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support based on the prose. Hopefully, more people contribute to this FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Aoba47: for the review! I have addressed everything except where I responded above. Tbh I think "No Body, No Crime" is among the skips of this album, buuuuuuuut you might have a different opinion after listening to the whole record (pro tip: listen to this album when it gets chilly outside). Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 19:21, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that I could help. Apologies for the length of my review. The article was in excellent shape already. I very much enjoyed reading through it, so thank you for your patience.
I really should listen to the album, as I love a lot of the influences (like Rebecca and The Great Gatsby). I love an album that has a vibe. It just makes it a full experience, which is always nice in my opinion. It is cool when songs hit differently for people. I really enjoy "No Body, No Crime", but I would be curious to see if that changes when I listen to everything as a whole.
My rambling aside, I support this article for promotion as a whole. I always appreciate the work that you put into your articles. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current FAC, but I completely understand if you do not have the time and/or interest. I hope that you have a wonderful rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 20:08, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"and Antonoff co-produced one" - is it worth noting who Antonoff co-produced with? Or in this context, does co-produced simply indicate that Antonoff was a second producer on the album, not that Antonoff shared production duties with somebody else on that song?
" as described by Swift, inspired by Daphne du Maurier's 1939 novel Rebecca" - From what I can tell, that novel was published in 1938
"evealed that Swift had shared with him the planned release Evermore on December 18 to respect McCartney's planned December 11 release of his album McCartney III. Upon learning this, McCartney decided to release his album on December 18 instead, " - this doesn't seem to match with what the source states? It mentions planned releases on the 10th not the 11th and unless I'm really mis-reading it, there was release date changing from Swift?
I re-read the source and it seems the interviewed (McCartney) made a mistake. Billboard writes, For bookkeeping purposes, Swift dropped Evermore on Friday (Dec. 11) and McCartney III is due out this Friday (Dec. 18).Ippantekina (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: That song barely cracked the top 50 of the Country Airplay chart so it makes sense you haven't heard it before. I've addressed your comments, except one where I responded to above. Thanks for taking time reviewing this article, Ippantekina (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about 1992 American superhero film directed by Tim Burton and written by Daniel Waters. Based on the DC Comics character Batman, it is the sequel to Batman (1989) and the second installment in the Batman film series (1989–1997). While it divided critics and audiences on release for only loosely following the Batman comic book mythos and it's bleak, dark, and sexualised content, is has since been reappraised as both a highly influential film in the superhero genre, and one of the better Batman adaptations, with an iconic performance by Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman. It's also considered one of the better alternative Christmas films given its setting, so it'd be nice to promote this by then. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Darkwarriorblake! Just a drive-by comment for now: make sure titles in the hatnotes are doubly italicized; for example: Main article: Special effects of Batman Returns. I'm not sure if I'll be able to put in a full review, but good luck with your nomination regardless! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:13, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment Jack, I can't see any errors, do you have an extra plugin for the site? I have cleaned up the reference as the newer version of the page puts the previously 2-page document on 1, so hopefully whatever the issue was is now gone. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Warner Bros. provided a final budget of $55 million for Batman Returns, although it has been reported (or estimated) as $50, $65, $75, or $80 million
Probably not the best way to phrase it. I suggest: "Warner Bros. reported a final budget of $55 million for Batman Returns, though other sources have cited estimates of $50 million, $65 million, $75 million, and $80 million." BorgQueen (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your patience. I have been spending too much time at the hospital and frequently staying with a loved one who is having a rough time, and so have had limited time for Wikipedia or other projects. I had planned to do a full review sooner than this, but I didn't want to leave you hanging for too long. Since the image review has not been done yet, I will go ahead and knock it out.
Problematic images:
File:Dragon Con 2015 - Oswald Cobblepot & Selina Kyle (21716989458).jpg: I know Commons has loads of cosplay photos with "free" licenses, but I think of it like this. To the extent that they are correctly representing a copyrighted character, they are infringing; to the extent that they are veering away from that copyrighted character to not infringe, they veer into WP:Original research. I don't think any cosplay photos would be suitable for this article.
File:Batman Returns The Finale Part 1 by Danny Elfman.ogg: This is fair use of the song clip, but I don't see it as meeting the "contextual significance" criteria for non-free media. This particular song (not the music overall) does not seem to be a major focus of the article. It has has less than a full sentence of coverage. Also, it would likely be WP:UNDUE to give the song enough coverage to justify this media under WP:NFCC.
File:Batman Returns set.jpg: This is fair use, but again I don't see it as meeting the "contextual significance" criteria for non-free media. This filming location has one sentence of coverage, which seems the correct amount of weight. Also, the low resolution of the photograph limits its ability to show details and significance of filming on this stage.
Thanks, it looks fine now. And yes, I am fine and they will be fine; I just didn't want any delay on my part to seem like it was about the article when in fact, I am just short on time right now. Thank you, though, Rjjiii (talk) 01:30, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Three weeks in, no detailed reviews and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is pushing things a little. But ok by me; I can't speak for my colleagues. May it be worth nudging any of the other reviewers? Below is an extract from my boilerplate on attracting reviewers. It may or may not be helpful.
Sometimes placing a polite neutrally phrased request on the talk pages of a few of the more frequent reviewers helps. Or on the talk pages of relevant Wikiprojects. Or of editors you know are interested in the topic of the nomination. Or who have contributed at PR, or assessed at GAN, or edited the article.
This article is about a church cantata by J. S. Bach for Christmas Day, first performed on 25 December 1725. It would be great to have the article in best shape for the anniversary, ideally good enough for TFA that day. The last cantatas to become FA were Gott der Herr ist Sonn und Schild, BWV 79 and Easter Oratorio, this year. Bach composed several cantatas for this high holiday, including Jauchzet, frohlocket! Auf, preiset die Tage, BWV 248 I, the first part of his Christmas Oratorio. This one is unique, please find out why. Laughter is in the title, it comes from Psalm 126, which deals with captivity (remember: for Christmas), and Bach set the laughter to music. - The article received a GA review by Yash! in 2015. - Let's improve it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:43, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've read through the article and think it is very strong overall, but I will admit this is not a topic in which I hold any strength whatsoever, so I cannot speak to the accuracy of the content. The coverage is thorough, excellent sourcing, and a well-structured account of the cantata's history, text, music, and later performances. The media use is appropriate and the neutral tone is maintained. I can see a small amount of, I think, easily fixable issues:
Should there be some kind of official translation template for "May our mouth be full of laughter"? I know that I see them for foreign film articles for example.
I haven't seen that for cantatas (several FAs already) but inserted the single quotation marks from similar works. --GA
Some sentences are dense and could be simplified.
One example please, to understand better. ---GA
So these are ones that stand out to me, again bearing in mind I am a layman and there may be subtleties I'm missing, but approaching it purely from a copyediting standpoint.
Current : The duet 'Ehre sei Gott in der Höhe' is based on the Christmas interpolation Virga Jesse floruit, the verse from the Magnificat's final doxology sung only at Christmas in Leipzig, changing the vocal lines to due the different text but retaining the 'essentially lyrical character'.
Suggest: The duet 'Ehre sei Gott in der Höhe' is based on the Christmas interpolation Virga Jesse floruit, sung in Leipzig only at Christmas. Bach altered the vocal lines to suit the new text but retained the piece's lyrical character.
Current : The cantata begins with a French overture, a form of music for a festive occasion, derived from Bach's earlier orchestral suite in D major, BWV 1069.
Suggest: The cantata opens with a French overture adapted from Bach's Orchestral Suite No. 4 in D major, BWV 1069, a form typically used for festive occasions.
Current : The cantata was composed for the first day the celebration of Christmas in 1725 in Leipzig, when Bach was Thomaskantor.
Suggest: Bach composed the cantata for Christmas Day 1725 in Leipzig, during his tenure as Thomaskantor.
Can't find that sentence - probably also already reworded.
Current : The soprano aria, accompanied by solo violin, is distinguished by frequent coloraturas expressing joy, and a motif interpreted as laughter.
Suggest: The soprano aria, with solo violin, features elaborate coloraturas to express joy and a recurring 'laughter' motif.
Current : Scholars such as Alfred Dürr and Klaus Hofmann compare the cantata, especially the opening chorus and the final movement, to Bach's Magnificat in the same key, D major, and the Christmas Oratorio, noting that the cantata is of the same festive character.
Suggest: Scholars such as Alfred Dürr and Klaus Hofmann compare the cantata, especially its opening chorus and final movement, to Bach's Magnificat in D major and the Christmas Oratorio, noting the shared festive character.
Current : The cantata is structured in six movements, beginning with a chorus based on a French overture, followed by alternating recitatives and arias, and ending with a four-part chorale.
Suggest: The six-movement cantata begins with a French-overture-style chorus, alternates recitatives and arias, and ends with a four-part chorale.
Current : The festive scoring with three trumpets and timpani recalls that of Bach's Magnificat and parts of his Christmas Oratorio.
Suggest: Its festive scoring for three trumpets and timpani recalls Bach's Magnificat and the Christmas Oratorio.
Current : The cantata has been performed and recorded often, frequently paired with Bach's Magnificat, and is regarded as one of his most important Christmas cantatas.
Suggest: The work is often performed and recorded, frequently with Bach's Magnificat, and is considered one of his most important Christmas cantatas.
A few typos, such as "the first day the celebration" -> "the first day of the celebration", "The aria but in two parts" -> "The aria is in two parts", "comares" -> "compares”, "inspite" -> "in spite", amd "to due the different text" → "to suit the different text" (unless some of these are musical terms of which I am unaware.
good catches, will do --GA
done ---GA
The lede is informative but could better summarise the significance of the work (reuse of orchestral suite material, festive scoring, laughter motif) rather than just the facts.
festively is there, the expansion of earlier material is there, and a laughter motif (there are several means, summarised as "made audible") is not in the article. ---GA
There are quite a few inline quotations that could be paraphrased to improve flow.
Again: please give me an example. I see many quotations of cantata text or other titles, and quotations from sources where I would not know how to paraphrase but still mean the same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore this, re-reading, the quotes all seem to be interpretations I don't think you could accurately paraphrase without it becoming WP: OR or direct quotes from Psalms you can't do much about.
The Recordings table is valuable, but it may be better to highlight historically notable or pioneering recordings in prose rather than simply listing them all.
The recordings are the backbone from the article's earliest stages. We do have articles reflecting recordings, compare BWV 1 (where the list went to a different article), but for this one it would look quite similar, because a number of conductors recorded all Bach's church cantatas, and the differences will be more related to these people than the piece. --GA
Are there other notable modern performances or reception commentary that could be added?
I'll check but would be surprised. This is basically not a show piece but a sermon. Most performance will be as part of Bach cantata projects, not causing attention for an individual work. ---GA
Is it possible to add a longer sample of the work? I can see a 4 second piece but would a longer piece be of free use by this point?
Please check the talk page, where you can find a longer excerpt, but midi sound is limited. The last of the external links, however, has a good youtube rendering, - enjoy! --
If it's any help I found this site which offers public domain music and it has one for this piece. It does say it has a free sign up that lets you do 5 downloads per day. I downloaded a copy successfully but you'd have to tell me if it sounds like it's meant to sound, you can listen to it hereDarkwarriorblake (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reading, DWB, and good comments! I have plans for this evening, so just a few quick replies, - more later. Quite generally: English is not my first language, therefore I appreciate suggestions for better flow. You can do them right in the article, and I'll check what I prefer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing these points quickly Gerda. In terms of the image you asked about, it looks fine if you think it is relevant, but it doesn't influence my support or not. Good luck with the rest of your nomination. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: One more point, the photo of John Eliot Gardiner in 2007 could do with a more descriptive caption. Unless you've ready the body text you have no idea of his relevance. Just something simple like the existing body text "John Eliot Gardiner, who conducted the Bach Cantata Pilgrimage in 2000 (pictured in 2007)", for example.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would hurt to have the {{abbr}}s anyway; see my response just below as well. —TS
I thought about it more. The cantata sits in a context of around 200 similar works, several of them FAs. If we change it here, we should probably change it throughout, and in List of Bach cantatas. I think that what we have - explanation of the abbreviations (which come from the Italian names of the instruments) in that list, in the (linked) Baroque instruments, and on top of this table, might suffice, and spare us coding of thousands of templates. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would also link aria, chorus, and recitative again in the table.
Are they really that common? I've only ever heard these terms (apart from chorus) in the context of music academia, and only when discussing European music of this general period. I understand the overlinking concern, but tables are exempt from MOS:DUPLINK. Consider also that tables and images are much more likely to catch a reader's eye than text, and screen readers allow for jumping straight to tables, so it's fairly likely people could read through the list of movements before getting to any of the previous links. This also applies to the abbreviations I mentioned above. —TS
I believe that the terms had a chance to be looked up earlier in the article, and a reader jumping to the table and unfamiliar will find a way to get an explanation. Another reviewer (below) found too much duplicate linking. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also use the {{time signature}} template instead of "9/8".
The music extract is about an eighth note longer in the soprano voice, which looks a little weird. Can that be lined up, maybe to the next barline?
Michael (who added the extract) replied already below, adding: it illustrates a musical phrase, which ends with the end of the word, not an arbitrary bar line --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From the policy perspective that Wikipedia is not a database, what justifies the long list of recordings, and especially the tabular detail of the conductors and performers?
A bit of history: the articles on Bach cantatas were first (around 2010) sourced almost exclusively to Bach Cantatas, and had not only the complete text but also the complete detailed lists of recordings (then) including performers, example. (Now, these lists would be far too long to have them completely.) For some articles, such as Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1, the discography was moved to a separate article when expanding, but not for the "simpler" ones such as Gott der Herr ist Sonn und Schild, BWV 79. --GA
I appreciate the history, but this doesn't answer my question about why this level of detail is acceptable in a featured article today. —TS
Do you mean that FA readers should get less detail than what they are used to from the many GA articles on the topic, and almost all articles of lower quality? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've probably gotten this question before, but what makes the Bach Cantatas website a high-quality reliable source?
Mostly answered above. The site has the best detail about recordings, and is used for recordings. In other cantatas, the hymns used are better known and have articles, with other sources. In this case, Bach Cantatas also has most detail on the hymn text and tune. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retracting my objection about this source; looking into Bach's Oxford Bibliographies entry, among other sources, shows that scholars in the field seem to consider this website reliable. —TS
Re 'music extract': the next bar line is 3 quavers away in that voice, different in the other voices. The extract is a reproduction of a crop in this article, cited as Traupman-Carr (2006). If the remaining rests/notes were included, it would not be a crop. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:32, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised by the relatively few scholarly sources in this article, and searching on Google Scholar, Google Books, JSTOR, and ProQuest gave me a lot of hits for potential sources not cited here. I haven't looked into these enough to determine if the article is comprehensive in spite of their exclusion, but it does suggest issues on that front.
Please compare source reviews for other Bach Cantatas. Bach Digital (run by Bach Archive and the University of Leipzig), seems as scholarly as you can get, the book by Dürr is the "Bible" about Bach cantatas, Gardiner recorded them all and knows what he was doing, we have Wolff, Hofmann and Schulze. Earlier people - such as Spitta and Schweitzer - seem to have looked into more prominent works. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that many important works in the field have been cited, but there seem to be a lot of minor — but still important — sources that have not made it in. Criteria 1b (comprehensiveness) and 1c (well-researched) taken together mean that you need a good reason for any scholarly source not to be present (for example, if it has nothing new to add to the article's content). I see no reason why this book that analyzes the piece multiple times, this paper discussing the vocal adaptation, or this paper discussing several recordings should be excluded from a comprehensive article. These are only examples; there are more. —TS
It seems that Bach Digital is reliable, as it's run by scholars for the most part, but as a database that doesn't appear to receive peer review it's probably not "high-quality". It's being used to cite statements that I think could be replaced by scholarly sources; for example, the overture being based on his own orchestral piece seems to be well-known, and was mentioned by several other sources.
Do you mean that you want more references for the first movement (not an overture) being based on the orchestral overture? That's easy with the sources around, but seems almost like a "sky is blue" fact. Adding two. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On a second look, I've struck part of my comment as inaccurate. I had simply suggested that one as an example for potential replacement since I originally thought the source was of lower quality. If you're not inclined to replace the source, that's fine; I certainly won't insist on it. —TS
I think we will not understand each other as long as you think that the top scientific source of information is "of lower quality" but want me to include from a book by two oboists of whom only one has an article on the English Wikipedia. I have no access to that book where I live, - perhaps you can add from it and be a co-author? Just an example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the descriptions of the movements lack cohesion and flit between topics very quickly. I understand there's limited sourcing to go off of here, but strictly delineating the movements between sections is exacerbating the issue.
I have guests and can reply on Friday. Perhaps compare other FAs on the topic, two this year, see nomination. Perhaps also compare the other FACs: Bach Digital is the scholarly database on the topic of Bach's music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work, Gerda, responses to a few above. I think I will have to put down an oppose at this point, unfortunately. After looking into my searches more carefully, I don't think this article is comprehensive or representative of the full body of literature about this piece. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:52, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The text has no recitatives paired with arias typical for Baroque opera and Bach's cantatas at the time," - is this an example of the variation between my American English and other varities of English, or is this missing a word? I was able to figure out what it meant but it took multiple readings. This may just be ignorance on my part.
A minor point, but is there a particular reason why trumpet is linked but not timpani? I would argue that the former instrument is generally more familiar than the later to most readers.
linked a few --GA
In the last paragraph of the Christmas section, the title of the biblical books (Titus, Isaiah, and Luke) are italicized, but this is not done elsewhere in the article. Is this intentional? In the Christian contexts that I personally am a part of, I very rarely if ever see the names of the books of the Bible italicized, although German Lutheranism has some marked differences from Baptist practices in the Bible Belt
straight now --GA
"The librettist began this text with a quotation of two verses " - is The librettist a reference to Bach, to Lehms, or some other figure?
it should mean Lehms, because librettist is the one who wrote the text, but what can we do if that is unclear? --GA
" The text reflects, in a meditative tone with interwoven flute motifs, that by God's assumption of human life makes the believers, in spite of "hell and Satan", are made "children of heaven"" - again, this does not seem to be grammatical to me
In the section simply titled 3, wouldn't it be useful to note specifically that the recitation is from Jeremiah? It's included in the table but seems significant enough to explicitly state in the text as well, given that a recitation is being discussed?
" is accompanied by a solo oboe d'amore that "expresses wonder about the nature of man" and God's interest in him." - I don't remember what exactly the policy is (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is close but maybe not exactly it) but I think this sort of quote is something that should be attributed to the author of it, given that this is a conclusion that not all listeners of the aria may draw, and also that it is non-literal in the sense that a solo oboe cannot explicitly express wonder, rather can only be played in a manner that suggests it to the listener
I looked, and seeing that the author wrote for AllMusic, I dropped the sentence (at the beginning). He writes, btw, that the "oboe expresses". - The same idea is repeated, sourced to Hofmann, in the second para. --GA
"The music is based on the Virga Jesse floruit ('The branch of Jesse flowered') from the Magnificat" - my opinion is that this should be clarified to refer to "from Bach's Magnificat". While Bach's piece has already been referred to in the article, the Magnificat of Luke 1 will be far more familiar to most readers. While you could argue I guess that the reference to Jesse points this to the Bach piece, I don't know how many readers will recognize that immediately and the plain reference to "the Magnificat" seems likely to cause confusion
accepted, although music can hardly be taken from Luke ;) --GA
Is Luke Dahn a high-quality RS?
we can drop him as soon as we have the (promised) Lilypond rendition for the chorale, - it's just a link to a nice presentation of the music which might be lost as an external link --GA
Gerda, I had made an inaccurate initial assessment of Bach Digital, and I already struck the part of my comment referencing it. My !vote has nothing to do with the quality of that source; I'm more concerned about the comprehensiveness, and it's unlikely I can pass the source review unless those points are addressed. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:12, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be busy, sorry, today was Siegmund Nimsgern (on the main page), tomorrow will be John Rutter (to be on the main page), and then guests RL for the rest of the week. I'll try to respond then, unless the next RD article comes along. In no FAC on a Bach cantata came a wish to include a book by oboists discussing Bach's writing for oboe using the cantata as an example, to stay with that case. I'm surprised, and I check if others see the same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:18, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, I was concerned with comprehensiveness rather than the reliability of Bach Digital. I want to determine better if that is indeed a significant issue, but it'll be several days before I can do the research. Hog FarmTalk22:42, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - My impression of the book by the two oboists mentioned above is that it does not seem to be essential. The Bach{{'}s Adaptations linked by TechnoSquirrel above seems to only devote one paragraph to this work. Most of what else I can find that isn't used devotes similar length to this topic (one or two paragraphs), and mainly seem to be focused on niche aspects of this. Hog FarmTalk23:56, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is slightly strange that Durr and Jones 2006 mentions pages 97-99, and the ref 12 says p.91
The cantata is covered by pages 97 to 99, but the book is about all Bach cantatas, and other facts (such as the prescribed readings and other cantatas) are covered elsewhere, with a link to the specific page. --GA
Yes, but given that there is only one ref that uses the bare name- shouldn't you just remove the 97-99 from there, and add page number in that bare name ref- atleast that's what I have seen happen in other articles
Given that the link to the source should go to p. 97, the beginning of the cantata's reflection (not the title page), I find it fair to give that page number, and p. 99 gives an idea how detailed the coverage is. So why not? --GA
I cannot understand what the order is for the cited sources- Why is Bach Digital at the top and Bach Cantatas at the bottom- with the last two mean W and then C? HSLover/DWF (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but a random reader won't know that, they will assume all the sources with authors are at one place, and others at other. Not one at top, author names one in the middle, and two in the end, which are not in alphabetical order? HSLover/DWF (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If that's how other FA's have done it, then okay, there is no issue- I just thought general source formatting guidelines would extend that far too. HSLover/DWF (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yeah, looked now, it's great. Sorry, the FA you linked had weird formatting, and I just opened wikipedia momentarily, so that's why I sad the pre-change one was fine too then. I support it being FA, but of course it's drive-by/I only skimmed it- so I'm not sure that would count for anything. HSLover/DWF (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of duplicated links, please run User:Evad37/duplinks-alt.js or User:Ucucha/duplinks.js
I worked on some. Some others are intentionally more than two (lead and body), example: Lehms, who is linked in lead, infobox, body and image caption, because different readers will look at different places first. A reviewer above suggested to link "recitative" (and others) a third time in the table of movements, - what would you think about that? All instruments and voice parts are intentionally linked in the scoring paragraph, even if mentioned with link before. --GA
published already in 1711 reads oddly to me, invert order or perhaps published previously...
English is not my first language, and I need help for such questions. What it should say is that the text was "older" than normal, - Bach would often collaborate with poets. What would you suggest? --GA
It's uncapitalised in the article as well, but not in the image caption where it is the title of a painting. (I still hope to get the lead image replaced by one from the autograph.) --GA
Neue Bach-Ausgabe on en-wiki is a redirect to New Bach Edition, perhaps use that instead or as well?
As you may have seen, in the Bach cantatas articles we use "Thomaskantor", "Nikolaikirche" and "Neue Bach-Ausgabe" with some consistency. --GA
Done, although it seems not to matter much in the context which war. --GA
Thank you for reading and commenting, Jim! --(forgot to sign)
I've changed which was published already to which had been published already and lower cased the annunciation in the last line of the Christmas section, easy to miss since it follows "Nativity". Please revert if you don't like these. Otherwise, no more, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me?07:40, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
lead: "which had been published already in 1711" - "first published in 1711"?
Perhaps see above, Hog Farm comments. I'd like like help with wording the fact that - while Bach usually collaborated with contemporary poets - this text was already 14 years "old" and in a format he no longer used, - and all this short. --GA
lead: wouldn't capitalise "Orchestral Suite"
If it was a (specific) Brahms symphony, we would have it capital, as a generic title. --GA
lead: "set to chamber music for solo voices and selected instruments" - maybe "set to chamber music for solo voices and instrumentation".
I don't think that a casual reader would understand that the "solo" also refers to the instruments. I tried "selected" instead of "obbligato" to not introduce too many Italian terms, - would you have a better idea? --GA
Lead and general: maybe explain some terms in parentheses...as an example only...."Bach led the Thomanerchor (musical director)"...also should Thomanerchor be in caps?
The lead should be succinct, and in the article, Thomaskantor is explained. Thomanerchor is the choir, and I believe that "chor" and "choir" are similar enough to not need interruption of the flow by brackets. --GA
Same goes for "one in the morning in the Nikolaikirche and one in the afternoon in the Thomaskirche" which could be "in the morning and afternoon at Leipzig's St. Nikolai and St. Thomas churches respectively...not every or even most readers will pick up on 'kirche'.
While not everyone will pick it up immediately: in Bach cantata article the names of the churches are in German, consistent with the job description and the choir name. The first sentence of the lead said "church cantata", so a first performance in a church seems no major surprise. - I am not sure that the "respectively" construction is more elegant, and we need "service" for the morning and "vespers" for the afternoon, - otherwise they could also be concerts. --GA
then we should not link Christmas either, right? --GA
Christmas: "In 1723 he had composed no new cantata for Christmas Day" - by 1723? Maybe "Christmas Day cantatas"
no, precisely that year, his first year in Leipzig: nothing new (sort of surprising), he performed an earlier one again in 1723. --GA
Christmas: "based on a text of free poetry"...but what does free verse mean in this context. Should it be "set to" rather than ""based on".
I used "setting", but what it means is said in the rest of the sentence: (unusually) no Bible text and no chorale (but of course Bible content, just in contemporary poetry. --GA
Thanks for replies...I did say I was being picky and anything else edited directly yesterday. Will try and pick up the review shortly. Ceoil (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BWV 79 has 14, if my math is right. I believe that we shouldn't count citations but look if facts are missing, with the citations there and perhaps new ones. Everybody is welcome to add new facts, and become a co-nom. I am busy RL this week. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:58, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Before Lope Martín, an Afro-Portuguese maritime pilot, nobody had sailed west across the Pacific and then completed the return voyage back to the Americas. Martín did so in 1565, all the while overcoming mutinies, scurvy, hostile natives, and freezing temperatures. For his accomplishment, he was given the privilege of piloting a ship back to the Philippines, where he would be executed for his alleged insubordination during the voyage. Cognizant of his impending death, Martín orchestrated two mutinies and became the “dictator” of a ship that was originally intended to bring him to his death. Unfortunately for Martín, his luck ran out and he and his accomplices were marooned on Ujelang Atoll, never to be seen again. This is my second FAC and I am very appreciative of any feedback or commentary that I may receive. Kimikel (talk) 12:51, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Nikkimaria, there is no known image of Lope. I used that map because it was the same style as the other two maps; if it would be better to replace it with a newer one, I can do so. Kimikel (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He was evidently a skilled sailor and navigator why the need to equivocate with "evidently"?
Removed
Martín probably claimed to be from the town Ayamonte I'm confused about the "probably claimed"?
We don't have anything in which he directly claims to be from Ayamonte but most of his contemporaries erroneously believed him to be from there. Hence Resendez's claim that he "must" have pretended to be from Ayamonte.
Is there anything else known about his life? Parents or other family? Education? Fikes 2022 gives some details about his early employment as a dock worker and some other biographical details. On the other hand (note to whoever runs the source check), I'm not convinced blackpast.org is a WP:RS.
None of the other sources I used give anything about his past. I only used blackpast to get an estimate for his birth so I can easily remove that.
a crew of 380 people I don't think need to specify that you're only counting people as part of the crew. But, "a crew" implies "for one ship". These 380 were divided across the four ships, so "a crew" seems wrong.
Changed to "and 380 men ... were gathered to crew each ship."
It had a crew of ten sailors and ten soldiers how many other people (scribes, monks, etc) were aboard?
addressed below
carried just eight casks of water how big is a cask? Or looking at it another way, how long can 8 casks of water sustain a crew of 20+ people?
I don't think I have an answer to this. If the lack of clarity makes it detrimental to the article, I can remove this sentence added alternate measurements
If the San Lucas had 20-ish people, and there were 380 people in total on the four ships, the ships would have had to have been of dramatically different sizes, i.e. 20 on this ship but an average of 120 on each of the others. The math doesn't add up, so this needs some additional clarity.
Added a sentence demonstrating the disparity between the flagship's size and staff and the San Lucas's
Martín justified his failure to slow down by explaining that the San Lucas could not reduce its speed when did this explaining happen?
Rearranged the sentences and contextualized by saying he explained it to Arellano in the moment
On the night of 5 January 1565, crewmembers of the San Lucas recognized that the ship was headed directly towards one of the Marshall Islands' atolls This raises a lot of questions in my mind. How does anybody on a ship with probably no instruments beyond a leadline recognize that they're approaching a low-lying atoll at night?
According to Resendez, the men on deck were alerted by "the sound of crashing waves" against the shore. I've added this
That makes sense. It reminds me of an old joke about using "potato navigation" in a heavy fog: you stand at the bow of the ship and toss potatoes as far as you can. When you stop hearing splashes, you turn!
Two days after avoiding that collision nerd alert: technically, collision refers to two moving ships hitting each other, so not the right word here.
changed to "avoiding the atoll"
(I'll pick up again next time at Legacy)
OK, I've finished a full read-through but I'm not sure where I stand. Overall, the story seems sparse with lots of details missing. But that may well be that the details simply don't exist in the sources. I'll give others a chance to comment, keep an eye on this, and come back at some point for another read. RoySmith(talk)10:43, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are referring to the biographical info on Martin that Fikes provides, I am somewhat uncertain. Resendez's book is as comprehensive as a biography of Martin as it gets, and while he mentions that Martin likely worked the docks, we don't have any way of actually knowing that; that's just how most pilots got their starts, so logically so did Martin. Resendez also never mentions anything about him being a "quick study" or surpassing other students because we have no way of knowing that. He simply implies that Martin was probably intelligent because you would have to be in order to be a competent pilot. It seems like Fikes makes a lot of assumptions and presents them as certainties. If you think that my assessment on this source is wrong, I'd be happy to include the information Fikes provides.
I agree that it's likely Fikes isn't a WP:RS, in which case there's certainly better sources to use for his year of birth.
I've removed him as a source. I've also removed Lope's year of birth, as none of the RSs I have so far list any real date or estimate; I will keep looking for something.
Statements like becoming the first to complete the return voyage from Asia to the Americas present a Euro-centric view of history. People such as the Polynesians had been navigating the Pacific long before Martin. See, for example, Pacific Ocean#Early migrationsAustronesians may have also reached as far as the Americas, although evidence for this remains inconclusive. It would be a mistake not to at least mention these earlier voyagers to give some historical context and credit.
I've added a sentence in the legacy section explaining that there is evidence suggesting the Polynesians made it to America.
I'm not up for a full source review, but I did a little searching in JSTOR and found a number of items which at least mention Martín but you don't have listed in your works cited:
DUNMORE, JOHN. Who’s Who in Pacific Navigation. University of Hawai’i Press, 1991. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvp7d58v. Accessed 7 Sept. 2025.
Rodríguez, Isacio R. “A Bibliography on Legazpi and Urdaneta and Their Joint Expedition.” Philippine Studies, vol. 13, no. 2, 1965, pp. 287–329. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42720596. Accessed 7 Sept. 2025.
CUSHNER, NICHOLAS P. “Legazpi 1564-1572.” Philippine Studies, vol. 13, no. 2, 1965, pp. 163–206. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42720592. Accessed 7 Sept. 2025.
That's just from the first page of search results which makes me suspect there's a lot more to be found with a deeper dive. I get the impression that you have relied mostly on websites and general audience books. For a topic like this, I would expect to see more emphasis on the academic literature. I recommend searching the academic databases such as JSTOR and ProCite. Specialized libraries such as https://www.sunymaritime.edu/library might have material which can be accessed via inter-library loan. RoySmith(talk)13:40, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added two sources from JSTOR; having reviewed the 43 results on JSTOR, the rest all only contained brief mentions of Lope, were about a different Lope Martin who was a Peruvian captain, or were already cited in my article. The maritime college only returns Conquering the Pacific. Kimikel (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: I am very thankful for you work on both the peer review and here. I believe I have addressed everything for this round of suggestions; please let me know what else can be improved. Thank you. Kimikel (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Searching Hathi Trust, I also found a book published in 1887 (in Spanish) titled (via Google Translate) "COLLECTION OF UNPUBLISHED DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE DISCOVERY, CONQUEST AND ORGANIZATION OF THE FORMER SPANISH OVERSEAS POSSESSIONS"
From what I can tell (based on my primitive reading knowledge of Spanish, augmented by Google Translate), there's a lot of detail in here beyond what you mention in the article. I see several full pages devoted to Martin sailing out of sight of the rest of the fleet. I suspect it may have been the primary source document for some of the books you used and certainly an essential resource for this article. RoySmith(talk)18:06, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also found https://cdn.watch.aetnd.com/sites/2/2023/06/249-HTW-Transcript.pdf. It's almost certainly not a WP:RS (it looks like it's all based on Conquering the Pacific) but still contains a couple of tidbits which are not in the article but are worth tracking down to see what else can be reliably said about them:
Don Alonso de Arellano ... has no maritime experience.
Added
The captain [of the San Lucas] orders that a lantern be placed in the stern of the boat to let the other boats know what they’re doing.
Added
This item reminds me of something I've been wondering about for a while: how did these various ships communicate with each other. I'm guessing Maritime flag signalling of some sort. You don't need to say a lot about that, but (assuming there's a RS for it) you should certainly mention what technology (signal flags certainly count as technology) they were using.
You mention that the San Pedro is 550 tons, but don't give any context to whether that is large or not. Here I see a comparison to Columbus's ships, the largest being not even 100 tons.
Added a comparison to Magellan's ship (5x bigger)
the San Lucas can only carry eight barrels of water (which you mention). The San Pedro, in contrast, has eighty. (which you don't, but should).
Found and added another source which quotes lead pilot Esteban Rodríguez's inventory
And, I do see "They have agreed on signals: flags during the day and lanterns during the night". Again, worth giving whatever detail is available.
Added
Plus a lot more interesting stuff about why it's hard to anchor in these coral island, what plans they had made to communicate via messages left on an island if they got separated (so clearly that had considered that possibility).
Both added
Some mention of charts that the ships carried. I'd certainly like to know more about that.
Added a paragraph with all the information i found regarding charts, equipment, and techniques
A citation check tool is showing two citations with errors:
"Culverin" 2025. Harv error: link from CITEREF"Culverin"2025 doesn't point to any citation. Harv error: link from CITEREF"Culverin"2025 doesn't point to any citation.
"Arquebus" 2025. Harv error: link from CITEREF"Arquebus"2025 doesn't point to any citation. Harv error: link from CITEREF"Arquebus"2025 doesn't point to any citation.
Warning on this citation: "Fikes 2022. Harv error: link from CITEREFFikes2022 doesn't point to any citation. Harv error: link from CITEREFFikes2022 doesn't point to any citation."
Fixed
Can the article include a map that shows the track of Martin's voyages? E.g. the James Cook article contains maps, such as File:Cook'sSecondVoyage53.png, that show where the voyage(s) went.
@Noleander: The issue I'm running into on this is that on his first voyage, nobody really knew where they were for the most part and most of their measurements were mistaken. All of the islands that they visited are speculative based on their descriptions of the islands; we don't know where they were for sure. On his second voyage, most if not all of the available information is based on testimony on the mutinies and the marooning, not maritime logs. Therefore, mapping these voyages would require a lot of speculation and would definitely be beyond my skill level. Kimikel (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's unfortunate. I recommend that you update the article to include all the information you just posted sbove. That's important information that readers will want to know, because i'm sure many readers will be curious about why there is no map of the voyage track. Noleander (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the article pointing these things out before it goes into the voyage so that the reader would have this information in mind. Kimikel (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've finally found an approximation of Martin's return voyage; I don't believe it's exact for the above reasons but I will be making a copy of it and will be adding to the article soon.
Legazpi expedition: "just eight casks containing around 959.2 U.S. gallons (3,631 L) of water" false precision: should be something like "around 1000 gallons (3,600 l)"
Done
"200 barrels of water" are barrels smaller or larger than casks?
Source used them interchangeably - I've changed it to just barrels for consistency.
maybe explain why this was a violation of the Treaty of Tordesillas
Done
Was the contingency plan to go to the Philippines made before the destination changed from New Guinea to the Philippines? In that case, it can't really have been a very secret secret?
Good catch - the instruction was just to proceed.
While we are on the topic of "secret", were Philip's orders to Luis de Velasco already a violation of the Treaty of Tordesillas? You just say "East Indies". —Kusma (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No; Philip only ordered the establishment of a colony in the East Indies. The decision between the Philippines and New Guinea as a destination had not been settled by the time Velasco died in 1564. That decision was made by the Audiencia after his death. Kimikel (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Separation of the San Lucas: here we get the story of the 10 days again. Perhaps just remove it from the previous section?
Merged
There are quite a few guesses made for the islands they visited. Is it worth attributing these? Pulap, on the other hand, is not a guess?
I feel as though the citations serve that purpose; if you disagree, I would be happy to find a way to incorporate direct attributions (probably notes?)
Not sure, but I find it interesting that these details mostly come from Sharp; I am not sure whether Resendez, your main and much more recent source, doubts these identifications.
Resendez only disputes one of Sharp's identifications; the rest, he either does not mention or agrees. I've removed Lib, the one that he found unlikely.
In an ideal world, we'd have something like a map of the entire voyage or at least one highlighting the islands they came in contact with, perhaps with attribution for the reconstructed voyage / the visited islands in the caption. The current collection of CIA maps doesn't quite work for me.
The section is quite long and not just about the separation, but about the entire voyage west.
Changed the header to be more reflective of the section
"By that time, they were so far north that on 11 June, snow fell on the ship and their lamp oil froze;[87] no European had traveled as far north in the Pacific before them" that sounds like they were *very* far north, certainly very far from their previously mentioned position 600km south of Tokyo. Can you say more precisely where they were? (They should roughly know their latitude, even if they were completely lost in terms of longitude).
Added that they were passed above the 43rd parallel
That is the latitude of Hokkaido. Snow in June at sea level on 43rd parallel seems just about possible, but still hard to imagine (even if the 16th century was colder than today). Did they not know about Japan or whether they were East or West of Japan? I still find it difficult to imagine where they were, or even why they were going north. Overall, do we know the route of the return voyage in any detail or is it a mystery also in the sources? As we later have "The northerly route that Martín pioneered during his return was followed by Spanish ships for two centuries" it seems that at least his contemporaries had some idea where he had been. —Kusma (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Point 2: I changed the sentence in order to be less misleading: he and Urdaneta showed that a west-east crossing was possible and that a northerly route was the way to do it; other pilots didn't necessarily follow Martin's path exactly per se, just the principle of traveling northward. Back to point 1: due to a slightly shameful bit of inattentiveness I missed a map showing an approximation of Martin's eastward return voyage. I don't believe it's exact (i don't think such a map would be possible) but it's a great starting point. I will make a copy of it since I assume it's copyright, but this is a big step towards clarifying his route for readers.
@Kusma: and @Noleander: I have created and added a map based off of the approximation I recently found. Obviously I am not a graphic designer, so if the map is lacking please let me know. Kimikel (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Martín surmised that they were seeing Cedros Island off the coast of Baja California" so they had travelled quite far south again?
Correct, added
"On 28 July, just a few hundred miles from the shore, two sizable waves struck the vessel, tipping it over, flooding it with water, and carrying away its helmsman." did they sail away again after being fewer than 50 miles from the mainland?
Correction: they reached Cedros Island then proceeded back to Navidad; that's how they were still hundreds of miles away. Fixed
The Audiencia members very much had agency in this; I haven't seen any evidence that the viceroy was involved in the case at all. The Audiencia is the main political force in this scenario.
Final expedition: "Martín understood that this was a punishment and that Legazpi would have him executed as soon as he arrived" why did he expect to be executed before he had embezzled the money?
explained that the punishment would be for the alleged desertion, not embezzlement
11,000 ducats sounds like a huge sum; why did they give it to someone who they did not trust and wanted to punish? The story seems a little implausible.
Per Resendez: "The Audiencia members must have known that it was risky to entrust eleven thousand ducats [to Martín] ... It is impossible to know whether this had been a deliberate ploy. Yet now that Lope Martín was in jail for defrauding the royal treasury, they could exert a great deal more pressure on him."
Added that the grant may have been to gain leverage on him.
" sailing to the colony in Cebu " is this the same as Legazpi's colony in the Philippines?
Yes, clarified
How many men were on the San Jerónimo? Do we know anything about Mosquera's motivation?
Added both
Marooning: "dictator" in whose view?
Changed to more neutral "leader"
"trying to sway them to his side" what was the other side? this gets a bit clearer when he gets marooned, but that is all a bit sudden.
changed sentence
"In return for the sails and navigational tools, Martín's group was given four days' worth of food." that sounds like an absolutely terrible deal, do we know why they agreed to it?
Explained that Lope's group knew they had no chance to recapture the ship, thus explaining why they weren't in a position to bargain
How far away are the Caroline Islands?
added
Achievements: we have some fairly recent serious historians doubting the journey, so maybe we should explain why we are not listening to them and stating the journey in wikivoice? Or are these just one or two exceptions while the vast majority of people accept the journey as having happened?
In my bibliography, there's a definite majority that describe the journey as real. There is, however, a minority that does believe it was falsified, and that Urdaneta was the true pioneer of the west-east voyage. Those who support the veracity of Arellano and Martin's testimony are basing it on Arellano's logs, while those who don't are mainly making that determination based on the perceived untrustworthiness of Arellano and Martin, which to me seems more conjectural. Therefore, I feel what I have accurately describes the conflict. I added that the two's "untrustworthiness" was a motive for the disbelief; if you feel that more is needed to explain this please let me know.
What route did Urdaneta take and how does it compare to the "northerly route" taken by most Spanish ships? As he was sailing independent of Martin, he was just as much of a pioneer, so may be due credit anyway. —Kusma (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded a paragraph to give more details about Urdaneta's return. I also mention his voyage now in the Achievements section alongside Martin. Kimikel (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note a: the information given at League_(unit)#Spain seems more useful than the precision here.
I couldn't find the source they used in that article, but I found another source that gives reasonable, though wide, estimates.
A very interesting person and journey, but I am still confused about a few things. If a lot of these are unknown or debated, perhaps some historiography would help to clarify what is known and what is unknown. —Kusma (talk) 13:04, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma: I believe I have addressed everything thus far. Please let me know what else needs to be addressed or if any of my responses are unsatisfactory. Thank you, Kimikel (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of improvements; my main question now is what we really know about the route of the return voyage and whether the map situation for all voyages can be improved. —Kusma (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response - I'll do my best regarding the routes, or at least to explain why we don't know. I will address all these comments very shortly, thanks for everything. Kimikel (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered about the use of "mulatto" which (according to our article) is considered offensive in some contexts and regions, but not in others. I feel confident that if this article were to make it to the main page, someone would complain about it. I'm not saying that you should change it, but have you considered what, if any, appropriate alternatives there could be? If this article is written in AmEng, for example, it could be argued that it should be avoided as in America the word is unambiguously derogatory.
I'd like to leave mulatto since it's the word that my sources use to describe him but in that event, I feel "Afro-Portuguese" is descriptive enough to stand alone.
Sources might use a derogatory word if (a) the source is somewhat old; or (b) source is from another nation than that where the term is considered derogatory. Alternative words such as "Afro-Portuguese" (or similar) are less offensive and more informative to the reader. Noleander (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Pilots were expected to be Spanish nationals; Martín probably claimed to be from the town Ayamonte, near the Spanish and Portuguese border. This is evidenced by the fact that many of his contemporaries wrongly believed him to be a native of Ayamonte." Could we shorten this to "Pilots were expected to be Spanish nationals; Martín probably claimed to be from the town of Ayamonte, near the Spanish and Portuguese border, since many of his contemporaries wrongly believed him to be from the town."?
Done
"Martín assessed that it would be impossible to exit from where they had entered in the dark": how about "Martín considered that in the dark it would be impossible to exit the atoll by the same route they had entered..."?
Done
Where would you expect to draw the line between an article about the voyage west and then east, and an article about Martín? To put it another way, if all the related articles were brought up to featured standard, including articles about Legazpi, Arellano, and the voyage itself, what is left over for this article? I ask because although this is all clearly relevant to Martín, I wonder how much overlap there would be since it's almost all relevant to an article about the voyage too.
That was definitely something I was concerned about while writing the article and through the peer review/GA process. At those points, I tried to remove everything that didn't directly involve Martín or wasn't necessary to understand the context of the voyage. I feel like everything that's there now falls within the scope of the article; if you disagree, please let me know.
"and they had returned directly to Navidad instead of the Spice Islands or any other location". I have read a little history of the East Indies and I suspect the Spice Islands are mentioned because sailors could enrich themselves by stealing spices such as nutmeg and selling it back in Europe or America. Is that why the Spice Islands are mentioned here? If so, can we say so? If not, why are they mentioned?
"after they failed, the ship was pushed back into the atoll": "pushed" is odd here -- how did they push it?
Exactly right about the Spice Islands piece; I've added an explanation. I clarified that the ship lacked sails and was pushed by the current, not by the sailors. Kimikel (talk) 00:05, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever asked yourself "Gee, I wonder what the first American gay sequel is"? No? Yeah, me neither. Buut, now that the thought has been implanted in your head, the answer to that questions is, drum roll, Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds. Essentially the gay version of American Pie, Eating Out consists of five installments, with each film having some sort of depection scheme; think Twelfth Night ridiculousness, but with sexuality. Eating Out 2 inverts the premise of the original - which focused on a straight man pretending to be gay to seduce a woman - by focusing on a gay man pretending to be straight (ex-gay) to seduce the resident hot guy, played by Marco Dapper; a somewhat ridiculous premise on paper, but the film makes it work. The movie got better reviews than the original - at least in terms of review aggregator scores - though it's hardly on par with films like Brokeback Mountain or Moonlight. Still, if you're looking for a sex comedy, and all that this genre entails, it's a pretty fun film that delivers; especially in terms of sex appeal. If you do watch the film, I hope you enjoy it.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence from the lead, It was finished by May., is rather short. I wonder if it could be combined with the previous sentence to have something like the following, who started to write the script in January 2006 and finished by May, instead?
Made some revisions to this section - and others - of the lede.
The following sentence from the lead, Brocka had past experience with such organizations., is rather vague. Could you briefly clarify what kind of experience Brocka had with these groups?
Clarified his encounters involved members trying to convert him.
Is the citation for the box office necessary for the infobox? I would imagine that this information would be present and cited in the article.
From what I've seen, the box office gross is always cited in the infobox. The information is also present in the "Release" section, but the same thing is also done to other articles.
I have seen examples of film FAs that do not cite the box office in the infobox, such as Die Hard or Frozen 2. That being said, it is not a major issue for me, so I would be fine with the citation staying in the infobox. I could understand how having that citation more accessible in this way could be helpful for readers. Aoba47 (talk) 19:06, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This part from the lead, Response to the performances was response, has a typo with the repetition of "response".
Oops.
For the plot summary, I wonder if there should be any background for who these characters are. For instance, the first sentence, casually mentions Kyle and Marc (and the same goes for Tiffani and Gwen in the second sentence), but readers may feel lost. Would descriptors be helpful here?
You're right. Personally, I don't thing we need to many details as to who these characters are, particularly since all of them originate from the first one, so I just added a few details about them being college students, classmates, and friends.
I agree that there does not need to be a ton of background for a story like this. I think that your additions strike a perfect balance with providing enough information without going overboard. Aoba47 (talk) 18:51, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should the "Cast" section have a citation or is the movie being used as the primary source?
I was using the movie itself as the source. I did check at the American Film Institute, but they only have 5 cast members listed there, omitting the actors for Jacob, Octavio, and Helen. I could use Rotten Tomatoes instead.
That makes sense. I do not have a strong opinion either way, so it is fine by me. Thank you for the clarification. I will leave this up to other reviewers. Aoba47 (talk) 18:51, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the "Serving Seconds: The Making of Eating Out 2" citation, I believe that Eating Out 2 should italicized. I have the same comment for the Rotten Tomatoes citation. I would double-check the citations to make sure that this is consistent.
Done with both this sources and others.
I hope that these comments are helpful. I have read up to the "Production" section, and I will continue once everything has been addressed. Good luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that I am able to help. Everything looks good to me. I will look through the article and post further comments later today. Aoba47 (talk) 18:51, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This quote, "too full", could be paraphrased without losing anything.
Removed it, as it wasn't really needed.
I am uncertain about this part, Tiffani has "not changed at all" and that she's "become skankier", as it seems contradictory to say that a character has not changed at all only to say how she has changed for the sequel.
I think the idea, since they were talking about sex, is that Tiffani hadn't changed at all in terms of continuing to be sex-obsessed; and that, if anything, she's even more obsessed with sex now. But that's me extrapolating all that from the actress' short statements. For clarity, I've retained only the second quote.
I do agree with your interpretation. They likely mean that the character is still sex-obsessed, but is even more so for the sequel. I think that focusing on the second quote is the best route to go for this. Aoba47 (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The link for portable toilet should be moved up to the first time that it is mentioned in the article. And would it better to link chemical toilet here as I am guessing that is the type being referenced?
Saw the image used. That's exatly the toilet used in the film, even having the same colour.
I am glad. I have never heard of them as a "chemical toilet" so it is good that you kept the "portable toilet" wording as that would seem more common to me. Aoba47 (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like Sloppy Seconds is also available on the streaming services Cineverse (here) and Fawesome (here).
I thought I should only include streaming services the film is available on, only if a secondary source reports on it.
Thank you for the explanation. I agree with that reasoning, particularly when things can be quite odd when it comes to streaming. Aoba47 (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "Reception" section has some minor repetition. For the second paragraph, there are two sentences in a row using "criticized". The fourth paragraph uses "similarly" for two sentences in a row, and the same for "praised" in the fifth paragraph.
Done.
Would it be helpful to link to the Wiktionary entry for "eye candy" or for "man meat"? I was just curious based on the high jinks link earlier in the article.
Done.
File:Eating Out 2 Cast.jpg should have ALT text. This is a great image choice by the way, and it does a really job with illustrating the point that is being discussed in the section.
Thank you. :) It seemed like the most appropriate, as it is somewhat suggestive but doesn't feature anything too explicit. I hope that alt text is sufficient.
I have added something in, but I'm not sure it's the correct template. I know some citations actually has a lock symbol present with different colours indicating if you simply need to login, or pay a subscription, and I'm not sure what to use.
I'm not 100%, but I don't think Echo was owned by a company at that time. I've included who the founder was, cause some other online source described him as the publisher. Also added the publisher to the other sources.
I was not sure about Echo, so that is why I asked. I think that including the founder in this context makes sense. Thank you for adding in the other publishers. Aoba47 (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a requirement for a FAC, but I think that it would be helpful to alphabetize the categories so it would easier for readers to navigate and use in general.
Genuinely thought I had already done that. Lol. Fixed.
This should be my comments for the rest of the article. 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 you are having a good weekend so far! Aoba47 (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's beed a good week, overall. Thank you for your kind words @Aoba47:. I hope you are enjoying yourself as well. I have responded to all your comments, though I may need a bit of help with the subscription thing. Let me know if the changes look good or not.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The changes look good to me. I have added the subscription parameter to the citation. It took me a while to 1) learn about it at all and 2) to know how to actually use it so I can understand having issues with it. I will look through the article sometime later in the week, but I doubt that I will find anything further to comment on. Aoba47 (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have read through the article again, and everything looks good to me. I am always happy to see more LGBT content in the FAC/FA space. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I hope you are having a wonderful week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Aoba47:! It was nice to finally work on a queer-related article. Have to say, I was pretty lucky that so many reviews existed, which definitely helped; having the scourge the ends of the internet for a measly 5 reviews does not make me wanna work on an article, lol. PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can completely understand that! I am glad that you were able to find sources, and you did a wonderful job with getting all of the information together. Aoba47 (talk) 13:56, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify: Eating Out 2 features the Christian right, anti-gay movement, and particularly the ex-gay movement as prominent themes. I'm having a hard time parsing this. Is this a list of three items separated by commas? (1) Chr Right; (2) anti-gay mov; and (3) ex-gay movement? Or are "right" and "anti-gay" two adjectives modifying the singular noun "movement"? In any case, suggest re-wording to clarify.
Slightly reworded the sentence. Let me know if it still needs word.
Clarify: Brocka admitted that he had experienced members of ex-gay organizations attempt to recruit and convert him. Is "convert" used here in the sense of convert to a religion? or in the sense of Conversion therapy?
He was referring to conversion therapy. I've linked to the article on the topic, though I can change the sentence to further clarify the intended meaning, if you believe that's necessary.
Wording: ... and finished on May 31 consider ...and wrapped on May 31 tho "wrapped" may verge into non-encyclopedic jargon.
Made a few minor changes to the sentence and replaced with "concluded".
Source Quantic, David (May 29, 2007). "Serving Seconds: The Making of Eating Out 2". Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds. Ariztical Entertainment. I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia movie articles. I gather this source is a short documentary film? At first I thought it was a book. Is there any way you can clarify that? Maybe add a small textual note at the end of the source descriptor? Of, if that is the normal way to show "making of", leave it alone.
It was a mini-documentary in the DVD release; back in the olden days when film's received physical releases and the DVDs actually included extras.
Wording: Bibliography To me, the word "Bibliography" means books, and only books. If some of the sources are movies/documentaries, consider changing that section title to "Sources" or something like that.
I changed it (twice) to something that's hopefully better.
Thank you for you kind words @Ippantekina:. I have linked the words and removed both uses respectively.
Regarding the publications, I have fixed the title for The Village Voice. For the others, I haven't done it yet, because from what I've checked, the Wikipedia articles for these publications don't include the definite article in their title. However, if you think they still have to be added, I have no problem including them.
Regarding the use of passive voice, I've changed a few sentences. I used a spell-checking tool to see how many passive sentences exist in the article. To be honest, i don't see the need to change them from passive to active. I don't believe that a FA criterion, and in my opinion, most of the sentence in passive being chsnged to the active voice would mess up with the flow of information and cause the article to look a bit robotic at times. PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing my comments. It is true that following rigidly any prose standard would come across as robotic, but my suggestion is more like, use the active wherever possible as it is a general rule of thumb for good writing. I'll have another look at the article later this week, but so far no further issues from my side. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Ippantekina:. Just wanted to let you know that I've made a few revisions in certain sentences to change them to the active voice. I only have the "Reception" section remaining. I'll probably do it tomorrow or the day after, as work prevented me from doing so earlier. PanagiotisZois (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Battle of Raymond on May 12, 1863, alerted Ulysses S. Grant to the danger posed by the Confederate buildup at the Mississippi capital of Jackson, and Grant decided to alter his plans and neutralize the threat at Jackson before swinging west to Vicksburg. The new Confederate commander at Jackson, Joseph E. Johnston, decided to abandon the city within hours of arriving there, a decision which has been criticized by history. The fighting at Jackson on May 14 was a rear-guard action as John Gregg bought time for the Confederates to evacuate supplies from the city, while facing a converging assault led by William T. Sherman and James B. McPherson. After taking Jackson, Grant's troops wrecked Confederate infrastructure there on May 15 before decisively defeating John C. Pemberton's army at the Battle of Champion Hill on May 16, which set the stage for the Siege of Vicksburg. Hog FarmTalk03:06, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused by the hidden note on the lead caption - AFAICT the templatedata just says "text to be placed below the image"? Why would that preclude a change here?
Here's a discussion related to this, which involved a previous caption wording. With non-reader facing matters like this note, I tend to defer to the judgment of the person who placed it; I'm sure there's a reason why its there. Hog FarmTalk13:33, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest adding alt text
Added for all but the map, which will require some more thought. These complex maps are not easy to write alt text for - are you aware of any guidance? Hog FarmTalk13:33, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what to do about this - this is a map donated to Wikipedia by a person who is a very well-respected professional cartographer, primarily for Civil War publications. This map is the best possible illustration for this sort of thing. Hog FarmTalk13:33, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm I had the same color problem with a map in James Cook nomination. I had to get an entirely new set of maps made that satisfied MOS:COLOUR. I started to draw them myself, and was half way done, when a map person volunteered to do it, and they finished the job. I think that individual is only interested in nautical voyages, so I'm not volunteering them ... plus they are semi-retired from WP. But maybe there are some civil war buffs that are into drawing maps? Those James Cook maps also used dashed & solid lines, and that had to be considered (dotted and dot-dash give two additional line styles, for a total of four). Noleander (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Noleander: As to - But maybe there are some civil war buffs that are into drawing maps? Like I responded to Nikkimaria, this is the product of a formerly active enwiki editor who is now a professional Civil War cartographer (Hal Jespersen) and very graciously donated some of his best work to Wikipedia. We are not going to be getting a higher-quality map from a current Wikipedia editor as regards specialty with the subject matter, and it's an excellent cartographic work. Positive commentary about the quality of this map was brought up in the A-Class review. I understand and try to be sensitive to accessibility concerns as far as possible, but there's a certain point where things have to get utilitarian. This isn't a great analogy and I don't want to be accidentally offensive but - I am lactose intolerant, and my inability to eat cheese without throwing up everywhere is a great frustration to me. But I just 45 minutes ago cooked my wife "real" mac-n-cheese so she could still have that, even though I'll never be able to eat any of it. Again, I don't want to sound insensitive, but our article at Color blindness doesn't even mention red/blue colorblindness that I can see. Frankly, if we're at the point where for FAC it is expected that the utility for the vast majority of readers be impaired for a small (and apparently undefined) fraction, then I think I'll just withdraw this as it is clear that FAC has been overrun by a form of pedantry that is not creating better articles. And again - I don't want to sound insensitive. It would be another matter if something more integral to the article was unusable, or if an actual substantial documentable non-minimal percentage of readers can be shown to me to be affected by this. A quick google search for "red-blue colorblindness" for me is only bring up things suggesting that it is either a truly negligible issue that video game developers can safely ignore it or non-RS stuff (mainly Reddit). And to answer particular objections - red/blue to distinguish Confederates and Union is the dominate method of displaying the two sides and has been for decades - it's going to cause far more problems that it will solve to switch the colors than it would be to keep this. And again, the solid-dashed lines have a meaning in the map. Hog FarmTalk23:59, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to using colors in maps. But if that's acceptable for featured articles and for any articles, then the manual style guideline should be clarified. It uses the word "should" which typically means mandatory in the manual style. But if there's an exception for maps, especially for military maps, then the manual of style should be amended to clearly state that. ... But that's a discussion for the manual style talk page, not here. Noleander (talk) 00:45, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At first glance, seems like a solid, quality article. Overall visual appearance is good; sources & citations - without deep scrutiny - have uniform layout.
Images: Is it possible to add a couple of images showing soldiers? I realize that photos of this specific battle (or even soldiers that were in the battle) are perhaps impossible to find; but a photo of a contemporary soldier - even if posed - would be invaluable. Anything from 1863. The caption can say something like This photo from 1863 shows a typical Union Sergent's from the 3rd army .... . It would give readers a much better feel for who was participating.
Well, I don't know that I've seen this specifically in practice at a FA for a battle before. Picking 6 articles from the wars and battles section of WP:FA (Battle of Pontvallain, Falaise pocket, Koli Point action, Battle of Rossbach, Battle of Barrosa, and Capture of Wakefield) show either depictions of combat, battlefields, maps, specific leaders, or images that are directly of the battle in question or closely related actions, rather than any generic human-interest type images. In this case we do have two realistic wartime sketches of battles (this one and the closely-related fighting at Champion Hill) that show pretty well the tactics, uniforms, and armaments of the soldiers of the period. The infobox image dates to 1863, the same year as the battle - personally I think there's value in presenting the soldier in the battlefield context, especially given the photographic technology of the time. It's not like we can expect fairly candid portraits like you would for the WWII armies, given that the photographic capabilities of the time meant that most pictures had to be heavily staged. Hog FarmTalk03:01, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto for guns, cannons etc. A picture of of the same model of cannon that combatants were _likely_ to use in the battle (even if not 100% certain that the model actually was used) is okay, and would draw-in some readers.
I'm not opposed to this, but it will involve removing an existing image to avoid a MOS:SANDWICH issue I expect. I'm not sure what image would be the one to go - removing Johnston while keeping the Union commanders would cause a balance issue, while it would seem arbitrary to have one of McPherson and Sherman but not the other. Hog FarmTalk18:24, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraphs are all very large. Nothing wrong with that, strictly speaking. But some readers may feel more comfortable jumping in if there are some smaller paragraphs. The barrage of large paragraphs (all about the same size) may be a bit off-putting to some readers. Is it possible to find a few of the large paragraphs that have a sensible breaking point in the middle? If so, consider splitting into two.
I'm open to specific suggestions on where paragraphs can be split. I read 700 page books for fun, so I have to remind myself that my attention span is not representative of the general population. But a quick look through WP:GAR (which has lower standards than FA) reveals a large number of complaints about paragraphs being too short. This is a topic where I really don't think I can please all of the people all of the time, so I try my best to to split where the topical material presents openings and avoid extremes in paragraph length. Hog FarmTalk03:01, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox says 11,500 (engaged) - I'm not sure what "engaged" means .. can a wikilink (or footnote) be added so readers understand the term?
This means that is the strength of the units present and actually participating in the battle. (McPherson and Sherman both had units in the area that didn't actually fight in the battle). It's a basic enough military history term that there isn't an article that can be linked on this topic, and I don't think linking to wiktionary would be helpful due to the sheer number of possible meanings noted there. I'm open to rephrasing this, but I've having trouble coming up with something that isn't clunky or ambiguous, given that the infobox isn't the place for length explanations. Hog FarmTalk18:24, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify wording Sherman's advance was slowed by the necessity of crossing Lynch Creek at only the single bridge. The phrase "at only the single bridge." is confusing. That could be interpreted as "there was only one bridge in existence"; or "there were multiple bridges, but only one was available"; or "there were multiple bridges, but Sherm choose to use only one".
I've rephrased this a bit, although this is already explicitly stated in the article ("The heavy rains made it impossible to ford the creek, limiting the crossing to a single bridge"). Hog FarmTalk03:01, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Extent of battlefield now? The City of Jackson preserves 2 acres (0.81 ha) of battlegrounds ... described the site at Battlefield Park as "one of the few undeveloped spots where a visitor can walk the ground where part of the battle of Jackson took place" A few thoughts:
Is there any kind of visitor's center or memorial of the battle? If not, is there any special reason why not?
I mean ... I'm not sure what to really add here without belaboring the point. I've added the quote "The landscape as was visible during the battle has largely been obliterated by development", in addition to the previously existing quote from Mackowski of "one of the few undeveloped spots where a visitor can walk the ground where part of the battle of Jackson took place". I could add "The Study Areas of Jackson and Meridian are completely destroyed and offer no potential for listing in the National Register of Historic Places." from the ABPP update, or "The landscape of Jackson has been altered beyond recognition" from same source, but there's a point where it's just beating the dead horse of urban blight in Jackson (Mackowski notes to show caution when visting the battlefield park because of several murders there) to keep pointing out that the battle fought next to a city got covered over by said city. The ABPP report lists Jackson under "Battlefields with public interpretation, but no visitors center" but again I think the currently-existing text here is fairly clear that there's nothing here except for a park with some inaccurate signs. If you go too deep into the weeds with the currently existing stuff unless there's actually a protected area, there's a definite concern of becoming too much like a tourism guide. Hog FarmTalk03:01, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
... one in a public park ... What is the name of the public park? The article mentions some interpretive signs placed by a non-profit organization. Is there no federal Historical Monument?
I've added the name of the public park. I'm haven't seen any indication of any sort of federal recognition; it's completely ineligible for a NRHP listing or anything. Hog FarmTalk03:01, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If a visitor could go to Jackson now, is much of the battleground now beneath buildings/neighborhoods? IF so, could the article identify where the primary battleground is now located? Even if there is no source that explicitly says, it is not OR for an editor to look at a map and write "The majority of the battlefield is situated between 5th and 8th streets, and C and D avenues" or something like that. Of course, if the battlefield is mostly within the park, no need to add anything like that.
I've added a sentence that explicitly states that it's all covered over with the modern urban development of Jackson. The "Driving Tour of the Vicksburg Campaign" in Guide to the Vicksburg Campaign ed. by Fullenkamp, Bowman, & Luvaas skips over Jackson entirely; while there's some ability to tie specific items to places in town (for instance, Mackowski in the final chapter dealing with modern sites in Jackson of historical interest notes that Sherman's troops passed through the general area of a specific strip mall) it's all going to be of a fairly trivial nature not useful to someone who isn't a Jackson native; I think the concern of basically becoming a battlefield brochure is a real one. Hog FarmTalk03:01, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest adding wikilink to Sherman's neckties in the image caption. I realize it is already linked in the body text, but the guidelines permit duplicate links in image captions ... and we know that many readers only look at the pictures.
Caption clarity: A Sherman's necktie. Similar destruction was performed in Jackson after the battle. Even with a link, readers should not have to click the link to understand the photo. I gather that is a railroad track? If so, consider After the battle, union troops destroyed many railroad tracks by bending them into Sherman's neckties. or similar.
Concur with User:Nikkimaria comment above about red & blue lines in maps (see my comment up there). Striking this suggestion, since there seems to be some uncertainty whether MOS:COLOUR applies to maps. In any case, it should not be an FA show-stopper until after the MOS:COLOUR guideline is clarified to indicate if it is mandatory for all maps, or all military maps. Noleander (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify His troops downriver, Grant wanted to cross ... a bit idiomatic, may be tricky for English-as-2nd-language readers. Consider With his troops safely(?) downriver, Grant wanted to cross .. or something similar.
Citations: Seems a shame to have 145 sfn cites and a single <ref> cite ... stands out like a sore thumb :-) I realize that the <ref> source is anonymous, but you could either (a) use sfn and set the author last name to "Anon"; or (b) use sfn with template:Sfnref and effectively use the website title as the "name" of the source. Not an FA showstopper, but having 100% sfn would be *chef's kiss*
When this first hit FAC, it did have a 100% sfn rate, but that citation was added to support the titling of the infobox image as a direct quote. I don't think it can cleanly be converted to sfn and I think this is a case where the clarity of understanding the references is more important than the aesthetics of the references section. Hog FarmTalk18:24, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dates & chronology of Destruction of Jackson: Could this section begin with an explicit statement of the days/hours that this section covers (e.g."morning of 15 May to about 20 May" as an example).
I'm a bit confused as to what you're asking here - are you wanting this in the section heading? This is a topical section rather than a strictly chronological one covering the destruction of Jackson; there's no reference to May 20 in this section. Hog FarmTalk18:24, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify Bearss describes Grant's ability to prevent Johnston from gathering a significant force in the Union rear at Jackson as of "major significance to Grant and his campaign east of the Mississippi". On May 14, Pemberton had received a copy of the message that Johnston had sent before abandoning Jackson.... I'm not quite grasping the significance of this statement, which is in the AFtermath section. I cannot tell if this is talking about Johnston gathering a force after the battle; or is this refering to him gathering a force before the battle? Of course, I'm ignorant about the battle, and maybe my confusion is due to that ignorance, but if the text could spell it out more plainly, that would be nice.
I've done some rewriting of this - it's referring to the message than Johnston sent Pemberton on May 13 (which is dicussed in the section "Johnston decides to abandon Jackson"), which Pemberton did not received until May 14. Hog FarmTalk18:24, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing the above: More confusion: the battle was a single day, 14 May. Yet in the AFtermath section (several paragraphs down) it has On May 14, Pemberton had received a copy of the message that Johnston had sent before abandoning Jackson... I'm having a hard time getting the chronology straight. If the battle ended late on 14 May, and we are now in the section "Champion Hill and fall of Vicksburg" which is AFTER the " Destruction of Jackson" section, I'd expect to be in 15 May or later.
Again, the aftermath is topical. A purely chronological treatment is only going to prove confusing if I stick things not immediately related to the battle in the middle of the battle section, or try to bounce between Pemberton's movements and Grant's troops wrecking Jackson. This information is relevant not to the battle, and not to Sherman/McPherson/Confederates burning down Jackson, so it's placed here, where it is immediately relevant to what Pemberton/Grant did after Jackson had been dealt with. Hog FarmTalk18:24, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing the above: A suggestion: Consider breaking the Champion Hill and fall of Vicksburg into subsections, if appropriate, that help reader with the narrative. E.g.
May 15 subsection
May 16-19 subsection
May 20 onward subsection
These above three are just random examples, but they illustrate the point. Alternatively, consider including dates in the existing section titles:
Destruction of Jackson (May 15-18)
Champion Hill and fall of Vicksburg (May 15-22) [dates here are random]
I'm not sure what the best solution is, but anything to clarify the timeline would help.
I have added a date range to the heading for the Champion Hill and fall of Vicksburg section, which I hope helps with this. I have seen a very large number of complaints at WP:FAR and WP:GAR over the years regarding short sections, so I am hesitant to split up a 4-paragraph section further. Hog FarmTalk18:24, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consider McPherson had begun his attack .. to McPherson began his attack .... unless there is a good grammatical reason to use "had begun".
Times throughout the battle: Maybe it is just me, but the timeline is getting to me again. The battle was short: single day. The hour-by-hour timeline is not as clear as it could be. Consider amending the 14 May section titles to be something like:
Initial fighting (3am to 11am)
Confederate defeat (11am to 5pm) [times here are random, for example only]
If I'm the only person with this need, you can ignore it. But I'm a typical non-civil-war-buff, giving an honest opinion.
That is all I have for now. The article is very solid, with decent images, and great sourcing. My comments above are mostly optional suggestions, giving the perspective of an non-civil-war-buff WP reader. I think part of FA is making an article inviting to as wide an audience as possible. Ping me when you've gone thru the above, and I'll make another pass. Great article!! Noleander (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I retract my suggestions made above about (a) paragraphs are overly, uniformly large; and (b) three nearly-identical photos of generals are nice, but enlisted soldiers would be much more informative to readers. It seems that the article conforms to the expectations/conventions of the Military History project ... which is fine. As an outsider, it looks like this article (and all Civil War battle articles?) is aimed at other history buffs, not at a general audience from all walks of life. So, I still think the article could be more inviting for the lay reader, but I won't belabor the point. :-)
@Noleander: - I've added those links (they show as not available for checkout to me but I assume that it's available for some users). My personal view is that for these niche topics, it's very difficult to have an article that both aims at a general audience and includes the level of technical-style detail that meets WP:FACR #1b. We really see this with mathematical topics. Hog FarmTalk21:24, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all. I'm afraid I'm picking on the Scots again :) it's a kind of bookend to its counterpart of 15 years earlier; I think they'll make a nice pair. To be fair, too, the English come out probably worse in this than the previous campaign, albeit doing even less while it was taking place. Even the contemporary hoi-polloi—usually dead keen on a bit of old-fashioned neighbour bashing—were distinctly unimpressed. Hopefully, you agree with me that it's ready; all comments and suggestions welcome. —Fortuna, imperatrix15:46, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikkimaria. I've updated the visual source for Dunbar (and added another text source).
Albany's seal was created c.1400 and published by English historian Walter de Gray Birch in 1905. Gray Birch died in 1924,[1] so the book presumably entered PD in 1994. (Added this to Commons)
Ensure consistency on descriptors: either avoid (“As historian Chris Given-Wilson…” and "Historian A. L. Brown suggests...") or ignore (“The historian Anne Curry…”) to prevent false titles.
To be fair, it wasn't really SKYBLUE as it linked to Port of London rather than the city; but delinked anyway, because it was probably an unnecessary detail.
Minor grammar/clarity: "Henry's was an experienced army" → "Henry commanded an experienced army".
An excellent article – clear, readable and evidently well sourced. A few points on the prose:
"nor did the King besiege Scotland's capital ... deplete further the king's coffers" – capitalising or not capitalising "the King" – here and later?#
I think I've caught them all—but then I obviously thought I had the first time!
"these campaigns were "enforcing ... royal will ... It also instilled national unity " – lurch from plural to singular.
Pluralised.
"much of the English nobility was keen on a pre-emptive strike|" – really was keen, rather than were?
Done (and below!)
"In particular, the Percys ... at the instigation of the Percies" – make up your mind. I think the first is much preferable (I prefer to be one of the Rileys rather than one of the Rilies.)
"Probably as persuasive to Henry as his lords " – should the second "as" be "and"?
Yes, I think so.
"betrayed by the Rothesay's uncle" – do we want the definite article?
Lost.
"not only was he a significant figure in Scottish politics in his own right" – what did he signify? If you mean "important", "major" or some such, why not just say so?
Of course. Worse, though, is that I think you've reminded me that on (possibly several!) previous occasions!
"Henry's father, John, Duke of Lancaster" – this would be John of Gaunt, and I think it would be helpful to readers to say so here.
"retinencia regis" – translation and explanation inline or in footnote, please.
Done.
"says Curry et al." – lurch from singular to plural.
Good catch.
"The English nobility was honoured to follow the King ... The king—accompanied by Dunbar ... "the King's own tents" – more in-and-our running with capitalisation of "king". And I'm still not persuaded by "the nobility" as a singular rather than a plural noun.
Done per above.
"the English army was sufficiently large to be unassailable by the Scots, and they offered no resistance " – for clarity I suggest "who offered" instead of the ambiguous "and they offered"
Thanks.
"at one point even verbally instructing" – "verbally" means "in words" – written or spoken – and as I don't imagine the king used semaphore I think the precise word you want here is "orally"
I do see what you mean. As it happens, on a reread, I think we can drop the word: it's his involvement in minutiae that's important rather than the method of conveying the message. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
"knights on each side would melee" – the OED prescribes diacriticals here: mêlée
Done.
"financial dire straits " – slightly odd word order: one might expect "dire financial straits".
Yes, I see what you mean.
"par pluseurs blanches paroles et beax promesses" – this source says "bealx promesses", not "et beax promesses"
Ah! As indeed I originally wrote, but then changed per another reviewer :) I don't think {{Sic}} is probably warranted (do you?), but I've changed the {{language}} template to Old French rather than modern, which should alert the reader that spelling may not be as expected. Does this work?
"due to age and infirmity" – in AmE "due to" in this sense is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer.
Done, thanks. I seem to have been much influenced by Americana recently.
Total facepalm at not actually doing what I said! Thanks for that.
Cite 42 refers to the rebellion of the Lords Appellant, not the Epiphany Rising
May I respectfully disagree? From p. 47–48:
Accounts of the 'Epiphany Rising', especially its early stages, are thoroughly confused, but according to the record of one of the trials held in its aftermath the plotting had been going on, mainly in London, since early December [1400]. The chief conspirators were the earls of Kent, Salisbury and Huntingdon, Thomas Despenser, Ralph Lord Lumley, and Thomas Merks
However, on account of this, I've adjusted the page range from 48–50 to 47–50 to include details on the plot's origins.
There's something odd going on here. I've got the US edition of this and p.48 is the beginning of Chapter 4, which covers the period 1387–1389 and all other page numbers were fine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66: cite 42 is Given-Wilson 1993 (Chronicles of the Revolution); can you confirm you're not, for instance, looking at Given-Wilson 2016 (Henry IV)...? In which p.48 is indeed the first of ch. 4 :) —Fortuna, imperatrix17:30, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it, it was probably down to the fact that the alpabetization was out, as you noted below, specifically, Given-Wilson's two works were separated! —Fortuna, imperatrix17:53, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest deleting the currency conversions. £10,000 was a third of the government's revenue at the time, but 9 million pounds is chump change, a rounding error to today's budget.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"deposing the previous king, his cousin Richard II." → 'deposing the previous king, his cousin Richard II, in 1399' or '... September 1399'?
Yes, 1399 is good.
"Henry IV urgently wanted to defend the Anglo-Scottish border". I know what you mean, but how does one defend a border? I mean, it has no physical existence. Any chance of briefly saying what that term is shorthand for instead.
If you know what I mean, I'm open to suggestions, but to be honest, I don't see it being particularly Byzantine. I could change it to "defend the Scottish border"—the exact phrase used in the source and one used regularly by academics (and Churchill)—but political constructs are as much fought over as those with physical existence.
"heighten his own image as a strong ruler and reinforce the new regime." Heighten his image - fine; "reinforce the new regime", er, what does that mean?
Again, it's a pretty common term; if you see this, it begs the question: if a regime can be established, why cannot it be reinforced? "Strengthened his government" might work, but to be honest, it sounds slightly more insipid to me. Henry hadn't just taken over a government, he had seismically fractured political society; Richard's deposition ended 245 years of patrilineal Plantagenet rule: "Hardcore, Lawrence".
"Edinburgh or its Castle." Lower case c.
Done.
Is there a source for coup d'état and et alia not being considered English?
Academic ephemera. Anglicised.
"They also instilled national unity following the upheaval caused by Richard's deposition." "t=They" didn't. Just the singular 1400 one did.
Catch. Done it.
"as well as the claim to the Scottish throne advanced by Edward I in the 13th century." I can't find this in the source given. 2. Why "13th century"? A lot of blood had flowed down the Tweed in the four previous years.
Yeah, turns out it's on p.169; sorry about that.
No worries, but perhaps amend the cite?
Blast—I thought I had!
Here, G-W is talking about Henry's harking back to the 'good old days', and 'the possibilities which history presented', etc.
"George Dunbar, Earl of March had felt that he had been betrayed". Delete "had". (Unless you mean to imply that he no longer felt that way.
I don't think so! Lost the 'had'.
"since they had led a punitive raid". Does "they" refer to Donald and John or the Dukes of Rothesay and Albany?
Clarified "the latter two"?
"the massive army assembled in 1345 (that which fought Crécy)". Which has been estimated at 7-15,000 strong. (Eg Sumption estimates 7,000 to 10,000 based on the amount of shipping used to transport it; Wagner gives "about 10,000".) It was larger than most later armies, being pre-Black Death, but not especially "huge"; eg Wagner gives the English army of the Rheims campaign as 12,000. I know this is cited, but scholarship in the 50 years since Brown has produced a more nuanced view.
I only threw in Crécy for you Gog :p You're right about scholarship moving on, of course; ironically, the following footnote uses much more up-to-date research (Curry et al). I've folded it into the main text, does that work? It adds wordage though. The gist of what I am clumsily trying to say, a la Curry, is that the army was smaller than 1345 but bigger than most others?
Note 7: "was approximately twice the daily wage for a skilled tradesman". Does the cite given support this?
Two things here. The article author is an arse, and only linked to TNA's main page, not the currency converter. And secondly, yes it does say that, but I now see you have to input the data. It's a bit like the Consumer Price Index thing. (TNA also gives purchasing power rather than just a modern amount, which has come up before (somewhere)). I haven't workled out how to save the actual output, if there even is a way, of course.
"both to besiege Scottish trade". Maybe "besiege" →'blockade'?
Excellent, that's far more naval.
"... sea salt for Newcastle upon Tyne, Lindisfarne and Berwick for revictualling the army." Should the first "for" be 'to'?
Of course thanks. As the salt was going to Newcastle, Lindisfarne and Berwick, but Newcastle, Lindisfarne and Berwick weren't allowed to keep it.
Thanks Gog. See what you think re. the 1345 army and comparisons. Also, if you (or if you know of anyone who might) have suggestions re. embedding the currency results in the ref. —Fortuna, imperatrix17:03, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance you could send me Curry et al page 1387?
Of course, although to be fair I only use it once. Would you like the whole thing?
Whichever is easiest. I am only interested in page 1387.
"first King of Albion in their cause". Much as I dislike a superfluity of commas, one after Albion would aid understanding.
Aha, OK.
"Either, it was hoped, would impel the Scots to negotiate." The Scots were already willing to negotiate. ("Now, with an English invasion imminent, the Scots attempted to reopen negotiations." I think you mean something slightly different.
Point. "Would make them submit" is meant; I can't think of a better word off the top of my head?
"who offered no resistance as the invaders marched through Haddington on 15 August." Did they offer resistance before and after 15 August?
Well no, because the English hadn't crossed the border until the previous day.
"6 11⁄25 kilometres)". False precision, especially when prefaced by "about".
I completely agree, and it's really bizarre. T'm not sure what the template is doing; I've turned off the |frac= param, which I thought was the guilty party (and probably was, as the fraction is now much cleaner, but still point something). Is that better?
Yes. Personally I would have not converted "about 4 miles" to a metric measurement to the nearest hundred metres, but I can live with it.
"a port area on the southern coast of the Firth of Forth". Why "area"?
Check. Removed.
"Nor were any English knights made." Maybe a note explaining the significance of this?
Yes, good idea. I can do something with this, but it'll have to wait until tomorrow, I'm afraid, as I'm forced to go to the pub now.
Sounds dreadful.
Tiresome in the extreme *hic*
Explantory footnote (#7) now added.
"There are no dates of any events between 15 and 29 August. Are none known?
Unfortunately, not. I assume that's because nothing significant enough for chroniclers to record actually happened; someone called it a war of words, so Henry probably just spent his valuable time sending and receiving letters to/from Rothesay. I've included an opening line clarifying that.
"the Scots Douglas launched punishing raids". Add an apostrophe?
Actually the first "Douglas" was an error; per the source, "the Scots" invaded Northumberland, while it was "Douglas" who got to Bamburgh; tweaked.
"equivalent to £9,639,900 in 2023". False precision?
Bloody template. It's due to the |r=, which RoySmith did try and explain to me last time, but I didn't realise it changed with the number of figures. It's now at 9,640,000, which I think is probably as good as it gets.
"The campaign had cost at least £10,000 ... Henry also needed to pay his army!. This means that the £10,000 did not include the troops wages - all those shillings. Is that right?
Clarified that the ten grand is the gross total including wages.
"Dunbar's defection to the English crown exacerbated tensions all the more." Does "all the more" add anything?
It does not! Removed.
"and his royal prerogative than his predecessor had." Say what?
Err, yeah. The important bit is the common weal in the north, etc, not the royal prerogative, so cut that. Nice short sentence now.
Cite 83 refers to page 258, but the article cited is, correctly, given a range of pages 89 to 110.
Tricky one this; the ref was given me in a previous review, and gratefully recieved, of course, albeit citing page number 358 :) Looking at the source, it's probably intended to point to p.89 + n.7, although that only states that £50K was more than the king's annual revenue (in 1328/9-1330-1, 1333/4, 1340/1), not that that revenue "was often less than £30,000". Rogers cites J. H. Ramsay, and a glance at Ramsay confirms it's not a wholly accurate picture as far as this article is concerned. In fact, 1334 marks the last time Edward's revenues dipped below £50K; for most of his reign, income was far, far higher, and in the last few years—closer to the years of this article—it was always over £100,000, and often over £200K. This also ties in with Anthony Steel's figure of £116-120,000 for Richard II between 1385 and 1399. Having said that, Steel does suggest that HIV was relatively poorer than his immediate predecessors, with a calculable income of "well below" £90,000.
@Gog the Mild: update—I've contextualised the 10K cost of the campaign by way of the annual incomes of two nobles (Westmorland/Northumberland) mentioned in the text, which I think covers our bases. Cheers, —Fortuna, imperatrix13:08, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Ladies' Journal was a particularly long-running women's magazine in early 20th century China. The May Fourth Movement turned this typical women's magazine featuring housekeeping tips and low-brow romance stories into a surprisingly radical periodical espousing feminism and free love, all under the editorship of a guy who had never written about women's issues in his life but got really really invested in them from this job. He got booted from the job in 1925 after making a special issue on 'new sexual morality', which attracted a lot of negative attention for its endorsement of polyamory. After this, The Ladies' Journal went back to being a pretty normal women's magazine, while Zhang went off and founded one of the Commercial Press's biggest competitors, Kaiming. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:10, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you as always Nikkimaria. I could not find a publication date for that one, but I was able to find a postcard published in 1937 of the same event in much higher quality, and have swapped that in its stead. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:17, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
was a Chinese monthly women's magazine published from 1915 to 1931. Published by the Shanghai-based Commercial Press, the largest publishing house ... - Any way to avoid triplicating "published"?
"Saturday school" of low-brow popular fiction - worth a redlink?
Support, though I will note a piece of information from Judge et al. (the introduction, page 3, already cited at Emancipation Pictorial): apparently there had been or were more than 250 women's magazines in republican China by 1930. Might be worth a mention. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Missed out on reviewing this at GAN, happy for the new opportunity. One small comment to start: 文苑 "literary garden" seems a very literal character-by-character translation; wikt:文苑 says it means "the literature scene", the MoE basically says it is a place where scholars gather. The various dictionaries I have in my Pleco say "literary world" or "literary and arts circles". I found no dictionary using "garden". Anyway, I will try to read through the whole article in the next couple of days. —Kusma (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lead: "New Culture journals" I assume New Culture is related to New Culture Movement; link?
Fixed.-G
Publication history: I like the introductory paragraph, but it is not the publication history of this Journal, more a description of the general background and context of women's journals in late Imperial China. Maybe reconsider the heading?
Fixed.-G
1915–1920: "The Commercial Press, the largest publishing house of early twentieth-century China" it is a bit ambiguous here whether they were already a large publishing house in 1902.
Fixed.-G
Chen Diexian [zh]'s is not pretty. Currently I think no good technical solution in the {{ill}} template, last discussed here. Perhaps reword to remove the possessive?
Fixed.-G
I didn't know that Shen Yanbing is the famous Mao Dun, might be worth mentioning (his article doesn't mention this journal though). Zheng seems to avoid calling him Mao Dun, but cites related things from his autobiography?
Fixed.-G
Zheng 1999: page range indicates that you only want to cite the chapter "A Case of Circulating Feminism: The Ladies’ Journal", not the entire book?
I tend to avoid naming chapters if it's not a book where each chapter is by a different author.-G
Chinese characters for the redlinked people would be great if you have them.
Added.-G
Initial period: "Beginning in the third volume (1917), some stories published in the journal began to be published" maybe this can be expressed with fewer "published" and fewer "beginning".
Fixed.-G
May Fourth era: "Translated writings by eugenicists such as Havelock Ellis, Francis Galton, Marie Stopes, and Margaret Sanger was also included." some of these people (like Sanger) were also eugenicists, but are not primarily known as such. Were they writing about eugenics or about birth control?
The source specifically mentions their eugenics support, but also birth control. Clarified.-G
Is Shen Yabing a typo for Shen Yanbing?
Fixed.-G
The article ends with discussing the covers; is there anything that could turn into a Legacy section? How well researched is the journal in the context of feminism in China?
Alas, I couldn't find any significant discussion on overall legacy of the journal in the sources :( -G
Generally a very well written and enjoyable article. I didn't know much about the Commercial Press bombing (only knew that it happened because Lao She wrote Cat Country after losing the manuscript of his previous book in the bombing). My comments above are mostly suggestions, not demands. —Kusma (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first FA review, so apologies in advance for any mistakes and please feel free to disregard any of these suggestions! MCE89 (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lead and infobox:
The link over "Mandarin duck and butterfly" is covering the end quote but not the opening quote (the same goes for this link in the body)
Fixed.-G
The infobox says that the final issue was published in December 1931, but in the body you only specify that the last issue was published in late 1931
Fixed.-G
I also can't see the fact that the magazine was published on a monthly basis mentioned anywhere in the body
Fixed.-G
Publication history:
"a cultural and political movement began in 1919" - Missing "that"
Fixed.-G
"similar to those that lead to the demise of The New Woman" - Should be "led"?
Fixed.-G
Content:
"such as housekeeping, bookkeeping, medical care, gardening" - Missing "and"
Fixed.-G
You've used both "de-facto" and "de facto", suggest standardising the hyphenation
Fixed.-G
Is "Woman Question Research Association" the standard translation for the name of this organisation? I would have thought "婦女問題" would probably more naturally translate to "women’s issues" rather than "woman question"
In a New Culture Movement context, yes, surprisingly. Lots of scholars specifically name it "the woman question" rather than women's issues. -G
"with all translations published on social, political, and theoretical topics" - I'm not sure I quite follow the meaning here
reworded.-G
Sources
I think the page range might be missing from Yeh (2017)
Fixed.-G
For consistency, I think that The Ladies' Journal and The New Woman should be italicised in the chapter title of Hsu, The New Woman should be italicised in the title of Ma (2003), and The Ladies' Journal should be italicised in the title of Chiang (2006)
Fixed.-G
Additional source review comments
I searched for additional sources on the subject and didn't find anything significant that was missing from the article. This appears to thoroughly cover the relevant literature
The sources are all reliable, mostly consisting of academic books and journal articles. The only source that I took a closer look at was the use of a PhD thesis, but it seems to be appropriate in this case per WP:THESIS, as it has been cited in the literature, was supervised by a recognised expert, and isn't being cited for any exceptional claims
I did a spotcheck of refs 6, 8, 11, 17, 27, 50 and 51 as of this revision and did not find any close paraphrasing or issues with text-source integrity
@MCE89: Thank you very much for your review; great job for a first time. I think I got to everything. If you're specifically aiming to do a source review, you should make sure to check for FA criteria 1c, but if you're just checking formatting in general that's not needed. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:38, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I added a few additional comments addressing criteria 1c above and didn't find any issues, let me know if there's anything else I need to cover in my review. Thank you for the very interesting read! MCE89 (talk) 14:17, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“entitled” → “titled” (when referring to the name of a story or work)
Fixed.-G
“art-forms” → “art forms”
Fixed.-G
Compound nouns like “art forms” are written without a hyphen in American English.
Fixed.-G
Bottom line
That's all for the prose for now. A great article and I would have picked it up for GA (if not for the school examinations). I hope my comments so far have been helpful. MSincccc (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well-written and FAC standard as it is. I would have liked to spot check the sources but unfortunately I don't have the time to do so this week. Anyways, I am a support. MSincccc (talk) 07:57, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it began to publish some short stories in written vernacular Chinese in 1917, and by 1920 had fully transitioned to vernacular. ==> " it began publishing short stories in written vernacular Chinese in 1917 and had fully transitioned to vernacular by 1920."
Done.-G
the journal was cancelled after a month-long battle between Chinese and Japanese forces in Shanghai beginning in January 1932 destroyed the Commercial Press headquarters. is quite a read. what about "Shanghai beginning in January 1932, which destroyed the Commercial Press headquarters."
Done.-G
history
Chen Diexian [zh] (陈蝶仙) which was first (my opinion but i'd add a comma before "which")
Done.-G
when he was replaced with Yang Runyu (楊潤餘) ==> "when he was replaced by Yang Runyu (楊潤餘)"
Fixed.-G
content
characterized the The Ladies' Journal as taking a "the" is repeated
Fixed.-G
and a mix of both western and traditional "Western" is captialized earlier
Fixed.-G
Translations of foreign works was restricted to social, political, and theoretical topics ==> "Translations of foreign works were restricted to social, political, and theoretical topic"
Fixed.-G
almost invariably those whose had ==> "almost invariably those who had"
Fixed.-G
A correspondence column allowed for readers to "for" is redundant
Fixed.-G
the nuclear family were restrictive ==> "the nuclear family was restrictive"
Fixed.-G
Party and creation of a leftist ==> "Party and the creation of a leftist"
Fixed.-G
Other intellectuals, such as Tao Xisheng [zh] (陶希圣) and Chen Wangdao wrote articles add a comma after "Wangdao"
Fixed.-G
the only in the periodical's ==> "the only one in the periodical's"
Fixed.-G
covers
For 1930, seeking a unified visual identity for the journal ==> "In 1930, seeking a unified visual identity for the journal"
Well, he might have been hired before 1930, he was hired *for* the issues in 1930. Rephrased.-G
Picture it: Manhattan, the 23rd century. A young thief discovers that she is a Slayer destined to fight supernatural foes. Over the course of her own limited comic book series and appearances in Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Eight and Season Twelve, she not only learns to accept this destiny, but she also truly thrives under this new identity. This article is about that comic book character, and I hope that you enjoy reading about her.
"while her twin brother Harth inherited the prophetic dreams" since it's not necessarily common knowledge that a Slayer has prophetic dreams, suggest tweaking somehow. Possibly "their prophetic dreams"?
"His only request when working with them was to avoid sexualizing Melaka in the art" since he was reacting to comic book stereotypes, perhaps "His only request was that Melaka should not be drawn in the sexualized manner common to superhero comics" (we can lose "when working with them" I think since we've just established that)
"while others were more critical of various aspects of her" can be trimmed to "while others criticized" and then just go straight into "her relationships with other characters and capabilities as a strong female character"
"Melaka was Moline's most-requested sketch" - context? At one con, through his whole career, etc
It was for his whole career, but the citation is to an interview in 2011, so it is likely too trivial to mention in the lead so I ended up removing it. Aoba47 (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Storylines
"with usually only one active at a time" coming at the end of the sentence about powers, if you don't know anything about Slayers, it sounds like they can only activate one power at a time rather than there being one Slayer at a time. Suggest a new sentence like "While many women have the latent potential to be Slayers, there is usually only one active at a time." This also leads into the next sentence a bit better.
"make every woman who could potentially be a Slayer into one" bit clunky. Maybe "activate the powers of every unrealized Slayer", now that we've established what that means?
I noticed that tense can be a bit inconsistent in this section. Manhattan "had been renamed" but the Sun's radiation "has mutated". I'd keep both as present. (Same with "they had become insane zealots" a bit later, which should be present)
My approach was to use past tense for events that occur before Fray and present tense for events that occur in the comics, but I do agree that using present tense would be the better method of handling this. I believe that I have revised these instances, but please let me know if there any other instances that should be addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"but attributed this to being "good at stuff"" I know this is characteristic Buffyspeak, but for a reader it's not super illuminating. I would suggest ditching the quote for a straightforward summary - "but casually attributes it to her own skills" or something like that
what does "of the D’Avvrus" mean here? Is it just the long version of his name or is it a group he's part of or something else?
It is unclear. He only uses this once in the comics. It is unclear if it is a title or if D'Avvrus refers to the type of demon that he is or the dimension that he is from. The coverage refers to him simply as Urkonn, so I have followed that, and cut down Urkonn of D'Avvrus to just Urkonn in the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it relevant to Melaka's story that he's not from Melaka's reality? If so, why footnote it?
I added the footnote because because the plot summary says that all demons are banished from Earth's dimension by the time of Fray, yet a demon (Urkonn) is a large part of the comic's story. I worried that readers may find this contradictory, but I could just be over-thinking this, so I am more than okay with removing it if necessary. This apparent contradiction is not really brought up in the comics or in the surrounding coverage. Aoba47 (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, I ended up just removing this part, as I think that I was thinking about this far too much, and I doubt that readers would notice. Aoba47 (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I might mention Watchers in the Background section first
Might want to double check your en and em-dashes throughout - I notice that "scythe—an ancient Slayer weapon—to aid her" has emdashes and is (correctly) not spaced, but this section uses en dashes in a few places, as in "different Slayer–Faith–but he", and those need spaces. It doesn't matter which format you use, but the whole article should either be unspaced ems or spaced ens.
Thank you for noticing this. I believe that I have caught all of these instances, but let me know if there are any further cases that should be addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead you say this is Whedon's first comic, but in the body you say "While working on Fray, Whedon and Moline were still relatively new in the comic book industry." - how can Whedon be "relatively" new if this is his first comic? It's also a bit odd that this sentence about them as newcomers comes at the end of a paragraph about not sexualizing Melaka in the art.
That is fair. The placement is admittedly not the best. I added it in as this was something from the source, but I agree with your criticism about it. It is also odd because Moline did have experience with comics before, while Whedon had none whatsoever, so they were not at the same level. I have removed this altogether. Aoba47 (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not sure about the second paragraph of this section. It feels like it's trying to compare and contrast her with Buffy, but it's not very clear about that till halfway through, and then immediately switches to Faith
What distinguishes her unique speaking style from typical Buffyspeak?
The source does not go into it. You are not the only one to ask about this, so I have removed this altogether. I'd say that they likely mean that Fray uses a very dense, futuristic slang, but again, the source does not get into that. Aoba47 (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"While Melaka and Buffy both have loved ones who are vampires,[41][note 7] they have noticeable differences." I'm not entirely sure that these two halves go together. Should we expect them to not have noticeable differences because of the vampire loved one thing? Their vampire situations aren't even really that similar - Harth is an enemy through and through if I've read your summary right, whereas Buffy's boys go from enemies to lovers and sometimes back again.
My intention was more so to point out how while these two characters have one similarity, they are more different from another. It was something brought up in the coverage, but in retrospect, it is not particularly helpful and it does not add anything now that is not stated elsewhere. the article already makes Melaka's relationship with her brother quote clear so this is retreading more than anything. I ultimately ended up removing all of the Buffy comparisons and contrasts anyway so this part was taken out. Aoba47 (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"preferring function over style,[3] being drawn in boots and baggy pants." the last chunk is an out-of-universe statement tacked on to an in-universe statement about Melaka's preferences
I have moved this part up to the part on the character's design, as I think that it would work better there, and I have reworded it. Aoba47 (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"she becomes more concerned" - "has become" I think - I know normally we're in the present for fiction but I think it makes more sense to say she "has" since we're pinning it to a specific part of the fictional timeline.
Any other distinct differences from Buffy? So far we have two and I'm not entirely convinced they rise to the level of being noticeable differences
Not really. Most of the analysis about Melaka and Buffy lean more toward Buffy, which is unsurprising given that this article are in the field of Buffy studies. Those elements would not be suitable for this article. I removed these parts, as they do not add much of anything. The plot summary already touches on the point about the bigger picture versus the individual, and I moved the clothing part up to the paragraph on Melaka's character design. Aoba47 (talk) 01:37, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did reintroduce the part on the bigger picture versus the individual. I think that it is helpful, as it does provide further context for Melaka's approach to slaying. Aoba47 (talk) 23:03, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"However, as opposed to Faith, Melaka is shown as feeling more guilt for her actions and a responsibility toward protecting others in her community." This sentence could be trimmed a bit I think.
"Unlike Faith, Melaka feels guilt for her actions and a sense of responsibility toward her community" maybe?
Although the characterizations are helpful, I wonder if the comparisons aren't better placed in Analysis, since that's subjective to the critic making the comparison anyway?
I ended up moving these parts back up the the "Development" section. I do not consider the comparisons to really be academic or scholarly analysis so I instead removed the comparisons and just focused on what the writers had to say about how Melaka is characterized in the comics. Aoba47 (talk) 23:03, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now in para 3: "as the good girl and the bad girl as well as the criminal and the cop, respectively" I'd re-order so the pairs are always describing Melaka then Erin (so, "bad girl" first)
"Fray does not provide Melaka with a definite resolution, as she could reappear in future comics" - the way this is currently written, it can be read as saying that she could still appear in future Buffy comics, even though the series has been over for years now. They were both writing before Season 12 came out in 2018 so I would revise this for clarity. It also looks like Koontz doesn't mention future comics, but discusses how this kind of incomplete resolution is typical for Whedon. I can't access Frankel fully although it looks like she writes that Melaka is "poised for many more adventures". I would maybe split/revise this a bit, something like, "Both highlighted that Fray had not provided Melaka with a definite resolution, as Harth's fate and Melaka's incomplete Slayer powers remain unresolved. Koontz writes that an incomplete resolution is typical of Whedon, while Frankel suggests that Melaka is "poised for many more adventures"." You could maybe footnote that both were writing before her finale in 2018?
I agree with you. I have revised this part using your suggestions, as they are major improvements to the prose. I do have a question about this though. I think that the footnote is useful, so I have added it, but I am not sure what citation to use (if any) to support it or if this would fall under the category of WP:SKYISBLUE as the publication dates for these citations alone would support this information. Aoba47 (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, I don't think you need a separate citation, since you're just noting the publication dates, which are verifiable from the publications themselves
"he aligns more with a heroine, who typically "finds herself bonding with a place as her"" - I'm not sure I understand what the quote means. Is it perhaps incomplete?
Clayton's paragraph feels more like it belongs with analysis than reception, especially when looking at the essay itself
That is fair. I had put this paragraph in the reception section because it has a strong (negative) point of view and argument about the character and the comic, but I agree that it is more of analysis, and even scholarly analysis and articles can be negative towards its subject. I have moved it and separated the section into two subsections to provide some more structure and help with readability, but let me know if this is unnecessary. Aoba47 (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the statement that Melaka "adheres to more traditionally feminine identities as the "nurturer and provider" and to 1990s gender inequality." needs further explanation, especially the second part. Her argument is that Fray's characterization equates to "tomboy taming" and that the writing and art invite the reader to objectify Fray, and I think we could expand on that here.
That makes sense, and thank you for bringing this. I think that I got too caught with trying to make this concise that I ended up losing a lot of the nuance and the information in general. I have tried to expand on these parts (and I ended up rewriting a bit and using different quotes as a result), but let me know if further work is needed or if you have any better ideas on what to include here.
I leaned more into the analysis on Melaka's characterization over the writing and the art, as I was not sure if the latter would be better suited for the Fray article, although I could just be overthinking this. Aoba47 (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that it took me so long to finish up here. All your responses above sound fine, I don't have any further questions/concerns there, so just this last bit remains :) ♠PMC♠ (talk)16:00, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Premeditated Chaos: No need to apologize. I am always grateful for and appreciative of your help. I have addressed everything, but please let me know if there is anything further that should be revised and work on (particularly with the Clayton paragraph). I hope you are having a wonderful week so far, and thank you again for your help! Aoba47 (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help! You have helped to improve the article immensely. When I look at it now, I much prefer the way that it is currently structured. Aoba47 (talk) 01:08, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:Joss Whedon by Gage Skidmore 7.jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0, alt-text is grammatically incorrect
File:Karl Moline (7885405112).jpg - CC BY 2.0
File:Melaka and Buffy sketch.png - Fair Use
Captions are grammatically correct, images are relevant.
@Arconning: Thank you for the image review! That was a very silly mistake on my part for the ALT text with the Joss Whedon image, so thank you for letting me know about that. I have corrected it. Let me know if there is anything else that should be addressed, and I hope you have a wonderful rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a page from the nihilism FAC here. I would like to review this FAC, but I have yet to receive a thank button click notification for all my hard work thus far in the peer review. Once an honest attempt to rectify this terrible error has been made, then I will consider participating in this FAC. Thoughts @Aoba47:?--PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:17, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PanagiotisZois: My primary thoughts are that I am very impressed by Phlsph7's work on vital articles through the FAC space. I greatly admire their work, and I am sure that it would be helpful for a lot of people.
As for the thank button, I have thanked you so much that I actually got an error screen which told me that I reached my limit so that should balance the scales in this situation. Aoba47 (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Amazing work on so many important articles I'd love to go through.
Seeing as how the mighty thank button has been clicked - multiple times even! - I will be quite happy to participate in this FAC. Expect comments in the next few days as I go through over the article again. PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lede
"in the Buffy the Vampire Slayer comic series published". The sentence makes it seem like Fray only showed up in the Buffy comic series, when that isn't entirely the case. Her first appearance being in the Fray comic, and then showing up in Tales of the Slayers. I think it'd be more accurate to simply say "in the Buff the Vampire Slayer comic books published...".
"After stopping his plan, she remains a thief while also protecting others". Having forgotten some info from the "Appearances" section, didn't Melaka already help people with her powers before reencountering Harth? If yes, it may be better to say "remains a thief, but chooses to protect others".
"interfering with her potential storylines". Probably not necessary, but I think "her" should be replace with Faith, to avoid any confusion as to which character you're referring to. Was Whedon worried about Faith's storylines or Fray's? Though if you say "potential storylines in the television series", this will also help avoid confusion. [Yes, I'm probably overthinking it]
"A fan film with the character was released in 2017, and she was Moline's most-requested sketch". I'd switch these two around; fan content coming at the end.
Thank you for these comments. I believe that I have addressed everything, but please let me know if I have missed anything or if anything could be improved with further revisions. Aoba47 (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fray
To be honest, I do think this section might be a bit too long; it's almost the same size as Iron Man's "Biography" section. Having said that, considering that Fray is unlikely to appear in any more Buffy comics, seeing as Joss Whedon is no longer involved with the franchise, and the comic rights are no longer with Dark Horse, we don't have to worry about any additional comics enlarging this section.
"she frequently uses a raygun". Is the raygun important enough to be mentioned?
"He says the", change to Urkonn.
The part about her having only the "physical powers associated with being a Slayer" should probably go with the sentence about prophetic dreams.
The size is a fair critique. I am more than happy to cut it down. I have removed some small stuff, but I think that I am just too close to the article to really see what could be cut down or condensed so I am open to suggestions for this.
I highly doubt that Fray will be featured in anything new in the future, as I believe the focus will remain with the Buffy live-action characters. I do not think that any of the characters made for the Buffy comics will be seen or used again (even though I'd love it if the new Hulu show found a way to incorporate some of them but I know that is not going to happen lol).
I have removed the raygun bit. I had added that in, as I referenced the raygun in a later section, but I had removed that part too. It is not really necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Other appearances
I think it'd be better if you didn't include all three of Fray's other appearances in the very first sentence. Instead, have Season Eight and Season Twelve pop up just as you start describing what Fray does in those comics.
Taking the above into account, is Fray shown moving into the apartment in "Time of Your Life", or has that event already happened at the start of the season?
I'm not sure if "The younger, sane Willow" is required. You already say that Harth travelled to the 21st century, and the previous paragraph states that Buffy killed the Future Willow from Fray's time.
Thank you for your comments here. Fray is established as already living in the apartment by "Time of Your Life", so the move took place sometime between the Tales of the Slayer anthology and the "Time of Your Life" story arc. Please let me know if there is any way to better clarify that in the prose (or if there any improvements in general that could be made for this article). Aoba47 (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Creation and design
I might be wrong, but I think "He established Melaka as hailing from" would be better.
"Whedon worked closely with Moline". As you already mention him in the previous sentence, you can just say "He worked".
I do think the second paragraph relies a bit tew much on quotations. Something like "adolescent, power fantasies" could probably be reworded. Same goes for the "back and forth" thing.
"plans for a movie, ongoing comic book". I'd switch these two around. Seeing as Fray is a comics character, it makes more sense to start talking about the medium she originates from, and then discuss adaptations of her comics; like a film or TV series.
I believe that I have addressed everything for this section, but please let me know if I have missed anything or anything else can be improved upon. Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Characterization and relationships
"Melaka is initially characterized as a criminal, who is street smart and rebellious". I don't believe the comma is needed. In fact, I think it's better to just say "characterized as a street smart and rebellious criminal".
Following the above example, switching the next sentence to "which is shown throughout Fray to be her".
Might be a stupid question, but is the sentence saying that Fray being a criminal is how she protects herself from the world's bleakness. Or that she is rebellious and street smart?
"although she has a unique speaking style". Does the source clarify how it is unique?
I'm not sure if the Firefly bit is necessarily relevant.
The part about "Melaka is drawn in boots and baggy pants..." seems like extra details that aren't all that important. Moreover, the placement of this sentence right after the previous one saying that "Melaka wears pants" ends up repeating the same thing twice; that is is "drawn in boots and baggy pants". I think the part about "a nose piercing, hoop earrings, dark lipstick and nail polish, and black hair with magenta highlights" could be removed entirely (or moved elsewhere) and the sentence rewritten to connect with the previous one. Something like: "Unlike Buffy, who often wears dresses and heels, Melaka prefers style over function, being drawn in baggy pants and boots".
"well as feelings of self-hatred" seem more correct.
"through reading the Watchers".
Thank you for the comments above. I do not think it is a stupid question. What I was trying to convey was that Melaka is conveyed as tough and using crime as a way to survive. I have attempted to clarify this, but please let me know if anything further could be done here.
As for the unique speaking style, Melaka speaks in very dense slang to indicate the shift in language for this future setting. The source unfortunately does not delve that deeply into this, other than to say that Melaka speaks differently than other Buffy characters. Aoba47 (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Themes and analysis
Would "how Whedon adapted the hero's journey for Melaka" work better as "utilized and modified the hero's journey"? Not that the current version is wrong. I just wanted your thoughts on it.
I'm thinking that the part about Fray finding a home might work better at the end of the paragraph; partly so that the information goes in a somewhat chronological order. Moreover, that way, you have the two sentences discussing how Whedon utilized the "hero's journey" motif for Fray, and how it was unfinished etc., only to then move into how Whedon modified the motif with his work. Though I fear I may be overstepping and forcing my own views by suggesting this.
Thank you for your suggestions and comments. They are very helpful and have improved the article immensely. No need to worry about overstepping. The whole point of a FAC (at least in my opinion) is learn from other editors and to be open to critique and new ideas, so I am always glad to hear these kinds of things. Aoba47 (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reception
"Fray, and in 2011, he said that". I think this can be reworded to "Fray and stated in 2011 that she..."
Pat Shand? Didn't he write some of the Charmed comics?
"believed this emphasis is further" or "furthered"? Would "further emphasized" work better?
Thank you again. I believe that I have addressed everything, but please let me know if I have missed anything or if anything could be improved with further revisions.
I am actually not sure if this is the same Patrick Shand. I would not be surprised if that was the case. I believe that he did work on a bunch of other Zenescope comics. I could not find anything that connects the two, but I admittedly did not do a deep dive on it. I have actually only read Charmed: Season 9, so I have missed his work for Charmed: Season 10. I do have a soft spot for the Season 9 comics, but I just love Charmed in general. Aoba47 (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are my comments for the article. Being able to look at the character with retrospect, knowing that her story has a definitive end (even if it took until Season Twelve for that to happen, I would like at some point to read through all of Melaka's appearances. Plus, her name reminds me of malaka, lol. As always, great work on the article.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PanagiotisZois: Thank you for the comments. I really do appreciate all of them, and you have helped to improve the article immensely. Please let me know if there is anything that could be done to improve the article further (like cutting down on the plot summary). This may be silly, but I made some tweaks to the structure of the plot summary, using Kes (Star Trek) as a model, but feel free to revert any of these changes if they do not work.
I am also glad that Melaka was given a resolution for her story arc. I am not necessarily sure how I feel about it (like Buffy being the one that kills Harth or Melaka's world being erased from existence), but I am happy that things with the character were not left dangling and unresolved. There is something sweet and hopeful in the panels of the Slayers welcoming Melaka to the improved 23rd century. It is a nice end in that it still allows for reader to imagine what will happen next. Thank you for the kind words! I enjoyed working on this article and revisiting this character. Aoba47 (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just looked up those panels. At least Fray has her sister and Gates still with her. I also thought that the four Slayers they encounter referring to Fray as "sister" was pretty sweet. I think the presence of a "Background" subsection is good for helping readers unfamiliar with the Buffyverse gain a quick understanding of what the show is about, and how it relates to Fray's arc 2 centuries later.
I agree. I am glad that Erin and Gates were able to accompany Melaka into this new future, and the panels with the Slayers is a nice resolution, given everything that Melaka has gone through. And it is nice to read something with a hopeful ending. Thank you for the feedback about the "Background" section. I thought it would be useful to provide some further structure to the plot summary, so I am glad that it is helpful.
Take as much time as you need. This is still a fairly new FAC. I just appreciate your help. Have a wonderful rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I actually wanted to discuss the section when you make a comparative contrast with Melake and Buffy/Faith. To be honest, I too was initially unsure if that section fit better in the "Characterization and relationships" section or the "Themes and analysis" one. However, now that the paragraph has been severely trimmed down, I'm almost 100% sure it fits better into the former section. I mean, the paragraph's focus on Melaka's personality traits isn't really a "theme". I guess you can maybe view it as an "analysis", but even then, it's not like there's a thorough analysis of Melaka's moral philosophy being made; just that she has some similarities with Faith.
Have you considered reinstating the part about Melaka caring about individuals, instead of the "bigger picture", but removing any references to Buffy and Faith? Maybe this is bad in the sense that you're using only the bits that you want from a source, and ignoring the rest, but doing this can help build a small paragraph that is solely about Melaka's personality, without any comparisons to other characters being made.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PanagiotisZois: Thank you for your help. Now that I look at it, I agree that the parts on Melaka's personality do not really work as analysis. I am wondering if the opening sentence on the humor/slang should be kept, as it is pretty vague.
I would think that the Faith comparisons could be useful, especially since Whedon originally wanted to write a comic about Faith. I am just uncertain about where to put that. I can understand concerns about putting a critic's interpretation of Melaka in the background section. Maybe it would be best to remove this part altogether?
I see what you mean about the "individual versus bigger picture" part. I will reincorporate that into the article when I have the chance. I am just really stuck on how to handle the other comparisons. I am probably just way overthinking this. What would you suggest? Sorry if you have already made this obvious ><. Aoba47 (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for posting three comments in a row. I have implemented your suggestions. I have included the "individual" versus "bigger picture" comparison, and I have incorporated a sentence about Melaka's confidence, protectiveness, self-hatred, and regret into the first paragraph of the "Characterization and relationships" subsection. I do not think there would be enough for a separate paragraph, but please let me know if there is a better way to approach this. I had already moved a part about Melaka's clothing to the paragraph on her character design. I hope that these changes are helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry. I enjoy getting pinged by you. I do think that the way things are currently phrased, they definitely fit into the "Characterization" section much better now. I merged the "protective of her community" part with the previous sentence, as it fits well with the comment about her "kind, compassionate, and willing to help"; bolded, cause I think those two fit especially well together. Seeing as Melaka's focus on saving individuals also has to do with her morality/values, it similarly seemed more appropriate to place that sentence right after it, rather than the end of the paragraph. Which left the part about her confidence, but also self-hatred to stay by itself, mostly unchanged. I do think this makes the sentence a bit stronger, as it contrasts her confidence (a positive trait) with her self-hatred (a negative one); thought "that's my opinion" (as the vine said), and you might argue differently. Anyway, I'm curious about your opinion @Aoba47:. PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PanagiotisZois: I actually prefer the way that you have written this part, as I think that it is just more cohesive in how it flows from one point to the next. I agree with your concerns about the prior placement of this information. Thank you again for the help! Aoba47 (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: It's honestly quite fun to help work on such article. At least, help in refining them. I do believe that everything in the "Storylines" and "Development" sections are great. Before I go into the "Reception" section, I wanted to briefly discuss the "Themes and analysis" one, which is near perfect.
The first paragraph brings up how Melaka's character arc was analyzed in Fray. Koontz brings up "the hero's journey", breaks down its three components, and placed Melaka's journey in it; great.
However, one thing I notice is that in the second section, you bring up not only Fray, but also Tales of the Slayers. Doesn't this make the opening sentence slightly incorrect in naming only Fray? HOWEVER, there is something about the 2nd paragraph that ties to this.
The 2nd paragraph is essentially about how Whedon modified the hero's journey, if you will. We have Frenkel bringing up the "heroine's journey", which is great. We also have both Frenkel and Kootz pointing out that her journey isn't really finished. However, the part about how gaining knowledge hurts, but it's worth it.
If the idea of this paragraph is "How Whedon challenges the hero's journey", doesn't this comment by Kootz about knowledge kinda stick out? If anything, it goes more into the 1st paragraph, which opens with how "scholars analyzed Melaka's character arc over the course of Fray".
I think moving this sentence at the end of the 1st paragraph would be helpful in showing how both scholars analyzed Melaka's arc in her solo series, and this also ensure the 2nd one is simply about how the hero's journey motif is challenged/modified. In which case, the opening sentence would removed the "used and", and ideally point out that Fray and Tales of the Slayers "do not provide Melaka with a definite resolution[, in contrast to a typical hero's journey]".
Of course, I might be overthinking things again. :/ Let me know what you think. At the end of the day, I don't think the current placement is wrong in any way. Just wanted to share this idea before going into the "Reception" section. PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PanagiotisZois: My intent for Koontz's part in the second paragraph was to discuss how Whedon would usually approach these types of stories, by ending them with this idea of the pursuit of knowledge being painful yet ultimately worthwhile. I focused the first paragraph on Melaka adheres to this hero's journey arc, but I wanted to keep what Koontz perceives a more Whedon-specific thing separate and in the second paragraph. I would be ultimately be fine with moving it if you disagree with my reasoning for this. I more so just wanted to provide an explanation for my choice for this placement.
I see what you mean the section's first sentence. However, both scholars (Koontz and Frankel) primarily focus on Fray for their analysis. Koontz does not even mention Tales of the Slayers so I have modified the prose to better reflect. I must have introduced that error while I was revising and reworking that section. As for Frankel, most of her chapter is on Fray, with a brief paragraph at the end about Tales, which I found useful and wanted to include in the article, but again, most of her analysis is not about the anthology. Apologies for that, as again, that was an error that I had introduced.
I overthink things all of the time. I appreciate all of the time and thought you have put into your review. It means a lot. I hope that reply makes sense. I wish that Melaka's later appearances got more attention in both reviews and analysis. It is a shame that the "Time of Your Life" coverage kept going back to Buffy and the Season Twelve coverage is virtually nonexistent (as I believe at that point the Buffy comics were not getting any real attention anymore, although I could be wrong).
It would be great to see more coverage of Melaka now that she has a complete story, but unfortunately I think the Buffy show (and upcoming continuation) will continue to overshadow the Buffy comic-original characters (on a somewhat related note, I think Satsu and Melaka are the only two notable enough for their own Wikipedia articles). I would honestly love to see renewed attention and interest in these comics, but that should not be surprising coming from me lol. Aoba47 (talk) 01:52, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. All right, in that case, having that sentence stay in the 2nd paragraph makes sense. And with the first sentence being about how Whedon "used and modified the hero's journey", I was already mostly fine with leaving it there; mostly. [Aliens] Now I'll just look over the "Reception" area, and be done here.
And don't worry about a small error like including Tales of the Slayers. Stuff like that happens. I am glad that you're so receptive to my comments. :)
It would have been nice for the article if Melaka had gotten more attention, for sure. But considering Melaka goes against Buffy in "Time of Your Life", I can understand why the latter would get more focus. As for Season Twelve, I feel like the Buffy brand as a whole had lost much of its momentum by that point. Like, Season Eight seemed to have gotten a lot of attention when it started, but by Season Nine, people had gradually let go of the comics; at least in terms of academic attention. PanagiotisZois (talk) 09:40, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I am always just so grateful to get any feedback or help for a FAC. I have been enjoying the process going back over the article.
I agree that the Buffy comics lost a lot of its starting momentum. I could see some fans not enjoying the transition from screen to page, and there was and still is criticism about choices made in Season Eight (especially Xander dating Dawn or the Twilight storyline). It probably did not help that the comics have a very different vibe from the show.
"with the rest taken by a man". Should we also specify it's Harth we're talking about?
The "Clayton criticized Fray for antifeminist messaging" seems to be less about Melaka, and more about the comics itself, at least in how it's phrased. You could begin the sentence by saying, "She further criticized Melaka for her lack of agency, highlighting her working for the male Gunther, being given the scythe rather than finding it, and not being the one to kill Icarus; she viewed these examples as instances of antifeminist messaging in Fray.
"She noted that" seems a bit more academic than "wrote".
"aligns the character with"; avoid repetition of "her".
I recommend merging the last two sentences with each other, as the second-last sentence is precisely why Clayton reaches her conclusion that Melaka doesn't combat gender roles. Or maybe replace the period with a semicolon, and write something like "; this led Clayton to argue that Melaka did not combat gender norms...".
"regressive when compared to Buffy". The character or show?
"Wendy Sterba argued that aside". More academic.
I think Clayton's negative comments (her making negative comments about Fray?! This is shocking news. Shocking, I'm shocked) should be a separate sentence from Sterba's comments. End the former with a period, and start with "Conversely, Clayton took note of Melaka's nudity in a shower sequence from Fray #4 (October 2001), which she described as gratuitous; she viewd Whedon's approach...".
@PanagiotisZois: No need to apologize. This is the point of a FAC, and I would want the article to be the best that it could possibly be. I believe that I have addressed everything, but let me know if I have missed anything. For your first point, I used "the male Harth" to emphasize her criticism that a female character had lost power to a male one, but feel free to either edit that or provide a suggestion if that is too silly. It is interesting t oread Clayton's article. I may disagree with it (as my critiques for Fray are quite different), but it is nice to read an article from a different perspective sometimes. Thank you again for your help! I hope you are having a wonderful weekend so far! Aoba47 (talk) 23:44, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Heyo @Aoba47:. Regarding the end of Par 3, the sentence reads somewhat odd as you start by talking about Melaka the character, but then you compare her to the Buffy show. Would it be more accurate to the source to say Buffy herself? PanagiotisZois (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PanagiotisZois: Thank you for the comment. I could see how that phrasing was not the best. The source is refers storylines from the Buffy the Vampire Slayer television show, but that is brought up more in the context of comparisons with and critiques of the storylines in the Fray comic, and not with Melaka as a character. For that reason, I have removed this reference to focus more on the criticism that Clayton levies against Melaka (in that she is characterized through these traditionally feminine archetypes and uploads 1990s gender norms, at least according to her). Please let me know if that helps to clear things up and if further revisions would be helpful for this part. Aoba47 (talk) 03:30, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aoba! How have you been? I hope you've been doing extra extra well! :D I'm looking forward to reviewing this article. I hope to start in the next couple of days. Talk to you soon! Moisejp (talk) 05:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comment! I have been doing really well lately actually. How is everything with you? I am looking forward to your review, and thank you for taking the time to do one. Aoba47 (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
"Melaka grew up in a poor area of Haddyn": you've already called Haddyn a slum, but she not only lives in a slum but a poor area of the slum? Slums are by definition poor. A bit confusing what's meant.
That is understandable. I have removed "slums", as I do agree with your comments about it, as it is unnecessarily confusing. I had including the "slums" wording, as it was used in the promotional material for Fray, but it is not really accurate so it is for the best that it is removed. Aoba47 (talk) 03:40, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"She recognized as a teenager that she had supernatural strength, but did not question it": "but did not question it" reads a bit awkwardly to me. I guess you mean she was never at all curious why she was so much stronger than everybody else? It sounds surprising that someone would not be at all curious why they had superhuman strength. Maybe you could clarify this a bit in the text.
I think that it is important to factor in context. Melaka lives in an unusual world, in which people have been heavily mutated. Her boss Gunther is pretty much a merman (picture), and she is not even phased by Urkonn, who looks like a stereotypical demon (picture). There is a lot about her world that would seem surprising or questionable, but that Melaka just accepts as is.
When Urkonn asks Melaka about her strength, she just dismisses it as her being "good at stuff", and that is as far as the comic goes. I have added the quote to the article, so hopefully that helps. Melaka was likely more focused on survival. I would guess that she likely just viewed her strength as an advantage that she could exploit, but that is just my opinion of course. Aoba47 (talk) 03:40, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"By the age of nineteen, Melaka has become a professional thief who works for the radie Gunther": Is she nineteen now? Maybe I'd suggest, "Now nineteen years old, Melaka has become..."
"doing so quickly as she had considered him a friend": maybe her reason could be spelled out more clearly here.
I have hopefully clarified this part, but please let me know if further revision would be necessary. In short, Melaka wanted to kill Urkonn swiftly and painlessly rather than drawing it out and making it a slow death or anything excessively painful. Aoba47 (talk) 03:40, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"while also protecting others from vampires as the Slayer": maybe flesh this out some more, or give examples of the kind of protection she does.
I have attempted to flesh out this part somewhat, but there is honestly not that much to add. Fray ends with Melaka slaying vampires to protect people and dramatically looking over the city while thinking about how she will protect her world from demons. Please let me know if further work would be beneficial. Aoba47 (talk) 03:40, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Other Appearances": The previous section was titled Fray so we know it is all within the work Fray, but there doesn't seem to be any context given for the works that these other appearances are in. Moisejp (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very good point. Thank you for letting me know. I think that it is one of those things where I am so close to the subject matter that it can be difficult to look at it from an outsider's perspective. I have revised the plot summary. I included a new paragraph at the start to more clearly establish the Fray comic and added a sentence to the "Other Appearances" subsection, which names the comics in which Melaka reappears after Fray. Please let me know if this helps or further revisions would be necessary (or if a different approach would be better). Aoba47 (talk) 03:40, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moisejp: Thank you again for taking the time to do this. Your comments have been very helpful. I have attempted to resolve all of them, but please let me know if I missed anything or if anything needs further work. Aoba47 (talk) 03:40, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aoba, I've finished my first read-through. I did notice some other little or medium stuff that I wanted to wait and get the context of the whole article before commenting on. I'll comment on that during my second read-through, which I hope to start soon. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aoba, so I do have one other medium big comment. I might have some other minor ones, possibly, but let me get this medium big one out of the way. I think I've talked you about this before in a review or two in the past, I guess years ago by now. Basically it's using the present perfect vs. the simple past to distinguish between a fixed time in the past (simple past) vs. open-ended past (present perfect). If you don't differentiate them, then the two dimensions of the past become needlessly flattened into a single dimension. At its most simple, whenever there are explicit time markers designating a point in the past ("yesterday", "in 2016", "at 5 o'clock") the simple past is most appropriate, but when there are no time markers (or it's an "open-ended" time markers such as "recently" or "lately") then, I'm arguing to you, the present perfect is most appropriate. There are nuances, though. For example, even if there is no explicit time marker, if the timeframe is implicitly closed, then the simple past is still appropriate. If you look at the "reception" part of I'm_Goin'_Down#Release_and_reception I used the simple past. Why? Because the time frame was implicitly just the reception in the year or two after the album's release.
In the Melaka Fray article, in the last paragraph of the lead and the last three paragraphs of the Reception section, I'd strongly argue you should use more present prefect. Not every single sentence, though, because then it becomes too heavy—but in enough of the sentences to convey that, "This is an open-ended time frame." Because here, I'd argue, the time frame is open-ended. You've got citations from 2003 to 2016, and if you had had refs from 2023 or 2025, you would have included them (unlike the "reception" part of I'm_Goin'_Down#Release_and_reception, where such recent refs would decidedly not be part of the intended limited timeframe).
In the last paragraph of the lead, you've already got the present perfect in "Academics have analyzed Melaka's character arc in Fray as an example of the hero's journey"—that's good, that's natural-sounding! I would urge you to likewise use "Critics have had mixed reactions ... Some have praised her as a good protagonist, while others have criticized her relationships ... Moline's art has been the subject".
In the last three paragraphs of Reception, like I said if you do every single sentence in present perfect, it becomes too heavy, but at minimum, the "grand, sweeping" statements that are talking about a trend rather than a single person's opinion should be in the present perfect. So for example "Some critics have enjoyed Melaka's characterization ... Other reviewers have been more critical of Melaka in Fray ... Some reviewers have felt Moline's art for Fray sexually objectifies Melaka". Yeah, those three might be enough to change. Could I ask you to start with those, and we could see how the flow becomes then? Moisejp (talk) 03:05, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moisejp: Thank you for bring this up, and I completely agree with you. I think that present perfect would be the best way of presenting this information to readers. I have made the adjustments in both the lead and the "Reception" section, but please let me know if I have missed anything there. I could not find any reliable, high-quality sources about the character that were published more recently. There is some additional coverage in websites like Screen Rant, but I avoid using that site, particularly for anything published after the Valnet acquisition. Anyway, please let me know if there are ways to have this information flow better, be more cohesive, or just be represented better in general. Thank you again for your help! I greatly appreciate it! Aoba47 (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did another read-through and you saw I made several small edits. I have two remaining comments:
Smaller issue: Do you need Note 4? Maybe just say in the main text "Christos Gage, one of the main writers for Season Twelve,[31] has said that in the fansite and Internet forum SlayAlive that Whedon..." As it is, it feels a bit awkward that you're giving info in the footnote about the references, which some readers might not even look at—so it could be confusing for them why the footnote text is talking about SlayAlive.
I have removed this note. I had originally added it more so to justify why SlayAlive would be a reliable, high-quality source for a FAC, but that kind of discussion is better had in the FAC and not in the article, in which most readers are not thinking about that really at all, so I can see how it would be random and less than helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 01:01, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not totally sure how, but I feel it would be great if you could tie together the question of Melaka's possible sexualization better. First in the lead, it says Whedon didn't want to sexualize Melaka, but a little bit farther down in the lead, it says some found her to be sexually objectified, and the reader may already be thinking, "Wait a sec, didn't it just say she wasn't sexualized??" In the Creation and design section, we learn Whedon didn't want a stereotypically extra curvy body shape for Melaka, but also no suggestive poses. But later we learn, OK, she's thin (no curvy body) but there are suggestive poses with her knees spread and legs apart, and a nude shower scene, and we wonder, did Whedon's original vision go astray? And I'm not saying it's necessarily contradictory per se, but Whedon also calls her "wicked sexy"—we can imagine he's aiming for a sexy attitude rather than a sexy body shape (and no sexy poses??—unclear), but if someone thinks about it they may wonder where the line is between sexualizing and portraying someone as sexy. I imagine your sources don't get very deep into these nuances, and you may not have much to work from, but I just think if somehow you could find a way to tie up some of the loose ends in some of these questions, it would improve the article. Moisejp (talk) 00:50, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Maybe one piece of the puzzle could be to use Clayton's "Whedon's approach to Melaka [is] fundamentally flawed" (and depending on whatever else Clayton says in her journal article, there may be other elements you can use there to connect the pieces) as a clearer, more prominent bridge between Whedon's possible good intentions and how some ultimately viewed the portrayal—I mean, bring that contrast to the forefront more. Just a possible idea to explore.) Moisejp (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moisejp: Both Sterba and Clayton actually do bring up Whedon's statement and note how his overall intentions contradict with the first images from Issue #1. I have attempted to expanded on this for the "Reception" section. I have tried to revise the part about Clayton's critique with how Melaka was created in general (in that she does "empathize and champion [Whedon's] efforts to change the images of girls in comics", but also thinks that Melaka is written to be this ideal character who is both modest yet sexy and how that would have a negative impact on female readers, particularly girls). I agree that further work to this paragraph could be helpful, so please let me know what you think.
I do not think Whedon's vision went astray, particularly since the criticized instances happen right at the start of Fray. Whedon has talked about how much he loves Moline's art, and Moline has discussed how involved Whedon was involved with the creative process, so I think that he was aware of it. I would argue that Whedon likely did not view the art as sexually objectifying Melaka. This is just my opinion, but going back to his statement, Whedon had a very specific perspective on female sexualization in comics, so he may not have considered other ways in which female characters could be sexualized. Unfortunately, he calls Melaka "wicked sexy" without any follow-up or clarification. It appears that despite his statement, "sexy" was still part of how he viewed the character on some level (and I think that the quote can help to provide some insight on this apparent contradiction). Whedon (or Moline or anyone with Dark Horse Comics) never commented on this critique.
I respectfully disagree with your point about the lead. It is rather common for a creator to want something for their work and despite these intentions, readers and critics can have a completely different perspective or opinion. The lead does not flat-out say that Melaka was sexualized or that she not sexualized. It does bring up that Whedon wanted to avoid sexualizing the character and that critics thought that comic still did that. I would not see how reader would have the question ("Wait a sec, didn't it just say she wasn't sexualized??") because that was not established. I would instead imagine that readers would be able to understanding that Whedon intended for one thing, but people had a different opinion about it.
In the article's peer review, I received a comment about whether or not the sexual objectification critiques really fit in this article. as the criticism is more directed about the comics itself and the artwork and less about the character. I had wanted to keep it because I thought that it was an interesting contrast to what Whedon had intended for Melaka versus how some viewed the actual product. I more so wanted to lay out this information to allow readers to come to their own conclusions regarding this contrast. Maybe it would be best to remove it? I just wanted to raise this as a potential option, as this was a concern brought up in the peer review.
Let me know if you have any suggestions on how to further clarify these points. I am a bit stuck at the moment. I am not exactly sure how to further clarify this contrast other than to point out Whedon's intention and the criticism about the end result. Hopefully, my response makes sense. I have tried to take time to really sort through ideas, but I am also doing this at the end of the day, so my brain may not firing on all cylinders at the moment, so again, I would be more than happy for any suggestions or ideas on how to improve this part. Aoba47 (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the length of my response by the way. I wanted to make sure to address everything that you brought up, so hopefully this does not come across as rude, as I do greatly appreciate and value your feedback and help. Aoba47 (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support and for your help in general. I really enjoyed your review, as it made me think about the material in a different way, which I always appreciate. I hope that you have a wonderful rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if Clayton 2010 could be linked like here. Is Elder 2001 correctly linked? Did some very light spotchecking. Is Hillary Brown a reliable source? Most sources seem reliable, dunno about high-quality in many cases though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:50, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help here. I greatly appreciate all of the source reviews that you have done for FACs. I have used the Clayton link that you have provided. For some reason, I had a lot of issues with tracking it done, so I am glad that you found this one so that the article can be more readily available to readers.
I am not having any issues with the Elder 2001 link. Could you specify if there are any issues with it on your end? For me, it is linked to a clipping from Newspapers.com. I have been using clippings from that site, as I have been told that this makes the material more readily accessible, as readers can look at the clipping without having to log in or have an account on Newspapers.com.
I would say that Hilary Brown is a reliable source, in that she is only being used in the context of a review. Paste is a reliable and reputable entertainment magazine. I could see and understand if this publication was used in a different context, but I would think that it would be reliable and appropriate for a review for something like a comic book.
I appreciate the note about being uncertain about high-quality sources in this field. I would feel the same way about topics that are outside of my area of expertise. If it helps, I made a concentrated effort to only pick sources that had clear editorial oversight and did not have any other red flags. Unfortunately, entertainment websites have become very questionable and sometimes out-right bad lately, so I do try my best to weed through anything like that. I would be more than happy to answer any questions about any particular sources. Aoba47 (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Thank you for your comments. I greatly appreciate them. Some of these errors were quite silly on my part, so I am glad that they were caught and now corrected. I believe that I have addressed everything, but please let me know if there is anything further that should addressed and revised. Aoba47 (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Second nomination of American football player Jayden Daniels. For any new commenters, he's known for his 2023 Heisman Trophy-winning college football season and his debut NFL season in 2024, with many considered it the best rookie season in league history. The first nomination was closed prematurely two months ago according to previous commenters, with consensus there seemingly leaning towards support. There has been a few updates to the article since its state at the previous nomination (changelog). — Dissident93(talk)17:10, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a passing comment, I am concerned about the stability of this article, with its subject being a talented QB who is at the very start of his professional career. ~ HAL33321:08, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not very familiar with some of the standards needed for this promotion, but does stability mean .. why make him a Featured Article now, if he ends up failing in a year or so? More time needed? Honest question here. I was just going on how the article was presented and the excellent work that was put into it. For example, I know Vontaze Burfict is considered a good article, not the same as featured, I get that, but I'd say that the status is more on the way it was written, not on his accolades. Bringingthewood (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bringingthewood if you are actually lending your support to the nom, I would recommend creating a new section and making that clearer. Your comment here is sort of lost int he discussion. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 15:28, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HAL333 my interpretation of the stability criterion is related to edit wars and tendentious editing. Even tho he is a pro QB, his article shouldn't change much other than updating statistics or providing brief narrative for each season (not contentious or controversial stuff). Considering during the offseason there won't be a lot, I think it's fine to say that overall, his article is stable. I don't believe the stability criterion has ever been meant to prevent an article about a young person with their career still front of them from being featured. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 19:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well I brought a death article here some time ago and was told that it was "way too early" to be a FAC (despite the death having been over a year prior). Just look at Mahomes or Brady's article - a substantial portion of the article reflects events and commentary that occurred after their respective rookie seasons. I might have to lean oppose as a result... ~ HAL33319:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are obviously welcome to oppose for whatever reason you want. That said, the criteria states: stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process. Your interpretation of this criterion could be applied to almost anything, with some assumption that almost any topic could be incomplete because its full history hasn't occurred yet. Every building still standing doesn't include information on its redevelopment or demolition. Every company company could still have notable business or products to create. I mean, every country will never be complete until it has fallen.
Daniels is considered a dual-threat player, being adept at both passing and running with the ball. recommend deleting "considered". He either is or isn't, as described in the sources. If the sources support it, than just state the fact.
He played three seasons of college football for the Arizona State Sun Devils (2019–2021) and two withfor the LSU Tigers (2022–2023).
He won the 2023 Heisman Trophy among other player of the year awards after scoring 50 touchdowns with nearly 5,000 total yards. I believe you need some commas in there, after "Trophy" and "awards"
His rookie season is regarded among the greatest in NFL history, by who? Sports commentators? Journalists? Coaches?
His rookie season is regarded among the greatest in NFL history, with him named Offensive Rookie of the Year after setting the rookie quarterback record for rushing yards in a season and leading the Commanders to their most wins in a season and first NFC Championship Game appearance since 1991. long, run-on sentence, and the "with him" part is really clunky. Recommend splitting up into two sentences.
Daniels also threw a Hail Mary touchdown during the season, a rare feat, to win on a play known as the Hail Maryland. I am on the fence on whether this truly necessary in the lead. The article only references this fact using one sentence, that is about the same length as the sentence in the lead.
You need to define the acronym "NFC" in its first use in the article
Early life
and was raised in nearby San Bernardino. I personally think "but" sounds smoother here than "and"
He also ran track, and played basketball and soccer as a youth (note the added commas)
due to being considered undersized for the position at 125 pounds considered by who?
Inland Division playoffs that year before being eliminated in the semifinals. not clear this is referencing 2015, recommend restating
He played 53 games at Cajon and set CIF-SS records with 210 touchdowns[c] and over 17,600 total yards.[d][9][12] Daniels also participated in hurdling and the 100-meters, 200-meters, 400-meters, and 4 × 100-meters relay sprints at the school recommend starting the first sentence with "Daniels" and the second sentence with "He"
College career
He suffered a minor knee injury against the UCLA Bruins and missed the following game. is him missing one single game in one season worthy of his article, all things considered? Maybe as an attached phrase to another sentence, like "Despite missing one game due to a knee injury, Daniels... blah blah"
In the 2020 season, Daniels and the Sun Devils played only four games because of the COVID-19 pandemic. can you add something about his season? Maybe just his stats or something Its kind of jarring going into the next sentence.
He led the Pac-12 in completion percentage (65.4%) for the season and led the team to a 8–4 "led" is repeated, maybe "guided the team"?
ranked Ole Miss Rebels, giving them their first loss of the season I rarely like "them" as it often leaves some specificity to be desired? Maybe ranked Ole Miss, giving the Rebels their first loss of the season
after running for a 25-yard walk-off touchdown and two-point conversion in overtime I am not sure this meets the exact definition of a walk-off TD.
In Week 3 and 3, he earned SEC offensive player of the week honors fix
awards; he was the third LSU player to win the Heisman after Billy Cannon in 1959 and Joe Burrow in 2019
Professional career
He was named later named the fix
a minor rib fracture against I would drop "minor"
Five of which occurred within the final 30 seconds-->Five of those touchdowns occurred within the final 30 seconds
with his season regarded among the greatest by a rookie by who?
Player profile
Daniels is considered a dual-threat quarterback by who?
uses virtual reality (VR) as part of his training, using software designed "uses" and "using" is repetitious. Recommend rewording.
Personal life
I would consider the detail about his sister's name and the photo of his mom as WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. I get his mom is an agent, but she doesn't have a Wikipedia page. So it justifies using her name, but I would say her photo is overkill.
The prose in the first paragraph of this section is very choppy. Just short, factoid statements. I'm not going to give specific comments, but please work to create a stronger narrative and smoother transitions between sentences.
He is signed to Agency 1 Sports can you incorporate this sentence into the following sentence?
Rookie trading cards of Daniels are considered valuable, by who? Or just state "they are valuable"
General comments
I am not entirely on-board with the "Player profile" section. Considering such a short career at this point, I feel like this is overkill. Lamar Jackson has one, which is shorter than this, and he is arguably the biggest dual threat QB since Vick (who doesn't have this type of section). Brett Favre, who was widely known for two decades as a "gunslinger" with a unique playing style doesn't have this type of section. I think this could probably be trimmed and wrapped into his "Professional career" section. I wouldn't oppose for this comment, but would be interested to see what other reviewers have to say.
In instances where you have more than 3 consecutive inline citations, I would recommend using {{Multiple references}}
The majority of comments have been addressed, hopefully satisfactory. I kept the Hail Maryland in the lead though, as an article for it exists and was named the season's moment of the year. I also don't see why a player profile has to be correlated with career length. The playing and training style of Daniels has received plenty of coverage so it shouldn't be WP:UNDUE. There's no reason why Vick as a dual-threat or Favre as a gunslinger couldn't have more added to their own sections. It should also be fine to name his sister if a few sources mentioned it. — Dissident93(talk)22:14, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good. I don't have any issues regarding your responses above, none that would prevent my support. I'll give it another read through and then let you know if there is anything else I see. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 15:28, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly support the nomination. All the time and energy .. no small feat. I'm 100% for it. P.S. I added my two cents above, due to the leaning oppose that I saw. I apologize for misunderstanding the formality. Bringingthewood (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made a {{multiref}} attempt here in response to concerns raised above. If there any problems with it, feel free to revert. I'm avoiding any that have a WP:REFNAME involved since I don't have the coding knowledge to tackle that cleanly. Left guide (talk) 21:53, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dissident93: Did you intend to use any of these sources multiple times? If so, feel free to revert (or I can self-revert). They're ref-named, but only used once apiece, so I just treated them as single citations to get the multiref template to work. Left guide (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The assassination of a member of the royal family was one of the IRA's early 'spectaculars', but it proved to be a contentious one for them and they were criticised heavily for killing a 79-year old along with an 82-year old and two teenagers. This has been through a complete rewrite and PR recently; any further constructive comments are most welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first para of "The Troubles in the late 1970s" is not very informative or nuanced, suggest you borrow modified text from the "Troubles in the late 1970s and 1980s" section from your FA article on the Brighton hotel bombing, which is far better. Ceoil (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is already lifted from the Brighton bomb article! It looks better on that page because of the second half of the paragraph, which deals with some of the stuff in the five years between Mountbatten and Brighton and how it affected Thatcher's policies - obviously no valid here. - SchroCat (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really like the amount of background given, would trim the potted bio for Mountbatten and not have either his nor those for "Thomas McMahon and Francis McGirl" under separate section headers. Ceoil (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me have a think about this. The reader who knows nothing about this needs to get a quick grasp on why he was a target and why it was such a big deal at the time. - SchroCat (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that amount of background on Mountbatten is due, but it needs to be reworked. The first paragraph of 'Lord Mountbatten' reads a bit too much like a sequential list of resume-like titles. When we get to the later sentence "The IRA had considered the assassination of Mountbatten since the start of the Troubles", I really don't have a grasp of who Mountbatten was, his attitudes towards Ireland, or why the Irish targeted him? Proximity? His connections to the royal family? A perceived association with imperialism? Did Mountbatten himself have any notable views on Ireland/the Troubles? His apparently somewhat liberal stance on India (from my brief perusing) might be an interesting parallel/contrast with Ireland. Was he simply a symbol of the English elite? ~ HAL33317:47, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons are further down, when the IRA acknowledge it was them behind the bombing. This bit is solely the background about who he was. His position on Ireland was fairly liberal (although he abhorred the violence of the paramilitary organisations), but it was simply because he was a member of the royal family and part of the British state that he was targeted. - SchroCat (talk) 08:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see in the opening lead para, a better indication of Mountbatten's gravitas, clout and universal popularity, as well as summary of the far-reaching political impacts of his murder. Ceoil (talk) 22:29, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Inconsistencies regarding use of Oxford comma: "Mountbatten, his grandson Nicholas Knatchbull and Knatchbull's grandmother Doreen Knatchbull." vs. "members of the Royal Family, members of fourteen other royal houses, and Thatcher"
I might suggest shortening "to combat the rings of those smuggling weapons to Ireland" to "to combat weapon smuggling to Ireland", but feel free to disregard.
One possibilityThe best of the available images in my opinionExample
If possible, could you add another image of Mountbatten in the 'Lord Mountbatten' section? Perhaps one of him in formal military attire or next to someone like JFK or Ghandi. It would be a visual way to communicate his importance/connection to British royalty/elite.
Or maybe either of theseimages from '76. This one is very cool as well.
The problem with that section is that on my screen it's covered by the infobox, which means any image would be pushed into the McMahon and McGirl section and probably push into the section below. - SchroCat (talk) 10:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it's not a dealbreaker if you don't add an image, but on my laptop screen (standard dimensions) the infobox does not enter the 'Lord Mountbatten' section, even with the "small text" and "wide" options. The IRA Campaignbox does however, but only if opened (which isn't the default I think). ~ HAL33313:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The castle was a country house built for Lord Palmerston and was owned by Lady Mountbatten." - dropping the second "was" sounds more natural to me, but that might be BrEng/AmEng
"Mountbatten was still breathing when he was pulled from the water, but died within minutes." - Do sources describe his injuries? Especially his fatal injury/injuries? Was there an autopsy?
I'll go over the sources again, but I don't recall there being any further details, nor of anything that came out of an autopsy (although being a royal would have meant the press wouldn't dwell on the details). I'll get back to you on this. - SchroCat (talk) 10:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Lord Brabourne had badly broken legs, which were saved by surgeons." - This is nitpicky, but "saved" doesn't seem very encyclopedic. Is there a more matter-of-fact way to put this?
Let me have a think about this: I think it's a standard term (in BrEng, at least), but I'll see if there is anything else that fits the bill. - SchroCat (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The IRA claimed responsibility at the same time as the second attack? Is there a connection between the timing? I only ask because "five hours after the bombing" is repeated back-to-back, which is a bit awkward.
Possibly, although if there was a connection it's never been disclosed and none of the sources even speculate that there may have been a connection. I've reworded to avoid the 'five hours' repetition. - SchroCat (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consider shortening "who had recently been elected prime minister" to "recently elected prime minister"
All looks good - happy to support. I still encourage you to add another image of Mountbatten, but its absence doesn't violate any FA criteria. ~ HAL33323:47, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That he was related to the British royal family is mentioned previously. Why is his relationship to a monarch who had died decades before the events is relevant?Borsoka (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Depth of relationship? He was the second cousin to a late king. For justification, I refer to WP:5P1: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", but is not "an indiscriminate collection of information". Borsoka (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in an article about Ireland's geography. You could also educate our readers about lobster pots, or the making of bombs in this article. Will you? Borsoka (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...County Monaghan,... County Leitrim,... I would rather clarify that Carrickmacross and Ballinamore are in Ireland/near the Irish-Northern Irish border.
Although Co Leitrim shares part of its border with the North, Ballinamore - the important place in this narrative - isn't that near. - SchroCat (talk) 11:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mountbatten always dismissed the threat... Some context? ("When he was asked on the issue, ..."/"When IRA leaflets named him as a potential target...")
... Timothy and Nicholas... I would add their surname (Knatchbull) as well, because the first's full name will be mentioned in a subsequent sentence.Borsoka (talk) 09:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you mean here, but I suspect most people know Ireland is an island (clue is sort of in the name for a start) - SchroCat (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have not read the lead, but I think it could (and should be) shortened by at least 10%. For instance, in the second sentence, the text "on the Mullaghmore Peninsula near the village of Cliffoney, County Sligo," is quite redundant.Borsoka (talk) 10:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a reliable source that establishes a clear connection between Thatcher's campaign for the Conservative Party leadership and the assassination of Lord Mountbatten, please provide it. Without such sourcing, including this material would appear to be an example of WP:SYNTH. Adding context is valuable, but we should avoid inserting information that is not directly relevant to the subject of the article. Borsoka (talk) 00:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And there was me thinking you'd discontinued the review. It's germane to the background of the subject - you can't view the events without context. Thank you for your thoughts on this matter, about some of which we obviously disagree. - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lord Mountbatten, a retired British statesman and relative of the British royal family, was assassinated on 27 August 1979 by Thomas McMahon, an Irish republican and a volunteer for the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA).: any way to rework this so that it doesn't look as though three people were involved? Perhaps "... on 27 August 1979. Thomas McMahon, an Irish republican and a volunteer for the PIRA, planted ..."?
50 pounds (23 kg) of gelignite.: of the explosive gelignite? On one level, it's pretty obvious that this is something to do with a bomb, but I suppose it could have been e.g. containing 50 pounds of nails.
flakes of green and white paint on McMahon's boots, a paint smear on his jacket—which matched the paint from Shadow V: this sounds as though we've got two different paints. Could we do something like "found traces of green and white paint, which matched the paint from Shadow V, on McMahon's boots and jacket"?
McGirl was acquitted. -- and yet we've confidently named him as the accomplice. Could you give me some reassurance from the sources that we can do so? I note that the Belfast Telegraph called him the "alleged accomplice" (admittedly, with pretty obvious eyebrow-raising) in 2019, and I can't see such a definitive statement in the cited sources. Incidentally, in unsuccessfully trying to corroborate this, I came across the lovely detail that he told his police interrogators that he "didn't plant a bomb on that boat", before being reminded that nobody had thus far mentioned any boat...
Which ones? I couldn't find any which didn't append "alleged" or similar. We don't actually use the word in the body, so it isn't directly cited. The relevant chunk is cited to Reddy, who I don't think directly says it, and to a Times article from the time of the trial: I didn't read that one, but I would be utterly amazed if they claimed his guilt days after his acquittal, British libel laws being what they are. UndercoverClassicistT·C16:20, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Knatchbull, From a Clear Blue Sky is one that uses the actual word. Others are clear in his complicity and participation but don't necessarily use the word "accomplice". - SchroCat (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...that's the same Timothy Knatchbull who was one of the victims! I'm sorry, but of all people I don't think he gets to be counted as a dispassionate apportioner of guilt. The difficulty is that nobody disagrees on what McGirl did, but saying that he was an accomplice implies that he was part of the plot, which is contrary to what the court ruled (or at least, the court ruled that there was reasonable doubt as to the truth of that). All the sources I've seen discuss him in the context of the bombing and mention that he was acquitted, but none actually say that he was part of the actual bombing. If there are others which do, we need to cite them to be able to support what we've written.From what I've seen, we can and absolutely should say that McGirl picked McMahon up after the bombing, that they drove away through the night, switched cars, that he gave false information and so on -- but in the lead I think we need to say something closer to McMahon placed this on Shadow V on the night of 26 August 1979 before meeting a fellow IRA operative, Francis McGirl, who drove him away. UndercoverClassicistT·C17:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we're taking such an overly strict interpretation based solely on what the Irish courts said, then we can't say "fellow IRA operative": according to the Irish court, McMahon was acquitted of being a member of the IRA. Either way, even if he was "only" a getaway driver, then he's still an accomplice (even though there are sources that say he was also a bomb maker). - SchroCat (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then we're back around -- if we have sources that use a stronger framing, we should cite them, but at the moment I can only see reliable sources that go no further than "alleged accomplice". We're being more categoric than any of them and, so far, the only source I've seen that endorses our approach (Knatchbull) fails a lot of the hurdles for WP:HQRS. If good sources do it, let's cite them: if they don't, we shouldn't. UndercoverClassicistT·C17:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Witherow, Tom (19 May 2024). "Call to Prosecute IRA Man who Made Bomb that Killed Mountbatten". The Sunday Times. p. 4. It refers to him as an accomplice. I'm not sure we need to cite it specifically to justify using the single word "accomplice": he was at the very least the getaway driver (which is an accomplice), possibly he had a bigger role, but that's only vaguely hinted at by various sources. - SchroCat (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would put the same term in the body and cite it there, so that we're covered under MOS:LEAD (that what's in the lead actually is in the body) and MOS:LEADCITE. After all, it would be perfectly theoretically possible for someone to drive a criminal away from the scene innocently -- they might have been lied to about what their passenger was actually doing. I don't know the intricacies of Irish law, but I would imagine that McGirl would have been convicted as an accessory to murder if it were blindingly obvious from the evidence that he had been part of the plot. As far as I can see I don't there was a real sense, at the time or since, that the trial was a miscarriage of justice.Incidentally and interestingly, this Irish Times article says that McGirl is believed to have planted the bomb -- there's a couple of reliable-ish looking hits on Google Books that do the same. UndercoverClassicistT·C18:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She introduced an intelligence-led approach: this can be read in a few ways (fill in your own joke about military intelligence being a contradiction) -- we really mean that the intelligence services would take the lead. I wonder if it would help to be explicit and saying that she changed the previous situation whereby things had been led by the armed forces and the RUC, with no real joint apparatus?
Tweaked. I think the fuller explanation is better kept in the body, rather than diving into too much detail here, but I'm open to being persuaded on the point. - SchroCat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
US intelligence and law enforcement became more proactive in investigating IRA arms procurement in the US, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation set up a specialist unit to combat Irish weapons-smuggling rings.: what does Irish mean here -- in Ireland, or Irish-American? Less important, but I wonder if we can do anything about the repetition of "US ... US".
Let's go on a bit. I'm wavering as to how far the "accomplice" bit is personal caution or criteria, especially as WP:BLP doesn't apply, but we can always look at some other bits in the meantime:
"cabin cruiser" is a fairly obscure term, especially so early in the lead. Is there an easy way to get the word "boat" in -- other than the link, nothing in the lead actually makes it obvious what Shadow V was.
The unionists—also known as loyalists—wanted Northern Ireland to remain within the United Kingdom; republicans wanted Northern Ireland to leave the UK and join a united Ireland: is the past tense correct here? It's a bit like saying "the Thirty Years' War was fought between Catholics and Protestants. Catholics followed the Pope while Protestants didn't" -- they still do and still don't.
Yes, I chewed on this -- but then I think of something like "John Smith was shot outside a McDonald's in 1992. McDonald's is an American fast food restaurant", or "I met Lady Gaga last week. Gaga was a singer." Clearly, in at least the latter case, we'd use the present tense for her profession, and it's not obvious to me what the statute of limitations is as long as the present-tense statement remains true. UndercoverClassicistT·C09:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We dip our toe briefly into the confusing morass of IRAs, PIRAs, INLAs etc in the second paragraph of the 1970s section. I don't know whether it would be wise to dip any further, but the (P)IRA and the INLA probably need a brief introduction. I notice that we introduce the INLA further down but not here, which is probably a mistake.
Thatcher was described by her biographer Jonathan Aitken as being "numb with shock" at the news: I would add of his death, since we were just talking about her election.
I'm sure you don't need me to correct The Chief of the Defence Staff is the head of the United Kingdom's Armed Forces, but for those playing along at home, we need to insert professional -- the monarch is the head of the Armed Forces. Incidentally, when I copied this over, I noticed that the apostrophe was curly rather than straight: it should be beaten into shape. UndercoverClassicistT·C18:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mountbatten kept the 28-foot-long (8.5 m) cabin cruiser Shadow V moored in the local harbour, which he used for fishing: the harbour or the boat? If the latter, would move the relative clause after Shadow V.
Mountbatten had spent thirty years holidaying at Classiebawn Castle on the Mullaghmore Peninsula near Cliffoney, County Sligo, Ireland: I think someone else mentioned this too, but it does sound as if he was taking a very long holiday indeed.
When asked, Mountbatten dismissed the threat: I think we need to expand when asked to actually form a question, even if just "when asked about it". Am I justified in saying that we could add openly to the preceding sentence about the planning?
No, I don't think so. None of the sources say they were "openly" planning it - indeed, it would be an odd step for a clandestine organisation to be open about planning a murder. I've expanded the "asked" bit. - SchroCat (talk) 09:23, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno -- it's pretty common terror tactics to "warn" a prominent person that their days are numbered. But what we have here is fine, as long as that's what the sources say -- it was hardly a huge leap of logic that they might have been interested in him. UndercoverClassicistT·C09:26, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
refused to allow members of his protection onto his boat: protection team, protection detail or similar?
by an unknown man using the modified controls for a model aeroplane: can we say anything about how we know this -- in particular, how we know it was a man? Did a witness report seeing a bloke in a balaclava fiddling with a remote control?
We know if because the source says, but doesn't go into any further detail, unfortunately. I suspect info was picked up by the security services at some point, but not enough for any further action, but that's just my OR. - SchroCat (talk) 07:34, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
a first aid post: I was going to call compound modifier here, but it seems that "first aid", like "death metal" is very rarely hyphenated since the 1950s or so.
Dowager Lady Brabourne (in "Assassination") is hereafter referred to simply as "Lady Brabourne": it should surely be the Dowager (per the Telegraph, anyway, but in any case can we just drop it here? I did find a 1959 style guide that noted that the term was rarely used "these days". See also, later, the joint funeral of Dowager Lady Brabourne and her grandson Nicholas.
the IRA attacked the British Army on the east coast of the island at Narrow Water Castle outside Warrenpoint, County Down, near the Irish border: I would group the place bits of the same hierarchy together, so the IRA attacked the British Army of the island at Narrow Water Castle outside Warrenpoint, County Down, on the east coast near the Irish border or similar.
Looking at a picture, it's more a gateway than a gatehouse.
All the sources specifically say "Gatehouse". It's possible that the building was completely destroyed, which would explain why it doesn't show up in modern photographs. - SchroCat (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would mention that sixteen of the dead were paratroops, or alternatively that two were from the Queen's Own Highlanders: the comment that Eighteen soldiers were killed in the two explosions; it was the biggest loss of life in the Parachute Regiment erases them a little, though we do mention one of the highlanders elsewhere.
in The Irish Press, the writer Tim Pat Coogan observed: I would cut the writer, as he was its editor. Without disagreeing with him, "observed" needs to be reworked to something subjective per MOS:SAID.
the death of Mountbatten in Ireland and of the shooting at the survivors from south of the border at Warrenpoint confirmed their suspicion: I think the of needs to go here. I'm not sure "confirmed their suspicion" is quite the right thing -- it wasn't that they didn't know for sure that the IRA were making attacks from Irish territory, it was that it was now embarassingly and undeniably public.
flakes of green and white paint on McMahon's boots, a paint smear on his jacket—which matched the paint from Shadow V: I would rework this as we did in the lead, for the same reasons.
at the Special Criminal Court in Dublin: definitely cut in Dublin here (it's the second mention in a short section), and perhaps even from the first one, as it had been introduced further up.
McGirl died in March 1995 when the tractor he was driving overturned, killing him instantly: there have been a couple of news stories reporting an allegation that this was an IRA assassination. Nothing has been proven, obviously, but worth including? After all, we've decided that we don't need to wait for a court's judgement on other matters here.
This feels as if it may be a little too tangential for this one. That and the fact that the reference in the Guardian uses the magical words "According to the Daily Mail", makes me shy away a little. - SchroCat (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note 72 (about overflight): the source has quite a lot more that Thatcher pressed Lynch for, such as a deepening of cooperation in the intelligence field between MI6 and Irish Special Branch; the institution of dedicated Garda crime squads on the border; RUC attendance at the interrogation of IRA suspects in Garda stations. I assume none of those actually happened, but they probably should be mentioned (it's a short paragraph anyway). Otherwise, everything we've written checks out.
Note 4: The Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA)—a paramilitary group that wanted to bring about Irish reunification—had largely confined their military activities to Northern Ireland until 1976, when they assassinated Christopher Ewart-Biggs, the British ambassador to Ireland, in Dublin. There's quite a big caveat in the source, which has the newly revived IRA -- in theory at least -- confined its armed campaign to the "occupied six counties". I don't think we can use this as strongly as we are: another source is needed to assert that this was largely true (in theory, politicians serve their constituents' interests...)
I didn't have you down as an Irish nationalist -- isn't Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom? Great Britain, surely? Purely because we've done it so consistently elsewhere, I'd also suggest bundling the citations. However, although I see material on GB in Fay et al, I don't see a categoric statement of exclusion such as we'd need. UndercoverClassicistT·C17:01, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Text tweaked, but (as far as my research has been going), there are no exclusions - not many people state the negative of where attacks don't happen, but I'll keep looking. - SchroCat (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathise -- but clearly we have to be careful here, since we can't extrapolate from a list of attacks in NI and a list in GB that there weren't any elsewhere -- in the same way that we couldn't extrapolate from a history of the Western Front and one of the Eastern Front in WWI that all the fighting happened in Europe. UndercoverClassicistT·C18:02, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no extrapolation - just a fault on my part to keep track of the source I used that categorically states this. I'm trying to reconstruct my research pathway now to see if I can find it. - SchroCat (talk) 07:01, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken it out (even though it's correct), as I'm struggling to find the source used for that part. I'll keep looking to see if I can find it, but what's there is correct for the moment. - SchroCat (talk) 07:50, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note 12: Mountbatten kept the twenty-eight-foot-long (8.5 m) cabin cruiser Shadow V, which he used for fishing, in the local harbour; the boat was unguarded: this bit is only found in Bell 1993a, which adds the important caveat at night -- which implies that it was guarded during the day. Hernon 2007, p. 188, has "completely unguarded", so there's some discrepancy to resolve here. I note that Bell 1993b mentions in passing that the boat was at least occasionally watched by Gardai.
I'm not sure I agree with that implied conclusion: I think it's more a case of not being guarded (by police or similar) during the day, but guarded as in visible in plain sight to everyone during daylight hours (given the harbour is in front of the town). I've tweaked with an added footnote. - SchroCat (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note 21 Mountbatten disliked close security and refused to allow members of his protection detail onto his boat, or to be nearby in a speedboat when he went out fishing.: the source specifies Gardai, while we've said that his detail included British soldiers -- it's at least possible that he would consent to be accompanied by the latter but not the former.
Note 26: The IRA planned the attack on Mountbatten for several months. Two teams were involved: one built the bomb to be used and the other—an intelligence team—focused on reconnaissance. The intelligence team reported that a planned boat trip on Monday 27 August to Mountbatten's lobster pots was probably the last opportunity to bomb him on the boat that year: I don't see the material about the two teams in the source, which talks generally about "IRA intelligence".
Everything in note 41 checks: the account is very similar to that in Hernon 2007 in structure and aspects of phrasing: I would take a look for CLOP. Hernon specifies "shock and internal injuries" as Lady Brabourne's cause of death; I don't see that any of the other sources cited here make a firm pronouncement.
Note 93: we say military; the sources say British Army, which is strictly a subset of the military. I don't see "she wanted to focus on domestic economic matters" directly in the sources, but I think I'm missing a page of Kelly in the Google Books preview. However, "the events pushed Northern Ireland to the top of her political agenda" is taken practically verbatim from the latter, which is too close paraphrasing for what is a MOS:CLICHE anyway. UndercoverClassicistT·C17:01, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a few somewhat pedantic military history-focused comments:
Mountbatten oversaw the handover of Singapore in 1945 and the local surrender ceremonies there, as it followed the general Japanese surrender. Saying he "recaptured" the city is technically correct, but overstating things. If you want to get into fighting he oversaw in 1945, see his role in the Netherlands East Indies that year.
The brief bio of Mountbatten is also rather kind to him. Modern historians usually note that he owed most of his stellar career to his royal connections and he was at best competent in the various roles he held, and totally out of his depth in some of them. The only role that he's generally seen as having been the best choice for was being the last viceroy of India where the royal connections were important.
Both of these points are true, the section isn't meant as a critique of the man or his career, but simply a outline of his positions (and some major actins) to show how integrated into the British state he'd been. His own article should be the place for a more rounded assessment. - SchroCat (talk) 08:29, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"it was the biggest loss of life in the Parachute Regiment since Operation Market Garden in 1944" this can't be correct given the parachute regiment was involved in considerable hard fighting for the remainder of the war, including Operation Varsity. The article on the ambush says it was the biggest loss of life since the Second World War, which seems more likely - though I'd specify that it would have been the biggest loss in a single incident . Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just going by what the source says! However, as the ones that refer to OpMG aren't specialist histories of the regiment or Second World War, I've tweaked it to say 'the biggest loss of life in a single incident for the Parachute Regiment since the Second World War', which should still carry the impact but move it away from any possible quibbles. - SchroCat (talk) 08:29, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It says "... Margaret Thatcher—the leader of the Opposition..." Should we add "then" the leader of the Opposition?
Every time I add "then [X position]", it's taken out, either at FAC or later on. I think the logic is that it's a given we're talking about the person's position at the chronological point it's raised (thus, later in the article we mention that she was PM) - SchroCat (talk) 07:20, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Thatcher's rather predictable reaction to her mentor being killed important to quote in this article? It would be more central to Neave's article.
It says "He was a member of the prominent Battenberg family, and a great-grandson of Queen Victoria..." I would delete "and", as this is only the 2nd item in a longer list.
"Mountbatten kept ... Shadow V ... moored in the local harbour." The term is used several times thereafter. As an old sailor myself, I am skeptical that one would moor such a boat, rather than place it in a slip at the marina. This would require someone to row out in a dinghy or tender craft, start up the engine, and also return on a dinghy or tender craft when returning. Plus, it would make it much more difficult for the bomber to put the bomb on the Shadow V, requiring them to have a dinghy or skiff, which is not mentioned. I looked at the three sources cited for the sentence (and also at Ziegler) and don't see that any of them specifies that it was moored. Ziegler says he "climbed down" into the boat, which sounds to me like he stepped onto the boat's deck from the dock and then climbed down inside. If you took a dinghy out to it, you'd have to climb up a ladder, or at least awkwardly step over the high railing, which Ziegler does not report. If the sources are not clear, I would just say that he kept the boat at the local harbour.
2nd paragraph: "...but an IRA ceasefire stopped the operation and in August 1978 a plan to shoot him on board his boat did not proceed..." This is a very long sentence. I'd break it at "and in August 1978" and start a new sentence: "In August 1978...."
"...following the assassination of Airey Neave by the Irish National Liberation Army, "a counter-coup by the IRA was felt by them to be necessary". This is a little obscure. Were INLA and IRA rival groups, or on the same side? And why did this particular event focus attention particularly on Mountbatten? If the main point is simply that Neave's assassination signalled an increase in such activities and increase the threat level generally, perhaps we should just say that?
Last paragraph: "On the night of 26–27 August 1979 the bomb was planted on Shadow V; it contained a radio-controlled detonator and placed below..." Add "was" before "placed below".
Can you add a summary sentence near the end of the section, like: In all, four people were killed and three were severely injured.
Reactions
Last paragraph: "The British government had pressed the government of Ireland over the cross-border aspect of IRA activity for some time; the death of Mountbatten in Ireland ..." Mountbatten was killed in Ireland pretty far from the border. What is the "cross-border" aspect of his assassination?
It was part of the ramifications of the day's events and is raised by all the histories. Even though more relevant to the Warrenpoint ambush, it was an aspect that also reflected the Mountbatten attack (McMahon being the IRA's EO in South Armagh). - SchroCat (talk) 07:20, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since Oldfield was named and identified as MI6 in the Build-up section, it seems unnecessary to link and identify him again in Legacy.
"Mountbatten's murder led to a loss of sympathy.... This led to a decline.... The murder led to an increased awareness..." Reduce the number of "led to"s. How about: "This accelerated the decline in donations to NORAID, the US-based organisation that raised funds for the IRA, that had been ongoing since the mid-1970s
"...investigate the weapons-smuggling rings between the east coast and Ireland..." How about "investigate the smuggling rings trafficking weapons between the east coast and Ireland..."?
Support:
All of my queries and quibbles above are quite minor, and I thought the article an excellent read, comprehensive, with good prose, structure and well-illustrated. I support promotion to FA. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that there are some questions of due weight above. I caution that I lack familiarity with the topic matter to assess any NPOV concerns, so this review shouldn't be read as an endorsement or non-endorsement on NPOV grounds. I am not sure if 9-10 explicitly say that these posts are in charge of army and navy? "Aitken, Jonathan (2013). Margaret Thatcher: Power and Personality. New York: Bloomsbury. ISBN 978-1-62040-342-6." prominent publisher but I wonder about the author's reliability. Adams 1986 has one critical review. "Davis, Lee (1993). Assassination: Twenty Assassinations that Changed History. Abingdon, Oxfordshire: TransEdition Books. ISBN 978-1-8982-5011-1." seems a bit under-covered, is this publisher reputable? "Ross, Josephine (1981). Lord Mountbatten. London: Hamilton. ISBN 978-0-2411-0593-1." is somewhat niche or am I missing something? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:51, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jo-Jo, as always. There's nothing wrong with Aitken's reliability for giving an opinion for an event he was at; for Adams, there are positive reviews too, and there's nothing in the negative one that makes me shy away from it for the one use we make of it here; TransEdition: I can't find anything negative about the company or anything that questions its output; and Hamish Hamilton is a bit niche, but is an imprint of Penguin Books, so fairly solid. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:27, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Para 1: "relative of the British royal family" - Was he part of the royal family? Usually, a relative of a family is considered part of the extended family, but I recognize the situation may be different here.
The British Royal Family does things differently and, while there's no official definition of them, most people consider the family as equivalent to the household of those who are part of the civil list, which Mountbatten wasn't. - SchroCat (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Para 1: "during Mountbatten's annual summer trip to Classiebawn Castle, his house on the Mullaghmore Peninsula, Ireland." - To clarify, the bombing occurred while the boat was at the peninsula? I assume so, but it isn't stated directly.
Para 3: "the IRA ambushed a British Army patrol with two roadside bombs; eighteen British soldiers were killed." - The clause before the semicolon is in active voice, and the clause afterward is in passive voice. Maybe this can be condensed so the entire sentence is in active voice, e.g. "the IRA ambushed a British Army patrol with two roadside bombs, killing eighteen British soldiers?"
Para 4: "sand from Mullaghmore in his boots' tread" - Comparatively minor nitpick, but "boots' treads", "boot's tread", or "boot tread" might be more appropriate; otherwise it sounds like the boots share a tread.
Para 1: "The Troubles were the conflict in Northern Ireland between unionists" - The second sentence is in present tense but this is in past tense. The present tense would be appropriate if the Troubles were still ongoing, but The Troubles' article indicates that it isn't.
It's deliberate. The Troubles (the actual fighting) is over, but the unionists and loyalists are still very much there with their very different aims. - SchroCat (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Para 2: "The Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA)—a paramilitary group that wanted to bring about Irish reunification." - Currently, this is a run-on sentence. The sentence is missing either a verb (e.g. "The Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) was a paramilitary group"), or an entire clause (e.g. "The Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA)—a paramilitary group that wanted to bring about Irish reunification—was [...]").
Para 1: "Lord Mountbatten was a British statesman, Royal Navy officer and close relative of the British royal family." - Same as my first comment for the lead.
By the way, what made him a target of the IRA? I suppose it was him being a high-ranking British statesman, but that's just me speculating based on context.
Para 2: "McMahon's accomplice was Francis McGirl lived in Ballinamore, County Leitrim, where he was a gravedigger" - This has one verb too many. Maybe "McMahon's accomplice Francis McGirl lived..."
Sorry for the delay.Build-up and McMahon's actions:
Para 3: Just curious, is there a reason footnote [e] ("McMahon was also a suspect in the 1974 Birmingham pub bombings") is specifically mentioned here, as opposed to when McMahon is first mentioned?
Para 1: "He was accompanied by his daughter Lady Patricia Brabourne, her husband Lord Brabourne, their twin sons Timothy and Nicholas Knatchbull, the twins' paternal grandmother Doreen Knatchbull (the Dowager Lady Brabourne) and Paul Maxwell, a 15-year-old boy from Enniskillen, Northern Ireland, who was working as a boatboy." - The phrase "Paul Maxwell, a 15-year-old boy from Enniskillen, Northern Ireland, who was working as a boatboy" has several commas. Not sure if BrE does this or if it's just an AmE thing, but in American English, if one or more items in a serial list themselves have commas, then the different items in the list are separated by semicolons rather than commas. So for instance, "He was accompanied by his daughter Lady Patricia Brabourne; her husband Lord Brabourne; ..." I see you already include a list with semicolons further down (last paragraph of the Reaction section).
I see. Honestly my personal preference is to use the semicolons for consistency with that other list in the Reactions section, but I won't belabor the issue if it's grammatically correct. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Para 4: "Timothy Knatchbull was one of the more serious casualties; he and Lady Brabourne were the first to be operated on." - Weren't they both among the more serious casualties? I'd just say "Timothy Knatchbull and Lady Brabourne, being among the more serious casualties, were the first to be operated on" or something like that.
Para 2: "all that was found of the senior officer who arrived with the reinforcements" - Should this be "who had arrived", since Blair's arrival had occurred in the past?
Para 2: "Eighteen soldiers were killed in the two explosions; it was the biggest loss of life in a single incident for the Parachute Regiment since the Second World War" - I'm not really sure how to explain this, but "Eighteen soldiers were killed" might not need to be its own clause, given that the previous two paragraphs already implicitly mention 18 deaths. Rather, I was thinking summarising this info - something along the lines of "With eighteen soldiers killed in the two explosions, it was the biggest loss of life in a single incident for the Parachute Regiment since the Second World War"
Para 1: "This included denunciation from Jack Lynch, the taoiseach, who said he was "horrified and saddened" by the killing" - Could this be just "Jack Lynch, the taoiseach, said he was "horrified and saddened" by the killing..."? His own comments and the previous sentence both already imply that Lynch is denouncing the killings.
Para 4: "The counter-terrorism consultant Andy Oppenheimer states the IRA received £2 million from Syria" - Was this confirmed, or just hypothesised? I ask because the previous and following sentences both talk about unproven theories or allegations as to the bombers' links.
Para 1: "The Garda collected the debris from the boat, including using diver units to recover the engine and parts of the bomb, which were in thirty feet (9.1 m) of water" - I get what you're trying to express here, but the word "including" after the first comma is slightly off-putting; usually, I'd say something like "using diver units to help recover...". If the word is indeed necessary, then did you know what else they used to recover the engine and parts of the bomb?
They would have collected everything from the seabed (ten trailers of debris was taken from the water, but this included the flotsam too). - SchroCat (talk) 07:12, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Para 2: "sand from Mullaghmore in his boots' tread" - As I mentioned above, this should probably be "boots' treads".
Para 3: "He swore on oath that he was not a member, and had not been so at the time of the bombing. The charges were dismissed" - Since the last sentence is rather short, maybe joining these two sentences using a semicolon might be helpful.
Para 2: "It was attended by Queen Elizabeth II, members of the Royal Family, members of fourteen other royal houses and Thatcher and all of her surviving predecessors; Lynch also attended" - Why is there a semicolon between the mentions of Lynch and the other attendees? Wouldn't "It was attended by Queen Elizabeth II, members of the Royal Family, members of fourteen other royal houses, Thatcher, all of her surviving predecessors and Lynch" work?
Para 2: "This bought about a decline in donations to NORAID, the US-based organisation that raised funds for the IRA, although donations had been in decline since the mid-1970s" - Shouldn't this be "This bought about a further decline" (so, e.g. "This bought about a further decline in donations to NORAID, the US-based organisation that raised funds for the IRA; donations had been in decline since the mid-1970s"? (I almost typed out "brought about" but then realised this could be the BrE version.)
Para 3: "McGirl died in March 1995 when the tractor he was driving overturned, killing him instantly" - This sentence redundantly mentions twice that he died. Maybe "In 1995, the tractor McGirl was driving overturned, killing him instantly" or something similar?
Marking my spot on the boat shore :) I doubt there'll be any prose issues this late in the day, considering the august company above, but I'm interested in some of the discussions. —Fortuna, imperatrix16:36, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SchroCat I am so crap. I'm really sorry! I got a bit obsessed with something else and totally forgot this. I've got a couple of things to say—definitely tomorrow!—but it's a powerful article even as it stands. (Meaning, it certainly shouldn't hold up promotion if a coord floats by in the meantime!) Apologies again! (Especially for not seeing/ignoring your ping!) —Fortuna, imperatrix16:58, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mainstream Unionists would be most dismayed to hear that they're the same as Loyalists! Still, I know what you're saying, and it might be getting into the weeds a bit to go further (interesting article here, for your personal perusal).
"about Irish reunification" > perhaps add "through armed struggle", or the like, as although 'Army' implies violence it might be best to get it out in front.
Although I don't think the background on Mountbatten is too much, I might drop the stuff about NATO as being tangential to both Ireland and the Royal Family.
"the IRA had considered the assassination of Mountbatten since the start of the Troubles": Be more specific? The IRA were obviously not considering killing Mountbatten in Aug 1969. Bell 1993a dates interest in MB from 1970 (Bell 2000 says 'for ten years', which would agree, if inclusively).
"placed below where Mountbatten was known to sit on board": is this a slightly lengthier way of saying "below his seat" (as it happens, your previous source (Aldrich & Cormac) states this directly ("directly beneath Mountbatten’s seat")).
"the one who planted the device ... the one who planted the bomb". To save repetition, perhaps sth like "the one who planted the device; others say McGirl was responsible/McGirl did so".
Redy is quite detailed on Lohan's rising suspicions in Granard, can you expand slightly? It's interesting material and I think you could cover McGirl's increasingly unconvincing answers and behaviour with another sentence or two; after all, it was—albeit without anyone knowing it—the first arrests in the case.
"a 15-year-old boy from Enniskillen, Northern Ireland, who was working as a boatboy" could omit a "boy", so "a 15-year-old from Enniskillen, Northern Ireland, who was working as boatboy".
By the way, why "Enniskillen, Northern Ireland" when other places are "town, county"? (As in "Enniskillen, County Fermanagh").
Because the others are all south of the border, while this is one place that is not only north of the border, but is possible (probable?) that many readers won't know which side of the border Enniskillen lies.
Are the quotes from the Taoiseach/ USDS per MOS:LQ?
Probably worth making clear for those readers prone to the fantastic that the Molyneux/Powell thesis received no credence but much ridicule at the time (as you also, rightly, dismiss the Libya connection).
"demonstrated the truth of their claims": This should be out of Wikivoice; Patterson is stating HMG's belief—based on a security briefing paper—that RoI provided a safe haven. He goes on to note that the Irish (unsurprisingly perhaps) denied it. Can I suggest something like, "The British government had pressed the government of Ireland over the cross-border aspect of IRA activity for some time; the death of Mountbatten in Ireland and the shooting at the survivors from south of the border at Warrenpoint, Britain argued, proved it".
@FAC coordinators: Any chance I could open a second nom? This has been open for three and a half weeks and is at five supports with cleared image and source review. No probs on waiting a little longer though. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"important voyages" seems like a MOS:PEACOCK issue. I think the following sentence explains their significance, so it can probably be dropped. "pioneering" is also used later in the lead, which is technically another peacock issue but I think is still alright if you decide to keep it.
"all skills he would need one day to command his own ship" --> "all skills he needed to command his own ship" or the even more concise "all skills needed to command a ship"
"the conflict that would later become known as the Seven Years' War." --> "the conflict that became known as the Seven Years' War." 'later' is also redundant unless one considers the possibility of some kind of time-travel loop.
"experienced the first of several ship groundings he would face during his career" --> "experienced the first of several ship groundings he faced during his career"
"two incidents occurred that would be repeated, in various forms, many times during Cook's voyages:" --> "two incidents happened that recurred in various forms throughout Cook's voyages." or maybe "Cook first experienced two phenomena that recurred throughout Cook's voyages."
Other uses (like "This voyage would have two ships and") are fine because they are in context hypothetical.
"He served during the Seven Years' War, and subsequently" - the use of "subsequently" is misleading as it implies that the following happened after the war. I suggest something like the more concise "He served in the Seven Years' War, during which surveyed and mapped much of the entrance to the St. Lawrence River amid the siege of Quebec." My alternative may need tweaking to clarify that he saw combat.
Done. Rewrote as He first saw combat in the Seven Years' War, when he fought in the Seige of Louisberg. Later in the war, he surveyed and mapped much of the entrance to the St. Lawrence River during the siege of Quebec. Noleander (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I read this, I should note that the prose is exceptional in all other regards.
"although he did not have the rank of Commander or Captain" - Should those titles be capitalized? Elsewhere the lower case is used for the title alone: "promotion to captain"
"reported sightings (later disproved) of Terra Australis" - Can you add a brief note explaining this? What were the sightings and how were they disproved?
Done. Added a footnote: Wallis' crew reported seeing Terra Australis near Tahiti. Cook's first voyage travelled extensively around Tahiti, and found the reports to be mistaken. The sightings were possibly cloud banks or islands.Noleander (talk) 17:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The two sentences beginning with "Cook – following his secret orders – began..." both use em-dashes. Could you switch up one for variety?
"In the expedition's first direct encounter with Aboriginal Australians" - there was an indirect encounter?
Done. Added sentence in preceding paragraph: During this stretch, Cook saw several Aboriginal Australians on shore, but was unble to draw close enough to make contact.Noleander (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Cook became increasingly tired, harsh and volatile during his final voyage" - Do sources describe or propose a reason for this change? Did his crew or officers suspect a reason? Could you expand on this with a sentence or two? Did it approach Bligh/Bounty-level discord?
No, it was never close to Bligh/Bounty. The cause (and existence) of the 3rd voyage harshness is debated by Cook scholars. My recommendation is to leave it as-is (which includes a footnote representing a minority view). The articles Death of James Cook or Third voyage of James Cook could be expanded to include more details about the topic. Here are some words from Beaglehole that established the foundation of the issue (B. 1974, pp=711-712):
Isaac Smith, on the first and second voyages, never thought [Cook] severe: he was both ‘loved’ and ‘properly feared’ by the crew, The third voyage evidence is ... linked with that of his harsh, his quite inhumane, treatment of native pilferers— outbursts of rage as uncontrollable, evidently .... It shows a character almost on two planes, and a hypothesis of some physical cause is hard to resist. The strains of the voyage were wearing and worrying, a continuation of the strains of two other voyages. A tired man, fundamentally, the commander must have been. Continued responsibility for his own men, continued wrestling with geographical, nautical and human emergencies might, had his physical and mental constitution been less powerful, have made him go limp. He did not do so, but the inner tensions of an able mind were set up, and exacerbated. To that sort of tiredness add the effect of the violent illness from which he had suffered on the second voyage, the ‘indispositions’ to which he was subject on this third voyage. We have a man tired, not physically in any observable way, but with that almost imperceptible blunting of the brain that makes him ... a perceptibly different man. His apprehensions as a discoverer were not so constantly fine as they had been; his understanding of other minds was not so ready or sympathetic. He ‘flared up’ like a man with a stomach ulcer. That is not to say that an ulcer is necessarily the answer to our problem. [emphasis added]. Noleander (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"threatened them with stones, clubs and daggers" - Oxford comma not used, unlike elsewhere.
The caption "Resolution and Adventure in Matavai Bay during the second voyage, as painted by expedition artist William Hodges." is not a full sentence and does not need a full-stop.
Those are all my nitpicks. This is probably the best-put-together and most enjoyable article I've reviewied here in some time. Well done. ~ HAL33317:21, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay. I'm curious to know what you think of the following sources that aren't currently used in this article:
Gascoigne, John (2007). Captain Cook: Voyager between Worlds.
Howse, Derek, ed. (1990). Background to Discovery: Pacific Exploration from Dampier to Cook. A few chapters seem interesting and usable.
I found several of the chapters in Fisher, Robin; Hugh, eds. (1979). Captain James Cook and His Times. interesting, although perhaps a little outdated?
For example, the article currently does not cover how Cook's reputation evolved into its present legendary form, so Bernard Smith's chapter "Cook's Posthumous Reputation" could provide the basis. I would say in general that the article is light on detail about the medium-term impacts of Cook's voyages beyond the scientific: discussion of political, commercial, or societal legacy between 1780 and the modern day is not really present.
The subsection "Cook as chief or deity" presents the "Hawaiians thought Cook was a god" theory as indisputable fact: actually after Sahlins' 1985 writings (already cited) came a fierce response in Obeyesekere, Gananath (1992). The Apotheosis of Captain Cook: Mythmaking in the Pacific., to which Sahlins equally fiercely responded to in Sahlins, Marshall (1995). How Natives Think: About Captain Cook, for Example.. This is a historiographical contest that I think deserves significantly more representation in the article, perhaps its own short paragraph?
Thanks for identifying those additional sources ... I'll take a look at them. Regarding the three topics you mention above: (1) how Cook's reputation evolved into its present legendary form; (2) detail about the medium-term impacts of Cook's voyages beyond the scientific: discussion of political, commercial, or societal legacy; (3) The Sahlins-Obeyesekere controversy. The reason additional detail is not in the article is that the editorial approach for this article was to follow the spirit of the WP:SUMMARYSTYLE guideline, which recommends splitting-off detailed sub-topics into sub-articles. The article is at 9,200 prose words which is a bit over the 9,000 target suggested by WP:SIZERULE, though that rule does offer some leeway if "the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material." For James Cook, the sub-articles are:
For example, the Sahlins-Obeyesekere controversy is probably more appropriately covered in the James Cook and indigenous peoples sub-article. The consensus of scholars is that Sahlins is correct and Obeyesekere is wrong. So covering the controversy in the James Cook article could run afoul of WP:FALSEBALANCE (that is, is may give readers the impression that the Obeyesekere hypothesis is equally valid). A sub-article is more appropriate for explaining all the nuances of the controversy to readers. That said, I'm happy to add some material on those topics to this top-level James Cook article, if you feel it is important. Noleander (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
... and regarding sources for Cook: the article relies primarily on the 21st century sources (Thomas, Salmond, Blainey, Igler, Robinson, and Williams) since they are the most reliable and insightful. Anything from the 20th century is a bit out-dated and sometimes euro-centric. Of course, Beaghhole is used heavily, since he is the definitive starting point for all of Cook's biographers. The article does rely on some 20th century sources for specific events and facts that the modern sources do not cover (e.g. some of the material on Canada and navigation). Noleander (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I read (or skimmed) through three sources you mentioned. Gasgione 2007 is 21st century, hence up to date. It uses Cook as a coatrack to expound on a huge variety of political/societal/economic topics. Not focused on Cook but uses him as a springboard for the author's essays. Howse (ed.) 1990 - a collection of essays by several authors (some of whom wrote books used as sources for the article). Good material, but very detailed & specific. All top-level facts/points/events are already in the article. Fisher (ed.) 1979 - a collection of essays from 1978 by several authors (some of whom wrote books used as sources for the article). Almost 50 yrs old, so a bit dated. The material is good quality and in fact a couple of items were in the James Cook article at one point, but were removed to retain the article's top-level scope (per WP:SUMMARY STYLE, WP:SIZERULE, WP:PROPORTION, etc). Examples: (a) Discussion of obituaries after Cook's death (material moved into subarticle List of commemorations of Captain James Cook); and (b) discussion of American Missionaries in Hawaii deliberately sabotaging Cook's reputation (moved into subarticle James Cook and indigenous peoples, but a a footnote was retained in JC top-level article).
There "have been hundreds of Cook biographies" [Thomas, p xxxv], and so the James Cook article could easily be expanded to 15,000 or 20,000 prose words or more. There have been extensive discussions in the Talk pages and Peer Reviews about what to include and what to move into sub-articles, and the article today reflects the consensus. I feel the article is consistent with WP guidelines and meets FA quality. But, if you feel there are specific facts that must be included to meet FA standards, let me know which specific ones, and I'll be happy to add them into the article. Noleander (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As you note, WP:SIZERULE notes "the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material". If a WP:VA3 biography cannot justify the added reading material, what can? In my opinion, up to 10,000 words should be acceptable without comment. As above, I'd especially like to see coverage (at least a paragraph) of Cook's reputation in the centuries between his death and the modern era. (That said, I provide the contrast of my VA3 biography nomination, which was criticised at FAC for the length—four paragraphs—of one aspect of reputational legacy; I defended that choice vigorously, and you are perfectly welcome to do the same here.) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:57, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I'm happy to add more detail to the article. I'll focus on the one you singled-out "... I'd especially like to see coverage (at least a paragraph) of Cook's reputation in the centuries between his death and the modern era.". It might take me a few days ... I'll have to go through the sources and find material. I'll notify you when it is ready. Noleander (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 - I implemented the "reputation" material, it is at James_Cook#Reputation_and_influence. I couldn't fit it into a single paragraph ... it took several. There was no single source that surveyed Cook's reputation/influence/legacy from his death to 21st century; rather, sources tended to wrap-up their books by cherry-picking one or two anecdotes from those centuries, and presenting them as an epilogue or afterword. My approach was to identify key points made by two or more important sources and collate them geographically (England, Hawaii, Australia). Let me know if there is anything else that needs work. Thanks for taking the time to do the review! Noleander (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very satisfied with the article, and only a few tidbits and suggestions from me:
There are some inconsistences in the article in linking countries, such as in the lede, where New Zealand is unlinked but Australia and Hawaii are linked. Also, as a side note, I would prefer a link to Australia (continent), as the text refers to the continent itself, not the modern-day country, but it's your choice.
I think an explanation beside scurvy would be helpful in the lede. This is because some people might be unaware of what it means. I think this would be helpful for scurvy, at least, but not for all terms, such as cannibalism, which I assume most people are familiar with. Even I didn't know about scurvy until a Redditor sent me a video about the Dundonald, which essentially described what scurvy was and how the crew avoided it by eating a plant rich in vitamin C.
Done. Added gloss so it now reads His pioneering contributions to the prevention of scurvy, a disease common among sailors, led the Royal Society to award him.... (emphasis added). Focusing on "sailors" seems more important in the context of this article than emphasizing "dietary deficiency"; though both are correct. Some may nitpick and say it was only common among sailors that went on long-duration voyages ... but the lead should not get too far into details such as that. Noleander (talk)
For consistent British English, please change license to licence. And maybe the other instances of -ize to -ise?
Does British English put quote marks before punctuation marks? If so, this could be changed?
The quotes are following the MOS guideline MOS:INOROUT which is to put the punctuation (e.g. final period) inside the quote if the orginal quoted text has the punctuation at that spot; but outside if the original text does not have the punctuation. That MOS guideline is the same regardless of Eng/US variant. If there is a quote that does not follow that MOS guideline, let me know. Noleander (talk) 00:37, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also note File:James_Cook_Coat_of_Arms.svg seems to be missing an alt.
I'm a bit confused about the capitalization of "indigenous". Most of the article doesn't capitalize it, but I note "the claiming of Indigenous lands without" is capitalized.
Done. Thanks for catching that. Indigenous should only be capitalized when used as part of a proper noun e.g. "Indigenous Tahitians"; lowercase when used in a generic sense (e.g. applied to multiple groups). Ditto for "Native Hawaiians", etc. Noleander (talk) 00:37, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the 30th note, it reads "but they don't give a number", which seems kinda informal, so I would prefer if it read "[...] do not [...]".
A few more things, @Noleander:. I still support, but on a second read-through, I thought these things are worth mentioning.
In the lede, it mentions "when he fought in the Siege of Louisberg", which at first doesn't seem like an error, but the linked article uses the spelling "Louisbourg", so I believe this is a mistake. Also, note that in the following sentence it reads “siege of Quebec" in lowercase, while the first instance uses title case.
In this part, "landed in Poverty Bay", I think "at" is correct instead of "in". Don't know if this is a British English thing, but in the text "a tradition for sailors worldwide", I think "among sailors" would flow better.
Also, there's a wikilink that shows "strait" only, most people (I assume) don't know it's a specific strait. As per MOS:EGG, it should show "a strait" instead.
File:The_Bay_and_Harbour_of_Gaspey_-_map_by_James_Cook_1758.png: when and where was this first published?
Updated the source details in Wiki Commons to state date & location of publication: This is a map, hand drawn by Captain James Cook in 1758, and published in 1759 (in London, UK).Noleander (talk) 12:57, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Updated the source details in Wiki Commons to state date & location of publication: This painting was painted in 1902 in Britain (not Australia). The painting was published and exhibited in that year, in Britain. UK copyright law for 1902 is "life of author plus 70 years". The painter, Fox, died in 1915; adding 100 years to his death yields 2015.Noleander (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Updated the source details in Wiki Commons to state date & location of publication: This is a photograph of a page from the 1770 journal of Captain James Cook. After Cook completed his first journey in 1771, he had several copies of the journal made in London. He published the journal by distributing several copies in London, including one to the Royal Navy, and one to John Hawkesworth (book editor). The making and distribution of copies is described in Beaglehole, 1955, pages clxv, cxcii-cxciv. Hawkesworth used the journal as a source for his own book An Account of the Voyages. Copies of the journal have been passed around, read, and quoted for over two centuries. One copy is in the National Library of Australia. This photograph is an image of a page from the copy of the journal held in the National Library of New Zealand.Noleander (talk) 13:26, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:Cook_Three_Voyages_59.png: see MOS:COLOUR and what is the source of the underlying data?
I have asked the creator of the map, User:AlexiusHoratius, to help with the MOS:COLOUR issue. When an update is available, I'll post a notification here. Regarding the sources, they are listed in the map's Wiki Common page here. The same sources are also listed in the article in the footnote within the map's caption. Noleander (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Question: Regarding MOS:COLOUR - If the image has a caption that provides color samples which identify the meaning of each shade, would that satisfy MOS:COLOUR?
An example of this is the FA article Virgo_interferometer which has a map which uses three colors. It appears that the colors are permitted in that FA article because the caption has color samples, so a visually impaired reader can compare the color in the caption to the color in the map and correlate the caption to the map regions
If that is a valid approach, then the map in the James Cook article already has a caption that includes three color samples and identifies each one. To make that map more understandable to visually impaired readers, I updated the caption to display blocks of color (rather than the textual word red that was used before). Can you take a look at that and see if it is sufficient? Noleander (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately no. Colour blocks can be sufficient when shades are very visibly different, as in that example. Here the difference isn't shade, it's colour - and red-green colour blindness is one of the most common forms. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:James_Cook's_portrait_by_William_Hodges.jpg: source link is dead.
The source of that image was the National Maritime Museum's web site here. That museum removed many images of their paintings & photos from their website recently, so the image is no longer on that website. The painting is very old, and is now in the public domain. What is the consequence of the dead URL? Does that require the image to be removed from the article? Unfortunately, I cannot find a copy of the painting on any other web site ... but I'll keep looking.
@Nikkimaria Thanks for doing the image review. I have responded to the issues above. The MOS:COLOUR issue of the map is being worked on, and may take several days to resolve. I'll post a note here when it is completed. Noleander (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: The MOS:COLOUR accessibility issue (related to colored lines in a map) has been resolved. User AlexiusHoratius provided three new maps, and I inserted them into the James Cook article. Each map now has a single line (red in all three maps). so there are no MOS:COLOUR issues. I removed the original map from the article. I believe all the image-related issues are now resolved. If you are aware of any remaining issues, let me know, and I'll take care of it. Noleander (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“the first European to visit the east coast of Australia and the Hawaiian Islands” → should read “the first recorded European to visit..."
Dutch explorers had mapped the west and north coasts much earlier, so “first European” is misleading.
Done. Though I wonder if some editors will wince at "recorded" because it is 100% certain Cook was first European to visit East coast of Australia; and 99.99% certain he was first to visit Hawaii. Noleander (talk) 12:08, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...for the first voyage of three that he would lead.
“During his third voyage, when Cook was asked by a Hawaiian to prove he was a warrior, Cook showed the scar” → “During his third voyage, when a Hawaiian asked him to prove he was a warrior, Cook showed the scar”
During the overnight excursion, his two black servants, Thomas Richmond and George Dorlton, froze to death.
How about naming the servants in the previous section?
That is feasible, but the article is using the informal convention of naming minor members of the crew (e.g. those without WP articles) only when they die (e.g. the four marines in Hawaii; or in Batavia: "... Jonathan Monkhouse (midshipman), John Satterly (carpenter), and John Ravenhill (sail maker)...". Noleander (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Naval"→ "naval"
Navy/naval to be capitalised when part of a proper noun (e.g., Royal Navy).
"seven crew members died while in Batavia"→"seven crew members died"
The phrase "while in Batavia" is redundant here.
Removing "in Batavia" might make it harder for readers to grasp. The sentence is The stay in Batavia marked the onset of the most severe outbreak of illness and death endured during any of Cook's voyages: seven crew members died while in Batavia, and a further 23 perished on the return journey to England.The sentence begins by identifying the "severe outbreak of illness", then specifies 7 deaths while in Batavia, and 23 more after departing, yielding a total of 30 for the outbreak. Removing "while in Batavia" gives The stay in Batavia marked the onset of the most severe outbreak of illness and death endured during any of Cook's voyages: seven crew members died, and a further 23 perished on the return journey to England. which could be misinterpreted by many readers (is "seven" the full outbreak from the prior phrase?). I was able to trim one word: I changed it to The stay in Batavia marked the onset of the most severe outbreak of illness and death endured during any of Cook's voyages: seven crew members died while in Batavia, and a further 23 perished on the return journey to England. But maybe I'm overthinking it? Noleander (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Shortly after his return, Cook was promoted in August 1771 to the rank of commander."→"In August, Cook was promoted to the rank of commander."
You can obviously reword it as you like as long as we don't make it wordier.
"Banks was replaced by the German naturalists Johann Reinhold Forster and his son, Georg Forster."→Banks was replaced by the German naturalist Johann Reinhold Forster and his son, Georg Forster.
“'Naturalist' singular highlights Johann as primary, while Georg is identified by full name.
"I will not say it was impossible anywhere to get in among this Ice, but I will assert that the bare attempting of it would be a very dangerous enterprise and what I believe no man in my situation would have thought of. I whose ambition leads me not only farther than any other man has been before me, but as far as I think it possible for man to go..."
Do we need this quote in full or can a portion of it being summarised?
I recommend keeping the full quote: this is Cook's most famous and most quoted phrase. Cook was plain spoken, and - in all his voluminous writings - one finds very few quotable lines. This particular quote is one that all of his biographers quote in full and analyze. It is special because is a bit poetic, but also because Cook was extraordinarily humble, and this is one of the very few times he boasts a bit. Noleander (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've read through the Science, technology, and seamanship section as well. It's well written (and so I've nothing to suggest). MSincccc (talk) 09:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could it be mentioned that Cooktown is named after him?
The "Commemorations" section used to include a huge list of things named after Cook, but there are two subarticles for that kind of detail: List of commemorations of Captain James Cook, and List of places named after Captain James Cook. So most of those items were removed from this top-level article. Both of those sub-articles are named in the "main" template at the top of the Commemorations section. But if you think that particular town is especially important, it is an easy matter to add it. Noleander (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Numerical references should be consistent: write out numbers below 10 (“five or six”), use figures for 10+; also standardise date ranges (e.g., 29 March–26 April 1778) and latitude notation (44°30′ N).
The convention used in the article is to spell-out numbers "twelve" and lower; but digits for 13 and larger. The "5 or 6" is a quote from a crewman's book about the voyage, so maybe it should be left alone? I think quotes can only be altered if they have spelling errors. If I'm wrong, let me know. Noleander (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Date ranges: ...from 29 March to 26 April 1778 ... The guideline MOS:DATERANGE says that dashes are not permitted when "from" precedes the date range: "Designate chronological ranges using either an en dash or such forms as from 1822 to 1843 and between May 1 and May 20, but not a combination of a dash and words.." . But that is a complex guideline, so perhaps I'm reading it wrong? Noleander (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Latitude notation: I must be blind :-) I cannot see what the problem is. Is it the space before "N" or "S"? The convention in this article is to omit the space before N or S. The common WP template Template:Coord also omits space before N or S. Noleander (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You could combine multiple sentences that list the deaths of Māori and Hawaiians caused by Cook and his crew, so that the total numbers and specific incidents are presented clearly in one place.
That text may be within hidden comments in the article. Is that visible to you when you read the article? Am I not hiding that material correctly? Noleander (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sub-article says-The perception of Cook could change over time, for example, if the indigenous peoples witnessed behaviour that did not conform to their expectations: such as in New Zealand, were Cook failed to take revenge for the deaths of eleven crew members.
Done. I finally figured out where that is..., that bad phrasing is inside hidden material in the article. The reader never sees it. In any case I fixed it within the hidden material.Noleander (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple hidden comments in the source that are not visible to readers.
Those fragments of text were proposed for the article at various points in time over the past five months. But they were rejected for one reason or another (e.g. a Peer Reviewer thought it was too detailed, etc). I thought of deleting them, but figured that it was wiser to keep the material, but hide it. That way if an FA reviewer asks a question related to that material; or makes a suggestion that requires the material to be added to the article - the material will be at my fingertips. So, my plan is to leave the hidden comments in place until the FA review is finished; then remove them. A lot of time went into researching and writing the hidden material. But if you think the hidden material should be removed now, let me know and I can do that. Noleander (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In light of my suggestions above, and your cooperation for which I am grateful, I'd like to support the article. I may return with further comments, but I will be occupied with examinations in the coming fortnight. I hope you found these notes helpful. MSincccc (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MSincccc - Thank you very much for your feedback. Your attention to detail is amazing: you caught several things that I was unable to see, even after repeatedly scouring the article. Much appreciated!! Noleander (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That photo of a Tahitian man is not particularly relevant to the "Health and sexual relations" section. But I could not fit it in anywhere else in the article, and there was plenty of space in the Health section. It is an outstanding image, drawn by the expedition artist, and it shows that the Tahitians had excellent crafting skills. If you think it should be moved somewhere else, I can do so. [PS: I think the FA rules prohibit images within an FA review, because all FA reviews are transcluded into the page Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, so I've disabled the image above. ]Noleander (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cook's observations
: "they are far more happier than we Europeans; being wholy unacquainted not only with the superfluous but the necessary conveniences so much sought after in Europe, they are happy in not knowing the use of them. They live in a Tranquility which is not disturbed by the Inequality of Condition..."
Is the entire quote necessary for the caption? I understand its significance, but could it be moved into the prose instead?
Cook does not have many famous quotes, but that is one of them. The image is in the "Observations" section, which discusses how Cook documented many insights about indigenous peoples he encountered. The image is a manuscript page from his journal, which contains the famous quote in Cook's own handwriting. But the writing is not very legible, so the caption presents the quote to the reader in a legible manner. Normally, any quote would be in the article body text, but I think this is a rare exception were the caption is simply "translating" some illegible words contained in the image that the caption is describing. But, I can move the quote if you think that would be better for readers. Noleander (talk) 19:04, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I'm all for more quotes, especially in historical biographies. We don't just want to give our readers the facts, we want to give them a feeling for who the person was. Some of that can (and should be done) through the color and flavor provided by reading the subject's own words. RoySmith(talk)13:40, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My previous comments somehow missed the above two points (I suppose it was a technical glitch). My stance, however, remains the same. Good luck with your nomination. MSincccc (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'In 1773, he wrote:'. There are some which feel off to me such as 'In 1772, in Tahiti,' but grammatically that is correct because the comma is for a non-defining clause. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I went through the article and was able to eliminate 24 commas that seemed to fall under the rule you're explaining. There are a few that I left in because, as I read the sentence out loud, a pause seemed necessary regardless of England versus America. In those cases I think the comma is required to indicate the pause. I don't claim that I caught one hundred percent of them, but I did my best. if you see any more, let me know and I'll take care of it. Noleander (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't find category for fictional rabbits for the second image DONE
Just to check :), do we have more usable character images?
Do these sentences have inline citations?
Further complicating regular broadcast of Tomorrow's Pioneers were controversies surrounding...
Uncle Hazim's biological and familial relations to Farfour's cousins, Nahoul the bee and Assoud the rabbit, are unclear.
Assoud hinted in episode 302 that he would be replaced by a tiger when he died.
in the arms of his parents. His brother, a rabbit named Assoud, was notably absent, though he replaces Nahoul as the co-host.
"Electronic Intifada" is considered generally unreliable per WP:ELECTRONICINTIFADA, but I don't think it's a problem, as it is attributed in text as a potentially contentious claim. DONE
Can we make episode tables wider like here, Fargo season 5? I could be missing some rule regarding table format.
A couple of refs end/start with double quotes (""). All the quotation marks inside the refs title should be swapped with apostrophes. For example: "PMW Transcripts "Hamas Mouse: Blame the Jews" and "Hamas steals Mickey Mouse image to teach hate and Islamic supremacy""
the show is considered to be the successor to an earlier Hamas-broadcast children's radio programme titled Afnan and Aghsan This sentence out of the lead isn't mentioned in the body
The lead doesn't need to be cited per WP:LEADCITE, but I don't know if it's a FA criteria.
There are some claims that are controversial in the lead and should be cited. I couldn't find any extra images for the article on Wikipedia, but I'll continue making formatting edits. I will include the Afnan and Aghsan info once I'm feeling better - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 12:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I need to make the episode table longer, as there's a lot of missing information that can't reliably be found. Some episodes are partially or totally lost media, but I'll do my best to at least reformat the episode table somehow... - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 07:19, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've removed the graphic ticks. Per the instructions at WP:FAC, "Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages". Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the State of Palestine, various social, cultural and children's institutions funded by Hamas have become an integral part of their agenda. ---> In the State of Palestine, Hamas-funded social, cultural and children's institutions have become an integral part of their agenda
and they engage in incitement... ---> These institutions engage in incitement...
I'm not sure about the word "via" that I added; it feels perfectly reasonable, but a touch informal. I guess we'll wait until someone has problem with the word.
to broadcast to both Palestinian and global audiences. --> targeted at both Palestinian and global audiences
The network's children's shows ---> The children's shows broadcast on Al-Aqsa TV
I also see the download links; but we still need to cite: In 2009, recording studio Al-Molatham shot a high-quality music video of the song "Deprived you of Attiari" (Arabic: يا من يحرم أطياري) from her first album. The video features Saraa walking through rubble and singing a plaintive song about being a mother in Palestine. Images of gravely injured infants are displayed in the background. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 04:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Saraa was the ideal choice to present the show because of the events that she had witnessed, including military activity around her home. ---> Saraa was the ideal choice to present the show as a witness to Israeli military activity close to her home.
Despite the messages in Tomorrow's Pioneers Chronologically, I (a reader) don't know what kind of message Pioneers are sending. Terrorism-adjacent message?
During gaps between shooting Tomorrow's Pioneers, Saraa took the opportunity to develop her singing career. She has performed several concerts in support of her music, recorded several songs with Palestinian children's songwriter Fekry Namous, and has starred in at least one music video, which was hosted on the Palestinian PALN internet network This doesn't seem to be verified by the ref [23]. Maybe there was something, but wayback couldn't capture it.
In the video, Saraa sings about the Hamas youth movement, its presence in the schools, and the division between Israel and Palestine. ---> In the video, Saraa sings about the Hamas youth movement and its presence in the schools, as well as touching upon the division between Israel and Palestine.
Saraa sings about the Hamas youth movement, its presence in the schools This doesn't appear to be verified by ref [24]
His name comes from a diminutive of fa'r, which means "mouse" in Arabic. Couldn't verify this one.
"You and I are laying the foundation for a world led by Islamists" and "We will return the Islamic community to its former greatness" by liberating Jerusalem and Iraq, among other countries in the Islamic world that have been "invaded by the murderers." These direct quotes can be paraphrased into the indirect ones for better flow
In episode 105 (aired 22 June 2007) Not necessary to mention the date, as all the release dates are listed in the table below
this link is broken in some way; it doesn't seem to show anything related to Pioneers
character; Disney CEO Robert Iger later said, "We were appalled by the use of our character to disseminate that kind of message." He explained the initial quiet by saying, "I just didn't think it would have any effect... I think it should have been obvious how the company felt about the subject." Walt Disney's daughter, Diane Disney Miller, commented to the press that... ---> character. Disney CEO Robert Iger later said the company was "appalled by the use of [their] character to disseminate that kind of message", explaining the initial lack of response due to the expectations that the TV show would not have any effect, and "it should have been obvious how the company felt about the subject". Walt Disney's daughter, Diane Disney Miller, asserted to the press that... Reason: Better flow?
Nevertheless, the show's creators arranged the production of an episode shortly after in which Farfour was killed off to be replaced by his bumblebee brother, Nahoul. Isn't cited
The storyline in which Farfour was killed off and replaced by Nahoul came in direct response to actions by the Disney family The source doesn't say the death was the direct response to Disney and doesn't say what action did Disney take
There are more episodes past 2009 mark; 2013 episodes and possibly related series in 2022 (see one of the refs above).
is a costumed bumblebee character with a high-pitched voice who co-hosted Tomorrow's Pioneers with Saraa following the depiction of Farfour's death during an Israeli interrogation. When introduced on Friday, 13 July 2007, he promised "revenge upon the enemies of God, the murderers of the prophets", explaining "I want to continue in the path of Farfour – the path of Islam, of heroism, of martyrdom, of the mujahideen." --> is a bumblebee character with a high-pitched voice who co-hosted Tomorrow's Pioneers with Saraa following Farfour's death. When introduced on Friday, 13 July 2007, he promised "revenge upon the enemies of God, the murderers of the prophets", and "continue in the path of Farfour – the path of Islam, of heroism, of martyrdom, of the mujahideen."
On the show, Nahoul has expressed controversial views. He has stated such things as: "We will liberate Al-Aqsa from the filth of the criminal Jews", and "We will go on Jihad when we grow up. The quotes are references to an episode, but we lack a reference calling these quotes controversial.
Although Nahoul and his parents travelled to Al-Arish, they were denied permission to leave Gaza to go to Egypt for medical treatment by Israeli authorities. ---> Nahoul and his parents wanted to travel to Al-Arish, Egypt, for medical treatment, but they were denied permission to leave Gaza by Israeli authorities.
in the arms of his parents. I would assume this part is cited by ref [45]. Do we have any way to check?
In explaining why he is called Assoud, when Arnoub (Arabic: أرنب, lit. 'rabbit') would be more appropriate, Assoud says that "A rabbit is a term for a bad person and coward. And I, Assoud, will finish off the Jews and eat them."[44][45] Before Nahoul's death, Assoud lived in Lebanon; he returned to his homeland of Palestine "in order to liberate it".
He survives in the series finale. isn't cited
I think we can make more low definition screenshots of characters from Memri.org articles. Memri also uploaded episodes to youtube
Oooh, I just read about dubious translations by Memri. Maybe we shouldn't include their transcripts too mich :)
There are two level two section focused on reception. Maybe we should move up the smaller one (specifically about Pioneers as a TV series) and rename it critical reception; then the other reception section can be "Criticism and legacy". Then the section about dubious translation.
@LastJabberwocky I did some digging (just a quick google search and looking through a fandom page that will not be sourced), and it turns out that there's at least one other character that is missing from the Wikipedia page's list of characters. He's a costumed boy named "Farkour" (not to be confused with Farfour, the first co-host), and he appears in the 2022 version of the show. I found a clip of him on YouTube, but idk what he's saying. There was also another girl host named Maryam (مريم; source) Also, I'm unable to find an episode list for anything past 2009, as a lot of the show is considered lost media. - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 00:57, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of more modern coverage, I found this link in the wiki's talk page. This has darn near every modern episode (post-2013), but there's just one problem: I don't know Arabic! :( (Also, some of the earlier episodes in that search list are down) - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 21:51, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, never mind. Not all of the characters need images, and there's already quite a few on the article to begin with. I'll hold off on adding the costumed boy to the article until I've found more sources including him and establishing his character - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 22:20, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OpalYosutebito, I tried to get another look for 2013-2022 coverage with ProQuest, Newspapers.com, and Al Manhal, but couldn't find anything beyond what we already have. 1) We could mention the 2013 and 2022 revivals as a second paragraph in the "Episodes" section and include them into the lead and infobox (2022 date for the "last_aired" parameter). 2) I don't think we'll include the revival episodes into the table, as we don't have official titles and don't have coverage to cite episode summaries for every episode. 3) Picture-wise, it's up to you; I would add a better picture of the rabbit/bunny sacrificing the screenshot with the subtitles. And to move the bee slightly upward to not intrude on the bunny's subsection :). 4) I think there is somewhere a tool to ask people for sources; I'll try to make a request for 2022 coverage. 5) As the last thing, I'll check the lead; how well it summarizes the body of the article. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 08:06, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
performing skits (or "scenes") and discussing life in Palestine in a talk show fashion with call-ins from children (typically aged 9–13 with some as young as 3). This sentence from the lead section can be duplicated at the start of the Background section—it doesn't 100% fit into the background, but I think it's nice to explain the premise of the show before going into why it was created and what are the characters.
Is it necessary to describe the performance as both skits and scenes? I think they transfer the same information with skits meaning comedic scenes and scenes meaning comedic scenes. Or some of the performances are skits while others are drama scenes? Skits also may mean "parody", so we can write "...parody skits and comedic scenes..." —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 14:20, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:Farfour.jpg - There is no direct link; simply "Still image captured from Tomorrow's Pioneers". Thus, I can't verify this is actually from the show. Is there any sort of direct link, ie a YouTube video or newspaper clip, that attributes this image?EF516:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine now, although the deseret.com link should be linked at the NFF template (which has been done). EF516:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the regiment raised in what is Malawi while it was still the British Central Africa Protectorate. It was important not only in the development of the military of that country but, through serving in many campaigns in other parts of Africa, including the Somaliland campaign against Muḥammad ibn 'Abdallāh Hassan and the War of the Golden Stool against the Ashante, earned a reputation rare amongst colonial troops for their skills and professionalism. Amongst their troops were the first Malawian soldiers to be awarded medals by the British Empire and the first Malawians to visit Great Britain. The literature includes first-hand accounts from those that served as well as secondary sources. I feel it is important to raise the profile of African history and show the part that African and Indian service personnel paid as active agents in the destiny of Africa during the turn of the 20th century. This is my first FA nomination so any help to bring it up to standard is appreciated. simongraham (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, welcome to FAC! I'll start off with an image review.
File:British_Central_Africa_rifles_on_return_from_Ashanti,_west_Africa._Nyasaland.jpg: is there a reason the uploader would have the right to release this work under the given license? Ditto File:Sikh_Detachment_with_British_Central_Africa_Rifles_from_Ashanti..jpg. I'm concerned given that the uploader has had multiple uploads deleted for copyright concerns. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Thank you very much for responding so fast with this review. I think you have an excellent point and have removed the images, replacing them with one that I know is public domain with an alt text. simongraham (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to FAC -- a couple of quick ones for now, trying to pick up the pedantic MoS points:
The Second Battalion Central African Rifles after returning from the War of the Golden Stool: this looks odd to me as British military style. British style guides generally prefer the ordinal and no the, with a comma optional but more likely in historical as opposed to journalistic writing -- 2nd Battalion, Central African Rifles. Alternatively, you could do The second battalion of the Central African Rifles or similar.
five companies: A and B: as it would be "A Company" (not "Company A") in British parlance, it's usual to restate the word: so five companies: A Company and B Company...". However, this isn't a strict rule.
Fixed.
In any case, forming the First and Second Battalions of the new regiment etc should have no capital letters.
Removed.
Per MOS:QUOTE, we use " rather than ' in most contexts.
Done.
We need an endash (–), not a hyphen, in Martini–Enfield.
Fixed.
Each of the enlisted soldiers was issued with two uniforms: enlisted soldiers (as opposed to officers) is American English: in British English, "enlisted" means "conscripted". The British equivalent is other ranks.
Changed.
I think we should rephrase it was still acceptable to beat African troops to avoid saying that beating people is, well, acceptable as long as they're African.
Rephrased.
In the bibliography, titles should be consistently formatted, at least for a given type of source. It looks as though we're mostly going for title case, but this isn't consistent. Make sure to check MOS:DASH too.
I was following the sources themselves, but have adjusted them for consistency.
There are two sources listed in the bibliography but not used: you can use a script to check for these automatically.
Source Njoloma, James; Stuart-Mogg, David T. (1998).... does not have any citation referring to it. If it is a source that readers may benefit from, and you want to keep it in the article, consider moving it to a (new) "Further Reading" section.
Good spot. Fixed.
Source year differs: 1900 vs 1901: Correspondence 1901, p. 15. vs Correspondence relating to the Ashanti War, 1900.
It was published in 1901 but covers 1900.
p vs pp typo: The London Gazette 1901, p. 5975, 5976.
Fixed.
Author wikilinks: Although not required for FA, curious readers will be pleased to see wikilinks for source authors. Many authors don't have WP articles, but Willoughby Verner does, so consider adding |author-link=Willoughby Verner and also for other authors, if available.
Added.
For books that have no URL, consider using the Google Books URL (if available) even if the full book text is not freely displayed. For example: Boeder, Robert B. (1981). Alfred Sharpe of Nyassaland: Builder of Empire. Blantyre: Society of Malaŵi. that book is in Google books at https://www.google.com/books/edition/Alfred_Sharpe_of_Nyasaland_Builder_of_Em/Mt9BAAAAYAAJ And tho the full text is not there, Google _does_ provide a Search function. Internet Archive, which the article is already using for several books, is superior to Google Books for source URLs, but if IA is not available, Google Books is a fallback.
Added.
Add URL for Internet Archive link: Campbell, Guy (1986). The Charging Buffalo: A History of the Kenya Regiment. London: Secker & Warburg. ... this book is online in IA at https://archive.org/details/chargingbuffaloh0000camp
Added.
Publisher hard to read: : East Africa Command in collaboration with the Ministry of Information, East Africa can you add some wiki links to make that easier to parse, e.g. to East Africa Command or Ministry of Information, East Africa, etc.
Wikilink added.
There are five citations to The Times e.g. "Naval & Military Intelligence". The Times. No. 36186. 15 August 1899. p. 10. Are any of those viewable online? They must be long out of copyright, is there a free archive somewhere? If so, consider adding a URL link.
There is an archive for The Times available through Newspapers.com[14] and Gale[15] that are accessible through the Wikipedia library, but they need a wikipedia login.
Optional style suggestion: The Citation list is clean, but has five lengthy cites for The Times. Consider moving those down into the Bibliography/Sources section, and use harvnb/sfn ... to get a super clean look. There are several ways to use snf/harvnb with anonymous sources: see Template:Sfn#No_author_name_in_citation_template, Template:SfnRef#Usage, etc. Not required for FA, just tossing it out there.
Consider adding wikilinks to Society of Malawi, Historical and Scientific for sources that name that publisher. Curious readers can go to that article, which may lead to other useful resources. Simply change journal=The Society of Malawi Journal to journal=[[The Society of Malawi Journal]]
Added.
Overall, the sources are high-quality and solid. They all appear to meet the requirements of WP:V and WP:RS. I don't see any sources that are low-quality, suspicious, or marginal.
Spot checks: in progress (heads-up: I'll need you to email me some pages from some of these. I'll give you a list soon):
11 - Boeder 1981, p. 71. Later in the year, a force of two European officers, ten Sikhs and seventy troops was deployed against Kazembe. Equipped with a Maxim gun and a 7-pound mountain gun, the force destroyed the stockade and, again, negotiated favourable terms with the chief. - Need copy of portion of the page
18 - Marjomaa 2003, p. 423. Nearly 30 of the contingent died from the cold alone - Verified.
It is on page 423 of the copy of the journal available at jstor, accessible with a wikipedia account.[18]
20 - Verner 1906, p. 59. On 1 August, Colonel Willoughby Verner led a detachment of the First Battalion in what was termed the Anglo-Portuguese Nquamba and Mataka Expedition. - Verified.
27 - Correspondence 1901, p. 15. The force, including 70 Sikh and 200 African troops sailed, via Cape Town on 11 July, to West Africa - Verified.
31 - Hall 1939, pp. 328, 332. From that the British force, including the Second Battalion, marched to Esumeja, to defeat the Asante army commanded by Queen Ashantuah, but the leaders fled or surrendered as they advanced - Verified.
33 - Armitage & Montanaro 1901, p. 178. Together, these forces undertook forays into nearby towns and villages, including the religious centre of Ejisu, that routed the remaining Asante fighters. - Partially verified Source spells it "Ojesu" ... is that the same as Ejisu?
Yes, it was the central base for the Asante queen.[20]
41 - The London Gazette 1901, p. 5974. On 2 January 1901, the force arrived and were accommodated at Bathhurst, present-day Banjul, on 10 January. - Verified.
46 - Moyse-Bartlett 1956, p. 125. Local recruitment took place by ulendo, place-to-place visits targeting a specific area and people, that encouraged a particular ethnic group to form homogenous military units - Need copy of portion of the page
It is on page 125 of volume 1 on Google books.[21]
I do not have a copy of the original book and, when I received copies of the two volumes, I noted that this particular statement is not backed up by the text. I have therefore removed it. I have also adjusted and expanded all the references to Moyse-Bartlett to the two volumes available on Google books. Please tell me if you would like to see any of the pages referenced. simongraham (talk) 10:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
55 - Baker 2001, p. 80. By 1902 this had reversed and the guns were proving more accurate, the use of the Martini–Enfield deemed, in the words of Captain Gough, an "unqualified success" - Not entirely verified: the article says "reversed and the guns were proving more accurate," but the source says that the guns were always (potentially) accurate, but the soldiers were not accustomed to using it (firing it? assessing accuracy on the firing range?) The guns did not become more accurate, the soldiers became better trained/accustomed to them, correct?
That is a nice spot. Amended.
57 - Verner 1906, p. 51. The policy was to rarely move officers so they understood the local conditions well and invested in their quarters to make them as comfortable as they could. - Verified.
@Simongraham: - I'm doing some spot checks (above). Can you email me (thru Wikipedia) the four pages identified above as Need copy of page? Or, if those pages are available online, give me a URL link? Thanks.
@Noleander: Thank you for your welcome and your thorough review. These were very helpful comments. I have added URLs where the sources are online but am aware that they may not be the editions that are used to research the article, as I use a library to access physical books, journals and newspapers rather than solely relying on online sources, so there may be minor differences. The Society of Malawi Journal is, however, available on jstor[22] so hopefully you will be able to access that online through the wikipedia library. Please do take a look and tell me if there are hard-copies that are still needed. simongraham (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The new URLs for the "need copy of page" items do not show me the page text ("no preview available"). So, for the four "Need copy of page" above, I'll need a photo of the pages. (Or, a URL if you can a site online where the page is visible to the public without an account).
Sorry for making you do that work, but the FA review guidelines specify that the first FA nomination submitted by an editor has to be scrutinized heavily. Subsequent FA nominations you make will not have to undergo this much scrutiny. When I first obtain sources for my FA articles that are difficult to access, I make photos or screen-grabs of the key pages and save them. Even tho I have eight FAs, I still do that, in case the material is ever challenged. Every nominator has to be able to provide the text of every single source. Noleander (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Noleander: Thank you for your understanding. Responses above. Please be aware that your request may be difficult in some jurisdictions as scanning and emailing copyright material may not legal. I also feel it would be to wikipedia's detriment if its Featured Articles could only be edited by editors that use sources that are available digitally. I am aware that not every editor has access to high-quality library resources but I find offline resources can be of great benefit to an article. simongraham (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For a source review, all that is required is the snippet that directly verifies the material in question -- this is rarely more than a page, and usually about a sentence or two. Sending such a small quantity to an individual person for non-commercial academic purposes is considered fair use (or equivalent) in almost all of the world. There's no need for it to be available digitally -- it's perfectly fine to photograph or transcribe a print source. It might be worth noting that the standards at WP:DYK recently changed so that good faith can no longer be assumed for sourcing -- if the reviewer cannot access a source, the nominator has to provide the relevant chunk or the nomination cannot pass. UndercoverClassicistT·C22:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Simongraham - Thanks for providing links to the remaining four spot checks. I was able to verify two of the four. The other two were Google Books, but the preview feature did not include the desired pages. The FA source review procedure suggests that random citations be selected from the article, which is how the above spot checks were selected. It would not be random if the spot checks were limited to those sources that are available online. If you're not comfortable with emailing a fragment of a page, we can leave this source review in its current state (I would mark it "inconclusive" or "incomplete"). Also, you could post a note on the FA Talk page ... the FA coordinators patrol that page, and they would respond with advice regarding the not-online sources. Noleander (talk) 13:53, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Noleander: Thank you for your patience. I am now in a jurisdiction that I can access the relevant books and scan pages so have made adjustments accordingly. Please see above. simongraham (talk) 10:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Simongraham - Thanks for providing additional information on the final two spot checks. I verified one, and for the other: the source did not support the article, and you updated the article accordingly.
The article has 62 citations, and 10 of those were spot-checked. Of the 10 spot checks, 20% resulted in changes to the article. Extrapolating, that suggests that there may be about ten more changes if one were to scrutinize the remaining 52 citations. It may be prudent for you to double-check the remaining 52 citations ... what are your thoughts on that? Noleander (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I only have experience of assessing potential Featured Articles rather than as the assessed but often find that changes are made to the article in the process so I am not surprised that changes were requested. If you feel it would be boost your confidence to spot check other citations, I am open to that. simongraham (talk) 21:47, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Simongraham Yes, I suggest that you perform checks on all the remaining 52 citations. There are a few benefits:
Since this is your first FA nomination, it is important to establish strict compliance with the WP:Verifiability policy. Subsequent nominations will relax the depth of the source review spot checks, but it is important to go the extra mile in the first nomination.
Double-checking all the citations is a good habit to get into for your future articles. I'm positive that double-checking all the cites on this article will prove very useful and informative.
For example: I recently nominated the James Cook article for my ninth FA. The final step, prior to nomination, was to go through all 384 citations and read the source (sometimes for the third time) and ensure it supported the associated text. Took me about twelve hours. But I did it because in a prior FA nomination a reviewer found a couple of cites that did not support the article, and I was mortified. Not only were the cites inaccurate, but I had wasted the reviewer's time.
I cannot speak for other reviewers, but other potential reviewers may look more favorably at jumping in to review this aritcle if they know that all the cites have been fully validated. Ditto for the closing FA coordinator.
2a: Lewis 2002, p. 72. Confirmed 1888 formation under African Lakes Company to fight Mlozi and 1891 formation under Johnston.
2b: Lewis 2002, p. 72. Confirmed 1898 prefix 'British' removed.
2c: Lewis 2002, p. 72. Confirmed date and name.
3a: Baker 2001, p. 69. Confirmed 1893 expedition against Liwonde.
3b: Baker 2001, p. 69. Confirmed company names and home deployments.
3c: Baker 2001, p. 69. Confirmed size of contingents, termed Ayao (Yao), Atonga (Tonga) and Achewa (Chewa). Confirmed Tonga enlisted for a year in local service only.
3d: Baker 2001, p. 69. Confirmed quote.
3e: Baker 2001, p. 69. Confirmed company names and constituents.
4a: Stacke 1941, p. 550. Confirmed number and constituents.
4b: Stacke 1941, p. 550. Confirmed 1897, number and constituents
4c: Stacke 1941, p. 550. Confirmed name and date.
5: Marjomaa 2003, p. 416. Confirmed "more or less subdued" in 1895.
6a: Marjomaa 2003, p. 419. Confirmed Tonga Christian converts.
6b: Marjomaa 2003, p. 419. Confirmed three of six would be Tonga.
6c: Marjomaa 2003, p. 419. Confirmed three year service.
7: Boeder 1981, p. 61. Confirmed Sharpe's concern with German incursions.
8: McKracken 2017, p. 167. Confirmed purpose.
9: Njoloma 1998, p. 21. Confirmed purpose "to promote, serve and defend British political and economic interests".
10: Boeder 1981, p. 69. Confirmed quote. He compared the soldiers favourably to Gurkhas.
11a: Boeder 1981, p. 70. Confirmed attack by Mpezeni and Mombera.
11b: Boeder 1981, p. 70. Confirmed battle with Ngoni.
11c: Boeder 1981, p. 70. Confirmed agreement, payment and Bemba interest.
12: Boeder 1981, p. 71. Spot check verified.
13a: Baker 2001, p. 70. Confirmed movements.
13b: Baker 2001, p. 70. Confirmed G and H formation and constituency.
14a: Baker 2001, p. 72. Confirmed Fort Lister and recruitment from "unoccupied Portuguese territory"
14b: Baker 2001, p. 72. Surmise from Sikh contingent at Zomba.
14c: Baker 2001, p. 72. Confirmed policy of not moving officers.
15a: Baker 2001, p. 79. Confirmed 1899 formation and purpose.
15b: Baker 2001, p. 79. Confirmed challenges with smokeless powder.
16a: Boeder 1981, p. 72. Confirmed name change.
16b: Boeder 1981, p. 72. Confirmed attacks from Mauritians and illnesses of "pneumonia and bronchitis" from the cold.
16c: Boeder 1981, p. 72. Confirmed quote.
16d: Boeder 1981, p. 72. Confirmed date.
16e: Boeder 1981, p. 72. Confirmed date and ship. Also mentions that they took forty tons of rice and one ton of salt as rations.
17a: Campbell 1986, p. 8. Confirmed name.
17b: Campbell 1986, p. 8. Confirmed first recruits were Sikhs recruited through the India office.
17c: Campbell 1986, p. 8. Confirmed name and date.
18a: Marjomaa 2003, p. 422. Confirmed service and date.
18b: Marjomaa 2003, p. 422. Confirmed original term and 1898 change to include service "outside protectorate borders".
18c: Marjomaa 2003, p. 422. Confirmed conditions and marriage situation.
19a: Marjomaa 2003, p. 423. Confirmed number and constituents.
19b: Marjomaa 2003, p. 423. Spot check verified.
19c: Marjomaa 2003, p. 423. Confirmed Second Battalion.
19d: Marjomaa 2003, p. 423. Confirmed First and Second.
19e: Marjomaa 2003, p. 423. Confirmed names.
20a: Naval & Military Intelligence 1899, p. 10. Confirmed date and naming.
20b: Naval & Military Intelligence 1899, p. 10. Confirmed date and naming.
21: Verner 1906, p. 59. Spot checked.
22: Baker 2001, p. 78. Confirmed size of force and burning of "Nquamba's town".
23: Beachy 1990, p. 38. Surmised form the text that the British "continued to look upon his his activities with much tolerance" until his speech was "increasingly tinged with anti-Britishness".
24: Beachy 1990, p. 40. Confirmed quote.
25a: Stacke 1941, p. 551. Confirmed 1899 Mauritius.
25b: Stacke 1941, p. 551. Confirmed number and constituency.
25c: Stacke 1941, p. 551. Confirmed "remaining half" departed to Gambia.
26a: The 2nd Battalion Central Africa Regiment 1900, p. 4. Confirmed activity.
26b: The 2nd Battalion Central Africa Regiment 1900, p. 4. Confirmed date and location.
26c: The 2nd Battalion Central Africa Regiment 1900, p. 4. Confirmed dates and action.
34: Hall 1939, p. 328. Confirmed regiment was part of contingent p. 332. Confirmed victory.
35: Armitage & Montanaro 1901, p. 173. Confirmed date.
36: Armitage & Montanaro 1901, p. 178. Confirmed location as "Ojesu, the famous fetish town of the Ashantis".
37: Hill 2006, p. 44. Confirmed A Company first to reach Kumasi and battle of Obasa.
38: Beachy 1990, p. 41. Confirmed order not to cross border and consequential action.
39: Beachy 1990, p. 47. Confirmed "except for the Yao of the Central African Rifles".
40: Beachy 1990, p. 48. Confirmed British victory.
41: Beachy 1990, p. 42. Spot check verified.
42a: The London Gazette 1901, p. 5973. Confirmed Sitwell and Silva and incident.
42b: The London Gazette 1901, p. 5973. Confirmed quote.
43: The London Gazette 1901, p. 5974. Confirmed date and place.
44: The London Gazette 1901, pp. 5975, 5976. Confirmed timeline.
45: Moyse-Bartlett & 2012 Volume 1, p. 46. Confirmed action.
46: The London Gazette 1901, p. 5977. Confirmed departed 30 March.
47a: Boeder 1981, p. 73. Confirmed constituency.
47b: Boeder 1981, p. 73. Confirmed visit to England.
48: Page 2011, p. 4. Confirmed presentation of medals by King Edward at Marlborough House and inspection.
49: Marjomaa 2003, p. 418. Confirmed lesson gained from British experience in India.
50: Marjomaa 2003, p. 420. Confirmed collapse of Yao chiefdoms.
51a: Marjomaa 2003, p. 421. Confirmed nationality of officers and NCOs.
51b: Marjomaa 2003, p. 421. Confirmed corporal punishment and beating.
52: Baker 2001, p. 76. Confirmed circumstance and direction of change in standing order.
53: Verner 1906, pp. 56–57. Confirmed that troops overtook the raiding party, killed "several" and captured materiel.
54: The British Central Africa Protectorate 1899, p. 13. Confirmed attitude of chiefs and that they encouraged of their sons to join the regiment.
55: Moyse-Bartlett & 2012 Volume 2, p. 689. Confirmed details of uniform,
56: Baker 2001, p. 75. Spot check verified.
57: Verner 1906, p. 47. Spot check verified.
58: Baker 2001, p. 80. Confirmed quote.
59: Armitage & Montanaro 1901, p. 177. Confirmed use of bayonets.
60: Verner 1906, p. 51. Confirmed policy that gave the officers "a personal interest in the improvement of their station and surroundings".
61: The Native African Regiments 1900, p. 11. Confirmed quote.
62: Njoloma 1998, p. 19. Confirmed name and date.
@Noleander: Thank you for your patience. This took a bit longer than I hoped, especially I discovered new material that could be included in the article, but I have now verified every citation. It was a useful exercise as I noted a few that needed updating and dealt with them. simongraham (talk) 09:51, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"They met Edward VII, who presented them with medals for their service in combat." Any idea what medals?
Yes. Added.
"for much of the early period of interaction between the people in the area and the European visitors was peaceful." Something wrong here.
Amended.
"of the slaver Mlozi bin Kazbadema that operated from Karonga' that -> who
Amended.
"the African force was deployed against the Liwonde" Who were they?
It is a place.
"The British had gained much experience with the use of non-British troops across the empire by the foundation of the Central Africa Regiment, particularly in the conquest of India and the foundation of the British Raj." Suggest "by the time of the foundation of the Central Africa Regiment"
Amended.
"The Tonga had a larger level of education" This is unclear. Do you mean a higher level, or more widespread education?
Both. They had greater access to missionary schools and so had more people educated and to a higher level.
" the soldiers mounted bayonets to their rifles" -> "fixed bayonets to their rifles"
ISBNs: ideally, they would have a more uniform look: either all with or all without hyphens, 978-0-43608-290-0 vs 9780947792435.
Fixed.
Section title: "Genealogy" is that a military term? I'm not a military history expert, so it looks odd to me, but perhaps it is normal.
There does not seem to be a convention. Changed to "Summary of name changes" as I feel this is clearer.
There are a few sources with anonymous authors, including:
Correspondence relating to the Ashanti War, 1900. London: HMSO. 1901. OCLC 940444714.
"The 2nd Battalion Central Africa Regiment". The Times. No. 36276. 18 October 1900. p. 4.
The Infantry of East Africa Command 1890–1944. Nairobi: East Africa Command in collaboration with the Ministry of Information, East Africa. 1944. OCLC 44942953.
Personally, I like seeing such anonymous listed as a separate group, separate from the sources that have authors. Not a requirement for FA, just a suggestion.
An interesting suggestion. I am following the convention in other military FAs, like HMS Vanguard, where they are included in the alphabetic list by their title.
It raised a semi-official ... can "semi official" be defined in this context? Is there a WP Link available? such as paramilitary?
Unfortunately the sources do not go into much detail. Removed to avoid the ambiguity.
Wording better? The only local troops that served any more than ceremonial duties were a ... sounds odd to my ears. Consider The only local troops that served in a capacity other than merely ceremonial were a ... or something like that.
Reworded.
Significance? By 1895, all fighting had been subdued by the British troops. However, most of the African troops that served in the British force were from Mozambique and Zanzibar. The only local troops ... Not clear what the word "however" is trying to tell the reader ... were more local troops expected to be participating? Why was that expected? Why did they not participate? etc.
Reworded.
Is it possible to name a year when its successor finally disappeared? In 1902, the regiment was merged with the East Africa Rifles and Uganda Rifles to form the King's African Rifles. The two battalions of the Central Africa Regiment became the 1st and 2nd Battalion. ... I looked at that linked article, and it looks like the history after that is rather complex, so maybe it is not possible to have an termination date? Groups merged & renamed over and over again.
I think that seems reasonable. It was more of a merger than a succession. The current Malawi Army ha some claim to be the ultimate successor to the Regiment so there is an argument that its legacy is an army that exists today.
Photo alignment: the pic at top of Description section might look nicer if it were moved down a tiny bit to be at top of "Local recruitment" section .. that way the top of the pic and top of the "Local recruitment" body text align vertically.
Moved.
Cite for pic caption: Optional, but if you can provide a cite for the caption "Sikh members of the regiment in 1898" ... that would benefit readers that see the pic, and read the caption, and want to learn more about those Sikhs. Even if it is described in the body text, why make readers hunt in the body text? Not required for FA.
Added a wiki link so that readers can explore more about Sikhism if that wish to.
@Noleander: Thank you for this review. I think your ideas are excellent and improve the article. I have also taken the opportunity to reword the second Background paragraph in light of your comments. Please tell me if there is anything else. simongraham (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Second pass
Link: ... increasingly saw the Mullah of Somaliland, .. "Mullah" should have a wikilink, if this is the 1st occurance.
Added link
Suggest a map be included like this one, identifying locations of all significant places mentioned in the article:
Added map.
Terminology? .... was added to the regiment to serve overseas and formed to serve overseas and ...n given its first overseas assignment.... To my ears, "overseas" means abroad, on another continent. If the intention was limited to islands in the Indian Ocean, maybe "offshore" is more accurate? Not a big deal; I suppose if the source(s) use the word "overseas" then so be it.
It is the terminology in the sources. "Overseas" seems to be used for any service that took place outside the country itself, presumably because transport was by sea. I have reworded some instances.
Nihilism is a family of views that reject certain aspects of existence, including the ideas that life is meaningless, that moral values are baseless, and that knowledge is impossible. The article is a level-4 vital article with over 1.2 million page views last year. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:50, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was quietly counting on a thank button click (which I’ve yet to receive), I may lack the initiative to review this as thoroughly (or even at all) as the last. What do you say Phlsph7 ? MSincccc (talk) 11:13, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, it seems I have underestimated the motivational forces unleashed by a thank button click compared to a regular thank comment. Let me rectify this oversight. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:20, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've read upto the end of the Epistemology section. The prose is already well written and properly cited; hence I have nothing much to offer here. MSincccc (talk) 10:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Metrological nihilism
non-composite → noncomposite (American English spelling).
There were some discussions in earlier FA reviews about when to add birth and death dates in parenthesis. I usually add them only in the history section since the chronology is most relevant there. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Going by the above, I am inclined to support but it's worth noting that I am the only one to have reviewed it so far (almost a fortnight since the nomination). Looking forward to your thoughts on the above. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the review and all the helpful comments. Button-based gratitude delivered! Let's hope that some more reviewers find their way to this nomination. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As always, the article is outstanding in its simplicity and clear language. A quick read-through revealed no major issues, but I hope my relative ignorance of philosophy can help in making this article even more understandable.
Moral nihilism, a related view, denies the objective existence of morality, arguing that moral evaluations and practices rest on misguided assumptions without any substantial link to external reality. --> This sentence is quite adjective-heavy, making is flow less, especially towards the end. Would it work to replace 'substantial link to' by 'foundation in', or 'reality' instead of 'external reality'? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:47, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I implemented the foundation-formulation, but I kept the "external" to also cover minor forms of moral nihilism associated with subjectivism. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:51, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I struggle a bit with this sentence: "In the field of epistemology, relativistic versions of nihilism assert that knowledge, truth, or meaning are relative to the perspectives of specific individuals or cultural contexts, implying that there is no independent framework to assess which opinion is ultimately correct.". It nags me that I still don't know what epistemology is, despite having been taught this term on many occasions, and despite the sentence defining it implicitly. Can the sentence be shortened or split to be easier to parse?
Having thought about it for a bit more: nihilism is a simpler term than epistemology. Which makes me quite uncomfortable with having it used in as a top-level TOC heading and in the first paragraph. Readers that want to know about how nihilism relate to knowledge won't have an easy way to navigate to the appropriate section without fully reading the lead.
I added a short explanation of epistemology to the lead. I think for our purposes, knowledge of the nature of epistemology is not an essential requirement for understanding the text. Even if a reader just treats it as a mere label for some unfamiliar discipline, they should be able to grasp the points about nihilism itself. Epistemology is one of the main branches of philosophy and sources on nihilism frequently talk about it, so I think our current approach should be fine. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:34, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In metaphysics, one form of nihilism states that the world could have been empty, meaning that it is a contingent fact that there is something rather than nothing. -> Don't understand what this means.
Better. I don't understand why the word 'necessary' is there or what it means in this context. Could the second sentence start with "It suggests there is no clear reason". The second and third sentence in the body are more clear. (It should be understandable without referring to the body per WP:EXPLAINLEAD. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:47, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I struggle with the sentence "Nihilism (/ˈnaɪ(h)ɪlɪzəm, ˈniː-/) is a family of views that reject or negate certain aspects of existence", in specific the word negate. To me, that word means saying it's not true, which is not the way the word seems to be used here? Is it jargon to use it in a different sense?
I'm surprised to see existentialism described as "other negative attitudes toward the world". Having only (attempted to) read Beauvoir, I associate it with authenticity and freedom. I don't think the sentence describing existentialism makes the link to nihilism clear.
I replaced "negative" with "disillusioned", which should work given its proximity to absurdism and the denial of objective value. I also tried to better clarify the relation to nihilism. Existentialism was not initially part of the paragraph but the inclusion was requested at the GA review. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another objection suggests that the absence of absolute epistemic standards may have odd consequences, --> Another objection is?
For example, the dream argument, suggested by philosophers such as René Descartes, points out that, while dreaming, people usually cannot distinguish between the illusory dream and factual reality --> Don't think the word illusory is necessary there. Quite a difficult word
A related approach, articulated by philosophers such as Roderick Chisholm, assumes that a criterion is required to validate knowledge claims. Asserting that one cannot discern this criterion without already assuming some form of knowledge, it implies that knowledge is impossible --> I don't understand what this means.
I still don't quite understand. I think it's the abstractness that makes it difficult. What is the criterion? The prose "paradoxically presuppose each other" is tough to digest too.
I clarified "criterion" and added an analogy to the chicken or the egg problem to make it more concrete. The challenge is that this is a complex argument but we can't really dedicate more than a short passage to it to avoid undue weight since it is only one of several arguments. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:34, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's clearer now, but surely we must be able to avoid paradoxically presuppose each other completely: "Something like: meaning that knowledge and its criterion cannot be established independently, as each relies on the other, similar to the chicken-or-the-egg problem". I imagine that a good portion of speaker does not know what presuppose means. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:35, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another counterargument asserts --> "Another counterargument is", or "it has also been argued" or "A different objection suggests" (assert is already implied by the word 'counterargument' I believe, so we can keep it simple). An active voice here would work better: "Another counterargument is that common sense gives stronger support for the existence of knowledge than the abstract arguments used to defend skepticism".
it asserts that this is a contingent fact --> Can we hide the link to contingent under its explanation? I still don't quite understnad what this means.
The explanation, starting with "meaning that..." applies the problem directly to the empty-world scenario. So if we move the link there, we could have an WP:EASTEREGG by associating contingency with empty worlds, which is only true for this example. I could try to reformulate the explanatory clause so that we can move the link there, but this may not be worth it since it would probably make the explanation more difficult. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:34, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, we can rewrite without the jargon + link completely: ""While this view recognises that the world contains concrete objects, it argues that their existence is not inevitable, because there could have been nothing." —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:35, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
other types of nihilism are considered in the academic discourse, covering diverse fields, including literature, art, culture, politics, and other social phenomena --> Can we simplify to "Other types of nihilism exist in literature, art, culture.."? If not, I would split after 'social phenomena' to make the paragraph less intimidatingly long.
It targets political institutions as well as traditional beliefs and social practices upholding them without proposing alternative structures to replace them -> I would replace 'upholding them' with 'support them' maybe for simplicity. What about: "It criticizes political institutions, traditional beliefs, and social practices that support them, without offering new systems to take their place."
I didn't see any images of women, any women mentioned in the text. Is this field so devoid of women?
The article discusses Karen L. Carr in a footnote. She is critical of Rorty's antifoundationalism, so we could add another footnote after the short sentence on him to mention her. I'm not aware of many other candidates to mention. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The annotated links in the see also section are not always clear. Annotations work best when making a link to the existing article. Acosmism, cynicism and post-structuralism can probably do with a hand-written explanation. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned about intellectual accessibility. For instance, the opening of the lead is too vague e.g. " the basis of certain ideas"? This article [23] is much better and I think ours should be as good if not better. I have doubts that this is FA level as it stands. I think the lack of reviews here might be indirect evidence of my concern. Graham Beards (talk) 09:35, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Graham Beards and thanks for reviewing this article. I try to make articles as accessible as possible so I value your input. The first sentence is intentionally vague since it has to summarize many different positions in a neutral manner, significantly more positions than the article you linked. Additional details are provided right in the next sentence. There was a talk page discussion on this, and one suggestion was to merge the first two sentences, such as "Nihilism[a] encompasses views that reject the basis of certain ideas, including the views that life is meaningless, that moral values are baseless, and that knowledge is impossible". This suggestion addresses the concern about vagueness but has the disadvantage of "[overloading] the first sentence" instead of "[spreading] the relevant information" (see MOS:FIRST). What do you think? It can be challenging to boil down deep philosophical positions into an accessible yet accurate and balanced format, so please let me know if you come across problematic passages. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:52, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:FIRST says "The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is". It does not here. It doesn't even say it is a philosophy (or the plural). It just says what it does. I think we need something like "Nihilism in philosophy is the abandonment of all fundamental beliefs and instead argues that life has no meaning." Graham Beards (talk) 09:40, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I went with "Nihilism is a family of philosophical views arguing that life is meaningless, that moral values are baseless, and that knowledge is impossible". Phlsph7 (talk) 11:45, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Much better
I have a few more comments:
Do we need "described as" in this sentence "Nihilism is also described as a broad cultural phenomenon or historical movement that pervades modernity in the Western world.?
In the section "Definition, related terms, and etymology", I think it would be better to have the last paragraph first and the title rearranged accordingly.
Very great article as usual, Pslsph, and very informative- I think it's worthy of being an FA even in it's correct form- but one thing I believe it can improve on is a deeper dive into nihilistic influence on literature and other media- especially Russian literature. The article does mention them tangentially, but I feel like they should have more than half a paragraph for them, given how important nihilism was seen for 19th century russian literature. HSLover/DWF (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HSLover/DWF, it has been a while. I added a short passage on Chernyshevsky. Assigning proper weight to each of the subtopics is challenging for this type of topic. Currently, the main discussion of literature and other media is found in the section "Other forms", but it is also covered in the sections on the history and the definition. Most overview sources focus on philosophy rather than Russian literature and other media. This was also discussed during the GA review in case you are interested. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:59, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Passage looks good. True, always hard to balance conciseness and knowledge. Yeah, true, a complex topic like this would usually not have a concentrated focus on subtopics like the Russian nihilist movement. Just saw the GA review, has similar thoughts as mine; I believe it would look better with more stuff about Russian literature, and the Russian nihilist movement, but completely optional and just my personal opinion. Support, definitely FA quality. Btw, do you know how BLP FAs work- I am trying for one, but I don't know how, so I have asked on PR. HSLover/DWF (talk) 09:30, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Forms of nihilism.svg- Created by nom, simple illustration of concept, CC0
Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi portrait.jpg -PD due to age
Nietzsche1882.jpg- PD due to age
Sartre 1967 crop.jpg- VRT was recieved, CC BY 3.0
Jean-Francois Lyotard cropped.jpg- released by author as CC BY SA 2.5 (through the file info is entered incorrectly on Commons- and needed an investigation into the uncropped photo, so maybe fix that?)
Marcel Duchamp, 1917, Fountain, photograph by Alfred Stieglitz.jpg- PD due to age
Edvard Munch - The Scream - Google Art Project.jpg- PD due to age
Turgenev by Repin.jpg- PD due to age
Heidegger 2 (1960).jpg- released under the CC BY SA 3.0
All fine, though no 5 could be corrected on Commons.
Thanks for the image review and the support! I fixed the the license version number. I haven't tried a BLP FA. One key point is probably the extra scrutiny on sourcing, particularly for contentious claims. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:18, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In what was possibly the most difficult article I've ever written, I present to you Mongush Buyan-Badyrgy. I've always been fascinated by obscure countries and locations, but even I had never heard of the Tuvan People's Republic until this year! Buyan-Badyrgy is one of the most important figures in the history of the Tuvan people. Adopted as an infant by the noyon (chieftain), who traded cattle to his family in exchange for him(!), he ascended to the noyon position himself at around age 16 after his adoptive father's death.
Despite his youth, Buyan-Badyrgy was a "natural diplomat" and an important figure as the question of Tuva's future was debated. A letter he sent to Russian Emperor Nicholas II resulted in the Tuva region becoming a Russian protectorate. A few years later, in 1918, a decision was made that Tuvans would be allowed to have their own state. He chaired the All-Tuvan Constituent Khural in 1921 which resulted in the establishment of the Tannu Tuva People's Republic, a nation that received partial recognition during its existence.
Buyan-Badyrgy chaired the new General Central Council, thus becoming head of state and government. From 1921 to 1927, he served many roles, including as Minister of Foreign Affairs, General Secretary of the ruling Tuvan People's Revolutionary Party, prime minister (as Chairman of the Council of Ministers), and head of investigation. However, Soviet Russia still maintained significant influence over the new country. Attempts to convert Tuva to a Buddhist theocracy by Buyan-Badyrgy and others proved increasingly irritating to Soviet leadership, and in 1929, they helped launch a coup. Buyan-Badyrgy was removed from office, imprisoned and then executed without trial, aged 39 at his death. Tuva was later annexed into the Soviet Union. Following the Soviet Union's fall, he has become a revered figure in the region, with several monuments made of him and the second-highest Tuvan honor being named the "Order of Buyan-Badyrgy". I thank AirshipJungleman29, who reviewed it for GA and encouraged me to take this to FA. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Suggest adding alt text
File:Buyan-Badyrgy.jpg: source link is dead, needs an author death date and a US tag
As mentioned, the source link is dead and there doesn't appear to be any archived versions of it. Some Russian websites use the picture, e.g. this, as well as the "Personality in history" source in the article, but I don't see either of them list an author or the date of the picture, ugh. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:07, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:Буян-Бадыргы_и_русский_чиновник.jpg: when and where was this first published and what is the author's date of death?
Appears to have been taken by K. D. Mintslova (К.Д. Минцловой), but I'm not sure of the author's death or when it was first published, although this story briefly describes it: And here we see what the founder of Belotsarsk, the head of the Russian population in Tuva, Vladimir Gabaev, looked like. The photo is quite well-known. However, it was not reliably known that it was V. Gabaev in the photo, so in various publications this photo is called "Buyan-Badyrgy and a Russian official."
I support this article's promotion to FA status. I've had a look at the sourcing available to me with relation to my work on Mongolia, and found no omissions on the article subject worthy of note. Maybe a sentence or two of context could be added here and there, but that's no big deal. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:32, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of "with...being" expressions that, in my view spoil the prose.
with several monuments being built of him and the...
Split into two sentences: Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Buyan-Badyrgy has become a revered figure among Tuvans. Several monuments have been built of him and the second-highest honor of the Republic of Tuva is named after him.
with the overall head of the territory being the amban-noyon
Changed to your below suggestion.
with him being an "unconditional supporter of an independent and self-sufficient Tuva."
How about At the congress, Buyan-Badyrgy "showed himself to be a cautious, attentive, moderately democratic politician," according to Khovalyg, being an "unconditional supporter of an independent and self-sufficient Tuva" – does that work?
with it being divided into six kozhuuns.
Changed to This meeting created new subdivisions for the state, which was divided into six kozhuuns.
with the kozhuun conflict being resolved and Tannu Tuva remaining independent;
Changed to your suggestion below.
with the TPRP being the only party and the Tuvan section of the Communist International.
Changed to your suggestion below.
with the first recipient being Kenin-Lopsan.
Changed to your suggestion below.
In the third one, "with him being" is grammatically wrong, it should be "his being". Same goes for the fourth, "it being" which should be "its being". The others are mainly, not entirely, stylistic. How about something like:
and several monuments have been built to commemorate him and the second-highest honor of the Republic of Tuva is named after him
and the overall head of the territory was the amban-noyon
with the kozhuun conflicts' being resolved" (possessive before a gerund)
with the TPRP's being (possessive before a gerund)
Here "located" is redundant. " located in Barun-Khemchik kozhuun (administrative division), a region of Tuva." Just "in" is enough.
Done.
Instead of "Khaidyp had no children himself" how about "Khaidyp had no children of his own"?
Done.
Instead of "However, with the new Chinese government hoping to reintegrate Tuva and Mongolia as part of its territory, the majority of Tuvan leaders" I suggest, "As the new chinese government hoped to reintegrate Tuva and Mongolia as part of its territory, most of Tuvan leaders..."
Done.
Is the Further Reading item of value? It's an odd mixture of a wikilink and an incomplete citation.
I could remove it if you like. It's a two-volume book written by Mongush Kenin-Lopsan on Buyan-Badyrgy's life; I couldn't locate any copies of it myself which is why I wasn't able to use it in the article.
Please be mindful of WP:NONENGPLAG when using non-English sources. For example, citation 5 has "Сын арата вырос в царских условиях", which translates from Russian as "The son of Arat grew up in royal conditions" and in the article we have "He grew up in royal conditions". This is a little too close. My O-level Russian is not up to the standard needed to check all the citations, but Google can be useful here.
Maybe He was raised in royal conditions? – I'm struggling to come up with a better way to reword that sentence...
I have taken the liberty of deleting it and adding "royal" to this sentence. "Khaidyp had no children of his own and thus raised Buyan-Badyrgy as the heir to the royal noyon title."Graham Beards (talk) 10:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This, "After Tannu Tuva was established as an independent state, the government was formed, called the General Central Council, which featured one representative from each kozhuun. Buyan-Badyrgy, at the advice of I. G. Safyanov, was appointed the chairman of the council" is sourced from "На нем был образован Всеобщий центральный совет (Правительство), состоящий из представителей кожуунов (по одному от каждого кожууна). По совету И. Сафьянова, председателем правительства был назначен М. Буян-Бадыргы", which translates to " It formed the General Central Council (Government), consisting of representatives of the kozhuuns (one from each kozhuun). On the advice of I. Safyanov, M. Buyan-Badyrgy was appointed chairman of the government." This (again) raises the issue of WP:NONENGPLAG in that it is too close to the source. Are there any others? Graham Beards (talk) 10:08, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to After Tannu Tuva was established as an independent state, the government, known as the General Central Council, was created; it included one representative for each kozhuun. Buyan-Badyrgy was named chairman of the council on the suggestion of I. G. Safyanov. Is that better? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The author of this source "Alekseevich, Molchanov Leonid (2012)" is wrong; it is Л.А. Молчанов (L.A. Molchanov)
Looking deeper into this source I see this paragraph:
In the new protectorate, seven kozhuuns were formed, each to be led by ukherids, with the amban-noyon the overall head; there was also a Commissar, "effectively a Russian representative, an official of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, who was in charge of the placement of Russian settlers."[19]
Is sourced to this:
В административном отношении край делился на 7 хошунов (административные и податные единицы) во главе с ухэридами (огурдами). Общее управление
формально находилось вруках амдын-нойона, фактически - российского представителя, чиновника Переселенческого управления МВД , который ведал устройством русских переселенцев (к 1917 г. – 12 тыс. человек).
Which translates to:
Administratively, the region was divided into 7 khoshuns (administrative and tax units) headed by ukherids (ogurds). General management was formally in the hands of the amdyn-noyon, who was in fact the Russian representative, an official of the Resettlement Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, who was in charge of the placement of Russian settlers (by 1917 - 12 thousand people).
The issues are: An author of a source is given as "Alekseevich, Molchanov Leonid (2012)", when it should be "Molchanov, Leonid Alekseevich" and the source is named throughout as "Alekseevich" which is a patronymic. The same goes for "Andreevna, Oidupaa Alena" which should be "Oidupaa, Alena Andreevna", Another problem, as I have said above, is explained in WP:NONENGPLAG in that the text of some of the article is too close to a direct translation of the source. And there is an issue with WP:VERIFY, which I have also pointed out. An example of this was a direct quotation - inside quotation marks - that has now been removed. [27].Graham Beards (talk) 07:28, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the Andreevna p. 47 citation#13 (which should be Oidupaa), I cannot find the source for "In his first years as a noyon, Buyan-Badyrgy followed after his adoptive father's policy and tried to maintain friendly relations with China." Or the source for "The day of exposing lies will certainly come ... And there will be time to glorify my righteousness." Graham Beards (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still have a file on my laptop of the text from all the used sources, so I'll look into them tomorrow or Tuesday. (I do remember reading those specific parts somewhere.) BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, please check that any quotations are real and not a precis. I think this might be an issue in the article. If in doubt I suggest dumping the quotation marks but ensuring there is no close paraphrasing. Graham Beards (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the friendly relations, the source says He sought to continue the political line of his father to maintain the most friendly relations with China. The exposing lies quote is from the Tuva Online source. It seems that different places have given slightly different translations for it, though each translation means the same thing. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the offer. I'm particularly interested in the sources of the following quotations, in part to see if the quotation marks are in fact needed. It would be easier if you could just add the source text here below each one.
"sharp mind, great sense of self-worth, excellent manners and a tendency to [make] reasonable compromises."[2][8][9]
He was adopted by noyon Khaidyp (Buurul Noyan) of the Khemchik Daa khoshun. Since childhood, Buyan-Badyrga was distinguished by his sharp mind, great sense of self-worth, excellent manners and a tendency to reasonable compromises.
"noble character, deep knowledge, and [his] ability to govern," with his title Uger-Daa meaning "Promoter of Holiness".[11]
His compatriots respected Khaydyp as “Uger-Daa” (“Propagator of Holiness”). European travelers who met him praised his noble character, deep knowledge, and ability to govern. Other places have translated this as "Promoter of Holiness".
"a natural diplomat who was intelligent, self-confident, flexible, and able to make concessions."[11]
Although young, Buyan-Badyrgy, a natural diplomat who knew his worth, was flexible, and was able to make concessions in various ways, found a common language not only with the Tuvans, but also with the Mongols and Russians.
"showed himself to be a cautious, attentive, moderately democratic politician," according to Khovalyg, being an "unconditional supporter of an independent and self-sufficient Tuva."
The Congress adopted the Constitution of the Tuvan People's Republic, consisting of 22 articles. At the Congress, Buyan-Badyrgy showed himself to be a cautious, attentive, moderately democratic politician, an unconditional supporter of an independent and self-sufficient Tuva.
Buyan-Badyrgy "considered it necessary to maintain a certain continuity with previous customs and laws."[26]
At the same time, he considered it necessary to maintain a certain continuity with previous customs and laws.
At this point, Buyan-Badyrgy was described by researcher V. A. Dubrovsky as being at "the pinnacle of his political career," with Dubrovsky noting that "due to his natural talent and education, intelligence and foresight ... He enjoyed well-deserved authority among the Tuvans, Russians and Mongols."[33]
V. A. Dubrovsky notes that "the former gun-noyon Mongush Bu-yan-Badyrgy, due to his natural talent and education, intelligence and foresight, reached the pinnacle of his political career. He enjoyed well-deserved authority among the Tuvans, Russians and Mongols"
According to Khovalyg, he was known among contemporaries as a "skillful and purposeful defender of the interests of his people," and was considered a skilled diplomat.[32]
Buyan-Badyrgy visited Kyzyl on visits; he constantly lived with his family near the Upper Chadan Temple, on the right bank of the river of the same name. In the eyes of his contemporaries, he was noted for his education and intelligence: he was fluent in Mongolian and Russian, and knew Sanskrit. As a diplomat, he showed himself to be a skillful and purposeful defender of the interests of his people.
"Comrade Buyan-Badyrgy, working in the leadership of the [TPRP] party, has done and is doing much for the further development of the party. It should be especially noted that a connection with the Communist International has been created, the party has become a member of the Peasant International. Whose merit is all this? All this is the merit of only Comrade Buyan-Badyrgy."[2]
The 5th Congress of the TPRP, held on October 8-13, 1926, elected M. Sodnam as General Secretary. In his speech, S.A. Natsov said: "Comrade Buyan-Badyrgy, working in the leadership of the Arat party, has done and is doing much for the further development of the party. It should be especially noted that a connection with the Communist International has been created, the party has become a member of the Peasant International. Whose merit is all this? All this is the merit of only Comrade Buyan-Badyrgy. On behalf of the Third Communist International, I propose that Comrade Buyan-Badyrgy be elected General Secretary of the new Central Committee of the party."
"former princes, high-ranking officials, lamas and wealthy Tuvans,"
It is not for nothing that the years 1927-1928 are considered to be turning points, marking the beginning of the second period of development of the Tuvan People's Republic, when active changes in the political course, the struggle between the so-called "right" and "left" began. In this case, the "right" were considered to be former princes, high-ranking officials, lamas and wealthy Tuvans. Buyan-Badyrgy, as the most active representative of the old bureaucratic aristocracy, aroused the greatest hostility from the "left", who were striving for undivided power. With the support of the Comintern, since 1928 the "left" increasingly actively pursued a line of cleansing the People's Revolutionary Party of "alien elements", "expressing dissatisfaction with the attitude of the seconded Soviet workers to the former officials, in particular to Buyan-Badyrgy".
"The day of exposing lies will certainly come ... And there will be time to glorify my righteousness."[13][37]
The day when lies are exposed will certainly come; The revelation of bloody secrets will surely come; They will return my good name and honor to me; And there will be time to praise my righteousness.
"true democrat [and] a defender of the interests of the people."[11][41]
Researchers of the last decade, M. B. Kenin-Lopsan, V. A. Dubrovsky, S. Ch. Sat, G. A. Ondar, S. V. Saaya and others, on the contrary, see only virtues in Buyan-Badyrgy: a true democrat, a defender of the interests of the people
he led in negotiations with surrounding countries regarding various issues and helped Tuva receive official recognition from the Soviet Union and Mongolia. - Is "in" correct here?
Cut "in".
several leading Tuvans ... several others - A bit of repetition here. Is it worth nixing the mention of the other arrests in the lead?
Cut the "several others".
providing him with a good education - Do the sources provide any more information as to this education?
I provided what was available in the subsequent sentences: Buyan-Badyrgy's adoptive father invited many of the top experts in various languages to teach him and had him study numerous fields including history, astrology, medicine, mathematics, psychology and philosophy. He was taught the Tibetan and Mongolian languages starting at age five and had "mastered" them from a young age; he also became a fluent speaker of Sanskrit, Russian and Chinese, in addition to his native Tuvan language.
Ah, so home schooling with private tutors. Makes sense, but keep in mind that your readers wouldn't necessarily know the education context in this region in the early 20th century. "A good education" is ambiguous enough that they could assume formal schooling (which would have been true in much of Europe, North America, and some parts of Asia at this time... the noble-born Indonesians were sending their children to Dutch-run schools before 1911). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd think that given I explain the "good education" immediately after I say it in the article it should be good? (The quote above is from the article.) BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:51, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who was the amban-noyon when Buyan-Badyrgy ascended to noyon?
Source doesn't say (Thus, he became the ruler of Daa khoshun and the second person after the ambyn-noyon - the ruler of all Tuva.), though it does mention by 1912 it was Kombu-Dorzhu. I do see that Tannu Uriankhai lists him (under the name Oyun Ölzey-Ochur oglu Kombu-Dorzhu) as serving from 1899 to 1911, though I don't see a source for it... Thoughts?
Here's a source mentioning Kombu-Dorzhu's tenure, which would verify him being the amban-noyon at the time. Should I add it in?
Not sure of the reliability of the sources, personally. If you think it's reliable, it would make sense to include it... and as the head of a relatively large polity one would assume he has notability. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't those mean the same thing, or no? The suggestion of the leaders was to have it become part of Mongolian territory. Would that be "annexed to" or "by"?
he also requested the preservation of the Tuvan titles, ranks and positions, that the Russians would not interfere with the Buddhist religion and the exemption of the Tuvan people from serving in the military - Given how many commas are here, it might be worth having an Oxford comma after "religion" or even using a semicolon to separate the three items.
Added comma after "religion".
I'm seeing quite a few sentences that are overly preponderous, with multiple clauses and subclauses; see, for example, "This allowed China and Mongolia to take more control over the region; however, by 1921, the Soviets had defeated Alexander Kolchak, leader of the opposing White movement in the Civil War, and drove out the Chinese and Mongolians in the region, taking control." and "It featured one representative from each kozhuun, and Buyan-Badyrgy, at the advice of I. G. Safyanov, was appointed the chairman of the council.". I'd recommend simplifying a bit. Those are just two examples... there are quite a few more.
I split up the mentioned two examples (e.g. This allowed China and Mongolia to take more control over the region. By 1921, the Soviets had defeated Alexander Kolchak, leader of the opposing White movement in the Civil War, and took control of the region by driving out the Chinese and Mongolians.) – could you point out some others you'd like changed?
I'll give one more, "In his last poem, published at the end of his life, he wrote of the "sadness of my name", realizing his impending execution, but noted that "The day of exposing lies will certainly come ... And there will be time to glorify my righteousness," but try re-reading with this comment in mind. Generally having multiple subordinate clauses in a sentence does not help readability. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changed that one to He wrote of the "sadness of my name" in his last poem, realizing his impending execution, but noted that "The day of exposing lies will certainly come ... And there will be time to glorify my righteousness."BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
daughter of an acquaintance, whom he called Dembikei - Was Dembikei the daughter or the acquaintance?
Dembikei was his daughter; what would you suggest changing it to?
What about "Although he had no children of his own, he adopted three children; one of these was Dembikei, the daughter of an acquaintance." or something similar? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The date of birth predates 1918 so is presumably Old Style -- if you can confirm that it would be good to add a footnote, and give the new style equivalent.
Could we get an inset in the map showing Tuva highlit in Asia? This is not a well-known area of the world.
"He was born to a large but poor Arat family, the son of Mongush Nomchug, a herdsman": suggest "His father was Mongush Nomchug, a poor Arat herdsman with a large family".
Done.
"In one, it is stated ... Another held that ..." No reason to change tense here; the legends still exist so I'd make this "holds that ...", or "According to another, ..."
Done.
"Khaidyp showed great concern in the upbringing of Buyan-Badyrgy, providing him with a good education.". I can't read the source; can you confirm that the source supports the first and second half of this independently? The second half is clearly supported, as I can tell from the rest of the paragraph, but I suspect the first half of being just an editorial comment.
'Buyan-Badyrgy was distinguished by his intelligence as he grew up and was noted for having a "sharp mind...'. Again I wonder if we need both halves here -- does "distinguished by his intelligence" tell us anything that "noted for having a sharp mind" does not?
Cut the quote.
'Buyan-Badyrgy's adoptive father was praised for "noble character, deep knowledge, and [his] ability to govern," ': praised by whom? Contemporaries, his subjects, the Russian governors who dealt with him?
Suggest giving the date of the Russo-Japanese war inline.
Suggest cutting ", where he was believed to be poisoned": the next few sentences tell the tale, and there's no need to look ahead and hence tell the reader twice.
There are a lot of quotes. I started counting and gave up at around thirty; I would guess there are forty. (I searched for the double-quote character in the browser to highlight them all.). A couple are quite long, and perhaps should be blockquotes if you're going to keep them, but do we really need so many? (And you already have a couple of substantial blockquotes.) I know it's tempting to use the source's language, and of course one doesn't have to worry about close paraphrasing with quotes, but I have a hard time believing we couldn't move most of this material into summarizing language. For comparison, I took a look at Gerald Durrell, which has around thirty quotes and one blockquote at three times the length of this article.
"According to Salimaa Khovalyg in the Bulletin of Eurasia, memoirs from ...": why name the source (and even the journal) inline here? Is there some doubt about the reliability of this information?
Similarly 'Despite his young age, Buyan-Badyrgy was described by historian Tyntchtykbek Tchoroev as "a natural diplomat who was intelligent, self-confident, flexible, and able to make concessions."': what's your criterion for naming the source inline? If it's just that you want to attribute quotes inline I think that's another reason for eliminating most of the quotes. And this is more a matter of style, but I think it's more common to use the present tense to talk about historians' opinions: "Buyan-Badyrgy is described as".
I've struck the points you've addressed. FYI, this recent edit adds a mention of Tannu Uriankhai to the "Early life" section, but as far as I can see the source for that sentence doesn't give that name, so you may want to add another source for that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:15, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier this year hantaviruses were in the news because Betsy Arakawa, the wife of actor Gene Hackman, died from hantavirus pulmonary syndrome (HPS). This article is about the outbreak that led to the discovery of HPS and the viruses that cause it. The article went through peer review, during which it was improved greatly with the help of CFCF and WhatamIdoing. Afterwards, it sailed through GAN without issue. I've continued work on it since then and think it has a chance of becoming a featured article. Of note, I already communicated with Nikkimaria regarding the images, so they should be fine. Also, if this article becomes a featured article, then I believe it will be the first FA for a natural disease outbreak. Velayinosu (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The resolution of the TEM image of the virus is not as good as the original. (See [28]). I don't have permission to overwrite the original file, perhaps we should upload this one. Graham Beards (talk) 07:35, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tried using the original but am not used to uploading images so I don't know if I did it correctly. What do you think? Is it better? Velayinosu (talk) 03:07, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's some issues with WP:overcitation, which will make a source review more challenging. Usually, for non-controversial statement like "Genetic analysis of SNV has indicated that it has existed in its natural reservoir since long before the outbreak" wouldn't need more than one citation, maybe 2. Three or four citations is only appropriate for quite controversial statements.
I think a section on hantaviruses in general is needed. This should include the segmented negative-stranded RNA linear genome, enveloped or non-enveloped, their classification, tissue tropism and so forth. For a FA I don't think we should rely solely on a link to Hantavirus. Graham Beards (talk) 10:18, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two prose suggestion:
Investigators quickly found other people with the same symptoms as the couple, and further investigation discovered a new hantavirus as the agent responsible, Sin Nombre virus (SNV), and identified the western deer mouse as its natural reservoir. --> Investigators quickly found others with the same symptoms as the couple. Further investigation discovered a new hentavirus, the Sin Nombre virus, as the cause, identified the western deer mouse as its natural reservoir.
A brief comment on WP:Overcitation-issues is that there is limited guidance on the appropriate way to cite outbreak investigations on Wikipedia. WP:MEDRS posits using only secondary sources, but there has been a discussion about specifically outbreaks and surveillance data, where citing the original source may be better. For this reason, to me it could make sense to cite both the original primary sources and a verification in secondary litterature. CFCF (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to edit the article tomorrow to address the overcitation and prose suggestion. But I'm not sure if mesa and butte are too much of jargon. If someone doesn't know what they are then they can just click the links and look at the pictures. The purpose of that paragraph is to provide context about the environment the outbreak occurred in. Some outbreaks occur in urban areas, some in battlefields, and this one in a desert. Describing that environment helps to paint a picture in the minds of readers. Velayinosu (talk) 01:09, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most people read on mobile, so it's quite annoying to click on these kind of links, wait for the new page to be loaded, go back to the old page. My guess is that roughly 20% of people know what these words mean, and that the rest of the sentence already gives a good enough description of the environment. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I'll dig in for a full review, but I do want to leave a few random comments.
File:Four Corners.svg the caption is confusing. I suspect by "the colored area" you mean the red circle, but the entirety of all four states are colored as well.
The two charts in Course of outbreak contain a lot of numerical data which is an accessability problem per MOS:ACCIM: Avoid using images in place of tables or charts. Where possible, any charts or diagrams should have a text equivalent or should be well-described so that users who are unable to see the image can gain some understanding of the concept
File:Peromyscus maniculatus.png is poor quality. There are a number of high quality images of the Western Deer Mouse on iNaturalist, many of which are CC-licensed. I suggest you find one of them and import it into commons. If you're not familiar with iNaturalist, ping me and I'll be happy to give you a hand with that.
I hopefully clarified the caption. For the two chart images, those were made specifically to address other accessibility issues that stem from the lack of functional graph templates. I tried to make my own makeshift version of the bar graph[29] but it doesn't work on mobile,[30] so the image was made to replace it. In any case, I think the contents of the images are sufficiently described in prose, so I think it's fine as is. And I replaced the image of the mouse. Hopefully it's better but if not there are others I can upload. Velayinosu (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The most relevant guidance, the The CDC Field Epidemiology Manual, the WHO Basic Epidemiology textbook edition 2, the The Epidemiologist R Handbook, or the ECDC Guidelines for presentation of surveillance data: all emphasize the importance of visualization of outbreak curves. The current software on Wikipedia is limited in how well it can visualize epicurves, and the use of a image chart should therefore be justified. The consensus handling of this is to describe the curve's shape in the alt-text of the image, potentially also including the data in the alt-text. I do not think it is reasonable to in addition to the epicurve include a full table of all the data, but agree that the alt-text could be slightly more detailed. The UK Government Analysis Function Data visualisation: colours, and CDC Responsive Image Best Practices give some guidance on writing alt-texts, whereas the EU Data Visualisation Guide describes that "Data visualisation is accessibility".
Suggestions for detailed but not overbearing alt-texts of the images could be something like:
1. Epidemic curve of HPS cases in the US in 1993, by month
“Bar chart showing 48 Hantavirus Pulmonary Syndrome cases reported in the US in 1993, distributed by month. No cases occurred in January or February. Cases began in March (2) and rose steadily through April (5), May (6), June (10), and peaked in July (12). Numbers then declined in August (4), September (2), October (6), November (1), and December (1). Of the 48 cases, 21 survived and 27 died. The highest number of deaths occurred in June (7), while survival was highest in July (7). Overall pattern shows a sharp summer peak and decline in autumn.”
2. Map of HPS cases in the US in 1993, by state
“Choropleth map of the United States showing 48 Hantavirus Pulmonary Syndrome cases in 1993. Most cases occurred in the Southwest: New Mexico (18), Arizona (10), Nevada (4), and Colorado (5). Smaller numbers were reported in Montana (2), Kansas (2), and single cases in Idaho, Wyoming, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Texas, Louisiana, and Florida. No cases were reported in the majority of other states. Pattern highlights concentration of cases in the Four Corners region.”
Since I'm here, I might as well do something useful, so here's my image review:
All the images are either PD or have appropriate CC licenses. For the most part they are relevant to the adjacent text. I'm not sure that File:Gallup (14915119844).jpg really adds any significant information or helps the reader understand the main topic of the article better, but I can't make any strong argument why it should be removed.
For the most part, the captions are appropriate. In File:1136 lores.jpg, this is a 2-d image so you can't really say that anything is "spherical". I'd reword that along the lines of "The circular areas are ...". In File:Camp Curry Historic District-3.jpg, I'd rather see the cited material moved into the main body of the article, but I don't know of anything in the WP:MOS which says you can't do it this way.
"The region is very rural." - this is true, but the cited source is only referring to a portion of the region (Navajo Nation). It surely shouldn't be too hard to find something indicating that the larger Four Corner regions as a whole is very rural. Additionally, for a 50-page document which the source is, it would be best to get specific page numbers in the citation for verification
Okay I reworded the sentence with a source and added page numbers.
"The outbreak in the Four Corners region led to the discovery of hantaviruses from the Western Hemisphere that could cause disease " - should this be rephrased to clarify that this was the discovery of disease in humans from this, given that the rodents would have presented with hantavirus disease?
No, because hantavirus infections in their natural reservoirs are asymptomatic.
I found it odd how much the CDC interactive map for 1993 varies from the January 1994 MMWR cited, but I guess the newer source is preferable here
"Case fatality rates were similar across age, sex, and race" - except for the ages 30-39 group according to that chart in MMWR although I suspect that's just statistical noise
"Navajo elders knew that mice that entered the home put people at risk of infection when coming into contact with their feces or urine, " - I'm of the opinion that this crosses into close paraphrasing of the source's "Elders knew that the entrance of mice into homes puts people at risk of infection when they come into contact with feces and urine"
Okay I reworded this.
Why is the date of the meeting noted to be disputed in the footnote to the image caption, but then presented as an exact date in the article body (June 1)?
I use Sternberg as the source in prose because he was one of the reporters at the time but I figured some people might point out that other sources give different dates. And I can't exclude a date or someone will add a "when?" template. I'm not sure if there's a good spot for the note in-line, so I put it in the caption, but it can be moved to in-line if needed.
I think it's necessary in this case to not give a specific date in the article body and then place the footnote inline, especially given that there isn't even a plurality view here. I'd place the footnote after the word Arizona personally. Has there been a problem here in the past with people inserting a tag? I've historically had pretty good luck with handling disputed or ambiguous things in footnotes - see note [a] at Battle of Big Black River Bridge for instance. Hog FarmTalk02:36, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Thirty-three HPS cases were confirmed in the Four Corners states in 1993, with 19 deaths (58%)" - where is the 19 figure coming from? The CDC interactive map for 1993 has 10 deaths in NM, 3 in AZ, and 4 in CO and I'm not seeing this in the January 1994 MMWR also cited
I had this as 17 originally but changed it to 19 for some reason and don't remember why and can't figure it out, so I changed it back to 17.
"transmission of SNV between people has never been confirmed" - this feels like something which should be hedged with an "as of" date from the year the source was
I try to avoid "as of" wording when possible since people put a template on it, which puts it in the cleanup listings as the "Potentially dated statements" category. In this case, I don't think it's a statement prone to becoming dated (in contrast to counting cases of an ongoing outbreak), so I'd rather not use "as of" wording here.
Thank you for taking the time to initiate a thorough review. A brief comment on the last point, these statements on human-to-human are difficult and I disagree with hedging too much as it implies we are questioning the statement. I would suggest writing "transmission of SNV between people had not occurred as of 20xx". CFCF (talk) 06:42, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent a good deal of time in the areas involved, so I figured it might be fun to offer my 2¢. More comments to come over the next 48 hours, but I may be sporadically distracted. From a first reading, this is an exceptional article that bridges the language of a scientific case study with Wikipedia's encyclopedic tone. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:33, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the first sentence of the first paragraph of the Government response section, consider linking Navajo medicine for "Navajo medicine men" on first mention. I inserted a missing comma in the same sentence.
Note 5 seems like the ideal way to use such notes: additional encyclopedic information that would interrupt the article's flow is presented as optional (well, more optional) reading. Good work.
A few comments and suggestions regarding the paragraph starting with "Peterson Zah", the last in the Social and economic impact section: It is possible to link President of the Navajo Nation (though not necessary). While the source for Zah's statements have him splitting the name of the virus as "Hanta Virus", this seems to have been a grammatical peculiarity that rose from the original journalistic capture of his statement. I think we can simply correct this to "hantavirus", following MOS:SIC. Regarding the speculation about Fort Wingate, I think we ought to note that the allegations from the Navajo stemmed from the speculation that there were biological weapons stored at the facility. There weren't biological weapons there (at least from what I can scrounge up), but it's worth contextualizing so that the speculation's basis is apparent to the reader.
I have completed another read-through of the article to spot-check for accuracy to sources and found no issues beyond some proximity in narrative details that are really unavoidable and don't stray into close paraphrasing. I spot-checked PMC and PMID links to ensure that they are accurately provided. The graphical presentation of the monthly casualties was a nice touch. Overall, I find this article to be sound and informative, worthy of promotion up to FA. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:33, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Currently copyediting through the article and will summarize my major changes and further proposed changes once done. Accordingly, I would appreciate keeping this nomination page open for a few more days. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 14:42, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done with my smaller fixes! Hopefully my edit summaries were sufficiently clear on standardizing the presentation of case fatality rate statistics, removing abbreviation of state names since they are infrequently used in the article, and consistent use of the UNM acronym once established. Here are my two suggestions that I think would be helpful but not required:
The region is sparsely populated. For example, the Navajo Nation, which occupies a large portion of the region, has a population of approximately 165,000 (2020), with a population density of around 6 people per square mile (2–3 people per square kilometer). This claim is correct but difficult to interpret without a reference population density. Perhaps comparison to California having 250 people per square mile would work well as it is the largest state by population and third-largest by area while being close enough to the Four Corners region for meaningfulness.
As a public health microbiologist, I want to sincerely praise Velayinosu for describing the medical terms with understandable phrasing and recognizing the cultural missteps that seemingly worsened this outbreak response! 04:23, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
I cleaned up a bit and did the first suggestion. For the second, I decided to remove the example of population density. I think people can understand that deserts don't have a lot of people without giving specific numbers, and this balances the length of the two paragraphs in the section. But it can be restored and worked on if need be. Velayinosu (talk) 01:56, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has been open for a month now and has yet to gain support for promotion. Unless this nomination doesn't advance in the next few days, I'm afraid this would have to be archived. FrB.TG (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was involved in the earlier peer review and did some of the image work, but I strongly support this article for promotion to Featured Article. I believe it fulfills all relevant criteria. CFCF (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We've had a spotcheck of sources for accuracy but unless I've missed something, no source review for reliability and formatting -- if that's the case we can list a reuqest at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the 2007 tornado that practically obliterated the town of Greensburg, Kansas, killing twelve people. The tornado is one of the most famous in the weather community, notably due to it being the first EF5-rated tornado to ever touch down on this planet. 95% of Greensburg was destroyed and became a focal point of a huge cleanup and rebuilding operation that captured the minds of architects, eco-tourists, and many more people. This is FAC #5, and I'm hoping this is the last one. I've done a 144-reference spotcheck and made corrections as appropriate (as advised at the last FAC) and I really can't think of a single reason why it'd fail (as opposed to the last few FACs, which had either prose, sourcing or verifiability issues). EF514:28, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment (I’m on vacation and mobile this week). How was the 205 mph winds measured/estimated? Tropical cyclone articles usually talk about satellite estimates or Recon, so what is the tornado equivalence? I’m asking beyond just the damage being rated EF5, but how the 205 mph was estimated? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricanehink mobile, hope your vacation is going great. I can't find a single direct source but a Wx Underground blog says that "A preliminary damage survey by the National Weather Service found that the storm likely had 205 mph winds, putting it just above the 200 mph wind threshold for an EF5 rating", meaning the wind speed was estimated via a damage survey; two EF5s from the 2011 Super Outbreak were given the same 205-mph estimate in the same way. I'm hesitant to include this source, however, as it's a blog and likely not of FA quality. — EF515:04, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KSN also states "The tornado track indicated that the tornado was on the ground for nearly 29 miles and recorded surface winds as strong as 205 miles per hour", but that isn't very helpful. — EF515:07, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Finally getting around to finishing my review! Apologies I didn’t get to it sooner, I had to attend a funeral and I was away from my main computer for a week. The article is generally pretty good, but there are still some trouble spots. Hopefully nothing too difficult to manage!
General
I mentioned before about the winds being an estimate, and asking for further explanation about that. Since the article talks about how the NWS determined the seven houses with EF5 damage, could you then mention what the threshold for EF5 is? The infobox says 205 mph was the highest estimated wind, which was an estimate based on the storm damage, right? The main reason I’m focusing on this is the comparison to a hurricane article. Any time I review a hurricane article, I want to know the basis for the winds/pressure (usually Recon, direct measurements, or satellite estimates). So that’s why I’d like a bit more clarity on how the wind speed was determined.
In the first sentence, you mention EF5 before defining the (Enhanced) Fujita scale. Should it be reworded so you can say something like “rated an EF5 on the Enhanced Fujita scale”? Not everyone knows what EF means, and if they’re older they might know about the change, so the part about “first to be rated” is good stuff, just wondering about the ordering.
”The tornado touched down in northern Comanche County, moving to the north while continuously widening.” - source? The met synopsis mentions the supercell in Kiowa County, then the tornado touching down south of Greensburg, but nothing about Comanche as far as I can tell. I’m reading/reviewing this on a plane (from my phone, airplane mode), so apologies if I missed it.
”The tornado eventually entered Kiowa County, crossing U.S. Route 183 before reaching a peak width of 1.7 miles (2.7 km) to the south of Greensburg before entering the city.” - could you reword so you don’t have two “before…” clauses?
”The tornado greatly affected the economy and population of Greensburg as a whole; the population…” - could you avoid saying “population” twice in such short succession?
”Kansas is located in Tornado Alley,[5] the region of the United States in which the most tornadoes occur.[6] Cold and dry air from the Rocky Mountains and the West Coast of the United States drops into Tornado Alley, while moist and dry subtropical air is pulled inward from the Gulf of Mexico.[7] The cold air pushes under the warm and moist air, pushing it upward;[7] this updraft causes the development of thunderstorms.[8]” - I appreciate this background info, but I don’t know if any of it is needed after “in which the most tornadoes occur.” The rest of it could be incorporated into the met synopsis, where I’m guessing cold air came from the west and interacted with warm gulf air?
Tornado events not caused by this phenom have occurred in the past, so connecting them by default would be WP:OR. Unfortunately the only decent source I could find for the metsyn isn't an FA-level source, so I WP:NUKEd it while doing the aforementioned spotcheck. EF520:08, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
”Research conducted by meteorologist and tornado historian Thomas P. Grazulis, however, concluded that F5-rated tornadoes have struck Kansas since 1895.” - this seems more appropriate in a Kansas-specific tornado article, since it’s just a blanket statement that strong tornadoes affect the state, and having too much background info might undermine the significance of this tornado.
”The most intense supercell thunderstorms, which are thunderstorms with a rotating mesocyclone, developed in the early evening hours of May 4 across northwestern Oklahoma and southwestern Kansas.” - seems a bit off to me, as far as a narrative. By adding info about the air masses (see above), then you would have some more context for the storms developing. But the current wording feels like a definition, with “The most intense supercell thunderstorms, which are…”
”The rotating supercell that later produced the Greensburg tornado was accompanied by several short-tracked tornadoes.[26] One of these small tornadoes, located on the westernmost side of the mesocyclone, began to rapidly strengthen, rapidly growing shortly after touching down at 9:03 p.m.” - this could be clearer that this is the narrative for the main tornado
”As the main tornado continued through rural areas oil tanks were destroyed, with oil strewn across pastures and a road.” - a comma and/or better sentence structure would help here.
”The very large tornado continued to grow in size as it approached the city of Greensburg from the south. The tornado then reached its maximum width of 1.7 miles (2.7 km).” - could be a dumb question but how was the width determined? If it’s the damage on the ground, then something like “as determined by damage” would be helpful, since I doubt they knew it was that big while it was on the ground.
”The tornado weakened slightly as it entered residential areas in southern Greensburg” - this is the first time the tornado’s strength is referred to in the body of the article. Am I missing something? When did it become an EF5?
Am I missing something yes (/gen), the tornado's intensity is mentioned several times throughout the summary, including completely leveling a section of the building at EF4 intensity and near homes that sustained EF4 damage. EF516:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, you don't say when it was an EF5. You mention the tornado forming, then you mention the EF4 damage, but don't mention the EF5 until the end of the section. It's jarring. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moved up. There are no references stating exactly which properties at which locations sustained EF5 damage, but stating "in Greensburg proper" is as close as it'll get. — EF519:51, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
”The Greensburg meteorite was found and recovered near the Ellis Peck Farm east of Greensburg a few days afterwards.” - this could use context, like is it a tourist destination? It’s mentioned out of nowhere.
Aftermath
I don’t get why there’s aftermath and a separate rebuilding section.
”A Daylight Donuts coffee shop and the local bank were heavily damaged or destroyed by the tornado.[66] In addition, three schools were destroyed and electrical service to the city was cut by the tornado.[67]” - why is this in aftermath?
No idea, moved to "impact" section.
”The 5.4.7 Arts Center, named after the date the tornado occurred,[68][69] became the first sustainable LEED-platinum building in the state of Kansas and the first in history to be built by students following its opening on June 16th, 2008.” - students? I’m assuming kindergarteners unless told otherwise :P
I suggest combining both schools in the aftermath, since they’re both mentioned under the Delmer Day section.
”The Kiowa County Memorial Hospital was reinforced with internal vertical steel beams that extended along the floors and ceilings, along with double-thick masonry walls.” - this could suggest that the hospital was reinforced as a result of the tornado, or that it was already reinforced beforehand (which I think is the case). I suggest rewording a bit.
”Despite this, the hospital sustained heavy damage, and a 9,900 pounds (4,500 kg) steel beam was lifted” - grammar (a 9,900 pounds)
”The damage survey conducted by structural engineers Timothy Marshall and other engineers concluded that winds of 147 miles per hour (237 km/h) were needed to lift and toss the beam.” - why is mph spelled out?
”The survey also noted recommendations for the newly implemented Enhanced Fujita Scale, recommending that two new Degree of Damage (DOD) indicators be added to the list of 23 existing indicators to evaluate the scale of damage to load-bearing masonry buildings and timber-frame buildings.” - did this happen?
”During the event, meteorologists working with UMass deployed the instrument for approximately 70 minutes, detecting ten tornadoes produced by the Greensburg storm.” - this feels like it should belong under “satellite tornadoes”, not aftermath.
”In April 2009, U.S. Representative Jerry Moranintroduced the Greensburg, Kansas Recovery Extension Act to extend recovery funds through June 2010.” - didn’t Moran later become a senator? Something like “then-congressman” would be helpful if that’s the case. (Will delete this if I look up later that Moran was not a senator)
I went ahead and changed it to "then-U.S. representative". Moran is still an active U.S. senator (actually the most senior member of the U.S. Senate in 2025), so it is better to phrase it like that. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)16:07, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it is clunky, but "then-congressmen" would actually be incorrect since "congressmen" just means someone in the United States Congress, which he still is a member of. When Senator Moran retires or leaves the U.S. congress, I would want it changed to "then-congressmen", but at least at the time of this FAC, "then-U.S. representative" is needed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)20:40, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
”The Kiowa County Memorial Hospital was the only building that was an exception to the LEED platinum requirement, although the hospital later garnered an LEED Platinum certification.[117][118] In 2010, after planning to be rebuilt and being completed in March of the same year at a different location within Greensburg,[117][127] the Kiowa County Memorial hospital became the first in the United States to operate using carbon neutral energy.” - probably more important the town got its hospital back, not that it had LEED certification, so I suggest some reorganizing here, namely emphasizing when the hospital was rebuilt first. The hospital info is spread over two paragraphs, so it should be combined and streamlined. The hospital has an article already.
”The Kiowa County Memorial Hospital was the only building that was an exception to the LEED platinum requirement, although the hospital later garnered an LEED Platinum certification.” - Eeks, this sentence appears twice verbatim in back to back paragraphs.
”Prior to the tornado, the county relied on an informational pamphlet from the 1990s as its emergency action plan; the pamphlet reportedly provided inadequate preparation in the event of a significant disaster.” - did this change?
There unfortunately aren't many sources on mitigation in Greensburg, and the 160 refs are really most of what I was able to find on the event itself (as required at WP:FACR). EF502:23, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason the “casualties” section is after the aftermath? Seems more like a subsection of “impact”.
Not sure, but made a subsection of "aftermath" as imo the casualties are part of the tornado's aftermath and not impact itself, since someone died in September from the tornado. EF502:23, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
True, but the person died because of injuries sustained during the tornado. An example of an aftermath casualty is if there are downed power lines, and someone touches it afterward, or if a tree got damaged during a storm, then struck someone days later. I don't know if that's the case here. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I kinda get the inclusion of the tornadoes near Greensburg going back to 1923, but most of them don’t seem to have much relation to the 2007 event. The first two could be part of background if you wanted to indicate previous tornadoes affecting the city, but idk about listing every tornado since 2007, not when three barely did anything.
Fair enough, I'll mention the 1923, 2012 and 2025 tornadoes, all of which either directly impacted Greensburg (1923) or were described as being similar to the 2007 event (2012 & 2025). EF502:23, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So that’s it. Let me know if you have any questions about my comments. I know you want this to be featured and not have to wait two more years (for the 20 year anni)! Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The tornado eventually entered Kiowa County, crossing U.S. Route 183, before reaching a peak width of 1.7 miles (2.7 km) to the south of Greensburg, before entering the city. - Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the tornado's left turn before entering the city a major enough aspect of this event enough to be put in the lede? Departure– (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kiowa County, the county in which Greensburg is located, was declared a disaster area in the immediate aftermath of the tornado. - I feel it's relevant to specify if this was at the Federal or State level, if not both. Departure– (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the "green town" built by the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Long-term community recovery plan. - Why is "Long" capitalized here but not earlier in the lede? Departure– (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EF5: No, never! Well, maybe next tornado season. I have been busy with an off-wiki project that's taking up a lot of my time and energy but I can come back to this sometime tomorrow and help finish this review. I only went through the lede as of now. Thanks! Departure– (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kansas sees the second-highest number of tornadoes per state, - It's unclear what this is measuring. It should be specified if this is tornadoes per square mile/area, average tornadoes per year, or tornadoes in the historical record. Also, add a note of what the first state for either metric is (done here for Texas). Departure– (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of these eventually produced 20 to 22 tornadoes, including the Greensburg tornado and its satellites. - This unclear figure is stated so matter-of-factly with no explanation. Would an "at least" work here? Also, explain what you mean by "satellites".
Multiple supercells first developed near the Kansas-Oklahoma border, - Unclear what relation these supercells have to anything. The previous sentence introducing the Greenfield tornado should be moved past here. Also, describing the supercells as "multiple" is redundant with the "s" at the end of "supercells" and makes this awkward in a way I can't describe. Maybe "the day's first supercells"? Departure– (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Greenfield article has been engraved in your brain, lol. Really, though, I've reworded it.
Over the next hour the cells combined into one large supercell near U.S. Route 183. - Was this every single cell over this part of Kansas merging, or just one or two? "The cells" means the previously introduced one which cover a very large area. Departure– (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At around 8:30 p.m., storm spotters began reporting wall clouds, - I think it's important to clarify what a wall cloud is to the uninitiated, and to explain where it was spotted. Departure– (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This hook echo was accompanied by the Greensburg tornado, is awkward, because to my knowledge hook echos and tornadoes are innately linked and the use of "accompanied" implies they were independent of each other. Departure– (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
which touched down at 9:03 p.m. south of Greensburg. - How far south? Miles over rural prairie and farmland make a difference when the tornado was close to two miles wide at one point. Even naming what part of the county will go a long way here.
The entire first section of the Tornado summary section should be moved to somewhere towards the end, maybe under a section called "coverage" or something of the like. Departure– (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Around 800,000 cubic yards (610,000 m3) of tornado-related debris was removed from Greensburg in the aftermath of the tornado. - Is it possible to attribute a date to this claim ("this much debris was removed by April 8, 2008")? Departure– (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The damage survey conducted by structural engineers Timothy Marshall and others concluded that winds of 147 mph (237 km/h) were needed to lift and toss the beam. - How is this specific claim relevant? It's well within the scope of the tornado being of EF5 intensity, and the rating of damage to the building isn't brought up. Departure– (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The study was noted as being one of a few ever conducted to observe both an EF5-rated tornado and two separate storm modes, which refers to separate movement types of severe storms. - I don't accept this definition of "storm mode" as-is. "Movement types" is ambiguous to me, as it could mean the orbiting satellite storms, subvortices, or splitting left- vs. right-moving storms, as opposed to simply supercells and squall lines. Departure– (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm missing something "storm modes" is how it was written in the source, although it doesn't expand on it. Looking up "storm modes" gives me that definition. Do you have any suggestions (/gen)? EF517:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that my IPBE right expires tomorrow and if I have the same issues obtaining it like I did last time it may be a bit before I respond. EF522:32, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Greensburg tornado was followed by multiple other tornadoes across southern Kansas, although none struck populated areas and inflicted damage of the extent seen in Greensburg. Give a timeframe - later that night, or since 2007 in general?
The damage survey found that the worst tornado damage cut a 5-block wide swath through the center of Greensburg and that zero tornado shelters were located in Greensburg. I find it hard to believe there were no storm shelters in the whole town; is this referring specifically to single-purpose tornado shelters, to public-access shelters, or...? Departure– (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The UMass X-Pol (X-band, mobile, polarimetric Doppler radar) is an X band pulse-Doppler radar system, with a 1.2-inch (3.0 cm) wavelength, that is installed on a modified Ford F-350 pickup truck. The instrument was constructed at the Microwave Remote Sensing Laboratory at the University of Massachusetts (UMass) and has been used in several studies of tornadoes since 2003. The observation aimed to document the early stages of the Greensburg tornado's life. The study was noted as being one of a few ever conducted to observe both an EF5-rated tornado and two separate storm modes, which refers to the meso-beta-scale organizational characteristics into a severe storm. - I think that this goes into too many irrelevant details on the system, and doesn't introduce "the observation" brought up in the third sentence. Departure– (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Kiowa County Memorial Hospital was the only building that was an exception to the LEED platinum requirement, although the hospital later garnered an LEED Platinum certification - Inconsistent capitalization, and since it already was introduced earlier, the second mention could be replaced with "although the hospital later attained the certification". Departure– (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Legacy should have a subheader for "later tornadoes", alongside a move of the .gif of the Kiowa County storm this year further down next to the relevant text.
Other than these concerns, the article is in immaculate shape considering it barely existed this time last year. Great work! Address these and I'll gladly support FA status. Departure– (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Almost to a support, the part about the mobile radar observations still lacks introduction for "the observation". Adding "The radar unit, which has specifications and is on a truck, observed the storm" to it would fix this. As for the tornado shelter part, that should probably be made more prominent and some more elaboration on how people survived be made; cellars and/or "interior rooms on the lowest floor of a building" come to mind. Departure– (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The UMass X-Pol (X-band, mobile, polarimetric Doppler radar) is an X bandpulse-Doppler radar system, with a 1.2-inch (3.0 cm) wavelength, that is installed on a modified Ford F-350 pickup truck, observed the storm. is grammatically incorrect - changing a few words (dropping the first "is" and replacing it with a comma after the parentheses, and removing the "that is" in "that is installed") will fix this. Departure– (talk) 22:30, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All objections have been attended to in a satisfactory matter and nothing else comes to mind; make this a support! Thanks for contributing to this excellent article! Departure– (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be conducting an image review for this article. The article contains 24 different images. Only images with issues will be listed below. All other images were reviewed and are satisfactory. All images (minus the first one discussed below) have satisfactory captions in the article. Issues below (minus the first one discussed below) are for Commons/copyright-related templates. Courtesy ping for nominator: @EF5:. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)17:09, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:Greensburg tornado entering town.jpg - Non-free file (NFF). Following numerous and extensive discussions/RFCs on the Commons and English Wikipedia over the last year, including contact with the NWS legal team and EN-Wiki administrators who also are legal professions, the conclusion and general consensus is that a photo of tornado can qualify under the Wikipedia:Non-free content, so long as it is showing something discussed in sources, such as the size of the tornado, shape, ect..., as individual tornadoes are an unrepeatable event and the word "large" has been used to describe the size of a tornado between 0.1 to 2 miles (0.16 to 3.22 km). Several photos of the tornado exist, none are free content to the best of my knowledge, even after a search. I am able to find several references to the tornado and "dark", "night", or "darkness". NFF justification currently does not reflect this, and neither does the image caption in the article. This needs to be fixed, or some other non-dark/night justification needs to be shown.
File:Greensburg radar.jpg should reflect which NEXRAD site as the source, and NWS, FAA, and USAF should be the author. Current source URL ([31]) listed is also a dead URL. If an archive exists, that should also be linked in the summary template, such as in the description. A more detailed description would be beneficial for readers. File:Radar image of the 2023 Amory EF3 tornado.png is an example of a good radar capture description uploaded to the Commons.
File:Tornado warning for Greensburg, May 4, 2007.png needs additional work. It is a screenshot from the Iowa Environmental Mesonet (IEM), which has a copyright disclaimer page explaining their product is in the public domain. Image is good and fine for the article, in general. Copyright template should reflect two parts: one for IEM's copyright and one for NEXRAD's copyright, as both are clearly visible.
I will address shortly. Funny enough, Commons is blocked on the laptop I make most of my edits with, but I'll just do it on my mobile device. EF517:19, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've already addressed the NFF issue. With great thanks to @Hoguert:, @WeatherWriter: I think that should be everything. I'll do two in a minute; I'll have it done by the time you respond. Also, I don't think IEM has it's own copyright notice. EF518:42, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1-11 are satisfactory for FAC. NFF caption was fixed to show it is a visual for the tornado's size (i.e. "large"). NFF Media data and Non-free use rationale summary box does not reflect this yet as it states the rational is "Will depict the tornado at its most intense point and to visually identify the subject of the article", which does not mention size. Also, given the NFF rational is the size, a source for "large" should be added to the NFF's description box. I recommend adding a sentence explanation with the source for "large" using the |Other information parameter; the same way File:Photograph of the 1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado.png links to a discussion on the Commons. To sum it up:
All free photos are Done.
NFF caption in article is Done.
NFF rational and data box is Not done and needs fixed; specifically the "Purpose of use in article" needs changed and source for "large" should be added and explained using the "Other information" parameter. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)20:13, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is very lengthy and well-written, and overall deserve FA-article, though I still have one critique. The Later tornadoes is called that, but it includes tornadoes that occurred before the tornado. "Greensburg has seen numerous other tornadoes on its borders before and after the 2007 tornado. On May 22, 1923, an F3-rated tornado grazed the edge of town, injuring eight people and affecting 40 homes. On June 16, 1928, an F2 tornado tracked 40 miles (64 km) through areas west and south of Greensburg, injuring two people." I'm thinking you should probably change the section to "Other Tornadoes". Hoguert (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding #7, National Severe Storms Laboratory is the publisher - does its publication share the name? Same question for #8 and some others. #109 seems adequate for the claim it's sourcing, I wonder if there is any indication that Moran introduced this bill for this particular tornado though. I am not sure that Tnemec is a good source for a claim like "Construction of a new water tower was made a high-priority task because it was a crucial aspect of Greensburg's recovery", something a bit more independent might be warranted. What's Liberty Press? Do the Platinum sources in the Aftermath subsection of the Further reading section not have a title? Some other bibliography there also lacks it. Did some very light spotchecking. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:59, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Yes, I think the NSSL is both the publisher and the publication, although I could be wrong. As for Moran, to address the effects of the May 4, 2007, Greensburg, Kansas, tornado is in the source, so it was introduced specifically for the tornado. I've removed Tnemec and Liberty Press. Unless I'm missing something the |title= parameter is filled in for every single source in the "further reading" section. Did the spotchecking verify? I care more about the article quality itself than a little star, although the little star is still something to strive for. EF512:38, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The tornado, commonly known as the Greensburg tornado,[2]" — This probably could be removed, the source doesn't really say it's commonly known and it seems a bit unneeded.
"Cold and dry air from the Rocky Mountains and the West Coast of the United States drops into Tornado Alley, while moist subtropical air is pulled inward from the Gulf of Mexico.[6] The cold air pushes under the warm and moist air, pushing it upward;[6]" — not sure here, but couldn't you remove the first cite since both are the same source?
"At 9:25 p.m., a well-defined hook echo, a radar signature often indicative of a mesocyclone within a thunderstorm, was located in southern Kiowa County.[16] This hook echo was accompanied by the Greensburg tornado, which touched down at 9:03 p.m. south of Greensburg.[17][18]" — I would either add the information in the Smith paper about the hook echo into the quote in [17] or make a new reference after [16] (although that might make too many citations).
This article is about a very obscure short-lived early 20th century attempt at reviving the Federal Republic of Central America. The Federation of Central America, consisting of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, didn't even survive for one year before it fell apart following a military coup in Guatemala. I've asked around for FAC advice for other articles, and I think that this one best fulfills the FA criteria. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 09:50, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given how short this article is, the single-paragraph subsections are not probably necessary.
The sections are distinct/different enough from each other that, in my opinion, it's better that they are separated into subsections. Goign from a paragraph about citizenship to a paragraph about relations with the US is quite a jump in topic. I would like to write more but this country was obscure enough that there isn't much written on it.
Not really/at all. The sources either give brief overviews/mentions about the federation; talk about how the countries met up and discussed the Pact of Union; say why it collapsed within 1 year; and/or explain about how its government was intended to function. It was probably short-lived enough that there wasn't any public reaction to it existing, or if there was, I haven't found a source that documented it (if it was ever documented). PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 23:13, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I read through this, I'm not getting a clear picture of what exactly a "federal republic" is? Did the individual members cease to exist as independent countries, similar to the USSR? Looking at Member states of the League of Nations, I see that both Honduras and Costa Rica were members at that same time the Federation existed, but the Federation itself was not a member. So maybe it was more like the European Union? RoySmith(talk)12:03, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The EU didn't exist as a model then, so it would likely have been like the USSR-style federation. If it only existed for two months there wouldn't have been time for changes to memberships etc. That said, reading through I also have more questions. There is little on the impetus to form the federation, a 100-year anniversary does not explain both public and elite support. I also can't see an explanation for why the dissolution is dated to January 1922, and are left wondering how El Salvador and Honduras gave up, and what positions exactly the elections in September 1921 were for. CMD (talk) 07:24, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded that there was also a want to oppose US influence in the region. I elaborate on this more in a response to Gog the Mild. I elaborated that the elections were for executive and legislative members. I specified that it was for the federal council and the bicameral legislature. I don't want to have to explain what they are there in length since it already has a full section in the "Federal government" section. I also expanded on Guatemala's expulsion from the federation, but I have been unable to find a definitive end date to the federation other than Grieb 1967, p. 117 saying that The New York Times reported that the federation collapsed "By February 3, 1922". My go to source to check would be El Salvador's Diario Oficial newspaper but the URL is dead and both the January and February 1922 editions were never archived. As for "left wondering how El Salvador and Honduras gave up", Grieb and Perry pretty much insinuate that they in fact gave up. I added a sentence summarizing that. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 00:04, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also see this 1 May 1921 article which adds some background data such as the total population (6 million) and area (169,000 square miles) of the federation. It also says they modeled their constitution after that of the US and coins the term "LIttle United States" (which I'm not seeing anywhere else, so apparently not widely used). RoySmith(talk)21:09, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And this article gives conflicting population and area figures, but also adds an estimate of annual foreign trade with the US of $45 million).
Overall, I'm seeing a lot of contemporary coverage in major newspapers which you don't have. The selection of sources you do have are excellent in the sense that they're all serious academic works, but I think you're missing a lot (i.e. WP:FACR 1c: "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature"). The perspective of contemporary reports as these events unfold would be a valuable (I'll go so far as to say essential) counterpoint to the academic literature. RoySmith(talk)21:18, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: I've added missing information that was contained in the four newspapers you've linked. The areas listed don't contradict each other since figure one is with Nicaragua and Costa Rica and the other is without them. As for the source that describes its flag and coat of arms, I'm missing details with regards to what is contained within the triangle. I assume it is the same elements as within the flags of the Federal Republic and the Greater Republic since the source says "The Constituent Assembly has selected the flag and coat of arms of the new Federation of Central America the flag and coat of arms of the old Federation."
I read the constitution and found that it goes into the full detail regarding the coat of arms' design. I'll get to vectorizing it and the flag. It doesn't specify the shade of blue on the flag so the one I choose I suppose is an artistic liberty. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 23:15, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hill, Henry M. [from old catalog] (1921). The union of Central America. Washington. Retrieved September 15, 2025.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
I can't access Gibbs. I don't see anything useful in Hill since it's someone's speech favoring supporting the federation. I'm adding content from Chapman and Warshaw. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 22:21, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand "I can't access Gibbs". Everything in Hathi Trust is publicly accessible. What happens when you click on the link I provided? RoySmith(talk)11:56, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"was a short-lived federal republic". Any chance of a brief in-line explanation of "federal republic", per MOS:NOFORCELINK: "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links."
Just a reminder that this needs addressing. If you are already well aware, then apologies.
Like I should add "was a short-lived federal republic—a union between the three Central American countries of El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua—between 1921 and 1922."? PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 22:56, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lead contains no information on the reasons the five nations considered a federation and - fatally - nothing on its nine-month history. The reasons for its dissolution - so far as the lead goes - is almost as unsatisfactory in that it doesn't give one.
I expanded the lead
"Although Costa Rica signed the pact". When?
The article already says they signed it on 19 January
Ok. Perhaps the late could be put on the end of "the pact was signed by the former four countries" in the lead?
Background: "On 15 September 1821, Central America declared its independence from the Spanish Empire". This begs a lot of questions and IMO a further paragraph is needed explaining, for example, what the Spanish Empire was, how it came about, why it broke up, what happened to the rest of it. Plus a brief introduction to the region - population, economic importance - or not - relations with other nations, why/how it came to be made up of five nations - how did they come to be?.
@Gog the Mild: I don't think going into detail about the Spanish Empire is relevant to this. I added sentences explaining how long and how it was organized under Spain. This should explain why the region had local identities instead of a united one. I also listed the failed reunification attempts prior to the 1921–1922 attempt. I don't want to go into too much detail on why they failed, I think knowing that they failed is enough. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 22:51, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The region's governments wanted to". When you say "The region's governments", are you referring to the governments of the five nations mentioned in the previous sentence?
I specified "the governments of the Federal Republic of Central America's former members"
Establishment: the first and second sentences seem to me to be chronologically juxapositioned.
Reversed the order
"former members attempted to restore it on several occasions, including during the 19th century". Does this mean efforts were only made in the 19th century, or in both the 19th and 20th centuries? If the latter does it mean to date or just prior to the discussions which led to the FCA?
All attempts prior to this one that the article is about were in the 19th century. The prior one was the Greater Republic of Central America (1895–1898). Per Bernal Ramírez & Quijano de Batres 2009, p. 77, the major attempts were: Central American Confederation (1842), Republic of Central America (1852), Republic of Central America (1889), Greater Republic of Central America/United States of Central America (1895). Thomas 1952, pp. 863–868 gives information of more minor attempts that resulted in little to nothing.
"The region's governments wanted to restore the Federal Republic of Central America as the centenary of Central American independence was approaching on 15 September 1921." Really!? They didn't see any economic, security, political, ideological, personal or financial benefits then?
A lot of it is an idealistic desire to restore a united Central America, though I added some information about wanting to counter US influence in Nicaragua specific to this reunification attempt at the same source (Salisbury 1977, pp. 591–592). It talks about Costa Rica's and El Salvador's motives, says Guatemala had a pro-union government, talks about how Nicaragua was dominated by the United States' Bryan–Chamorro Treaty, and doesn't mention anything about Honduras.
At the risk of repeating points in the previous comment I am left scratching my head both as as to who in each country was in favour of a federal republic - the head of state, the congress, the voters and/or the populace more widely (assuming they were not the same); little mention is made to any opposers, were there none? - and why - sovereign governments and heads of state are rarely enthusiastic about reducing their powers, other than under extreme pressure of some sort.
I haven't found any mention in any source explicitly saying who supports/opposes it. Historically, it would be the liberals supporting it and the conservatives opposing it (but no source says so that I've found). One bit that kinda tangentially supports this, however, is Browning 1921 saying that Julio Bianchi, a "liberal revolutionist", "visioned [the federation] into being". As for why, the only reasons that come up is the centenary was approaching and wanting to counter US influence in Nicaragua. (More detail in the point above.) Historically, it would be liberal idealism (again, no source says so that I've found, just my gut instinct). PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 23:01, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
December 1920 to January 1921. The source doesn't explicitly say "there were 5 meetings", it just lists the five meetings that occurred. This spans pages 3–52. It's a large page range, so is it better if I list the page numbers as "3–52" or "3, 13, 19, 25 & 51"? Will come back for the rest of the point. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 23:20, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PizzaKing13. I note that there is just one of my comments unaddressed. Ping me when you have responded to it and I will either come back on the totality of your responses or continue the review. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has been open for roughly seven weeks and discussion has stalled. Unless there's significant momentum towards additional support in the next few days, the nomination is liable to be archived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk21:14, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about... a natural disaster that journalist Eliot Kleinberg argued might have caused "the most deaths of black people in a single day in U.S. history." The hurricane caused at least 2,500 deaths and possibly 3,000 or more, the vast majority near Lake Okeechobee. About three-fourths of the deceased were black migrant farm workers, with many of their bodies tossed into mass graves and mostly forgotten about for more than half a century. The storm is the fourth deadliest hurricane in the history of the United States and the second deadliest ever in the continental United States.
I created this article several years ago (passed GA review in 2017) to expand upon the information available on Wikipedia about this tragedy and because the main article on this hurricane could become too large because the same storm also devastated parts of the Lesser Antilles. With the 100th anniversary of the Okeechobee hurricane in September 2028, I have put in a lot of effort in the past few months to improve the article – including several grammar checks and reviews of the sources for the purpose of verifying info – with the goal of becoming a TFA around the centennial. Thank you in advance for feedback on this article.
12george1 (talk) 05:12, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a subarticle of 1928 Okeechobee hurricane, so a clear link to that parent article should probably be in the first sentence. I see a link to the parent article at top of InfoBox; and there is a link to the parent, kinda hidden, in the 2nd sentence: The storm originated from a tropical depression ... Consider changing the first sentence to be The effects of the 1928 Okeechobee hurricane in Florida included at least 2,500 fatalities .... MOS:FIRST says "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence, although there are exceptions...". That doesnt say that that the full article title must be bolded in the first sentence, just that the topic of the article has to be the (grammatical) subject of the first sentence. Bottom line: first sentence should do what is best for the readers, and that is give them a clear link to the parent article.
Section Effects_of_the_1928_Okeechobee_hurricane_in_Florida#Economic_aftermath has a quote box: {{quote box | ... quote=Reports of storm damage greatly exaggerated. Damage negligible and confined almost entirely to Palm Beach ...}} Quote boxes are essentially prohibited by MOS guidelines (MOS:PULLQUOTE) for two reasons: (1) they give tremendous emphasis to the quote ... a huge "LOOK AT ME" directed at the reader. and (2) placed on the side, as they are, the reader is deprived of key contextual information from the preceding body text. Thus, block quotes are reserved only for very famous, impactful quotes. Consider changing to use template:blockquote (see MOS:BLOCKQUOTE) ... which is a nice middle ground: still shows the quote, but not ostentatiously, and reader has good context from body text leading into it.
I glanced at some images, and most appear to have good free-to-use data (but I'm not claiming this is an image review). For image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1928_Okeechobee_hurricane_2.jpg it uses {{PD-heirs}}. Is there a requirement to provide a link or other data that gives some evidence that the heirs gave permission?
I've never dealt with {{PD-heirs}}, so I'm not sure either. @Tysto uploaded the file and added it to the article. I assumed it's usable because of the ≥95 years in the US rule, but I don't know if it was published then and the author is named and has been deceased for less than 70 years (if that's relevant)--12george1 (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "page size" tool shows a prose word size of 10,885 prose words. The WP:SIZERULE suggests a limit if 9,000 prose words. That is not a hard limit: "[over 9,000] Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material." Since this article is a sub-article of the wider-scope 1928 Okeechobee hurricane article, I would expect the latter to have a reason to waive the 9,000 target (but sub-articles? not so much).
Thanks for doing the trimming ... I know how painful it can be to remove text that took time to craft. But if it makes the article more inviting to general-public readers, it is worth it. Noleander (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote should probably end with a period: All damage figures are in 1928 USD, unless otherwise noted
There are some huge paragraphs in the article. To pick a few random examples:
Lead paragraph The most extensive damage occurred ... in Palm Beach County alone.
In Jupiter, the hurricane ... in Jupiter totaled approximately $900,000.
On September 19, West Palm Beach Mayor ... and West Palm Beach combined
In collaboration with the Extension Division ... to local chapters
I don't think there is a MOS rule on recommended paragraph size, but the FA criteria say the prose should be "engaging". To me, that means that an FA article invites readers with a welcoming aesthetic. I find the numerous large paragraphs a bit intimidating and off-putting (and I'm a compulsive reader, so that is saying something :-). Consider crafting the paragraphs to be more inviting and digestible to the general public.
Needs a section that focuses on the racial issues. The article describes the horrible impact to the African-American community. Readers would benefit from a section title that steers them to a section that focuses on that impact. Example: say a reader is short on time and wants to learn how the black communities were devastated, and was there any Jim Crow or racist explanation. So they scan thru the Table of Contents: yet they don't find a section on that. So are they forced to read the entire article? If the sources support it, consider offering a section to readers that helps them jump that that information (e.g. rename an existing section ... but only if the sources support it, of course). Note that the parent article has such a section: 1928_Okeechobee_hurricane#Racial_issues
Consider providing reader with inflation-adjusted dollar values e..g for damage value in InfoBox (and also in Lead section): ... damage totaled at least $25 million ... It is pretty easy using template:inflation. Example:
... damage totaled at least $25 million (equivalent to ${{Format price|{{Inflation|US-GDP|25|1928|r=2}}}} million in {{Inflation-year|US-GDP}}).
Should only take a couple of minutes to do that for all the 1928 dollar values in the article. Many readers won't grasp the $$ magnitude otherwise.
The project ended the practice of using inflation templates many years ago. I believe the reason was because wealth normalization is better, which "reflects inflation, changes in personal wealth and coastal county population" according to Blake et al. 2011. For example, that's why they estimated that the hurricane would cause $35.3 billion in damage in 2010 and not $317.49 million (the value if I convert $25 million in 1928 to 2010)--12george1 (talk) 05:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Prose improvement: More than a day prior to the storm making landfall in Florida, forecasters such as Richard W. Gray, chief meteorologist at the Weather Bureau office in Miami, believed that the hurricane would not threaten the state. For example, Gray predicted on September 12 that the storm would move westward and eventually dissipate over the Yucatán Channel. These two sentence could perhaps be combined. The "More than a day prior" leads the reader to think you will identify an event (such as a prediction), but instead it says Gray "believed" something ... which is not an event that has a specific time. "For example" is not needed ... and should go away if the 2 sentences were merged.
Prose improvement: . The American Red Cross estimated the number of fatalities at 1,836, which remained the official toll until 2003, when the National Weather Service revised the fatality count to at least 2,500. Consequently, the 1928 Okeechobee hurricane is the second-deadliest cyclone in the contiguous United States, behind only the 1900 Galveston hurricane, and the country's fourth deadliest overall, after Hurricane Maria in 2017, the 1899 San Ciriaco hurricane, and the 1900 Galveston hurricane.[44][45] Additionally, the 1928 Okeechobee hurricane constitutes the deadliest weather event on the East Coast of the United States.[46] This revision occurred because the burial sites at Port Mayaca, Woodlawn Cemetery, and the pauper's cemetery in West Palm Beach collectively containing 2,343 bodies and a 1958 letter...
"constitutes " is not the best word there
The sentence " This revision occurred because ..." belongs immediately after the "... 1,836, which remained the official toll until 2003, when..." sentence
... the country's fourth deadliest overall, after Hurricane Maria in 2017, the 1899 San Ciriaco hurricane, and the 1900 Galveston hurricane.... Is it possible to tighten by linking to some list of deadliest hurricanes (e.g. List_of_Atlantic_hurricane_records#Deadliest_Atlantic_hurricanes? Normally a list like that is not written out in body text.
@12george1 @Gog the Mild - Okay, I'll make a second pass thru the article. Regarding inflation templates: Can you point me to the discussion in the Hurricane project where consensus was reached about the inflation template? And if the inflation template is to be avoided for hurricane articles, is there another template that the Hurricane project recommends in its stead? If the discussion in the Hurricane project was simply an informal chit-chat among a few editors, that does not outweigh the benefit of giving 2025 readers a better feel for the 1928 $$ values. When an article about a 1928 event says "damage was $10 million" that is virtually meaningless to a modern reader ... we have to give readers something more concrete that they can understand. Noleander (talk) 04:06, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Noleander - Pass 2
Regarding inflation values for this article: When an article about a 1928 event says "damage was $10 million" that is virtually meaningless to a modern reader ... we have to give readers something more concrete that they can understand. I see a discussion about the validity of inflation in the Hurricane project at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones/Archive_37#Inflation_figures. It is a small discussion: only four editors participated, two of the four though inflation was bad for hurricane damage valuation. The other two didn't seem to care. It is far from a consensus. Editors that want to prohibit inflation values should initiate a formal discussion on the level of a RfC: involving 10+ editors, open for a couple of weeks, closed by a non-involved editor, and summarized with a closing statement. Has the hurricane project attempted to create a more appropriate "damage/replacement value" template? If not, why not? Obviously, inflation is far from accurate in gauging replacement/damage values; but it is better than nothing. As a compromise: what about the possibility of using the inflation template, with a footnote indicating that it is only a very crude approximation to damage/replacement values, and include a citation to that "wealth normalization" source you mention above?
Inflation redux: If WP were to adopt a policy that inflation template cannot be used for property damage values of historic hurricanes, should that same policy apply to all natural disaster articles (tornadoes, earthquakes, volcanoes, mudslides, etc)? In other words: if an RfC were created to establish a policy: it should include all topics where property damage/replacement values are critical to the article, no?
Tables: distinguish: there are two tables near the top of the article: "Strongest landfalling tropical cyclones.." and "Most intense landfalling tropical cyclones..". I gather that the difference is windspeed vs atmospheric presure, yes? And the words "strongest" and "intense" are jargon from the hurricane science community for those two concepts? For a general purpose encyclopedia, it is better to use more understandable words for the titles of the tables. Even if there are WP articles for Hurricane intensity etc, why make the reader click on a link in the table title to figure out what the table is about? Suggest reword titles as "Landfalling tropical cyclones ranked by wind speed" ... and " ... ranked by atmospheric pressure"
That is all I have. Leaning Oppose. The prose and style is fine, but the $$ values in the article are 100 years old, and provide no meaningful information to the readers. Here are just two of scores of natural disaster articles that use the inflation template:
1999 Sydney hailstorm (a Featured Article) - damage bill caused by the storm was over A$1.7 billion (equivalent to $3.8 billion in 2022)
I would change my mind if there were a WP-wide RfC which opposed use of the inflation template in natural disaster articles. Until then, benefiting the readers is paramount. As a compromise, consider using the inflation template, and include a footnote each time that says something like: "This inflation-adjusted value is a very crude approximation to damage/replacement values.[cite a source that says why]". Noleander (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noleander, I'll be responding to everything here in Pass 2. I found discussions such as the one you listed, but yeah, they had rather limited participation and appear to suggest no alternatives. So I decided to add inflation templates and a note about wealth normalization. As for the tables you mentioned, they have a note at the bottom indicating what they mean. But I guess they can be more straight-forward. I revised the tables.--12george1 (talk) 03:49, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@12george1 - Maybe you already know this, but if you want to share the same "efn" footnote in many locations (e.g. at each inflation template usage), you can use a "name" field in the efn template. The first time you supply the text: {{efn | name=inflationNote | The value, as adjusted for inflation, is only a crude estimate because damage values are ... }} then later just use the name only: {{efn | name=inflationNote}}. But there are probably lots of other ways to do it. [edit: never mind, I see you already implemented the inflation stuff]. Noleander (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve been looking forward to George nominating this. It’s a great read, and I even laughed at one part (at the newspaper owner being called a “jackass”). There’s a few issues with the article, but nothing substantial enough to oppose. I hope the comments are easy to address, since this is a great example of what a hurricane effects article should look like.
Lead
”making this the fourth-deadliest tropical cyclone on record in the United States and the second-deadliest on the country's mainland.” - the link should probably be when you say “fourth-deadliest” since that’s mentioned first.
”The most extensive damage occurred in Palm Beach County.” - since this is a Florida sub-article, maybe specify “The most extensive damage in Florida…” so it’s clearer you’re only going to be talking about the state (even though yes it’s in the title)
”In West Palm Beach, the storm demolished 268 businesses and affected 490 businesses and destroyed 1,711 houses and damaged 6,369 others.” - this is a bit clunky. I’m sure every business was affected to some degree (rainfall, businesses closed). Maybe something like “In WPB, the storm destroyed X buildings while also damaging Y.”
I feel like the third note, talking about damages in WPB, should be in the body of the article, since references don’t usually go in the lead.
Understandable thought, but the note mentions that Judge E. B. Donnell tallied about $33.9 million in damage for Palm Beach County alone, which is in contrast to "damage totaled at least $25 million" (for the entire state) later in the paragraph, so inserting that note as early as possible might be better--12george1 (talk) 04:58, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
”At least hundreds of structures suffered damage in Palm Beach.” - hundreds implies at least 100, so I think you can lose “at least.”
” An already faltering economy in Florida as the land boom ended and fell into turmoil even before the Wall Street crash of 1929 and the Great Depression began.” - check the grammar here, it seems off, and I suggest rewriting to make the point clearer.
”In West Palm Beach, stores sold food and thousands of candles, kerosene lamps, and boards.” - this sort of thing pops up from time to time in hurricane articles. Idk if it’s needed, since the stores were presumably selling food before the hurricane was active. If you want to indicate the preparations, maybe something like “WPB Residents prepared by purchasing emergency supplies such as…”
”Wind gusts may have reached 160 mph (260 km/h) at Canal Point, though the anemometer blew away after reporting sustained winds of 75 mph (121 km/h).” - so how was the 160 mph estimated?
That's from the MWR, which doesn't elaborate: "reaching an estimated velocity of 160 mph about 10:45 pm. The wind force decreased rapidly after 11 p.m."
”Significant impacts to agriculture occurred, with the storm partly destroying one of the largest citrus crops on record, with approximately 6% of oranges and 18% of grapefruit lost, respectively.” - could you rewrite so you don’t have two “with…” clauses in the same sentence?
”Winds damaged windows and roofs in Fort Lauderdale and Hollywood, but caused minor impact overall.” - I suggest changing the last part since overall there was a lot of damage, just not in these places.
”A boy drowned in a ditch near where his family sought refugee and 51 other people suffered injuries in Broward County.” - the first part makes sense, but the last part seems like an add on. Maybe have the 3 deaths in the county in the same part?
”Overall, the hurricane obliterated 1,711 homes and damaged 6,369 others, rendering about 2,100 families homeless, while also destroying 268 businesses and impacting 490 others.” - similar to before, could you clarify where this “overall” is?
”In Riviera Beach, the storm destroyed 500 homes and impacted another 1,000, while demolishing approximately 100 workplaces and damaged 50 others.” - I suggest removing “impacted another 1,000” unless the impact here is specifically damage. Also, the last part isn’t exactly grammatically correct.
”Strong winds also toppled telephone poles, cars, seventeen windmills at the Pennock Plantation, and two 300 ft (91 m) towers at the Naval Radio Station Jupiter Inlet.” - the winds toppled cars? Otherwise this works fine.
”In addition to extensive structural impacts and loss of life, the hurricane also destroyed virtually all crops and damaged over 150 tractors.” - could you clarify where this was for? The whole region around the lake? A specific county?
”Many boats and barges listed at various angles in the canal and the remains of custard apple trees, twisted metal roofing, lumber, and wood piled against the bridges and littered the streets.” - I’m not too up on boat terms, and forgot for a bit that “listed” is a nautical term that I’ve probably read before but can’t remember exactly what it means. Could you use a more common word than “listed”?
”Will noted that only four tall royal palm trees and piles of rubble remained of Sebring Farms,[125] while just six out of sixty-three people sheltered inside a house survived.” - did you mention this “Will” person before? Because if you did, I’ve already forgotten, and I’m reading the article beginning to end.
”Isaac West's store lost its roof during the storm, forcing its occupants to move into the restroom.” - I didn’t want to point out every business name that seemed superfluous, but I think this is an example where you probably don’t need to mention the exact name, unless the business is still around or it has a wiki article.
I see “Chosen” mentioned a few times. Since that’s such a common term, could you specify what it was, since I don’t believe there’s a wikilink until the aftermath.
”In the former, the hurricane reduced some railroad tracks to "a twisted ribbon of steel.," according to Robert Mykle.” - remove the period from the quote. (I’m on a plane in airplane mode now reviewing this or I’d do the minor edit lol)
”The storm toppled at least 260 telephone poles in Highlands and Polkcounties combined,[154]: 1 while windows shattered at business buildings, signs toppled, several roofs and chimneys suffered damage,[154]: 1 and about 10% of oranges and about 50% of grapefruit were destroyed in the latter.” - too much for one sentence.
In the second aftermath paragraph, maybe specify that the medical actions were to prevent the spread of disease? Some antivaxxers might get the wrong idea if they didn’t know what stagnant floodwaters can do in the tropics.
”On November 18, every Catholic church in the United States contributed a portion of their offering, with $84,200 in aid given to Florida and Masonic lodges nationwide collectively donated more than $107,000.” - are the Masonic lodge donations part of the same collection from the Catholic Church?
”Palm Beach casino owner E. R. Bradley, gubernatorial candidate Doyle E. Carlton, and financier and banker J. P. Morgan each donated $10,000” - not to be picky, but who did they donate the money to? Was there a centralized relief agency? (ARC I’m guessing?) Or was it to the state?
Bradley and Morgan to the ARC. Carlton collected about $10,000 from Tampa and personally distributed the money. Fixed accordingly--12george1 (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
”San Francisco's city council donated $10,000 to South Florida without discussion.” - love that a city across the country did it, but… “without discussion”? Surely the city councilors read the papers and said they had do something? I feel like the last two words aren’t needed, unless I’m missing something.
”The city issued 3,165 permits for building and major repairs between October 1 and June 30, 1929,[188] and condemned many severely damaged buildings for demolition in October 1928,[186] but over 300 condemned structures remained standing until June 1930, when the city manager was finally authorized to execute the order.” - fascinating stuff! Wish it wasn’t all in one sentence.
”Because of disabled vehicles, flooded roads, and limited food and water supplies at the south shore Lake Okeechobee communities, Dr. Buck ordered nearly 200 women and children to walk to West Palm Beach.” - was this person mentioned previously? If so, could you put a reminder who he was? Same question if he wasn’t mentioned.
”With the storm occurring just two years after the 1926 Miami hurricane, when a similar pattern had been noticed,[22] one lasting result of the 1928 cyclone was improved building codes.” - I know a similar thing happened after Hurricane Andrew. Are there any examples of those codes changing?
The image caption under “American Red Cross” has a period at the end, but it’s not a complete sentence. Again, sorry for the minor note, I’m on a plane :P
”In Dade County, the Miami Red Cross Citizens Relief Committee was established, providing aid by transporting "hundreds of loaves of bread, gallons of milk, pounds of coffee and sugar, blankets, cots, and medical supplies.” - who said this quote? Alternately, could you rewrite it so you don’t need to quote anyone?
”Additionally, a rumor circulated, which even garnered sympathy from Governor Martin, that an ARC worker struck Levi Brown on the head and shoulder with an axe and said a racial epithet as Brown ate in a mess tent. However, Brown later admitted that a person attacked him in a restaurant with a meat cleaver.” - somewhat interesting, but it was a rumor. Is this needed?
”Several local clergymen conducted a funeral service, attended by about 3,000 people, including educator Mary McLeod Bethune.” - was this person notable? If not I don’t think you need to include Bethune.
This nomination has been inactive for a couple weeks now without moving towards a stronger consensus to promote. I've added it to the urgents list, but unless there's significant change in the next few days it is liable to be archived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk16:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The last nomination got archived before I could add my comments, which I then added on the talk page [32]. I have nothing more to add, and think that this is an excellent article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:46, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, it's not ideal, but there may not be much we can do about it. I agree that having no image of Jianwen Emperor is better than having a problematic image. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:43, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article also explains that the Jianwen Emperor is one of only three Ming emperors not to have an official portrait; the reason is closely tied to the Jingnan campaign. Regardless of whether this portrait is actually added to the article, I do think the fact that he doesn't have an official portrait like the other emperors is fairly notable and perhaps should be included in the article. Malerisch (talk) 05:37, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Phlsph7's view that it's better not to have an image at all than to have a problematic one. As mentioned, File:Jianwen Emperor.jpg has been uploaded to Chinese forums and websites in Chinese for quite some time and is also widely used in China, but no source can verify it. I don't want to end up like the case of the portrait of Tang Gaozong, which was taken from the web and used for many years before being confirmed as that of Song Gaozong (and is still widely used on Chinese forums and websites). Min968 (talk) 06:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying there's no verifiable source that this picture is of the Jianwen Emperor, it's not enough to just write a name on the picture. Previously, there was also a case where a member uploaded a picture displayed at the Ming Tombs, claiming it was of the Chongzhen Emperor, but it was later confirmed to be of the Tianqi Emperor. Min968 (talk) 06:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source I linked [33] says "However, Zhu Yunwen does indeed have one portrait that has been passed down" (但朱允炆的确有一张画像留传下来), and the caption for that portrait is "A half-body portrait of the Ming Emperor Hui painted by a Qing artist" (清人绘制的明惠帝半身像), so I'm not sure why you think there's no verifiable source. Did your other examples have sources like this? Malerisch (talk) 06:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was saying, "uploaded to Chinese forums and websites in Chinese for quite some time and is also widely used in China". Min968 (talk) 07:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So... we have a reliable source from a history journal/magazine that says that it's a portrait of the Jianwen Emperor and analyzes the portrait to date it to the Qing dynasty; and we have the physical portrait, on which his name is clearly written. But this is being dismissed as "uploaded to Chinese forums and websites in Chinese for quite some time and is also widely used in China". What sort of proof are you looking for? I'm interested in what other reviewers think. Malerisch (talk) 07:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for probing more deeply into this! Who uploaded the image or where they got the image from can be relevant factors. But I think the most important point is just to have a reliable source that confirms (1) the copyright status and (2) that the image depicts Jianwen Emperor. So if we initially get an image from a shady website but a reliable source confirms (1) and (2), we should be fine.
I'm not an expert on Chinese sources, but I would assume that The Paper (newspaper) and National Humanity History fulfill the minimal requirements of reliable sources in this case. Or are there good reasons to think otherwise? For the copyright status, we need to confirm that it is old enough to be public domain. From an automatic translation of the National Humanity History article, I get However, a portrait of Zhu Yunwen has indeed been passed down. ... The original’s provenance is unknown, but judging from the style, it appears to have been painted by an earlier artist. This is not ideal but it should be sufficient to confirm the age.
Whether the article confirms that the image depicts Jianwen Emperor is a more challenging topic. What I get from an automatic translation is that no official image survived and that the image we have was produced later. However, it's questionable how authentic this image is, like the clothing. Maybe someone who actually knows how to read Chinese might be able to do better.
One option would be to present the image not as a lead image but somewhere later in the text, together with a short indication of the difficulties and possibly an explanation for why there is no official portrait. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:26, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I missed it initially, but the article analyzes the portrait after saying that its provenance is unknown and concludes that it was created during the Qing dynasty (1912 or earlier), which should be good enough for copyright. As the article points out, it's certainly not an accurate depiction of the Jianwen Emperor (the artist had no idea what the emperor looked like, and various other details are anachronistic), but it's clear that it was intended to be a depiction of the Jianwen Emperor, so a caption like "Posthumous illustration of the Jianwen Emperor, Qing dynasty" would be appropriate, in my opinion. Malerisch (talk) 10:04, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that location is fine with me. Though unless I missed it, the article doesn't definitively say that it was painted during the Qianlong era, just during the Qing dynasty (possibly based on a series of portraits by Yao Wenhan). Malerisch (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at the whole article in detail, but I feel that the article is far too certain in saying that the Jianwen Emperor died in 1402 palace fire. I've quoted what the sources for this article say about the fire below (no cherrypicking). Several present the issue of whether the Jianwen Emperor survived as a genuine unknown:
Chan 1988 (this is The Cambridge History of China), p. 201: During the melee that followed the arrival of the prince's armies, the imperial palace compound inside the Nanking city walls was set ablaze. When the fire subsided, several badly burned bodies were produced and declared to be those of the emperor, his wife empress Ma (married in 1395), and his eldest son Chu Wen-k'uei (b. 1396). The true fate of the emperor remains a mystery. It is not certain that he actually burned to death; he may have fled the capital disguised as a Buddhist monk, as later historians sympathetic to his cause have alleged. The official histories had to proclaim that the emperor and his eldest son had perished; otherwise, the Prince of Yen could not possibly have claimed the throne.
Chan 2005, p. 67: The fate of the Jianwen emperor remained a mystery: either he died in a blaze of the imperial palace compound inside Nanjing's city walls upon its fall, or, as popular legend claimed, fled the capital in a monk's disguise and lived to an advanced age. The official histories of the Yongle reign had to declare that he, as well as his eldest son, had died. Otherwise the Prince of Yan could not have legitimately claimed the throne. However, private histories sympathetic to Jianwen, which appeared as early as the Jiajing period drawing heavily on anecdotes and rumors, promoted the popular notion that he had "vacated the throne" and survived as a Buddhist monk to his natural years amid a profusion of miraculous legends.
Dardess 2012, p. 34: Then it was reported that the imperial palace was on fire! Who set the blaze? No inquiry was ever launched. The bodies of Jianwen's empress and one of his sons were later found in the charred wreckage. The other son, a baby, was rescued, but placed under house arrest (he was released in 1457). No certain trace of Jianwen was ever found, although various legends had it that he had somehow escaped.
de Heer 1986, p. 60: It was said that, at the Yung-lo emperor's behest, [Hu Ying] had travelled for almost two decades up and down the empire in order to trace the possible whereabouts of the Chien-wen emperor, who might have escaped the burning of the palace when Chu Ti took Nanking in 1402.
Goodrich and Fang 1976, p. 404: No facts about Chu Yün-wen after July 13, 1402, exist at present, and modern historians must form their own opinions about the intriguing puzzle of whether he survived.
The other sources pick a side:
Cotterell 2008, p. 228: At the time it was believed that Huidi had been burned alive in the firing of the imperial palace, but it later transpired that the twenty-year-old emperor, disguised as a Buddhist monk, had escaped into the countryside, where he lived a wandering life for years. Apprehended at last in 1441, after the death of the usurping uncle, he was allowed to spend the rest of his life in quiet seclusion.
Dreyer 1982, p. 169: In the confusion that occurred as the latter took control of the city, the imperial palace caught fire, and the emperor and empress burned to death. ... a charred corpse purported to be that of Emperor Chien-wen was buried, but rumors persisted that he had escaped and survived.
Tsai 2002, p. 70: In the midst of the confusion and panic, the imperial palace enclosure within the city walls caught fire, and Jianwen disappeared. He and his wife were likely burned to death, although legend has it that he escaped via a secret tunnel with the assistance of some twenty people in various disguises and later became a Buddhist monk, hiding outside Suzhou. Other rumors suggested that Jianwen fled overseas and prepared for a comeback.
This article just flatly states that Three bodies found at the cremation site were later identified as those of the emperor, his wife, and their eldest son, which is cited to Chan 1988, when the source actually says that the bodies were just "declared" to be those of Emperor and co., and that it's in fact a mystery. The lead also has the same issue: Despite three bodies found at the cremation site later being identified as those of the emperor, his wife, and their eldest son, rumors of the emperor's survival and refuge in a Buddhist monastery emerged. In my opinion, per WP:NPOV, the article shouldn't take a side, like how it's treated in The Cambridge History of China. Malerisch (talk) 08:13, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, looks good. Despite three bodies found at the cremation site were later announced to be those of the emperor, his wife, and their eldest son needs to be reworded though: "despite" is a preposition, not a subordinating conjunction. Also, I'm not sure that cremation site is the best term to use here, as I didn't see cremation mentioned in any source. Dying in a fire isn't cremation. Malerisch (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Min968 I've gone through about half of this version of the article and left some feedback below. I may get to the rest later. Please point out if you think I've made a mistake, or if you don't agree with something.
I don't think [2] supports the sentence it's attached to, as it states as a fact that the Jianwen Emperor survived rather than supporting rumors emerged. To be honest, [2] seems like a weak source: Cotterell's only apparent qualification is that he was a principal of Kingston University; he isn't a historian, and this book is published by The Overlook Press (not exactly an academic or mainstream press). The book itself has no inline citations and only four pages of "Notes and References" at the end, which I'd say is more accurately described as further reading. As this is the only time this source is cited, I'd replace it with something else.
Many of the notes don't have cites, and aren't supported by the text either (e.g. Chinese New Year, Mei Yin). Even if the note is supported by the text elsewhere, I would include a cite in the note itself. Ensure that all Chinese characters in names and titles are sourced.
Early life
[3] doesn't include information saying that Upon establishing the Ming dynasty and assuming the imperial title in 1368, just that the Hongwu Emperor started the dynastic tradition in February 1368 by designating a heir. The statement is true but needs a cite.
[4], not [1], supports primogeniture viewpoint, so maybe move [1] to the end of the sentence next to [4]. Also, In May 1392, Zhu Biao died at the age of thirty-seven appears to be supported by page 49 of [4], not page 50, so the cite should probably say pp. 49–50, not just p. 50.
I'm not sure how [1] supports not physically fit. Mote just says he was bookish and gentle. However, [3] does say that he had little physical prowess, so this should be fixed.
He was known for his polite demeanor and adherence to Confucian values, such as ren (benevolence) and xiao (filial piety): [3] says Later scholars sympathetic to the deposed emperor produced contradictory, laudatory accounts of the reign, presenting the emperor as a filial son and a benevolent ruler, a paragon who followed the advice of Confucian scholars and ameliorated the harsh administration of the dynastic founder. ... These defective, conflicting sources require the most careful scrutiny. The truth about many aspects of the Chien-wen reign will always remain obscure. This shouldn't be stated in Wikivoice, and the article should note these conflicting views.
[1] may not go into enough detail on Lan Yu to support potentially dangerous. Is there a better cite for the purges?
In note j, is there a source that connects the execution of Hu Weiyong in 1380 to the 1390s purges for ensuring a smooth transition? [1] only mentions Lan Yu.
Accession
The Hongwu Emperor died on 24 June 1398 and on 30 June 1398, Zhu Yunwen took the throne as the Jianwen Emperor. needs a cite. It's not supported by [7].
Reforms
I don't think [9] mentions military commanders or the emperor's uncles.
How does [9] support the Jianwen Emperor discussing policies with them and overseeing their implementation by the ministries, or This reform proved beneficial for the administration of the empire?
it went against the edict of the Hongwu Emperor, which strictly prohibited the restoration of the chancellery in any form: [9] says Withholding that was but a formal gesture toward the first emperor's Ancestral injunctions, which strictly forbade the appointment of chancellors. In other words, the Hongwu Emperor's edict was nominally still followed: close, but not quite going against the edict.
1.36% of the empire's land: [13] says 1/88, which is 1.136%.
In 1400, land taxes in Jiangnan were significantly curtailed.: [13] says that taxes in Nanzhili and Zhejiang were reduced. Jiangnan wasn't exactly equal to Nanzhili + Zhejiang.
limiting the tax exemptions: I would rephrase this to make clear that the tax exemptions were specific to land (e.g. limiting the amount of tax-exempt land), not anything else.
The list of the emperor's uncles is not included in [14], but it appears on page 194 of the same source. This needs a cite.
had their own personal guards: [14] says commanded three auxiliary army units. personal guards makes it sound like the princes had a massive number of royal guards.
Some of them even led the Ming armies in the 1390s, particularly on the northern border.: [15] is only about Zhu Di, not the other princes, and not specific to the 1390s.
[15] doesn't support The princes saw the Jianwen Emperor's efforts as a personal threat..., or xuefan, or Rebellion of the Seven States, or Princedoms were either directly suppressed or had their powers limited. The previous page does however. suppressed should also probably be changed to abolished to match the source; they're not the same thing.
[14] doesn't support Hongwu Emperor's laws which stipulated that they, at the head of the government's armies, should serve as strategic strongholds against Mongol invasions and internal uprisings. Page 192 (one page after [14]) says the following about what the Hongwu Emperor's Ancestral injunctions stipulated: If, however, "wicked officials" held sway at court, the princes were to prepare their military forces, wait for the new emperor to summon them to "rectify disorder," and having accomplished their duty and driven out the evildoers, return to their fiefs. This does not refer to either Mongol invasions or internal uprisings.
[18] doesn't mention Qingzhou or Yunnan.
long-term in The main long-term target doesn't seem to be needed or supported by [19] and can just be removed.
Since 1392... should be rephrased to be grammatically correct. Maybe something like After he was passed over as successor in 1392, ... is better.
Overall, there are some issues with sourcing. Before I go further, I'd encourage the nominator to check the rest of the article's sources for accuracy. Malerisch (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At first I thought that this article was somewhat lacking in Chinese sources, but T'oung Pao and Chan Hok-lam seem to be adequately Chinese ... wonder if there are more domestic sources too. I can't access most of these sources so couldn't do any spotchecking, but they seem to be adequate and consistently formatted. Was "Perpetual Happiness: The Ming Emperor Yongle." published in 2002 or 2010? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:44, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence of the lead is too long and complicated. MOS:LEADCLUTTER says Avoid cluttering the first sentence with a long parenthetical containing items like alternative spellings and pronunciations: these can make the sentence difficult to read. In that spirit, I'd skip all the stuff about his various alternate names. You can mention that elsewhere, but it doesn't have to be in the first sentence.
The Jianwen Emperor surrounded himself with Confucian-educated officials and immediately began revising the Hongwu Emperor's reforms when did this happen? I'm guessing "immediately after becoming emperor", but you need to say that.
You should explain what a "crown prince" is. As an American, I have only a vague idea of how hereditary dynasties work, and even less so of Chinese dynasties than European ones, so a little explanation here would be useful.
The era name of his reign, Jianwen, means "establishing civility" up until this point, I've been wondering what these names were all about. Perhaps this could be mentioned in the lead (just not in the first sentence!)
His closest advisors were Huang Zicheng, Qi Tai, and Fang Xiaoru,[11] all of whom were idealistic reformers, but they lacked practical experience in governing the country. I think you want to drop "they" in "they lacked". The subject of "lacked" is implicitly "all of whom".
During the reign of the Jianwen Emperor, the civilian part of the administration gained more influence should probably just be "gained influence". If you want to say "gained more influence", you need to specify compared to what, i.e. "gained more influence than it had under the previous reign".
Hmmm. Upon further reflection, maybe it's fine the way it is.
The Jianwen Emperor relied on Huang Zicheng, Qi Tai, and Fang Xiaoru to lead the government shouldn't this be "The Jianwen Emperor relied on Huang, Qi, and Fang to lead the government" per MOS:SURNAME? And similarly elsewhere in the article.
The number of departments and officials in the ministries was changed, and the status and number of positions in the Hanlin Academy and the Imperial University were increased. I think you need something like "Under the Jianwen Emperor ...", or "During the Jinawen Emperor's reign ..."
This is kind of confusing since it dives into details about the war and the people involved with no introduction. I would expect a section like this to start off with (from Jingnan campaign) "From 1399 to 1402 the Jianwen Emperor was engaged in a civil war against his uncle, Zhu Di" or something like that.
He accused the emperor and his ministers of persecuting the princes you should specify that you mean the Jianwen Emperor, not Hongwu which you mentioned in the previous sentence.
This article is about a species of commonly encountered leech found in eastern North America. The leeches grow up to 8.5 cm long and have striking orange spots on their backs and a mottled, dull orange underbelly. Their saliva, like that of several leech species, is of scientific interest, and it contains a blood-thinner dubbed "decorsin" which may be unique to the species. Cremastra (talk·contribs) 16:23, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport: The 19th century sources are a bit much. Are there not more modern handbooks to use at least for the description and ecology sections? 1960s and later is most ideal. LittleJerry (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will do some more thorough searching around if 19th-century sources are discouraged, but the answer is probably "not really".
Moore (1901) says: "this fine leech is so well known and has been so fully described by Say ('24), Leidy ('38), Verrill ('74), and Brooks('82), that only a few notes on certain features need to be added." I use Leidy and Brooks the most of those four.
More recent is Sawyer (1972) who does provide a brief description (on page 67), and I cite him a little as well. I've included the more recent sources that I can find, but Brooks provides the best description of the internal anatomy. The description section isn't really too heavily reliant on 19th century sources anyway. At my count there are only eleven sentences in "Description" which are sourced only to 19th-century sources, mostly in "Anatomy". There are 30 sentences in the section, so that comes to 37%. In "Ecology" there are zero citations to 19th century sources, so I'm not sure what the problem is there. Cremastra (talk·contribs) 22:55, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After some initial specific searches for field guides, handbooks, and papers with diagnoses, it seems that there certainly are guides and handbooks with descriptions of M. decora, they're just not nearly as detailed as the sources used in the article. Continuing. Cremastra (talk·contribs) 23:10, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Taxonomy is a bit outside my field of expertise, so I'm mostly reading this for prose and I'll leave the more technical comments to others.
Per WP:MTAU, some terms that could benefit from in-line definition: ocelli, ganglia, pharynx (maybe the explanation you've got now is enough for that one), acetabulum, osmotic shock, epididymes, testisacs, ovisacs, oviducts, transcriptome, phylogeography, digestive tract symbioses, gut microbiome
All leeches have 32 segments, but they are all also covered with external rings called annuli I'm not sure what "all leeches" means in this context. Do you mean all individuals of this species, or all species across Hirudinea? I'm guessing the latter, but you could be more explicit.
Clarified. The latter.
a nervous cord running the length of the body is "nervous" the right word here?
Possibly not, but Brooks called it a "double commissural cord" which seems a little technical, and also outdated in terminology. I'll look around for some better phrasing.
where the other nineteen connect to four or fewer nerves each Perhaps "while the other ...", or maybe "whereas the other ..."?
Fixed.
connected to the ocelli by five optic nerves I'm curious how five nerves connect 10 ocelli.
Fixed.
Macrobdella decora has three long jaws having only two myself, I'm unclear how three of them work. The cited AMNH paper has a photo, but I can't figure out what it's trying to show. Perhaps a diagram would help?
Added a description ("chitinous blades with sharp, serrated edges").
Each jaw uses a saw-like motion to cut open the skin specify that it's the victim's skin.
Done.
the first tenth or so of the leech's digestive tract You can leave out "or so"; I think readers will understand this is an approximation without that.
Done.
M. decora has ten pairs of testisacs located from segments in the lead you say "ten testisacs", here it's ten pairs.
Fixed. It's ten pairs.
including hirudin, an anti-coagulant coagulation is complicated magic, and I would imagine different species have somewhat different coagulation pathways. Does hirudin work only on certain species, or is it universal in its effect?
It seems hirudin inhibits thrombin, like most anticoagulants. Our article on thrombin of course focuses on thrombin in humans, because of course nothing else matters, apparently, but thrombin is also present among other mammals [37][38] and amphibians [39], and presumably in other animals as well. This source says that "heparin" is "a universal mammalian anticoagulant", whilst implying hirudin isn't. This paper discusses hirudin and thrombin in detail, but only in the human pharmacological perspective. I'll do some more digging, though.
They are also found on Prince Edward Island I'd say something like, "at the eastern end of their range ..."
Fixed.
The leeches may be panmictic I think you mean "The various species of leeches may be ..."? Or maybe not? In any case, clarify.
Randomly picking text blocks (text until next inline citation) to check.
First block in "Taxonomy" – OK.
Last sentence first paragraph in "Taxonomy" – OK.
Macrobdella decora is a medium-sized leech, growing between 5 and 8.5 cm (2.0 and 3.3 in) long, and weighing from 1.48 to 3.69 grams (0.052 to 0.130 oz).[8]: 67 [9]: 155 – The second source supports this, but the first says 5 to 9 cm instead and no weight estimate, so I wonder why the first is cited to begin with. A minor issue is that the estimates are based on six specimens only, hence the highly precise numbers; maybe these should be rounded, or it should be stated that the numbers are based on six measurements, but it is not a strong point and I leave it to you.
M. decora has a large muscular pharynx which accounts for the first tenth of the leech's digestive tract. The stomach, a large pouch composed of smaller sacs, is not nearly as muscular as the pharynx, but it occupies about five sixths of the leech's whole body and is subdivided into eleven chambers. The intestine extends from behind the stomach and narrows towards the anus. The last part of the intestine is the colon, followed finally by a small rectum. – When reading this, I thought five sixths of the leech's whole body refers to body volume, as is somehow implied by your use of "but" which makes the connection to the muscular pharynx. But the source in fact says "body length", so your wording is slightly misleading. Unrelated to sourcing accuracy, note that "composed of smaller sacs" is redundant with "subdivided into eleven chambers". Maybe the latter phrase is more accurate than the former.
First part of "Parasitism and diet" – OK
Historically, M. decora was not used very often in bloodletting, despite its common name as a "medicinal leech". – OK
Last sentence of article – OK
Conclusion: Text-source integrity is of high standard – except for a few very minor issues, which I listed above.
'Prose
The leeches have also been recorded hunting amphibian larvae: in 2020, a leech was found predating Ambystoma tigrinum larvae in Minnesota. – I do not see why you single-out amphibian larvae here, when you already mentioned that they prey on amphibians? Furthermore, I suggest using the common name of the species instead of the binomen.
Cladogram seems to be unsourced; it should be directly attributed to a source since it is the opinion of a particular study.
The part about bloodletting could do with an additional sentence for context (the use of the European medicinal leech), to prepare the reader for the following text.
Hello Cremastra, I have never reviewed at the FAC level before but I'd like to pitch in here. I'll start leaving comments shortly. Kimikel (talk) 01:57, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my first round of comments. As I said, this is my first time FAC reviewing so take them with a grain of salt.
freshwater leech found in much of eastern North America in freshwater habitats. > I feel like it's already implied that it's found in freshwater habitats since it's a freshwater leech
Done.
; a stomach, the majority of its body length. > This transition feels a little abrupt
It's a standard comma of ellipsis; personally, I kind of like that formation, provided it isn't over used, as concise and easy to read, but if you think it's a problem, I could change it to: ...a pharynx takes up a tenth of its digestive tract, while a stomach takes up the majority of its body length but I think that's needlessly repetitive. Cremastra (talk·contribs) 21:45, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is, however, one disjunct population of leeches living in northern Mexico > remove however; it doesn't contradict the previous sentence, it's just additional information
The species may be mix and breed > extra "be"?
Done, thanks.
but the question remains unanswered and further research into the topic is needed. > I think simply "but further research into the topic is needed." would sound better, since you don't really pose a "question" per se.
Changed, good point.
I've noticed some citations of books/journals have page numbers and some don't; why is that? For example: It is commonly known as the North American medicinal leech.[5] has no page number.
In cases like "M. decora has "from 90 to 94 annuli" in total.[11]" it's because only one page is ever cited, so it's defined in the template as opposed to needlessly using {{rp}}; in the case above, however, it's because I screwed up. {{Rp}} added.
All leech species have 32 segments, but they are all also covered with external rings called annuli > Since these statements aren't contradictory, i would just go with something like "...have 32 segments and are covered with..." instead
Not much to say about the Description section, looks very well done to me
Thanks for the feedback! I do quibble, however, with your suggested changes to "however" and "but". In the first case, it isn't strictly contradictory, but it is very different, so I think the "however" is warranted; in the second case, it's because the annuli are what you see when you look at the leech, not the 32 segments. So there is a contradiction there, at least for the viewer. Cremastra (talk·contribs) 21:45, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good points, I see what you mean now. When I read it the first time, I thought you were just saying that the annuli covered all leeches, not the 32 segments. It might be helpful to clarify that it's the 32 segments that are being covered by the annuli, and that the annuli are what the eye can see. Kimikel (talk) 02:33, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
a new species of which was described from the intestine of an M. decora leech in 1976. > worth mentioning the name of the species
but they are not a very favoured choice. > do we know why?
A question I have, may or not be worth anything: how does being on land affect them? Obviously they're aquatic creatures, but one of the pictures shows one seemingly out of the water. Raises questions like, how long can they live out of water (if that's even a problem for them)? how much time does it normally spend out of water? Just a thought
Minor inconsistency in references: some publishers are wikilinked (Elsevier, U of Illinois Press); some aren't (Oxford University Press, Springer Nature)
Shockingly this part of the review is missing! I'll make this quick.
Just on the captions: "An individual" is unusual but probably acceptable given the lack of a standard way of referring to this animal besides its scientific name.
Map does not have alt text. This is the case on some other pages, but the parameter range_map_alt exists for your use.
Done.
File:Macrobdella decora white background.png: Has alt text, but it is perhaps too detailed - maybe avoid "dorsal" and "ventral". License is correct and matches the source iNaturalist image.
Done.
File:North American Medicinal Leech imported from iNaturalist photo 119677987 on 28 November 2024.jpg: Has alt text and compatible license, iNaturalist import. Subject is identifiable. The placement in the article is a little strange - is this to keep an even distribution?
"... keep an even distribution?" Yes. Moved up to the top of the Description section, it leaves what in vector2010 is a largish gap, but in vector2022 is a rather large one. The images all convey more or less the same information, so I don't think the placement matters overly much.
However, while writing this I checked iNaturalist to see if there were any new/relicensed/overlooked images, and there are several high-quality ones which I'll add to the article, which will change the ordering up a bit. Cremastra (talk·contribs) 22:26, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was quite a gap, and those are some nice images. -RR
File:North American Medicinal Leech imported from iNaturalist photo 56392667 on 4 December 2022.jpg: Has alt text and compatible license, iNaturalist import. This one is especially handsome.
File:North American Medicinal Leech, Bar Harbor, ME 04609, USA imported from iNaturalist photo 416548962.jpg: Has alt text and compatible license, iNaturalist import. Not yet autoreviewed but I can see it matches.
File:North American Medicinal Leech, Tolland, Connecticut, United States imported from iNaturalist photo 785245.jpg: Has alt text and compatible license, iNaturalist import. Not yet autoreviewed but I can see it matches.
" It is not considered to be endangered." This comment is randomly in the middle of the description. I suggest moving it to the end of the first paragraph.
Done.
"A comparison of the saliva of M. decora and that of European species has led researchers to the conclusion that blood-sucking in jawed leeches likely evolved from a single origin.". It is slightly odd that this is the only statement about the evolution of the species. Is no more information available? It is also curious that there is no article about jawed leeches, even though the comment implies that they are a significant monophyletic group among the leeches, presumably dating to before the separation of America and Europe in the Jurassic.
If you want to write an article on jawed leeches, go ahead. See also my comment below (starting with "Nope!") about how much research is actually available here.
"the genus Macrobdella is believed to be a monophyletic grouping. Macrobdella ditreta was previously believed to be sister to the decora / diplotertia clade, but a new species, Macrobdella mimicus, was discovered in 2023 and placed as the sister taxon to said clade." This is confusing. I had to read it several times and look at the cladogram to see what you are saying. Also, "to said clade" is ungrammatical and clumsy.
Please be more precise about what is confusing. Would the genus Macrobdella is believed to be a monophyletic grouping. Macrobdella ditreta was previously believed to be sister to the decora / diplotertia clade. However, in 2023 a new species, Macrobdella mimicus, was discovered and placed as the sister taxon to the decora / diplotertia clade.
"M. decora has "from 90 to 94 annuli" in total." Why is this in quotes? They seem unnecessary and all quotes should be cited inline.
It is in quotes because it is a quote. From a PD source. Which is cited inline. There is no problem here.
Is there any theory why the species has 10 eyes?
Nope! Unlike for the charismatic giraffes and monkeys and all, there aren't very many leech researchers, especially for small details like that. To get a taste of the limited research available, consider that Panthera leo has almost 38,000 hits on Google Scholar, Pongo pygmaeus gets 27,000, and M. decora, quite possibly the most common leech in North America, has just 1,300. There's a reason the article is rather short.
"There is also brain located above the pharynx." This is odd and confusing. "The brain is located above the pharynx"?
Done.
"Nephridia are understood to be the primary organs handling the balance between salt and water in leeches. A 1987 study examined how M. decora withstood osmotic shock (a shock caused by sudden alteration in the concentration of a given solute, resulting in dehydration via osmosis[19]) and found that it could not tolerate hypertonicity (overly salty solutions), and, when compared with the European Hirudo medicinalis, the North American species was relatively inefficient at the swift removal of surplus water and salt." Several points. 1. Why "understood to be"? Is there doubt about it? 2. The relevance of the first sentence is unclear. Maybe clarify relevance by changing "it could not tolerate" to "the nephridia could not tolerate"? 3. There is a non-sequitur as you say that the study was about sudden change, then say a high level, and then go back to sudden change.
1. No, it's just filler to make it sound a little nicer. It can be removed if you think it necessary.
2. Good point; done.
3. It seems they investigated a sudden change to a high level. It can be clarified if necessary.
"ten pairs of testisacs located from segments thirteen to twenty-three". There are 11 segments in 13 to 23 (10 would be 13 to 22).
Yes, I know that; I can count. The testisacs are located at the edges between the segments. If you read the source, you'll find it says, "Testes [...]—ten pairs, situated at XIII/XIV to XXII/XXIII inclusive."
Can the male and female reproductive organs mate with each other in one individual or only with other individuals?
I suppose it's a matter of leech flexibility? They reproduce sexually with each other, though, so the question is moot.
"The saliva of M. decora is also known to contain several substances not previously all identified from the same leech". What does this mean? That different species or different M. decora individuals have different saliva?
No, it means that a combination of substances heretofore not found in one leech have been found in M. decora saliva.
" 2019 paper published in the Journal of Parasitology compared hirudin and decorsin from M. decora, as well as hirudin and "hirudin-like factors" – substances which resemble hirudin but are not known to act as anticoagulants – obtained from European species." The grammar gets lost here. Presumably you mean that they compared decora and European saliva but what was the result?
The result, if you read the very next sentence, is that "The authors concluded that that blood-sucking among jawed leeches evolved from a single origin."
"Being the most widely distributed Macrobdella species, M. decora is found in North America east of the Rocky Mountains in southern Canada and the neighbouring United States." This is a non-sequitur. Maybe "M. decora is the the most widely distributed Macrobdella species, and it is found in North America east of the Rocky Mountains in southern Canada and the neighbouring United States."
"However, M. decora is also preyed on by its own kind: Haemopis grandis, a predator and scavenger leech." I would delete "by its own kind:".
Done.
"a new species of which, Alloglossidum hamrumi, was described from the intestine of an M. decora leech in 1976" It is not new and hardly newly discovered. I would delete "new".
It was new when it was discovered! There's nothing wrong with saying "new" in this context.
"The gut microbiome is simply the collection of microorganisms living in an animal's digestive system." This should be well known to most readers. A link is sufficient without the explanation. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The gloss was added per Roy Smith's comments and I agree that it is helpful.
I'll do a review. Plan on having some time tomorrow and later this week to respond further. This is an interesting and well-written article, so my comments will look fairly trivial. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's an excellent cladogram that quickly answered a phylogenetic question I had from elsewhere in the text.
In "The species may mix and breed randomly" in the lead and, to a lesser degree, "M. decora may be panmictic", the word "may" strikes me as sound more permissive rather than speculative. Perhaps remedy with verbiage like "may be able to" or "is possibly".
Done.
Thanks for mercifully skipping a diagram in the "Reproductive anatomy" section. That's more information than I ever wanted already.
For "also known to contain several substances not previously all identified from the same leech", is it possible to name a novel set of substances and some known characteristics they have?
Other national subdivisions are linked, but "Alberta, North Dakota, Nebraska, Colorado, and New Mexico" contains no links. I can see why not from a SEAOFBLUE perspective, but it might be worth standardizing on linking or not linking across the board.
Noting the heading under MOS:CONFORM about scare-quoting, rendering the conservation status as "Secure" is generally frowned upon. Simply linking without capitalization or quotation marks is preferable.
Done
When referencing the disjunct Mexican population, it's probably best not link all of "one isolated population", but rather just "isolated population".
Swung back here anyhow, looks like my few concerns were addressed. I don't favor the dating format utilized in the citations, but consistent use of an accepted format is sufficient. Otherwise, I like this article. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good article choice. I have a few miscellaneous comments.
The cladogram is taking up a fair bit of space. You could left align it to compress the article a bit more. Right align would be ideal, but would put it too far down (which is why I assume you haven't done that).
"Macrobdella is believed to be a monophyletic grouping." The phylogenetic tree in Phillips et al 2019 suggests otherwise. In that study they directly state the genus is paraphyletic (weakly supported though).
I'll fix that. When I wrote that I was going off the 2005 paper.
Why is M. ditetra and P. gracilis left out of the cladogram? It would make it a more complete tree. Granted it's pretty ugly that Philodella is in there, but the results are the results. Personally, that tree makes me suspect the genus will be synonymized some day.
A quick (ie one-two sentence) summary of how this phylogeney was obtained would be great. Ie mentioning the genes they used and maybe the tree building method.
Not necessary, but would be nice: A photo of one latched on to a person would be great. There might be an image floating around on iNaturalist somewhere.
Your anatomical descriptions rely heavily on the 1800s publications. I take it there hasn't been a modern publication that describes their anatomy?
This article is about the third group of NASA astronauts, nicknamed "The Fourteen". They had the highest death rate of any group: four of the fourteen (28%) were dead within four years. But six of them flew to the Moon (one of them twice) and four walked on it, two of whom are still with us. In an attempt to revive Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Adopt an astronaut, I am submitting the article to FAC. Hawkeye7(discuss)00:46, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"By the deadlines," There were multiple? Even if so, maybe better rephrase around it.
It says above "Civilian applications had to be submitted by July 1, 1963; military ones were due by July 15". Changed to 'By the July 1 and 15 deadlines" Hawkeye7(discuss)21:53, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be interesting to know if there were applications from women, although they would not have met the stated qualifications.
You are inconsistent in linking the names of the colleges attended by the astronauts. You probably don't need to add "at Newark" to "University of Delaware" as it's the main campus and probably was more so then.
Your rationale for linking Gemini/Apollo missions in the list is obscure. Sometimes you link on second mention after (maybe) linking the first time. Gemini 9 is linked as 9A on third mention.
Changed Gemini 9a to Gemini 9. The mission designation was changed to 9A after the original crew was killed, hence that is the name of the Wikipedia article. Hawkeye7(discuss)21:53, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, not sure I like beeing the bump in the road. To be honest, if you asked me a few days ago, I would have said "hard oppose". I've softened a bit since then. I still don't think the table is a good way to do things but I'm hoping to hear from others with more FAC experience than me as to whether I've brought up a legitimate problem or if I'm just tilting at windmills. RoySmith(talk)16:10, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I guess I'm the one who knows something about 1960s astronauts. The article reflects the story of how Group 3 came to be as I understand it as well as the relevant information about the individual astronauts. The article seems a reasonable method of putting together that information, so I'll Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At least for the momemnt, just a few comments from a quick read:
I think the Background section could be trimmed considerably. It's not that that stuff isn't interesting, but I had to scroll down two screenfulls before I got to anything about the subject of this article.
the minimum flight hours was lowered to 1,000 I would give a little more context around this. For example, the minimum for an ATP is 1500 hours, although for sure, 1000 hours in a jet fighter is worlds different than 1500 hours doing primary flight instruction in a piston single.
Some sections suffer from MOS:OVERLINK. I suggest going through the highly blue sections and figuring out what's not really essential to link. For example, does it really help the reader to have a link to Hampton, Virginia? One of the worst sections for this is the first paragraph of Demographics. I would suggest unlinking all of the ranks; I don't really think most readers will want to click through to Major (rank) or Captain (armed forces), and eliminating all those links will improve readability.
Links do not deter from readability, and ranks are not widely understood by the general public.
I disagree. And so does the MOS where it says Overlinking in general is a style issue partly because of the undesirable effect on readability. and An article is said to be overlinked if it contains an excessive number of links, making it difficult to identify those likely to aid a reader's understanding. (the latter in MOS:OVERLINK).
I'm curious why you elected to set out the group members as a table. I would think running prose would be easier to read. The table layout is especially difficult to read on narrow screens, such as a mobile phone.
I agree with RoySmith here, I think MOS:OVERSECTION will look a lot better. I looked at the style followed in NASA Astronaut Group 9 onwards, it is pretty basic yet seems appropriate there. I think a little bit of bio. with that style would be appropriate for this page and all other astronaut group pages. Manav2311 (talk)
The plan was always for Group 9 onwards to be replaced with this style, which we developed for the adopt-an-astronaut project. It enables sorting. Groups 1 and 2 are already featured and use it. Hawkeye7(discuss)20:55, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not following. Where on that page does it say group members need to be laid out in a table? And even if it does, I don't see how a conversation between a handful of people six years ago overrides the MOS or what reviewers today are saying. RoySmith(talk)11:05, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Attached is a (simulated) screenshot from an iPhone 12 Pro. The text in the table is completely unreadable. Trying a few other similar simulated devices (and my physical phone), these results are typical. RoySmith(talk)12:01, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Hey, Hey. I think all of us can agree if MOS:OVERSECTION looks good (both on PC and Mobile version) AFTER someone coverts the table to this format then we can scrap (partially) the previous format and develop a new one. One which probably looks good and appropriate to today's style. Otherwise, we can always revert the changes. Manav2311 (talk) 12:39, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think all astronauts have their own wiki pages, so why not give a brief description of only their role (while training) and their missions and achievements here and just add " main article (name of astronaut)" below the oversection. that is the reason why I was asking to tweak the table in the first place. all the career information is already there on astronaut's page so why unnecessarily write it here too? Manav2311 (talk) 12:55, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly what has been done. Each astronaut of the group has a brief summary of their career. The relevant part of the MOS is MOS:LISTS: a list of items whose descriptions contain more than one paragraph may present better as sections in a stand-alone list article, while tables are better-suited to associating content than description lists, especially when there are multiple values for each item. So the MOS says to use a table. Hawkeye7(discuss)18:52, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another really bad layout, in a reasonable window size on my desktop. Surely that's not a useful way to be presenting this information to a reader? With running text layed out as paragraphs, this would be perfectly readable in a wide range of window sizes. By putting it into a table, you force a fixed layout and prevent the browser from usefully adapting the layout to the screen size. RoySmith(talk)19:21, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks fine on my laptop (screenshot, right), logged out so this is what a regular user will see. The table contains no fixed widths, so the browser is completely free to arrange it as it sees fit. I also tried on my iPhone, and the text is quite readable; you have to swipe right to see it, and the sorting works. (Are you using the desktop version instead of the mobile version on your phone?)
Screenshot of NASA Astronaut Group 3, pixel 6a, desktop view
Screenshot of NASA Astronaut Group 3, pixel 6a, mobile view
Here's two more. These are screenshots from my physical android phone (pixel 6a). One is in desktop view, which is what I usually use. The other is mobile view, which I suppose is what most people use. The first one (desktop view) is at least readable for the most part, it's just badly inefficient use of screen real-estate, which is at a premium on a phone. The second one (mobile view) doesn't even have the main column of text visible until you scroll right, which to my mind is a reasonable approximation of unusable. RoySmith(talk)21:27, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS you owe me a barnstar for figuring out all the steps needed to generate a screenshot on my phone, upload it to drive, download it to my desktop, then upload it to commons :-) RoySmith(talk)21:28, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As an experiment, I have tried to reduce the number of columns in the table, which helps slightly, but does not completely resolve the issue on small screens. See this revision. —Kusma (talk) 20:48, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm trying to figure out is why you want to do the table at all. I see it as having severe layout problems, with the only offsetting benefit being the ability to sort by birth or death order, and I'm just not seeing that as a big enough benefit to offset the layout issues. Is there something I'm missing? RoySmith(talk)01:20, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS calls for tables, and every current featured list nomination bar one uses them. If you want to change the guidelines, you will need an RfC. Hawkeye7(discuss)02:49, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know I'm going to get asked, so I'll say here I'm not going to do a formal review. I still don't think the big table is a good idea, but it's clear that I'm barking up my own tree on that one so I'm not going to push the issue. RoySmith(talk)19:56, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Michael Collins, one of the few who had been through the process in 1962, said it was of polar bears having sex in the snow"MOS:VULGAR at least quote them and add a relevant source (I couldn't open the source PDF). Although, I would suggest removing it all together and adding "to test how people reacted to visual-sensory deprivation" or sth else that seems appropriate.
"The operations branch was headed by Nine astronaut Neil Armstrong" I think everyone knows Neil Armstrong at this point so we can remove Nine astronaut or the more appropriate usage will be the Next Nine astronaut.
"President John F. Kennedy was disturbed at the lingering discrimination against African Americans in the United States in general and the armed services in particular, and in 1962 he brought pressure to bear on the Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force, General Curtis LeMay to nominate an African-American astronaut candidate. The USAF selected Captain Ed Dwight, a B-57 pilot with 2,000 hours in high-performance jets, an aeronautical engineering degree from Arizona State University, and outstanding performance reviews, for training at the USAF Test Pilot School.[29] Dwight graduated with Class 62-C in April 1963. He was the third African American to attend, after John Whitehead, who had graduated in 1958, and Joseph Watts, a civilian, in 1960. The fourth would be Robert Lawrence in 1966; by 1984, six had graduated.[30] Dwight then applied for the ARPS, and Robert F. Kennedy told LeMay to ensure that he was accepted. The commandant, Colonel Chuck Yeager, protested, saying that there were other pilots that had been rated higher than Dwight. All were accepted, so Class IV had fourteen members instead of the usual eight.[20] "Why in hell would a colored guy want to go into space anyway?" Yeager asked, adding: "And if it was left to me, you guys wouldn't even get a chance to wear an Air Force uniform."[31] Dwight was ranked eighth in his class. Along with the seven ahead of him, Dwight was recommended by the USAF for NASA astronaut training "without qualification" in July 1963.[29] Dwight was not one of the final candidates, although classmates Scott and Freeman were." could be shorten a lot as the article is about Astronaut Group 3 and not people who couldn't qualify for the group. Also, the quotation by Yeager might promote hate/anger, so I would suggest to remove it altogether.
Recruitment panel could be made more easy to comprehend if converted into the format similar to NASA Astronaut Group 8. Also, achievement section (eg. Buzz Aldrin - 2nd man on the moon) could be added similar to NASA Astronaut Group 9
The recruitment panel for Group 3 consisted of only four Mercury Seven astronauts and test pilot Warren North, whereas that of Group 8 was much larger and more diverse, so point form seems inappropriate. Hawkeye7(discuss)20:47, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the table issue is something that should not be hashed out here (maybe someplace more general). Tables such as the ones in the present article are great and useful on the desktop while sometimes a bit annoying on mobile. We have large amounts of Featured content that has similar issues on certain small screens / skins / browsers and a specific FA isn't really the place to have this discussion. Anyway, I'd like to review the article text.
I see. I would suggest to at least merge the name and picture fields as in the version I linked to in Roy's section above. —Kusma (talk) 09:24, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, it is fairly short and not very wordy. Some context may be missing for those who haven't read the articles about the first two astronaut groups (like most people who read such an article when it is main page TFA)
The lead is also a bit short and does not cover the whole article (it could spend a sentence saying why new astronauts were needed and a little on demographics and training).
Background: "Civilian applications had to be submitted by July 1, 1963; military ones were due by July 15, to give the services time to pre-screen their applicants." are you saying that civilian applications were scrutinised more deeply and so they had an earlier deadline? With the military ones mentioned closer to "to give the services time" it sounds a bit the other way round?
Ah, you mean the services screened these before the candidates applied? Maybe I'm thick but perhaps this could be clearer. —Kusma (talk) 09:22, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Collins felt that the interview was easier the second time around." why was he interviewed twice? or was this for an earlier selection? If yes, then mention that he had applied before.
Demographics: Was there any change to the height and weight requirements compared to previous groups? (In other words, is the "slightly taller" just statistical noise or does it mean anything?)
It have been statistical noise. The height requirement was firm, but it is possible that it lay less heavily on the selection committee's minds because of the more spacious Apollo spacecraft. The story goes that C.C. Williams spent the night before testing standing up so he would be shorter. Hawkeye7(discuss)20:19, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One-word description of Jerrie Cobb would be nice, I did not know who she was.
I know, I remember reading up what the Apollo XIV astronauts were up to during their training in an ancient meteor crater in Germany. —Kusma (talk) 09:22, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What did they do for the remaining 3 hours? The subjects you mention add up to 237.
"The Fourteen were divided between two branches." was there a difference between the branches, and what did they do? You only tell us one was called "Apollo" and another one "operations".
Legacy: this isn't really legacy, it is just a repetition of deaths/spaceflights/moon from the table. Is there nothing to say about the 50 years between 1975 and 2025?
New heading is much better. I no longer expect much more here; I guess anything that could be added would be more about the individuals than the group, so unless there is a The Fourteen memorial somewhere this should be fine. —Kusma (talk) 09:22, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is a pretty good article overall, but I think a few more explanations would help. Ideally, try to get someone who knows very little about 1960s astronauts to review this so you get more information about what context is missing. —Kusma (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We end up naming most of the astronauts in the lead -- seven for their moon missions and then a further three for being non–test pilots. We could bite the bullet and give everyone a brief namecheck as to what they ended up doing, perhaps especially the four who died in service. Alternatively, we could link those not mentioned in the text in the infobox caption.
On average, its members were ... slightly taller and heavier than the previous two groups -- unless they were very heavy indeed, we need than those of the previous two groups.
By 1961, NASA was confident that Project Mercury had overcome its initial setbacks, and the United States had overtaken the Soviet Union as the most advanced nation in space technology: better as and that the United States, as this wasn't an objective fact -- as we point out a moment later.
The selection criteria for the third group were similar to those for the Next Nine: we didn't actually say what those were when we mentioned the Next Nine. I'd suggest moving this to the end -- set out the criteria first, and then say that these were the same as applied to the Next Nine, except for the leeway on being a test pilot.
On that schedule, the NASA Chief of the Astronaut Office, grounded Mercury Seven astronaut Deke Slayton, could foresee a shortage of astronauts, although he doubted so many flights would actually be flown.: This is a tricky sentence to parse: in particular, the word grounded makes it something of a garden path (I was getting into the groove of "the chief ordered Slayton not to fly...", when it eventually became apparent that it was totally different). Suggest a light reworking. Perhaps we could spin this out into a sentence: something like the NASA Chief of the Astronaut Office, Deke Slayton – who had originally been selected for the Mercury Seven, but grounded following a diagnosis of an irregular heartbeat – ...? This would also have the advantage of clarifying that "grounded" wasn't a punishment; I wondered about that on first reading.
Our article on John Glenn says that NASA only dropped the test pilot requirement in 1965. I assume that's an error there and that it was a "preference" between 1963 and 1965?
The other key criteria were unchanged from the previous selection: this isn't quite true, if I read Next Nine correctly -- those astronauts were allowed to have degrees in the biological sciences, while Group 3 applicants were not, according to this article.
Candidates were relieved that "we were not subjected to the indignities endured by the original seven." At that time little was known about the performance of the human body in weightless conditions and "their physical test included having every bodily orifice probed and checked.": the quotes read awkwardly here (especially with the "we") and, in any case, need attributing. I like the line about "subjected to the indignities" but we could probably do something more elegant with the prose. How about "the physical examinations conducted on Group 3 were less invasive than those for Group 1, who had been selected when little was known about the performance of the human body in weightless conditions: David Scott later remarked that the candidates were relieved "not to be subjected to the indignities endured" by their predecessors in having "every bodily orifice probed and checked".
By the July 1 and 15 deadlines, 720 applications were received, of which 492 were from military personnel and 228 were from civilians: better as by the [final] July 15 deadline, surely, as this was the total at that date?
There was a greater emphasis on academic credentials.: I think this would be better at the end of the first paragraph of "Selection process", perhaps as the penultimate sentence, since it seems to describe how the panel made their shortlisting decisions rather than the written criteria. Unless you mean to make the slightly unkind suggestion that they made the criteria more rigorous by excluding biologists?
Moved down.
Something I notice in the infobox: why is "The Fourteen" (no quotes) given as the "name" of the group? Usually that parameter is the article title: I can wear "The Fourteen" (with quotes) as an alternative name placed beneath it, but in any case it should probably have those quote marks so that we're clear it's an unofficial name. I know it's been done like this in the previous FACs, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and all...
Another finalist, Michael Adams, would be posthumously awarded his Astronaut Wings for X-15 Flight 3-65-97.: it might be worth making explicit that the flight killed him, rather than that he was only recognised decades later than a successful flight.
Two other finalists later died in aircraft accidents: Alexander Kratz Rupp on June 11, 1965, and Darrell Cornell on October 10, 1984. Finalist John Yamnicky was a passenger on American Airlines Flight 77, and was killed when it crashed into the Pentagon during the September 11 attacks.: I wonder if this is a bit out of place in a section on the selection process -- perhaps better in the later section when we talk about where everyone ended up? It's certainly jarring to jump from 9/11 back to the announcement.
The official announcement of the astronaut selection was made at a press conference at the MSC in Houston on October 18: as we've just mentioned September 11 2001, I think we should restate the year here (but see comment above).
Doesn't have to be in order to be a compound modifier -- someone can be a track-side mechanic or a machine-gun operator, for instance. Here, as the two-word phrase "command module" describes what he was a pilot of (as distinct from being a command pilot of modules), a hyphen is wanted. UndercoverClassicistT·C21:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that argument stacks up -- we're not talking about using a different name, but punctuating the name in accordance with our MoS -- the fact that it's been done against the MoS in another article (especially one that has never undergone a review that would check for MoS compliance) doesn't really shift the dial. Even if this were a different name for the purposes of WP:COMMONNAME, the latter is about article titles. With that said, there are a couple of phrases where the compound modifier isn't hyphenated, usually because it's treated as an inseparable pair -- I discovered this for variants of "death metal band" in the course of a different project. Looking on Google Books, there's a good case that this is another one. UndercoverClassicistT·C09:30, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We wouldn't normally link Rome, and a script flags "Chicago, Illinois" as an overlink, but then I can see value in having all the home towns linked consistently.
We have a small MOS:LEAD discrepancy -- the lead says that the jet pilot time had to be in military jet fighters; the body doesn't. Civilian jet aircraft were available (and presumably the reason the three women could apply?)
Corrected the lead. The requirement was for jet pilot time. In theory, you could accumulate this by flying a commercial jet airliner, which were flying at the time. However, women were not permitted to fly commercial jet airliners in the United States until 1973, and there is no record of anyone at all qualifying as an astronaut in this manner before 2008. It would be really interesting to read the applications from the two women, but we do not have them. Jet time could have been accumulated by flying a jet for a manufacturer, like Jerrie Cobb did, or, if your pockets were deep enough, you could buy a jet and fly it around. Hawkeye7(discuss)22:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While all of group 3 had time in jet fighters, some spent most of their hours in jet attack aircraft, so I have removed references to fighters in the lead. Aside: although the test pilot requirement was relaxed, those without test pilot experience were rated lower, and all were earmarked as Lunar Module Pilots, which was, despite the name, a co-pilot. Hawkeye7(discuss)22:56, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
a jet fighter pilot: jet-fighter pilot (move the link to cover).
Personal taste, but it seems a bit weird to abbreviate "Sc.D." on first mention (in the table) but not "USAF". I note that we haven't abbreviated other degrees in the table.
. Cernan was backup pilot, and later prime pilot for Gemini 9 in 1966: comma after prime pilot (it's parenthetical -- he was initially the backup pilot for Gemini 9).
In May 1969 he was the lunar module pilot on Apollo 10, the "dress rehearsal" for the Moon landing,: I would look to rework the scare quotes (and think about MOS:IDIOM).
the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York,: we didn't actually say it was in New York the first time (for Aldrin), but now it's second mention in the table (and we're not linking), maybe just abbreviate to "West Point" here and in subsequent rows?
He left NASA in January 1970, and became Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs: decap the title (MOS:PEOPLETITLES), as the titular article does. Ditto others like Cunningham then became Chief of the Skylab branch of the Astronaut Office and to become Director of the U.S. Peace Corps in Thailand., Schweickart became Commissioner of Energy for the State of California
the Lunar Rover: capitalised as a proper noun, but I think we want either the actual name -- Lunar Roving Vehicle -- or to decap this as a nickname (like "Moon buggy" in the eponymous article).
Water survival training was conducted at Naval Air Station Pensacola: this stands out as the only place in this paragraph where we haven't told readers where it is.
What's with the order of the subjects in the training course? It's a long list with a lot of hours, which possibly veers into WP:TMI, but if we're going to enumerate each one, surely we should arrange them in descending order?
The second paragraph of "Training" is one gigantic sentence. Suggest breaking at least once -- after "designers and engineers" would be a natural place.
Separately: some of the use of those sources is questionable: for instance, Cunningham himself is the only source we offer for why he was added to the list, and he seems just about the least reliable witness possible for that particular fact!
Not convinced -- it's a nice story, but I don't think we can apply the Criterion of embarrassment to this particular case. It seems like exactly the sort of thing a modest person might say to an awkward question: "why do you think they picked you?" "well, thirteen would have been an unlucky number, wouldn't it?" What do you mean by "bolstered with additional details"? A story doesn't become more credible because it's more complicated. If we mean that other sources back it up, or provide corroborating information, why not cite them? UndercoverClassicistT·C09:22, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
he was recommended by the USAF for NASA astronaut training "without qualification" in July 1963: possibly a case for MOS:QUOTEPOV: was this phrase actually part of his reference?
I think QUOTEPOV still applies, so would cut the quote marks. It's a conventional enough phrase that they aren't needed for attribution, copyvio, plagiarism etc. UndercoverClassicistT·C09:05, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dwight was not one of the final candidates: so what happened there? If the USAF recommended him, surely his application would have gone before the selection panel? One piece missing here but present in Next Nine is how the different services collated and put forward applications: was it still the case that the USAF itself sent the applications in? We imply something like this with to give the services time to pre-screen their applicants but don't actually clarify whether they did that pre-screening (most didn't for the Next Nine).
It can be assumed, but it certainly isn't clear from our text -- I don't know whether it's clear in general. When we say "final candidates", I assume we mean the successful fourteen -- this could be a little clearer, I think ("successful candidates"?), as "final candidates" implies the last ones left before some last winnowing process. UndercoverClassicistT·C21:52, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They were sent to Brooks Air Force Base for medical examinations between July 31 and August 15: would amend to "The selected candidates" or similar -- they isn't great as the start of a paragraph (better to restate the antecedent) and it looks grammatically as if it should refer to the panel.
Michael Collins, who had previously been interviewed during the 1962 selection process, felt that the interview was easier the second time around. The panellists were no longer strangers, the questions they asked were no longer unpredictable, and he had the benefit of having attended the United States Air Force (USAF) Aerospace Research Pilot School (ARPS).: this stands out a bit to me: it seems to be hovering between saying "the interviewers went easier on Group 3" and "it's easier to pass a test if you've tried it once already". We seem to be talking specifically about Collins's experience here (see the bit about the ARPS), so I wonder if we're giving it excessive prominence in a section establishing how selection worked. Presumably the interviewers were strangers and the questions unpredictable to everyone else?
Only Collins; the others were Navy officers. But Bassett, Collins, Eisele, Freeman, and Scott were all ARPS graduates, so ARPS was successful in increasing the number of USAF astronauts. Hawkeye7(discuss)20:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By May 1963, while there were enough astronauts for the needs of Project Gemini, the schedule for Project Apollo called for four crewed Earth-orbit missions launched by Saturn I rockets in 1965; between two and four launched by Saturn IB rockets in 1966; and six or more Earth-orbit and lunar-orbit missions launched by Saturn V rockets, commencing in 1967. On that schedule, the NASA Chief of the Astronaut Office, grounded Mercury Seven astronaut Deke Slayton... he calculated an attrition rate of about ten percent per year. It followed that Project Apollo might require another ten to twenty astronauts. Slayton's maths confused me a little here. I think it would help to clarify that (and for how long) the Gemini and Apollo projects were planned to overlap, and how many astronauts would actually be on a mission.
Four Apollo missions per year would require 8 x 3 = 24 astronauts, given each had a full backup crew. With 13 astronauts on hand, another 11 would be needed. Hawkeye7(discuss)22:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was suggesting an explanation in the article rather than the FAC -- I think the fact that each mission needed two crews of four is good info at this point, given that we're trying to walk the reader through how NASA came to its idea of how many astronauts it would need. UndercoverClassicistT·C06:35, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two crews of three. Added this to the article. In fact, although this was not known in 1963, a third crew, the support crew, consisting of four astronauts, was formed for each mission. So each mission required ten astronauts, but only two missions were flown each year except in 1969, when four were flown. Hawkeye7(discuss)20:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's some good advice about making tables accessible here -- see in particular regarding captions and row scopes.
It doesn't have row scopes, which are asked for in MOS:DTAB alongside column scopes (which it does have). It does have a caption -- I'm not sure that a caption that just duplicates the section header is much good, but the MoS doesn't explicitly pronounce on that. UndercoverClassicistT·C06:33, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While six of the Nine had bachelor's degrees, and three had master's degrees, just six of the Fourteen had only bachelor's degrees: I would cut just as editorialising: 6/14 is 43%, which isn't an undisputably tiny number or obviously a totally different kettle of fish from 66%, especially given the small total numbers involved. It might also be worth linking the different degrees so that those unfamiliar can see what they represent (though I think you've done a good job of structuring the passage to get the point across even to people who aren't totally sure of the difference).
Looking again, I think reordering this would make it clearer and more effective. How about While six of the Nine had bachelor's degrees and three had master's degrees, seven of the Fourteen already had master's degrees; three more were working on one, Cunningham was working on his doctorate, and Buzz Aldrin had a Doctor of Science degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. We could end that by saying that six only had bachelors' degrees, but we did state that as a requirement earlier, so you might want to leave it out. Oh, and again -- just "Aldrin" without the Buzz? UndercoverClassicistT·C21:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anders was responsible for significant photography, notably the Earthrise photographs: I would rephrase this -- "significant photography" is ambiguous in context (really important photos or lots of them?) and in any case is slightly editorialising: why not just "was responsible for photography including the Earthrise photographs"? We would hardly be bothering the readers with his insignificant work or things that were not worth noting.
"Achievements" is an odd title for a (very short) section largely concerned with tragic and premature deaths. More generally, it hangs a bit oddly given that most of the astronauts' achievements were enumerated in the table. One option would be just to cut it and move the information into there, but I would suggest something slightly more radical -- rework the "Group members" table so that the content covers their careers before selection, and then work their careers after becoming astronauts in a renamed "Achievements" ("Service history"?) section. This would allow you to be more synthetic and point out, for example, that several of them were on the same missions, that many ended up in administrative posts, and that a smallish number had interesting and varied post-NASA careers.
We now have a paragraph at the end of the Training section which isn't about training. I'm not sure the penultimate paragraph is really in the right place either. UndercoverClassicistT·C09:20, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I really do think now that the organisation is odd, and likely to be unhelpful to many readers. Most of the information about what the Fourteen did in their NASA service isn't actually included in the "Activities" section, but in a column of a table called "Group members". I really can't see that anyone coming across the article with fresh eyes would intuit that this is the place to go to find out, for example, which missions these astronauts flew, or what the notable achievements of the group were. I note Parsecboy's comments below, which hit the same theme from another direction -- as currently conceived, the table doesn't really fit with the article structure. I'm not going to insist on any specific solution, but I do think we need most of the information about their NASA careers post selection to be moved into some sort of appropriately named prose section. As I said above, my personal approach would be to turn that column into "pre-selection career" and reorganise accordingly, which would seem to make the most sense given where it actually comes in the article. UndercoverClassicistT·C20:10, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The bibliography has quite a lot of books that aren't totally independent: either NASA publications or books (co-)written by people involved in this story. In the biblio, I count only Atkinson and Shafritz, Burgess x2, Hamblin, Sanders and Weitekamp where I can't see any sort of COI -- of those, Hamblin and Sanders have other very small question-marks in that they're primary sources, non-academic and the latter is very openly pushing a (completely understandable) agenda. I'm not sure how much independent historical writing there is on this topic, but could you give your thoughts on how the bibliography here matches up to the overall shape of the field?
In case it wasn't clear, I meant that Hamblin and Sanders are among the relatively few "obviously" problem-free sources! I'm basically happy with what you've written in the "bibliogaphic essay" below, but I'll go through later to make sure that autobiographies etc can carry the weight the article puts upon them. UndercoverClassicistT·C14:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy on this point, having checked the use of autobiographies. However, my concern about the organisation is currently stopping me short of a support. I'm not sure I'm all the way to oppose, especially as this doesn't neatly fall into a single FA criterion, but I think there are weaknesses here that limit the usefulness of the article to potential readers and researchers, and that's not fully compatible with at least the spirit of 1a and 2b. UndercoverClassicistT·C16:47, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The artice draws on a wide range of sources. There is not a great deal on the astronaut selection and training process, except for the Mercury Seven and the Group 8.
NASA histories There are the main sources for any article. They are independent of NASA, but the authors have access to NASA's primary source documents. Some of these can be downloaded through the NASA hub, but most are not accessible, and it is hard to find even those that are available unless you know exactly what you are searching for. In the case of this article, the histories are only used for deatils about the programs. Unfortunately, they say little about the selection processess. A recent book covers astronaut training in science.
Astronaut biographies and autobiographies. The best ones are those written by the astronauts themselves. Collins and Cunningham actually did write their own. This still happens, but is rare. Most American autobiographies are ghost written, based on interviews with the astronauts (like Cernan's). Some of the biographies are like this too. NASA has also conducted an extensive oral history program. This has produced a lot of good material, with the usual caveats for dealing with oral history, but no oral histories were used with this article.
Books by other researchers. Springer-Praxis and the University of Nebraska have series on space subjects, and these are generally of very high quality. In particular, Colin Burgess has published a series of books on the selections. (He is up to Group 8.) He has no access to NASA internal documents except those available online, but has otherwise gathered material widely and interviewed many astronauts and other participants. This has been my best source.
I'd also note that NASA has no particular interest in sugarcoating anything that happened in the Apollo era. A NASA source is not biased because it is sponsored by NASA. I think I addressed this at greater length in one of the FACs for one of my Apollo articles, I will look into it but not tonight. Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was in this FAC. While the focus was more on whether such sources are primary or not, it amounts to the same thing, too much NASA. But the response is the same. Just because a book or site is published under NASA auspices doesn't make them other than reliable, secondary sources. NASA does not promote a party line on how Apollo must be presented, and if it did, it would be noticed and remarked upon in other secondary sources.. Wehwalt (talk) 01:16, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I debated whether I should even open this can of worms, but this strikes me as more of a list than a "proper" article. To my mind, this is fundamentally a page that lists the members of the group. The line between list and article is blurry, to be sure, and I'm not going to die on this hill, but I wonder if this is the right venue. As an example, List of chronometers on HMS Beagle, List of aircraft operated by Scandinavian Airlines, and Bayreuth canon are all FLs that are fairly text heavy (and the structure of the Scandinavian Airlines list is very similar to this page).
I find it odd that halfway through the sentence, you change from listing the number of people from each branch of the military to naming specific individuals from the USMC and who were civilians - seems we'd want to keep the structure parallel (i.e., 7 Army, 4 Navy, 1 Marine, and 2 civvies)
Having said how dangerous being an astronaut was, I wanted to note that pilots often crashed in that era. (Yamnicky is a bit of an outlier, as he crashed five times and walked away.) I can remove them if you think it is not relevant. (They all have their own articles.) Hawkeye7(discuss)20:35, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see that there are a few comments about sourcing in the sections above. I'll stick to "claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources" because "independent" is not automatically a criterium for quality; sometimes independence leads to low quality when information is passed on and degraded between sources. #5 pedantic but is it "Mercury Seven" (article) or "Mercury 7" (source)? I think #39 should have FOX Seattle italicized, or am I misunderstanding the formatting rules? Same question for #45. "Brooks, Courtney G.; Grimwood, James M.; Swenson, Loyd S. Jr. (1979). Chariots for Apollo: A History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft. NASA History Series. Washington, D.C.: Scientific and Technical Information Branch, NASA. ISBN 978-0-486-46756-6. LCCN 79001042. OCLC 4664449. SP-4205. Retrieved July 20, 2010." says 2009 in the GBooks version not 1979. "Cunningham, Walter (2009) [1977]. The All-American Boys. New York: ipicturebooks. ISBN 978-1-87696-324-8. OCLC 1062319644." also 2010 and not 2009. Otherwise I see no issues regarding quality and formatting. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:35, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
#5: We are going with the NASA history Swenson, Grimwood & Alexander (1966), This New Ocean: A History of Project Mercury, which uses "Mercury Seven"
#39, 45: The rule here (enforced by the {{cite news}} template) is that newspapers and magazines are italicised and publishers are not.
Brooks, Grimwood and Swenson (1979): Online copy says 1979, so removing the ISBN.
Cunningham (2009): My copy says (c) 2009 second edition 2010. So corrected to 2010
Symmetry group XSymmetry group YSymmetry group Z
A: Rihanna at U.S. Embassy in Barbados in 2024 (current photo)
B: Rihanna in a promotional campaign in 2018
C: Rihanna giving a concert in Washington D. C. in 2014
D: Rihanna at Fort Belvoir in 2014.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Moved to § Image review
Moved from § RoySmith
—I'm looking forward to your comments. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:51, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Done
Not done and needs fixed; specifically the "Purpose of use in article" needs changed and source for "large" should be added and explained using the "Other information" parameter. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:13, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.png)
_in_August_1989.jpg){kind=link}
_724.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpg#Licensing){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
