Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nominations

The Man with the Golden Gun (novel)

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 07:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Fleming was an unwell man when he wrote The Man with the Golden Gun, and this affected his writing, cutting his energy from over four hours writing a day down to an hour or so. He died six months after writing it, and before it was published. This article has been through a re-write recently and I'm grateful to Tim riley for his subsequent peer review. (For those bored of reviewing the Bond series, there are only three more of them to go after this) - SchroCat (talk) 07:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Support on prose, which I cannot fault. (Thanks for an enjoyable read). Graham Beards (talk) 12:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• Many thanks Graham, that's very kind of you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Aineta aryballos

Nominator(s): UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

This article is about one of my favourite objects, in one of my favourite rooms, in the British Museum. Gallery 69 is a bit of an oddball, collecting classical artefacts and grouping them by theme rather than by time, place or culture: this little pot sits unassumingly in the case on "writing", alongside an Athenian voting token and a piece of bone inscribed with lines from the Iliad. Almost nobody gives it a second thought, which is sad, given that is both a fascinating archaeological find and a memento of a particularly vicious archaeological quarrel. It was (probably) originally owned by a high-class prostitute, (probably) called Aineta, (probably) depicted on its handle, though scholars disagree about just about everything it is possible to dispute about it. It was also the subject of one of the first major Greek trials for antiquities crime, and played a major role in the unmasking of Athanasios Rhousopoulos -- then a pillar of the Greek archaeological establishment -- as one of the country's most prolific and shameless patrons of grave-robbers. As ever, all comments and suggestions will be most gratefully received. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Charles_Merlin_To_Asty.jpg needs an author date of death. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Nikki -- done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Iazyges

• Claiming a spot. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

History of chocolate

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

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

Passing comments only, but:

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

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

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

Support from Tim riley

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

It is a wonderful world

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

Spot check

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

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

NØ

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

• "It is unclear when what can strictly be considered chocolate was first drunk" - I found it a bit difficult to understand what is being said here upon first reading it. Is there a way to simplify?
• Psychedelic drug might be worth linking to
• "Since World War I, chocolate has developed further, creating couverture and white chocolate" - Maybe add "been" between "has" and "developed". It reads a bit like the chocolate developed itself currently. It is also not clear who did the "creating" in the second part of this sentence, and it reads like the chocolate did it.
• "This is considered unlikely as there is no clear reason why the 'sh' sound represented by 'x' would change to 'ch', or why an 'l' would be added." - Unlikely according to whom? Since there is just one source cited, it might be worth attributing if there is no larger consensus.
• "The decorations on these high-quality ceramics suggest that cocoa was a centerpiece to social gatherings among people of high social status." - "high-quality" seems to be in wikivoice currently
• "Both cocoa beans and the vessels and instruments used for preparing and serving chocolate were given as important gifts and tributes" - "important gifts" sounds a little bit redundant, since I am not sure what would qualify as an unimportant gift. Do you mean to say it was given as a gift to important people?
• "The Maya then removed the husks and pounded the nibs" - Is the plural "Mayans" or "the Maya"? There seem to be usages of both whereas it is probably best to be consistent. I am also seeing "The Maya peoples" used a few paragraphs below.
• "The bean was used as a symbol for the human heart removed in human sacrifice, possibly as they were both thought to be repositories of precious liquids—blood and chocolate." - Avoid repeating "human" in close proximity if possible.
• "It was served to human sacrifice victims before their execution." - Might be good to mention who was serving it
• "Spanish conquistador Hernán Cortés may have been the first European to encounter chocolate when he observed it in the court of Moctezuma II in 1520." - You later go on to say there is no evidence he was responsible for its introduction in Spain, so should this be attributed or has this fact been proven beyond doubt?
• "Chocolate was an acquired taste for the Spanish living in the Americas" - "people" would make sense after "Spanish" in this case to avoid confusion with the language, although this suggestion is in nitpicky territory. There is also "Spaniards" a few sentences later so you may change it to be consistent.
• "Its earliest documented introduction to the Spanish court occurred in 1544 by Qʼeqchiʼ Mayan nobles brought to Spain by Dominican friars" - Did the Mayan nobles do the documentation or the introduction?
• "Coenraad Johannes van Houten received a patent for the manufacturing process for making Dutch cocoa." - Repetition of "for" seems avoidable as "of" works instead of the second one.
• "At the time however, there was no market for cocoa butter, and it took until the 1860s to be widely used." - Add a comma before however
• "Quakers were active in chocolate entrepreneurship in the Industrial Revolution, setting up J. S. Fry & Sons, Cadbury, and Rowntree's." - The names at the end could be introduced as "companies" or "firms", whichever is appropriate, just to avoid any confusion.
• "In the 2000s, consumption grew in Africa; in Nigeria for example" - Add a comma before "for example"
• "In 2013 there were at least 37 bean-to-bar producers in the United States, increasing from one in 1997." - Add a comma after "In 2013"
• "In 2005, a non-binding, voluntary industry agreement called the Harkin–Engel Protocol was created to address child and forced labor." - created by whom?
• The absence of a close-up picture of an actual chocolate bar in the article seems worth bringing up. Surely one is available?

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

Jens

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the diagram
  • Done by 35%

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

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

Comments from Llewee

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

• "Consumption was restricted to adult men, as the stimulating effects were considered unsuitable for women and children." - If this is based on the accounts and images that exist from the time, could that clarified? Giving that its unknown whether commoners were consuming chocolate it seems unlikely that we know for certain that no women and children were.
• "Chocolate was one of the two most important drinks to the Aztecs." - Could this be clarified? (e.g most valuable, most prestigious, healthiest)
• "Although chocolate was not consumed in the same way as the elite among commoners, it was widely available across Mesoamerica at the time of the conquest" - Could more detail be added about how commoners consumed it? My impression from the early part of the paragraph was that it was exclusive to the social elite with a few exceptions?
• "An inferior gruel" - inferior to pure chocolate or inferior to other types of gruel?
• "despite the spice only being introduced to Mesoamerica by the Spanish conquest" - the conquest is linked for the first time here though it and "Spanish invasion" have been mentioned previously
• "The primarily male Spanish population was systematically exposed to chocolate through the Aztec women they married or took as concubines" - The use of the word "systemically" creates the impression it was some kind of deliberate decision.--Llewee (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
• "Spaniards, casta and Afro-Guatemalan women who couldn't afford domestic servants likely learned to make chocolate from their neighbors" - This is partly a reiteration of an earlier point but we seem to have moved from chocolate being an elite food in south america to being a food of the masses without much explanation.
• "and only in extreme cases did a man prepare it" - I think "unusual" or "rare" would be a better word than "extreme" here.
• "there was controversy whether chocolate was both a food and a drink or just a drink" - The word "about" should appear between "controversy" and "whether".
• "When chocolate was introduced to France is therefore difficult to pinpoint," - it is unclear what reason "therefore" is referring to.
• "it would only be settled as beneficial by 1684" - who decided it was beneficial?
• "taken from the Spaniards in 1655" - I assume conquered?
• "in England chocolate was a commercial product" - was this different from elsewhere?
• "by the end of the 17th century it was compulsory to include it in British Navy rations" - While this was before the England and Scotland political union, it appears that the kingdoms' navies were integrated together in the 17th century so "British" is likely accurate. Perhaps link History of the Royal Navy (before 1707).
• "spread to the North American colonies by the late-17th century" - I'd suggest linking "North American colonies".
• "was well established among the elite of late-17th-century Philippines" - I might be mistaken but I think there should be a "the" between "of" and "late".

Fearless (Taylor Swift song)

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

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

Operation Matterhorn logistics

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the logistics of Operation Matterhorn, the use of Boeing B-29 Superfortress bombers to attack Japan from bases in China during World War II. As part of some work on Operation Matterhorn, I spun the section on logistics off into its own article, since this was my primary interest. The challenges of conducting operations from remote bases in China supported only by air were formidable, and only partly overcome. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I reviewed this article at ACR and can support. Matarisvan (talk) 13:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

In the second paragraph of the End of Matterhorn section, War Department should link to United States Department of War. XR228 (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Done. Normally disambigs get highlighted, but this was set index article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Support from Serial B-29

Yo, acc. Worldcat, Haulman is 'Tannenberg Publishing: San Francisco, 2015'. Also I'm getting a 404 on Romanus, although that could just be me. No mention of the Burma Rd reopening? Nice article, cheers! SerialNumber54129 14:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Aaargh. The Center of Military History has been moving stuff around, and the URLs have changed slightly. I have corrected them. And added a sentence on the reopening of the Burma road. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Nice one. It's a really good read, and provides interesting background on why the US wanted the British Empire to disassemble after the war. Cheers! Tight faded male arse. Decadence and anarchy. A certain style. Smile. 10:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Anna Filosofova

Nominator(s): —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

This article is about Anna Filosofova, an early Russian feminist and activist. She was part of a group of three friends and allies known as the "triumvirate", alongside Maria Trubnikova and Nadezhda Stasova. Among other things, Filosofova pushed hard for women's education and was instrumental in creating university-standard courses open to women in the Russian Empire. She outlived her colleagues and became widely acclaimed after the 1905 Russian Revolution. The article underwent a GA review from Rusalkii in March.

The other two women's articles made it to FA earlier this year. The three articles have very similar sourcing, so any reviewers who participated in those ones may be interested in this nomination as well. Reviewers from the Trubnikova/Stasova articles will already be familiar with some of the content and most of the sources. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size

• Fixed

• File:Анна_Павловна_Философова.jpg needs a US tag

• Added

• File:Anna_Filosofova_2_(cropped).jpg: source link is dead, needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Replaced with File:Анна Павловна Философова. Почтовая открытка (cropped).jpg which I believe will work better and has appropriate tags.

Source review

Indeed, I reviewed Maria, but pretty much missed out on Nadezhda. The Sistas are in: and at the frontline.

Formatting is mostly fine. ISBNs are inconsistently laid out, no need to link locations (if you insist on it, link all); likewise publishers; likewise works themselves. Authors are all established historians (Central European, Pittsboig, Northwestern, McGill, Princeton) or independent scholars with reputable publishers. A search of academic databases reveals no obvious omissions from the canon—except slightly surprisingly, no Clements, Carlson or Worobec who surely would've been good for a punt—and nothing that jumps out as outremer. A slender and well-presented article, traits reflected in the sources used. Tight faded male arse. Decadence and anarchy. A certain style. Smile. 15:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I think the ISBNs are now consistent, and I've delinked the publisher locations. Thanks for the Carlson theosophy source - very interesting and provided a couple of new details which I've added. I don't think there's much in the Clements source that isn't already covered, and Worobec is in the article already - a chapter from it by Ruthchild is cite #2. Thanks for your review thus far. :) —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Breton Civil War, 1341

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

In the beginning there was a happy little dukedom. Then the wise old duke died. And for 24 years afterwards everything went very badly indeed. This is the story of how it all began. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Michael Jones isn't the same guy as Matthew Bennett?

It took me forever to work out what you meant. Thanks. Fixed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Also a little surprised not to see Jones, Michael, 'The Breton Civil War', in Palmer, J. J. N. (ed.), Froissart: Historian (Woodbridge, 1981), 64-81.

Cheers, SerialNumber54129 18:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah ha. Several searches threw up nothing for "Breton Civil War", which surprised me. Of course, if I now add "The" I find it, but even so buried deep. And very little cited. Any hints as to how I could access an electronic copy? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Gog, apologies—I didn't watchlist this so missed your reply. Yes Palmer'thing seems to be as rare as rocking horse teeth but luckily he republished it in a collection in 1988. Winging its way to you AWS. SerialNumber54129 17:21, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Jens

Hi Jens and thanks for stopping by to look at this so promptly, and apologies for the idiocies you have had to point out to me. Hopefully they are now all satisfactorily addressed. Further apologies for getting wrapped up in some other reviews and leaving you at the back of the queue. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• At first, I was confused about the article scope, thinking that the article is a complete coverage of an event called the "Breton Civil War". But in fact, it seems to cover only the first year of a longer event. This would be clearer if "Breton Civil War" would be linked to the main article in the first sentence.

I have no idea why I had not already done that. Thank you. Done.

• In the infobox, "Breton Civil War" links to War of the Breton Succession, which seems to be the main article. But is "War of the Breton Succession" just an alternative term for the Breton Civil War, or does it convey a different meaning? If the former, shouldn't be the title of this article under the same name, for consistency?

There is no requirement for consistency between articles. But I do think that there should be consistency in this case. To avoid repetition can I refer you to the last discussion of the article's GAN review, here, especially the n-gram (reproduced here).

• Adding to the confusion is the "Campaignbox Breton War of Succession" below the infobox. This has "Initial campaign" bolded, which seems to indicate that's our article here (again, consistency? Shouldn't it be "1341" then?). It also has "Nantes" (in brackets) which links to "French defence" in the same article. Why have this Nantes in the box when it is not a separate article, why is it not "French defence" (the actual section in the article), and why does "English Invasion" (the other main secion in our article) does not appear in that box?

I am a little wary of campaign boxes, not least because other editors can be touchy about them. Another editor added "initial campaign". But it seems as good a succinct summary for the campaign box as anything. Perhaps you would prefer 'Campaign of 1341'? I don't think a bald '1341' would be very helpful to a reader. "Nantes" seems to be a historical remnant and I would be happy to take it out once we have agreed what the initial link will be called.

I am ok with "Initial campaign", I won't withhold support based on that. BUT I still think that the reader would benefit from more consistency here. Maybe you could also change it to "Opening events", to match the wording of the first sentence of the lead. Or, conversely, change the first sentence of the lead to "Initial campaign". You could even consider moving the article title to "Initial campaign of the Breton Civil War" or "Opening events of the Breton Civil War", which would be more descriptive ("1341" is less helpful for most readers as it doesn't indicate if these events are at the beginning, middle, or end of the civil war). These are just suggestions, but more consistency would have helped me when I tried to make sense of all of this initially. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The lead now starts with "The initial campaign of the Breton Civil War took place in 1341 ..." I have removed "Nantes" from the CB. I suggest that once the FAC is over I set up a proper discussion regarding whether it should be renamed, and if so to what, and advertise it appropriately. Perhaps after a discussion on moving War of the Breton Succession. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• A complicating factor was the war between France and England which had broken out in 1337. (This was the Hundred Years' War, which lasted until 1453.) – The gloss feels unnecessary; I would instead suggest simply A complicating factor was the Hundred Years' War between France and England, which had broken out in 1337.

You are not the only reviewer to think that. Already changed, although not precisely as you suggest. Suggestions for further improvements welcomed.

• • But I see that the main article indicates that the "War of the Breton Succession" is part of the Hundred Years' War. Your sentence instead seems to suggest that it is a separate one. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is famously an unreliable source. What other articles claim is beyond my control. Note that my sentence only "seems to suggest that it is a separate" war in 1341. Given that there was a formal truce in the 100YW for the whole year and that no English soldier set foot in Brittany that seems reasonable. If, in the lead, I were to start commenting on what was to happen in the future I may well get (even more) scope concerns. That said, how about if I tweaked the last sentence to 'The war was to last 24 years, frequently as a part of the Hundred Years' War.'?

Sentence looks good. Actually, initially, it was the category "Battles of the Hundred Years' War" in your article which made me think it is part of that war; I only checked the other article to confirm that. So it looks like that category is misplaced?

Sentence changed as discussed.

Category: IMO, yes. But on a quick skim every other article which is about or from the Breton Civil War is also a part of the 100YW. So we are likely in a mug's game trying to repeatedly explain to good faith editors why this one is the exception.

Fine with me. Not that I ever really understood the category system anyways. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• In the lead: John refused to give way and Philip sent an army nominally commanded by his son to impose Charles. – I found this confusing, since this son has not been mentioned before. The lead also does not mention why it is so important that his son commanded. As the son has no further context here, I would suggest to just remove "nominally commanded by his son" from the lead.

Ok.

• Charles of Blois was present when John arrived and was almost captured. – This is ambiguous; I first thought it was the other way around, that John was almost captured, not Charles of Blois.

Gah! Another case of my reading the meaning I wanted to find as I copy edited. Fixed. I think, I would be grateful if you could check.

• "River Loire" – Since "River Loire", in a capitalised form, would be a proper name, I would have expected that the entire name is linked (River Loire), or, alternatively, that "river" is not capitalised ("river Loire" or "Loire river").

River Loire linked.

• That's all from me. Very good read, as usual. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Rest looks good! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Jan_z_Montfortu.gif needs a US tag

Done.

• File:Bulat-Pestivien_(22)_Église_Notre-Dame_Statue_01.JPG needs a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, thanks for checking through this. I thought we were ok with French public statues and architecture? Per L122-5. Or is there a tag for that? Gog the Mild (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

L122-5 extends only to non-commercial uses, which for our purposes is non-free. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Drat! Swapped for an appropriately tagged image from 1621. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

UC

I concur with Jens that the title is confusing: "[Events of] 1341 in the Breton Civil War" would be clearer and follow practice in other articles. As written, it sounds as though it should refer to a discrete civil war that took place entirely in 1341. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. I am happy to change it. The usual procedure is for this to happen as soon as the article leaves FAC - either archived or promoted - as the FAC bot gets upset if asked to process an article which changes its name mid-process. I undertake to so rename the article once it is out of FAC. Hi Jens, that work for you? If so I'll put a heads up on the article's talk page. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure it does! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Works for me too. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• duchy of Brittany: gets a capital, when used like this as a proper noun.

Capitalised.

• A complicating factor was the war between France and England which had broken out in 1337. (This was the Hundred Years' War, which lasted until 1453.): the bracketed sentence is, frankly, a bit ugly. Generally speaking, it's not great practice to bracket a whole sentence. Why not expand "the war" into "the Hundred Years' War", or add (which became known as the Hundred Years' War) after "France and England"? I'm not sure we need to know in the lead of this article that it lasted another century.

Done.

• A truce was in effect, which was due to expire in June but was extended to June 1342.: I think we need to add "1341" for clarity here.

Done.

• Rumours of this reached Philip: of his promises to make a treaty, or laziness about doing so?

Clarified.

• Joan's claim was through her husband, Charles of Blois, a nephew of the King of France, Philip VI (r. 1328–1350): it becomes clear later that this meant Charles would become the Duke, but it isn't spelled out here. Do I have it right that Joan would strictly inherit the duchy, but Charles would then hold it jure uxoris?

Academics have written whole articles on issues closely related to this. My understanding from the sources I have read is that Joan couldn't inherit at all, being female, but there was an argument that this impediment didn't prevent her from passing the title on to her husband. Two of the sources I have read state that John had the stronger legal claim. Note that this is according to French law, Breton law was slightly different. Gah! This is defying easy summary, I could send you a page of Sumption who describes the situation fairly clearly. (Perhaps not surprisingly as he went on to become the highest paid lawyer in the UK and then a member of the Supreme Court.)

I'd be interested to give that a read, if you don't mind. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

If you send me a blank email I will then be able to send you an attachment.

• set up her two-year-old son, also John,: I think we need also named John or similar.

Done.

• This was the start of the Breton Civil War which was to last 24 years.: comma before which, I think, though appreciate that this can be a contentious one.

It is indeed a contentious one. However, before getting here I had already copy edited the first bit away as a duplication of the opening sentence.

• the Duchy of Brittany, while a part of the Kingdom of France for most purposes, was in many ways an independent principality: Can we indicate what at least the most important of these ways was? How do we square it being basically independent with the "most purposes" for which it was part of France?

This has been rewritten, broadly in line with wording suggested by Borsoka.

• John had the better legal claim, but it was widely accepted within Brittany that Charles would inherit: any idea why?

Hey, this is summary style. Sources are vague, it would be stretching a bit to even say that the Breton nobility expected Philip to back his nephew. (As he eventually did.) John III had advocated for "anyone but Montfort" for most of his life, marrying Joan to Charles was largely to improve Joan's political and legal claim. These long held assumptions probably contributed to the expectation, but again it would be stretching to overtly say so. Sumption puts these next to each other, making it obvious what he thinks, but declines to spell it out. I don't know that the sources let us go much further than what the article currently says.

I might be able to have an informed view on this after reading the Sumption source you kindly agreed to send, but will reserve judgement for now, as I don't currently have one. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• John, encouraged by his ambitious wife, Jeanne of Flanders,: my WP:GNL siren is going off here. We've introduced a whole plethora of men, all claiming a duchy, and the only one who gets labelled as ambitious is the wife? If we have reason to suspect that Jeanne was unusually ambitious by comparison with Charles and the Johns, we should give it: otherwise, this reads as negatively judging a woman for something that would be considered unremarkable or positive in a man. Advise cutting.

My response to this has twice disappeared, I assume because I had too many windows open. I'll try again.

It was meant admiringly, she is much admired by historians as an inspiring leader, but I can see how it looks. So cut.

• He then successfully took control: advise cutting successfully as redundant: we would hardly think he unsuccessfully took control if it weren't there.

Hah! True. Done.

• John moved on to an alternate plan: alternative, I think.

Oops. Corrected.

• The caption alignment seems a bit odd on a few (Charles of Blois, Philip and the siege). It's best for accessibility to keep a consistent left margin, and I can't really see the thinking behind what we've done here instead.

I am not sure that I understand your point here. If it is about the captions being centred that is becouse IMO they are more readable and more aesthetically pleasing that way with no down side I can see and no policy nor MoS reason to prevent it. If you meant something else, apologies, I am having a slow brain week; perhaps if you repeated using smaller words.

It took me a while to realise that it was centre alignment: there's a little graphic that gets added to them, which means that in two-line captions, the first line looks as if it's left-aligned and the second looks like it's right-aligned. I think this falls under the heading of something that each of us would do differently, but you're welcome to do it your way just as I would do it my way. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• Leaving Nantes John secured Champtoceaux: I know the usual style here is to avoid commas with introductory clauses, but here I think there's a strong argument for one: as written, it sounds as if "Nantes John" is a place, or "Leaving Nantes John" a person. Generally speaking, commas are used after participle clauses in most varieties of English (I realise I've just inadvertently provided an example).

I have rephrased to avoid that unhappy commaisation.

Much better in several ways. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• a brief, fumbled and pallid defence: I can work out what a fumbled defence (fumbling?) is, but what does pallid mean in this context? MOS:IDIOM applies, I think.

pallid: "Appearing weak, pale or wan". I would be happy to go with 'brief and fumbled' if you don't like pallid.

I think you can only really get away with "weak" in that sense for a person: at the very least, this is metaphorical language, and the MoS would advise something concrete (or just cutting that word) instead. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Tweaked to "weak and fumbled".

• Saint-Aubin-du-Cormier, a strong fortification defending the approach to Rennes from Paris, and the walled town of Dinan followed suit: given that there's a glossing clause on Saint-Aubin but not on Dinan, this would be clearer if the two were swapped around, or as Saint-Aubin-du-Cormier, a strong fortification defending the approach to Rennes from Paris, followed suit, as did the walled town of Dinan (I assume they're written in this order because they fell in this order?)

Done. (Yes.)

• where deliberations were liable to be long-drawn-out.: no hyphens per MOS:HYPHEN, as this isn't in apposition ("a well-attended meeting" but "the event was well attended"). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

De-hyphened.

• Originally due to expire on 24 June 1341 it was extended: again, I think we really need a comma here after 1341.

I disagree.

Very well, but in that case, can I suggest a more straightforward syntax: e.g. The truce was originally due to expire on 24 June 1341, but was extended on 9 June to 29 August, and on 10 August to 14 September. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Implemented.

• it was extended to 29 August on 9 June, and to 14 September on 10 August: I think this would be clearer if the decision dates came before the deadline dates.

Done.

• Attending on Philip VI it became clear that he had lost the French King's confidence: a few things here. We've got a dangling participle clause at the start, which should be reworked. Secondly, "king" should decap in this context per MOS:PEOPLETITLES ("French King" isn't a formal title that acts as a replacement for someone's name; it's a description of that person).

Dangly thing reworked. What has "formal" got to do with anything? Per MOS:JOBTITLE it is "a title [...] used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name" and so should be capitalised.

• Philip found the idea of bringing the traditionally semi-autonomous province more firmly under royal control attractive: a long gap between these two parts of the compound verb: not great for readability. Any possibility of working?

Of course. Does "the idea of bringing the traditionally semi-autonomous province more firmly under royal control was attractive to Philip" work for you?

It does. Would it be too far to go even more straightforward: "Philip decided to bring..." or similar? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I have gone with my version. I am not wedded to that wording, but feel that your suggestion puts things a bit strongly.

• The English army was disbanded for the winter and the fleet paid off. No sooner was this done than representatives: MOS:CLICHE, I think -- presumably it wasn't literally a matter of minutes.

Well now. With no news from Brittany the English royal Council approved a truce extension on or about the 2 September and started standing down the military. On 12 September, before messengers had reached all of the ships and men (ORing, probably before they were sent in many cases), the Breton emissaries spoke to Edward. On the same day the plenipotentiaries near Calais agreed the fine print and signed the binding extension. Edward promptly trouted himself and tried to have it both ways. (Philip of course was free to use troops as he wished within the borders of France.) So it wasn't so much "no sooner" as even before that. The extent to which some of the stand down was delayed deliberately until there was confirmation that the French had signed is unclear. I don't think the article makes too bad a fist of boiling this (which of course I have already boiled down for you) to summary style. That said, there must be close to an infinity of ways of expressing this, would you like me to try another one?

If I've got it right: would it be accurate to say something like "The fleet was paid off and the army disbanded; while it was still demobilising, messengers arrived..."? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• Strategically Edward saw the chance to set up a ruler in Brittainy at least partially under his control which would greatly aid England's naval war as well as give a ready entry to France for English armies.: this one needs a look for clarity.

A little more detail added to give "Strategically Edward saw the chance to set up a ruler in Brittainy at least partially under his control; this could provide access to Breton ports which would greatly aid England's naval war as well as give ready entry to France for English armies."

• Amaury de Clisson: the general practice in this article seems to be to Anglicise all names and titles: so Charles of Blois rather than Charles de Blois. Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of that decision (which is within the writer's discretion, in my view), this is an apparent exception. Perhaps related: in her article, "Jeanne of Flanders" is named "Joanna of Flanders": is that discrepancy intentional?

Nope, I slipped with Amaury, corrected. I am not helped by the sources - I have just checked the four I used most, all are inconsistent, and inconsistent between each other. As this is the English language Wikipedia I usually go for the English spelling in articles if the sources permit it.

Isn't "Joanna" (or Joan) the English spelling, rather than "Jeanne" (just as we've used "John", not "Jean")? Looking around on Google Books, I've noticed a few going for e.g. "John de Montfort", which just seems silly, so I'm grateful for your much more sensible approach here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• a 7,000-strong army together with a strong force: suggest fixing the repetition here.

That was sloppy of me. I can tell that it was 18 months since I was last at FAC. To lose it I have rewritten the first sentence and a bit of the section. [1]

• Jeanne of Flanders was in Rennes, with her children, the duchy's treasury and a strong garrison when news of the fall of Nantes arrived: comma needed after garrison, as we have preceding commas in the list: as written, it is implied that she only had the garrison at the moment that the news arrived.

Added.

• She acted rapidly, decisively and aggressively: is this bit of telling doing anything that the showing in the following sentence doesn't do better?

IMO, yes. It took Philip five months to send an army west against Brittany; John of Normandy two days to move a few men three miles to rescue Charles when he (Normandy) had overwhelming force. The contrast seems worth commenting on. And the showing sentences give no idea of how rapidly, decisively or aggressively they were carried out.

That's true, at least for rapidly, but it would still be better (in my view) to make it concrete: can we give a timeframe here, for example? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Sadly not. In Brittany vagueness rules for about 9 months after the fall of Nantes. (The primary sources are a shambles until Northampton arrives at Brest.) Note the tweaking of this below - I pinged you in. Rereading the sources, I could lose "rapidly" now without feeling I am not capturing them. Would that be your preference?

• battle of Auray: capitalise Battle.

Done. But it will get reverted on the grounds that most sources don't. (Eg [2].)

Looking at the actual results on Google Books and filtering by C21st results gives the opposite impression: most do capitalise. There is however a large series of (pulp?) historical novels by G. A. Henty that have recent reprints but don't capitalise: I wonder if they're contaminating the ngrams sample? At any rate, the overwhelming practice in good sources is that "Battle of X" is capitalised when it refers to a discrete, recognisable battle as a proper noun. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Actually it is not. This was thrashed out at some length at MilHist and the the old curmudgeons - among whom I definitely number myself - had to be bludgeoned with data and examples. But this is a side discussion, not least because capitalising battle is my personal preference and because I have already done so in this article. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks: I'll take that under advisement for the future (don't suppose you remember where that discussion was?) UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

It will be buried in the archives. If you could nudge me once I have your and Jens reviews doone I will have a search.

• recognising John of Montfort's son as duke of Brittainy: typo in Brittany, and capital needed on Duke.

Both changed, although IMO "Duke of Brittany" does not comply with MOS:OFFICE: the first example there is Mitterrand was the French president.

• • The distinction is that "the French president" is a description, not a formal title, whereas "Duke of Brittany" is the title. Compare "Victoria, as Empress of India, was the last empress to live in London". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
• Why is the location of the war given as "Province of Brittany" but linked to "Duchy of Brittany"?

It seemed more helpful to a reader than linking to Brittany where they need to scroll down a long way to find not a lot of information and "Main article: Duchy of Brittany".

Sorry -- what I don't understand is why the text says "Province" rather than "Duchy". Are you trying to avoid "Duchy" as a geographic rather than legal/political term? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I may be being too clever for my own good, so simplified to just Brittany. More reader friendly I think

• Including a "result" in the infobox implies that the war finished: per the guidance on infoboxes (I forget exactly which bit of it), if we can't fill a parameter in a concise way that needs no further explanation, we should omit it.

The article is not about the war, it is about the war in 1341. I think you are looking for Template:Infobox military conflict, possibly "result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say ..."

This may solve itself with the article title change, assuming that the infobox title also changes to "Events of..." -- in this case, the infobox will (correctly) say that the events of 1341 in the Breton Civil War had no conclusive result. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

That was my next position, more or less. I think we agree on this. And apologies for how long it is taking to get my responses up: I have taken on a bit much on Wikipedia, have had a couple of minor RL events, and am finding some of your, and others, comments thought provoking.

I think that's my lot for now. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi UC and many thanks for your input on thiis. I think I have finally responded to all of your comments. And had subsequent discussions around several. I will pick away at the rest of your replies and would be grateful if you could let me know when you have managed to look at all of my initial responses - obviously there is no rush on that. Gog the Mild (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I think I've got to everything except Sumption, which requires me to do a bit of reading. Generally speaking, where you've made a change, it's solved the issue as far as I'm concerned. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

• "his younger half brother, John of Montfort" – the OED hyphenates "half-brother", as does Chambers.

Wiktionary prefers half brother, giving half-brother as an alternative spelling. But hyphenated.

• "well connected and militarily orientated" – according to the current edition of Fowler the verb "orientate" is "a pointless longer variant of "orient".

Hmm, rendered more pointful.

• "an alternate plan – this use of "alternate" as an adjective is an Americanism. The English form is "alternative".

You are quite right. Changed. (I read too much SF.)

• "there was only fighting at Brest – I'm not one of those pedantic souls who always insist on the logical placing of "only" rather than a more natural one, but here I really do think "there was fighting only at Brest" or "only at Brest was there fighting" would be better.

Tim, I rarely argue argue with you on this sort of thing, but really really? (!)

I don't in the least press the point. I thought, and think, it would be clearer my way, but I can't in conscience object to yours. Tim riley talk 20:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• "Requests for assistance from Charles of Blois were ignored" – ambiguous: were these requests from Charles for assistance or requests from someone else for assistance from Charles?

Clarified.

• "deliberations were liable to be long drawn out" – I have quoted before (will whoever shouted "ad nauseam" kindly leave the room?) the dictum "If you take hyphens seriously you will surely go mad", and so I merely mention that the OED uses two hyphens for "long-drawn-out".

I am with you and the OED there. Apologies.

• "regarding John recognising Edward as king of France in exchange for Edward recognising John's claim" – would it be insufferably pedantic to point out that both "recognising"s here are gerunds – verbs in noun form – and so they should be "John's recognising" and "Edward's recognising"? Probably, but I'm doing it anyway.

A twofer, gerund-hog day.

• "in the event of Philip deciding in favour of Charles" – another gerund in need of a possessive.

Haven't we been here before?

• "Instead he commenced planning" – I know battles traditionally commence, but I think planning can simply be begun or started. In this context "commenced" is a touch genteel and refained.

Philip was a very genteel king. Changed to 'began'.

• "allocated £10,000 for military expenditure" – is it even faintly practicable to give some idea of the modern equivalent of that sum?

Not in my opinion. My response to Matarisvan raising much the same comment two weeks ago was "I used to be an enthusiast, but these days I think it actively misleads a reader. So the £30,000 will come out as a bit under £40,000,000 today. Say the cost of a large luxury yacht or three main battle tanks. But that's not it. We are talking about the total government income of a medium-sized nation state and that just doesn't translate (IMO) when you run it through an inflation converter."

I was vaguely wondering about a comparison of the £10,000 with the annual royal income, if known, which I daresay it isn't. I'm wholly content to leave this in your hands for action or inaction as you think fit. Tim riley talk 20:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Tim, I read past your comment far too quickly and thank you for making me come back to it. Of course I can do that. Footnote added. If the MoS permitted, I would dedicate it to you. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Splendid! Thank you, dear boy: it puts the sum of money in context comprehensively. Bravo! Tim riley talk 21:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• "the deaths of many of large force" – missing a word, by the look of it

Oops. Inserted.

• "The Treaty of Guérande, recognising John of Montfort's son as duke of Brittainy (Brittany, presumably) was agreed in 1365. John of Montfort died in 1345, still a prisoner in Paris – given the 20-year lurch backwards between the two sentences I wonder if "died" might be better as "had died".

It is ugly. Hmm. Moved up the paragraph into chronological order. (Better?)

Much, me judice. Tim riley talk 20:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

That's all from me. Tim riley talk 13:26, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

As usual, many thanks, much appreciated. Changes here. You may be pleased to hear that the next is coming down the track - a proper lance and longbow affair. (It ends "Livingstone and Witzel suggest it is difficult to take lessons from the battle as "Charles ... was a military incompetent". However, Sumption states that the French behaved in the same wrong-headed way they usually did in battles of the 1340s.") Mind it has yet to survive SN reviewing it at GAN, pray for me. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I shall remember you in my orisons and will look forward to seeing the new piece at FAC in due course. Meanwhile after a final read-through of this one I am very happy to support its elevation to FA. It seems to me to meet all the criteria and has been a pleasure to review. Tim riley talk 20:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Borsoka

• ..., while a part of the Kingdom of France for most purposes, was in many ways an independent principality. I think the sentence is unclear and does not reflect what the cited author, Sumption says. For instance, he says, "By 1328, the French Crown exercised practically no direct jurisdiction in Brittany". I would say that the dukes of Britanny were the French kings' vassals but ruled their duchy as independent monarchs, or something similar.

Would 'Brittany was a province of France but while the dukes of Brittany were vassals of the French kings they governed the duchy as independent rulers' work?

• Yes.

Thanks. Done. Cited to Sumption and Wagner.

• Complicating the legal situation – which was unprecedented in Breton law – John III seems to have on separate occasions formally promised the succession to both John of Montfort and Charles of Blois. I would explain the situation with more details in a sentence, taking into account that the legal dispute is the core of the civil war.

I am seriously loath to put (much) more detail into this. I strongly suspect that putting additional detail in will cause less rather than more understanding. The dynastic origins of the war are background to this article and I am unsure that more the details there, and I assume in the background of every other article on the war, is appropriate. What is needed is a separate article.

• Still, I would clarify at least in a footnote that Joan of Penthievre was the sole daughter of the Duke's full-brother, whereas Montfort was their half-brother.

Fair enough. I'll do that.

Actually, part of this, John of Montfort being a half brother, is already in the main article; I have added without I hope over-disrupting the flow, that "Joan was the only child of John III's younger brother". What do you think?

• ... it was widely accepted within Brittany that Charles would inherit. I think this was not the case: the commoners mainly supported John, and Charles was supported by the clergy and aristocracy, according to Sumption.

Indeed. But I am not discussing who supported who, but who expected who to prevail; a different matter. To further quote Sumption "He [Philip] had certainly assumed like everyone else that Brittany would fall to Charles of Blois". Page 377 of the 1999 paperback.

I am not sure that the article clarifies who supported whom in Brittany, although it is about a civil war.

Correct. It doesn't.

• ...encouraged by his wife, Jeanne of Flanders... I would write some words about this remarkable woman. Sumption says that "There is no reason to doubt the assertion of a well-informed chronicler that she was the principal author of her husband's plans in the summer of 1341".

I would like to. UndercoverClassicist, would you have any objections in principle to a sentence or so of background?

Not at all: the objection was to the unqualified/unexplained adjective "ambitious" rather than, in principle, introducing her. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Done.

Can I raise an NPOV query on Modern historians ... describe her as heroic? (I'm taking as read that the cited sources actually say "modern historians describe..." or similar, rather than describing her with these adjectives). That's very high praise: I can't think of any other historical figure where we would be so unreservedly positive, rather than e.g. "Mandela is widely viewed as a hero in South Africa for his efforts against Apartheid" or "Lincoln is consistently ranked as one of the best US presidents", or "Mother Theresa is widely used as an exemplar of selflessness and moral behaviour". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I could put quote marks round "heroic", "energetic", "courage" and "stern realism" and attribute in line if that would help? If you are aware of any less flattering descriptions - I am afraid I am not - I would be delighted to use them to temper the praise. Obviously I could dial back the "very high praise" easily enough, but would that not fall foul of NPOV itself, by not accurately conveying the consensus of the HQ RSs?

Is it really the consensus of academic historians that she should be seen as a heroine? Again, I can't think of any historical figure for whom that's true: the best that the Joans of Arc of this world normally get is an acknowledgement that they were seen as heroic in their time, or have inspired others. Would you mind quoting some of the sources so that I have an idea of what we're working with here? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Obviously I could, they are cited, but if you are that twitchy, I have no particular desire to defend their choice of words. Plan B would be to replace this with, say, 'Modern historians consider her to have been an energetic and effective leader, and she acted rapidly, decisively and aggressively. She sent the treasury west to Brest, recalled the field army and took command herself ...' which would also fit better into the flow of the narrative. Would that suit?

I'd be much happier with that -- the adjectives are much closer to objective/verifiable observations. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:03, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks UndercoverClassicist, and it partially addresses your telling/showing point I hope. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• Could the map also show Brest and Dinan?

Done.

• I would clarify that Angers is in Anjou.

Have gone with "80 kilometres (50 mi) east of the Brittany border" as more directly helpful to the reader.

• Do we know why the minders were appointed? Is "minder" the best term?

John of Normandy was 18 and it was his first command. The source has "but he was straitly supervised by [list of names]"; "minder" seems to cover this but I would be happy to consider any alternative you might suggest.

• I would make it clear that he was 18 in the text. In this case, all will understand the context of the minders' appointment.

Apologies, either the wrong John, a faulty memory or poor mental arithmetic - he was 22. Sumption more or less says it because Philip was nervous and risk averse ("this cautious, troubled man.") Maybe "although Philip, nervous and half-hearted about resorting to armed force, allocated minders to oversee him and issued strict instructions"?

• Do we need a link to "siege"?

IMO, no. Removed. But we both know that someone is going to relink it before the end of the year.

• ...was almost captured... Who?

Clarified.

• John of Montfort had personally surrendered to John of Normandy. Repetition.

Rewritten.

• ...was agreed in 1365 By whom?

Added.

• ISBN for Ormrod (1980)? Borsoka (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

There is not one in the book, I own a paper copy, nor on World Cat.

Two nominations and two reviews from you, thank you Borsoka. All of your comments are addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I must admit I am envious of this article. :) I have been planning to complete articles about medieval Breton history. I do not know why but Bretagne fascinates me. Borsoka (talk) 05:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I have been meaning to get round to the BCW for more than five years. But kept telling myself to focus on the main HYW. But after 18 months away from FAC the BCW seemed different enough to be fresh, but familiar enough to not be too much of a challenge. I have battle of Morlaix at GAN at the moment, with another couple I have done some work on and a half dozen I want to tackle over the next few months in my TO Do Box. And am trying not to get distracted by the articles about the wars of Henry IV I want to write.

We could collaborate on an article or two. Or split them between us?

• (Lead): ...Joan's claim was through her husband,... Was it?

No, of course it wasn't. Thank you. A recently requested addition where I clearly didn't engage my brain sufficiently. '...Joan's claim was exercised through her husband,...'?

• (Lead): ...Charles was recognised... By whom?

The Parlement of Paris, which then begs several further questions and is already, IMO, too much detail for the lead.

• (Lead): ... frequently as a part of the Hundred Years' War Perhaps "in parallel with the HYW"?

Is that not getting a tad OR? Unless you have a source?

Borsoka (talk) 05:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Seems like we are using major historians as a source, and I've seen these publishers already, but I notice a lack of French or Breton sources. Are the ISBN and ISSN on "Rogers, Clifford (2004). "The Bergerac Campaign (1345) and the Generalship of Henry of Lancaster". Journal of Medieval Military History. II. Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press: 89–110. ISBN 978-1-84383-040-5. ISSN 0961-7582." correct? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Tesla Model S

Nominator(s): 750h+ 07:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Second candidacy, following this one. About an electric sedan produced by Tesla, Inc.. Asking previous reviewers @Epicgenius, Femke, and UndercoverClassicist: for a second review on this one. 750h+ 07:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

EG

Thanks for the ping. I looked at these changes and have only one additional concern:

• Environmental impact, paragraph 2: "its 68 percent higher manufacturing emissions are offset within a few years of average driving" - Do we have a more specific time frame besides "a few years"?

This is not a major concern, so my support from the previous FAC still stands. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Not per the source, no. I'm assuming it means half-decade, but that's an assumption. Thanks for the support. 750h+ 14:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Femke and UndercoverClassicist: pinging in case. 750h+ 05:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed, but avoid sandwiching text between images. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Mount Edziza

Nominator(s): Volcanoguy 17:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

This article is about one of the highest and most prominent volcanic peaks in Canada, as well as one of Canada's highest threat volcanoes. Like my previous FAC, Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex, it cites Jack Souther a lot because he was the only geologist to have studied the mountain in detail. The mountain has received some studies by other scientists since 1992, but they are small in comparison. With that being said, there doesn't seem to be much data regarding the retreat of Mount Edziza's glaciers. Volcanoguy 17:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

JJE

• "was likely destroyed by a violent, climactic eruption in the geologic past" climatic may need some explanation. And "likely" should be somewhere else - was it destroyed, or not?

  I don't see a problem where "likely" is; the source claims it was "probably destroyed" during a violent eruption. Volcanoguy 20:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• "that is characterized by" I dunno, are ice caps characterized by their outlet glaciers, or do they simply have them?

  Revised. Volcanoguy 19:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• Two "cover" in the first sentence of the glaciation subsection.

  I don't see a problem here; "covered" and "covers" are not the same words. Volcanoguy 19:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• "The present trend towards a more moderate climate put an end to the neoglacial period in the 19th century which has resulted in rapid glacial recession throughout the Mount Edziza volcanic complex" might warrant some subdivision.

  Subdivision? Volcanoguy 21:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  Splitting the sentence, it's quite long. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• "in diameter " -> "wide"?

  Source uses in diameter. Volcanoguy 18:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Is this a high-quality reliable source?

  You tell me since you've used it in the Socompa article (i.e. Argentina and Chile North Ultra-Prominences"). Volcanoguy 20:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  Frankly, I have been looking for reasons to ditch it from there too b/c it doesn't seem to be that high-quality, but I am not the only editor there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  I've removed the peaklist source from the article. Volcanoguy 20:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• "its symmetry having been broken" can this be shortened.

  Current wording is to prevent close paraphrasing. Volcanoguy 18:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• "Inside the summit crater of the stratovolcano is a succession of at least four lava lakes that are exposed in the breached eastern crater rim" I figure this can be shortened somehow.

  Current wording is to prevent close paraphrasing. Volcanoguy 18:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• I kinda wonder if Mount Churchill should be mentioned in the Hazards section - while it isn't actually in Canada, it is probably the most significant volcano in/around the country.

  Source doesn't mention Churchill. Volcanoguy 20:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• "In or before 1974, two Tahltan men named Johnny Edzerza and Hank " etc seems like it fits the etymology section better than here? Avalanches and natural disasters occur everywhere. Ditto the names section.

  I don't think so since the etymology section focuses on the origin of the name Edziza, not the history of the mountain. Volcanoguy 18:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Did these mineral explorations get to any point?

  Not that I know of. Volcanoguy 18:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• The caption of File:Tahltan dancers.jpg is kind of WP:SYNTH - there is a difference between the volcano providing resources for millennia to people who view it as sacred, and the volcano itself being sacred for millennia.

  WP:SYNTH doesn't mention captions but I've revised the caption of this image. Volcanoguy 19:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Are "The New B.C. Roadside Naturalist: A Guide to Nature along B.C. Highways" and "mam, Naiyar (2003). Dictionary of Geology and Mineralogy. McGraw–Hill Companies. ISBN 0-07-141044-9." high-quality reliable sources?

  Yes. Volcanoguy 20:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Did some plagiarism spotchecking, didn't notice anything.

Spot-checked a bit too. Going to qualify that prose is often not my strong suit in FAC work and some overcomplicated sentences need to be spotted and cleaned. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Gusuku period

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

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

750h

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

Feel free to refuse my suggestions with proper justification.

lead

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

background

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

emergence

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

developments

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

emergence of the Ryukyu Kingdom

No problems here.

histography

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

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

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

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

Arconning - source review

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

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

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

Crisco

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

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

Image review - pass

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paul Hunter

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

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

Image review

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

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose

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

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

EG

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

Snooze (song)

Nominator(s): Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 ^{[please make some noise]} 03:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

How can one snooze and miss the moment? SZA's "Snooze" was one of the top 20 biggest songs of last year and topped Spotify's list of greatest R&B songs of the streaming era. With all the critical acclaim, it's become clear that SZA has made it into the big leagues, continuing the legacies of acts like Destiny's Child, Solange, Erykah Badu, or Brandy.

Many thanks to the insightful @Arconning who provided the GAN review, as well as @Dxneo, @Dylan620, and @Medxvo for participating in the PR. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 ^{[please make some noise]} 03:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Arconning

• Would there be a better source for the Twitter source used? I personally think it's alright but are there any sites that could be used instead?
  • Don't think so; can't find the same year-end chart on official websites
• The first two paragraphs of the "Music video" section could probably be merged.
  • Looks fine to me as is, IMO. The first paragraph talks about the prelude, and the second is a brief overview of the video combined with BTS stuff.
• Non-Western acts who covered the song include Stacey and Mikha of the Filipina girl group Bini., would it be Filipino or Filipina as the wikilinked article describes the group as the former. Are there any other non-Western acts that have covered the song, if so that could probably be included to widen the scope on how the sentence is formed.
  • I think either is okay. Korean artist Hwasa covered Snooze a while back, so there are definitely more non-Western acts that did covers. Annoyingly, however, I could not find a reliable source about that, so I stuck with mentioning the individual Bini members to get around the problem
• Optional: Could you add a picture of SZA during the SOS Tour?
  • Could not find good SOS Tour photos, sorry; those were annoyingly in short supply. Her Glastonbury photos will have to do, but none of the ones on Flickr show the actual "Snooze" performance. Skips straight from "Kiss Me More" to "Kill Bill" even though "Snooze" is performed in between. Let me know if the image and caption satisfy these concerns.

@Arconning: Glad you could make it here. Responses above. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 ^{[please make some noise]} 06:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@PSA Support - Good luck on the FAC! Arconning (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Ippantekina

This song was in my top 50 tracks on Spotify last year. SZA really knows how to capture an anxious attachment person's feelings and thoughts!

• ""Snooze" was sent to radio on April 25, 2023, and a four-track single was released on digital streaming platforms on August 25." I think the record label is worth mentioning here
  • Any particular reason why?
• ""Snooze" was also the 17th-best-selling single of 2023" eh... being the 17th-best-selling single is not very lead-worthy imo (not to diminish its success though, because it was surely a hit)
  • I agree that mentioning the exact figure is a bit excessive. Perhaps there is another way to indicate how it was a worldwide hit; simply saying it had significant commercial success feels like a motherhood statement. Maybe simplifying to just "one of the top-20 best-selling songs of 2023"? Although I feel like this is wordy.
• I think you should write out the urban chart as R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay per WP:NOPIPE
  • Not sure I follow -- "urban radio chart" has fewer characters and syllables so the first bullet doesn't apply, and the specific phrase was used not to bypass a redirect but to convey the chart's purpose more intuitively than using the chart name itself, which allows the lead to be more accessible to people unfamiliar with record charts.
• "who play as SZA's love interests" ?
  • Trimmed
• I think "Production" should come before "Composition"
  • I have a preference for the status quo because the transition between sections is currently understandable and smooth. "Background" ends by saying "Snooze" is slow-paced and leans R&B, and the beginning of "composition" says the same; "production" then gives BTS info about the music and ends with a brief mention of the lyrics.
• "The turnaround time for their song was short" hmm do we know exactly how short it was?
  • No exact time. Though considering that the producers (sans BLK) were all in the studio the same day and SZA completed the entire song in under an hour, I'd guess that time would be one day
• "The making of SOS involved, as SZA called it, several "palate cleanser" sessions," hmm why not something like "According to SZA, the making of SOS involved several "palate cleanser" sessions," to limit the use of commas which make the sentence read rather chopped?
  • Good point
• "in November 2022, SZA revealed the album's title, and she announced that SOS would be released sometime next month" redundant imo
  • I think this sentence is necessary as a build-up of sorts, so I tried to reword it to make it read less awkwardly beside the second one.
• ""Snooze"'s" I think this usage of the possessive is discouraged, maybe something like "the placement of "Snooze" "?
  • Can you link to the relevant guideline that discourages this?

I've read up to "Critical reception". Ippantekina (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by @Ippantekina. I've been a fan since "All the Stars" and seeing her artistry and numbers grow has been crazy. Seeing your thoughts on SZA was delightful responses above. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 ^{[please make some noise]} 03:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Dylan620

I've been quite busy and short on sleep IRL the past couple days, but I'm going to revisit this article tonight and tomorrow, and should hopefully have more comments by tomorrow night. For now, a placeholder. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I've had another run-through of the prose and can only detect one small issue: ...a promotion strategy she has consistently been doing to tease new music. This may be true presently, but how do we know for sure that she'll still be doing it five years from now, or even five months? Feel free to rebuke with justification, but I suggest tweaking this clause to prevent the risk of it getting dated down the line. Maybe something like "she had consistently been doing ... as of November 2024"? Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 03:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the second read-through, Dylan620. It is appreciated. I agree with your observation; I changed the tense to past perfect continuous, but I think the intended message is already conveyed without the "as of". Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 ^{[please make some noise]} 07:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Dylan620 and @Ippantekina; it's been around a week since your last comments. Is there anything else you believe I should address? Thanks, Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 ^{[please make some noise]} 23:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@PSA: I am pleased with your resolution of my comment, but MaranoFan's comments gave me pause because she did spot some things that I had overlooked. Your fixes in response to her comments look good to me; I am leaning towards supporting, but would prefer to hear back from MF first. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:04, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

NØ

• I have to oppose this at the moment since the nominator keeps converting the full sentence "Credits are adapted from the liner notes of SOS." to the non-sentence "Credits adapted from the liner notes of SOS" with no good reason.
  • Thank you for stopping by. I appreciate the constructive comments. However, I must say this particular comment gives me pause. Is there anything in the MOS or list of enwiki policies that favors the use of full sentences here instead of a fragment? As I have alluded to, other GAs and FAs on the SOS topic have passed with this writing style.

My apologies, but I do not see how the previous phrasing is unencyclopedic and how your suggestion improves the quality of the article. Unless I am pointed to an explicit guideline somewhere instead of a nebulous "it does not look right", this ultimately just comes down to writing preferences.

Further, while there are good comments below, I respectfully apologize when I say that citing this particular comment on something that is IMO inconsequential as enough reason to oppose is baffling. It comes as a big shock to an otherwise respected and prolific contributor here. Either way, it should be left to @FAC coordinators: to judge the merits. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 ^{[please make some noise]} 04:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Out of observation, the credits should also appear in the article body but are currently absent. This creates a weightage issue as the people whose role is selectively chosen to mention in the article body (SZA's participation in its studio sessions is given multiple sentences) have the importance of their role appear exaggerated, which is a 1d issue.
  • I am unsure what the problem is. Based on all available reliable sources, it will actually be in line with Wikipedia policy that the producers and SZA will gain more weight/coverage in the article. RS that discuss the BTS of "Snooze" and SOS in general lean heavily towards the producers, SZA, and her management. This was not a problem in Ghost in the Machine (song) which arguably faced more scrutiny in its FAC. (Elias)
• The writing is also complex, with an unnecessary amount of commas in several places where ideas could be presented in a simpler way, e.g. "BLK, in his words, took the 'traditional R&B route'", could just be "BLK said that he took the 'traditional R&B route'", "A frequent description of the song's sound is 'dreamy', as said by several music critics" could be "Several music critics described the song as 'dreamy'", "Upon finishing the demo, BLK sent his work to Leon Thomas III, who, along with Khris Riddick-Tynes, is a part of the production duo the Rascals", "Then, her degree of yearning is revealed to be one-sided, much to her dismay", etc. ---NØ 08:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Where I feel rewrites are warranted, I have done so, but where I feel like the prose is still readable either way, I have stuck to the status quo. I appreciate the preference for simpler sentences, but cohesiveness, variation, and smooth transitions matter too. I chose not to trim certain sentences if they made the paragraph's flow more staccato, disrupted its organization, or reduced the variety in sentence length. As said earlier, ultimately, it is a matter of writing preference. (Elias)

• Some other examples of poor prose:
  • "Justin Bieber features on an acoustic remix of 'Snooze', a month after he appeared on the song's music video." - The first portion of this construction is present tense, but it does not fit with the second part, as it has been more than a year since the video's release and we are not in the period a month post its release. Appearances are made "in" videos, not "on" them.
    • There seemed to be a missing word. This, along with the typo, is fixed (Elias)
  • "'Snooze' has received critical acclaim; critics often praised the instrumental" - The critical reception could have either surfaced in the past or it is currently happening, so this construction is poor as well.
    • It is understandable that we be careful about tense consistency. The reviews already were published, so simple past was used, but the positive reception it brought has an enduring impact in the present, so present perfect was used. I split these clauses to avoid the awkwardness, but there are some places where tense changes are unavoidable, and we can't really do anything about it (Elias)
  • "Several wrote positively about the song's 'dreamy' composition" - Regurgitating the almost virtually same line in the Composition section about the "dreamy" composition.
    • My view is that it will be natural to repeat this. Given the context of each article section, the specific verbiage of regurgitating "almost virtually [the] same" is not a good summary of it. Mentioning the word in #Composition makes sense because we expect readers to get a more intuitive, layperson description of the song's sound than the less entry-level stuff like genre differences, instruments, technical terms like a "riff" etc. Seeing "dreamy" in #Critical reception again also makes sense because this same description was used by critics to justify why they thought "Snooze" was a good song (Elias)
  • "What resulted from her 'Snooze' session was a love song about an obsessive, passionate romance" - Not seeing any such thing in the Today source cited. It does not mention a "session" nor an "obsessive, passionate romance". Today does call the song "dreamy", but it is not cited as a source after the sentence in the article about critics who categorized it as such. Nothing about SZA wanting to "prove her love" (which is included as the lyrics' description in the lead) in it either. --NØ 17:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
    • To improve text-source integrity I added the Vibe (Best R&B Songs of 2023) source alongside the Today one. The latter actually says "willingness to go to great lengths for her significant other" which I think supports the fact well. Wrt "session", this is just a transitory phrase, and virtually every song is a product of a studio session so this is a quintessential WP:BLUE moment (Elias)

As above, thank you for sharing your thoughts here MaranoFan. Responses above. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 ^{[please make some noise]} 04:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Aoba47

Apologies in advance as I will not be able to do a full review for this FAC, but I do agree with one of MaranoFan's concerns above and I wanted to echo it here. The information from the "Credits" section should be included as prose in the article, in the same way as the information from the "Charts" section is included as prose in the article. Apologies for not catching this in the "Ghost in the Machine" FAC (as I did a review for that one without mentioning it), but everyone from the credits and personal should be discussed in the prose and not just limited to that one particular section. I just wanted to point this out as I did not see this in the other FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 21:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Merchant's House Museum

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

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

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

Support from Crisco

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seattle Kraken

Nominator(s): XR228 (talk) 06:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The Seattle Kraken are the second-newest team in the National Hockey League, having been founded in 2018 and playing their first game in 2021. Within their three seasons, they have fared not-so-decently, qualifying for the playoffs only once. I nominated this article for FA a couple months back, but it didn't get enough reviews, so I'm hoping we can avoid that this time. Thanks. XR228 (talk) 06:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "The Kraken qualified for the Stanley Cup playoffs for the first time in 2023. The team faced off against the Colorado Avalanche in the first round." - could merge these two, rather perfunctory, sentences
• "ending their sophomore season" - I presume "sophomore" is an American English term for "second".......?
• "The previous season, Beniers scored" => "The previous season, Beniers scored"
• "The Kraken played their first home game at Climate Pledge Arena" - is Climate Pledge Arena the same facility as KeyArena? If so, I would clarify this.
• "He made his Kraken debut on October 13, notching a 4–1 victory" - not sure he personally notched the victory, I would imagine some other players helped a bit too ;-)
• "The team's record of 46–28–8" - is this W-D-L? W-L-D? Something else? I have seen a tooltip used to explain such records on similar articles.....
• "ultimately part of a 13-game point streak" - what's a "point streak"? Is there an appropriate link?
• "Vince Dunn (left) and Joey Daccord (right) during the 2024 Winter Classic." - this image caption isn't a sentence so doesn't need a full stop
• "The Coachella Valley Firebirds, the AHL affiliate of the Kraken" - write (and link) the name in full on first usage
• in the Season-by-season record section, T appears in the key but no such column exists in the table
• Under "Owners", I would merge the two single-sentence "paragraphs" into one
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude I have made the changes. As for Martin Jones, wins are typically counted as part of a goalie's stats in ice hockey, so normally when a team wins, it is also said that the goaltender won the game as well. XR228 (talk) 04:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  OK, that seems a bit weird but I will bow to how ice hockey does thing ;-) BTW the point about the "record of 46–28–8" still seems to be outstanding.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: In the paragraph before that, it talks about the Kraken's record of 27–49–6, so I added a note there. XR228 (talk) 15:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  Apologies for missing that there. Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Nick-D

I'd like to offer the following comments

• The start of the 'Establishment' section is rather abrupt - the article would benefit from material here or as a separate section explaining the history of professional ice hockey in the region ahead of the team's establishment.
• "The team plays the Nirvana song "Lithium" after every Kraken goal at home" - this seems a rather odd choice, even though Nirvana are a local band. Can the rationale here be explained?
• The "Season-by-season record" section is unreferenced
• "32 was retired on October 23, 2021, immediately before the team played their first regular season home game, in recognition of the team being the 32nd to join the NHL and in honor of the 32,000 fans who placed deposits for tickets on the first possible day." - this is stated earlier in the article, almost word for word.
• While I appreciate that the article covers a fairly new sports team, it seems that it has been bulked up with minor issues and trivia that obviously wouldn't be included in articles on more established teams. This should be removed to help future proof the article, which needs to be a priority for FAs on ongoing topics. Some examples:
  • " On July 13, 2022, the team signed goaltender Martin Jones to a one-year contract.[39] He made his Kraken debut on October 13, notching a 4–1 victory."
  • "All fans holding tickets are given free transit passes to and from the arena, which is served by several bus routes and the Seattle Center Monorail."
  • " At the team's first two home games, the Hyak's horn was not yet functional, so the team only played a recording of it"
  • "The event was held under the banner of "Release the Kraken", a phrase popularized by the 1981 film Clash of the Titans and the 2010 remake"
  • The second para of the 'Mascot' section could be cut. This seems like a concocted PR exercise.
  • The 'broadcasting' section seems much too detailed - I doubt that many readers will care about most of this information, which includes unnecessary levels of detail on topics such as the radio stations that broadcast individual games and a single Covid case. This could be considerably condensed. Nick-D (talk) 06:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Nick-D: I have made the changes. As for the "abruptness," the section is about the establishment of the team, and I don't feel that it's right to put information about other former teams there. XR228 (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

For a featured article, it's necessary. Stuff like this is the difference between a high quality article and a featured quality article. Nick-D (talk) 07:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@Nick-D: I've added a section about the history of ice hockey in Seattle. XR228 (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Based on this version.

• Why the long quotes on citations 2 and 3?
• Inconsistency between using "NHL.com" and "National Hockey League" in the work parameter for links from NHL.com; the latter should probably not be used except for league announcements (and changed to publisher).
• Heavy reliance on NHL.com sources is a problem; more third-party sources would be appreciated.
• Inconsistency in marking The Athletic as a subscription-required or limited-access source; citation 69 omits it entirely.
• Citation 15 should use {{cite tweet}}, but ideally be replaced with something that isn't speculative; same goes for citation 16, as "reportedly" is an issue.
• Citation 28 should be consistent with other uses of NHL.com sources.
• Citation 57: SportsPro is not a high-quality source.
• Citation 76 is not consistent with other NHL.com source formatting.
• Citation 80: UniWatch is not a high-quality reliable source.
• Citation 81: The Seattle Times is unlinked; for consistency, all citations should either use links or omit them after the first use.
• Citation 82: USA Today needs to be added as the main source; For The Win is a subsection.
• Citation 83: Barstool Sports is not a reliable source.
• Citation 85: Pacific Northwest Sports is not a high-quality source.
• Citation 89: PSBJ should be marked as subscription required.
• Citation 100: Can this press release be replaced with something else? Either way, it is not correctly attributed, since PR Newswire is an aggregator.
• Citation 108 should be consistent with other AHL website citations.
• Citations 115, 116, 117: teams and organizations are publishers.
• Citation 119: TSN is not listed as work here unlike other uses.
• Citation 120: Is The Hockey Writers a high-quality source?
• Citation 112: The Sporting News should be linked.
• Citation 123: CNN/SI should be listed as a work, not a publisher.

Will conduct a spotcheck later, but at this point there are quite a few sources that need to be swapped out for higher-quality versions. SounderBruce 07:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: I have made the changes. XR228 (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Avoid sandwiching text between images

• Wordmark is missing alt text

• File:WCP-Uniform-SEA.png should include a source for the design - it doesn't seem to align with some of the example elsewhere in the article

• Images shouldn't have watermarks per WP:WATERMARK

• File:NHL_Seattle_logo.gif: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I have made the changes. About the uniform image not having a source, what does that mean exactly? When I go to Wikimedia Commons, in the summary section, in the source row it says the user who made the design. If you could clarify that would be great. Thanks. XR228 (talk) 06:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The user who made the image didn't invent the design, right? Does the team have a page on it? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: The team itself doesn't have a page about the jerseys. All NHL team jersey designs on Wikipedia are drawn digitally by someone, so I don't really think there's much we can do about it. XR228 (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

They're drawn digitally by someone based on something, though, not out of their own head. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: If anything the drawing is based off pictures of players wearing the jersey, not, say, a graphic by the team. XR228 (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Buangkok MRT station

Nominator(s): ZKang123 (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

This is my second nomination of the article, about an MRT station which remained closed even when the line opened. After some lobbying by residents, MPs and grassroots leaders to open the station, including a rare form of public protest by putting up "white elephant" cardboard cutouts, the station was eventually opened. Previously there were concerns raised about the wording and phrases of certain portions of the article, and I had put it up to the GOCE for a copyedit. As the semester ends, I also have more time to work on any potential issues that might arises during the FAC review process. ZKang123 (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

750h

Will review. Feel free to refuse my suggestions with justification

lead

• Sengkang Central with Compassvale Bow, and serves remove the comma
• commercial-and-residential development. ==> "commercial and residential development.", unless there's a reason the hyphens are there
• In August 2005, during a visit by youth minister Vivian Balakrishnan visit to Punggol South ==> "In August 2005, during a visit by youth minister Vivian Balakrishnan to Punggol South"
• After the Land Transport Authority re-evaluated its feasibility, Buangkok station opened

history

• stations announced the communications minister ==> "stations announced by the communications minister"
• Lee said at the ceremony Buangkok station ==> "Lee said at the ceremony that Buangkok station"
• announcement of transport-fare rises. hyphen is unrequired
• Tee-shirts bearing the words hyphen isn't required
• No-one, including the girls ==> "No one, including the girls"

details

• which has the station code of NE15 remove "of"
• two entrances that serving the surrounding HDB flat ==> "two entrances that serve the surrounding HDB flat" or "two entrances that serve as the surrounding HDB flat"
• accommodate at least 7,500 people, and to withstand remove the comma
• Through the colorful embellishments, Leow intended "colorful" ==> "colourful" in Singaporean English

Thanks for the article @ZKang123:. I have an active candidacy if you'd like to take a look. Best, 750h+ 15:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

1920 Xalapa earthquake

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

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

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size

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

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

Alamy entries:

• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ganesha811

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

Lead

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

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

Fair enough!

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

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

• Some prose oddities in the lead:

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

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

• accommodated by what does this mean, exactly?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seems reasonable.

• were raised should be "was raised".

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

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

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

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

Tectonic setting

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

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

• (slabs), dehydrate no comma needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Damage and casualties

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

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

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

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

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

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

Done

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

Reworded

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

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

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

Done

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

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

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

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

Response

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

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

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

Mikenorton

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

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

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

Lead

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

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

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

Tectonic setting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Earthquake characteristics

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

Knives Out

Nominator(s): DAP (talk) 08:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

What do you get when you conceive an Agatha Christie-inspired mystery with an all-star cast, led by a British actor playing a Southern accent that's too cartoonish to be accurate, but is kinda sexy anyways? If you guessed Knives Out, then you are quite the gambling person. This Rian Johnson-directed film follows a flamboyant private detective's (Daniel Craig) investigation of the death of a bestselling author (played by the late Christopher Plummer) in a story critiquing class and race in modern American society. Many thanks to LEvalyn for their GA review, Aoba47 for their peer review, and Baffle gab1978 for undertaking my copyedit request! DAP 💅 08:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

mujinga

Hello DAP389, I moderately enjoyed this film when I watched it a while back. A few comments to get the ball rolling:

• In the plot section, I don't see why you aren't using surnames to refer to the people. I see a brief discussion at the peeer review about following the style of the film but surely the wikipedia naming convention would overrule that?

Revised. I believe the film style is less confusing for readers since we have a cast of characters with the same surname but don't feel too strongly about keeping it as is. I kept Harlan's given name to avoid confusion with the other Thrombeys though.

I wouldn't say that's done, there's still quite a lot of first name usgae eg Marta. Fran is tricky is she has no surname but she could also just be the housekeeper Mujinga (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• In the production section, you have 2xthat "Johnson planned to create a whodunit mystery that would be influenced by film adaptations of books by the detective-fiction writer Agatha Christie that he enjoyed as a child"

Rephrased.

• "Johnson's greatest challenge was modernizing a genre studios deemed too antiquated for release" - suggest "His greatest challenge" reads better

Done.

• "He embedded elements of the Knives Out story with his experience of coping with the intense culture war responses to The Last Jedi" - can you flesh this out a bit? i dont really understand what it's getting at

Rephrased.

What I'm missing here is that the source is saying that the experience of being trolled for directing the star wars film inspired johnson to invent a troll character for this film. Without that info it's hard to understand Mujinga (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• "When Johnson showed a finished draft to friends, he recalled the response was cynical because his motivations were poorly understood" - is this meant to be summarising "When Johnson finished a first draft of Knives, an idea that had been germinating for a decade, and showed it to some of his friends, they were skeptical. “A few reactions were ‘We like this kind of movie, but why do you want to do this?’ That did give me pause,” he says. “But I felt like I knew deep down inside why I wanted to do it.”"? somehow the phrasing makes me think we are talking about the characters' motivations rather than Johnson's, maybe it can be rephrased?

Done.

• I got as far as the casting section. Cheers, Mujinga (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate the feedback @Mujinga:. Lemme know what you think. DAP 💅 05:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi DAP389 a couple of replies - I'd love to read the rest of the article and give a full review but this week is busy IRL, so it might take a me a while. Cheers, Mujinga (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The True Record

Nominator(s):  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a short-lived magazine that emerged in the early days of the Republic of China. Though it lasted only seventeen issues, The True Record has been considered one of the most important magazines of its era. This article offers a comprehensive review of the English literature, as well as several Chinese-language sources (and one in Japanese), offering the most comprehensive review of this publication available. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Generalissima

• Marking myself down for a review later. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

I reviewed the article for GA, and such minor quibbles as I had were dealt with then. On rereading for FAC I find nothing additional to carp about and I am happy to add my support for the elevation of this article to FA. It meets all the criteria, in my view. Tim riley talk 19:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

750h

Will review. If I don't start within 7 days ping me. 750h+ 02:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Gerald Durrell

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most influential people in the history of conservation biology. Durrell became famous for his books, and used the money from them to found Jersey Zoo. As recently as the mid-1970s there was still opposition at the highest level of the zoo world to the idea that zoos could help with conservation of endangered species. Durrell's work is one of the main reasons that that's no longer the case. One point that reviewers will notice: the article depends heavily on a single source: the only book-length biography of Durrell, by Douglas Botting. There are other reminiscences, and I've cited some material to them, but they are essentially books of anecdotes rather than of encyclopedic material. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Gerald_Durrell,_Askania_Nova_(cropped).jpg: source link is dead, and I note the uploader has had a number of uploads deleted for permissions issues - is there anything to confirm the release of this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Nothing that I can find. The picture is from Durrell's time in Askania Nova, in the mid-1980s; I have the book of that trip and this picture is not in that chapter, so it's at least possible that it was taken separately as claimed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

UC

Saving a spot. 09:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Gerald Malcolm Durrell, OBE (7 January 1925 – 30 January 1995) was a British naturalist : as MOS:COMMA warns, don't let other punctuation distract from the need for a comma. As we've got a comma before OBE, we need one after it as well -- in this case, after the brackets. However, a perfectly acceptable alternative, which plays better with the previews you get when mousing over a link, would be to remove the preceding comma instead.

  Comma removed.

• Per WP:INFONAT, I think it would be worth clarifying his British nationality in the infobox, as it is not obvious from his place of birth and death.

  Added "British" to the infobox. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• animal collecting trips: consider animal-collecting trips per MOS:HYPHEN, but it's arguable either way.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• he married Jacquie Rasen: better as he married Jacquie (née Rasen)?

  I think this is better as is, unless you feel strongly about it -- she was Jacquie Rasen at the time they married, and although I know the locution is common, just using the first name in this way always strikes me as odd. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  Not a problem -- to me, it's equally odd to use a name that became wrong through the act we're describing, but there's pros and cons either way and this is very much a matter for editorial taste. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• In 1957 he visited the Cameroons for the third time, and on his return attempted to persuade Bournemouth and Poole town councils to start local zoos...: a very long sentence. It reads better if cut in two after zoos here.

  Done. Long sentences are one of my besetting sins. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• continued to mine his past for autobiographical material: I think MOS:CLICHE applies here.

  Trimmed, though I'm not sure if that flows well now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• He received an OBE in 1982: this is me being very pedantic, and probably more so than even most HQRS, but OBE is technically an institutiona personal title. The Gazette uses "appointed as an Officer of the Order of the British Empire" vel sim.

  I used "became"; does that work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  It does, though I'd still be tempted to spell it out, as many people will (mis)read OBE as "Order of the British Empire". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think I'll leave it as is, if that's OK -- I rarely object to pedanticism but the technically correct formulations are a bit unwieldy and will surprise most readers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  Not a problem. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Durrell's father insisted that Louisa conform with conventional expectations, but she was more independent than most women of the era. She spent much time with her cook, learning to make curries, and had trained as a nurse.: the tone here just feels a little off to me: a bit like it was written by a Victorian rather than about one. Anyway, is all this really that unusual in this time period? This is the 1920s, not the 1820s -- flapper culture is in full swing, and people like Virginia Woolf, Emmeline Pankhurst and Jane Ellen Harrison are getting well into middle and old age, and of course many women worked as nurses and in traditionally masculine roles during the First World War. I need a bit of convincing that having a trade and chatting to the servants was really all that exceptional.

  I think the Anglo-Indian (that's always the adjective I've seen, regardless of the ethnicities) community in India at the time was more determinedly British than the British themselves -- shades of Passage to India and Burmese Days. That's certainly the impression that Botting gives: he says of Louisa "As an Anglo-Indian, she was less mindful of her exalted status than the average white memsahib who passed her time in the subcontinent in a state of aloof exile. As a young woman she had defied convention and trained as a nurse, and had even scrubbed floors (unheard of for a white woman in India then)." Botting goes on to mention talking to the servants and learning to cook curries. Haag quotes an interview with a woman who knew the Durrells when she was a girl on Corfu in the thirties; she is quite stiffly disapproving of them, saying the Durrells did not behave as an English family in a colonial environment were expected to behave. I don't think Botting is an expert on Anglo-Indian social mores, but it does seem reasonable to me that the Durrells were not typical of their community. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  No quarrel with that, but I think we need to make a bit more of it clear. At the moment, we suggest that most women of the 1920s were not independent, would not have trained as nurses and would have had nothing to do with the servants, which is hard to wear. It sounds as though Botting contextualises this in a very specific aristocratic Anglo-Indian context, which we don't (yet). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  Reworded to make that clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Anglo-English: something is awry here. "Anglo-Irish" would be the obvious correction, but doesn't make much sense -- it sounds as though we mean "English parents living in India" or "English parents of a certain social class".

  This was just absent-mindedness; I've switched it to Anglo-Indian, which is what I meant. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• the household included an ayah (a nursemaid) who helped raise the children: I think it's worth clarifying that an ayah is specifically an Indian servant, which helps explain the (presumably European?) Catholic governess.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• his father bought a house in Dulwich, near where both the older boys were at school: at Dulwich College? If so, worth including, I think: that's quite an elite school which says something about the social standing of the family.

  Lawrence was at St. Olave's Grammar School (where I went myself, as it happens); I don't know where Leslie went, and Botting doesn't give more details. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• while out with his ayah one day: italicise ayah consistently.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Gerald was scarcely affected, having had little emotional connection to his father: perhaps more to the point, he was only three years old!

  Well, yes, but Botting's point is that the elder Lawrence did the Victorian father routine and only saw Gerald for half-an-hour a day. Botting quotes Durrell: "I must confess my father's demise had little or no effect on me, since he was a remote figure", followed by some minor reminiscences and Durrell saying he was closer to his mother and his ayah. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think that latter detail would be nice to include: at the moment, we present this almost as a deficiency on Gerald's part (as if he was himself aloof or disconnected), rather than as a natural consequence of Lawrence's parenting. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  Added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  I see It was usual for Anglo-Indian parents to see little of their children a little further up, and Gerald was scarcely affected, having had been much closer to his mother and his ayah than his father. Those are both much weaker than what you said here, about Lawrence having chosen only to see Gerald for half an hour a day, and the latter still places the weight on the child rather than the father. Do we have the sourcing to say that Lawrence chose to be barely involved in Gerald's life? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think so. Botting says he "by all accounts was a decent but rather distant and often absent figure to his children, for his work as an engineer took him across the length and breadth of British India ..." which ascribes the distance more to his work than his inclination. Botting also says "though he was a straightforward servant of empire, he was not an entirely conventional one; he did not live like the British but like the Anglo-Indians, and he resigned from his club when an Oxford-educated Indian doctor he had proposed for membership was blackballed", so I don't think we can say it was conventional Victorian behaviour. Margaret is quoted: "In those days children only saw their parents when they were presented to them at four o'clock for the family tea ... our lives revolved around the nursery and our Hindu ayah and Catholic governess. Gerry would have had more to do with the ayah than we older children did". The half hour is from a quote from Gerald: "I would see him twice a day for half an hour and he would tell me stories about the three bears. I knew he was my daddy but I was on much greater terms of intimacy with Mother and my ayah than with my father." I don't see anything there that speaks to the elder Lawrence's motivations. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  No, indeed -- and we can hardly assume that the four-year-old Gerald was timing these interactions to the minute. I think we do have enough to say that he was often absent, though. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Added. I put this in with the account of his death, which has the slight disadvantage of forcing the sentence into the pluperfect. I could move it earlier, to where I give Lawrence's job, but since the relevance is to his death's effect on Gerald I think it's better there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  I agree. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• She began to drink: This is a bit of a euphemism: I think we should be more direct. Likewise, later, temporarily freed of her drinking habit is a little on the flowery (and possibly moralising?) side.

  I am hamstrung by Botting's language here. He quotes Durrell, who says his mother began "resorting to the bottle more and more frequently", and then Botting says "Eventually, matters reached a crisis", and quotes Durrell again, with the "nervous breakdown" euphemism. I don't think I can use this to say either that she was an alcoholic or was being treated for alcoholism. I agree with you that Durrell's language is euphemistic, but I don't want to go beyond what he actually says. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  The usual solution here would be to lean into Botting: something like "Durrell later wrote that his mother "began resorting [..."]; in Botting's words, "matters reached a crisis" in 19XX, when..." UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  I found it tricky to navigate between overquoting and over-interpreting but I've had a go at this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• When he was nine he was spanked by his headmaster, and his mother took him away from the school: this I find interesting: it would have been completely normal in those days, and indeed much later. Any indication as to why both Durrell and Louisa reacted so strongly here -- was it simply the last straw?

  I think Louisa spoiled him, and he was unused to school discipline anyway -- at age nine he had not lived through four years of school life, as most children would have, and I imagine he was used to getting his own way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Lawrence and his partner, Nancy, moved in with Louisa and Gerald at about the end of 1934 when the friends they had been living with, George and Pam Wilkinson, emigrated to Corfu: clarify the antecedent here.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• a house in Perama: in looking up a potential ILL, I discovered that there are (or were) two villages on Corfu by that name: I think this one is the most likely candidate, as the second wasn't known by that name until the 1960s.

  That seems to be the right one -- not far south of Corfu town fits with the description. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Greek-British doctor: endash here, I think, as he was jointly Greek and British, rather than being primarily British but also sort-of Greek (as in "African-American" or "Swiss-German").

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Stephanides spent a half-day every week with Gerald, walking in the countryside with him: could cut with him as implied by the previous clause.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Henri Fabre: seems to be fairly universally Jean Henri Fabre in sources: Henri Fabre is the aviator.

  Done, with a hyphen rather than a space as that's what our article uses; no objection to changing it to a space if that's the usual form. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• His call-up for the war came in late 1942, but he was exempted from military duty on medical grounds: was this because of bad sinuses? Seems a rather light ailment on which to reject someone from military service, given the pressing situation.

  Durrell tells an amusing story about this; it sounds like his sinuses were truly spectacularly bad, but he also gives a conversation with the doctor who exempted him in which he admitted to the doctor that he didn't want to fight and the doctor said that was fine by him. Since Durrell was sometimes faithful to narrative interest rather than accuracy in his recollections I decided to skip this detail in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• He was given the option of working in a munitions factory or finding work on a farm: I would clarify, here, who gave him the option: it sounds like he was being conscripted to do this?

  Apparently the way it worked was that after the medical, one received a letter giving the results, and it was this letter that gave him the options. I've rephrased to make this clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Durrell's biographer, Botting, says Durrell broke his hand while separating the African buffalo calf from its mother, but in Durrell's own autobiographical account it happens while caging the gnu: we've chosen Durrell over Botting here, which is a little dangerous: people's autobiographies are frequently inaccurate, for all sorts of reasons. Unless a published source has done the same, I think we need to avoid passing judgement: we can say that he had both tasks, and that the hand was broken, but not discriminate between the two stories of which one broke it.

  Yes, fair; I said above that Durrell's own recollections aren't automatically truthful and I should have been more cautious here. Rephrased. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

More to follow. It's undoubtedly an excellent article, though I must admit that my niggles about the tone remain: I worry that it's just slightly too far towards the sort of writing that Durrell himself would have put out about his own life, rather than a dispassionate encyclopaedic treatment of it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Will reply to your points later, but just a quick note to say that as a longtime reader of Durrell's work I shouldn't be surprised that I am writing a little under his influence. When I go through with your points in mind I will see if I can also sweep away some of that tone. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Have now replied to all points; have not yet gone through for tone. I think I'm going to find it hard to spot but will do my best; I'd appreciate any pointers to the problem you can give while you read through. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not a major issue, and I wouldn't want to take away the article's sparkle. I'll go through and pick out the bits where the distinctive voice is strongest. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Re-reading the parts on which I commented yesterday, I think I'll retract what I said about the tone -- maybe thanks to recent edits, it seems to be just about right. Will pick out anything that stands out as I move forward. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• was invited to the zoo to meet the Superintendent, Geoffrey Vevers: good old MOS:PEOPLETITLES - decap superintendent here.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• At the interview, Durrell "prattled on interminably about animals, animal collecting and my own zoo", as he later put it: not totally clear whether he is Durrell or Vevers.

  Made it "as Durrell later put it" -- I'm not too keen on the repetition of "Durrell" but I don't see a less clumsy way to do it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• The extinctions of animals such as the dodo, the passenger pigeon and the quagga appalled him, and he realised that zoos had little interest in addressing the problems of endangered species: I wonder if we're being a little unfair here, particularly with the last part. None of those animals went extinct because of zoos: it's not so much that the zoos were sitting on their hands, as that nobody thought of conservation as something that was within a zoo's remit. It's a bit like someone being appalled that museums are doing nothing to address childhood obesity: the fact that we now believe that zoos should try to stop species from going extinct is in large part a consequence of what Durrell did later.

  I made it "he realised that most zoos considered themselves showplaces for animals, rather than scientific institution which might have a role in addressing the problems of endangered species". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I've ever seen the word showplace before! Googling around, its primary meaning seems to be a place that is itself to be shown off (i.e., a particularly fancy building), rather than a place whose contents are interesting. Not immediately thinking of a good synonym, but I'm sure you'll be able to. We need a plural on institutions too. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'm surprised, but I took a look at an ngram of it vs. showroom, and it does seem to be falling slowly out of use, so perhaps other readers will also not recognize the word. I've rephrased (and fixed the plural). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• many of whom were unwilling to pass on what they knew in any case, in order to protect their jobs: I think this could be smoother. Suggest cutting "in any case", and rephrasing to make in order less ambiguous (are we saying that, in order to protect their jobs, they refused to help others, or that they refused to help others, even when doing so would have protected their jobs?). It seems like there's two points being made: the staff didn't know very much, and they didn't talk about the little that they knew. Might be clearer to disentangle the two a little more?

  Reworded; I dropped the point about why the staff were unwilling to pass on their knowledge, as presumably it's Durrell's speculation and doesn't really matter anyway. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Looks good (I made some minor CEs here). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Durrell had good friends among the women keepers: in many style guides, "female X" is preferred to "woman X"; the latter reads as antiquated and sometimes patronising (cf. Woman police constable). Here, there's the unfortunate possibility that a "woman keeper" is like a "lion keeper"...

  Changed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• a woman in London that he refers to in his writings only as Juliet: consider "Juliet" per MOS:WORDSASWORDS, and to be clear that this might be a pseudonym.

  Good idea; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• in a boat acquired from the Germans because of the war: a few things here. Which Germans? As written, this phrase doesn't quite mean what it should: we've said that he acquired it because of the war, but surely the war was the reason these Germans lost it (was it commandeered/captured/confiscated?), presumably at least two years earlier, rather than why Durrell got it?

  I've cut those details; I originally included names and descriptions of the ships they took for these early expeditions, but cut them to reduce the article's length. This was left over and I don't think is needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• learning pidgin: consider "the local dialect": pidgin covers a lot of mixed languages in a lot of places, and is often seen as derogatory.

  I changed it to "Cameroonian pidgin"; as far as I can tell it's the local name. See Cameroonian Pidgin English, which gives other names "for what Cameroonians call Cameroon Pidgin English", and cites linguistics texts from 2008 and 2017 that use that name. I know what you mean about the negative connotations of the word, but it wasn't a dialect, technically. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Good compromise -- likewise, I see your point about calling it a "dialect" (sans army or navy). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• the return to Mamfe required sixty carriers to bring them all: is a carrier a person or a box?

  It's a person. I was trying to avoid both "porters" with its associations with Great White Hunters on safari, and "native carriers", which would be unambiguous but might be the best solution despite a risk that "native" would offend some readers. Would "local carriers" work? Or "on the return to Mamfe he had to hire sixty carriers to ..."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  How about "sixty people to carry..."? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, done, though I realised that there is a reference in the previous sentence that also had to be changed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• while he was there a hunter brought in an angwantibo, one of the animals he was keenest to obtain, as he knew London Zoo were looking to acquire them: lots of hes here. Suggest untangling a bit: did Durrell or the hunter really want to obtain an angwantibo?

  It was Durrell; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• On which -- we are not well served for images of these creatures! Did you consider this drwaing at any point? The black and white photo doesn't really do the animal great justice, but then I can see a strong argument for a photograph over a drawing in principle.

  I did look at it but I think photos are of more use to a reader if they exist, and the angwantibo picture is quite clear, though it would be better in colour. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  A thought: how about using a multiple image template to have them next to each other? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Done. I like how it looks, but I might have made it too wide at 400px; let me know if it looks odd on your screen. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  I've made a tweak-y edit here, please revert if not an improvement (size to 300px and a footer instead of two captions, which means that we have a greater proportion of image overall). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks; mostly fixed, with a couple of queries above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• Cecil Webb, a well-established animal collector, arrived in the Cameroons intending to catch angwantibo shortly afterwards: as far as I can tell, the plural of angwantibo is angwantibos (see e.g. here. p. 209.

  Changed -- I did check, and Durrell and Botting both independently use "angwantibo" as the plural, but as the form with the "s" is accepted that's the less surprising choice. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• he considered Durrell and Yealland to be amateurs: this was, strictly at least, true. Is there a better way of putting it that comes closer to the intended "incompetents"?

  I'm not sure it's strictly true -- they had negotiated with zoos beforehand, and although the zoos would not give them money up front, they were doing it for pay. As you say it's the connotation I'm looking for. Botting's wording is that Webb considered them "novices and upstarts"; I think "incompetent" is a bit too strong to be sourced to that. I've made it "inexperienced and amateurish"; does that work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Works very well. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• The expedition had been successful but not profitable; it had absorbed half of Durrell's inheritance: I assume this is after any income from selling the animals? Perhaps worth reminding us how much money we're talking about here (I think it would be a routine calculation as permitted by WP:OR).

  Yes, after selling the animals. I agree re the routine calculation, but it seems simpler to just repeat the inheritance amount: "half of Durrell's inheritance of ₤3,000". I didn't repeat the inflation conversion since there's one in the very next sentence with a simple ratio to this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Sounds good. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Ken Smith agreed to partner Durrell: not sure I've seen that verb used in that way (rather than transitively: "to partner someone with someone else"): be Durrell's partner, unless I've just missed a common usage?

  Changed to "join"; I think it's a valid usage but as elsewhere I think if it sounds odd to you it will sound odd to others. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• where the Fon, Achirimbi II, the king of the area: this isn't quite phrased right. If Fon means 'king' (more or less), we don't want to then gloss it with "the king of the area". Could do Achrimbi II, the local Fon ('king')?

  The Fon's name is not really needed inline, since I don't use it later in the article (Durrell and Botting never use it at all; he's just "the Fon" throughout.) I've made it "the Fon (the local ruler)" and added a footnote giving his name. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• augmenting what he was obtaining from the hunts he went on: again, a lot of "he"s here. "From his own hunts"? Even then, might not be clear if "he" is Durrell or the Fon.

  Clarified, I hope. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• the two men emptied it over the course of the evening: consider drank or finished: this is slightly figurative language that might confuse a non-native speaker (are we talking about some kind of libation ritual?)

  I made it "drank". This is one of those "tone" moments you mentioned; for lifelong Durrell readers such as myself, the night that Durrell meets and drinks with the Fon is a memorable event, and I mentally slipped into a literary rather than an encyclopedic state of mind. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• requiring an emergency trip to Bemenda: where was that?

  Forty miles away; I added that. It was a five-hour trip in the Fon's kitcar, and Durrell would have been at serious risk of death if they had not obtained the antiserum, but I cut the details as being colourful and not strictly necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• They knew that obtaining one of the high-value animals would immediately resolve their financial problems: well, not immediately -- they would have to get the thing safely back to the UK first.

  Yes, fair enough. Cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• As they came ashore Durrell and Smith were already planning another trip: possibly getting a bit poetic here. Literally as they were stepping off the boat, or around the time of their return?

  Almost literally: Durrell tells the press about the plan as they are interviewed while docked at Liverpool, just before getting off the boat. But I agree it's not necessary to be so poetic, so rephrased. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  You might want to include that detail -- it's a nice one and can be conveyed quickly. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Most of the animals survived the journey, but the last flying squirrel died just one day from docking at Liverpool on 25 August: didn't we have dozens of these things a few paragraphs ago? We've been pretty cavalier about what sounds like a very dark day in flying-squirrel history.

  Yes indeed. The story of these flying squirrels (known now as flying mice, though that wasn't true back then, I believe) is one of the more memorable episodes from the book of the trip. He had 42 of them, if I recall correctly and I could easily expand this section to tell more of the story -- capturing them was an adventure, and then finding something they would eat was difficult. They eventually showed a willingness to eat avocados and Durrell had to persuade the ship's cook to give him some of the avocados that the ship's captain had brought on board for his own diet. They died in twos and threes on the trip home, despite his best efforts. Again I omitted this for length reasons. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  It does seem like we have two different stories here -- the trip home was pretty safe if you were a wildebeest, but pretty deadly if you were a flying squirrel. Perhaps something like "Most of the animals survived they journey, but all 42 of the flying squirrels died during it, the last just one day..."? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  I went back to the The Bafut Beagles to source these details, and discovered I'd misremembered the sequence; they began dying while still in Mamfe, and only four even made it to the ship. I've added a sentence abuot the difficulty of keeping them alive, but at the first mention rather than in the paragraph about the voyage home. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• the expedition had brought back several species never previously seen in Britain: would be nice if we could specify some of these.

  Botting says "London [Zoo] took some of the rarities of special scientific interest, many of them never before seen alive in Britain, including the hairy frog and a large number of insects". Then there's a quote from a news story citing the hairy frog as "the first creature of its kind ever to be brought into this country". Durrell caught a hairy frog on the previous trip, though perhaps it didn't survive the trip home -- Durrell doesn't mention it in The Overloaded Ark; Botting's details come from Durrell's diary. I think this is enough to mention the frog, and have done so, though now I wonder if a reader will recall that the previous trip mentioned the same animal. Perhaps it would be better to delete the earlier mention? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• where he visited Tiny McTurk at his ranch: ...who?

  The McTurks, as far as I can tell, were a well-known British family in the area -- googling "mcturk guiana" (or "guyana") finds a lot of references. I think the McTurks are likely to be notable, but perhaps this is not the place to worry about that, so I've cut the reference. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  I was thinking you would give some kind of explanation like "a local British landowner" or similar? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  I see -- I misunderstood. I'll stay with the removal; the reader just needs to know where they went. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• We have a long quote from Jacquie Wolfenden in the paragraph of her introduction. I think it could be better integrated into the prose of the paragraph, but we certainly need to be clear about when she wrote this and in what context. It looks from the citation that it's a quote from her 1967 autobiography?

  Yes, now attributed directly. I like the quote and I think paraphrasing it would rob it of its emotional directness. Do you think it should be shortened, then? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• David Attenborough, another rising figure in the world of natural history: was this quite right in 1950? He would only just have been out of the Navy and not yet properly working at the BBC; I think his first natural history programme was in 1953.

  Attenborough's comment was later; the wording was clumsy in that it wasn't intended to imply that Attenborough made the comment at the time. Checking Botting's citations I see in fact it was much later, so I've cut it; we don't need to have Attenborough's affirmation that Durrell was right. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• she was free to marry without her parents permission: apostrophe needed here. I was surprised to discover that this remained true until the late 1980s.

  Apostrophe added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• The Durrells began their marriage in a tiny flat in Margaret's house in Bournemouth: perhaps remind us who Margaret was; it's been a while.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Jacquie joined him there and began "learning about animal keeping the hard way", helping to feed and care for the animals.: quotes always need to be attributed inline: whose words are these?

  Attributed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Jacquie knew Gerald was a marvellous storyteller: how about considered G. a marvellous storyteller, which is verifiable, whereas the current formulation is not?

  Yes, my own biases coming through there. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• The fee was a welcome fifteen guineas: how much was that? I would cut a welcome for tone.

  Cut, and an equivalent given. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• equivalent to ₤120.00 in 2023: don't think we want the decimals here (false precision).

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• to make the book entertaining and humorous rather than tediously factual: I don't think any writer wants to make their work tedious, though I know I usually manage it with my FAC reviews.

  Durrell did actually say "I have tried, firstly, not to be boring", but I take your point. Changed to "simply factual". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• The completed typescript, titled The Overloaded Ark, was posted to Faber & Faber with a covering letter mentioning that Lawrence was Gerald's brother: better the other way, I think: "that Gerald was Lawrence's brother" (because F&F would have known Lawrence, but not Gerald).

  Yes, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Curtis Brown, Lawrence's own agent, in late 1952. They read...: is there a way to do this so that Curtis Brown doesn't sound like a person's name, and so that we're not surprised by the plural they? Get the word agency in there somewhere?

  It was actually Spencer Curtis Brown, son of the Curtis Brown who founded the agency. I wrote it referring to the agency but it's confusing, I agree. I've tried to finesse this by giving Spencer's full name and removing the link to a footnote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• a galley proof: I had to look this up: wikilink at the very least, I think.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• sold to Rupert Hart-Davis: who was that? Incidentally, do we mean the man, or the company?

  This is tricky for the reverse reason to the issue with Spencer Curtis Brown. Our article, Rupert Hart-Davis, is about the man; the publishing house is Rupert Hart-Davis Ltd, but the "Ltd" is rarely used in discussing the publisher, so it can be confusing. I've linked it and added "a London publisher" (though technically "London" is uncited, if that matters), but "publisher" can also refer to either the man or his company. At least it's clear we're talking about a publisher now. Does that do enough to resolve it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think it works, but why not "a London publishing house", if we're definitely talking about the company? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  At that mention it is the person, not the publishing house, being referred to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  Ah! So "owner of a publishing house", maybe? However, there might not really be a problem that needs solving here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• The book's dialog used pidgin: BrE prefers dialogue. Are you still happy with pidgin, with the discussion above in mind?

  Changed. I think we do need to keep "pidgin"; there's a later quote from Jacquie that refers to "comic pidgin" being seen as offensive (that is, the reported speech of the Fon, not the word "pidgin"), and I don't want to change that, so it makes sense to keep it throughout. Given that it is the Cameroonian name for the language (although it's a creole, I think, technically, rather than a pidgin) I don't think the word itself needs to be avoided. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  No -- that was a genuine question; if you're happy, I'm happy. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• An occasional review questioned: do you mean "a small number of reviews"? The phrasing makes it hard to be sure how many we're on about here.

  Changed to "Some reviews". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• A secretary, Sophie Cook, was hired to help with preparations, all made from the tiny flat in Margaret's house in Bournemouth. Their ship left Tilbury: did Cook go on the trip? The use of "Their" makes it sound as if she did, but everything else in this section points the other way. Suggest, if not, "the Durrells left Tilbury by ship..."

  Clarified. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• in the event the accommodations were cramped and unpleasant, the boat filthy, and the food appalling: at least the last of these is a matter of opinion, so we need to couch it as such, or use a verifiable statement like "Durrell found the food appalling".

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• When starting a new paragraph, it is best not to use a pronoun (like "they") whose antecedent is in the previous paragraph: restate the noun(s) instead.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• as they were making plans for the thousand-mile journey back to Buenos Aires they discovered there had been a revolution in Asunción, the Paraguayan capital: I'm struggling to cross-reference this and find out what we're talking about. Is it the 1954 Paraguayan coup d'état? If so, "revolution" is probably not the right word.

  Both Botting and Durrell call it a revolution, and neither one makes it completely clear what they're referring to, but from the timing I agree it has to the 1954 coup. Changed to coup d'état and linked to the relevant article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  One reason I found this exercise a bit tricky is that it's hard to tell, in the relevant bit of Durrell's article, how much time has actually passed. Do the sources give any steer here? Otherwise, we could say "received news of a coup d'état in the Paraguayan capital, which took place in early May 1954" -- if that's not chancing our OR arm too much? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  I added "in May" to the sentence about their discovery of the coup. Durrell's account doesn't give the month, but I cited the pages where he describes the coup, as he mentions it's a few weeks before their scheduled departure from Buenos Aires, and I think that nails it down sufficiently. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Jacquie and Sophie had to nag him constantly: I would find a better word than nag, which is very gendered and quite contemptuous.

  I agree the noun is contemptuous and gendered; I think of the verb as being non-gendered, but I've changed it to "pester". The source has "cajole" and "bully". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Link the Savoy hotel?

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• illustrating the talk with lightning cartoon drawings: what's one of those -- do you mean that he produced these drawings ex tempore?

  I thought this was a general term, but Google is not supporting me on this so I guess I was wrong. Yes, drawings produced at the time. Changed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

(Still) more to follow, I'm afraid. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm the one who should apologize! For having so many flaws in the article for you to find. I really appreciate the detailed review; thank you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

• "He attempts no explanations ...he passes no moral judgements; he is absorbed wholly in particulars ... [he has] no recipes for the future of the dark continent": make sure there's a space after ... (and an NBSP before it). Did Durrell ever respond to this? I must admit I can't work out if it's a compliment or a complaint.

  Botting doesn't record any response from Durrell. I think it must be a complaint. Botting suggests that the relationship between animals and zoos can be a metaphor for the relationship between natives and colonies and then says some critics were surprised that Durrell expressed no opinion on the morals of what he was doing. I haven't seen the Spectator review; the quotes are taken from what Botting quotes. I don't think the metaphor is a good one, but I can't tell if it's Botting's or the Spectator's. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  The only thing I might say is "missing" from this article (under c.1b, I suppose) is a "Reception/Assessment/Legacy" section. You mention in the FAC blurb that he was one of the most influential figures in his field, so it's odd that we don't, in any systematic way, discuss the impact that he had on that field. Above, you have said that people opposed his view of zoos until the 1970s -- presumably there were arguments in print, at conferences and so on about what Durrell was doing, and then somehow he persuaded those people to change their minds? Here I'm echoing some sage advice I received when preparing my first FAC, which was to look at Eduard Fraenkel and the quite extensive way that that article answers the question of "why should we be interested in this guy?".

  The reason I bring this up here is that, so far, we have no sense in the article that Durrell's ideas, methods or actions were ever meaningfully criticised: we have some hint that the others involved in Jersey Zoo tried to sideline or insure against him, but only implications and insinuations as to why they might have wanted to do that. I'm not going to insist that all this become a standalone section -- how you solve the problem is, as ever, your prerogative -- but I do think it needs some thought. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• the first of the bomb attacks from EOKA began: consider glossing EOKA as a Greek-Cypriot nationalist guerrilla organisation. "The first of the bomb attacks" slightly begs the question: it assumes that we know that there were bomb attacks.

  Reworded. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• In June they returned to the UK: does they include Lawrence here?

  No; clarified. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Durrell had given a talk in 1952 called My Island Tutors: I think MOS:MINORWORKS applies to unpublished talks, so deitalicise and use double quotes. We also need a comma after tutors (outside the quote marks) to fit with the syntax of the rest of the sentence.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• the landscape; the inhabitants and animals; and his family's eccentricities: why semicolons here, not commas? Semicolons are normally used when the listed items themselves contain commas.

  Not sure why I did that. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• He planned the sequence in which every character (human and animal) would be introduced: consider order rather than sequence, as the latter can also mean passage of text, implying that he introduced all of them in one go.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Link Scilly Isles?

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• The manuscript was read by his family: minor, but why not use the active here? "His family read the manuscript, and were more bemused..."

  Yes, better. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Do we have dates for Lawrence and Louisa's comments on My Family?

  No -- Botting doesn't use footnotes; he just lists sources for the chapter as a whole. I've tried various searches to find these phrases without result. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• It immediately became a bestseller, going into a third printing before it had even been published: I don't really understand this, but then I don't have much background knowledge of how the publishing industry works.

  A publisher orders a print run based on how many copies they think will sell. If pre-orders come in from bookstores that make it clear they need to print more, they'll order another printing from the printer. In this case that happened twice, a sign that the orders from bookstores were much stronger than the publisher had expected. I could probably source something to this effect and put it in a footnote if you think it's necessary? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  It might be nice to help answer a few readers' questions, but it's hardly essential. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• there were so few gorillas left in the area that Durrell realised it would be wrong to capture one.: per MOS:SAID, we need a more subjective word than realised: moral truths are only ever subjective, however much most of us would agree with Durrell. Presumably the missing link here is that he didn't previously appreciate how rare they were there, so perhaps that's the realisation, after which he decided (vel sim) that it would be wrong...?

  Yes, changed to "decided". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• they should keep the collection and "use it to blackmail the Bournemouth Council into giving us a suitable zoo site in the town", : I love the implication that they might have just released all of these creatures into Bournemouth.

  So do I. I can't imagine what Jacquie thought would happen; perhaps she assumed that the sight of all the animals would convince the Council what a good idea it was. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• in a local department stores: should be singular, surely, but consider something like "in the premises of a local department store", unless it was actually operating as a shop at the time.

  The plural was a typo; fixed. I'm not sure what you mean by the latter point -- Botting describes Allen's as a "huge emporium" that had room in the basement for the animal display, along with things like the ceremonial robes the Fon had presented to Durrell. If I understand you correctly, yes, it was in the premises of the shop and so would have been seen by the shoppers -- presumably the point since they advertised it. Is this not clear? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  No, it is clear: I had taken away the impression that they converted the store into a temporary menagerie (so it wasn't working as a shop while the animals were there), but the text more naturally points towards what you say here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• J.J. Allen, : usual form is to put a space between initials with points.

  Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• the reviews were mixed: just checking that this is not a euphemism for "bad"?

  Botting uses "mixed" and quotes a couple of comments, including a couple of positive ones and one negative one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Jacquie suggested turning the talks into a book, a much easier task than writing a new book: I would be tempted to cut the second part: I'm not sure what it adds, and it surely depends on your writing skills and style?

  The talks would have already been written up as typescripts so that they could be read live on the radio. They would only have needed to be assembled and copyedited to be sure they flowed together reasonably well -- the book is not a consecutive narrative; it's an anecdote per chapter. No doubt there would have been some rewriting, but probably not much. Durrell hated writing, as mentioned earlier; he was under contract to deliver a book that year so this was a welcome idea to him. Botting doesn't give all these details -- he just says "This was a relatively easy task, and at a stroke solved the problem of delivering a new book to his publishers for 1958, as required by Gerald's contract." I was hoping these implications were clear, since we've already mentioned that Durrell disliked writing. Or is it more than it isn't clear why this was the easier option? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps something like "compiling the talks into a new book" would get the point across more clearly -- namely, that little work would be involved in the "turning" process? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  Good idea; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• the expedition sailed from Plymouth in the English Star: is in quite correct here -- I know it's the usual form in naval writing to say that someone served in e.g. HMS Ardent, but does it apply if you're merely a passenger?

  Changed to "on". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Durrell hired Ken Smith as Superintendent: lc as above.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Durrell returned to Buenos Aires, where he met David Attenborough: is it worth introducing who he was at this point in time?

  Botting describes him as "still a relatively junior BBC producer". I could make it "at that time a producer for the BBC". Having taken out the description of Attenborough per your earlier comment I'm now thinking that it isn't necessary to mention his later career; the link is there if the reader is interested. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed on both counts. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  Added the description of him as a BBC producer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• the Durrells's belongings: lose the second s, as the first one makes it plural.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• and again Jacquie had to pester him repeatedly to write: I am still a bit uneasy about the word pester and similar -- to me, the implication is that she was being annoying and ultimately asking for something pointless, rather than pointing out to him that he had tied up/spent both of their livelihoods on the promise of writing profitable books, and wasn't following through on that. If we were talking about a female writer and her husband, would we more naturally reach for words like remind, encourage, motivate or similar?

  A difficulty is that Botting and both Durrells describe it as having conformed to the cliché -- Durrell complains about the "two hags" (Sophie and Jacquie), insisting that he write. Botting uses the word "nagging". Jacquie describes A Zoo in My Luggage as having been written after "a tremendous struggle on my part". I don't want the implication that Jacquie was asking for something unimportant, nor that she was unjustified, but I do want the reader to understand that she and Sophie had to go beyond encouragement and reminders. I could give Bottings "cajoled and bullied" in quotes, at least for the first instance of "pester". Then for the second instance I could do something like "once again found it difficult to get Gerald to complete ...". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think that sounds like an excellent solution. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• This was followed in 1962: I'm not sure what exactly this was -- the commissioning? The broadcast of Zoo Packet? The summer of 1961?

  Reworded. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• A financial manager was hired and given iron control of the budget: MOS:CLICHE, I think.

  Changed to "complete control". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• In July 1963, the Jersey Wildlife Preservation Trust was created: can we give more detail on what this was and why its creation was significant?

  Added a bit. The main point was to make the management of the zoo not dependent on Durrell personally. He wanted it to become an independent scientific organization. I don't want the article to spend too long on the Trust, since it's already long, and the details can go in that article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• from this point onwards Jacquie withdrew from many of the activities related to the zoo and the Trust.: I get a feeling here that we may have things backwards. We present it as Louisa dies -> Jacquie withdraws -> Durrell becomes more miserable -> the marriage breaks down, but I wonder whether the second and third need to be swapped around?

  Louisa's death happens at the same time, and no doubt her death's effect on Durrell didn't help the marriage, but it was also the pressure of the zoo finances and daily management that Jacquie hated. I've rewritten those sentences to try to remove the implication that it was just Louisa's death that led to the marriage problems. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• began drinking a crate a day: sounds like a lot -- a crate is normally 24 bottles, so that's about 12 pints, isn't it? Can we give an idea of that amount without going into OR?

  I don't know what a crate consists of -- if it's a standard measure and would have been so in 1964, then I could add a footnote

  It's normally 24, or sometimes 12, bottles, and a bottle is usually half a pint. Either of those would be a lot to consume in an evening out, let alone on a daily basis. However, I can only really find that by looking at people selling them: I have so far failed to find a source that says "a crate of beer in the UK is usually twelve pints", so I think you've probably gone as far as you can. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Link Guinness?

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Jacquie, who had not enjoyed her time in the Cameroons: is there anything to be said on this point in the section about the Cameroons expedition?

  Botting quotes Jacquie as saying (in deciding not to go to Sierra Leone): "I don't like West Africa, either the sticky heat or the tropical forests, and as you know I get exasperated with the Africans". The account of the earlier expedition quotes Bob Golding, who accompanied them to the Cameroons, as saying it was obvious to him that their relationship was under strain; I didn't include that in the article as I already describe Durrell's mental and physical problems. I don't think anything there is necessary detail. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Lord Jersey must be George Child Villiers, 9th Earl of Jersey, looking at the dates -- suggest linking to the man rather than the title, and briefly explaining who he was. Contrary to what we might expect, I don't think he spent much time on Jersey itself: the family seem to have been quite resolutely English.

  I've updated the link -- do you think an inline explanation is really needed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  I was thinking something like "a local aristocrat" or similar: just enough to get a sense of why this person might have been a) in a position to give him a load of money and b) interested in doing so. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Mexico 1968 & Australia 1969–1970: I think the MoS discourages ampersands except under dire duress, and then they should only really be used in proper nouns, trademarks and so on.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• The hunt for the rabbits brought in five rabbits: do we need the second rabbits? Perhaps a synonym would be better, if a noun is needed?

  Oops. Shortened. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• He was still on the tranquillisers once released: once doesn't read right here to me: when released is more idiomatic, I think.

  Yes, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• which wiped out all of Durrell's indebtedness to the Trust: similarly, debts would be the usual form here, wouldn't it? Mind you, we haven't actually said that Durrell borrowed any money from the Trust.

  Changed to just "debts". I was trying to convey that his debts were largely incurred because he borrowed from the bank to give money to the Trust, but I don't think it's necessary -- the loans are mentioned separately and the main point is that he became solvent. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Although officially the trip was to learn about conservation activities on the reef and Australia, it was also intended to give Durrell a long recovery period: what does officially mean here -- who needed to be told this?

  Changed to "ostensibly"; giving Durrell recovery time was not the declared purpose of the trip. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  Better, though I'm still a bit confused: declared to whom? Durrell? His publishers? The media? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  In late 1969 Durrell was still in something of a mess; he went to Corfu for a rest and came back but, in Botting's words, "dreamed up a reason for going back" to Australia. Botting gives some details and then says "In reality the trip was a kind of purposeful stretch of R & R designed to put Gerald and his shattered psyche back in order again". In other words, Durrell planned the trip as if it was the same sort of enterprise as his other trips, but his real intention was to get a long rest. I was hoping "ostensibly" would convey this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think it works: I'm taking the implication that Durrell wasn't really ready to admit to himself quite how bad things were. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• they eventually returned home in the spring of 1970: I'm not usually one to get overly excited about MOS:SEASONS, but here it's relevant, as "Spring 1970" was not the same time at either end of this journey.

  Yes, changed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• The lease on Les Augrès Manor, the zoo's home, was scheduled to run out in 1984, at which point the Trust might be forced to close down: might have been, as it's no longer in the future.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• The State of Jersey: The States of Jersey are plural (it's the same idea as the Estates General in France), but it would also be worth explaining what they are.

  This was my mistake; Botting had it right. I've made it "Jersey parliament" and linked to the appropriate article, so as to avoid having to add an inline explanation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  I don’t think that’s really a term that gets used – the proper name is the Jersey AssemblyStates Assembly, I think, or something very similar, though on the island it is universally called the States. Edit: I think the "States Assembly" seems to be more common when talking about it specifically as a legislative chamber, rather than as the island government. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'd like to avoid using a term that, though technically correct, I have to explain inline. I had a look on the Jersey Evening Post's website to see what language they use, and found this page, which uses "Jersey's parliament" (in the title) to refer to the States Assembly. The body has "... the States Assembly became the first parliament in the British Isles to ...". I think this would let me say "Jersey's parliament" instead of "the Jersey parliament", so long as the link goes to the right place. Does that work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I think that solution (with all the capitalisation, apostrophes etc exactly as you have them here) works. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• the Mazet: just checking that the the is lc in HQRS?

  Botting always has "the Mazet", and I've checked some usages in books about or by Lawrence Durrell -- it's sometimes "the mazet" so I gather it's a French word that was capitalised to indicate the particular one Lawrence owned -- e.g. "the Villa". It seems to mean "farmhouse". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• a new Gorilla Breeding Complex was opened in Jersey: lc, as we're using the indefinite article, so this is a description of it rather than a proper noun.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• This was the first conference to focus on captive breeding: needs to be preceded by a full stop, rather than a semicolon. These "firsts" are dangerous from a WP:V point of view (how do we know for sure that there wasn't a conference on captive breeding at the University of Northern West Virginia in 1969?): what's the sourcing like here?

  Botting is the source; I've had a look for supporting citations and have found some that relate to the conference itself -- e.g. the Proceedings of the 1975 conference. If those are sufficiently independent I could add one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think leaving this to Botting is dangerous (he is clearly an authority on Durrell, but I am not sure he is as qualified to pronounce on the history of academic conservation studies). More more. specialist publications make the same claim, that would be reassuring UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  I did find some Google snippets that seemed to support this, but further searching uncovered a mention of a 1966 San Diego conference on "The Role of Zoos in Wildlife Conservation", in which captive breeding was certainly a topic, if not the only focus. The claim that the Jersey conference was the first to focus on captive breeding might still be true but I've cut it to be on the safe side. My sister is a retired conservation scientist who had some involvement with the world of captive breeding so I'll ask her in case she knows an authoritative source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Link Princess Anne?

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• had agreed to be the Trust's Patron. lc "patron".

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• fell into a black depression: WP:TONE here.

  Removed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• After three months, Jacquie returned to Jersey to clear out her possessions and make the separation permanent. Before the separation was permanent: can we do anything about the repetition here?

  Changed to "During the separation she had suggested ...". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• he left as planned in March, visiting Mauritius, Round Island, and Rodrigues, and returning to the UK in May: this seems to be chronologically out of order, unless this is March 1976? On another note, Jersey is not in the UK.

  It was May 1976; added. I hadn't realised Jersey is not part of the UK; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• The MoS generally discourages bullet points where prose can be a good substitute. The Honours section looks to me like a case where this applies.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Has anyone gone so far as to call Durrell an alcoholic? We certainly seem to be gesturing in that direction, and turning up drunk to an operation intended to save your life from alcohol damage seems hard to explain through anything else. In turn, thinking of Durrell as an addict puts quite a different spin on his relationship with (especially) Jacquie.

  Botting never uses the word of Durrell, and I suspect it's because this is an "authorized" biography, but he doesn't pull his punches with regard to Durrell's behaviour, and it's clear that he was one. The word does get used elsewhere -- for example in reviews of Botting (here is an example). I thought about this while writing the article and I think the label is less important than the behaviour. I don't think one could read this article without concluding that Durrell was an addict. I also think it would be hard to find a good place to add it, since it's unlikely I can find a source that gives a date at which point it was clear he was an alcoholic. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  Hm. Here I will defer to your knowledge of the sources – particularly whether you think we can avoid explicitly discussing alcoholism under WP:DUEWEIGHT. If it has any significant presence in the published sources on Durrell, I think we are in very dangerous NPOV territory if we decide to keep implicit a judgement that good sources make explicit, particularly when, as you allude, doing so could be read as trying to sanitise or protect Durrell’s reputation. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  I would have no hesitation in using the word in describing Durrell, based just on Botting, who never uses the word. If the fact that he showed up drunk to his own liver replacement operation is not sufficient to cite it, I do have examples of others using the word. David Hughes, in his reminiscences of Durrell, quotes Jacquie as saying that when Durrell went into the sanatorium in 1969, a "bright spark of a doctor told him he was an alcoholic, which I violently disagreed with: an alcoholic is someone who can't live without it, and Gerry can and does". Beyond that I can only find descriptions of Durrell as an alcoholic in reviews of Botting's book -- in multiple good quality papers. After thinking about it I think citing Hughes is enough and have done so in the paragraph about him being in the clinic. I could add a cite to the page in Botting that mentions him showing up drunk to the operation, as circumstantial evidence, but I'd rather leave it at Hughes as that's the most direct. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yes: I don't think we need to labour the point, but we do need to make it if other good sources do. I would suggest getting it, or at least his drinking, into the lead somehow: knowledgeable readers will join the dots to liver cancer and cirrhosis, but at the moment it's not explicitly mentioned. Under MOS:LEAD, I think a lifelong condition that effectively killed the subject needs to be in the lead. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• "for their contributions to the conservation of global biodiversity": who said that?

  It's from the cited paper (as is the similar quote for one of the other species). I'm a bit reluctant to insert an "according to", here, as it would make the sentences unwieldy. I was hoping it would be self-evident that the quote would give the reasoning of the person who chose the species name. It's not necessarily the exact wording of the original namer -- for the glass-frog, the citation is to a survey, and that paper cites the IUCN redlist which doesn't include the comment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think that would work better if you could give the name of the, well, namer: "named after Durrell by SoAndSo for...". At the moment, the quote marks seem on the wrong side of WP:QUOTEPOV to me, but I think putting the name in would flip that. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  Done. In two of the four cases I had to cite "and others" to avoid listing names. In one case (Arnold & Jones) I wasn't able to get access to the original paper, but found a reference to it that gives the full citation to the paper so I used both. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note 210 is missing a space.
• Note 122 has an emdash where an endash is required.
• Note 92 has a hyphen where an endash is required.

  All three fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note 209 should have "New Species a Little Nipper" as the title, and I think we really ought to credit Rachel Ehrenberg as the author.

  Yes, cleaned up -- I guess I just missed that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that's my lot. It's a very substantial article, and I hope that will be taken as the main explanation as to why this review is, in turn, on the long side. As ever, I hope it is useful. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I've caught up, I think. Thanks for the very substantial effort you've put in to this; I really appreciate it and would be glad to do a FAC or pre-FAC review of one of your articles if there's something you'd like another pair of eyes on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

One more (though see replies above): Dodos stand guard at the gates of the Durrell Wildlife Park: it's now Jersey Zoo again, as it was (I think?) during Durrell's lifetime. That article needs a bit of work: I've had a bash at some of the easier bits there. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I've addressed everything except for the need to discuss his legacy, and the suggestion to mention his alcoholism in the lead. I agree re the legacy; that will also have to go in the lead so I'll add the mention of alcoholism when I do that. I'm going to be busy IRL for a day or two and may not get to those things this morning but will post again when I've made the changes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I've just discovered that there was a new biography of Durrell published in June; I did most of my reading for the article last year so wasn't aware of it. Obviously this article can't be promoted until I take a look at the new book; I should have it in my hands in a couple of days. If there is significant disagreement with Botting on anything I will have to look at withdrawing this nomination, of course, but I won't know that till late this week. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3

UC, I've now added mention of his alcoholism to the lead, having found a more direct source. I've added a short section on his legacy: his writing, and his influence on zoo conservation practices, are the main things. I asked my sister, a conservation scientist who worked at ZSL, what she thought Durrell's most important contributions were, and she said he didn't really influence conservation biology: he was not a scientist. She summarized it by saying "it was his insistence that the aim of zoos must be to help protect and where possible replenish the natural world that had the big influence". That email's not a usable source, of course, but it does confirm that that's what should be covered in the legacy section.

And I've now read the new biography of him. It turned out to be unusable, as it takes Botting as a reliable baseline and doesn't add any biographical details. Instead it focuses on the evolution of Durrell's opinions as seen in his writing, and similar topics. I used it for one citation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Great stuff. A few points on the new material:

• In Durrell's early career, London Zoo was opposed to his work: I don't really see this in the earlier part of the article. We have that Cansdale (incidentally: his title is given as superintendent, but his Durrell-trained successor as the director -- is that all correct?) personally disliked him and wrote a snotty review about him, but I don't think we can necessarily extrapolate that to the whole institution.

  He was also opposed by Solly Zuckerman, who was Secretary and then President of the ZSL from 1955 to 1984. In 1976, at the second World Conference on captive breeding, Zuckerman gave the closing address, arguing that "the purpose of zoology, in his view, was the promotion of the interests of the zoological scientist, not the zoological animal" (this is Botting's wording). He argued that some species didn't deserve to be saved -- monkeys, for example, which were pests. There was more in this vein; to be fair to the zoo world, many of the attendees were furious about the speech, not just Durrell (who was there). When describing the financial mess London Zoo was in in the early 1990s, Botting recaps the feuds and adds that Durrell had lost faith in the Zoo's council as well, though Durrell did his part to help them out of their mess, writing to a friend that "he felt London Zoo's future ought to lie in the hands of zoo professionals of calibre who could 'invade this fossil to give it life and intelligence'" (from Botting; latter part quoted from Durrell). I've cited this part of Botting in the legacy section; the material about Cansdale and Zuckerman is cited via Conniff, but I could add a citation to the relevant parts of Botting too. Cansdale did more than write a bad review -- he actively tried to prevent Durrell from working in the field. I did not include the story about Zuckerman in the body of the article for length reasons -- it would take several sentences to sum up and put in context, because Zuckerman's view was becoming a minority one by that time. Re the titles, I'm following what the sources give, but I'll ask my sister if she recalls whether the titles changed as they seemed to have. I am pretty sure "Superintendent" has fallen out of use, and Zuckerman was president of the society, not the zoo, but the title I recall from reading about zoos is "Curator", not "Director". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  Appreciate the length concerns, but there's also a WP:DUEWEIGHT angle here; we don't want to give the impression that opposition to Durrell entirely consisted of one very personal feud. I still don't really see the story of how Zuckerman's view became a minority one, and how far Durrell played a role in that: were there debates, conferences, articles and so on about what a zoo should be, and did Durrell participate in them? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think anyone argues that Durrell was the reason that London Zoo changed; the narrative is that London was opposed to Durrell's approach, which was that zoos should be scientific institutions, but Durrell's was the viewpoint that won out, with London a late hold-out against it. The appointment of a Jersey-trained Director of the zoo was evidence of the change in the zoo world's approach that Durrell helped bring about -- Conniff calls it a "moment of triumph and vindication". Botting also mentions that appointment as a shift in zeitgeist. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  Durrell's was the viewpoint that won out, with London a late hold-out against it. The appointment of a Jersey-trained Director of the zoo was evidence of the change in the zoo world's approach that Durrell helped bring about: I worry that I'm not making myself very clear, but this is the bit I'm not yet seeing in the article. That change of culture must have happened somehow -- how? Did people in the profession start seeing/visiting Durrell's zoo and emulating it? Did he have early supporters in other zoos that adopted and refined his methods? At the moment, this all happens in the background of the article: one minute he's a misfit iconoclast, the next almost everyone agrees with him, but I don't really see how we got from A to B. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  That does clarify what you're concerned about; thanks. I'm in an off-wiki conversation that I hope is going to give me some more sources that will let me address this and your other remaining points, but it'll be at least a few days before I can do so. For now I can say that I don't think there's going to be any source that gives a chain of events which shows the culture change as traceable to Durrell. It's his viewpoint that took over, and he was an influencer of opinion (both the public and the zoo world), but it's not like Wegener and the theory of continental drift, where one can trace how the evidence accumulated that Wegener was right and the conversion of the scientific world's opinion. There's no "evidence" for Durrell's view. It's possible that there are anecdotes to be found that trace individual conversions, but I doubt those can be assembled as a narrative of how Durrell's view became the establishment one. That leaves the question of whether the change is due (at least partly) to his influence or if the establishment simply swung around to his view independently. At the moment the article doesn't assert that he was the partial cause of the change, and focuses on the influence the Trust had (though the quote from Princess Anne does tend in that direction). I wouldn't be surprised if I do find sources that assert that, but I've tried to avoid that direct a claim. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  OK - let me know what you find in this search. As you say, if it's not there, it's not there, but if it is, it's certainly worth including. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  Adding a note to say I've had confirmation from a couple of contacts that the titles varied over the years; they don't recall specifically what those titles were but I don't see a reason to doubt the source here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• The expertise in captive breeding acquired by the trust and zoo are unmatched: firstly, which zoo -- we've just been talking about London Zoo. More importantly, I worry about this from a WP:V perspective. On a surface level -- really? Jersey is a lovely place and it's a lovely zoo, but is it really the unquestioned world-leading master of its art in 2024? It sounds like this is David Attenborough's perspective, quoted in Pollock: I'd like this to be presented as such and to know the context of Attenborough's remarks. They sound like an obituary or retrospective, which would naturally tend towards a positive spin.

  I believe it's really true. It was certainly true at one time; there's even a 1992 book, Gerald Durrell's Army, about a trip to visit various conservation projects around the world, each one tended by a graduate of the Academy. Attenborough's comments came at a speech in Jersey in 2009; not a eulogy, then, but I can see why you would like more support for the very strong statement he makes. I've asked my sister for her professional assessment of whether Attenborough's view is the current one -- I know her opinion is not citable, but I've asked her to give me sources, if she can, to support whatever she says. I'll keep looking for other sources that could be used in this paragraph as well and will ping you again when I have more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• organizations: AmerE.

  Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Several species have been named for Durrell: we have a Durrell in the previous sentence: for him?

  Yes, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• I dug out Laubacher's first name (Gérard) and added it. Ditto for Arnold (Edwin Nicholas Arnold) and Jones (Clive G.) UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

One more thing I should mention: I asked my sister whether the 1972 Jersey conference was the first to focus specifically on captive breeding. She enlisted an ex-colleague and in addition to the 1966 conference at San Diego I found, they came up with a 1964 conference at London Zoo about the role of zoos in conservation. However, captive breeding was only part of the agenda there. They both think the 1972 conference really was the first and are going to see if they can find the sources to prove it. No change to the article, but if they do come up with the sourcing I'll re-add the claim. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

All looks good. Looks like everything's in your court at the moment, so I'll wait for news on how those different threads play out. Appreciate your forbearance with what has turned into a many-staged review! UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, will report back when I have more information. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

UC, I've had the off-wiki meeting I mentioned; here's what I've learned. The meeting was with my sister and a friend of hers who is a retired director of a major zoo, and very knowledgeable about the zoo world.

• They both are fairly sure that the 1972 Jersey conference was in fact the first to focus specifically on captive breeding in zoos, though not the first to focus on the role of zoos in conservation. The only source we have is the preface to the conference proceedings, written by Durrell. Currently the article does not make this claim and I think that's OK.
• They could not identify the person Botting says became director of London Zoo who had been trained at the Jersey Academy. They suspect this refers to someone who simply took a class in Jersey, rather than someone who had worked there for a long period. The sourcing doesn't make that clear but the article's wording seems OK to me.
• They agree that Jersey's expertise in captive breeding was world-leading in the 1990s. They both think it is no longer the case, so I added the date (2009) as a qualification to Attenborough's comments. It's still a leading institution but they suspect that London and/or San Diego have surpassed them by now. They will look for sources but couldn't immediately think of anything that would qualify. With the date qualification to make it clear this opinion is fifteen years old I think this is OK.
• On the question of how Durrell influenced the zoo world to his viewpoint, as we discussed above there's no direct evidence for it, and the article doesn't make that claim. They agreed that his writing was very influential in changing public opinion -- my sister would not have become a conservation scientist had she not read his books in the 1970s -- but there's nothing citable. I think the quote from Princess Anne will have to do for that.

I think that's everything. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Sounds great. I'll give it another look through before formally voting, but this all looks in order to me. Sounds like you've done an excellent job of getting to the article right to the cutting edge without tripping over the electric fence into the gorilla enclosure of OR. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Support on a second read, during which I made some minor copyedits. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Airship

The Corfu Trilogy is a perennial favourite of mine. Comments to follow.

I mean, the main thing, as noted in the nomination, Botting: has his work any irregularities, or received negative reviews, or anything of the sort? I think he would have to be regarded as essentially inviolate for FACR 1b) and c) to be met. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The only inaccuracy I'm aware of in Botting is commented on in note 9, and that's very minor. Botting was given access to all of Durrell's files and the papers at the zoo, and interviewed all the relevant people who were still alive, as far as I can tell. I agree the article has to stand or fall on whether Botting is accepted as a top-quality source, but I'm not aware of any problems with it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I had only read a couple of reviews of Botting, which is remiss of me; I've now read everything I can find on newspapers.com, which is most of the good British papers and a couple of Canadian and Australian ones, and those are all positive. A couple praise Botting, but most simply talk about Durrell. However, there is a negative review in the NYT. Some of the points the reviewer makes aren't really relevant to the article, but you may think some are. Here they are:

• Botting "falls short of Durrell's voice as a storyteller. We never learn the background of Cansdale's feud with Durrell, for instance, and the account of the fierce opposition to captive breeding by a later head of the London Zoo is also garbled. When one of Durrell's own trainees ultimately becomes director of the London Zoo, what ought to be a moment of triumph and vindication turns up instead as a footnote."

  I think the first two of these are odd complaints -- Botting quotes Jacquie Durrell on the background of Cansdale's feud with Durrell, and quotes the head of London Zoo in detail (an incident I didn't include in the article as it's already very long). These are not stories only told in Botting's own words, that's to say; he's quoting, not just citing. The third point, about the emphasis on the victory of Durrell's point of view, is one of emphasis, not of accuracy; again it's not something I've included in the article since if I stray too far into the world of conservation politics the article would balloon even further.

• "Botting also bungles the poignant story of Durrell's second marriage": here the reviewer's complaint is that Botting simply quotes the relevant sources rather than tells the story of the complex emotions of those two years. That's valid for readability but for me it doesn't raise doubts about accuracy.
• "The real frustration of this biography, however, is that Botting seems not to understand or care much about Durrell's work with animals". I agree with this, but I'm not sure it makes much difference to the validity of what is cited to the book. I did use some of Durrell's own books to add mention of some of the animals at a couple of points, but I refrained from going into detail about the breeding successes at the Jersey Zoo, for example. That could be an article in itself and perhaps should be. I could see adding a little more about that if reviewers think it's necessary.

Let me know what you think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

From a first canter-through for spelling etc:

• "died of a cerebral hemorrhage" – the usual BrE spelling is "haemorrhage"
• "a few days, househunting" – the OED and Chambers both hyphenate "house-hunting"
• "handrear four newborn Père David's deer" – ditto for "hand-rear"
• "parents permission" – lacks a possessive apostrophe
• "he traveled with the animals" – American spelling; the usual English form is "travelled".

More later after a proper read-through of the content. Tim riley talk 23:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

All fixed; thanks, Tim -- my eye for British English has been hopelessly corrupted after decades in the US. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Second batch of comments

Comment singular, in fact. I was taken aback to see the article weighing in at 9,650 words, which seemed on the lengthy side given that, e.g., Shakespeare's FA is only 7,000, and Darwin's is 500 words less than Durrell's, but after a slow and careful perusal I can see no excessive detail, and I found the text no hardship to read, length notwithstanding. I saw nothing in it to quibble at, and I am happy to add my support for the elevation of the article to FA. It meets all the criteria, in my view. (And it sent me back to Durrell's own works. He may have hated writing but he nonetheless wrote wonderfully. "'That bloody boy's filled the sodding bath full of bleeding snakes', said Leslie, making things quite clear", made me laugh in the 1960s and still makes me laugh sixty years later. Marvellous stuff, and thank you to Mike for reminding me how well Durrell wrote.) Tim riley talk 19:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim, and I appreciate the support and compliments to the article. And that's my favourite line too; I probably read it first in around 1971, and am likewise still laughing at it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Support Comments from Graham Beards

Just a few:

• "planning to make two colour films for television" There wasn't colour TV (in the UK) until the late 1960s.

  Removed "colour". The source for this is the biography, quoting a contemporary letter from Lawrence -- he does say "television films in colour", which is odd. Perhaps the films would be in colour but the TV broadcast of them would necessarily be in black and white? Or maybe Lawrence was just mistaken. Mike Christie(talk - contribs - library) 22:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  Colour filming but transmission in black and white was known in the BBC in the 1950s: thus. Tim riley talk 16:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• "Durrell contracted jaundice," You can't really contract jaundice as it is a symptom not a disease. How about "developed"?

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• "in order to prevent a reader from becoming bored " I think "in order" is redundant. (I took the liberty of changing an earlier occurrence.)

  Cut, and I cut another later example. I think Ian has removed a few of these from my work over the years. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• "It immediately became a bestseller, going into a third printing before it had even been published." How could copies of the book have been sold before the book was published?

  You're the second person to ask about this. A publisher orders a print run based on how many copies they think will sell. If pre-orders come in from bookstores that make it clear they need to print more, they'll order another printing from the printer. In this case that happened twice, a sign that the orders from bookstores were much stronger than the publisher had expected. However, I clearly need to provide a footnote or something similar that clarifies this for readers not familiar with publishing. I'll leave another note here when that's done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• "They planned a trip to the Great Barrier Reef, with no animal collecting planned." Planned...planned.

  Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

None of these are deal-breakers. Thank you for an enjoyable hour's reading. Graham Beards (talk) 13:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! And thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I've removed the comment about the third printing; I haven't yet found a good reference that explains how pre-orders can impact printings. I'll put it back if/when I can find one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Now returned to the article with a source explaining how pre-orders can affect sales before publication. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Source review

To follow shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 12:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on. AirshipJungleman29 asked above about the reputation of Botting, since it's so heavily used, and I left some comments there about reviews of the book. Since then I've found a few references to Botting in books about Durrell. All take Botting as reliable for the basic biographical data, and where I saw comments about Botting they were uniformly positive. So far the NYT review is the only negative comment I've been able to find. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Mike, I'll take that on board when I look into that part.

Unconnected with the source review, the OBE in the opening sentence should be removed per MOS:POSTNOM (a backward step, I feel, but that's the way the MOS bends these days). - SchroCat (talk)

Removed; I hadn't seen that change. A surprise -- I agree it seems like something an encyclopedic biography would put in the first sentence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

My concern is also Botting. Can his work, written "with the authorization of Gerald Durrell's widow, Lee, and his surviving family", be regarded as an independent source, or is it "closely affiliated with the source". Could we use hagiographies to write an article about a saint's life or do we need independent sources? Borsoka (talk) 13:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree a hagiography isn't an appropriate source, but Botting is quite direct about the negatives -- he quotes Durrell's diagnosis as an alcoholic and describes his problems with depression, for example. There are other things in the book that are uncomplimentary to Durrell, though I didn't think they needed to be in the article. For example he could be unpleasant when crossed: Botting describes Durrell's reactions to the end of his first marriage and to some contretemps with Lee McGeorge and Saranne Calthorpe, and doesn't put him in a good light. And I should add that the legacy section, which is where the most positive things in the article are said, is not cited to Botting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

You convinced me. I accept Botting as a reliable source. Borsoka (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Formatting

• Sport checks not done; if a coord wants them, please ping and I'll do that too.
• P -> pp: FN 5
• PP -> p: FN 115
• Capitalisation goes a little awry in the Sources section: Arnold, Durbin, Haag and Leader-Williams are sentence case but everything else is title case
• I prefer to see some form of doi where possible (such as either an ISBN or OCLC for books), but this isn't part of of the criteria or the MOS, so I won't ionsist on it (although I do urge you to think about it)
• Is Leader-Williams a chapter? If so it should have the editor's name and the page range
• Durrell 73: The page range is needed
• Durrell 76: the "UK" isn't needed
• Mallinson 2009: Ditto, but it should be "Brighton, East Sussex"
• Why are "Our Facilities, Team and Bespoke Training" and "Nactus serpensinsula" the only two sources that appear inline, rather than being listed with the other sources?

Representative and reliable

• To follow shortly - SchroCat (talk) 12:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Borsoka

• Perhaps a very short introduction to his mother when she is first mentioned? (We are informed her husband's profession in the second sentence, although it has nothing to do with GD's life.)

  I think it's usual to give the profession of the parents of the subject of an article, as context. I agree I would do the same for his mother here, but she did not work, so I'm not sure what could usefully be added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• I would mention that Dulwich and Upper Norwood are in London.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• I would link slug. I am pretty sure that 60% of our readers do not know the word.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• ...while out with his ayah one day... Is this necessary? (We are not informed that he visited the zoo with her as well in the same sentence.)

  I agree; it's left over from an anecdote about this -- his ayah was disgusted by his interest in the slugs -- but without the anecdote there's no reason to mention her. Cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• Louisa was devastated by his death, but... Is this necessary in an encyclopedic article about her son?

  I think so. It introduces the contrast between Gerald and Louisa's reactions to the death, and also gives context for her subsequent loneliness and excessive drinking. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• ... but eventually decided to move back to the UK Was her decision connected to GD any way?

  Not specifically -- Botting quotes Durrell as saying she was persuaded by others in the Anglo-Indian community who told her that her children should be educated in Britain. (Larry and Leslie were already at school in Britain so it was only Louisa, Gerald, and Margaret that traveled to England.) Given that Gerald's subsequent education was very haphazard I don't think this is a point worth bringing out in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• Introduce Corfu as a Greek island.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• George wrote to Lawrence... Why not past perfect?

  That paragraph is intended to be a continuous historical narrative. George and Pam emigrate, then Lawrence and Nancy live with Louisa and Gerald, then George wrote to Lawrence. I think past perfect would imply that the letters preceded Lawrence and Nancy's move. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• Lawrence and Nancy left England on 2 March 1935, and the rest of the family followed five days later, sailing from Tilbury. They reached Naples later that month, and took a train across Italy to Brindisi, where they took a ferry to Corfu. Are all these details relevant for GD's life?

  Cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• ...naturalists such as... Repetition?

  I trimmed a little from the previous sentence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• I would note that the Cameroons are in Africa.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• Margaret briefly returned;... Delete. Borsoka (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'd like to keep this for a couple of reasons. The family's time in Corfu is quite well-known because My Family and Other Animals has been very widely read. Durrell's account occasionally departs from the truth, as noted elsewhere in the article, and this is one of those occasions -- Durrell records Larry leaving Corfu with the rest of the family. To anyone who has read Durrell's version, it's of interest to read what really happened. I'd like to keep the note about Margaret because otherwise it appears she reached England in mid-1939 and was safe thereafter, which would be misleading. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the review -- mostly implemented, with a couple of replies above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• ...from Belgrade... Is this relevant? If yes, some context?
• ...with the innumerable miscellaneous problems they had to resolve in Buenos Aires. One or two examples?
• ...it would be impossible to visit Tierra del Fuego... Why?
• Malaya? Borsoka (talk) 03:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Older nominations

2004–05 Gillingham F.C. season

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm back again with yet another article on a season in the history of Gillingham F.C. This season was, frankly, absolutely bloody awful, and writing about it brought back a lot of bad memories, so hopefully I can get a bronze star to offset my trauma ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Eric Idle's Cat

Hi Chris, funnily enough I was at that Forest game with a Forest-supporting friend of mine and we were talking about it only this week. I have a couple of minor points.

• In Background and pre-season: "they finished in 21st place, level on points with 22nd-placed Walsall and avoiding relegation to the third tier only because their goal difference of -19 was one better than Walsall's -20." – should this be either "avoided" or "Walsall, avoiding…"?
• In footnote 55, "Sunday" and "Telegraph" need separating. Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
  • @Eric Idle's Cat: - thanks for the review, both points addressed. As I recall (and it's a hazy memory, given that it was nearly 20 years ago) I sat about two rows from the front of the away end at that game, it poured with rain, and the roof didn't cover right to the front so I got soaked in addition to seeing my team get relegated....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Support - good work, as always. Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

750h

Will review. 750h+ 12:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@750h+: - hope all is well, just wondering if you were still hoping to review this FAC...? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, will try reviewing today or tommorow. 750h+ 02:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

lead

• competed in the Football League, and the 55th since remove the comma
• of 2004 Gillingham were still within "were" ==> "was"
• only lost twice, however the run this one's a bit of a personal opinion, but there's usually a comma after "however"
• Between the start of September and late November for consistency ("early" and "late" are opposites) i'd change "the start of" to "early" (personal too, not necessary)

background and pre-season

• Prior to the new season ==> "Before the new season"

football league championship

no problems here.

cup matches

• Ternent told the media "We have gone I would either add a comma after "media" or rephrase to "Ternent told the media that "we have gone"

players

• Byfield, Sidibé, Hope, and Nyron Nosworthy all played "all" is redundant
• in at least three quarters of the hyphen needed between "three" and "quarters"
• goals;[95][96] prior to this there had only "prior to" ==> "before"

aftermath

no problems here.

That's all i got, thanks for the article. i have an open FAC if you'd like to check it out. Best, 750h+ 10:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@750h+: - thanks for that review. All done, albeit a couple of them ever so slightly differently but hopefully still acceptable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Support. 750h+ 11:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

SC

Will swing by after 750. - SchroCat (talk) 09:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support. All good from me. - SchroCat (talk) 11:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Can we assume that #72 is about the previous day? Otherwise, it seems like this article has no issue wrt reliability and source formatting, although I didn't spotcheck everything. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: - I added a second source from a "live news" website that confirms that the players joined Gillingham on the 10th. The Telegraph, being a morning paper, would of course have reported it the next day -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Teddy Wynyard

Nominator(s): AA (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

This article is about Teddy Wynyard, a noted sportsman and soldier. As a cricketer, he played Test cricket for England and had a substantial domestic career with Hampshire, where he was instrumental in their return to first-class status in 1894. He was also a footballer, playing in the infancy of the game. He played for the Old Carthusians and won the 1881 FA Cup with the team. He was also adept at winter sports, winning the International Tobogganist Championship at Davos in 1894, 1895 and 1899. In the army, he saw action in the Third Anglo-Burmese War (Burmese Expedition), for which he gained the DSO. He would retire from military service in 1903, but returned to serve in WWI. He was also an important administrator in cricket. Altogether, an interesting character who led a varied life. AA (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Placeholder

• Putting my name down to review this one when I have sufficient time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
  • One drive-by comment - as per the footnote immediately below them, football stats shown in infoboxes are "Club domestic league appearances and goals" only. As his Corinthians appearances were in friendlies, these should not be shown (and for the other teams you can remove the ?s and simply show blanks as league football did not even exist in that time period) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

    @ChrisTheDude I have removed the football teams/stats from the infobox, as I don't think the other teams need to be shown as they were not league clubs, and they are mentioned in the prose. AA (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Teddy_Wynyard_c1900.jpg: when and where was this first published?
  • Comment. @Nikkimaria: so far, the only version of this photo I can find is on ESPNcricinfo here, which attributes it to Hampshire County Cricket Club. Will see if I can find a publishing date, though undoubtedly prior to 1908 as he is wearing a Hampshire county cap, and his playing career with Hampshire ended in 1908. AA (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• File:Teddy_Wynyard_Vanity_Fair_25_August_1898.jpg needs a US tag
  • Done. Tag added. AA (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• File:Old_carthusians_1881.jpg: source link is dead, when and where was this first published, and what research was undertaken to try to identify the author?
  • Comment. It would appear to be from this source using the Wayback machine. AA (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
    • Comment. I've conducted a reverse image search, which doesn't bring up anything not searchable through certain keywords in Google. I can drop a message on the WP:FOOTBALL talkpage and see if anyone knows if it might be from a book. AA (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
      • Comment. @Nikkimaria:. I have contacted Charterhouse School who have confirmed this picture comes from an album in the Charterhouse School archives, and have provided permission for the image to be used in the article. I have filled out a reproduction agreement form and sent this back to their archivist. How do I proceed from here in updating the Wikicommons page? AA (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
        • VRT would usually be the way to go for documenting permission. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "The son of the soldier and judge William Wynyard, he was born" - I feel like the body should "start afresh" after the lead, so I would be tempted to say "The son of the soldier and judge William Wynyard, Edward George Wynyard was born"
  • Comment. Have gone with your suggestion, it reads much nicer and with a better flow. AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• "It was speculated, that had he not pursued a military career, he may have achieved" - comma is in the wrong place, it should be "It was speculated that, had he not pursued a military career, he may have achieved"
  • Comment. Comma moved about! AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• "His actions were praised by General's Sir Robert Low and Sir George White" - there should not be an apostrophe in the plural form of "general"
  • Done. I have removed the apostrophe. AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• "In recognition of his actions, he was appointed to command a company of the Welsh Regiment" - it was spelt "Welch" in the lead......?
  • Done. I have changed to Welsh in the lead as it wasn't known as the Welch Regiment until 1920. AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• "By the time he had returned home later in 1887, Hampshire had lost their first-class status since his departure for India, following a number of poor seasons." - I feel like the words "since his departure for India" are a bit redundant here
  • Done. Removed. I did toy with putting in "By the time he had returned home later in 1887, Hampshire had lost their first-class status in 1885, following a number of poor seasons", but it doesn't quite read right I don't think. AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• "who had noted that both Wynyard and fellow soldier Francis Quinton, had been missing" - that comma should not be there
  • Done. Nice spot on the rogue comma! AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• "With the outbreak of Second Boer War" => "With the outbreak of the Second Boer War"
  • Done. AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• "During the winter which proceeded the 1904 season" => "During the winter which preceded the 1904 season"
  • Comment. The final paragraph of the previous section talks briefly about the 1904 season. The section which follows begins by talking about his tour West Indies which happened in the winter which followed the 1904 season. AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
    • Gotcha. In that case I think it should simply say "the winter which followed the 1904 season". I'm not 100% sure that "proceeded" can be used as a transitive verb in the sense of "came after" (i.e. can you really say "Thursday was the day which proceeded Wednesday"......?) - if it can it must be an archaic/obscure usage and I cite myself as an example of it being confusing to readers ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
      • Comment. Yeah, I've always disliked using "proceeding", I'd prefer something more fancy! Have changed it :) AA (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• "with Wynyard heading the teams batting averages" => "with Wynyard heading the team's batting averages"
  • Done. AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• " she had become stuck under the ice following a mountain torrent.;" - there's a stray full stop before the semi-colon
  • Done. A good spot! AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• "forming his own club, "The Jokers" which was drawn" => "forming his own club, "The Jokers", which was drawn "
  • Done, comma inserted. AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• These very minor points are all I got - ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude:. Many thanks for your comments :) Please find my responses above. AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support on prose -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan

Hi AA, my comments:

• "played at domestic level": "played at the domestic level"?
  • Done. AA (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• Link "Warwick Militia" to Royal Warwickshire Regiment, both in the lead and body?
  • Done. Thanks for the suggestion, I was unsure as to their connection! AA (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• "he enrolled in the fee-paying Oxford Military College": what year?
  • Comment. I can't find a specific year(s) mentioned, nor do there appear to be any records available to view online from the college (it went bust in the mid-1890s). The 1885 book Oxford Military College looks like it might be a register, but the only UK copy is 200 miles away in North Wales!!! AA (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• Link "India General Service Medal" to India General Service Medal (1854–95)?
  • Done. I'll add the redlink the MILHIST article request page. AA (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  @AssociateAffiliate, the link here should actually be India General Service Medal (1854); I had transcribed the title improperly. Also, could you respond to points number 3, 6 and 10-12? Matarisvan (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment. I will amend, just working my way through them. Have been on a radiology reporting course most of the day, been taking one point at a time during breaks! AA (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Link "Thornhil" to Thornhill, Southampton in both lead and body?
  • Done AA (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• "1897 ... prestigious North v South fixture" and "1900 ... North v South fixture": who won, and what was Wynyard's score?
  • Done. "Prestigious"... North v South? Not how I would describe it... yikes, that should have been Gentlemen v Players! Amended, and summary of his performances commented on. Have double-checked the article, no other glaring mishaps from me :) AA (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• "alluded to be the": remove the "be"?
  • Done. AA (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• "heavy defeat on the Jamaicans": by how many runs/wickets?
  • Done. Victory margin added. AA (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• "though did earn selection": "though he did earn selection"?
  • Done. AA (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• "he struggled against the leg spin": what were his scores?
  • Done. Have given more of an overview of his struggles on the tour, mentioning his average and that he only passed fifty once in six matches. AA (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• "representative matches for London": What London FC was this? Consider linking if details available?
  • Comment. The source isn't specific. I would hazard a guess Warsop is referring to a London-wide county representative team (likely post-1889), similar to other county representative teams? AA (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• "captained Hampshire": was this Southampton F.C.?
  • Comment. The source is very specific that he captained Hampshire in three sports (cricket, football, hockey). There's no mention of Wynyard in any of the annals of Southampton F.C., so I am pretty certain it was for a representative county side; however, there is no mention of dates, but with the formal organisation of football in Hampshire occurring in 1889, I'd say it was probably after then. AA (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• "Wynyard was survived by his wife": do we have her name?
  • Done. We have her name and their year of marriage, and they had just one child. AA (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• Girdlestone, Hardman and Hay 1911; Humphris and Creagh 1924 need locations of publication, though for the first it would just be a formality.
  • Done. AA (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Will try to do spot checks soon. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 11:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Matarisvan many thanks for your comments. Please find above my responses :) AA (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

AA, can support on prose. Will try to do spot checks soon. Btw, are your recent FACs part of a featured topic? Say cricketers and soldiers, or team members of Hampshire or the MCC during a particular year? Matarisvan (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan cheers! A lot of my recent expansions have been Hampshire cricketers who were also soldiers, the two are sort of where my interests lie. I have several more Hampshire cricketers who were soldiers lined up to bring to FAC in the near future! No such featured topic though! Doesn't a featured topic have to have a featured parent article for the other articles to branch from? AA (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Please note: I will be out of the UK from 19/11 to 24/11, so might not be able to respond during that time. AA (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Source formatting seems mostly consistent. I am kinda dubious of using late 19th century newspapers from the now-UK; are these really high-quality reliable sources? And what makes the CricketArchive a high-quality reliable source? Did some spotchecking which didn't turn up anything. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• @Jo-Jo Eumerus: thanks for your comment. I consider the late 19th century newspapers to be reliable, none of them deviate from the narrative of the article. In fact, I'd consider them more reliable than modern-day cricket coverage, which is lacking and often shoddily written! CricketArchive is regarded as an authoritative source. It's run by the people from The Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians, who are trusted by the International Cricket Council to maintain and expand the statistical and biographical history of players, so it is a highly reliable source. AA (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

All-American Bitch

Nominator(s): NØ 06:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the first track on Olivia Rodrigo's album Guts, "All-American Bitch". A strongly-worded critique of society's expectations from women, this song has everything, from a Kennedy reference to a transition from folk to pop-punk and a scream for the ages. Although not given the full single treatment, it did receive a great SNL performance! I wanted to time this around Election season in America, but no comment on the outcome of said election... I hope all American Wikipedians voted, and thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 06:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Media review - pass

Hi MaranoFan, happy to do the media review. The article contains the following media files:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Olivia_Rodrigo_@_Theatre_at_Ace_Hotel_10_09_2023_(53422493857).jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:OlivaRO2150524_(8)_(53727178201)_(cropped).jpg
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All-American_Bitch.ogg

The first two are images licensed under CC BY 2.0. The third one is a copyrighted audio file under fair use with a valid non-free use rationale. I'm not an expert here but the quality may be too high: it's 173 kbps but WP:SAMPLE recommends 64 kbit/s for ogg files.

The media files are relevant to the article and placed in appropriate locations. They all have captions. Both images have alt texts. The last clause of the English caption at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Olivia_Rodrigo_@_Theatre_at_Ace_Hotel_10_09_2023_(53422493857).jpg is a little odd. If "with perfect all American lips and tits" is a direct quote, then it needs quotation marks. Or the clause could simply be removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the media review, Phlsph7. The 64kbit/s recommendation is referring to the value between length and file size, which is 63 kbps for this file. Similar sizes can be seen on other files like this one.--NØ 11:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah right, it seems I read of the kbps value of the mp3 file given at the bottom rather than the kbps value of ogg file itself. The caption has been adjusted, so this takes care of the remaining concern. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Medxvo

• "Lyrically, it is satire and explores society's ..." - "Lyrically, it is a satire song that explores society's ..."
• "comparing it to the work of other rock artists" - what is "it"? the production, the song, or the production and her vocals?
• "In the United States, it debuted at number 13 ..." - "In the United States, "All-American Bitch" debuted at number 13..."—The sentence before this isn't related to the song itself but to the vocals and the production
• "platinum certification" - "platinum certification"—MOS:PIPE
• "... on her face. This performance received positive reviews" - "... on her face; the performance received positive reviews from critics"
• "Dan Nigro returned to produce every single track on it" - did we state in the article before this that Nigro also produced Sour?
• "Joan Didion's book ..." - "Joan Didion's 1968 book ..."
• "Initially written on a piano, they turned it into a rock song with a live band" - "Initially written on a piano, the song was turned into a rock song with a live band"—I don't think the first one is grammatically correct
• "An online TikTok video compared the chorus of "All-American Bitch" to Miley Cyrus's 2008 single "Start All Over" - can we add something like "upon the song's release" to say that this is part of the immediate reception and justify the sentence being in the release section?
• "Its production received comparisons" - "The song's production received comparisons"—The sentence before this isn't related to the song itself but to Rodrigo's vocals
• "Laura Snapes described it as ..." - "Laura Snapes described the song as ..."—To clarify that they are talking about the song itself
• "comparing it to Sour's opener "Brutal" - "comparing it to Sour's opener "Brutal" (2021)"

• @MaranoFan: You probably just missed this one, so pointing it out before supporting. Medxvo (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• For this one, I think it is self-explanatory that the album's opener would have been released as part of it (and the album's full release date is mentioned earlier in the article).--NØ 19:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  An album opener can be released as a single many years after the release of the album, see "Fearless" (2010) from Fearless (2008). I get your point though, and I will add my support now anyways. Best of luck! Medxvo (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• "Some opined that the song would be suitable ..." - can we attribute this to the two sources instead of "some"?
• "Several others also described Rodrigo's vocals in the verses as angelic, and writing for MusicOMH, John Murphy believed her screams ..." - "Several critics described Rodrigo's vocals in the verses as angelic, with MusicOMH's John Murphy believing her screams ..."
• "Beats Per Minutes's Lucas ..." - "Beats Per Minute's Lucas ..."
• "was certified gold" - "was certified gold"
• "top 10 song" - "top-10 song"
• "in a concert exclusively for ..." - "in an exclusive concert for ..."
• "Rodrigo sang it on Saturday Night Live eight days later" - "Rodrigo sang "All-American Bitch" on Saturday Night Live on December 9, 2023"—This is a new paragraph so I'd say the full date
• "that provided 20 cakes for it became ..." - "that provided 20 cakes for the performance became ..."
• "the Apple TV+ series The Buccaneers" - "the Apple TV+ series The Buccaneers (2023)"
• the Guts World Tour is a 2024–2025 concert tour not just a 2024 tour; this is how it's currently considered... (for both the lead and prose)
• There are incidents of "Guts's ...", "The New York Times's ...", "Chicago Sun-Times's ..." that I think should be "Guts' ...", "The New York Times' ...", "Chicago Sun-Times' ..."

I hope these comments are helpful for now. Best of luck with the FAC! Medxvo (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

These are all done as well. Thanks for the well wishes!--NØ 18:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support Medxvo (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Source review - pass

• "She references the Kennedy family while encapsulating her desire to meet ideals: "I got class and integrity, just like a goddamn Kennedy" - which part of the NME source supports this claim?
• the Rolling Stone sources should have a limited access not a subscription access
• The Wall Street Journal and The Tennessean should have a subscription access
• The New York Times, The Cut, the Los Angeles Times, The Boston Globe, Vulture, Vogue, and the Minnesota Star Tribune should have a limited access for refs 1, 3, 35, 40, 46, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99
• Some sources need to be archived such as refs 44, 78, and 87
• Why not use this source instead of the Apple TV+ Press source?

Medxvo (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I have implemented all the suggestions except an archive for ref 47, since the archive sites just produce a paywall and it has a ProQuest link which are usually not affected by linkrot.--NØ 17:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• This passes the source review. Medxvo (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "returned to produce every single track on it." - i think "returned to produce every track on it." would suffice
• "Rodrigo would listen to Rage Against the Machine" => "Rodrigo listened to Rage Against the Machine"
• "some that were uptempo and others that were serious ones" - can a song not be both uptempo and serious.....?

• Nice catch! Now that I see, the source describes the uptempo section as fun too.--NØ 04:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• There's a bit of inconsistency in tenses - you have "Jason Lipshutz [...] thought it illustrates" (present) but then further on you have "Chris Willman of Variety believed that it tapped into" (past)

• Now consistently past tense, I believe.--NØ 04:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• "She would replace the word "hips" and sing" => "She replaced the word "hips" and sang"
• That's it, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for the review. All done!--NØ 04:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Support from Rollinginhisgrave

Happy to have a look over. Just a start, I'll continue when I can sit down again.

All done, ping me when you make it through and I'll have another look-over. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 13:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Happy with the changes, thankyou so much for your patience :) Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• "They commented on Rodrigo's vocal performance and the production" This is very vague, is the rest of the sentence elaborating on what these comments entailed? Else clarify the thrust of what they said (positively, capturing a mood/feeling etc)
• "comparing the song to the work of other rock artists" I only see one comparison listed.I see now, I was looking in the reception section
• Some incaution in wikivoice in reception, e.g. "thought it illustrated Rodrigo's talent for "genre refraction"." Even though this puts "genre refraction" in quotes, what is actually being attributed is that he thought it illustrated this, and wikivoice approves that she has this talent.
• I think the cake should just be called "red"; the source describes it as blood-red to evidence a claim they go onto make which you don't include. Without such a characterization, the red of blood-red is what remains as important.
• "following which she decided to take a break from songwriting for six months." a bit nitpicky, but it doesn't sound like the break was initiated in reaction to the release, but was pre-meditated. decided to taketook?
• "Rodrigo listened to Rage Against the Machine on her way to studio sessions, and they became her favorite band." again, some causation that doesn't appear to be in the source, it is equally good reading to say she listened to it every day on the way to and from the studio because it was her favorite band.
• "of which the more rock-oriented tracks were included on the album" → "including the more rock-oriented tracks on the album"
• "serious ones"
• "She was stimulated by the affronting nature of the words" redundancy, particularly in the second half of this is immediately repeated in the quote. Consider linking the preceding sentence with ", later reflecting "
• "Upon receiving the idea" I find the sourcing on this quite confusing. I can't imagine he's referring to the idea of having a song entitled "All American Bitch", it reads more fleshed out in the source, particularly "You just wrote the opening song of this record." The People source also reads that it was a whole song, although on piano.
• "she had repressed since the age of 15" She had been trying to express repressed feelings since 15, they weren't repressed at 15
• "always felt" attribute
• "pressure to portray gratitude" attribute

• This isn't a quote, so to whom?

• It's an interview with Rodrigo. She is a reliable sources for whether she felt pressured, but not whether pressure was being applied. If she had said the opposite, it would be just as true; even if you don't feel pressured it doesn't mean you weren't being pressured.

• I think I got it now. Reworded to make it more clear this is something she felt.

• Don't need source [16] "Fans Think Olivia Rodrigo Shared a Snippet of New Song ‘Vampire’: Listen", doesn't add anything
• "announced the album title on June 26, 2023" Sources listed don't verify this fact. Maybe an archived version did? The Billboard one could not have, given it is dated June 21
• If you are one for source economy, "Olivia Rodrigo Unveils ‘Guts’ Tracklist" can be cut and "Rodrigo announced... first track" can source both sentences.

• I prefer keeping more as long as there is no overkill.

• "in which Rodrigo sports a shirt with a picture of Fiona Apple" explain why this is not as trivial as it reads.

• I don't think it is a good idea to omit reliable secondary sources' descriptions of performances as triviality is subjective. Rodrigo has cited Apple as an influence on previous music, though, if that helps answer your question.

• I did read that in the source, and read it using it to make a broader comment on Rodrigo's influences rather than on her being an influence on the song in particular, which is what I would require. If you read this and disagree, I think this may fall to editorial discretion so treat it as a suggestion.

• "an online TikTok video" I can understand why you add "online", but it reads as boomer-speak
• In the composition section, surely it was also recorded in Nigro's garage based on the comments on the screaming?
• Some overreferencing in #Composition, for example does "A full band plays electric guitars and drums in the chorus" need three sources? I can't even see a mention of drums in these sources.

• Removed one. The drums are mentioned in the Elle source at the end of the sentence. The other two sources are necessary and source different bits of the sentence.

• "internal screaming" should be reworded to reflect what she is portraying, it is a metaphor. Else should be attributed, in a more concrete way than just quotations

• It is already attributed as something mentioned in the lyrics. The lyric itself is "I scream inside to deal with it" so I am not sure there is a clearer way to put it without using original research.

• The "something" herein being the issue. I'll break down my thinking a bit: "She screams loudly after mentioning her internal screaming in the song's lyrics." We take from this: she mentions her internal screaming. This is done in the lyrics. "Mentions" without giving any other considerations implies she is merely commenting on a fact. It is a fact that she has internal screaming, in wikivoice. Internal screaming is a metaphor, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Expressions that lack precision for an expression in the manual of style that we should not use metaphors in wikivoice. That she mentions this in lyrics rather than another medium is an irrelevant consideration within the sentence. You can substitute internal screaming for desire to be a dancer etc to see how the mention of it being featured in the lyrics does not constitute attribution.

• I have addressed this as best as the sources allow.

• You use "believed" a lot (15 times), even beyond light concerns with MOS:SAID it reads as very repetitive.

• Cut down to less than two times in any one paragraph.

• ""All-American Bitch" is a satire song..." this paragraph endorses in wikivoice Rodrigo's insights into womanhood. "Expressed her concerns of..." framing would be more appropriate. I'll come back to this paragraph when you have a chance to address this.

• It should be ready for your re-read.

• I will accept this as it stands, and if I can articulate concerns coherently I will raise them further.

• "while encapsulating her desire to meet ideals" reads awkwardly
• "young lady" → woman
• Another example of incaution in wikivoice in reception: "irrefutable success" is apparently in wikivoice.

• It is very clearly preceded by "Sowing of Sputnikmusic believed", but I have swapped it out for a direct quote.

• I will read the rewrite in a bit, but again, what is being attributed is their comment on her having irrefutable success.
• I've read the rewrite, the issue persists although you have lessened it. The belief being attributed is not that the album was an "undeniable success", but that such success began with All-American Bitch.
• I can see something similar down the page with "though Rodrigo traipsed through an age-old story". This is not as explicit, but the use of though makes it ambiguous what is in wikivoice (is "Rodrigo traipsed through an age-old story" what McNeal is opining on?). This can be rectified by eliminating "though" and placing "but" at the start of the next clause, hopefully you can see how the sentence reads differently and appropriately attributes opinion.

• I think I understand this a bit better now and have reworded both the parts. I welcome you to directly copyedit either part if you think it is still not clear enough, Rollinginhisgrave.--NØ 09:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• "He was joined by Sheffield and The New York Times' Lindsay Zoladz in comparing it to Sour's opener "Brutal"." you can cut this if you aren't commenting further on the contents of such comparisons.

• An opinion shared by three sources is a necessary mention imo. What they compared about the two songs differed, and separately including each's opinion would throw off the sectional weightage.

• Ah. I've had a read of the sources and I understand my confusion. I read "compared to" as simply that made comparisons with it (can be similar, dissimilar etc.), but I think by comparing to you were implying similarity? If so, best to clarify.

• Done.

• Mark Murphy, John as requiring registration
• "Critics also praised" if you are summing up the previous paragraph as "praise", write this rather than "commented on"
• "embracing the essence of adolescence without attempting to sound prematurely mature" is this not contradictory?
• "stated his respect for the lyrics about Rodrigo's award acceptance speeches" you haven't said what these are.

• As in which individual speeches? They are not mentioned by the source and it is more of a general comment.

• Do you know why she sings about acceptance speeches?

• Assumably, award acceptance speeches would be one of the venues where a famous woman would feel pressure to appear grateful. Apologies for not being able to include this in the article, as my reading does not appear in sources.

• "most impeccable" sounds hyperbolic
• "number five by BBC News and in the top 20" I would say these numbers are comparable enough for MOS:NUMBER to apply: "comparable numbers near one another should all be written in words or all in figures". Same with ""All-American Bitch" charted at number nine"
• "fluctuating between jumping, screaming, and singing delicately" redundant; this is the layout of the song and has been expressed exhaustively.
• "became popular on social media." MOS:DATED, the claim is more broad than the ten days afforded by the sources.
• "On December 13, the singer Noelle Denton alleged that the concept was "stolen" from the music video for her 2021 song "Your Mom Calls Me" and the creative director might have seen her video when it was shared by a mutual friend." With comments like this, how do you determine whether inclusion gives appropriate weight, given Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion?

• I would have definitely ignored it if a reputed source like HuffPost did not write a dedicated article. It's just one sentence in a big section/article so I think we are alright, though.

• I understand, thankyou for clarifying. I will leave two thoughts here for your consideration, and I will leave it to your judgement. 1) Googling Noelle Denton, she does not have a Wikipedia page, and many of the first results on Google are her accusation against Rodrigo. I am not sure how WP:BLP1E applies here; I am not so familiar with BLP policy. 2) The HuffPost article is filed under entertainment which does not appear to be held to the same quality or noteworthiness standards as their news articles; even just looking at another article the author of the article has published: Glen Powell Offers Winner Of His Look-Alike Contest A 'Personal Prize', would you consider this to be DUE in any content about Powell?

• I prefer to keep this in so I appreciate you giving me leeway with this. Admittedly, I do not feel comfortable omitting an entire article, especially when it is some of the only negative coverage related to the subject. I agree with you that Denton does not meet the notability guidelines for a dedicated biography article.

I sympathize with this, my thinking is moving from this preference for including some negative coverage so the article can read as neutral to understanding it as promoting false balance and separate from considerations of WP:BALANCE. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• "which recalls 1990s rock artists" the set or Get Him Back!?

• I think it is clear this is referring to the set, personally? Why would it be referencing just one song in a list of many? But do share any rephrasing suggestions you may have.

• Perhaps inserting "together" between which and recalls. If you think this is an unreasonable/silly read, ignore.

• "sang the original lyric" some ambiguity in "original", new or first one written?

• Both the Rolling Stone and Stereogum sources use the term "original", so, even putting aside sticking with the source, one has to assume the word choice must be clear enough.

• "left everyone's hearing permanently damaged" one of the more troubling examples of "believed" around MOS:SAID

Some more nitpicky points that may go more to preferences although I will claim they allow it to read easier:

• "where one of the runaway hippies" → wherein / in which
• "on the screen" → on a screen

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the in-depth review, Rollinginhisgrave. I have asked for some minor suggestions and made the rest of the changes.--NØ 22:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Martha Bradley

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Another cookery book writer from history for your consideration. I created this about four years ago and took it to GA, but I've recently added more and brushed it up, and I think it's mature enough to try for FA now. All constructive comments are most welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Generalissima

Image review

All images are public domain and good to use. Alt-text would be nice but not a requirement. Will do a prose review later. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Alt text: a perpetual weakness of mine: I shall add this shortly. Thanks for reviewing the images and I look forward to any other comments you have. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Alts now added - SchroCat (talk) 10:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, alts look good! getting back to the prose review now. - G

Prose review

• Lede solid and looks to be a good length for this shorter article.
• Life is well-written. I ran into a somewhat similar problem of having to write a biography for someone without clear facts about their life, so I sympathize with this being tricky.
  • Do we need to know that she read the third edition in particular of Royal Cookery?
    • It's one of the few clues as to when she was still alive (I think the last definite date that can be identified), so I think it's an important point. - SchroCat (talk) 08:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
• May be good to wikilink slave system somewhere.

I've linked it to Slavery#Africa for now, but that isn't the best link. I'll look for an alternative, but this will do for the moment. - SchroCat (talk) 08:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• "Teutonic" is archaic enough I think it would be confusing to many readers. I think we should just say "German".
  • Hmmm. OK. I was trying to avoid the close repetition of the word "German", but I'll give it a spin. - SchroCat (talk) 08:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
• Do we need to wikilink Glasse again so soon after her previous mention?
  • Is it so soon? She's linked in different sections (now allowed) and there's a fair gap between the two links. - SchroCat (talk) 08:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
• Modern cookery books This may simply be because I'm a yank, but I've never heard "cookery book" used in a modern context. Is there a difference in use between cookery book and cookbook? Less a correction and more just interest on my part.
  • Yes, it's entirely because you're a Yank! We have cookery books over here: we leave the "cookbooks" to you. Just an ENGVAR thing which most don't know about. - SchroCat (talk) 08:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@SchroCat: That's all on my end. Thank you for another interesting cooking history article. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 07:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks Generalissima; all your points addressed in this edit. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Support Looks good to me, thank you for your swift reply. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Support from Crisco

• Did the PR. Put me down for another review here in the next few days.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
  • All of my concerns were addressed at PR. I made a quick edit to the ALT text, but other than that everything has been stable since 1 October. Happy to support.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

750h

like every other review feel free to refuse my suggestions with proper justification. 750h+ 06:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

lead

• released in two-volumes in 1758 does this mean there were two volumes released? if so why is there a hyphen?

• Reworked it a little - SchroCat (talk) 09:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

life

• no problems here. 750h+ 06:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

the british housewife (1758)

• showed an economical aspect to their ==> "showed an economic aspect to their"

• "Economic" has overtones of economic science or the economy in general; "economical" is more to do with value for money or profitability and seems more appropriate. - SchroCat (talk) 09:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I see. 750h+ 09:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• criticise their approach for certain dishes ==> "criticise their approach to certain dishes"

• Yep, done. - SchroCat (talk) 09:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• and no way extravagant in the expense. ==> "and in no way extravagant in the expense."

• This is a quote. - SchroCat (talk) 09:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

oh oops didn't realise 750h+ 09:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the article @SchroCat:! I have an open candidacy if you'd like to take a look. 750h+ 06:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks 750. Done, except where commented on. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Support. 750h+ 09:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

• "The book follows the French style of nouvelle cuisine" – this pulled me up short. I always thought nouvelle cuisine came in when I was a young man, and what's more so does the Dictionnaire de l'académie Française: La nouvelle cuisine, courant gastronomique né à la fin des années 1960, privilégiant une cuisine plus légère que la cuisine française traditionnelle. But then, blow me down, I find that The Oxford Companion to Food says that in 1733 Vincent La Chapelle in his Cuisinier moderne announced the birth of a "nouvelle cuisine", a new way of cooking that was to be adopted by several generations of French chefs—until Carême challenged it in the early 19th century. Two mutually exclusive uses of the same term. I think it would be v. helpful to your readers to add a footnote explaining that the term was first used in the 18th century and resurfaced in the 1960s, in both cases advocating a return to simplicity.
• "able to improve on pre-existing dishes" – wouldn't just "existing" serve the same function here (rather more elegantly)?
• "Based on the recipes shown in her work, Bradley had read several contemporary cookery books" – I don't think this sentence quite works. I think you need "it appears that" or "it is evident that" or some such after the comma and before Bradley.
• "... the cook, the housekeeper, the gardener and the farrier" – perhaps a blue link for "farrier"?
• "woodcock or snipe, pidgeon, partridge and chicken" – misspelled pigeon (only in the alt text, but even so...)
• "confectionary—and preserved foods..." – the usual form is that the sweets are termed "confectionery" and a "confectionary" is the place where they are made.
• "The food historian Sandra Sherman sees the pedagogical form in the layout of the recipes" – possibly "a pedagogical form"?
• "Bradley was one of the very female cookery book writers in eighteenth-century England" – as opposed to one of the butch ones? (Julian: "We get them from our charcutier". Horne: "Your butcher?" Julian: "You think so? Must be the way I'm wearing my hair".)
• "Although Bradley gave support for some aspects of French dining, she was also happy to criticise their approach to certain dishes" – "their" being the French, but this doesn't actually say so.
• "examples of how to truss cuts of game,[60] examples of menus..." – perhaps a synonym for one of the two "examples"?

That's my lot. I'll be supporting, but I hope these few quibbles are of use meanwhile. Tim riley talk 11:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks Tim, much appreciated: I've covered all these in these edits. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

All fine. Happy to support – a lovely article, scrupulously researched and referenced. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 15:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Source review with a note about article structure/topic

The harvn script complains that Pinkard2009 and Davison2014 don't point to any citation, I guess that the former's supposed to link to the source Pickard2009 and the latter is a typo. These are some pretty large page ranges on many of the short sources. Is the topic Bradley or the book she authored? The article's structured like a biography, but both the section length and the sources I perlustrated are more about the book than Bradley. There is a pattern in source formatting and the sources seem to be reliable - the old book's used as a source for its own content, which is fine -, but I must caution that this isn't a field where I have much expertise. The Internet Archive insists that the quotes from Bradley's book that I searched for don't exist? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks Jo-Jo. I've fixed the citation problem. The topic is as much about Bradley as possible (but as the article says itself "Little is known about the life of Martha Bradley, and what there is has come from her single publication, The British Housewife": this means we have to cover the book to some level. There are very few page ranges, and most that are there are fairly short; where they are longer, it is because the subject matter covers the whole range of pages (this is all mostly connected to Bradley's own work). To see the quotes, it's best to go to the page you want to see the quote on. With archaic print ('S' rendered as 'f', etc), the IA search facility doesn't quite work as well as it should on picking up the right words. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like the article would be better if it was constructed around the book (i.e The British Housewife) rather than the author. Re quotes, is it custom to mark deviations (e.g "fhe"->"Our cook" in #53)? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

No, I think it's best here - there is a DNB entry on her, so per WP:ANYBIO we are more than OK having an article on her. There's not much difference between Bradley and someone like Ann Cook (cookery book writer) (with the exception that there is a little more on Cook). I'll have a look at the quotes shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Ellipses added to the quote (sorry for the late response - this one fell out of my mind entirely!) - SchroCat (talk) 08:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Eh, I have been missing on stuff too lately. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments from PMC

As usual, expect within the week, loosely defined. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Aston Martin DB11

Nominator(s): 750h+ 05:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a gorgeous grand tourer, which is the successor to the Aston Martin DB9—the first FA I made. This is my seventh nomination, and underwent a recent GA review by Mertbiol for which I'm very grateful. Thanks for any comments I get. 750h+ 05:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Image review

Just doing the image review:

• All images have a free license from the photographer on the Commons. All have alt text, captions, and links to the Commons. The Aston Martin logo is de minimis and not a major part of any photo.
• For the first caption in "Background", I think it would be more clear to people unfamiliar the cars to have "The DB9" either link to that car's article or expanded to "Aston Martin DB9" as it is in the body text.

And that's it, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the review. 750h+ 23:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Quite welcome. No issues remaining, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

SC

• I have a few others to do first, but I will review. - SchroCat (talk) 06:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• "at the facility in Gaydon": I think just a little more than "the facility" is needed. Maybe "at the Aston Martin facility in Gaydon"?
• "2004[7][8] at the facility": same here: "2004[7][8] at its facility" will suffice
• "2016 at the facility in Gaydon, Warwickshire": -> "2016 at its facility in Gaydon" (doesn't need Warwickshire mentioned again)
• "a near-perfect weight distribution": the description of 'near-perfect' needs inline attribution I think
• "doors ... are swan-hinged": As this is a semi-technical term, I think you need to explain what it meant by it (see MOS:NOFORCELINK – "do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence).
• "humourously" -> "humorously"

That's my lot. Very little to pick up on here – another enjoyable read. - SchroCat (talk) 12:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Done. the second last concern, i've explained via footnote. Thanks for the review @SchroCat:. 750h+ 12:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support. all good from me. - SchroCat (talk) 13:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Source review: pass

I may as well pick this up while I'm here - SchroCat (talk) 12:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Formatting is consistent and in line with policy and practice
• Additional searches show no missing sources of note
• The sources used are reliable and acceptable for FA.
• Pass of source review. - SchroCat (talk) 13:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Much thanks for the reviews SC! 750h+ 13:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Placeholder

• I will review this one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• "It was available as both a coupe and a convertible" - well presumably it still is available as these if people choose to sell the ones they own, so maybe "it was manufactured as both....."?
• "by emphasising distinctive differences among the models" => "by emphasising distinctive differences between the models"
• That's it, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: done. Thanks for the comments. 750h+ 23:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Support from Crisco

Not really a car person, but I'll be happy to review.

• Any reason why they skipped the DB10?
  • Possibly because of the limited production sports car that was made exclusively for a movie, but I don't know if it's worth mentioning
    • Maybe as a footnote, just to note the existence of the model? It does somewhat prompt one to ask why it wasn't sequential, given it went DB9, DB11, and DB12. Made me think of Windows 8 to Windows 10. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• The upcoming range, known as the "second-century plan", which the DB11 was a part of, was to introduce a refreshed design approach directed by Marek Reichman, whom Aston Martin appointed lead designer in May 2005. - That's an awful lot of subordinate clauses. Any possibility of simplifying?
• The Vanquish features anti-roll bars and double wishbone suspension supported by coil springs. - I thought the Vanquish was a previous line/model. What is the applicability here?
  • wrong car, mistake
• 17 miles per US gallon (14 L/100 km; 20 mpg‑imp). - Is it standard in British English to refer to milage in US gallons? Given that the rest of the article is BrE, as a layperson I'd expect L/100km first. Same with the mph measurement later.
• In May 2018, Aston Martin introduced the DB11 Aston Martin Racing (AMR) version, which succeeded the DB11 V12. The DB11 AMR offers enhanced performance capabilities compared to its predecessor. - Perhaps "In May 2018, Aston Martin introduced the DB11 Aston Martin Racing (AMR) version, which succeeded the DB11 V12 and offers enhanced performance capabilities compared to its predecessor."
• M177 twin-turbocharged V8 engine - Given that this is a WP:SEAOFBLUE and you already link V8 engine in the previous sentence, I'd consider delinking at least one of these
• The DB11 has received mostly positive reviews. - Since production was discontinued, any reason for "has received"?

because the car still exists, and can still be reviewed.

• Car criticised its interior - Any particular model?
• Production of the DB11 ended at the end of June 2023. It was replaced by the DB12, which was unveiled at the 2023 Cannes Film Festival in May. - Not sure two sentences really suffices for its own section.

Otherwise looks good. Nice and tight.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: thanks for the reviews! all done unless responded to 750h+ 01:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks! I've made one comment regarding the DB10, but either way it's not a deal breaker, so happy to support. I do have my own nomination up, if you'd like to take a look (normally don't do this, but since I reviewed based on a link you provided elsewhere, figured it would be fair).  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: can I begin a new nomination? this one has three supports, and a completed image and source review 750h+ 06:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. FrB.TG (talk) 07:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

History of infant schools in Great Britain

Nominator(s): Llewee (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

What if a history article but with cute pictures?

This is my second nomination of this article. It was previously nominated under the title "infant school" (see) but as there were concerns about that article's scope it's focus has been made more specific. I will link everyone who commented on the original nomination so they can decide whether to say anything about the articles current state; Wehwalt, Generalissima, Nikkimaria, WhatamIdoing, UndercoverClassicist, Gerda Arendt, Crisco 1492 and Serial Number 54129. Llewee (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Llewee: you're supposed to wait 2 weeks before starting another nominations. It's been five days. {{@FAC}} 750h+ 23:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

FrB.TG, said that doesn't apply in this case when they closed the last nomination--Llewee (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Just saw that. My bad 750h+ 02:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Support from Crisco 1492

• My support from the previous nomination still stands. I'm seeing that discussion of Ireland has been removed, and I think the change in scope has helped keep the article more specific.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

An instructive article by a writer clearly in command of the subject. A few minor quibbles about the prose:

• "It was somewhat common for children" – you like the word "somewhat" somewhat: it crops up five times in your text. Like "however", "somewhat" is usually better omitted. I think the prose would be less woolly without any of the five here.

  reworded to take out the somewhats, in some cases I've tried to keep the meaning the somewhat was conveying--Llewee (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• "However, the societies did not aim to cater for the younger age group" – you are even keener on "however" than on "somewhat" – there are eight "however"s throughout the text, and you could, and I suggest should, lose at least the second, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh of them.

  I've gotten rid of most of them. I'm not sure if they are the ones you suggested as I lost count a bit.--Llewee (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• "Various other figures also established infant schools and wrote books about the subject. David Turner, an academic, wrote ..." – I think it would be helpful to your readers to make it clear that Turner was not one of those writing contemporary books about the subject but was writing in 1970.

  added "who studied 19th-century infant schools" after "an academic"--Llewee (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• "By the mid 1830's" – does the source really have the naff apostrophe?
• "some schools were too dominated by religion" – a bit judgemental without a citation.

  I have taken that bit out as the point is also said in more neutral way in the quote.--Llewee (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• "W. B. Stephens, an historian" – unless you are aged 90+ and cling to the pronunciations 'otel and 'istorian, I'd make "an" "a".
• "According to historians Helen May, Baljit Kaur and Larry Prochner" – clunky false title.

  dealt with in the same way to the David Turner issue--Llewee (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• "He was not primarily interested" – the last person mentioned was "the pupil", and it would be as well to replace the pronoun with the name.

  done--Llewee (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• "some of the questions indicate to desire to avoid rote learning –should the first "to" be "a"?

  done--Llewee (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• "The number of children under seven in schools ... In 1840 the Council on Education in England and Wales" – the whole of this paragraph is given a single citation. Does it cover all 196 words?

  I've broke this and other long chunks of text into multiple citations.--Llewee (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• "Many more of the less financially secure working classes" – is this a posh way of saying "poorer"?

  It is a bit jargony. I think I was trying to emphasise the distinction from the "skilled working classes" mentioned previously. I have changed it to "Many poorer families".--Llewee (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• "The expansion of young children attending school" – I take this is meant to mean that the numbers rather than the children expanded.

• I don't think child obesity was as much of an issue in those days. Changed to "rise of".--Llewee (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• "the under five's" – we could well do without the apostrophe.

Removed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• "More middle-class parents" – this is ambiguous: were the parents more middle class or were there more parents from the middle class?

  I have changed "more" to many" to clarify this point.--Llewee (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• "In the first year, the 'reception class', children" – any reason for ignoring the MoS's preference for double quotes?

  fixed--Llewee (talk) 22:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• "This method quickly became the principle method" – you mean "principal", I think.

  changed this--Llewee (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

That's all from me. I hope some of these points are of use. – Tim riley talk 18:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Afternoon Tim, how is it looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The amendment of principle/principal was the final change I was looking for. After a last read-through I am now happy to support the elevation of this article to FA. Tim riley talk 16:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, the 1830s thing is in the source sorry.--Llewee (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Image and source review

Images seem well-placed. What's the copyright status of the painting in File:Flickr - USCapitol - Weaving.jpg? File:British Central School Borough Road.png has a bare URL, as do several other images. Some files may need a commons:Template:PD-scan. Viz File:Infants of the British school, Llanymddyfri NLW3363470.jpg, do we know when the photographer lived? File:A practical guide to the English kinder-garten (children's garden) - for the use of mothers, nursery governesses, and infant teachers - being an exposition of Froebel's system of infant training - (14596479949).jpg needs an actual copyright tag. OKish ALT text. Sauce-wise, is #37 really saying "infant school"? I figure a government or education website would be a better source for such a claim, too. What makes https://education-uk.org/history/index.html a reliable source? Are the ITV report, Morgan Thomas 1936 and Grimshaw 1931 influential enough to warrant mention? Nothing jumps me as unused or questionable otherwise, but I must caution that this isn't a field where I am an expert in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Support

Per my comment at the first fac, my concerns were pretty much solely 1B orientated; that the scope has been sufficiently adjusted that I see no major obstacles to promotion. Tight faded male arse. Decadence and anarchy. A certain style. Smile. 10:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Valhalla train crash

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

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

Comment

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

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

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

TAOT

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

Lead and infobox

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

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

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

Done

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

Done

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

Added the words "of the suits".

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

Changed.

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

Done.

• Suggesting linking NTSB in the infobox photo caption.

Done.

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

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

Background

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

Fixed, although it made the sentence a little wordier.

• Suggest linking M7A in the image caption.

Did that too.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saw your point. Reads better now.

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

Tightened that a bit.

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

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

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

Done.

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

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

Crash

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changed.

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

Changed.

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

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

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

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

• Link the first mention of third rail.

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

Victims

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

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

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

Aftermath

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

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

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

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

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

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

Investigation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Added wording to that effect

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

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

Reports and conclusions

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

Thanks! Changed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Post-accident official responses

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

Made three out of it

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

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

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

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

Litigation

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

Done.

Other

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

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

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

Generalissima

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EG

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

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

Lead:

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

I went with "front car".

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

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

Background:

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

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

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

Crash:

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

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

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

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

• Para 5: "He realized it was from a vehicle fouling the tracks, and immediately hit the emergency brakes and sounded the horn, earlier than he would have been required to take the latter action if the tracks appeared clear, in the hope that the vehicle would hear it and leave since he knew he could not stop the train in time" - This sentence is a bit convoluted, but as I understand it, Smalls hit the brakes, and he sounded the horn earlier than required. Regardless, I'd rephrase this, because "earlier than he would have been required to take the latter action if the tracks appeared clear" could probably throw off a reader.
• Not strictly necessary, but I just realized that a map and/or further clarification of the directions may be helpful here. From what I can recall, the train was traveling northbound from Grand Central, and the SUV was heading northeast (which would mean that the passenger side of the SUV was facing south/southeast). Also, as the article says, the train was on the western track, which means it was actually running on the left-hand side of the line. However, this isn't spelled out in the article, which could confuse readers unfamiliar with the topic.

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

Collision:

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

Clarified.

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

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

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

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

Rescue efforts:

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

Done.

Victims:

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

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

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

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

Did that.

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

Good point. Changed.

Aftermath:

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

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

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

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

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

Social and cultural commentary:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theories and issues:

• Para 1: Can some of these quotes be paraphrased? I'm not sure that all three quotes are necessary, since we can just say in wikivoice that "grade-crossing accidents typically don't kill passengers on the train". The same goes for the rest of this section, actually; there are a lot of quotes that can be rephrased of summarized
• Para 2: "To facilitate this, the ends of the third rails adjacent to grade crossings have a slight upturn." - Is the implication that the ends of the third rails may have been jolted upward into the train cars as a result?
• Para 6: "While the crossing had undergone upgrades in recent years, including brighter lights and an additional sign warning passing drivers not to stop on the tracks, in 2009 another upgrade, which would have added a sign with flashing lights 100–200 feet (30–61 m) up the road west of the tracks was not installed." - Two things here.
  • First, I think this can be split into two sentences for readability.
  • Second, "in 2009 another upgrade ... was not installed" sounds strange. Usually, I'd say that upgrades weren't carried out, rather than that upgrades weren't installed (unless it's something like software). Also, do you know if the upgrade was proposed in 2009, canceled in 2009, or both?

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

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

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

RoySmith

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

Comments by ZKang123

Would give this a look.

Lead:

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

I went with "severely injured"

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

I broke those up.

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

Made those changes.

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

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

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

Done.

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

Done.

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

I took that out.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued:

• Investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) focused on two issues in the accident: how the train passengers were killed—since that rarely occurs in grade crossing collisions—and why Brody went forward into the train's path. – I might shorten to: An investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) was called to look into how the train passengers were killed and why Brody went forward into the train's path. I don't think saying the deaths are rare in such a collision is notable in the lead.
• The board's 2017 final report determined the driver of the SUV to be the cause of the accident, after finding no issues with the train engineer's performance or no defects with the vehicle, the crossing signals and associated traffic signal preemption. – The board's 2017 final report determined the driver of the SUV to be the cause of the accident, after finding no defects with the vehicle or crossing equipment, or issues with the train engineer's performance.
• which at this point is closely paralleled on its west by the two tracks of Metro-North Railroad's Harlem Line – where the highway closely parallels the two tracks of Metro-North Railroad's Harlem Line on its west.
• Lakeview .[5] – something seems to be deleted here.
• The next such crossing is Commerce Street, a lightly traveled local road to the north that intersects the tracks diagonally, also at grade. – The next at-grade crossing is Commerce Street, a lightly traveled local road to the north that intersects the tracks diagonally.
• It was an express train of eight cars,[9] formed by four paired electric multiple units (EMUs), all M7As made by Bombardier, bound for the Southeast station,[b] with Chappaqua its first scheduled stop. – This sentence should be further split up. Like It was an express train of eight cars,[9] formed by four paired electric multiple units (EMUs) – all M7As manufactured by Bombardier. The train was bound for the Southeast station...
• with nine months as an engineer – who had been an engineer for nine months
• She drove her 2011 Mercedes-Benz ML350 SUV south in order to meet a potential client for her bookkeeping business in Scarsdale, an appointment she had confirmed via text before leaving work, telling the client she had been running late and would be delayed. – Another chunky sentence, please split up.
• It was earlier than he would have been required to take the latter action if the tracks appeared clear. – I don't understand this sentence.
• Then her car moved forward, 30 seconds after the gate had come down on her car, investigators determined later – why need to add "investigators determined later"? Is it exactly determining the duration?
• on the east of the track, south of the crossing – on the eastbound track south of the crossing. Similarly for the west of the track. I'm just trying to avoid too many commas here.
• While the former lost power within eight seconds of the collision, circuit breakers that had detected the loss in power to the former restored it to the last four cars of the train, which remained in contact with that rail, until a manual override was sent from the office of Metro-North's power director at GCT a minute and a half afterwards – Also split this

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

Source review

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

Spot checks

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

Formatting

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

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

This will take some time ...

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

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

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

Sources

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

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

Independence Day (Nigeria)

Nominator(s): Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Nigeria's Independence Day, known colloquially as October First, is observed annually on 1 October to commemorate the country's independence from British rule in 1960. It marks the end of colonial governance and the establishment of Nigeria as a sovereign republic.

Disclosure: I plan on making sure this article appears on the main page as today's featured article for 1 October 2025 (I guess it's better to reserve the spot earlier :-)). So, I am literally ready to do any reasonable work suggested of any editor :) Thank you in advance of your comments and assistance. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Alt text shouldn't be identical to caption - it should supplement the caption for those unable to see the image

  I did some fixes to the alts, can you check and see if they're okay? thanks! --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  They're still pretty much the same as the captions - Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility/Alternative_text_for_images#How_to_write_alternative_text has some guidance that might be helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria Can't I just write |alt=refer to caption since I cannot see how the alt text will not resemble the caption? If you do not think this is okay, then please suggest exactly how I can write the alt by using one of the images as an example. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  For example, for File:Nigerian_Day_Independence_,_NYC_-_2018.jpg, an alt could be "A group of girls wave Nigerian flags on a street corner"; you could add details about their attire, the woman, or the stalls in the background if you felt that was important. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria Thank you so much, this helped a lot. I have now fixed the alt texts. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• File:National_Pageant_1st_October_1960.jpg: where is this licensing coming from? Ditto File:Jaja-Wachuku,_Abubakar_Tafawa_Balewa_and_Princess_Alexandra_of_kent_on_Nigeria_s_Independence_Day_October_1,_1960.jpg, File:The_Prime_Minister,_Sir_Abubakar_Tafawa_Balewa_on_Independence_Day,_October_1,_1960.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria: These images are in the public domain because they're photographic works and 50 years have passed since their publication. c:Template:PD-Nigeria. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  These aren't tagged as PD-Nigeria, but as CC0 - if that's not correct the tagging should be changed, and for PD-Nigeria they'll also need a US tag and info on first publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, I have tagged the images. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  You've changed the tagging to PD-Nigeria, but as noted you'll also need to add US tags and info on first publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria While checking for the US tags, I saw quite a handful. Can you point me to the exact one I should tag them with, please? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  If you can identify where and when each was first published, the Hirtle chart will do exactly that. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria Great! That helped. I am using c:Template:PD-1996. The template only makes provision for putting the country code or name (NG in this case), but does not provide a parameter for first publication date. How can I put that? should I use the |reason= parameter to just mention the first publication date? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  You can add publication details to the Source field in the image description. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria Great! Thank you so much for your guidance. I have not effected all corrections to the images. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not seeing any publication details on these images? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria Whoops, in my comment above, I meant "I have now effected". I have added the first publication dates, appropriate PD tags, etc. These were what you requested if I'm not mistaken? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  In addition to the tagging change, we also need to know where and when these were published. I see dates, but not the where atm. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria I added publication place to the information templates now. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Can you be a bit more specific? If someone wanted to verify the date and place of publication, where could that be done? Is there a specific publication that can be cited? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria this is the point. These images are in the National Library of Nigeria, you literally can’t find anything about their publication details online, the few details I could find from the Library are the date and place (I could be more specific by using Lagos, Nigeria). Even the Library does not know the original authors, or rather they couldn’t identify the original authors. So, yeah. The best I can do now is add Lagos to the publication date. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  Is there an online record for these images on the library site? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria Yes, I found for two

  National Pageant: https://nigeriareposit.nln.gov.ng/items/18603459-3eaa-41fc-8f1d-21fc8b607547

  Balewa and co in balcony: https://nigeriareposit.nln.gov.ng/items/0ac3bce7-2b0c-46b0-828f-f53f0182750f

  I am yet to see the one he was waving. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria Done. I have linked the two, added Abuja, Nigeria as publication place (at least per the Library). The third image does not appear to be in their website so I did not link that one. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Is it known that the date is publication rather than creation? I don't see that specified on the site. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria While it is just "Date" that is there, on the website there's a way to "Browse Resources", one way is by "Author", another is by "Title", another is by "Issue Date". This tells me that the "Date" there for these images are the "issue date" which is very likely the same as the publication date of the images and not the creation date, even though I think they are both the same date. I mean, if you ask me, the creation and publication date is the same thing, especially for these images. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria Please, would you look at this now? I have done what were suggested. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Could you elaborate on why you think the creation and publication date would be the same for these images? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria So, let’s say today’s Independence Day and we’re doing a national celebration. There would be photographs taken, these photographs taken would be sent to the media for publications?… highlighting what is happening or happened on this day. This is something that is normal. As a Nigerian, I know FOR SURE that these images were published that same day they were taken. I don’t know how else to explain this. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Sure, but that doesn't mean that every photograph taken on that day will end up in a publication - a photographer might take dozens of images and only publish one or two. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria okay, what do you suggest at this point? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  Have these images been published anywhere else? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria I could not find the pageant and the one Balewa was waving anywhere else online, at least from my search, but I found the balcony one has some hits in Google here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Looking through those results, the image is credited here to "UGC" - any idea what that is? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria What that means is that Legit.ng want aware of the original source, the image was actually submitted to them by a writer, who also wasn’t aware of the original source of the image, hence, UGC (user generated content). This doesn’t mean the image in itself was a user generated image. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Looking through more of those results, it seems that there are a variety of attributions provided - for example, this suggests LIFE. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria has image contributor? Yes. That doesn’t necessarily mean they own the image, that can’t possibly be the case at all. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria I might just be wrong. LIFE happened to have listed Shutterstock as one of the platforms one could search for their images. Even though I could not find the image at Google Books archive, etc. Please let me know if you find any other thing useful. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria Indeed, this photo of them standing in a balcony was from Time's LIFE see here. It was photographed by Mark Kaufmann. In fact, it seems he photographed Nigeria's independence throughout, at least from this search. I couldn't find exactly the other images, for example the one for national pageant and when balewa was waving. Can we assume now that the other photographs were also taken by Mark Kaufmann, and it is from this LIFE's series? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 04:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Potentially, although according to this that would mean most are unpublished. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria This is interesting as I just saw that. Looking at c:Template:PD-US-unpublished, the images do not satisfy any of the criteria there, do they? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

No, if indeed they were never published - it's possible a publication might be found by doing more sifting through those web results (or the article's sources). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria So, at this point I do not know what to do, haha. By "publication might be found in web results", do you mean any publisher? Like another newspaper or website that isn't affiliated with the LIFE? How does that work? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The problem you're running into is that if these were not published before 2003, they don't meet the requirements to be tagged as PD-unpublished. But if they were published before 2003, you might have other tagging options to work with - for example, if you find the image in an older source, or in a newer source that credits a publication you can track down. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria What about the publication from the National Library? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria per the above ^^ Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

If these were indeed LIFE images, it would be highly unusual for them to be first published in Nigeria. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria So what now? Should I remove these images? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 04:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

If it's possible to find out anything more definitive on publication, that would be the first choice. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria I am not clear about what publication we are looking at here, I need to be clear so that we don't keep going back and forth on something that is probably non-existent. By publication, you mean a newspaper, book, website or journal that later published these pictures as part of their own work? I do not seem to comprehend this whole publication thingy. What are the criteria we're looking at that would make the publication a considerable one? etc. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Some options: newspaper or magazine published around the time of the actual events; a book or journal reproducing the work with permission; failing that, something more recent with a credit that provides more info to go on. You could even try contacting the library to see if they have any more details than what's online, now that you're thinking these are LIFE images. If in your opinion there's not been any publication, then you'll probably need to look at removing the images unless you can make a case for non-free use. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria I am not sure the publication is something that happened, at least, before the timeframe. I’d give another try of doing searches, if not, I’d be inclined to remove the images, it’ll will only be a waste of my time so far, lol. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria Did not find anything useful from my end. Did you find anything useful or got any useful update for me? If not, I guess I'd just remove the images now. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria Pinging again for feedback. It’d be greatly appreciated. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 04:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find anything. I suspect that if these were published contemporaneously, they'd be findable in print sources on the topic, but I don't have access to verify that unfortunately. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria Yeah, I have removed the images now. Thank you so much so far. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria Hi there. Please can you indicate whether you support this nomination based on image review or not? :-) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Image reviews are usually just a pass or not, and this one's a pass! Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

UC

Always good to see a nomination for an article that pushes Wikipedia's interests and coverages a little wider, and looking at its history, it has clearly improved dramatically in the last ten days or so.

• There are a few sentences here which seem a bit "woolly" to me: when you think carefully about them, they're either saying something trivial or not really saying a whole lot. Some examples:
  • The day ... holds historical significance as the culmination of efforts for self-governance after decades of colonial rule, coming immediately after the sentence where we say the holiday commemorates independence from Britain.
  • marking Nigeria's entry into the international community as an independent state (again, we've just said that it was the day that Nigeria became independent, and this is the same thing in more words)
  • Over the years, Independence Day has continued to reflect Nigeria's political and social changes.: either needs fleshing out or cutting: the day hasn't, but perhaps the way it has been celebrated has.
  • The amalgamation of the Northern and Southern protectorates in 1914 was a key event in Nigeria's political history: why not just keep it to a factual statement that Nigeria was created by merging the two protectorates in 1914? If it was a key event for reasons above and beyond the obvious, we can say so, but I'm not sure it was.
  • The annual Independence Day celebrations offer an opportunity to reflect on the nation's history since 1960.
• A lot of the lead seems to discuss Nigerian independence and its post-independence history, rather than the subject of the article itself: see this lengthy section: Since independence, Nigeria has faced challenges, including political instability, civil conflict, and military coups. The Nigerian Civil War (1967–1970), also known as the Biafran War, was a significant conflict that had lasting effects on the nation's development. Despite these challenges, Nigeria has grown in regional and international influence. As Africa's most populous nation and one of its largest economies, Nigeria plays a prominent role in both regional and global affairs.
• Some of the language reads as promotional -- see for instance:
  • more inclusive activities that embrace Nigeria's cultural diversity
  • Despite these challenges, Nigeria has grown in regional and international influence.
  • Independence was achieved through negotiations with Britain, contrasting with other African nations that attained independence through conflict.
  • traditional dances, cultural displays, and parades highlighted Nigeria's diverse ethnic heritage
  • Balewa acknowledged the nation's diversity and honoured the efforts of Nigerian nationalists whose determination had made independence possible
  • The event also resonated across the African continent, symbolising Nigeria's entry into the growing list of newly independent states during the decolonisation wave
    • I fixed this one from the Independence in 1960 section. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• More generally, the article needs a bit of a look for the "small stuff" like MoS and grammar: see for instance:
  • Is "October First" routinely double-capitalised in Nigerian English?
    • I take this as a noun, hence I am capitalising it because nouns are usually capitalised. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
      • Proper nouns are usually capitalised, but dates don't generally count as proper nouns. From a Google Books search, it looks as though Nigerian writers generally do use both capitals when referring to the holiday, rather than simply the date, so this is fine on either count. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't think the "liturgical color" parameter in the infobox is quite right: that term has a particular Christian meaning.
    • I removed this parameter. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  • The independence ceremony on 1 October 1960, was attended by international representatives: no comma needed here.
    • This was part of what I worked on, so we no longer have this statement; it is now Independence Day celebrations included an official ceremony in Lagos attended by Nigerian leaders and international representatives. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  • with Secretary-General messages noting Nigeria's contributions: this isn't idiomatic English: better phrased as a straightforward sentence that Secretaries-General have issued messages (etc).
    • I worked on the entire section but particularly we now have with Secretaries-General issuing messages that commend Nigeria's contributions to. Is this okay?
  • Nigeria had been a British colony for more than sixty years: we don't actually put a start date on this, either here or in the article, but should. I appreciate it's a bit complicated, but there are known dates when the first bits of Nigeria came under British colonies, and when the last bits of Nigeria ceased to be independent, and neither of these are 1914.
    • I removed this entirely. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to stop there for now -- this is not an exhaustive list, but the broad points raised seem to run throughout the article, and I think it would be best to give you the chance to work on them before coming back to it. I note that it doesn't seem to have been nominated as a Good Article or been to Peer Review, and wonder if those might be good ports of call before an FAC run? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist Thank you so much for the comments, I will work on these now and let you know when I am done. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist I have worked on the lead significantly especially based on your comments. You might want to take a look at it while I will reply to your other comments inline based on status. Thank you again. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I can see changes, but am not sure that the balance has really shifted on the issues I raised, particularly regarding promotional tone. I'm going to oppose for now: it's not that it's a bad article (it's very far from that), but on the basis that I think the work needed to make it an FA would be best started elsewhere (in particular, one or several of Peer Review, a thorough Good Article Nomination, or the Guild of Copyeditors). I do sympathise, as editing your own writing for tone is not an easy business. Very much open to revisiting that vote if I am wrong and things change significantly, perhaps after a few more reviews. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist Ah, I was actually already working on a rewrite based on your comments, only to see this. I have incorporated my rewrite into the article, please you might want to check them out. They were especially based on the concerns your brought up above. I do not see the need of taking this through Peer review or GoCE when I am in the guild and I am a copyeditor myself. Although, I somehow agree that copyediting your own writing for tone can be hard. But please take a look, thanks again! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

OK -- I had misunderstood, in that case. I've just given it another re-read, and I don't see anything that I would like to change in my comments at this time. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

RB

Thank you for this nomination VWF. I will be doing a source text–entry statement integrity. Which means I will be verifying each statement against each source cited. If I am unable to access any source, I will ask you to send it to me, most likely, privately. From top to bottom, here are few:

Colonial era and path to independence

• Nigeria's road to independence was marked by British colonisation and the rise of nationalist movements seeking greater autonomy and representation. is cited to Falola & Heaton 2008 pp=154–155. While the source text verifies the rise of nationalist movements seeking autonomy and a cohesive national government, it does not explicitly support the complete context of "British colonisation" marking the road to independence. Something like this would be better, Nigeria's journey toward independence involved nationalist efforts, marked by the establishment of regional self-governance under the Lyttleton Constitution and the unification of diverse regional parties to form a national government.
  • done --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• British interests in resources, trade, and imperial expansion drove the colonization of Nigeria in the late 19th century. By 1914, the British administration merged the Northern and Southern protectorates with the Colony of Lagos to form Nigeria. While the unification spurred economic activities, it introduced centralized governance to diverse cultural groups, often leading to political tensions. is cited to Simwa 2020. The source supports the claim that British territorial expansion began with Lagos. It also confirms that the unification of the Northern and Southern Protectorates with Lagos occurred in 1914, forming what is now modern Nigeria. But, there is no specific mention in the source about "British interests in trade and imperial expansion" as the primary drivers of colonization efforts, nor does it provide direct evidence about the impact of centralized governance on economic activities and regional dynamics post-unification. Suggestion: British colonial involvement in Nigeria began with the annexation of Lagos in 1861, marking the start of direct influence over the region. In 1914, the British administration unified the Northern and Southern protectorates along with the Colony of Lagos, officially forming modern Nigeria. This unification laid the foundation for a centralized administrative structure across diverse regions.
  • done --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• In the early 20th century, Nigerian intellectuals and leaders, including Herbert Macaulay and Nnamdi Azikiwe, promoted political consciousness and questioned colonial policies. cited to Falola & Heaton 2008 p=140. Since the source text mainly emphasizes Herbert Macaulay's early role in Nigerian nationalist movements and his impact in Lagos, I suggest In the early 20th century, Herbert Macaulay and his followers in Lagos laid the groundwork for Nigerian nationalism, advocating for constitutional rights and increased political representation under colonial rule.
  • done --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• The establishment of the Nigerian Youth Movement (NYM) in the 1930s marked a call for increased political representation. cited to Falola & Heaton 2008 p=141. This checks out as the source correct supports this, but a slight adjustment could enhance clarity by including the NYM's original focus and subsequent expansion, like this The Nigerian Youth Movement (NYM), established in the 1930s, initially focused on educational reforms but quickly grew into a call for increased political representation and pan-Nigerian nationalism.
  • done --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• By the 1940s, the drive for independence had intensified, resulting in constitutional changes like the Richards Constitution of 1946, which allowed for limited Nigerian participation in governance. cited to Falola & Heaton 2008, p. 148 and Tignor 1998, p. 207. This checks out because both sources provide evidence that, by the 1940s, Nigeria's nationalist movement and desire for independence had gained momentum, and constitutional reforms were part of a response to this growing political consciousness. My 'suggestion By the 1940s, Nigeria's nationalist movement had intensified, leading to constitutional changes like the Richards Constitution of 1947, which expanded Nigerian representation in governance and introduced regional assemblies for the first time.
  • done --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd leave you with this for now. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 05:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for these, RB. I have done the above. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Vanderwaalforces, please, see more below. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 13:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• As nationalist pressure grew, the British implemented further reforms, including the Macpherson Constitution of 1951, which extended legislative representation, cited to Tignor 1998, p. 228; Falola & Heaton 2008, p. 152., and and the Lyttleton Constitution of 1954, which established a federal system. cited to Falola & Heaton 2008, p. 153. Falola & Heaton confirm that this constitution allowed Nigerian ministers and representatives from different regions, expanding the political structure to better include Nigerian voices in governance. Tignor also confirms that the Macpherson Constitution "magnified African electoral powers". Falola & Heaton p. 153 clearly states that the Lyttleton Constitution established Nigeria as a federation, with Lagos as a federal territory. This supports the second part of the statement. Suggested rephrasing for full verifiability; As nationalist pressure grew, the British implemented further reforms, including the Macpherson Constitution of 1951, which introduced regional assemblies and increased Nigerian representation in a central legislature. (Tignor 1998, p. 228; Falola & Heaton 2008, p. 152) The Lyttleton Constitution of 1954 established Nigeria as a federation, with Lagos designated as a federal territory. (Falola & Heaton 2008, p. 153' ')
  • done --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Despite these steps, Nigerian leaders continued to demand full autonomy. Political organizations such as the National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons (NCNC), the Action Group (AG), and the Northern People's Congress (NPC) emerged, representing various regional and ethnic interests. cited to Falola & Heaton 2008, pp. 144–145, 254. and Tignor 1998, pp. 235, 262–263. The text is largely verified concerning the NCNC and AG's emergence as political organizations representing regional interests, as detailed in both Falola & Heaton (pp. 144-145, 254) and Tignor (pp. 235, 262-263). However, there is no direct mention of the Northern People's Congress (NPC) in the provided pages, nor explicit references to continued demands for full autonomy. Suggested rephrasing is Despite colonial attempts at reform, Nigerian leaders pursued further autonomy. The National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons (NCNC) under Nnamdi Azikiwe became prominent in advocating for a pan-Nigerian identity, while the Action Group (AG) and other emerging groups began representing distinct regional and ethnic interests.
  • done --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Leaders like Obafemi Awolowo, Ahmadu Bello, and Azikiwe played notable roles in advocating for self-governance. The source does support parts of the statement but omits specific mention of "self-governance." Instead, it mentions that these leaders "began to organize to pressure the colonial government for greater representation for Nigerians in their own governance and for an eventual end to colonial rule in Nigeria." This indicates a movement towards nationalist goals and independence rather than the specific term "self-governance". Suggestion, Leaders like Obafemi Awolowo, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, and Azikiwe led nationalist movements, advocating for greater representation of Nigerians in governance and pushing for eventual independence from British rule.
  • done --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Following extended negotiations, the British agreed to Nigeria's independence. → Following significant negotiations and diplomatic efforts, the British agreed to grant Nigeria independence. This phrasing more closely aligns with the source by describing the process as significant without implying any direct cause-effect relationship beyond what is mentioned in Simwa 2020.
  • done --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Several constitutional conferences were held in London and Lagos, where regional leaders deliberated on governance structures for the future nation. → Nigeria's independence movement was characterized by numerous constitutional discussions and conferences, beginning as early as the 1940s. Regional leaders, both from the South and North, engaged in deliberations with British officials on the governance structures for Nigeria's future. This revision aligns better with the content from both Simwa and Okoro, who describe the historical context and the contributions of key nationalists in advocating for Nigeria's self-governance.
  • done --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• In 1959, Nigeria held its first general election, where the NPC won a majority and formed a coalition government, with Abubakar Tafawa Balewa as Prime Minister. This coalition set Nigeria on its path to full independence, achieved on 1 October 1960. → In 1959, Nigeria held a federal election in which the NPC won the largest number of seats. A coalition government was formed between the NPC and NCNC, with Abubakar Tafawa Balewa as Prime Minister. This coalition led to Nigeria's independence on 1 October 1960, with Balewa addressing the nation on this historic day. The original statement is correctly verified but could be refined for precise accuracy. The sources emphasize the NPC-NCNC coalition as a necessary step toward independence rather than as setting "Nigeria on its path to full independence."
  • done --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 13:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Reading Beans Done. Thanks! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Vanderwaalforces, check below. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 16:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Independence in 1960

• The formal declaration of Nigerian independence on 1 October 1960 marked the end of British colonial rule and the establishment of Nigeria's self-governance. Ceremonies in Lagos included dignitaries from around the world who observed the transition of power. The article statement is partly verified. There is no explicit mention of dignitaries from around the world attending ceremonies in Lagos in Falola & Heaton (2008, p. 156), but Shuaibu 2023 verifies that, so put Falola & Heaton at the end of "self-governance" and put Shuaibu 2023 at the end of "transition of power".
  • done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Princess Alexandra of Kent, representing Queen Elizabeth II, presented the constitutional documents that ended British authority, concluding years of negotiations driven by Nigerian nationalist movements. While both sources (Balewa 2020 and Shuaibu 2023) confirm Princess Alexandra's role in delivering constitutional instruments as a symbol of independence, neither explicitly attributes her presence to "concluding years of negotiations driven by Nigerian nationalist movements." So let's omit that and we would now have Princess Alexandra of Kent, representing Queen Elizabeth II, presented the constitutional documents that ended British authority.
  • done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• During the ceremony, Nigeria's new green and white flag was raised, replacing the Union Jack to signal the nation's new sovereignty. verified
• Public spaces were adorned for the occasion, and events included traditional dances, cultural displays, and parades celebrating Nigeria's ethnic diversity. verified
• In his speech, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa focused on themes of unity, national development, and responsibility, expressing hope for the country's future as a cohesive and independent nation. He acknowledged the diverse backgrounds of Nigeria's people and praised the efforts of nationalists who had worked toward independence. → In his Independence Day speech, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa expressed "joy and pride" at Nigeria's new status as an "independent sovereign nation" and acknowledged the "selfless labours" of those who had contributed to the nation's progress. He described the journey to independence as "purposefully and peacefully planned with full and open consultation" and emphasised the "great task" of responsibly representing Nigeria on the "world stage". Balewa also paid tribute to various contributors, including British officials and local figures, thanking them "for your devoted service, which helped build Nigeria into a nation". He expressed gratitude to Queen Elizabeth II and the Commonwealth, concluding with a declaration: "I open a new chapter in the history of Nigeria, and of the Commonwealth, and indeed of the world".
  • done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Following independence, Nigeria joined the United Nations and the British Commonwealth, formalising its position in global affairs. cited to Weaver (1961, pp. 146, 153, 157). The cited pages from Weaver indeed discuss Nigeria's entry into the British Commonwealth and the United Nations, as well as the implications of these memberships. But they do not directly state that these memberships "formalised [Nigeria’s] position in global affairs." Instead, Weaver's text elaborates on the specific benefits, opportunities, and challenges Nigeria faced within these organizations, as well as the country's strategic position within the Commonwealth as part of a non-aligned, Afro-Asian bloc. The source emphasizes economic and strategic advantages for Nigeria but does not summarize the memberships as a formalization of its global position. → Following independence, Nigeria joined the United Nations and the British Commonwealth, gaining economic and strategic advantages, as well as the opportunity to engage with other nations on issues of global significance.
  • done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• As one of the largest African nations to gain independence at the time, Nigeria's status was notable among other newly independent countries during the period of decolonisation in Africa. → On October 1, 1960, Nigeria became a fully sovereign state, marking a significant moment in Africa's decolonization process, as one of the continent's most populous nations achieved independence. Falola & Heaton (2008, p. 156) does describe Nigeria's independence and highlights its significance. However, it does not directly mention Nigeria's "notable status" among other newly independent nations in Africa. Instead, it focuses on the events leading to independence, the roles of Tafawa Balewa and Nnamdi Azikiwe, and some of the challenges facing Nigeria at the time, such as regionalism and ethnic divisions.
  • done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 16:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Done, thanks! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

We’re almost there. Please, see below. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 00:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Post-independence era

• In the years after independence, Nigeria faced challenges in building stable governance structures and addressing economic and social disparities. → Independence Day in Nigeria serves as an occasion for reflection on the nation's progress, with government broadcasts reviewing achievements, challenges, and future aspirations annually. This revision aligns more directly with the content in Simwa 2020 and Olaniyan 2016 p. 105, focusing on Independence Day's role in reflecting on the nation's journey rather than explicitly detailing post-independence governance and economic challenges.
  • done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
• The federal system, adapted from the colonial model, aimed to support regional autonomy but also underscored significant ethnic tensions among major groups, particularly the Hausa, Yoruba, and Igbo, who were competing for political power. The Al Jazeera source does not explicitly mention that Nigeria's federal system was adapted from the colonial model to support regional autonomy. It does discuss Nigeria's three-part division under colonial rule and highlights regional divisions, but it does not directly link these divisions to the goal of supporting autonomy. It also does discuss the ethnic divisions and power struggles among the Hausa-Fulani, Yoruba, and Igbo. It describes how tribalism and ethnic divisions were pronounced at independence, including how ethnic groups vied for political dominance, leading to military intervention and civil conflict. Suggested rephrase is Upon gaining independence, Nigeria's federal structure divided the country into three main regions dominated by the Hausa, Yoruba, and Igbo.
  • done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
• These divisions contributed to political instability and a series of military coups, beginning with the January 1966 coup and leading to the Nigerian Civil War from 1967 to 1970. → These divisions contributed to political instability and the January 1966 coup which later escalated into the Nigerian Civil War from 1967 to 1970.
  • done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
• Following the civil war, the government focused on national reconstruction. Yakubu Gowon, who assumed power after the January 1966 coup, introduced a three-year national development plan, with initiatives intended to address economic disparities and encourage national unity. His 1970 Independence Day address, shortly after the war's end, emphasized peace and the need for national rebuilding. The statement is only partially verified by the text from Ugo (2017). While the source indeed references Yakubu Gowon's emphasis on national unity, peace, and the need for development, it does not explicitly state a "three-year national development plan" or mention "initiatives to address economic disparities." Furthermore, the source text presents a set of five national objectives in a broader, more aspirational sense rather than concrete initiatives targeting economic disparities. Suggested rephrase, Following the civil war, the government focused on national reconstruction. Yakubu Gowon, who assumed power after the January 1966 coup, introduced a National Development Plan with objectives to foster unity, strengthen the economy, and create equal opportunities for all citizens. In his 1970 Independence Day address, shortly after the war's end, Gowon emphasized peace and the importance of building a "united, strong, and self-reliant nation" as part of Nigeria's future direction.
  • done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
• In the 1970s, Nigeria became increasingly involved in regional affairs, supporting various African independence movements. cited to Tignor (1998, p. 268.) does not verify this statement. But I found a source your might consider using to backup this statement; <ref>{{sfn|Nagar|Paterson|2012|p=8}} "During the 1960s and 1970s, Nigeria took a leading role in supporting black liberation movements in Southern Africa, including the African National Congress (ANC).</ref>. Full citation * {{cite techreport | last=Nagar | first=Dawn | last2=Paterson | first2=Mark | title=The Eagle and the Springbok: Strengthening the Nigeria/South Africa Relationship | year=2012 | jstor=resrep05152.6 | url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep05152.6 | access-date=8 November 2024}}.
  • Thank you, I used {{harvnb}} because it works best. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
• The country's oil boom brought economic opportunities but also introduced challenges such as corruption and inflation, issues that would persist in the following decades. The Al Jazeera source mentions that while Nigeria's oil wealth increased government revenue and showed potential for prosperity, this was marred by extensive corruption and economic mismanagement, which kept much of the population in poverty. However, the source does not explicitly mention inflation as a consequence of the oil boom, nor does it directly attribute the emergence of economic "opportunities" solely to the oil boom. Suggested rephrase, The country's oil wealth increased government revenues, but widespread corruption and mismanagement kept most Nigerians impoverished, issues that continued in the following decades.
  • done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
• These challenges contributed to political instability, resulting in additional periods of military rule, including under Ibrahim Babangida, whose administration initiated limited democratic reforms. Olaniyan (2016, p. 104) focuses on the genre of Independence Day broadcasts in Nigeria, analyzing them from a linguistic perspective, specifically through Babangida's speeches, as a genre of political discourse. It does mention Babangida's regime as a significant period for transitioning to democracy in Nigeria, but it does not directly state that his administration "initiated limited democratic reforms" or connect his regime's significance specifically to challenges contributing to political instability and military rule. Suggested rephrase, These challenges contributed to political instability, which continued through various military regimes. Under Ibrahim Babangida, a significant focus was placed on political discourse, as reflected in his Independence Day broadcasts, which symbolized the period’s role in transitioning toward democracy.
  • done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
• Independence Day remains a significant annual event, with leaders often using the occasion to address themes of unity and national development. The day provides an opportunity for reflecting on Nigeria's progress and the ongoing efforts to achieve stability and cohesion. → Independence Day is celebrated annually as a reminder of Nigeria's journey to freedom, marked by events that foster unity and national pride. It is an occasion for Nigerians to reflect on their shared heritage and express hope for the country's future. This revised statement more accurately mirrors the source's emphasis on unity, pride, and celebration without introducing themes not present in the text.
  • done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 00:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Done, thank you! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Let’s move on. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 14:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

National celebration events

• Independence Day in Nigeria includes events that highlight the nation's history, unity, and cultural heritage. The statement is only partially verified by the sources. While both sources imply a historical focus, only the parades and ceremonial events in Toromade et al. indirectly relate to unity and national pride. However, neither explicitly mentions "cultural heritage." Suggested rephrase, Independence Day in Nigeria features events that commemorate the nation's history and promote a sense of unity through nationwide celebrations.
  • done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• The primary celebrations take place in Abuja, with officials, military personnel, and citizens in attendance. Central to the observance is a military parade displaying the capabilities of Nigeria's armed forces, followed by cultural performances that feature traditional dance and music from various ethnic groups, underscoring the country's cultural diversity." cited to Shuaibu 2023. Suggested rephrase to remove Abuja because we don't have that in the source, A central feature of Nigeria's Independence Day celebrations is a military parade with soldiers marching and military bands performing. Additionally, cultural performances featuring traditional dance and music occur across the country.
  • done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• The ceremonial raising of the Nigerian flag is conducted to represent national sovereignty. Suggested rephrasing, As part of Nigeria's Independence Day celebrations, a ceremonial raising of the Nigerian flag takes place, accompanied by other festivities.
  • done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• The President of Nigeria also delivers a national address that addresses recent achievements, current issues, and goals for the future. Suggested rephrasing, The President of Nigeria also delivers a national address as part of the Independence Day celebrations.
  • done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• This speech, broadcast nationwide, often focuses on themes of unity and development, marking the significance of independence in Nigeria's national identity. Suggested rephrasing, This speech, broadcast nationwide, often reflects on challenges facing the nation, such as economic recession and security concerns, and outlines goals for governance and economic stability.
  • done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 14:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Done, thanks! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Local celebrations occur across Nigeria, with communities organising gatherings and events. remove this sentence, we have this already in the first paragraph of this section.
  • done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Schools hold activities like essay contests and debates on Nigerian history, aiming to foster awareness among young people. this is currently unverifiable even though it is true. For the sake of verifiability, I suggest rephrasing to In Oyo State, an essay competition was organized for primary and secondary school pupils as part of Independence Day celebrations, encouraging students to engage with current challenges in Nigeria, such as insecurity in the 21st century. and cited to {{sfn|Babalola|2019}}. Full citation * {{cite web | last=Babalola | first=Ademola | title=Independence: Oyo organises essay competition | website=[[The Punch]] | date=26 September 2019| url=https://punchng.com/independence-oyo-organises-essay-competition/ | access-date=10 November 2024}}
  • done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Traditional meals, such as jollof rice and plantains, are commonly shared during these gatherings. verified.
• In Lagos, streets and public spaces are decorated in Nigeria's national colours, and events such as concerts and public festivals draw crowds from different regions. Suggest rephrasing to In Lagos, Independence Day is celebrated with events such as military parades and cultural performances, showcasing Nigeria's heritage and drawing large crowds.
  • done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Fireworks displays in several cities are a common way to conclude the day, representing optimism for Nigeria's future. verified.

Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@Reading Beans Done, thanks! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Regional and global celebrations

• The Nigerian diaspora also observes Independence Day, particularly in countries with large Nigerian communities, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and several African nations. Remove "several African nations" here so that we now have The Nigerian diaspora also observes Independence Day, particularly in countries with large Nigerian communities, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada.
  • done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• In the United Kingdom, an annual parade in London brings together Nigerians dressed in traditional attire, with celebrations that include music, dance, and cultural displays, often concluding at Trafalgar Square. The source text from The Sun Nigeria 2022 describes a rally in London organized by Nigerians in the UK for Nigeria's 62nd Independence Anniversary, with a focus on supporting Peter Obi's presidential campaign. There is mention of a march through central London, including Trafalgar Square, but no details about traditional attire, cultural celebrations, music, or dance. Suggested rephrase, In the United Kingdom, Nigerians gathered in London to mark Nigeria’s 62nd Independence Anniversary with a march through central London, including stops at Trafalgar Square, the Nigerian High Commission, and 10 Downing Street.
  • done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• In New York City, Independence Day celebrations have occurred annually since 1991, featuring parades and cultural presentations. verified. But suggested rephrase, In New York City, Nigerians have celebrated Independence Day annually since 1991 with a large parade and cultural presentations, including music, food, and dance, making it the largest Nigerian gathering outside of Nigeria. This rephrasing clarifies the event's scope and reflects the cultural aspects more accurately, as described in the source.
  • done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• In Canada, the Province of Manitoba officially recognises Nigerian Independence Day, hosting yearly events that celebrate Nigerian culture and acknowledge the contributions of Nigerian communities within the province. The statement is partially verified but needs adjustments for complete accuracy. The source confirms that the Province of Manitoba introduced a bill to formally recognize Nigerian Independence Day, but it does not state that Manitoba "officially recognises" it yet (as it's still a proposed bill). Additionally, while the source mentions celebrating Nigerian culture and contributions, there is no indication of established annual events as implied by "yearly events." Suggested rephrase, In Canada, the Province of Manitoba introduced a bill in 2024 to formally recognise Nigerian Independence Day, aiming to celebrate Nigerian culture and acknowledge the contributions of Nigerian communities within the province.
  • done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Global recognition and statements

• Nigeria's Independence Day often receives international recognition, with messages released by world leaders on 1 October. U.S. Presidents have traditionally extended congratulations to Nigeria, often highlighting democratic values and cooperative relations between the two nations. In 2023, Joe Biden acknowledged Nigeria's significant role in Africa and affirmed a commitment to ongoing collaboration on mutual priorities, including security, democracy, and economic growth. verified.
• The United Nations has also marked Nigeria's Independence Day, with Secretaries-General issuing statements that recognise Nigeria's contributions to peacekeeping and its influence in regional stability. The statement, as written, is not fully verified by the provided source texts from Weaver (1961). The source discusses Nigeria's role in international relations through its membership in the United Nations and the Commonwealth, and it recognizes Nigeria's potential influence in global affairs alongside other Afro-Asian nations. However, it does not specifically mention the UN marking Nigerian Independence Day or issuing statements by Secretaries-General recognizing Nigeria's contributions to peacekeeping and regional stability. Suggested rephrase, Following independence, Nigeria joined the United Nations and the Commonwealth, participating in international affairs alongside other Afro-Asian nations.
  • done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Leaders from the United Kingdom, frequently acknowledging Nigeria's historical ties and membership within the Commonwealth of Nations, have expressed support on this day. remove this statement entirely.
  • done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• We can now merge both subsections (Regional and global celebrations, and Global recognition and statements) into a single subsection called Global celebrations and international recognition.
  • done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 15:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@Reading Beans Done, thank you. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Notable speeches and statements

• All contents of this section verified, so this checks out.

1992 C-130 crash

• verified.

Political tensions and social challenges

• Please remove the first paragraph because it isn't directly relate to the Independence Day.
  • done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• On 1 October 2010, Nigeria's 50th Independence anniversary was disrupted by twin bombings at Eagle Square in Abuja, where official celebrations were being held. The attack resulted in casualties and was claimed by the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta, which cited grievances with government policies in the Niger Delta. The incident highlighted security concerns and affected the tone of the jubilee celebrations, leading to increased security measures at public events in subsequent years. verified, but I suggest you remove "leading to increased security measures at public events in subsequent years" as it is not directly mentioned in the source.
  • done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• Economic challenges have also impacted Independence Day messages and public sentiment. During the economic recession of 2016, President Muhammadu Buhari addressed the nation, acknowledging the difficulties facing Nigerians and encouraging resilience. Independence Day speeches have increasingly become platforms for addressing significant economic and social issues, reflecting the challenges facing Nigerians. verified.

This should be all with the source-text integrity. I am happy you've been able work on my suggestions so far. Please ping me when you sort these out. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 04:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Reading Beans Done, thank you. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Support — looks good to me. Good work. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 22:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Ibjaja055

• Support with the following reasons:

1. Well-Written: The prose is engaging, clear, and professional. The language is precise, and complex historical developments are explained in an accessible manner. Transitions are smooth, making the narrative easy to follow for readers with varying familiarity with Nigerian history.
2. Comprehensive: The article covers all key aspects of Nigeria’s Independence Day, including its historical context, celebrations, global impact, and associated speeches. It details the colonial era, Nigeria’s path to independence, and ongoing commemorations. Each section provides necessary context, with major facts and events well-integrated, leaving no significant gaps in the narrative.
3. Well-Researched: This is a thoroughly researched article, reflecting a balanced survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable, with reliable sources, such as primary speeches, historical accounts, and news reports. Citations are appropriately used throughout, supporting claims and ensuring accuracy in details about independence and subsequent celebrations.
4. Neutral: The article maintains a neutral tone, presenting information objectively without any evident bias. It gives fair coverage to all perspectives, including government narratives, the significance of independence for Nigerians, and international viewpoints, without favoring any particular stance.
5. Stable: There is no evidence of ongoing edit conflicts or instability within the content. The article appears well-established, with content changes likely limited to routine updates rather than edit wars or major revisions.
6. Copyright Compliance and Plagiarism-Free: The article complies with Wikipedia’s copyright policy. It shows no signs of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing, and all information is rephrased accurately from sources, ensuring originality and integrity. When I ran it through plagiarism detector, the result was 23.1 percent which is violation unlikely
7. Style Guidelines:
Lead: The article has a concise and informative lead section that effectively introduces the topic and prepares readers for the detailed sections.
Structure: It follows a logical and balanced structure, with section headings that are clear, hierarchical, and easy to navigate.
Citations: Inline citations are consistently formatted, contributing to the article’s credibility. The references are clear, using footnotes and maintaining consistency.
8. Media: The article includes well-chosen images in each heading with appropriate captions which also enhance the reader’s understanding of Nigeria’s Independence Day celebrations. All media appear to have acceptable copyright statuses, in line with Wikipedia’s policies. Three out of the five images used are in the public domain and the other two are listed under CC by SA 2.0 and 3.0.

9. Length: The article remains focused, avoiding unnecessary detail. It effectively uses a summary style to cover events without overwhelming the reader, maintaining a balance that allows depth without excessive elaboration. Ibjaja055 (talk)

Coordinator note

Please note the bit of the FAC instructions starting "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 ..." Thanks Gog the Mild (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Support from Crisco 1492

• Nigeria's Independence Day, often called October First, is a public holiday in Nigeria observed on 1 October each year. - What's the point of repeating Nigeria twice in the same sentence? Overall, I am seeing quite a few repetitions of the word... some reworking of sentences may help.
  • done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• Per MOS:BTW, we should link words on their first occurrence. The link to Nigeria doesn't meet this guidelines, and some others may not either.
  • done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• File:National Pageant 1st October 1960.jpg - We have a caption of our own. I'd crop out the embedded caption
  • done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• File:Jaja-Wachuku, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa and Princess Alexandra of kent on Nigeria s Independence Day October 1, 1960.jpg - We have a caption of our own. I'd crop out the embedded caption
  • done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• Abubakar Tafawa Balewa - I'd mention "Prime Minister" or another position to show why his feedback was important
  • nixed. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• In Oyo State, an essay competition was organised for primary and secondary school pupils as part of Independence Day celebrations, encouraging students to engage with current challenges in Nigeria, such as insecurity in the 21st century. - Is this a regular occurrence? Do other states not do this?
  • Crisco 1492: Yes, it appears to be a regular occurrence in Oyo: 2019, 2023, 2021, etc.

It also seem to happen in other states but most likely not a regular occurrence-ish. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• I'm seeing some overlinking in the international celebrations section
  • done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• File:The Prime Minister, Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa on Independence Day, October 1, 1960.jpg - - We have a caption of our own. I'd crop out the embedded caption
  • done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• Notable speeches and statements - A lot of these paragraphs are small and could be merged
  • done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• The attack resulted in casualties - How many?
  • done. Eight people, added to the section. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Overall, quite tight.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492 Thanks for your comment, I have started addressing them. Please what do you mean by "Abubakar Tafawa Balewa - I'd mention "Prime Minister" or another position"? where should I mention Prime Minister? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

On his first mention, the reader doesn't have any context as to why his remarks matter. He is identified later in the article, but not at first mention. Hence I'd use "Prime Minister Abubakar Tafawa Balewa" or something similar at the first mention.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492 So, the first mention of him was at Leaders like Obafemi Awolowo, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, and Azikiwe led nationalist movements... the third paragraph of the Colonial era... section, do you think it would be logical to mention that here? Because at this point, he was not prime minister yet, but on the second mention at the fourth paragraph A coalition government was formed between the NPC and NCNC, with Abubakar Tafawa Balewa as Prime Minister the fact was established. Although, in the lead he also appeared there but logically he was still not PM yet in that sentence. What do you think? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Yeah, nix that. With the extra link (I think he's linked three times in four paragraphs) I had assumed that his first mention was in #Independence in 1960. The overlinking could use work. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Crisco 1492 thank you, I fixed the OLINK with Balewa and some others. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Also noting that I have fixed other things except the images which I will have to do in Wikimedia Commons, I am being limited because I am unable to overwrite existing files. I have requested help though. I have now cropped them all. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you. Supporting on prose... not being familiar with Nigeria, I can't speak to comprehensiveness, but this reads really well and gives a good understanding of the subject and its context.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Airship

As always, these are suggestions, not demands. Feel free to refuse with justification. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Lead

• "on 1 October each year...marks the anniversary...on 1 October 1960. On this date... I feel like all these references to one anniversary date could be streamlined into one.
• Last sentence of first paragraph seems out of place; would suggest moving it to the "history" part of the lead.
• Speaking of, there seems to be undue emphasis on the historical background in the lead. The focus should be on the public holiday—the subject of the article—so I don't really get why three lengthy sentences need to be devoted to forty-five years.
  • If you don't want to do that, "a colonial move that shaped the country's territorial and administrative framework" should definitely be cut nevertheless—it adds nothing.
• "Since its inception, Nigeria's Independence Day has been marked by official ceremonies, cultural events, and public displays of national pride. Parades, traditional dances, and flag-raising ceremonies occur across the country, with the primary celebration historically held in Nigeria's capital." This is essentially a list of six things with a full stop in the middle to give the impression that they're not just words for the sake of it.
• "Nigeria's Independence Day celebrations extend beyond its borders, with Nigerian communities abroad organising commemorative events that honour their heritage." You can cut everything before the comma as redundant.
• " Over time, Independence Day has become a symbol for both Nigerians and their global partners, serving as an enduring reminder of the country's journey to self-governance and its role within the international community." everything in this sentence is duplicated elsewhere in the lead. It can be cut entirely.

Historical background

• "Nigeria's journey toward independence involved nationalist efforts, marked by the establishment of regional self-governance under the Lyttleton Constitution and the unification of diverse regional parties to form a national government." this "introductory sentence" is unnecessary and can be cut.
• "marking the start of direct influence over the region" again redundant.
• "forming modern Nigeria. This unification laid the foundation for a centralised administrative structure" everything between the full stop and "a" can be cut.
• "advocating for greater representation of Nigerians in governance" this can surely be cut, as the important thing here is the push to independence?
• "Following significant negotiations and diplomatic efforts, the British agreed to grant Nigeria independence" this is unnecessary verbiage at the expense of useful information. when? where? who?
• "Nigeria's independence movement was characterised by numerous constitutional discussions and conferences, beginning as early as the 1940s. Regional leaders, both from the South and North, engaged in deliberations with British officials on the governance structures for Nigeria's future" most of this has just been covered in the past two paragraphs, you don't need to say it again; you should be focusing (as really the entire section should) on the push towards independence.
• "with Balewa addressing the nation on this historic day" unnecessary
• "The formal declaration of Nigerian independence on 1 October 1960 marked the end of British colonial rule and the establishment of Nigeria's self-governance." yes, that's what independence means
• "gaining economic and strategic advantages, as well as the opportunity to engage with other nations on issues of global significance" more unnecessary verbiage at the expense of useful information such as dates or mechanisms.
• "On October 1, 1960, Nigeria became a fully sovereign state, marking a significant moment in Africa's decolonisation process, as one of the continent's most populous nations achieved independence" I mean, seriously, what is the purpose of this sentence other than having words for the sake of words?

I'll stop there for now, but I would highly recommend going through WP:REDEX and implementing its advice on the rest of the article as well as the above. At present, it is far too wordy. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 See my edit to the lead and my edit to the historical background section and tell me whether I am doing well or not before I continue with the remaining sections of the article. PS: I had to remove the entirety of "Post-independence era" subsection of this section based on your comments. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Too far. If you are covering information in the body, it should be summarised in the lead (WP:LEAD). The key is to summarise the important parts. It's good that you had a look at the post-independence era subsection: I would have thought merging the important points with other sections such as "Significance and observance" would have been better than outright deletion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Two things; by "too far", you mean? And for the lead, I intend to work on the lead again after I finish doing the necessary removals throughout the body, so that I can adequately summarise the main points. WDYT? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 courtesy ping. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

"Too far" meaning too much cutting, especially in the lead. The method of making the article more concise is up to you—if you intend to readd information to the lead later, that's your call. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 So, things I did include doing the trimming throughout the remaining sections, but minimally this time. I then merged the removed Post-independence era subsection with the Significance and observance section selectively. I also added few details to the lead. You might want to give another look at it now. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Better. Let's continue.

• If you have a section titled "Notable speeches and statements", everything within should have some reference to secondary sources which confirm that the speeches wre notable. "Tafawa Balewa's 1960 speech" and most of "Yakubu Gowon's 1970 speech" are sourced to transcripts of the speech itself.
  • Also, the citations need a look at. Why is the 1960 transcript titled "Balewa 2020"? Why is the 1970 transcipt titled "Ugo 2017"?
• Details on Balewa's speech are split between "Independence in 1960" and the dedicated subsection.
• I would recommend combining the "Notable speeches and statements" and the "Historical challenges" sections into one section titled "post-independence history" or something. Let me know your thoughts. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  @AirshipJungleman29 Primary sources are not prohibited, are they? Balewa's speech is definitely inherently notable because we're looking at the first Independence Day speech here. Gowon's speech is also definitely a notable one because it was after the war, I intentionally didn't put up, for example, 1962 or 1961 speeches.

  That is original research—you are defining what is a notable speech. There should be secondary sources talking about the relevant ones if they are truly notable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  @AirshipJungleman29 The speech where the prime minister of Nigeria declared the country independent is not inherently a notable part of the Independence Day celebration? I don't think arguing about OR here is something I would be interested in. So, what do you want me to do with these speeches section if I cannot or should not use the speech transcripts (primary sources) on them, please? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  "The speech where the prime minister of Nigeria declared the country independent is not inherently a notable part of the Independence Day celebration?" If it has not received coverage in reliable sources, then no. The speeches section should only describe the speeches which reliable sources have given prominence to. See the first sentence of WP:WEIGHT. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  @AirshipJungleman29 Should I then remove this entire section? (I have zero problems with that) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  Although, Ibrahim Babangida's 1985–1993 broadcasts were well covered, at least from the sources I cited. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  @AirshipJungleman29 And just by the way, these speeches one way or the other have been covered in several source, that is just a fact. a cursory search would prove that to you. But I am not opposed to using primary sources in an article, which is why I chose to use the transcript. If that is a problem, then please tell me what to do, because I have no idea what I should do now. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  If you have reliable secondary source that discuss the speeches, summarise what they say. It seems like we're going around in circles on a fairly straightforward topic. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  @AirshipJungleman29 This is all done. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  Are Buhari's 2016 speech or Tinubu's 2023 speech discussed in secondary sources which attest to their importance to be "selected"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  @AirshipJungleman29 Buhari, I am inclined to remove. Tinubu, yes, at least from the source cited. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  I am unable to access the Tinubu source; can you provide a quotation here? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  @AirshipJungleman29 Sure, I got access via TWL.

  Meanwhile, on the occasion of Nigeria's 63 Independence, President Bola Tinubu in his live broadcast on Sunday promised to rebuild a Nigeria where hunger, poverty and hardship are pushed into the shadows of an ever fading past. He advised that the reform may be painful, noting that it is what greatness and the future require. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  That doesn't appear to be discussion, but rather just acknowledgement that the speech was made. I'd expect that you could find similar summaries made about every Independence Day speech, no? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  @AirshipJungleman29 Both should be removed then. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  @AirshipJungleman29 I removed it. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  @AirshipJungleman29 Hi there. Whenever you are free, wanna give a final look from your end or something and possibly your final say? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  The citations, actually, I think the error is in the Balewa 2020. Since we use bylines and the byline from the source is TheCable, I should probably remove the bylines entirely. Or do you suggest I make Ugo 2017 to become Gowon 2017, using Yakubu Gowon as the byline instead?

  The Balewa speech was part of the happenings on Independence Day in 1960 which is why there's a brief mention of it there, but well detailed in the dedicated section.

  Is there a problem exactly with why these two sections should be merged? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

2009–10 Notts County F.C. season

Nominator(s): Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Have you ever wondered what happens when a struggling lower league football club is taken over as part of an elaborate attempt to defraud (among others) the North Korean government? Well, as far fetched as that might sound, you can find out! This article is about Notts County's 2009–10 season, a hugely successful one on the field, but one largely overshadowed by off-field events, as the club found itself unwittingly embroiled in a massive attempted fraud. This was unquestionably the most bizarre season in Notts County's (and maybe any football club's) history, and the story is complex and sometimes scarcely believable, but I hope I've been able to bring it all together in a sensible and understandable way. All comments and feedback gratefully received. Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks - alt text added Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 08:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Placeholder

Putting my name down to do a review of this one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Initial comments

• "the club were subject to a high-profile takeover" - although whether to treat a football club as singular or plural is a bit nebulous in British English, I would say that in this case the club is being referred to as a corporate entity and should therefore be singular
• That's all I got on the lead - more to follow! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Chris, the above is now amended. Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 13:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

More comments

• "Green "sold" his stake in the club to the Trust for £75,000" - why is "sold" in quote marks? If a transaction occurred in exchange for money, that seems like a pretty straightforward sale to me.....

Quotation marks removed

• "It was relegated from Division Two (now EFL League One) in 2004" - as the name changed in 2004, I think you could avoid the need for brackets if you frame it as "It was relegated to EFL League One in 2004"

Changed

• "as this would not be a sale, no money would need to be paid to the estate of Haydn Green" - I'm unclear why money would ever have needed to be paid to his estate - didn't he sell his shares to the Trust before he died?

I've edited the background section above to clarify that the money would become due to Green's estate in the event of his death.

• That's what I got as far as the end of the "Pre-season events" section - back for more later! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

These are now addressed. If there's anything further you need clarifying from these let me know. Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 09:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• " the second 2–2 at home to Torquay United, a result which left the team in fifth place" => pedantically, "the team" here could refer to either Notts or Torquay

I've switched to "the Magpies" to make it clear that this refers to Notts.

• "The club's off-field was by now deteriorating rapidly" - think there's a word or words missing after "off-field"

Word added

• "it was reported that Trembling was planning a management buyout of the club,[90] that Eriksson was on the verge of resigning,[91] and Armstrong-Holmes admitte" => "it was reported that Trembling was planning a management buyout of the club,[90] and that Eriksson was on the verge of resigning,[91] and Armstrong-Holmes admitte"

Done

• "it became apparent that the club were subject to a new winding-up petition" - I think "the club was" here per my earlier comment
• Suggest linking "brace" to somewhere appropriate on first usage

Done

• "Due to be played in the midst of Trembling's efforts to find a new buyer for the club, he had reportedly hoped" - don't think this works grammatically. Try "As the match was due to be played in the midst of Trembling's efforts to find a new buyer for the club, he had reportedly hoped"

Done

• "company with reserves of $1.9trillion" - think there should be a non-breaking space between 9 and trillion
• "supposedly worth $2billion" - same here
• Same for all the million amounts in the last section

All done

• "At a later hearing, Jersey authorities ordered he pay £322,212" => "At a later hearing, Jersey authorities ordered that he pay £322,212"
• That's all I got in the rest of the article. Great work!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to read through Chris, these are all now addressed. Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

SC

Comments to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• "attempts to recover often referenced the events of 2009": "often refer to" would be much better

Changed

• Page ranges in the references should not be "p. 127–8", but "pp. 127–128"

I've gone through and reformatted where necessary.

Sorry, I misread your point on this one. Thanks for going back through it for me.

• "buying the Magpies" -> "buying the club"
• Unbeknownst -> Unbeknown

Changed

• "suggested Brazil international and World Cup winner Roberto Carlos" -> "the Brazil international. This is supposed to be in formal, encyclopaedic English, so the definite article should be used. Journalists and Americans drop it altogether (which is fine for them), but not here

Definite article added

• "Campbell did not play immediately, and Notts were beaten 1–0 at Barnet in their final match of the month". This is a comma splice which appears to be connecting two unconnected events.

I've rewritten the sentence to remove the reference to Campbell.

• "Early in September, the Magpies strengthened" -> "Early in September, Notts County strengthened" (try and use the nickname sparingly, and best not when 'introducing' the club at the start of a new paragraph)

Changed

• "wealth was not real, and defender": this would be better as "wealth was not real; the defender"

Changed

• "Early November brought new revelations about the club's finances when it was revealed that Notts County's": too journalistic. "In early November it was revealed that Notts County's" is more succinct

Changed

• "one often repeated story is of the club being unable to pay even the local milkman": Too journalistic – and who cares about a repeated story: it's supposed to be a coverage of known facts, not repeated stories

I've removed the milkman anecdote.

• "buyout of the club, and that Eriksson was on the verge of resigning, and Armstrong-Holmes admitted" and...and... This needs rewriting
• "Holmes admitted": 'Admit' has overtones of confessing to a crime (see MOS:SAID)

I've split the above into a couple of sentences and replaced 'admit'.

• "The two men "scoured Europe", as the Press Association put it": Not sure why we need peacocky journalistic language here. This can be rewritten in good English without the hyperbole

Rewritten

• "saw the Magpies move" -> "saw Notts County move"

Changed

• "gifted the Magpies": I'm not sure there was a "gift", so formal language would be better

Changed

• "league leaders Rochdale" -> "the league leaders Rochdale"

Definite article added

• "this 3–2, meaning the Magpies" 'and' instead of 'meaning' would be better

Changed

• "by BBC journalist" -> "by the BBC journalist"
• "a decade later, journalist" -> "a decade later, the journalist" – ditto for Levine and Southall in the same sentence

Definite articles added

• "and Trembling would admit to Marshall": see above about "admit", but why "would admit", rather than "admitted".

Changed

At the moment it's a good article, but the prose is a bit flabby and journalistic in places. I'll go over it all again once these points have been addressed. - SchroCat (talk) 05:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for the feedback, the above has now been addressed. Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 13:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

A final few comments on another readthrough:

• "Former England manager Sven-Göran Eriksson" ->"The former England manager Sven-Göran Eriksson" (twice: once in the lead, once in the body)

Definite articles added

• "the Trust apparently did not ask": I'm never happy to see "apparently" in WP's voice: best if this could be attributed inline

I've reworded this paragraph so there's an in-line attribution to the source.

• "Goodley was quickly tipped off": do you mean "quickly"? Literally this is saying someone told him very fast. "Soon", maybe?

Changed

• "at Notts County's Meadow Lane": slightly confusing unless you what Meadow Lane is. "at Notts County's Meadow Lane ground", or "Meadow Lane stadium" or similar would help

I've added stadium here

• "stuck in mud before crossing the goal line": Needs reframing as it reads like it was temporarily stuck but also crossed the line

I've switched 'before' to 'without'.

• "Early in January, it became apparent that the club was subject to a new winding-up petition issued by HMRC": What was the actual situation at the time, because the weasel phrase "it became apparent" is slightly confusing here. If they were subject to it, then just say "Early in January, the club was subject to a new winding-up petition issued by HMRC", or "the club found out it was subject"

Changed

That's my lot. - SchroCat (talk) 07:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, these are now addressed. Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 10:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support - SchroCat (talk) 10:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Source review

What makes "Robinson, Ben (2024). The Trillion Dollar Conman. London: Icon Books. ISBN 978-183773-142-8.", https://leftlion.co.uk/, https://thesefootballtimes.co/2016/04/13/notts-county-and-the-bizarre-takeover-of-2009/ and https://fbref.com a reliable source? I presume the Tony Brown mentioned here is the author of the official history of the club? I believe I've checked many of the sources in previous FACses. Seems like source formatting is consistent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo, thanks for taking a look. In answer to your queries:

• The Trillion Dollar Conman: The author of this book is a journalist who (prior to publication) had been one of the makers of the BBC podcast series about the takeover (also cited in the article). It draws on a very detailed investigation including interviews with several of the figures involved (including other journalists cited in the article).
• These Football Times is a part of The Guardian; the latter sometimes publishes articles from the former on its own website.
• LefLion is a long-standing magazine in Nottingham which reports on local culture and arts. It covers the local football teams quite extensively.
• FBRef is a football statistics site. I've used it as it's used quite extensively for football statistics on articles, including articles with FA status. The site is a part of Sports Reference, which has other statistics-based sites cited on Wikipedia. For instance, Baseball Reference is cited several times in this FA.
• You're correct about Tony Brown. His co-author in the book cited in this article has also published on Notts County's history.

I hope this helps. Let me know if you'd like anything else clarifying. Eric Idle's Cat (talk)

Do we know how FBRef updates its information and the credentials of who does that? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Its data is provided by Data Sports Group and its advanced statistics by Opta (see here: https://fbref.com/en/#site_menu_link). Information on the people who run Sports Reference is available here: https://www.sports-reference.com/about.html. Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 09:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

OK, I guess. Are the data developers the folks responsible for keeping the database accurate? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I would presume so, the front page of https://www.sports-reference.com/ says that FBRef and several of its other sites are updated daily. Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 11:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Donkey Kong

Nominator(s): JOEBRO⁶⁴ 13:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

DK, Donkey Kong, DK, Donkey Kong is here (at FAC!). As the franchise that put Nintendo on the map, Donkey Kong's got one of the most bizarre and entertaining histories of any media franchise—did you know, for instance, that the 1981 original began as a Popeye game? Or that Shigeru Miyamoto, widely regarded as the Spielberg of video games, had never designed a video game before he had to create the big ape to save Nintendo from bankruptcy? Or that the franchise got a musical TV adaptation in the late '90s animated entirely through motion capture?

I've spent almost two years working on this article, from February 2023 until now. I think it paints a complete picture of the franchise's history, inner workings, and influence. I hope you enjoy reading the article as much as I enjoyed writing it! JOEBRO⁶⁴ 13:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

FM

• Probably won't get to it soon, but marking my spot, because I have to read this! And I sure know the TV series, because it turns out I'm apparently one of the only people who recorded the Danish dub, which is commercially unavailable now... FunkMonk (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• At first glance I'm seeing a bunch of WP:duplinks, which can be highlighted with this script:[9]
  • I believe I've nuked all of 'em JOEBRO⁶⁴ 19:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• "and the success of Taito's Space Invaders (1978)" While most readers would know, could add "Taito's video game Space Invaders".
  • I added "arcade game" JOEBRO⁶⁴ 16:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• " The $280 million windfall" I had no idea what this meant, could add "gain" to the term, as in the linked article, so it's easier to deduct.
  • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 16:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• "Four programmers from Ikegami Tsushinki spent three months turning them into a finished game." A bit unclear what "them" refers to, as the preceding sentence is very long.
  • changed to "Miyamoto's design". This was the result of some sentences being shifted around due to me adding more info during the GA review JOEBRO⁶⁴ 16:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• "had won a lawsuit years prior" Perhaps more interesting and informative (and less wordy) to just give the date?
  • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 16:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• "Popeye became Mario" Perhaps worth stating in a footnote it was originally "Jumpman"? Here it makes it seem like if he had the Mario identity from the beginning.
  • This is actually a common misconception—he was always known as Mario, as evidenced by the sales brochure. The "Jumpman" name was only used in the instructions. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 16:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• "Donkey Kong's appearances in the years following Donkey Kong 3 were limited to cameos in unrelated games" Worth mentioning them in a footnote, or even in-text.
  • Unfortunately the sources don't elaborate and I wasn't able to find any that did JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• "It begins as a remake of the 1981 game before introducing over 100 puzzle-platforming levels that incorporate elements from Donkey Kong Jr. and Super Mario Bros. 2 (1988)." I think it's worth mentioning that Mario was again the protagonist.
  • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• "Miyamoto named "Beauty and the Beast" and the 1933 film King Kong as influences" Perhaps clarify "named the fairytale "Beauty and the Beast"", so readers don't assume the film.
  • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 16:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• "but the sprite was too big to easily maneuver" Perhaps add "the sprite graphic" or similar for clarity, as many readers might not understand what's implied.
  • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• "but was moved to the Wii with support for the peripheral dropped" should that be "when support for the peripheral dropped"?
  • I changed it to "moved to the Wii with no support for the peripheral"—the Wii does support the DK Bongos but for whatever reason Paon decided not to let you use them. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• "as closer in spirit to his work on Banjo-Kazooie than Wise's Country music" Maybe "than to Wise's Country music" for clarity?
  • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• "before it shifted to producing and importing anime" What is meant by "importing"?
  • distributing outside Japan, changed to "distributing" JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• "A Donkey Kong cartoon produced by Ruby-Spears aired as part of CBS's hour-long Saturday Supercade programming block in 1983" You give the number of episodes for the other series mentioned, why not for this one?
  • So it's two things. (1) It's not in the sources. (2) A lot of Saturday Supercade is considered lost media because rebroadcasts and rereleases are very rare and much of it was never recorded, I think it's possible that there were more episodes beyond the 13 ones listed at the Saturday Supercade article so that number could be inaccurate. Best to omit it if we don't have the sourcing. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• Eveline Novakovic's lastname was Fischer at the relevant period, would it make more sense to use the name she was credited as back then?
  • Done. (I think the only DK games she worked on under the name Novakovic were the GBA ones.) JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• The intro says "The franchise has pioneered or popularized concepts such as in-game storytelling" while the legacy section mentions "The franchise's lack of storytelling". Seems contradictory? I'm also not seeing the former explained in the article body.
  • It's discussed in the legacy section, under effect on the industry. The "lack of storytelling" was referring to the fact the franchise doesn't have a super deep official backstory so I've clarified that. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• "Some games without the Country branding" feels a bit convoluted, why not just "outside the Country series"?
  • I just removed it outright as it wasn't necessary. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• You provide a long list of characters in the Country section under gameplay, perhaps worth mentioning the new player characters in the DK 64 part?
  • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• "Other villains include" Could specify that these are all post-Rare?
  • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• "A model of an original Donkey Kong (1981) arcade cabinet" Why use a miniature model? While perhaps not as nice an image, I think it would be more authentic to show an actual machine, like this free image:[10]
  • I chose a model as that was the one that was already on Commons, haha. I'll look into replacing it shortly JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Having looked into replacements, I think the model is actually the way to go. It actually shows gameplay and the joystick and buttons are a lot more discernable. Seems like other cabinet pics have been deleted but this has been scrutinized and deemed ok for Commons as well. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 19:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Changes look good, I see four unaddressed points. FunkMonk (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah I'll be coming back to those shortly. I've been busy with school and work so my wiki-time's been a bit limited. I should have everything from everyone addressed by the weekend. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 14:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support - great to see this here, and hope to see more DK articles at FAC. I still think an authentic arcade machine would be better than the miniature, perhaps a suitable photo will turn up one day. FunkMonk (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you! I'm keeping my eyes peeled for a better arcade photo, might make a trip to a local arcade that I know has a cab if I get the chance JOEBRO⁶⁴ 01:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Fathoms Below

Hey Joe, it's been a while right? This is a big step up from DKC so I'll save a spot here and I should have some comments up by next week. I also have a FAC open and would really appreciate some quick comments if you're available. Fathoms Below (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Update: working on comments right now! Fathoms Below (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Wow, you got a lot of comments on this one. Since my feedback would probably be less valuable at this point, I'll leave some prose comments and if you have a GAR or FAC in the future, you can ping me and I'll see what I can do. Fathoms Below (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

I'll have a proper run-through later, but some driveby thoughts for now:

• For the purposes of the lead, how important is it to list all of the supporting characters? I ask partially because the "Rare's games expanded the cast" sentence is trying to pack a lot of information in, is a bit confusing (when you get to the end and we're talking about antagonists instead) and hits you with a ton of names that most people are not necessarily going to know anyhow.
  • How's it now? I chopped it down to only the characters who have articles (e.g. Mario and Pauline). I think "friendly Kongs" should suffice for the supporting characters; I kept mention of the Kremlings since they're the only recurring antagonists. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 19:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• In both the lead and body, the text says "to provide a new game that could salvage the unsold Radar Scope cabinets", and I'm wondering if "salvage" makes sense here? They were taking the cabinets and putting a new game into them, correct, versus scrapping them for parts or the like, so "repurpose" maybe makes more sense?
  • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 19:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) I said the same thing here. You have disgraced the Kongs by not staying true. Panini! • 🥪 19:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
      • lol, since more than one person has now taken issue with it I determined it was best to change JOEBRO⁶⁴ 19:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• I get trying to show the variety of games with File:Donkey Kong Country Gameplay Elements.png, but from a practical standpoint, especially given that the core formula is unchanged between them in terms of platforming and with the limitations of non-free content, I think it would make sense to use a single, higher-resolution screenshot.
  • Looking for a decent screenshot right now, will update this when I get one JOEBRO⁶⁴ 19:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Replaced with a screenshot from DKCR that I think has every element that the three screenshots were trying to illustrate. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 19:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi David, anything you want to add at this time? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I've got more comments coming, I just decided to let everyone else get theirs in first :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Vacant0

Nice to see this at FAC. I'll review it during this week. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• What does make Ref 214 (Madison) reliable?
  • I actually removed it as part of addressing another reviewers' comments JOEBRO⁶⁴ 03:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• Other than that, I did not spot any issues with reliability of sources. Some sources are situational but do not have any issues upon checking them. I don't think that I'd have enough time to do a proper source spotcheck though.

The article is quite long, so I'll only take a look at the lede and some parts of the body in detail and draw up my conclusion from it.

• I did not spot any major issues in the lede. It reads to me quite well and covers important aspects of the franchise. Same goes for "1981–1982: Conception and first game" , 1995–2002: Franchise expansion", and "Original series".
• "IGN said that Donkey Kong Country's soundtrack contributed to an increased appreciation for video game music as an art form, and musicians such as Trent Reznor and Donald Glover have praised it." → "IGN said that Donkey Kong Country's soundtrack contributed to an increased appreciation for video game music as an art form; musicians such as Trent Reznor and Donald Glover have praised the soundtrack".
  • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 03:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• I did not spot any major issues in the Cultural impact section too.

This looks like a short review, but I really do not have any complaints for the prose I've read. It reads okay to me and some aspects are explained in detail, which is also good especially for readers with little knowledge about the franchise (e.g. in 1995–2002: Franchise expansion). Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Vacant0: thank you for taking a look! Responded above JOEBRO⁶⁴ 03:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have another look at the article tomorrow. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Support I did not spot any major issues after having another look. Congrats and good job on the article! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment from Panini!

I reviewed the GAN and I can't remember if there's a rule withholding me from reviewing and supporting here. But regardless, just wanted to say thank you! For swapping around those gameplay images! Those are definitely some excellent choices, considering that most of the games are dark jungles and finding good ones can be tricky. The second one does have a dark background, but the lack of intractable gameplay elements on top of that besides the barrels, which are the object of discussion, keep the image clear for demonstration. Panini! • 🥪 22:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

No rule. Reviews from editors already closely familiar with the article are welcome. Disclosing this is helpful mind. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Support from Bowser

Looks good and I enjoyed the read. Here's a few ideas:

• Rare began working on Donkey Kong 64, the first Donkey Kong game to feature 3D gameplay - since Diddy Kong Racing has been introduced, should we call this a "regular" Donkey kong game? Also, should we mention the N64 expansion pack?
  • changed to "first 3D DK platform game". I'm not sure about mentioning the Expansion Pak because I don't think it's really important to the franchise as a whole. It's definitely a neat tidbit about the game itself but this article's more about the grand scheme of things so I don't think it's necessary. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• In April 2023, Rogen said he saw "a lot of opportunity" in the prospect. Eurogamer wrote that Diddy and Dixie's brief cameo in The Super Mario Bros. Movie was obvious setup for a Donkey Kong film. - I think these sentences could be struck.
  • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• though Playtonic declined to label it a spiritual successor. - same
  • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• and journalists have described him as a mascot for both Nintendo and the video game industry. - could we just state this without attibution, as in "he has been described"?
  • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• to which Wise expressed approval. - it's been a while since he was last mentioned, full name?
  • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• Nintendo Life described one fansite, DK Vine, as "highly respected". - not sure about this one, feels a bit odd "reviewing" the fandom.
  • I think this should stay. Discussion of fandom is definitely noteworthy cultural impact and DK Vine is the most well-known DK fansite, having broken a few stories that ended up making the mainstream press (notably the canceled Vicarious Visions game, for which they were cited in Eurogamer and VGC) JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I also think the storytelling contradiction needs to be straightened out. Once that's done I plan to support this nom. Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Draken Bowser: thank you for taking a look! I believe I've addressed everything JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Nice! I stumbled over the answer to who the doubters were (FMs question) in: Wesley, David; Barczak, Gloria (2010). "Shigery Miyamoto and the Art of Donkey Kong". Innovation and Marketing in the Video Game Industry. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315588612. ISBN 978-1-317-11650-9. It seems the american marketing team had concerns (pages 11 & 13). I think it should be accessible through the wikimedia library, but otherwise I could share the pdf. Draken Bowser (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Draken Bowser: thank you! Can't seem to find it in the WP Library so if you can, I'd definitely be interested in reading that JOEBRO⁶⁴ 01:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Rjjiii

I'll add notes as I read through this week:

• With regards to Popeye, the very next arcade game that Miyamoto does for Nintendo is the licensed Popeye game. Is there any connection here? For example, was code reused, do the cabinets share hardware, or did Donkey Kong play any role in Nintendo getting the Popeye rights?
  • My understanding of the situation is that Nintendo's inability to secure the Popeye license for what would become Donkey Kong was due to negotiations taking too long. I'm doing some research to see if there's any relation between the two games. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 16:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I added a few more details from Sheff's book in a footnote to clarify the relationship between the two. Couldn't find anything specific regarding the cabinets or code but it's mentioned it was produced under the production system Nintendo adopted following Donkey Kong. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• "Miyamoto named the fairy tale" I found the verb/phrasing confusing.
  • Changed to "cited" JOEBRO⁶⁴ 16:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
• "He placed an emphasis on jumping to avoid obstacles and cross gaps. Miyamoto's ideas were uncommon in contemporary arcade games," This also confuses me. Note "a" reads like this game introduced the mechanic, not that it was uncommon.
  • I did some rearranging to make it clearer. Let me know if that clears everything up JOEBRO⁶⁴ 03:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• "was told it would be a failure," Does the source say who told them this?
  • No JOEBRO⁶⁴ 16:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
• "Game & Watch version" Would "adaptation" be more accurate than "version" here?
  • yeah, done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 16:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
• "The victory helped cement Nintendo as a major force in the video game industry." I would cut this per WP:IMPARTIAL. If the sentence is making an objective statement about the court case, it's going over my head with the current wording.
  • Done. I guess what it was trying to say was that the case brought Nintendo, which was then basically an upstart, a lot of prestige in the entertainment industry because it was able to swat away a titan like Universal like it was nothing, but Nintendo becoming a big company after Donkey Kong is mentioned anyway both in the section and later in the article. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• "Nintendo wanted a game to compete with Sega's Aladdin (1993), which featured graphics by Disney animators,[34][35] when Lincoln learned of Rare's SGI experiments during a trip to Europe." This sentence is hard to parse. Is Lincoln the company's lawyer? "when" seems an odd way to connect these thoughts.
  • Lincoln became an NoA executive following the Universal suit. I clarified his position and split it into two sentences without the "when". JOEBRO⁶⁴ 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• The Mortal Kombat influence is unclear to me. Were they not already planning to do pre-rendered graphics with the SGI workstations they had bought?
  • Leftover from when I was integrating my research from DKC over here, haha. Mortal Kombat inspired the art direction Stamper wanted to go with. I just cut it since it's not important in terms of the larger franchise. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• How common was the usage of these high-end SGI workstations to do video game graphics? Beyond being "groundbreaking" was anyone else in the UK or in the industry doing this?
  • It was extremely uncommon—Rare was the first UK developer to get them, and it immediately made them the most technologically advanced developer in the UK according to the sources. I've clarified this. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• "and the designers could not replicate the detail of Country's pre-rendering with real-time graphics" I think this could be slightly expanded so that a less-technical reader could better understand it.
  • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• "to create a new experience" I'd consider removing or rephrasing this. In some sense, any new media is a new experience.
  • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• "but it sold poorly in comparison to Returns" Is this due to the smaller market for Wii U games?
  • Primarily yeah. It also came out at a terrible time (I think there was a massive storm in Japan the week of release) and had an awful marketing campaign, but the Wii U itself failing was definitely the big reason. Clarified within the article JOEBRO⁶⁴ 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• "was working on a Switch Donkey Kong game" Do we know if they still are?
  • No word on what's become of the project. I would imagine it's gotten moved to the Switch's successor if it's still a thing but that's all that can be said for now. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• That's it for "History", Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
• "characterize him as the descendant of the Donkey Kong character" I found this kind of hard to follow. In Rare's games, is the Donkey Kong character the son of the original Donkey Kong? If so that would be more clear than descendant. Also, regarding the organization of material, it would be more clear to me if Cranky Kong or Rare's Donkey Kong was introduced and then the other. That would allow for placing the explanation about whether he is Donkey Kong Jr. closer.
• "Donkey Kong Country introduced Diddy Kong," ← this is really clear. No changes needed, just wanted to note that it does a good job of explaining his in-universe role and character background.
• "from a distance" This seems redundant to me. I would either cut it or specify the distance.
• ", with the second increasing their health." I'm not sure that someone who had not played the games would understand what this means.
• "and helped it avoid the video game crash of 1983" I checked the two end-of-sentence citations and the end-of-paragraph citation and they don't quite match this. TIME says, "Nintendo, powered up by Mario’s successes, largely managed to dodge the market’s profit-crushing projectiles."^[11] The Japanese source seems to talk about how the Famicom/NES was based on the Donkey Kong arcade hardware. This Guardian article talks about how Donkey Kong was "a key driver" for the design and launch of the Famicom in Japan. I think there a lot of sources out there to pick from that would say that Nintendo's success with the Famicom in Japan is how they weathered the 1983 crash (which most affected the North American market) so well. I realize that's kind of pedantic, but I do think the article should lay out the connections (Donkey Kong→Famicom→survive crash, instead of Donkey Kong→survive crash).
• Also, a few sources say that Gunpei Yokoi invented the cross-shaped d-pad for Nintendo's Game & Watch adaptation of the original game.[12][13][14] If sources about Donkey Kong mention this, it would be relevant to add somewhere. I haven't checked any longer sources though, so I'll leave it up to you if the inclusion is (un)due.
  • This is actually a common misconception—Yokoi was the head of the department that created Game & Watch games, but was relatively uninvolved with the individual games. Ichiro Shirai, one of Nintendo's hardware engineers, created the Donkey Kong D-pad and both filed and was awarded the patent for it. However, he did not create the D-pad! The D-pad was actually created by William F. Palisek for Tiger Electronics in 1979, and was awarded the patent for it in 1981, a year before the Game & Watch version of Donkey Kong came out. Nintendo's own patent for the Donkey Kong D-pad even mentions Palisek by name. (Sorry for the long-winded response, just felt this was worth clarifying!) JOEBRO⁶⁴ 14:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
    • Oh no, it's like when I found out that the sewer gators were an urban legend all over again! Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• Do the sources say if Nintendo has the trademark for "it's on like Donkey Kong" now?
• And that's it for the page overall. Nice work; I was surprised at the music being so influential, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Source review by LEvalyn

This looks like a fun article! I've used a random number generator to pick 10% of the citations for checking. That will be citations 19, 32, 39, 51, 66, 69, 98, 113, 115, 117, 121, 130, 132, 133, 136, 140, 147, 150, 181, 187, 188, 213, 214, 222, 224, 227, 232, 233, 255, and 269, based on the numbering in this diff. It may take me a few sessions to go through them but I'll work my way through! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• 19, 32, 66, and 69 check out, no comments. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• Source 39 says Lincoln was NOA's then president and CEO, which gives a slightly different impression than the article's gloss of a Nintendo of America executive. That's possibly a quibble so I don't insist on a change; otherwise, 39 checks out. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• I wasn't able to access 51, "The Making of: Donkey Kong Country 2" in Retro Gamer. No. 181. It looks totally plausible to me, but for thoroughness, can you share the quote from this source which supports the cited claims, or offer advice on accessing the original? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• 98: This is another quibble, but I'm not sure that this source strictly verifies that both games blend Country elements. Jungle Climber definitely does, but King of Swing is only mentioned in relationship to Country in order to contrast their graphics. Maybe just say that both games use DK characters/settings? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• 113, 115, 117, 121, and 130 check out. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• For 132, Milne's "The Evolution of Donkey Kong Country", again I haven't been able to access this issue of Retro Gamer. Can you share the relevant quote? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• 133, 136, 140, and 147 all check out. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• For 150, the Nintendo Power article, this doesn't feel right. I found the article about DK in issue 66 of Nintendo Power here, but it's not called "Now Playing". And I don't think it verifies The player begins in a world map that tracks their progress and provides access to the themed worlds and their levels. I can't find any mention of the world map. I'm honestly not entirely sure it's kosher to use this for the second sentence either, They traverse the environment, jump between platforms, and avoid enemy and inanimate obstacles, since the source itself is just maps and guide tips which basically imply that the game consists of traversing, jumping, and obstacles. Is there a more traditional review, rather than a map guide, which could verify these simple basics? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• Just a note to counterbalance the quibbles that so far that this is a really "clean" article and extremely easy to source-check-- you've done a great job! I'm taking another break for now but will finish the check over the weekend. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• 181, 187, 188, 213, 214, 222, 224, 227, 233, and 269 all check out. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• I am not able to verify 232, 2021CESAゲーム白書 (2021 CESA Games White Papers), due to the language barrier. (I am not confident I can locate the right source.) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• 255 is also in Japanese but since the link was provided, I used Google Translate and it appears to verify the content. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• All right, TheJoebro64, that concludes my source review! I raised a few clarification questions above, but my only real concern is source 150. I'd like to hear a defense of that source or see a different one provided, since I'm not convinced it verifies those sentences. I also had two pedantic quibbles and some sources I couldn't access, but those don't impede my support, since overall the quality was very high. Thanks for your hard work here! Please ping me in your response. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  @LEvalyn: thank you for the review! I should get around to addressing these within a few days. Just a bit chaotic right now with the holidays and school work. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 23:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Metaphysics

Nominator(s): Phlsph7 (talk) 12:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the basic structure of reality. Some of its main topics include the categories of being, the concepts of possibility and necessity, the nature of spacetime, and the relation between mind and matter. It is relevant to many fields, ranging from other branches of philosophy to the sciences, which often implicitly rely on metaphysical concepts and ideas. Thanks to 750h+ for their GA review and to Patrick Welsh for their peer review! Phlsph7 (talk) 12:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Generalissima's comments

Mark me down for a prose review here. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Generalissima and thanks for taking a look! I was wondering whether you had some initial comments. Please feel under no obligation if now is not a good time. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for my delay on this, Phlsph7! I knew I was forgetting something.

• Lede is very solid throughout.
• For ontology, in definitions, you need to italicize using the em template or em tags per MOS:EMPHASIS (I think this is for accessibility concerns.)
  • Same with bare particular, Haecceity, red, coming before, being next to, etc. later on. There's just a lot of these. The only time you shouldn't be using the em tags/template is for foreign language term, which should use the lang template.

    Done. I'm a little confused about which cases fall under MOS:EMPHASIS and which ones under MOS:WORDSASWORDS. For now, I used the em-template for all cases that do not use expressions like "the term...", "is called...", "means...", etc. I hope I got all. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• Should ontological deflationism be bolded, or redlinked? I feel if it's a possible split in its own right, itd be better to redlink it (especially as the bolding is a bit distracting so far into the article).

  You are right that having bold link target so far into the article can be confusing. I can't add a red link since we already have a redirect with that name. As an alternative, I put an anchor right to the paragraph where the bold terms appear and changed the redirect targets so they don't link to main section but right to the anchor. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• However, not really any prose issues through the thing. I wasn't confused at any points,
• Yay, a Deleuze mention. Love that guy.
• All images are properly licensed. They also have alt text which is nice to see.

@Phlsph7: Not much here to fix! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for reviewing the prose and the images! Phlsph7 (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me! Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Shapeyness

Another amazing article on a core topic in philosophy! Here are some initial comments from my first read through Shapeyness (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello Shapeyness, it has been a while. Thanks for reviewing the article! Phlsph7 (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• It is sometimes characterized as first philosophy to suggest that it is more fundamental than other forms of philosophical inquiry. It is probably best to attribute this idea, e.g. "Some philosophers, including Aristotle, designate metaphysics as first philosophy to suggest that it is more fundamental than other forms of philosophical inquiry."

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• Universals are general repeatable entities that characterize particulars, like the color red. Would suggest simplifying or rewording this sentence a bit for the general reader

  Done. It's probably still not ideal but I hope it's better now. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah that's better! :) Shapeyness (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• metaphysics was once declared meaningless, and then revived with various criticisms of earlier theories and new approaches to metaphysical inquiry. imo this is a bit vague and awkwardly worded

  Done. The new version is hopefull less awkwardly worded but I'm not sure I can do much about the vagueness without making it longer. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think that's clear enough now, don't need to make it any longer. Shapeyness (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Phillips 1967 and Haack 1979 are relatively old sources to be using for the sentence about Strawson

  I found a newer source to replace them. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks! Should the MacDonald source be citing page 18 instead? Shapeyness (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, page 18 supports our text more directly. I changed it. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Veldsman 2017 and Heidegger 1996 - are these appropriate for the etymology section? On that note, the sources for "Metaphysics got its name by a historical accident" could maybe be better, I would expect them to be from historians/historians of philosophy focusing on Aristotle or etymologists, but maybe I'm missing something?

  I removed Veldsman 2017 and Heidegger 1996 since the paragraph is already well-covered by the remaining sources. I found a source on the history of metaphysics for the part about the historical accident. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  Do you have the quote you are using from that source? Shapeyness (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  From Hamlyn 2005, p. 590: The term ‘metaphysics’ originated, however, as a title given to some of Aristotle’s works in the catalogue of the edition of them produced by Andronicus of Rhodes in the second half of the first century bc (although it may have come from an earlier library classification). It meant simply the works which followed those on physics in the catalogue. But those works, which were concerned with being, both as such and in respect of various categories of it, especially substance, contain discussions concerning matters which have an obvious continuity with later metaphysical theories. Hence it is reasonable to see Aristotle’s Metaphysics, untidy though it is in the form in which it has come down to us, as the first systematic treatise in metaphysics... Phlsph7 (talk) 09:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Ok I was wondering if it used the term historical accident. It doesn't use that phrase but paints the same picture as the other sources. Potentially could attribute "historical accident" phrasing but I'm not sure if that is necessary or not. Shapeyness (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  I weakened the claim about the historical accident. The exact term "historical accident" is found in the other sources. This became an issue during the DYK nomination since one of the suggested hooks used that expression. See Talk:Metaphysics#Did_you_know_nomination for the discussion and more quotes. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Metaphysicians often regard existence or being as one of the most basic and general concepts Very minor one but Gibson 1998 and Vallicella 2010 are slightly weaker inclusions in the citation here imo

  I removed them since the other references should be sufficient. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• exist outside space and time This is often used to get the idea across, but really "outside" is an inappropriate concept to use here as it is a spatial concept. The sentence is also quite long, although I didn't have any issue parsing it.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• The part on the problem of the many could do with some rewording so it's as clear as possible for the general reader

  Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  For instance, it raises the issue of whether a dust particle on a tabletop is part of the table. I think this could still do with some motivating, or the reader might just think "why would anyone think a dust particle is a part of the table?" I've not read the cited sources and whether they use particular examples, but could be worded in terms of atoms maybe, not sure what the best way to do it simply is. Shapeyness (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  I used a different example about a coffee cup and a printer. Another common example focuses on the boundary of a cloud and whether a cloud is one or many. We could also use something else if you have a different idea. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  I was trying to remember what example I'd heard before and it is the cloud one you mentioned. I think that is a more intuitive hook into the question because it it clear that the boundaries of the cloud are ambiguous, and hence that the question of which molecules of water it is that compose the cloud is also ambiguous. Shapeyness (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Done, I hope the cloud example is more accessible. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• They belong to modal metaphysics, which investigates the metaphysical principles underlying them This is a bit weirdly worded

  Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• A possible world is a complete and consistent way of how things could have been This is also a bit weirdly worded

  Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  I read through the sources and I think the wording I'm finding strange is "a way of how", but I guess this is an attempt to avoid close paraphrasing? I would word it A possible world is a complete and consistent way things could have been. I don't think "way things could have been" being a shared wording with some of the sources should be a problem per WP:LIMITED and the fact that a few different sources all seem to use the same wording as a kind of standard definition. Shapeyness (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  A possible world is a complete and consistent way the totality of things could have been might also work. Shapeyness (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  I used your second suggestion. I agree that for the short definition itself, WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE shouldn't be a problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• McLaughlin 1999 - should this have a chapter/entry?

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Züricher 2021 - is this a high quality source for metaphysics, it seems to be a psychotherapy handbook

  Replaced. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Imaguire 2018 - this is a bit more specific compared to the other sources in this citation, I think it isn't needed

  Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• For example, the statement "a tomato is red" is true because there exists a red tomato as its truthmaker - as far as I'm aware, truthmakers are generally not identified with ordinary objects like tomatoes, they are usually identified with facts, states of affairs or tropes. Slightly nitpicky but also quite important to the debate I think (I can provide sources if useful).

  I think you got a point that various truthmaker theories focus on facts. I tried to reformulate it in a way that leaves either option open so both thing ontologists and fact ontologists can read it the way they want. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Doesn't this still say that the red tomato is the truthmaker? A truthmaker of a statement is the entity whose existence makes the statement true. For example, the statement "a tomato is red" is true because of the existence of a red tomato as its truthmaker. The problem with the tomato being the truthmaker is that there is a possible world where the tomato is not red, so the tomato doesn't necessitate the truth of the statement. My understanding is that truthmaker theorists will generally say that the truthmaker is "the tomato's being red" or "the redness of the tomato" or "the fact that the tomato is red". Shapeyness (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Well, the expression "a red tomato" refers to a particular. The question is probably whether the expression "the existence of a red tomato" can refer to a fact.

  The issue of necessitation most likely also depends on how we interpret the expression. Interpreted in a simple manner, a red tomato can't be blue at the same time, so we would be on the safe side. However, if "a red tomato" means "a tomato that is red in the actual world" then the tomato could have a different color in another world.

  Our source, Tallant 2017 p. 1–2 (chapter 1. An introduction to truth-making), says: that ‘a tomato is red’ is true is due to there existing a red tomato. ... when we say that ‘ “the tomato is red” is true,’ we say this because there exists a red tomato.

  Some alternative formulations:

  • For example, the existence of a red tomato or the tomato's being red acts as a truthmaker for the statement "a tomato is red".

    This version covers several variations.

  • For example, the statement "a tomato is red" is true because of the fact that a tomato is red as its truthmaker.

    This version focuses on facts. It might sound too tautological to some readers.

  I'm also open to other suggestions. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  How about For example, the fact that a tomato exists and that it is red acts as a truthmaker for the statement "a tomato is red"? It mirrors the kind of language the Tallant source uses for other claims (except I explicitly added the word "fact"). I think maybe there isn't a perfect way to reflect the nuance here in a way that will be picked up on by the someone who doesn't know anything about the topic without being overlong. Fwiw I'm drawing from thoughts similar to those in these overviews:

  • Take an alleged contingent truth about a certain rose, say that <The rose is red>. Clearly, the rose itself cannot be the truthmaker for this proposition, since given that it is contingent that it is red, it is possible for the rose to be another colour. But if it is possible for the rose to be another colour, then the rose itself does not necessitate the truth of <The rose is red> and so it is not its truthmaker. (Rodriguez-Pereyra 2006)
  • The existence of such an object is not sufficient to satisfy [the truthmaker principle], however. The existence of something which happens to satisfy ‘x is a rose and x is red’ does not entail the truth of 〈The rose is red〉, since the object in question—a rose, which, as it happens, is red—might not have been red, and so there are possible worlds where that object exists yet 〈The rose is red〉 is false. (Beebee & Dodd 2005)

  —Shapeyness (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  Sounds good. I implemented the suggestion and added these two sources. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Ryckman 2005 - why is a book on philosophy of physics being used as a source on phenomenalism

  Replaced. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• The transcendental method is... do we need the sources other than Stern & Cheng 2023?

  I also kept Pihlström 2009 since it has a section explicitly dedicated to the transcendental method but I removed the others. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think we should label Hume a skeptic in Wikipedia's voice when that is a matter of controversy. According to the most recent philpapers survey only 37% of philosophers label Hume a skeptic vs 55% that call him a naturalist (when you filter by those specialising in 17th/18th century philosophy, that goes up to 63%)

  I think it uncontroversial that Hume has a skeptical outlook about metaphysical knowledge but I changed the term to "critical outlook" to avoid problems. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  I was thinking more about the discussion in the criticism section but I guess you're right that there's a difference between being skeptical of metaphysics and being a skeptic full stop. Do the sources generally phrase it using the term skepticism? If so then there's probably no problem. I don't have access to all of the sources used for those sentences. Shapeyness (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  From Rea 2021, pp. 210–211: A priori theorizing about the world ... has long been viewed with skepticism ... One of the most well-known expressions of this sort of negative attitude toward metaphysics comes from David Hume

  From Koons & Pickavance 2015, p. 4: A number of significant thinkers began to sound a new note in the late eighteenth century, raising doubts about the right of metaphysics to stand as a science among other fields of knowledge. David Hume, the great philosopher of Scotland, stands out as pre-eminent among these new antimetaphysicians.

  I can look for more, but I think they should be sufficient for the way it is currently worded. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yep they should be good. Shapeyness (talk) 10:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• New scientific discoveries have also influenced existing and inspired new metaphysical theories I think this should be something like "New scientific discoveries have also influenced existing metaphysical theories and inspired new ones."

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• History - do you think there is room for a sentence on Locke to fill out the major empiricist philosophers

  I found a way to mention him in relation to Hume. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• At the turn of the 20th century in analytic philosophy, philosophers such as Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) and G. E. Moore (1873–1958) led a "revolt against idealism" Maybe this can be explained slightly (e.g. why? how?), obviously we don't want lots of detail

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Shapeyness, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Have left some final comments below Shapeyness (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to those Phlsph7! Some more below, should hopefully be the final set of comments. Shapeyness (talk) 14:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• A related mereological problem is whether there are simple entities that have no parts, as atomists claim, or not, as continuum theorists contend. I think it would be clearer to list both options here, e.g. "A related mereological problem is whether there are simple entities that have no parts, as atomists claim, or whether everything can be endlessly subdivided into smaller parts, as continuum theorists contend."

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• The history of metaphysics examines how the inquiry into the basic structure of reality has evolved in the course of history. Imo this is redundant and the following sentence would be a stronger start

  Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• "The American Heritage Dictionary Entry: Existence" Believe the title should just be "Existence"

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Retrieved date seems to be used inconsistently unless I'm missing something, not sure if that needs to be consistent per 2c or not

  I removed them from all Google Book links, where they don't really belong. Did you spot other inconsistencies? Phlsph7 (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'm still not sure what the logic behind which have a retrieved date and which don't but this is such a minor point anyway. Shapeyness (talk) 13:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• A lot of the sources have urls linked from the book title that I think should be linked from the chapter title

  I think this happens for cite templates that use the parameter "url". For all templates that specify a chapter, I changed the parameter "url" to "chapter-url". I hope this solves the problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Chen 2023 - is this a high quality source for history of philosophy?

  This is one of the sources by a non-Western publisher. For them, I'm usually a little less strict since they can be hard to find. But let me know if you think otherwise. The sentence is covered by the remaining soures and this one could be removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Duignan 2009a - why is this 2009a and not just 2009?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Goffi & Roux 2011 - this is missing editors

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Kind 2018 - I think part of the book title should actually be the series title

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Macnamara 2009 - is this a hiqh quality source for philosophy?

  Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Mumford 2003 - this is missing editors

  Mumford is given as the editor in the template. I didn't add an author. The author would usually be Russell since the book is mostly a selection of Russell's writings but the passage in question is a comment by Mumford. I'm not sure if this is the best practice. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  Oops no that was a mistake from me. Shapeyness (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Poidevin et al. 2009 - this is an edited collection, should an individual chapter/chapters be cited?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Some more general comments: reading over the overview sources, there aren't any major areas that aren't covered although a few cover social metaphysics a bit more (having said that, some don't mention it at all). Also, the article mentions truthmakers, but it doesn't go much into theories of truth - a few of the overviews have truth as a high level section. Obviously there can never be a completely comprehensive article so fine to leave out if you think these would overexpand the article. This might be a reflection of the discipline across history, but I also can't see any philosophers mentioned that aren't men.

  I added a sentence on theories of truth. In principle, it could be expanded, but I'm not sure that we should. I found a way to mention Hypatia. I'm open to more suggestions. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  I don't have a broad enough knowledge of the history of philosophy to know which female philosophers would be the best to include sadly, but Anscombe might be worth a mention in relation to the idea that causation can be non-deterministic. Her SEP article has a good section if she isn't mentioned in any of the sources in that part already. Shapeyness (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

  I added a footnote to the section on causality. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support: While I think it would be nice for there to be more representation of philosophers who aren't men in the main body of the article, and perhaps more discussion of social metaphysics, I don't think either of these prevent the article from meeting the FA criteria. The article is as accessible as possible throughout, covers all major areas to at least some extent without delving into too much detail, and is well-structured, illustrated and cited. Shapeyness (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

750h

Will review once the above leaves their final comments. 750h+ 23:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi 750, I think we are ready for you. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Oops, sorry will get to this 750h+ 13:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I shouldn't have too many comments as I reviewed this article as a GA. Feel free to refuse my suggestions with proper justification. Will begin tomorrow (it's late night in Australia at the moment). 750h+ 13:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

lead

• have more recently also included ==> "have recently included"

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

definition

• Meta-metaphysics[d] is the this shouldn't be bolded (or would be preferable to mention/bold it in the lead)

  I removed the boldface. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

topics

• a table is made up of a tabletop would reduce number of words for conciseness (comprises, consists of)

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• a cloud is made up of many droplets ^^

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• numerical identity when the very same entity is involved is "very" required?

  Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• principle, known as identity of indiscernibles or Leibniz's Law ==> "principle, known as the identity of indiscernibles or Leibniz's Law"

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

methodology

• metaphysical systems by drawing conclusions from these ==> "metaphysical systems by concluding from these"

  I kept the original formulation to avoid misunderstandings since "concluding" can also mean "bring to an end". Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

criticism

• point is called metaphysical or ontological deflationism i don't think these should be bolded

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

relation to other disciplines

• often used by metaphysicians as a tool to engage "as a tool" seems redundant

  Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

history

No problems here.

As always great work on the article @Phlsph7: I do apologise for the late review. 750h+ 11:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi 750h+ and thanks for your help with the article both in this review and the earlier GA review! Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Happy to support. Thanks for the article. 750h+ 13:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Aristotle, Metaphysics, Incunabulum.jpg: checks out (there is a more elegant way to display the licences -- see the Hume painting -- but the necessary information is all there)

  I simplified the license tags. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• File:Kant_gemaelde_1.jpg: likewise.

  I simplified the license tags. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• File:Dualism-vs-Monism.png: The licensing here is fine, but it includes statements of fact, and I don't see a citation on the image page for that information. If we wouldn't be able to write "Cartesian duality sees both matter and mind as fundamental" in the text without a citation, we can't write it in an image without one either.

  I added a source to the caption in the article and to the wiki commons page. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• File:Allan Ramsay - David Hume, 1711 - 1776. Historian and philosopher - Google Art Project.jpg: checks out.
• File:Yin yang.svg: checks out.
• File:Boethius.jpeg: really needs to be licensed as PD-Art (like the Hume painting etc).

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• File:ANWhitehead.jpg: I don't see any publication info for this one?

  I added the relevant information and an external link. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The alt texts are not always particularly helpful -- for instance, we have "Painting of Immanuel Kant" for, well, a painting of Kant. The point of an alt text is to substitute for the visual image for a reader who cannot see it -- can you, here, describe what Kant looks like in the picture? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello UndercoverClassicist and thanks for the image review! I add some information to the alt texts but more could be added. I'm not sure what the right amount of detail is since the different aspects of body posture, dress, and background are not really relevant to the article. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I tend to try and think: "what do I expect a viewer to take away here?". After all, I included that image for a reason, not just to break up the text or to make the article look prettier. For Kant, for example, most readers will clock that this is an eighteenth-century, old-ish, posh, white guy, so I might write an alt text to that effect: "An oil painting of a European man in his seventies, wearing eighteenth-century formal dress, leaning on a table with pens and ink." UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I gave it one more try. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks good for the portraits, but doesn't seem to have been done for the other images. Same principle applies: what visual information (so: not the name of the artist, because you can't see that in the picture) should the reader take away from this image/diagram? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I expanded the alt-texts of the images of Aristotle's metaphysics, the dualism-monism diagram, and the yin-yang symbol. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:26, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Source review

I am not certain that I can possibly comment on the "comprehensive and thorough" part of the FAC criteria, so keep that in mind. Also a whole lot of sources, which suggests comprehensiveness, but means I might miss some bad sources. What's the logic between some sauces having retrieval dates and archives and others not having them? Why are some references linking to Google Books pages and others aren't? Looks like we are using major albeit mostly Western publishers, and the few I didn't know I checked the sources up a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello Jo-Jo Eumerus and thanks for doing the source review! I added retrieval dates for "cite web" templates. For the purpose of verification, this may be relevant in case the website changes so reviewers know which version to look for. Retrieval dates are also automatically added if an archive link is added to a template, which also makes sense so reviewers know which version is archived. I don't think there are any other templates in the article with retrieval dates but I may have missed some. As for the archives, InternetArchiveBot has not been working for me recently, so I can't add any new archives. One solution for consistency would be to just remove all archives. I'm not sure if that is desirable.

I usually link to Google Books pages if they provide a page preview to make it easier for reviewers to assess verifiability. However, not all Google Books pages offer page previews, so this is not always possible. The overrepresentation of sources by Western publishers in the article reflects the general prevalence of Western publishers regarding high-quality English-language sources on the subject. It can be challenging to track down sources from other regions that fulfill the FA high-quality requirements, but I could try to find some more if it is a problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind is that Google Books tends to be geolocked and personalized. So a link working for you doesn't mean that it will work for anyone else. Thus I generally don't think that putting links to Google Books pages is useful. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that these links are not ideal and that it is preferable to use non-commercial sources. However, other sources often do not provide page previews. Without simple previews, the problem is that running to a library or buying a book is a significant barrier to verification, especially if it's just about a single sentence. Clicking on a link to verify a sentence, on the other hand, requires very little work. Overall, I think the links are worth having in cases where no non-commercial alternatives are available. This matter is also discussed at Wikipedia:Google Books and Wikipedia. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Hurra-yi Khuttali

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

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

ThaesOfereode

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, some thoughts:

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

• Fixed Mas'ud's name.

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

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

• Okay, done

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

• Done

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

• Added

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

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

• Bummer. No problem.

• Consider linking theology.

• Done

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

• Done

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

• Deleted it

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

• Done

• Link concubines.

• Done

• "along with her younger brother"

• Done

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

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

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

• Added and deleted the parentheses

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

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

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

• Done

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

• Brought to the body

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

• Done

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

• Deleted Oghuz

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

• Done

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

• Amended

• Comma after his other aunts.

• Done

• Footnote H should be prose.

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

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

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

• Done

• Remove comma after 1041.

• Done

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

• Changed with imperative mood (per the source).

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

• Changed to modern historian

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

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

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

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

Airship

As always, the following are suggestions, not demands:

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

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

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

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

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

FunkMonk

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

HF

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

I was going to check Bosworth 1963 as well, but the Internet Archive is acting up again today. I'm a bit concerned about source-text after some issues came up at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sabuktigin/archive1. Hog Farm _Talk 02:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Hog Farm, would you be interested in doing a review? Amir Ghandi (talk) Amir Ghandi (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. I just keep getting busier and busier IRL. Hog Farm _Talk 16:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Amir Ghandi (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Edwininlondon

Just a few drive-by comments from a complete lay person:

• would be nice if the opening sentence would mention which modern-day part of the world we're talking about
• ruler of Ghazna --> links to the city of Ghazni, or should it perhaps go to Ghazni Province?
  • I believe I've already linked Ghazna both in the lead and in the body
• She used two nisbas --> perhaps help the reader out a bit by explaining what directly in the textthat is, rather than forcing them to click through or guess that footnote c explains it
  • Done
• recorded by Shabankara'i --> add a description, just like British orientalist Clifford Edmund Bosworth
  • Done
• by Abu'l-Fadl Bayhaqi (d. 1077) a secretary --> comma missing
  • Done
• Amir Mas'ud of Ghazna --> 1) should Amir be linked? is it a title like emir? 2) am I right that this is the newphew? Better to say so, plus when the nephew is introduced I would refer to him by his full name and title
  • 1) to prevent WP:SEAOFBLUE, no, and yes it is the Persianized version of emir. 2) Yes, done
• since the Ma'amunids --> is there a stray "a" here, given that it is the Ma'munid dynasty?
  • Indeed, amended
• However, he was killed --> he is a bit ambiguous (and the subsequent his)
  • Mentioned the name
• Hurra, along with her younger brother, Yusuf ibn Sabuktigin --> is that the name of her brother or a different person? do we need some commas here?
  • Moved the comma to the end
• the Sultan --> the sultan (if I interpret MOS:JOBTITLE correctly)
  • Done
• the Seljuks --> who are they? what happened to the Turkomans?
  • My mistake, the Seljuks are a Turkoman dynasty that lead the other Turkomans. I replaced 'Seljuk tribes' with 'Seljuk dynasty.'
• footnote h: why not put this in the main text?
  • Its a hinderance to the flow of the text
• she is metaphorically covering their shame --> I would add attribution here
  • Done
• as it was Bayhaqi's intentions --> singular or plural? and did Bayyhaqi state this intention or is this an interpretation by Amirsoleimani?
  • Reworded the sentence
• Iranian historian, Shirin Bayani --> no comma here
  • Done
• The Boswell sources in ibliography should be order by time, not randomly
  • Done

That's all I have. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Amir Ghandi. Have you addressed all of Edwininlondon's comments? If so, could you ping them? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Borsoka

• It was most likely... Could you attribute this PoV to a scholar (and ideally explain it a bit)?
  • That makes two 'according to's in one paragraph. I don't think that's pleasing to read. Also, could not find anything to expand on that
• ...an honorific laqab 'agnomen'... I think the three non-cotidian terms are unneccessary; furthermore, the term "agnomen" is possibly misleading. Why not "a laqab (honorific)" with links? If you think all three terms are to be mentioned, the last term ("agnomen") should be enclosed in brackets.
  • Done
• ... and not her actual name Is this necessary? If not, delete it. If yes, could you add a link (because for me the laqab is also an "actual" name used in souces)?
  • Deleted
• Do we know what is the origin of her second nisba (Kaliji)? If we do not know it, we should make it clear.
  • No, and wouldn't that be an unsourced edition? None of the sources even mention that the origin of Kaliji is unknown.
• An explanation for khatun?
  • Done
• Could you expand the first section's second paragraph to avoid a one-sentence paragraph? For instance, it could be stated in a separate sentence that the only source contains only sparse references, and we could also be informed that it is reliable or unreliable. Based on section "Assessments and historiography", I understand one of her letters has also been preserved in a manuscript - is it the same source?
• Mention the period of reign of Mas'ud (as it is mentioned in the first sentence of the following section in connection with her father).
  • Done
• ...is a probable candidate Could you attribute this PoV to a scholar (and ideally explain it a bit)?
  • Done for the attribution, sadly can't expand it further
• This marriage would have secured an alliance... Why future-in-the-past?
• Hurra may have been taken hostage by them. Could you attribute this PoV to a scholar (and ideally explain it a bit)? Please also read my comment below.
• Hurra may have been taken hostage by them. Mahmud threatened the rebels with invasion unless they released Hurra. Contradiction? (The first sentence implies that she may have not been taken hostage, but the second sentence says that she had been seized.) Perhaps the two sentences could be rephrased to contain only facts ("Hurra was seized/imprisoned/prevented from returning to her homeland/...).
• ...after Mahmud's death, she was entrusted with the care of his wives... Why not widows?
  • Changed to widows
• ...who was crowned in Ghazna... Could you quote the text from the cited source verifying this statement?
  • Bosworth: "...Muhammad succeeded in Ghazna according to his father's will"
    • His coronation is not verified. I am not sure that Ghaznavids were indeed crowned.
      • Okay I'll delete it then
• ..., which was dependent on the powerful leadership of the sultan Could you quote the text from the cited source verifying this statement?
  • Bosworth: "...Ghaznavid empire was basically dependent on the military leadership and executive talent of its Sultan"
• ...encouraging him to take the throne while she and the other women of the court were confided in the Citadel of Ghazni I do not understand the relevance of the part beginning with "while she...".
  • Deleted
• He also imprisoned Ali b. Il-Arsalan Qarib, the al-hajib al-kabir (commander-in-chief) of the army, who had become the real power behind Muhammad's government. Is this relevant in the article's context? I would delete it.
  • Deleted
• ...Hurra is suspected to have influenced By whom?
• The region of Khorasan housed rich oases, centres of industry and crafts and important trade routes. Therefore it was an integral part of the empire. Therefore?
  • Deleted
• File:Ghaznavid Empire (map).jpg: 1. Explain that Mahmud was her brother in the caption (as you introduce similarly Mas'ud I in the other picture's caption). 2. What is the source of the map?
  • 1) done 2) map is compliant with the Cambridge History of Iran map of the Ghaznavids

Borsoka (talk) 11:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• • • I added the source to the file. Excellent article, so I support its promotion. Thank you for your work. Borsoka (talk) 07:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Image and source review

File:Mas'udIGhaznavidCoin.jpg has a few bare URLs as sources. ALT text could state a bit more what is being shown. File:Ghaznavid Empire (map).jpg ought to explain a bit more clearly where the map background is from. Clifford Edmund Bosworth is not consistently formatted in the sources section. Sources seem pretty good otherwise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Added a source to File:Mas'udIGhaznavidCoin.jpg and changed its ALT text. Clarified File:Ghaznavid Empire (map).jpg and changed the Bosworth sources for consistency. Thoughts? Amir Ghandi (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

That ALT is better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo, is that two passes? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Did some light spotchecking that raised no issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Overdrawn at the Memory Bank

Nominator(s): GamerPro64 23:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Decided to try getting another movie shown on Mystery Science Theater 3000 to Featured Article status. This time around its Overdrawn at the Memory Bank, a major for public television movie starring the late great Raul Julia. A very bizarre science fiction film that tries its best to be profound but ends up being pretty confusing at times. Still a fun movie to watch and I believe that the article meets FAC criteria. Always looking forward for critiques, however. GamerPro64 23:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "It premiered on the CBC" - might be worth clarifying that this is a Canadian station. I for one didn't know this and just assumed it was American.
  • I unabbreviated it. GamerPro64 00:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
    • Can you unabbreviate it in the body too......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
      • I have also been looking at a few related articles and think maybe it would be more appropriate to say it was broadcast on CBC Television...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
        • Changed it to that. GamerPro64 20:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• "working for conglomerate Novicorp" => "working for the conglomerate Novicorp"
  • Added. GamerPro64 00:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• "assigns him mandatory prophylactic rehabilitation" - is there an appropriate link for "prophylactic"? I don't know what it means......
  • I wikilinked it. Its basically preventative healthcare. GamerPro64 00:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• "changing both his and Apollonia's identity" => "changing both his and Apollonia's identities"
  • Changed.
• "It was directed Douglas Williams directed the film" - some mangled wording there
  • Looks like it was left behind during the copyedit. Fixed. GamerPro64 00:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• "Paul Chaplin voiced his hatred" - is he also a cast member?
  • Cast member and writer for the show. Clarified. GamerPro64 00:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• "PBS and its pledge drives were also satirized throughout this episode." - source?
  • That does happen in the episode, more satirizing public access stations and their pledge drives. Don't think I can find a proper source beyond the show so I'll remove it. GamerPro64 00:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• "saying the film was ahead of its time and gave praise for the acting" => "saying the film was ahead of its time and giving praise for the acting" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Changed. GamerPro64 00:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Support from Crisco 1492

• Apollonia is assigned to locate him - His mind or body?
  • His mind. Clarified. GamerPro64 23:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• I'm seeing a mix of sentence case and title case in the references. Worth reviewing.
  • I don't know what that is. GamerPro64 23:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    • Ok I was told what you meant and to answer that, I was formatting the titles the same way as they are in their respective publications. GamerPro64 23:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
      • WP:CITESTYLE asks for consistency, which is why I flagged it. I'm not doing the source review, so it doesn't affect my response, but it's worth keeping an eye open.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
• The fact that it's based on a short story isn't actually cited in the article. It is citable to this book. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Added the book for citation. GamerPro64 23:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Otherwise, that's it. This is a nice and tight article. I'm going to look at the Wikipedia Library to see if there is anything production- or theme-related that could be found, but I doubt there will be much critical analysis of an 80s made-for-television film. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Not much. Orlando Sentinel called it "One of the worst scripts in drive-in history", giving it "one-half star for usin' government money to make it", but the reviewer also mentions a baboon brain transfer, so...
  • I think I stumbled across this before but didn't use it because it was Joe Bob Briggs reviewing it. And I wasn't sure if he was a source to use. GamerPro64 23:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that definitely seems to have been in character rather than an actual review. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
• Also Make the Heavens: Virtual Reality in Science Fiction. Uppsala, Sweden: Section for Sociology of Literature at the Department of Literature, Uppsala University, 2010 - Apparently discusses the short story. Might have some more detail.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• It didn't. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Support, based on prose, though with the caveat about references that I will leave to whoever does the source review. Looks good! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Image review

Oh, this didn't get an image review yet. There's just the one, File:Overdrawn.jpg, which has a well put-together rationale. I've seen a lot of articles like this include photos of the main actors, who do appear to both have useable images (though from long after this movie, so ultimately your call there.) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

There's File:RIVERSIDE SHAKESPEARE COMPANY RAUL JULIA 1983 2.jpg that got recently moved to Commons and that was taken in 1983. Not sure if its a good enough image to use though. GamerPro64 00:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

EG

I will leave some comments in the next few days. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Lead:

• Para 1: "Based on the 1976 John Varley short story" - If we know the name of the short story, we should say "Based on the 1976 John Varley short story X". If not, we should say "Based on a 1976 John Varley short story"
  • Well the story is also known as "Overdrawn at the Memory Bank". I'm expanding this further since I found out its part of Eight Worlds. GamerPro64 03:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Para 1: "It was co-produced by Canada's RSL Productions in Toronto and New York television station WNET" - I wonder why this isn't "Toronto production company RSL Productions", for consistency with "New York television station WNET". Also, RSL is called "RSL Productions" in the lead and infobox but "RSL Films, Ltd" in the body; which is correct?
  • Re-watching the film it says RSL Film. Seems like they eventually merged with another company to become Alliance Films. Making it RSL Films all around. GamerPro64 03:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Para 2: "Overdrawn at the Memory Bank was featured in the eighth season finale episode of the comedy television series Mystery Science Theater 3000 in 1997." - I notice that there was critical reception about this as well. Perhaps you could add a mention of the fact that "The episode was considered one of the best episodes in the series, both by critics and by fans of the show."

• Not sure if I should since this articles about the film itself and not the episode. I didn't do that with Soultaker (film), Squirm or Zombie Nightmare. GamerPro64 03:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, I see. I suppose it makes sense not to change this, then. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

References:

• Is there a reason that the "Notes" subsection is a WP:PSEUDOHEAD, while the "Citations" and "Bibliography" sections are level-3 headers? In any case, pseudo-headings should use bold text, not semicolon markup, which is reserved for description lists.

• Changed. GamerPro64 03:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Plot:

• Para 3: "Aram vows to fight against the dystopian government." - I think the word "against" may be redundant in this context.
  • Removed fight. GamerPro64 04:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
• No other comments (with the caveat that I didn't watch the film, so I don't know whether all of the details are correct).

Cast:

• It seems that source [3] is being used to verify all nine primary cast members. However, the source only verifies that these cast members appeared in the film; it doesn't mention their specific roles.

• I don't think I could find a source for everyones roles. Not really sure why that section has a reference in it to begin with. GamerPro64 04:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Production and release:

• Para 1: "To alleviate the costs," - I'd say the word "mitigate" or "reduce" works better here than "alleviate".

• Changed to mitigate.

• Para 1: "with Lantos claiming that if it had been shot on photographic film, it would have been as expensive as Blade Runner." - I don't know how much Blade Runner cost, so a quote like this would be missing context for someone like me.

• The Wikipedia article says it costs 30 million in 1982. GamerPro64 04:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• Para 2: "The film premiered on CBC Television on September 22, 1984.[7] It was later shown on PBS's anthology series American Playhouse on February 4, 1985.[8] " - Given that these two sentences are relatively short, and the third sentence of this paragraph also begins with the word "It", I would consider merging these two sentences.

• Merged. GamerPro64 04:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Reception and legacy:

• "Julia and Griffiths' characters" - This should be "Julia's and Griffiths' characters", since these are two (three?) separate characters each individually played by Julia and Griffiths, rather than a group characters shared by Julia and Griffiths (which is what this sentence structure implies).

• Done. GamerPro64 04:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Mystery Science Theater 3000:

• Para 1: "Corbett also noted difficulties in mocking the film due to the death of Raul Julia" - It seems like these difficulties stem from the fact that they didn't want to disrespect Julia (the source says "So we spent much of the movie feeling a bit worried that we might be besmirching the late Mr. Julia's reputation."), but the current sentence structure makes it seem like his death physically prevented them from mocking the film. Is there a better way to word this sentence?

• Tried something out. GamerPro64 04:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• Para 2: "Jim Vorel for Paste ranked it as the 40th best in the entire series" - I don't know how many episodes the series had at that point, but 40th-best doesn't seem terribly high. Though looking at List of Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes, seems like it would have been among the top 25%?

• Before the show ended its original run in 1999, it had 197 episodes. Guess I could mention that. Added a note too. GamerPro64 04:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

That's it for me. Overall, this article looks pretty good. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to return to this. I support this FAC. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Is the content of source #15 in a video? Source formatting wise, what gets webarchives and what not? What is Creatures at Large Press? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

No I see in at the bottom of the article. Also I believe everything has an archive link where its acceptable. Don't think newspapers.com clips can be archived. And it looks like Creatures at Large Press might be John Stanley's publishing? GamerPro64 01:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Voss (Alexander McQueen collection)

Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

It's late 2000. You've had it up to here with the jerks at LVMH telling you how to run Givenchy, with the press making snarky comments about your weight, and with the whole bloody madhouse of the fashion industry top to tail. Do you quit this all and become an accountant now? Hell no. You're Alexander McQueen, and you're going to channel your rage into the most beautiful showcase of your entire career: Voss.

Combining incredible showpieces, virtuoso staging, and – the biggest middle finger of all – beautifully wearable designs, Voss was McQueen at the top of his game, all killer no filler. I hope this article does it justice. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Alexander McQueen clamshell dress (51611p).jpg - CC-BY-SA 4.0
• File:McQueen, Musée des beaux-arts - 38 (Voss blouse).jpg - CC-BY-SA 4.0
• File:Alexander McQueen clamshell dress (51590).jpg - CC-BY-SA 4.0
• File:Publicité pour Elizabeth Arden 4 by Adolf de Meyer.jpg, PD, including a PD-US tag
• Two good fair-use images with appropriate rationale
• File:McQueen, Musée des beaux-arts - 15 (cropped to jacket).jpg CC-BY-SA 4.0
• File:Platos Atlantis at Savage Beauty.jpg - CC-BY 2.0
• File:ErinOConnor (cropped).jpg GNU FDL / CC-BY-SA 3.0

Everything looks good to me. :) Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

SC

• "beaches on the coast of Norfolk in London": there's quite a gap between London and the beaches of Norfolk – two whole counties worth England lie between them!
• "; some four thousand from the beach alone." It should only be a grammatical full sentence before or after a semi colon, and this isn't one
  • Ooohhh this was a consequence of bad clause swapping. I've revised the whole sentence now to account for the semicolon issue.
• "three seasons prior": "three seasons before" sounds a bit more natural
  • Done

Down to "Models and styling", more later. – SchroCat (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Finishing off:

• "the classic Johannes Vermeer": just "the Johannes Vermeer" would do ("classic" is a bit too peacock-y in this context)
  • Trimmed
• "The look was inspired by The Birds": as you've already mentioned that one of his collections and the film are called this, you may want to clarify which one here
  • Revised
• "Many analysis commented" -> "Many analyses commented"
  • Changed to academics, which is what I think I meant in the first place
• "becoming-indiscernible": is the hyphen there in the original? I'm not sure what it's doing there
  • Oh, it sure is. The whole article is littered with "becoming-this", "becoming-that". Trying to unpack it any further is, uh, challenging.
    • 'becoming-challenging' or just challenging? ;) SchroCat (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
      • Aaaaa wish I'd thought of that
• "of 'becoming' something else'," Is that ' after "else" doing anything or is it a rogue one?
  • Rogue
• "models acting psychotic" -> "models acting psychotically"
  • Done

That's my lot – I hope they're of help. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support. All good from me. - SchroCat (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Source review

I'll pick up the sources once I'm done with the prose. - SchroCat (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Spot checks not done. Please ping if needed and I'll pick up again.
• Formatting is mostly OK. The only quibbles are around the capitalisation in one or two places:
  • FN1: "Ready to Wear" should be lower case as it's not a formal noun
  • FN44: "spring/summer" should be capitalised (you capitalise the seasons elsewhere)
  • FN72: "Fashion" should be lower case
    • Fixed the other two, but "Radical Fashion" is the name of an exhibition so should be capitalised. I've italicised it though.
      • That's fine then - SchroCat (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Coverage seems spot on. I've run some additional searches and can't see anything that has been missed out or that is stronger than the extant refs.

Nothing more to add. – SchroCat (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for your comments, Schro, I've made fixes. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

David Fuchs

Forthcoming. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• General/Prose:
  • Just a general orientation thing for the lead for newbies, starting off with "Voss is the seventeenth collection by British fashion designer Alexander McQueen" seems a little less clear than saying Voss is the seventeenth fashion collection by British designer Alexander McQueen, given that it might not be entirely clear what a collection is.
  • Overall I think the prose is solid, engaging, and fairly clear for a fashion novice to follow.
    • "common design flourishes included Orientalist flourishes" feels unnecessarily repetitious.
  • Probably one of the only times I'll say this, as a rando who knows really nothing about fashion, but I think the "background" section might be a little too thorough? A lot of it goes beyond the scope of this collection and feels like career details that are extraneous or don't make sense front-loaded versus placed somewhere else with greater context (for example, the details about being intended to be a critique on fashion and the previous/later shows that followed that doesn't feel like background so much as stuff that would belong in the analysis section once you've actually discussed the looks.) Others I think would make more sense somewhere else as well when you reach the point where that background is germane, rather than here where it's disconnected from why that connects to this fashion show (his role at Givenchy doesn't seem relevant at all except for a single mention in the contemporary reception section, where it's already adequately contextualized, for example.)
  • "The press preyed on his insecurities about weight and looks" so they preyed on his insecurities about his weight and looks, right? Might want to make that clear.
  • "to watch themselves uncomfortably in the mirror" (lead) / "which forced the audience to watch themselves uncomfortably in the mirror" (body) feel like a tad buying in too much to McQueen's POV? The National Post source referenced later at least gives a specific but I don't think "the audience" as a whole can be said to watch uncomfortably.
  • The pull quotes feel a little non-neutral and excessively privileging the designer; I also think a lot of what's in them feels like it belongs in a development section, since while there's a little in the background section and some of the production/staging section, there's not really a bit talking specifically about Voss and McQueen's intent.
  • The last part of the runway show section duplicates a lot of the following finale section, and it's weird that we get for example Olley name-dropped before she is actually introduced in the text, or that it explains the whole setup before backtracking. I guess this ties into my issue above with how production information and third-party interpretation are scattered throughout.
  • Likewise there's similar repetition of anecdotes in the runway show section and the aftermath (such as O'Connor cutting herself and Elson tripping.) I'm not sure how much it makes sense to have this much detail on the show split off from the actual coverage of the show much earlier.
  • I think the reception section makes a bit too much use of quotes versus just summarizing critical opinions.
  • The final paragraph of the museum appearances covers one of the halter top looks and then more about the razor clam dress, which are details that feel like they would make more sense included together; since it seems like it's the main attraction, it might make more sense to highlight that dress' showings, and then the other appearances of other parts of the show in exhibitions?

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Ajpolino

Will get to this in the next few days! Ping me if I fall behind. Ajpolino (talk) 03:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Your Girl

Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

This is a short article about a somewhat obscure 2005 song by Mariah Carey. I believe it meets the criteria. Pinging Sammi Brie who kindly reviewed it for GA, if they wish to comment. Thanks to all, Heartfox (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• Any reason why "extended play" is not linked?

  Linked

• "It incorporates the same acoustic guitar ..." I don't get this, the same guitar as what?

  Changed to "It incorporates the acoustic guitar from 'A Life with You'"

Ah! Light bulb! You mean "It incorporates the acoustic guitar music as in 'A Life with You'". Er, yes?

• "it is a derivative of the Motown sound." I am not sure that is grammatical. Maybe 'it is a derived from the Motown sound' or similar?

  Changed to "derived from the Motown sound"

• "for her Las Vegas concert residency". Minor point: why "for"? 'at' or 'as part of' may flow better.

  Changed to "at"

A nice little article. But my big gripe is:

• The mentions of belting in both the lead and the article jar. "She uses belting as part of her vocal performance." The sentences just sit there, like factoids in a bullet list, unconnected to the sentences before and after. What is belting? Why does Carey use it? What do the critics think of her using it? How well or badly does Carey use it, or is considered to use it? What, if anything, does it add to the composition? There must be something you can say about it.

  Tried to make more clear by connecting her use of belting with the direct nature of the song. Added a note describing belting.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Heartfox (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Just when I was about to sign off on this I realised that you now arguably have more information on belting in the lead than in the main article. And why put the description of belting into a footnote? This means that a reader can only understand the part of the sentence after the semi colon if they have diverted via the footnote. And even then you haven't explicitly stated the link (as you do in the lead). Gog the Mild (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I think I got it: "The lyrics are about Carey confidently addressing a prospective lover. She uses belting, a "brassy, full-throated sound" common in musical theatre, to project this in her singing." Heartfox (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Sounds great. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "She wrote the track with Marc Shemer, who also produced it with her, as Scram Jones" => She wrote the track with Marc Shemer, who also produced it with her under the name Scram Jones" (current wording could be taken to imply that Scram Jones was a joint pseudonym for both of them)

  Agreed

• I can't actually see a source in the article to confirm that Shemer and Jones are the same person

  I added a newspaper article that says "Marc Shemer, a k a Scram Jones, is a hip-hop artist/rapper and DJ from New Rochelle, N.Y. ..."

• That's it, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: Thanks! Heartfox (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

UC

I enjoyed reading this one: in places, it feels a little thin, as if being excessively parsimonious about which pieces of information it passes on to the reader. I particularly felt this in the "Reception" section. More specific nit-picks below:

• In reviews, music critics compared Carey's vocals to their state in the 1990s.: It feels as if we're burying the important thing here: it seems from the body text that they generally thought the comparison was unfavourable, though admittedly there's not a whole lot of data points to go on down there.

  Changed sentence to "Some critics viewed "Your Girl" as one of the best tracks on The Emancipation of Mimi and others criticized her vocals."

• She uses belting as part of her vocal performance, which aligns with her upfront delivery: I admit to complete ignorance on the musical side here, but I have no idea how these two clauses would follow from each other (or, honestly, what "upfront delivery" is).

  Changed to "The lyrics of "Your Girl" are about Carey confidently approaching a potential lover. She uses belting as part of her vocal performance to evoke this sentiment in her singing."

• Critics described the music as containing disco, gospel, jazz, pop, and soul influences: do we need to hedge this behind the critics -- can we just say "the music is influenced by..."?

  Changed to "The music contains"

• Some viewed "Your Girl" as one of the best tracks on The Emancipation of Mimi. : as further up, this seems like a slightly misleading thing to put in the lead as the only real judgement on the song's quality, since it seems that some viewed it as pretty ropey.

  Changed sentence to "Some critics viewed "Your Girl" as one of the best tracks on The Emancipation of Mimi and others criticized her vocals."

• She performed the song live: suggest She has performed..., which implies that she might perform it again, as opposed to the current phrasing, which implies that she won't.

  Changed to "she has performed"

• For its follow-up, The Emancipation of Mimi (2005), she intended to displace overwrought ballads with more simplistic and authentic compositions: what does displace mean here? Are we talking about her changing her own musical style, or pushing others' ballads out of the market? Minor NPOV concerns on "overwrought", which is a loaded (negative) description, and "simplistic", which means "dumbed-down": I think "simple" was intended?

  Changed to "she intended to move on from singing elaborate ballads and instead create more simple and authentic compositions"

  I am inherently pretty wary of these kind of retrospective statements from creative people as to their intentions: they're inherently unverifiable, since we can never know what someone was thinking, and there are clear vested interests at play (with a few noble and notable exceptions, no artist is going to say "I wrote it like that because I thought it would sell more records and make me a whole load of money".) It's wiser, I think, to couch them as reported statements: for example, "in a 2020 interview, Carey said that she had intended...", which is absolutely verifiable. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  Prefaced by starting the sentence with "According to her,"

  • A small thing, but advise "simpler": as written, it's unclear whether more modifies simple or compositions. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: Thanks, done. Heartfox (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retrospectively, Entertainment Weekly writer Michael Slezak attributed its lack of radio airplay to the number of other worthy tracks on The Emancipation of Mimi: perhaps this belongs in the Reception section, but it might be relevant to say which songs were considered more worthy?

  The author doesn't specifically mention any, only: "It says something about the depth of Carey’s latest disc that this lovely little ditty hasn’t yet made it to radio"

• Chris Gardner of The Hollywood Reporter described the song as a deep cut: similar to the bullet point above. Any idea what led him to say this?

  Added to the sentence: "described the song as a deep cut on the album in contrast to the commercially successful "We Belong Together", "Shake It Off", and "Say Somethin'""

• "Your Girl" was later promoted as part of the #MC30 campaign marking three decades of Carey's career: when was this?

  The sentence introduces the date in the next sentence "On January 29, 2021". There is also a link to MC30. I could add another ref to support "2020–2021 #MC30 campaign" but I feel that might be excessive.

  Indeed: it's the next sentence, so doesn't imply that the two happened at the same time. Compare: The United States fought a war of independence against Great Britain. Last week, the King visited the White House. That's a perfectly coherent statement of the same construction, but no reader would take away the implication that the War of Independence happened last week. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  Changed to ""Your Girl" was later promoted as part of the #MC30 campaign marking three decades of Carey's career in 2021. On January 29 that year, she issued an extended play..."

• All work occurred at various locations in New York City.: what does work mean in this context?

  Changed to "The production process occurred at various locations in New York City"

• Pat "Pat 'Em Down" Viala: is "Pat 'Em Down" a stage name? Suggest Pat Viala (also known as "Pat 'Em Down") or similar: we wouldn't say Stefani "Lady Gaga" Germanotta.

  He is credited as Pat "Pat 'Em Down" Viala in the liner notes, so that's what I used in the article.

• It incorporates the acoustic guitar from "A Life with You": suggest the acoustic guitar part or similar, to be clear that we mean the musical track, rather than someone playing the same instrument.

  Changed to "acoustic guitar part"

• a party for the group's record label: might be worth making it absolutely clear that this is Adeaze, not Jones and his collaborators. Does this mean "the record label owned by Adeaze" or "the record label to which Adeaze are signed"?

  Changed to "after performing at a party for Dawn Raid Entertainment, the record label to which Adeaze were signed."

• The arranger and guitarist of "A Life with You", Dominique Leauga, alleged he was not credited for his contributions: seems like an odd phrasing -- surely it's easy enough to find out whether he was credited or not? Presumably, he means that he wasn't credited, but felt that he should have been. This might need a bit more explanation.

  Changed to "was not credited for his contributions".

• a "brassy, full-throated sound" common in musical theatre,: per WP:NFCC, quotes should be attributed inline, but I need some convincing that we need this one as a quotation (as opposed to a paraphrase) anyway.

  Paraphrased as "full-throated technique common in musical theatre"

• In The New York Times, Jon Pareles said she uses an impersonal delivery: I think wrote is better than said, as it's in print (but stated would be fine).

  Changed to "stated"

• The song is "innocent, yet still a bit grimy" according to Carey: comma after the quotation?

  Added a comma after quotation

• There's something a bit "off" about the reviews section to me. We have four named reviews -- three are local news, and one is a fairly small British online newspaper. Where are the big hitters? Is the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, with its circulation of 48,000, really a major voice in music criticism?

  I looked at over 90 album reviews of The Emancipation of Mimi, and this is what I could extrapolate. I would definitely prioritize citing major publications, but for whatever reason the song didn't receive much attention from them. The section is still a thorough and representative survey of the literature that exists.

  I'm sure it is, but I think we could still do with giving the reader a bit more, rather than asking us to trust us. Out of all those 90 reviews, we seem to have four points of analysis: 1) her performance was confident; 2) her singing was good, because it was restrained; 3) her singing was bad, because it wasn't restrained; 4) her voice was "weaker", in some undefined way, than it had been before. It's a pretty dire comment on the music reviewing industry if that's the best that all ninety of them could do! Even then, if those views are widely held, we're doing a disservice by saying e.g. "Dave Tianen said...", if we really mean "Dave Tianen and another thirty-three reviewers said...". I would suggest both adding a few more names and fleshing out the points of praise and criticism a little more. It's a rather more complicated and studied piece of work, admittedly, but I think it would be illustrative to look at the relevant section in Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands, a recently promoted song FA: that section does an excellent job of distilling a lot of reading while still giving the reader a sense of the scale of the writing about the song. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  I added a sentence "Carey's vocals received largely negative reviews" to flesh out this theme more. Other than that I don't think there's more I can do. I would love for there to be more literature, but there isn't, and so I literally can't add more names to the section.

  I'm a little confused as to how this chimes with I looked at over 90 album reviews of The Emancipation of Mimi. Did eighty-six of them not mention the song at all? There seem to be some useful unused analytical comments in the reviews that have already been used to say that the reviewer thinks the song is particularly good. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, the vast majority of album reviews did not mention the song. I looked through the reviews again and didn't find anything new to add; if you can specify what are you are referring to that would be helpful. Heartfox (talk) 12:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Well, just from the ones in the article, we have:

  • "Carey comes off as confident and utterly carefree" (The Atlanta Constitution), which would seem to merit equal billing with the similar, if less poetic, comment from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

  This is already cited supporting the sentence "Her presence received positive feedback from Marino and Kevin C. Johnson of St. Louis Post-Dispatch, who viewed her as exuding confidence" – is "who both viewed her as exuding confidence" clearer?

  Ah, this is my misreading: I think it would be clearer with a from before "Kevin C. Johnson". As written, it sounds as if Marino is also of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Also agreed that adding "both" is necessary: at the moment, it looks as though who is just Johnson. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Changed to "Her presence received positive feedback from both Marino and Kevin C. Johnson"

  That doesn't fix the problem, I'm afraid. As above, would advise Her presence received positive feedback from Marino and from Kevin C. Johnson of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, who both viewed her as exuding confidence. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Added your suggestion

  • The chorus is an exercise in exhilaration that arrives in a high-registered delirium ... It’s a transcendent moment so bright it’s nearly blinding (Pitchfork): this is much better than the trivial amount of commentary we currently have on the chorus (that it's catchy, and sounds a bit like gospel).

  Added the quote.

  • Billboard calls it a "fan favorite" as well as a deep cut, which gives the opposite impression to what we have currently said: as we've framed it, nobody really listens to it.

  I don't really view this as encyclopedic. "Carey's fans like the song a lot" doesn't add much to the article. The link to "deep cut" at wiktionary already implies this with the listed definition: "Any obscure work, a thing likely to be recognized only by a connoisseur" (ie Carey fans).

  It does, though we shouldn't force readers to follow links to understand important points about this article (MOS:NOFORCELINK). More to the point, that's the second, general definition: the first, specifically musical, definition reads An obscure song by a well known musician. As it stands, I think we've misrepresented Gardner's comments: our article implies that it is little known and largely unsuccessful; he says it is widely known and beloved among her fans, of whom there are quite a few. If readers have to navigate to a new page and pick the right definition out of three to get our point, we need to make it more clearly in the first place. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Gardner doesn't say at all that "it is widely known and beloved among her fans". The quote is "Alongside The Emancipation of Mimi’s biggest hits like “We Belong Together,” “Shake it Off” and “Say Something,” Carey also performed “deep cuts” like the fan favorite “Circles,” a track that she said she wrote with “the late, great Big Jim White,” and “Your Girl.”"

  Added a sentence about fan favorite: "According to Billboard, "Your Girl" is a favorite song among Carey's fans."

  As you say, I'd named the wrong reviewer (it was Rowley in Billboard), but we seem to have ended up in the right place regardless. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  • The rather unkind Independent review goes into much more detail as to the reviewer's problems with the music, particularly lyrical unoriginality and what he sees as lazy production, when talking about the album as a whole.

  I would never cite general comments about an album as a whole as relating to a song when the song is not explicitly mentioned. This leans too much into synthesis and the reviewer's opinion is more relevant for the album article.

  If a reviewer is writing about all of the songs on the album, as here, those comments also apply to the individual songs. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  They may, but I think it's still undue weight to apply that to every song article when it is in the context of the album and a song article should be focused on reception where the song is actually explicitly mentioned. If a critic said "All of Carey's songs are boring" are we supposed to consider adding that to every song article? No, it's more pertinent in the main biography. It's dangerous and disingenuous to present these broader sentiments as about a specific song. Doing more of this would open a can of worms and introduce so much synthesis. It's just lazy, malpractice to rely on broad statements about an album and apply them to individual songs. We don't know if a critic would say the same thing if they were only reviewing one song. That the album "contains not one nanosecond of original thought, elevating lyric, nor interesting music" does not mean the author singled out this song as such and I don't feel comfortable presenting things like that. This is more relevant for the album article.

  If the review says that the album contains "not one nanosecond" of those things, they are saying that this song contains none of them. This is a fairly minor point overall, but in this case the reviewer has gone out of their way to say that their comments apply every one of the songs in question. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  As the song is not explicitly mentioned, I do not believe this critique is notable for inclusion in the song article. This would create a precedent that would require going back to all of the album reviews and seeing where stuff like "Carey's voice sounds good on the album" and "Carey's voice sounds bad on the album" comes up. Adding these types of vague responses about the album as a whole to every song article is inappropriate when there is no specific song mentioned and would duplicate the album's critical reception section where it is far more relevant to place. This proposal would give undue weight to reviewers who either loved or hated the album as ones in the middle would be unable to make sweeping statements about every song like The Independent.

  I could only access one review in addition to those, and that's four quite big bit bits of useful additional context from five sources. That doesn't give me much confidence that there's nothing at all to be gained from any of the other eighty-five. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• It's usually spelled a cappella: any reason for the single p?

  The source used the single "p" – I don't really care either way

  The double p is "correct" (it's Italian for "from the chapel", and the Italian for "chapel" is cappella: the single-p spelling is a mistake so common that it's sometimes accepted as a variant, though I don't think any significant publication prefers it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  Changed to double p

• In 2005, Slezak listed "Your Girl" among the 10 best songs of her career. Escobedo Shepherd considered it one of Carey's top 20 tracks in a 2007 Vibe article. Billboard ranked it at number 38 on their 2020 list of Carey's 100 greatest songs: there may not be much you can do about this, but the shifting dates create a comparability problem here: presumably Carey has written a lot of songs in the past 20 years, so being in the top 40 in 2020 might well be more impressive than being in the two 10 in 2005?

  I think moving chronologically flows fine.

  The direction of travel is not the problem; the problem is that there's an important piece of missing context to these numbers (the increasing scale of Carey's discography). However, as I said, that might not be a problem we can fix here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

As ever, I hope this is helpful, and please do counter-quibble where it's warranted. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: Thank you for the helpful comments, I have replied above. Heartfox (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi UC, just checking if you had anything to add following Heartfox's latest changes. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Not sure I do: the article has definitely moved forward, but I think my overall impression is still much the same. Some broad-brush things that stick out and keep me, at the moment, from moving to support:

• The prose is generally a bit "choppy" -- it moves from idea to idea, or critic to critic, quickly, but I don't have much sense of coherence within paragraphs or sections.

Every paragraph has a topic sentence and a theme. Multiple opinions may be combined in the same paragraph, but the paragraph is still focused on a theme. And these paragraphs aren't long at all so I don't think the organization is unreasonable. I can understand that some areas might feel short, but this is may just be a product of the literature available rather than the intent of the article's organization. To be fair, there is use of commas and "and" for similar statements and semicolons for flow and stuff. Not every sentence is just 1 critic and then a period.

• I think there are technical problems with putting citations in subheadings, though I'm struggling to find the precise bit of guidance.

This was requested in the source review. I think because the bolded pseudo-headings are not actually headings, there aren't any technical problems introduced as outlined in MOS:HEADINGS

Perhaps, but bolded pseudo-headings are themselves a problem under MOS:ACCESS. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the pseudo-headings. Heartfox (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• I'm still not sure we quite have the depth in places: for instance, we talk about an explanation for the song's lack of radio airplay, but don't really establish that it had a lack of airplay beforehand. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Moved this to the second paragraph: ""Your Girl" did not receive significant airplay from radio stations. Entertainment Weekly writer Michael Slezak attributed this to the number of other worthy tracks on The Emancipation of Mimi." Heartfox (talk) 08:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi UC, how is this one going? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

As before. Replies have been made above, but I don't see substantial changes other than on the subheading citations. I'm not going to oppose or stand in the way of promotion if other editors think it meets the FA standards, but I don't think I can endorse it on prose either. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Aoba47

• I have a comment on this sentence from the lead: (Carey later released two remixes featuring rappers Cam'ron, Juelz Santana, and N.O.R.E as part of a digital extended play.) I think that it would be beneficial to clarify the year that the EP was released as "later" is rather vague.

  Added the year: "as part of a 2021 digital extended play"

• I think more context could be added to the part on Glitter as it seems to gloss over the reasons for Carey leaving Island Def Jam. I can understand the rationale against it as this song is not about Glitter, but I still believe it would be beneficial to have a brief part to provide further context to readers. I was thinking of something along the lines of "Following the critical and commercial disappointments of her album Glitter (2001)". The Pitchfork citation used in this sentence would already support this addition as it describes Glitter as a "commercial flop reviled by critics". Again, just something really brief would help.

  Added this context as suggested

I hope this review is helpful. The article is in great shape, and I just have two nitpick-y comments. I always enjoy reading your articles. I have been listening to Charmbracelet lately so I thought it would be nice to review a Mariah-related article. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thank you for the review! Heartfox (talk) 02:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion. I hope you are having a great weekend so far. Aoba47 (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Source and image review

I presume that File:Mariah Carey Your Girl Sample.ogg is representative of the song's themes or style or whatever? I notice that the two files don't use the same formatting for their source/origination. Does the ogg file have an ALT text or equivalent? Source formatting seems consistent. "Carey's vocals received largely negative reviews" is currently attached to Abbott 2005, which does not support it as we can't extrapolate from just one review. I wonder which logic is used for applying webarchive, newspapers.com and ProQuest links and their formatting. In the credits and personnel section, do the references support just the bullet point they are attached to, or the entire (sub)section? In the latter case, you should put them in the (sub)header or after each bullet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• "I presume that File:Mariah Carey Your Girl Sample.ogg is representative of the song's themes or style or whatever?" → Yes this is mentioned in the NFUR: "The section of the music used is discussed in the article in relation to the song (belting vocal style, background vocals, composition, lyrics) which received critical commentary and are mentioned in adjacent text. The sample includes the final words of the chorus which includes the song title "Your Girl" and thus helps readers understand the major theme of the song and connects the title with the lyrics and sound."
• "Does the ogg file have an ALT text or equivalent?" → Alt text for Template:Listen is only when there is an image. I didn't bother adding the lyrics as the sample is only 12 seconds and 2 lines long.
• "Carey's vocals received largely negative reviews" → This is meant as a summary of the following two sentences in which 3 opinions are negative and 1 is positive. Added the sfns to the summary sentence to avoid confusion.
• "I wonder which logic is used for applying webarchive, newspapers.com and ProQuest links and their formatting" → Generally everything that can be found freely online uses the publication's URL while resources only available on databases like Newspapers.com and ProQuest have links to those. All archive URLs that show the full text are given, as archiving a ProQuest page with no text is not helpful.
• "In the credits and personnel section, do the references support just the bullet point they are attached to, or the entire (sub)section" → They support the entire section; moved them to the subheadings.

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for the review, Heartfox (talk) 01:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

OK, I guess. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Pulgasari

Nominator(s): Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 01:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

This article is about Pulgasari, an absurd 1985 North Korean/Japanese/Chinese monster movie by a kidnapped South Korean filmmaker. It's been 39 years since its production, and the film has become a cult classic worldwide. I have done some major reworking of this page over the last few months, and so far it has since been listed as a good article and received a copyedit. This is my third time nominating an article for FA. Thanks in advance to anyone who offers any feedback. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 01:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Support

Emerging from the void to offer mt support. Looking over the article, I don't see any issues with sources or prose. The only issue would be making sure the image licenses are fully clarified as free to use and (or) have the right attributions to satisfy the WP:NFCC#8. Other than that, well done. Paleface Jack (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Pulgasari_poster_japan.jpg has a dead source link and incomplete FUR

• File:19660529申相玉.jpg has a dead source link and is missing info on first publication

• File:Pulgasary.png has an incomplete FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe I've fixed the link and FUR problems on File:Pulgasari_poster_japan.jpg and File:Pulgasary.png but there's not much I can do for File:19660529申相玉.jpg, as that one's source appears inaccessible, not dead. Could remove that and Kim's photo and replace them with a non-free one of Shin and Kim together. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I've just changed File:19660529申相玉.jpg to the Non-free use file File:Shin, Kim Il Sung, and Choi.png from the year of the film's production. I will remove it if its use is deemed unacceptable by anyone. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

See my comment about this file's non-free use at User talk:Eiga-Kevin2#File:Shin, Kim Il Sung, and Choi.png for more details, but I don't think this non-free use can be justified per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: @Marchjuly: My apologies for changing File:19660529申相玉.jpg to a non-free use file. I believe I have now done the right thing by replacing it with a fairly rare photo of Shin that is in the public domain in the United States and South Korea. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 07:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

seefooddiet

• For romanizing South Korean author names in references, are you following the procedure in WP:KOREANNAME? Some of the romanizations are non-standard; e.g. "Kim, Joo-won" should be "Kim, Ju-won" per KOREANNAME. seefooddiet (talk) 09:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't look at KOREANNAME, I just went by consulted my Korean friend about the English spelling of them a few times and went by Google Translate elsewhere. I'll do my best to re-write the names based on WP:NCKOREAN henceforth but might need more assistance. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

You can try this automatic converter [15] to get the Revised Romanization spellings. The converter is sometimes incorrect though; if you give it your best effort I can go through later and correct mistakes seefooddiet (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Also note that Google Translate doesn't produce the romanizations we prefer for Korean; see MOS:KO-ROMAN, second row of the table seefooddiet (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

My apologies for not replying sooner, I've been quite busy lately. I'll fix any romanizations that are incorrect over the next few days. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 07:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I've fixed all of the romanizations now as far as I can tell. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 00:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Some possible mistakes in ref romanizations. What would make these not mistakes is if you've seen these specific people using this spelling for their surnames.

• "Moon" -> "Mun" for "Moon, Seok"
• "Noh" -> "No" for "Noh, Sun-dong"
• "Choi" -> "Choe" for "Choi, Yeong-chang"
• For the Kim, Jung-ki ref I'm not seeing the author's name given on the article website. Is his name spelled 김중키 or 김중기? I suspect it's the latter; former is uncommon. If so, it should be "Kim Jung-gi".

Other comment:

• Cast and production section also need to be romanized per WP:KOREANNAME. These spelling systems will unfortunately vary by person, depending on who is North Korean and who is South Korean. North Koreans use McCune–Reischauer, South Koreans Revised Romanization. If you don't know a person's nationality, I think assuming North Korean by default is fine.

seefooddiet (talk) 01:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Changed "Moon", "Noh", and "Choi" per your suggestions. Kim Jung-ki's name is spelled 金重基 in the source and I've found it hard to directly translate. And for the staff and cast, I've already done some research on most of them and it seems Shin is the only one whose nationality is confirmed to be South Korean (IMDb does claim the film's star, Chang Son-hui, was born in South Korea but I can't find their source for that and a source in this article indicates otherwise). So probably keeping their names as McCune–Reischauer translations would be fine I presume. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

[16] 基 -> "gi". Unfortunately "重" can be read either 중 (jung) or 동 (dong). I can't find for certain what his name is through googling, but I suspect it is "Jung-gi". Think it's minimally harmful to put that down.

The MR for the cast and production crew are incorrect; I'll fix them. I'll just leave Shin Sang-ok's name as it is. seefooddiet (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Gave it a pass; you'll need to verify that the new spellings are consistent throughout the article although I gave it a solid try.

Notes:

• I try to avoid putting Korean text glosses in infoboxes; some of the names in there are not in the body of the article and effectively unsourced I think. Once you also put them in the body, you should also move the glosses to the body too.
• It's possible that 유경애 (Yu Kyŏngae)'s surname should be changed. It's reasonably common for the surname 柳 to be written 류 (ryu) in North Korea and 유 (yu) in South Korea due to dialect (similar to how 李 is 리 (ri) in North Korea and 이 (i) in South Korea), although this is not universal practice. Some South Koreans use Ryu and probably vice versa. South Korean sources sometimes South Koreanize these surnames by default, regardless of the personal preference of the person, although they did give "리" consistently. Tl;dr to be extra correct this person's name could be researched; probably a North Korean poster with Korean writing would work.

seefooddiet (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

These translations seem mostly fine but I think Chŏng Kŏnjo should be changed back to Chong Gon-jo since that's what Satsuma and Western sources call him. Also, maybe we could hide the translations within the article's source (using the <!-- --> thing) and use those translations featured on the English-langauge poster instead? Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 01:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for long answer, romanizing Korean is complicated.

• Yes you can change back "Chong Gon-jo" if you have know of wide attestation to that spelling, per step #1 of WP:KOREANNAME.
• For your second use of "translations", do you mean the orig Hangul text? See here for an explanation of why we would want to display Hangul. Also few non-Wikipedians know about invisible comments (<!-- -->), which is why we generally display Korean text in article.
• It's nice that we have an English-language poster, but some complications. Korean romanization is such a mess that a single attestation is often not enough to be confident in what spelling to use. E.g. on that poster it says "Pulgasary" on top; do we use that spelling? Instead of using the ad-hoc romanizations on the poster and risking confusion, it's often safer to default to a systematic romanization. This is what the community has settled on so far.
• The above confusion is why we have the steps laid out in WP:KOREANNAME. Chong Gon-jo meets step #1, I'm not sure if the poster is sufficient evidence of step #2; it may be, but often enough romanizations for people names differ by appearance or even across time so it's hard to be sure.

seefooddiet (talk) 02:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Alright understood;

• I've changed the co-director's name back to Chong Gon-jo and added sources for this.
• Yes I meant the Hangul text. I think it's fine to have them on display, and was mostly asking because I'm just not a fan of them being in the infobox if the translations are mentioned elsewhere on the article.
• As for the poster text, it coincides with how some older sources give the film the English title of "Pulgasary" so I'm thinking of mentioning that in the note for the film's title. And I don't think the name spellings on the poster apply with step #2 of WP:KOREANNAME after checking.

Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 03:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good, thank you for working with me! Romanization of Korean is unfortunately complicated. If you ever run into a similar situation with Korean feel free to poke me.

On another note, I think the footnotes subsection and the citations subsection should possibly be merged; they're functionally the same thing. seefooddiet (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Will notify you if I experience any further problems romanizing Korean. And I've considered merging those sections btw, but the GA reviewer and a friend of mine seemed to like how the References section is formated (also it's something pages like Mission: Impossible – Fallout feature). Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 07:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments by ZKang123

If I'm correct, if this passes FAC, this might be one of the first North Korea-focussed article (outside of those related to the Korean War) to be given the bronze star. Let me have a look.

Lead:

• Shin and his wife had remained in North Korea since 1978, when their kidnapping was initiated by Kim Jong Il, the country's heir apparent. – This wording is a bit odd, probably especially the use of "remained" as though the couple voluntarily stayed in North Korea. I might reword as: Shin and his wife were in captivity in North Korea since their kidnapping by Kim Jong Il in 1978. or another wording, if you prefer. Also wikilink their abduction.
• Pulgasari was submitted in February 1985 – submitted to who and what for? Did Shin propose the film and submit it to Kim for approval? Also reading later, I would add "The pitch for Pulgasari was submitted..."
• Its Japanese critical reception was positive... – Critical reception in Japan was positive...

I don't as much comments for the plot and cast list.

Production:

• A collection of around 15,000[11][32] to 20,000[7][34] titles was reported to be in Kim's possession. New releases from around the globe were typically added to his collection shortly after opening in theaters. – Kim was reported to have a collection of 15,000 to 20,000 titles of Shin's films. Every new release from around the globe were typically added to his collection shortly after their opening in theaters.
• the film industry there – the country's film industry
• while a larger studio was under construction for the film. – while a larger studio was constructed for the film.
• The Japanese crew developed the Pulgasari suit at Toho from April 28 to late May. Nobuyuki Yasumaru was in charge of modeling it – The Japanese crew developed the Pulgasari suit at Toho from April 28 to late May, with Nobuyuki Yasumaru in charge of modeling it
• loved the reboot so much he sought – loved the reboot so much that he sought
• Shin recalled that Kim had suggested making the monster resemble a cow. – Shin recalled Kim’s suggestion to design the monster resembling a cow.
• For the sentence Pulgasari was ultimately set in Goryeo but..., I think it's a bit too long and could be split such that ...was based on the Forbidden City complex in Beijing. The special effects crew...
• which covered approximately 20,000 pyeong – I think a conversion to SI units might be in order here. Especially for other mentions of pyeong.
• Satsuma said about the destruction of the palace in the Pulgasari suit for the film, he was "impressed that the Chinese government could allow such an ambitious filming, even if it was just a movie". – Satsuma mentioned he was "impressed that the Chinese government could allow such an ambitious filming, even if it was just a movie" when talking about the destruction of the palace in the Pulgasari suit for the film.

Release:

• According to many retrospective sources, the film was, however, banned both in North Korea and overseas in the wake of Shin and Choi escaping North Korean supervisors in Vienna on March 12 and subsequently fleeing to the United States. – According to many retrospective sources, the film was, however, banned both in North Korea and overseas when Shin and Choi escaped their North Korean supervisors in Vienna on March 12 and subsequently fled to the United States.
• On January 21, 1995, Twin released Pulgasari on VHS in Japan – I was initially confused what is "Twin". Might clarify that.
• but were all turned down. – but all were turned down
• due to a cultural exchange agreement for the June 15th North–South Joint Declaration – Shouldn't it be "in the June 15th..." or "as part of the..."
• Johannes Schönherr said contemporaneous publications cited many reasons – "...said... cited..." I might just say Johannes Schönherr cited many reasons or reword in another manner like Johannes Schönherr cited reasonings by contemporaneous publications on its failure in South Korea.

Reception:

• South Korean reviewers also criticized the acting. – can further elaborate in what way from the source?
• Shin rejected interpretations the film may have conveyed a message about North Korea's contemporaneous class conflict. – Shin rejected interpretations about the film's messages on North Korea's contemporaneous class conflict.

That's all I have. Great work for this article so far.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I've just revised everything here based on your suggestions, clarified that Kim's film collection was not just of Shin's movies, and specified what kind of company Twin is. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Happy to support. Additionally, I found another review by a freelance journalist on the film. --ZKang123 (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@ZKang123: Thanks! I've recently added that content from that review btw Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 03:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Northern Bank robbery

Nominator(s): Mujinga (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The still unsolved Northern Bank robbery took place in 2004 in Belfast, Northern Ireland. Working with military precision, an armed gang took family members of workers hostage, in order to force them to hand over £26.5 million in cash. The reaction of both the UK and the Irish governments was that the IRA was behind the heist, causing a rupture in the then ongoing peace process. It's now twenty years later and nobody has ever been directly convicted for the crime. Whilst Ted Cunningham does continue to fight his money laundering conviction, the article is stable and I hope ready to be a featured article. Mujinga (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

• "£4.5 million in used notes supplied by other banks" This would include Bank of England notes?

  Moore says these other used notes were "made up of Bank of Ireland, First Trust, Bank of England and other notes". I could be more specific if you think it's necessary? Mujinga (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• I'm wondering why the hundred-pound notes did not cause more of a problem than they did. Do they pass that freely in Northern Ireland? I know the Bank of England only goes up to fifty pounds.

  I don't remember anything in the sources discussing that unfortunately Mujinga (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• "The arrests were made under the Offences against the State Act.[19] " Does this convey something that I'm missing? Also, Offenses against the State Act is double linked.

  It's in the source and since the act was mentioned earlier, seems worth mentioning (and linking) again, but that's as far as my rationale goes. Mujinga (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• "After the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 ..." At least the first half of this paragraph has the feel of background rather than legacy.

  I can see what you mean, if it's OK I'd like to see what other reviewers think Mujinga (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• "Ripe for the picking: The inside story of the Northern Bank robbery" Should be in title case.

  I've used sentence case in the refs so perhaps it makes more sense to have sentence case here as well. But in that event, then Northern Heist should prob be Northern heist, so I've changed that one Mujinga (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• I don't see why the Portuguese bank note crisis of 1925 is a see also. That was nothing like this, that was someone forging the authority for the bank note printers to print new currency and passing the resultant currency. It's not a particularly close case of money laundering to this.

• • Sure, removed Mujinga (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Very interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the comments, I've replied on everything. Mujinga (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt, is there any more come from you? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Support Wehwalt (talk) 08:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Some images are missing alt text

  good point, fixed Mujinga (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• File:NorthernBankNI20.jpg needs a more expansive FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  could you give me some guidance here on what is required? to me it makes sense to include the image since it improves the article to see an examplar of a note which was withdrawn from circulation as a result of the heist. this was also discussed regarding Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria#8 at the GA review with @HJ Mitchell: - who actually I forgot to alert about the FAC! Mujinga (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  Nikkimaria thanks for the comments, replies made Mujinga (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• There's some explanation at Template:Non-free use rationale, but what you're really looking for is a rationale as to why a non-free image is necessary for reader understanding. What does a reader get from actually seeing the note, on top of them just being told a note was withdrawn as a result? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Great thanks so we are also talking Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria#8 and I don't think the image "significantly increases" the reader's comprehension of the article, so I've removed it Mujinga (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Nikkimaria can I check if that's then a pass on images? thanks Mujinga (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

SC

• "Sinn Féin, however, denied": you can lose the 'however': it does nothing useful here

  I'm not tied to it, but I think it's doing something as all the big players are saying the IRA did it but then Sinn Féin denies it Mujinga (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  "Orde ... blamed the Provisional IRA for the robbery. ... Sinn Féin denied the Chief Constable's claim": it says exactly the same thing but without the "however". - SchroCat (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'd like to see what other people think on this. To expand on my rationale: commentators, police officers, the Chief Constable of the PSNI (ie Orde), the British government and the body appointed by the Irish and British governments to oversee the Northern Ireland ceasefires (ie IMC) all immediately blamed the IRA (as did the Irish Taoiseach Bertie Ahern although that's below in the text), but Sinn Féin (ie the political party associated with the IRA) then denied it, so for the "however" is flagging this up. Mujinga (talk) 11:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  As I’ve shown above, the text without the ‘however’ does exactly the same thing, but with one less word, which is one of the most over used (and badly used) words on WP). - SchroCat (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• "On the other hand,": You can lose these four words happily: they do nothing and are unencyclopaedic filler

  good point, removed Mujinga (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• "in compost and Cunningham": As this stands, the money was discovered after being found and after the couple were taken for questioning. A semi colon in place of the 'and' would work better.

  rejigged the sentence Mujinga (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• "The PSNI stated it was a stunt attempting to divert attention from the heist yet it was being investigated": there's a couple of bits awry here, including the word "stunt". Maybe better framed as "The PSNI stated it was an attempt to divert attention from the heist, but was being investigated".

  rephrased and actually "stunt" gets used quite soon after so it's good to remove it here Mujinga (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• "Hugh Orde described": Just "Orde", as you've already full named him

  done - as with the other names below I've reduced it to one full naming per section Mujinga (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• "went in 25 Land Rovers": is this level of detail necessary?

  it conveys that it was a large operation, but rather journalistically, so I've removed it Mujinga (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• "Ted Cunningham was found guilty": Just 'Cunningham' is necessary
• "Bertie Ahern suspected Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness" -> "Ahern suspected Adams and McGuinness"
• "meeting with Ted Cunningham" -> "meeting with Cunningham"
• "When Gerry Adams denied" -> "When Adams denied"
• "regarding the murder of McGuigan": who is McGuigan and where does this fit in with the robbery in which no-one was killed?

  good spot, I've rejigged this bit and got rid of the Mcguigan sentence Mujinga (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• "the House of Commons of the United Kingdom by Ulster Unionist Party (UUP)" -> "the House of Commons by UUP" (the common name for the Commons will suffice, and you've already full-named, linked and provided the abbreviation for UUP a couple of lines above.

  done Mujinga (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Check your linking of sources - I see the Daily telegraph is linked, but many are not, and consistency is key.

  thanks for that, I've unlinked it as I prefer to not wikilink the sources Mujinga (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

That's my lot. - SchroCat (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Cheers for the comments, I've been chipping away at them and now I've answered them all Mujinga (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• I'll add my support, but see above for my comment about the unnecessary 'however' which adds nothing to aid understanding or clarity. - SchroCat (talk) 10:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the support, I've replied on the "however" issue above Mujinga (talk) 11:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Source review

A pretty diverse set of sauces. This review of #3 might be worth noting. I don't think there is a point to archiving Google Books links. What makes this a high-quality reliable source? The closed source tag isn't consistently applied to Belfast Telegraph. Did some very light spotchecking. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Corleck Head

Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

A haunting three-faced Celtic stone head dated to the 1st century AD, ie only a few hundred-odd years before written Irish history, yet it seems endlessly ancient and enigmatic. The article has received a number of skilled copyedits (by John especially), became a GA during the summer (after a review by Hog Farm) and recently went through an exhaustive and very rewarding peer review (mainly UndercoverClassicist). Ceoil (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

UC

Good to see this here: will review once a few others have been past, as I've already said my piece on the current version at PR. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

As promised -- I hope this lot is useful. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Its use probably continued through the early Christian period into early modern celebrations of the Lughnasadh, a Gaelic pagan harvest festival.: We usually reckon "Early Modern" to be c. 1485 – c. 1688 or so in British history. Do I read rightly that it was used during that time period? Similarly, with "pagan": unless we're saying that a non-Christian community existed at that time, we need to say something more mealy-mouthed like "a harvest festival originally of pre-Christian origin" ("pagan" is something of a dirty word in Late Antique scholarship, since it would have meant nothing to the people whom it described, and lumps together a hugely heterogeneous religious world).

  Reworded as a "a pre-Christian harvest festival that continued into the modern period". In this instance pre-cristian means mythological kings or first peoples from c 1447—1407 BC. Ceoil (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• Historians assume they were hidden during the Early Middle Ages: this doesn't seem to fit with the dates established by the previous comment.

Addressed. Ceoil (talk) 00:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Almost a century later, it came to national attention in 1937 : do we need the almost a century later? Likewise, where it is usually on display: is that going to be a surprise to many readers?

  Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• a tricephalic skull cut off before the neck, with three faces.: not sure this is quite right. Tricephalic, strictly, means having three heads, and I don't think there's any indication that this skull would originally have had two siblings. If we simply mean "three-faced", it's tautological, as we say that a bit later.

  Done. Ceoil (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• a tricephalic skull cut off before the neck ... The head cuts off just below the chin: seems a bit repetitious (this is all within three lines on my screen).

Trimmed. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• They are similar but not identical in form and their enigmatic, complex expressions: consider cutting but not identical, which is implied (outside mathematics) by similar.

  Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• All of the embossed eyes are wide and round yet closely-set and seem to stare at the viewer: this isn't quite grammatical. Easy fix first: the hyphen in closely-set needs to go (MOS:HYPHEN): we only hyphenate compounds when they're used in apposition with a noun (his close-set eyes), and the Wikipedia MoS doesn't hyphenate those with -ly verbs in any case. We also have a bit of a garden-path sentence here. Suggest either bracketing (yet closely set) or, probably better, taking a breath: yet closely-set, and they seem to stare at the viewer.

  Done as per your suggestion Ceoil (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Archaeologists disagree on whether it: restate the subject in a new paragraph.

  Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• The hole under its base suggests it may have been intended to be placed on top of a pedestal, likely on a tenon (a joint connecting two pieces of material): the "likely" is a bit misleading here, since the two parts are totally linked: if there was no tenon, the hole would have no relevance to whether it would be on top of a pedestal. Suggest something like The hole in its base suggests that it may have been intended to be connected via a tenon joint to the top of a pedestal. I think this would also remove the need for the long gloss on "tenon", which becomes obvious in context.
• Most surviving iconic—that is, representational as opposed to abstract—prehistoric Irish sculptures: assuming that the date up to 100 CE is correct, would that be considered "prehistoric" in Ireland? It certainly wouldn't in Great Britain. Struck per Sawyer777 below, though perhaps it's worth a note to clarify that chronological boundary, as it goes so much later than it does in most other areas of European history? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Other tricephalic and bicephalic idols include the "Lustymore" figure in Caldragh Cemetery: is it still there?

  Yes, it originates from the nearby Lustymore Island, but was moved.[17] Ceoil (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• In addition, the late-19th-century tendency to associate objects with a mythical or a late-19th-century Celtic Revival viewpoint: I'm not totally sure what this means, if I'm honest.

  lol. Removed. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• The archaeological evidence indicates that Corleck Hill ... was once known as "the pulse of Ireland": this surely comes from literary evidence rather than archaeological?

  Yes and changed. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• "drawn away ... [revealing] a cruciform shaped chamber ... the stones from the mound were used to build a dwelling house nearby, known locally as Corleck Ghost House.": this is quite a long quotation. Any reason not to paraphrase it? If nothing else, we could thereby remove the tautology of cruciform shaped (which should be hyphenated anyway).

Yikes; paraphrased. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• a small contemporary spherical stone head from the nearby townlands of Corravilla, and the Corraghy Heads, also in the National Museum of Ireland.: given that the elements in this list are quite lengthy, a serial comma as indicated would be helpful. As we've already mentioned the Corraghy Heads, perhaps better not to gloss/introduce them here.

  Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• The number 'three' seems: from what I can see on Google Books, the overwhelming form is simply the number three seems.

  Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Triple-"mother-goddesses" : I don't think we want the first hyphen here, and probably not the second either. Hyphenating into quote marks is a bit of an odd look.

  Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Genii Cuucullati: This is Latin, so should be in a lang template. Can we translate it too?

  Its in Gaulish derived from Latin (maybe from 'genii loci but that's outside scope. Not sure we have a template for Gauilsh. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Is it not the other way around -- a Latin term that's got a Gaulish one hammered into it? Genii is a pretty distinctively/uniquely Latin word, and the morphology/inflection of Cuucullati (specifically, the -ati, "having-been-verbed" suffix) is definitely Latinate rather than Celtic. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  The Hooded Spirits article says "The name CucuIlātus is a derivative of Gaulish cucullos, meaning 'hood' (cf. bardo-cucullus 'bard's hood'), whose etymology remains uncertain. Cucullos is the source of Latin cucullus and Old French cogole (via the Latin feminine form cuculla; cf. modern cagoule). The Old Irish cochaIl ('monk's hood'), Cornish cugol, Breton cougoul, and Welsh kwcwIl are loanwords from Latin."

  I don't want to go too deep into this here, so have simplified the image caption as Early 3rd century AD depiction of the Hooded Spirits. Housesteads Roman Fort, Northumberland, England. Ceoil (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Works well. Incidentally, I read that as saying it's a Latin derivative, just like chivalrous is a derivative of the French chevalier, but is an English word rather than a French one. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• as with the Boa Island figures: we haven't actually introduced these. Are they the same as (or a superset of) the Lustymore figure mentioned further up?

  Have clarified and corrected this.... two figure: the Dreenan Figure (also known as the Janus Stone) and the slightly less interesting Lustymore Man. Ceoil (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• From surviving artefacts, it can be assumed that both multi-headed (as with the Boa Island figures and the Corraghy Heads) or multi-faced idols were a common part of their iconography and represented all-knowing and all-seeing gods, symbolising the unity of the past, present and future, or in cosmological terms, the upper-world, the underworld and the middle-world.: this may not be your problem, per se, but there are two claims here, and one is much easier to wear than the other. I can accept "these objects were common" as an inference from "we find loads of these things", but I need a bit more convincing as to how we can tell anything about omniscient gods or a tripartite view of the cosmos.

  Who knows really, but they are in probability, and the sources go along that life. Have added the word "assumed". Ceoil (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'm still not sure we can join these ideas in the way we have, though I don't dispute that most scholars believe these things about Celtic religion. I've made a small edit here (including a grammar CE) which I think fixes the problem and I hope will be uncontroversial: it now reads From surviving artefacts, it can be assumed that both multi-headed (as with the "Dreenan" figure and the Corraghy Heads) or multi-faced idols were a common part of their iconography; they are assumed to have represented all-knowing and all-seeing gods, symbolising the unity of the past, present and future. Please do revert if that misses the point. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• The hole at the Corleck Head's base indicates that it was periodically attached to a larger structure: isn't this what we said earlier about a tenon, only now we seem to have promoted it to a certainty from being a conjecture the last time around?

  Clarified. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Three-headed altar thought to depict the god Lugus, found Reims, France in 1852: in Reims, surely? Comma after France per MOS:GEOCOMMA.

  Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Early 3rd century AD depiction of the Genii Cucullati.: needs an italicising lang template. This caption itself needs a full stop at the end, as it has one in the middle. The Boa Island one, however, needs its full stop removed.

  Done. Ceoil (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• The modern consensus, as articulated by Ross: I don't think we can really hold up a 60-year-old source as "the modern consensus". If someone else has endorsed Ross as still representing the communis opinio, fine, but we need to cite them as well.

  Source from 2013 added, but Ross' view is generally accepted. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Classical Greek and Roman sources mention that Celtic peoples practised headhunting and used the severed heads of their enemies as war trophies: I mean, yes, but they have all sorts of reasons for doing so -- the same sources mention that the Nile once flowed from west to east and that the Ethiopians value iron above gold. I think we need to be a bit more sophisticated here: we can still use this information, but we need to be alert to the sort of evidence we're actually dealing with, and the idea that this might not be a face-value factual observation.

• Yes, and this is exactly why have started Celtic stone idols - heavy, heavy lifting for an article on a single object. Will update shortly on progress. Ceoil (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• that is Celts living in Great Britain and Ireland: comma after is.

  Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Medieval Irish legends tell of severed heads coming back to life when they are placed on standing stones or pillars: unless the legends say that all heads do this, I would cut they are to make clear that we mean specific heads.

  Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• While the Roman and Insular accounts: what accounts are these? We haven't talked about Roman accounts yet (I assume you mean Caesar/Tacitus here?), and the only Insular narratives we've mentioned are mythical traditions, which are generally too fluid for the label "accounts".

Getting to this. The source mentions Livy Book X, 26, 11. Ceoil (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

obviously this isn't my FAC, but re assuming that the date up to 100 CE is correct, would that be considered "prehistoric" in Ireland? It certainly wouldn't in Great Britain. - yes, the prehistoric period in Ireland is typically considered to last until the arrival of Christianity, and therefore literacy, in the 4th-5th centuries. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 17:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah -- very helpful, thank you. I've struck and amended accordingly. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi UC, excellent points, have them sized up re-sources but will take about a week to address all. The main problem is that there is no parent article for the group (Celtic stone heads), so the article is doing a lot of heavy lifting re context. Your comments are all on point, bear with me. Ceoil (talk) 00:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ceoil, having a bit of free time I was about to review this. But I am wary of doing so until the changes you have in hand are complete. Once these are complete, if you ping me I'll try to find the time to give it a once over. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Gog, that would be great. I'm going to spin out some the article to a parent Celtic stone idols page, which will take some of the pressure off this article, which as I noted above and Jens below at times gets very general. It will reduce the article size by about 350 words, but make it more focused and tighter. Yes will ping when done. Ceoil (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

As an update, have created Celtic stone idols, and trimmed this article, will tonight be asking for UC and Gog to revisit once the full merge is complete. Ceoil (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ceoil: Did you want me to take another look? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

In cased missed....yes I do! Ceoil (talk) 14:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

sawyer777

i've also already reviewed this at the PR, and said i'd support it at FAC once it got here. i stand by that; the prose & sourcing on this article is excellent (indeed i spot a couple of my textbooks). i've given it another look-over and have nothing new to contribute. i'll keep up with this FAC though in case anything comes up. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 14:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

thanks for your help and support over the last few months. Ceoil (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

caeciliusinhorto

Some prose nitpicks. I also did some hopefully uncontentious fixes myself in these edits.

• "The three faces may represent an all-knowing, all-seeing god representing the unity of the past, present and future or ancestral mother figures representing strength and fertility": is there a way of rewriting this sentence so as not to say "represent" quite so many times in close proximity?
• "Archaeologists do not believe it was intended as a prominent element of a larger structure ... This suggests that the larger structure may have represented a phallus" seems self-contradictory. Was it or was it not an element of a larger structure? (Or is the point that it was part of a larger structure but not a prominent part, in which case that is not at all clear currently?)
• "on Corleck Hill in townland of Drumeague": I would expect "in the townland" here: is the omission of the article intentional? I know some varieties of English omit the definite article in some contexts where Br.Eng. speakers include it...
• The second paragraph on §Discovery has three mentions of "Barron", but his full name and the link to his article is only given in the following section.
• "only a small number three-faces": I would expect either "three-faced" or "have three faces" here.
• "only around eight known prehistoric Nordic stone heads have been identified": are both "known" and "have been identified" necessary here? It seems to me they are giving the same information and you can cut "known".
• 'Strabo wrote that heads of noble enemies were embalmed in cedar oil and exhibited to strangers"': unmatched quotation mark. Either the opening one is missing or this can be deleted.

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Caeciliusinhorto, all now addressed. Ceoil (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Caeciliusinhorto, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Jens

Very interesting.

• Although its origin cannot be known for certain, – I would say "never say never". Wouldn't "although its origin is not known for certain" be sufficient?
• a major religious centre during the late Iron Age that was a major site of celebration – no need to have "major" twice, I think.
• As with any stone artefact, its dating and cultural significance are difficult to establish. – I don't think that's true. As with the first issue, this is an absolute statement and I am sure there are exceptions. "As with many stone artefacts" maybe?
• They all have a broad and flat wedge-shaped nose and a thin, narrow, slit mouth. – "both" instead of "all"?
• One has heavy eyebrows; another has – "the other", as there are only two?
• is extremely difficult – do we loose anything if we remove "extremely" here?
• It may be not clear to readers what precisely "modern period" means; you should at least link it.
• More later. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  Hi Jens, done to here except using "both", as there are three faces. Ceoil (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  Re: "As with many stone artefacts"....have found a source that goes into deeper discussion on the basis for the dating; will add shortly. Ceoil (talk) 11:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• The head was found c. 1855 in the townland of Drumeague in County Cavan, Ireland, during the excavation of a large passage grave dated to c. 2500 BC. – This is stated as a non-controversial fact in the lead but has a "probable" in the body.

  Have removed "probable" form the lead. Ceoil (talk) 09:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• a mostly lost and stylistically very different janiform sculpture – but when the human head survives, then "mostly lost" seems like an overstatement?

  Not sure; the human head was [part of a larger structure, and only it survives. Ceoil (talk) 09:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• as are sculptures of the hooded figues know as – "known"

Sorted. Ceoil (talk) 09:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• and would, in the words of Ross: "tie them to the necks – maybe a , instead of a : flows better here?

  Its a quote. Ceoil (talk) 09:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• I was wondering about the article structure. It seems that this article starts with the specifics on the head first, and then provides the background information and context later. Usually, we write Wikipedia articles the other way around? I am not sure if this is necessarily bad in this case though. However, I'm a bit concerned that the last section "Head cult" does not seem to have direct relevance to the Corleck Head, and the head is never mentioned there. Ending an article with a section that is not really about the topic makes me wonder if there could be some better structure. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Jens, done until the last point, which I agree with. Have done some restructuring overall as suggested, but would like to weave the Corleck head into the head cult sect as suggested, as sources mention it as a major (Irish) example of the artefact type. Ceoil (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ceoil, re that last point, I was wondering if this article is ready for Jens to relook at yet? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Gog the Mild, I'll be taking another look tonight and will ping yourself, UC and Jens then. Ceoil (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, can you Jens and UndercoverClassicist pls take another look, as have done a significant reorg of the structure and coverage per Jens. Ceoil (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Second look: The structure looks much better and more logical to me. However, I feel it still needs work:

• It is not apparent to me what structure the lead follows; the order in which the information is presented looks a bit random. The easiest would be to organise the lead the same way as the article.

• Yes good point, have regigged. Ceoil (talk) 09:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• One example regarding lead structure: its placing in the Late Iron Age is based on the iconography, which is similar to that of other northern European Celtic artefacts from that period – this is in the second sentence, but in the second paragraph, you have this: As with many stone artefacts, its dating and cultural significance are difficult to establish. This makes two sentences on dating, but in different paragraphs, and the second one does seem quite isolated without connection to the paragraph it is placed in.
• I would also have expected to find a little bit from the "Description" section in the lead, but the only fact it states is (if I don't miss something) that it has three faces.

  Now contains the claim "shows three relatively primitive faces, each with similar features including bossed eyes, thin and narrow mouths and enigmatic expressions." Ceoil (talk) 07:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• I am also unsure about the division of the "Discovery" section, with the distinct section "Corleck Hill". I am wondering if these should be partly combined, to discuss the information in logical order when it becomes relevant. At the moment, the first paragraph simply lacks the context that is only provided in the "Corleck Hill" section.

  Agree very much with this and have spun out Corleck Hill so the head article doesn't have to do such explaining...corresponding cut to the text and merging of sections to remove duplication per your concerns. To say, the broader subject is not well covered on wiki, so have had to create more than one other daughter or parent artice so that our Head article isn't explaining everything about the long and vague transition period between pre-christian and Roman-British religion and idolotary. Ceoil (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• An example: passage grave that was then under excavation – when reading this, I think of an archaeological excavation, or at least an excavation with the purpose of extracting the artefacts. But later, in the Corleck Hill section, the info is repeated (not ideal), and only here it becomes clear: The monuments were excavated during the 18th and 19th centuries to make way for farming land. This is really something I would have liked to learn earlier.

  Have moved up the claim. Ceoil (talk)

• You have this in the first paragraph: to build the farmhouse that became known colloquially as the "Corleck Ghost House", and this one in the last paragraph: to build a dwelling house nearby, known locally as the "Corleck Ghost House." – Again, all these repetitions tell me that the structure of the "Discovery" section is not ideal yet. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Hvae added a teaser description I the lead as suggested, cant believe missed that opportunity! Ceoil (talk) 03:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

UC, Jens and Gog. I am getting hammered here as there is no easy-to-use temple to follow on previous FACs for such objects, and the suggestions seem to be, at times, contradictory. Thanks Jens, but Gog & UC need Help! Ceoil (talk) 03:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes! Ping me when ready and I will have a third look. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Sound Jans, almost there!! 12:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I had a look for comparable FAs: there aren't many on portable antiquities, but we do have a series on helmets, thanks to Usernameunique: Shorwell helmet, Pioneer Helmet and Benty Grange helmet, for example. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• File:JanusandLustymoreFigures_(cropped).jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Have swapped out the image. Ceoil (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

SC

Comments to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 06:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• "As with many stone artefact" -> "As with many stone artefacts"
• "or ancestral mother figures symbolise strength and fertility": "symbolising"? I don't think the grammar works otherwise
• "today, it is on permanent display": I think "today" is verboten by the MOS, which would prefer "As at 2024" or similar
  • • MOS:ART also discourages "on permanent display", as things rarely are. Johnbod (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
      • Has been reworded as "It has been in the collection of the National Museum of Ireland in Dublin since 1937, where it is usually on display". Ceoil (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• "Boa Island. County Fermanagh": that should be a comma, I think
• "Age;[43][44] and was" -> "Age;[43][44] it was" or "Age,[43][44] and was" ('and' should only really go after a semi colon in a list, it replaces the coordinating conjunction when joining two sentences).
• Corleck hill was a major site: Capital 'h' on Hill?
• "Insular Celtic": I think this could do with a quick explanation of what it is, even if in a footnote; it's not a readily understandable term, even from the context. If not, then a piped link to Insular Celts, although this seems to focus only on the British and Irish celts and ignores the European ones
  • • That's exactly the point of "Insular" - their relationship to Continental "Celts" is the subject of much controversy. Insular art is also available for linking. Johnbod (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

That's my lot – an interesting article. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Schro, all done for the last point as mentioned above. Ceoil (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

OK I still think you need something to explain what is meant in the context of this article by "Insular Celtic": it pops out of nowhere and people unfamiliar with the concept will be completely confused by it. I'll add my support to the nom, but I do think something is needed to clarify this point to, say, a Californian, Cameroonian or Canadian who reads this when it's a TFA and has no idea what is meant by the term. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Have added a note to explain. Ceoil (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Johnbod

• Looking good, after the PR. I may wait a while for changes after other comments above. Johnbod (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "its placing in the Early Iron Age is based on the iconography". It is not Early Iron Age. The Late Iron Age in Ireland is first to fifth centuries AD. See [18] and [19]. You say late iron age in the next paragraph.
• "where it is usually on display". You do not appear to have a source for "usually". I suggest deleting the comment.
• "The archaeologist John Waddell believes the majority of the contemporary stone idols were destroyed". Contemporary is ambiguous. When made or existing, and contemporary to what?
• "stone idols were destroyed and "then forgotten"". I do not think you need the quotes.
• "Sam, placed the Corleck head on a gatepost. He also uncovered" This appears to refer to Sam but presumable Barron is intended.
• "unlocalised multi-faced ivory pendant head". Unlocalized is the wrong word. It means not confined to a particular location rather than the location being unknown, which I assume is what you mean.

  Done as far as here. Ceoil (talk) 10:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• "The early forms of Celtic religion were introduced to Ireland around 400 BC." Other sources put it earlier. The article on the Tandragee Idol, which dates to 1000 to 500 BC, cites sources which describe it as a representation of a Celtic god.

• Ross 2010 claims that the older "Neolithic agriculturalist" gods began to be mixed with Celtic gods from around the 4th century BC. Have updated the Tandragee artice; the span there is around 1000-400BC, and is "though" to represent Nuada, the mythological king of the Tuatha Dé Danann (FFE. 1500 BC) Ceoil (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• It is usual when listing articles and book chapters as sources to give the page numbers, although I do not know whether it is a requirement.

  I could add but it would take a lot of time and have not done it in the past at FAC...the individual refs have page numbers and the source listing gives isbns, JSTOR refs or issns. The difficulty is time, for consistency if I do it for one have to do it for all, and that might stall the nom. Ceoil (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• A very interesting article. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for these, very helpful. All done now except for the last one. Ceoil (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Source review

What makes https://www.tuatha.ie/boa-island/, "Gentleman and Scholar: Thomas James Barron" and "Lanigan Wood, Helen. Images of Stone. Belfast: Blackstaff Press, 1976." high-quality reliable sources? Source formatting seems consistent, 'xcept for the lack of ids at Eamonn's second citation, Warner, Richard's and some of Anne Ross's. I wonder if anyone has access to the JSTOR reviews of "Ross, Anne. The Pagan Celts. Denbighshire: John Jones, 1998. ISBN 978-1-8710-8361-3" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Have emailed a copy of Bruce G. Trigger, "Reviewed Work: Pagan Celtic Britain: Studies in Iconography and Tradition by Anne Ross". https://www.jstor.org/stable/480435 Ceoil (talk) 12:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, for some reason I couldn't find it while searching on the JSTOR website. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

It was behind a paywall on some subscription levels. Will replace Tuatha and Barron in the next day or so. Lanigan Wood is probably ok; see her referenced in many of the other books, but will dig further. Ceoil (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Have replaced Smyth, Tuatha and Lanigan Wood. ISSNs added for the sources without an ISBN or JSTOR id. Ceoil (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• What does "carved in the round" mean.
• I an not sure about "bossed". Wiktionary has it meaning "to decorate with bosses; to emboss." Protruding?
• "It shows three relatively primitive faces". Maybe 'primitively-carved faces' or similar to avoid ambiguity?
• "The three faces seem to depict". I don't think you mean "seem", maybe 'have been conjectured as depicting' or similar?
• "Corleck Hill was a major religious centre during the late Iron Age". Could you point out where this is in the main article.
• "a relative of the Halls". Introduce them please.
• "The literary evidence indicates that the hill was a significant Druidic (the priestly caste in ancient Celtic cultures) site of worship during the Iron Age, described as once being "the pulse of Ireland"." This is a busy sentence, and falls foul of the MoS on quotations. ("The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.) Maybe 'The literary evidence indicates that the hill was a significant Druidic site of worship during the Iron Age, such and such described it as once being "the pulse of Ireland". Druids were the priestly caste in ancient Celtic cultures.'?
• Suggest moving note a from the lead to the first mention of Lughnasadh.
• "According to the Celtic scholar Anne Ross, the Corleck Head "correspond(s) closely to Celtic anthropoid ..." I can't find the closing quote marks. :-)
• Optional: introduce the "Ulster group of heads".
• "Romano-British (between 43 and 410 AD) and Gallo-Roman iconography." No dates for Gallo-Roman?
• "have similarly drawn faces". "drawn"? As with a pencil?
• "were a common part of their iconography." Probably best to refer who "their" refers to.
• "indicates that it was periodically attached to a larger structure". Why is it suggested that this was periodic, as opposed to permanent or as a one off?

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Socompa

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a volcano along the border of Argentina and Chile, which has been noted for the giant landslide that removed part of the structure six thousand years ago, the occurrence of fumaroles with mosses and a neighbouring important pass between the two countries. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support, based on my (unofficial) PR. - SchroCat (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments Support from Graham Beards

I have taken the liberty of making a few edits to the article rather than list suggestions here. I have a problem with this phrase: "The collapse removed about 70° (about 9 kilometres (5.6 mi) of circumference and 7.5 kilometres (4.7 mi) of radius[45]) of Socompa's circumference on its northwestern side". It's the "of radius of..circumference" that is confusing me. Is it just me? Graham Beards (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I am trying to say that the landslide took out part of the volcano, like you'd cut off a slice of cake or pizza, equivalent to 70° of the circumference. The 9km refers to the width of the slice and 7.5km to its length. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you could just say what volume of the volcano was lost as a percentage (on the volcano's northwestern side). Graham Beards (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that this can simply be computed. Is there an alternative way to formulate the slice bit? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The problem is circumference is not measured in degrees. Why not just say "a 70° sector"? It's simpler and much easier to understand. Graham Beards (talk) 11:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Did an edit, is it better now? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I can live with that. I am happy to add my support now. Graham Beards (talk) 11:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

HF

• Is there nothing that topographical dominance could be linked to in that footnote? Having a redlink for a not well-known geological term is not useful for reader understanding.

  This is User:MAXIMOKAUSCH's addition, and I'm afraid it means no more to me than to you. Unfortunately, I don't even know where to begin when looking for sources on mountaineering terminology. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

In my view "with a topographical dominance of 12.08%" should be removed. I don't see how it is helpful to a reader. In fact, given the improbability of the source being considered high quality, I would remove the whole foot note. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Removed it in the interim. Regarding andes-specialists, it seems to be the page of Maximo Kausch and his team. They have been referenced by other sources for climbing exploits in the Andes and elsewhere ... does this make 'em a subject matter experts and therefore RS? I don't think this kind of information is usually discussed outside of circles concerned with mountaineering records. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this would be WP:DUEWEIGHT here, given that such information tends to be ignored by the scholarly sources. Hog Farm _Talk 03:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not certain that scholarly sources alone determine due weight here, though - mountaineering (the other important human activity on mountains) isn't a scientific discipline. Still, only borderline RS. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• "The occurrence of the large landslide at Mount St. Helens probably aided in the subsequent identification of the Socompa deposit as a landslide remnant" - can I please get the underlying quote from the source for this?

  Here you go. It's an image PDF so I can't quote it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not a huge fan of "probably" here. This appears to be making guesses about what the authors of the study used in their rationales. They do indicate that the Mount St. Helens incident factored into their conclusions as a comparison, but I don't think the current phrasing really approaches this the best. Hog Farm _Talk 21:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  This source says "The eruption of Mount St. Helens on 18 May 1980, focused attention on the importance in the evolution of large composite volcanoes of catastrophic collapse events and the rockslide/debris avalanches that result. Since 1980, several previously unknown major debris avalanche deposits have been described " and some examples would that work? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'm still not a huge fan of "probably", which is pretty close in my view to a minor form of OR where we're guessing the not directly-stated methodology of a source. I think this can be rephrased to something using these two sources indicating that the knowledge learned from the Mount St. Helens incident contributed to the recognition of such structures as what they were. Hog Farm _Talk 16:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Oy. From the same source: "Recognition of the deposits as those of a major debris avalanche took place only in the wake of the collapse of Mount St. Helens in I980 which drew attention to what had hitherto been a poorly understood phenomenon. " that seems to be clearer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  How about something like "Identification of the Socompa deposit as a landslide remnant was made after the occurrence of the large landslide at Mount St. Helens drew more attention to such events"? Hog Farm _Talk 03:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• It is stated in the lead that it was once thought this was a nuee ardende deposit, but that term is not used at any point in the article body

  Changed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• "the name "Negros de Aras" was given to the deposit before it was known that it had been formed by a landslide" - it is unclear what the significance is. I'm assuming Negros de Aras has some meaning that would be unusual for a landslide deposit given the context, but it's unclear what this is signifying.

  That's not clear even from the source. I've rewritten this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Why does the infobox say the easiest approach is "glacier/snow" when it is stated in the article that there are no glaciers on Socompa?

  Some volcanoes here have snow but no glaciers. But since it's not sourceable, I've taken it out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• What makes Andes Specialists a high-quality RS? This looks like some sort of commercial mountaineering site

  Took it and peaklist out. What's the preferred style for citing Google Maps? 'cause that might be sufficient to cite the geolocation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'm personally of the opinion that simple, obvious, and unambiguous coordinates can be considered to be self-sourcing. Hog Farm _Talk 21:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  OK, then I'll leave them in their current (after the edit) state. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• "Jorge González (2011). Historia del Montañismo Argentino." and "Federico Reichert (1967). En la cima de las montañas y de la vida." - both of these are incomplete citations. The publishers are needed, as are page numbers

  Took it out entirely, since I can't verify anything there. And asked on WP:RX to see if someone has access. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• The body of the article is treating the 5250 BP date as preferable, which the infobox is treating the 5250 BCE date as preferable

  Rewritten in the text. This is one case where a source apparently misread another. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that's it from me. Hog Farm _Talk 21:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Hog Farm, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I've left a couple replies above. I'm close to supporting, but that "probably" is still a bit of a hangup for me. Hog Farm _Talk 03:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
    • Support Hog Farm _Talk 22:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions need editing for grammar

  Done, I think? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• File:El_Negrillar.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  Swapped, but apparently that URL isn't meant to be the source link anymore. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Hurricanehink

Support. I figured I'd review since I have an FAC of my own.

Lead

• Since you link Bolivia in the lead, maybe also link Argentina and Chile? I get why you didn't, since you linked them in the infobox. And speaking of, what about linking Central Volcanic Zone in the lead?

  Hmm, CVZ at this moment is still a redirect to Andean Volcanic Belt which is the preceding link. Granted, it's a redirect that could be expanded to an article in the future. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• "about 44 active volcanoes" - I gotta ask, why is "about" used here when 44 isn't a number rounded to a nearest 5 or 10? I'm guessing you mean something like "an estimated 44 active volcanoes", since there's probably a good guess for the number, but it's not precise?

  So, the source says 44 but a few more volcanoes have been discovered since then. Would "more than 40" work better? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• I like the stuff about the collapse 7,200 years ago in the lead. I just feel that the second sentence is too long, and that it's out of order. The part about the collapse being "among the largest known with a volume of 19.2 cubic kilometres (4.6 cu mi) " - that's all interesting and good stuff, and I think should be before the Mt. St. Helens bit personally, but either way, the lead could be improved here.

  Rearranged a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• "Notable are the large toreva blocks which were left behind within the collapse crater." - the "notable are" construction is difficult to understand for non-English readers, or even people who don't have a great sense of English. Could you dumb this down a bit and make the sentence structure a bit easier? "The collapsed crater left behind large toreva blocks", or something.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• "Socompa is also noteworthy for the high-altitude biotic communities that are bound to fumaroles on the mountain and form well above the regular vegetation in the region." - again, cool stuff, but could you split this into two sentences so you could expand on this a bit? That would make the 3rd paragraph feel a bit more complete.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Geography and geomorphology

• "due east of Monturaqui" - wish you mentioned that this was an impact crater, that's cool shit

  'fraid that the source refers to the railway station with that name, not the crater which is north of Socompa and much farther away. I've rewritten this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• "The mountain is considered to be an apu by the local population, and Inca constructions have been reported either from its slopes[10][11] or from its summit." - any Simpsons fan with ADHD is going to click on the link to figure out what an apu is. I'd add the explanation for what it is. Also, the second part "Inca constructions" feels like a completely different thought.

  Well, the Inca constructions exist because of the mountain's status as apu, and there isn't much detail in the sources about these constructions, so putting it elsewhere would leave it pretty stubby. A sourceable definition of "apu" is hard to come by. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• "5,600 to 5,800 metres (18,400–19,000 ft)" - is there a reason you use a different construction for metric versus imperial? You could do "to" or the dash for both of them.

  No, changed this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Is there a reason you don't abbreviate to km at a certain point?

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• "The existence of a lake in the summit area within the scarps at an elevation of 5,300 metres (17,400 ft) has been reported." - is there a lake or not? I'm not sure why the "has been reported" is needed. Also, is that "Laguna Socompa? If so, the parts about the lake should be together.

  No, Laguna Socompa is at the foot of the volcano. "has been reported" because many other sources don't mention its existence. It might be ephemeral or somesuch. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• "On the northeastern flank a pumice deposit is clearly visible." - not to someone who's reading the Wikipedia article. Is "clearly visible" the best description?

  Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• "The collapse removed a 70° sector (about 9 kilometres (5.6 mi) of circumference and 7.5 kilometres (4.7 mi) of radius[42]) on Socompa's northwestern side, descended over a vertical distance of about 3,000 metres (9,800 ft) and spread over distances of over 40 kilometres (25 mi),[25] at a modelled speed of c. 100 metres per second (220 mph)." - awesome stuff, but that's a lot for one sentence.

  Split it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• "The occurrence of the large landslide at Mount St. Helens probably aided in the subsequent identification of the Socompa deposit as a landslide remnant." - "probably"?

  Already under discussion in Hog's section. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• under the weight of the volcano these layers can deform and "flow" outward from the edifice - why the quotation marks?

  It's a very slow type of flow, akin to glass or rock deforming over time. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• "petajoules " - should link to "Joule"

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• "A 200-kilometre (120 mi) long lineament known as the Socompa Lineament is associated with the volcano." - I don't know what this means unless I click on "lineament"

  Clarified this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• "In addition, directly north-northwest of Socompa lie three anticlines probably formed under the influence of the mass of both Socompa and Pajonales: The Loma del Inca, Loma Alta and La Flexura." - similar here, no idea what it means unless I click on "anticlines"

  Footnoted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• "The fumaroles on Socompa also feature stands of bryophytes such as liverworts and mosses[e] as well as lichens and algae, and animals have been found in the stands.[102][103] These stands" - wait what are "stands"? There's not even a link here.

  In the sense of "grove"; how does one say groups of mosses. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• "After the sector collapse 7,200 years ago, activity continued filling the collapse scar. The explosion craters on the summit are the youngest volcanic landforms on Socompa,[6] one dome in the scar has been dated to 5,910 ± 430 years ago.[112] An eruption 7,220 ± 100 years before present produced the El Túnel pyroclastic deposit on the western side of Socompa.[113] The youngest eruption was dated to have occurred 5,250 BCE." - consistency with dating would be nice. The last one "youngest eruption" would've been 7,250 years ago, which would be before the sector collapse by... 50 years? Or potentially the cause of the collapse, right?

  I've recast this whole thing. GVP hasn't updated yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• "In 2011, the Chilean mining company Escondida Mining was considering building a geothermal power plant on Socompa to supply energy;[125] the Argentine Servicio Geológico Minero agency started exploration work in January 2018 for geothermal power production." - I was curious what's happened since. this says that the work completed in 2020, with an estimate for how much power could be created. That's from 2023.

  Doesn't seem like it amounted to much, going by recent sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

All in all a good read. Pretty easy to follow, just a few spots I recommend including a bit of basic words instead of forcing the reader to rely on links. That's the main recurring theme I noticed. Lemme know if you have any questions. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the fixes/replies, happy to support. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Volcanoguy

Introduction

• "Socompa has a large debris avalanche formed 7,200 years ago when most of the northwestern slope collapsed into an extensive deposit." Maybe "Most of the northwestern slope of Socompa collapsed catastrophically 7,200 years ago to form an extensive debris avalanche deposit."?

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• "The Socompa collapse is among the largest known with a volume of 19.2 cubic kilometres (4.6 cu mi)". I assume you mean one of the largest known collapses on land. Much much larger collapses have taken place on the slopes of submarine volcanoes (see volcanic landslide).

  Aye, but the source apparently doesn't know about the submarine ones. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Then it's a false claim that would be better off removed. Volcanoguy 14:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Found a different source that does know the claims, so I added that one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Geography and geomorphology

• "Many of these systems are in remote regions and thus are poorly studied" I think "systems" should be clarified here.

  It's only a way to not repeat "volcanoes". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see the problem in reusing "volcanoes" here since most people probably won't know what "systems" means. Volcanoguy 19:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  OK, changed this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• "Several dacitic lava flows form the summit area of the volcano, the youngest of which originates in a summit dome." Should "the youngest of which originates in a summit dome" instead be "the youngest of which originates from a summit dome"?

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• "On the southern and eastern side the scarp is 5 kilometres (3.1 mi) long and 200–400 metres (660–1,310 ft) high, while the southern side is about 9 kilometres (5.6 mi) long." This sentence doesn't make much sentence since the southern side is mentioned twice with differing measurements.

  Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

That's all I have to comment on. Volcanoguy 21:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Support. Volcanoguy 19:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments

I get the feeling the nomintor in areas doest fully understand the sources; apart from typical not first language issues there seems to be a wood from the trees issue. The statement "not witnessed in historical records" about an event that occurred 7,200 years ago gives pause, as does the fact that the dating is so low in the lead, and in the lead the geography is confusing. And the focus on measurements and all the overcitation is confusing and missing the point. However, I do respect this nominator's work, and hope they can meet these general points. Have been making trivial edits and enjoying this facinating article very much otherwise. Ceoil (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I know that arguing examples isn't normally the right way to go about this, but I don't think that we can assume people know that events 7,200 years ago have no historical records left b/c historical records don't go that far back. And the "activity" - unlike the collapse - has only been dated recently. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, a collapse and an eruption are definitively not the same thing. I get the point about the (over)use of "collapse", though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jo Jo, hopeful and confident this will get over the line, and I well know the dept of research that wnt into this. I'll better articulate prose issues in a few days. As I say, the article is fascinating, and am very happy it has been brought to such a standard. Its also very impressive the expertise of the reviews above. I'm just stalling for now. Ceoil (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Ceoil, please check your spelling before publishing your changes; I've had to correct some of your typos. Volcanoguy 18:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Thats fair. Will post here only re rewording before my eventual support. Ceoil (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ceoil, any further input to come on this one? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Source review

• I'll pick up the sources over the next day or so. - SchroCat (talk) 14:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
• Spot checks not done. If a coord wants them done, please ping me.
• You have two sections named "References" – one should be renamed

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Formatting

• The capitalisation is a little off occasionally. Most is in sentence case, although a few bits of title case pop up occasionally, including FN14, 21, 22, 23, 24, 97 (best check there are others too).

  This is where ESL hits me - what is title case and what is sentence case? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

  Title case: "The Quick Brown Fox Jumps over the Lazy Dog"

  Sentence case: "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog"

  I've linked the terms above just to clarify with added detail - SchroCat (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• Again, the sources also need a quick look through to ensure they're all consistent.

Sources

• I'm not a subject specialist – far from it – but from my additional searches, I've not seen any obvious sources that have been missed.
• All the existing sources are reliable and relevant

- SchroCat (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Can I ask for a second opinion on the Peaklist sauce? Even conceding that mountaineering information isn't usually written in peer reviewed academic sources, I am not sure that it is a HQRS. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I would say it's borderline and I thought about it when I did the review, but passed it, given it's written by named individuals and there is editorial oversight on the site. - SchroCat (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Virgo interferometer

Nominator(s): Thuiop (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

This article is about one of the major current gravitational wave detectors. This is the second nomination; during the first one, the article was found lacking in copy editing, so I submitted a request to WP:GOCER, which was completed a few days ago, hence the resubmission. Looking forward to your comments. Thuiop (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Thuiop, have you considered persuing Good article nomination first? It's not technically required for featured articles to be successfully nominated as good articles first, but it is almost always done and is strongly recommended—especially given that this is your first nomination. Good articles have less strict criteria, and a one-on-one dialog is often more efficient to identify and correct certain common problems, compared to the FAC process. Remsense ‥ 论 21:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Remsense, I was not aware of that. I did know about Good articles though, but considered it as a second option; I usually contribute to the French Wikipedia, where "FAC" are usually not already "GA" before the nomination. If you think this is a better idea, I am ok with rescinding this nomination and go to GA before. Thuiop (talk) 08:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I would recommend it, but keep in mind that it sometimes takes a prolonged period of time before an editor will pick up your submission for review—often days or weeks, sometimes even months. I think this one wouldn't sit too long though. Remsense ‥ 论 08:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok. I will do this if there are no other comment against this idea in the next one or two days. Thanks! Thuiop (talk) 08:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Graham Beards

I don't think a GA nomination is needed. I have made some edits to the article, which can be found in the history. The images look a little cluttered, at least on my screens, but this is no big deal. In my view this is an excellent, and fairly lay-friendly, introduction to an exciting new field in cosmology. I am interested in what other reviewers have to say, but I am happy to add my tentative support. Graham Beards (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Airship

I have placed {{cn}} tags in a few places; note that image captions do require citations if the information within is not sourced elsewhere in the body. In my opinion, the prose is good but in need of improvement; I cannot comment on the technical and scientific details. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I added the missing citations. Thuiop (talk) 12:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• How does the gallery here align with WP:GALLERY?

• File:Logo-virgo.png: source link is dead. Ditto File:GW170814.png

• File:GW170814_signal.png: where is this licensing coming from? The source site has an all rights reserved notice

• File:Virgo3_1.jpg: is a more specific source available? Ditto File:BestVirgoSensitivityCurveVSR4.png

• File:VirgoDetectionBench2015.jpg is tagged as lacking source information. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Indeed, it seems it does not. Do you think it would make sense to move it at the beginning of the instrument section, replacing the already present File:Virgo aerial view 01.jpg ?
• Fixed.
• I added the original paper which is indeed under CC.
• I added extra sources in the caption. Did you mean to add the sources in Commons? These files were directly uploaded by the collaboration, but I can link articles where they were used, although those articles are not necessarily under the correct license.
• Fixed.

Thanks for the comments! Thuiop (talk) 11:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• The Commons page for each image should include sourcing that confirms that the image is available under the licensing given. Do you mean that the licensing given is not correct, or that the articles where they are used don't credit them properly? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, no, I meant that these two files were produced by the Virgo collaboration and upload by someone from the collaboration in its name, falling under the "own work" category. It was also used by the collaboration in other places (including a journal paper), but these do not fall under the same licence as far as I know. If you think this is important, I can contact the person who uploaded it and have them confirm this officially. Thuiop (talk) 07:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Yes please - this should go through VRT. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents

  Understood, I will get this done in the next few days. Thuiop (talk) 12:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Took care of it ! Thuiop (talk) 13:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next four or five days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

HF

I'll try to start a review within the next day or two. Please ping me if I haven't started by Wednesday. Hog Farm _Talk 16:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Hog Farm here is the reminder. Thanks for your interest! Thuiop (talk) 08:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

My work schedule has gotten crazy this week - I am hoping to get to this Friday or Saturday. Hog Farm _Talk 12:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay on this; I should be considered to be a strictly nonexpert reviewer here. Hog Farm _Talk 02:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Generally, information should be found in the body, and not only in the lead. Some examples here include the fact that KAGRA is in the Kamioka mine (which probably isn't relevant enough for this article in general), and the information about the naming of the Virgo Cluster and the details about the Virgo Cluster. This isn't a comprehensive list though.

Ok. I am not sure where to put the information about the naming though, I am a bit iffy about making an extra section just for that but will think about it.

• "The budget of EGO is around 10 million euros per year," - I'm not quite a fan of this phrasing. This appears to be coming from the range of commitments on p. 5 of the source, which shows it ranging from barely 9 million to over 11.5 million. This also needs an as of date, as this is probalby to change in the future given that the source is talking about how the budget needs to increase

This is precisely why I put a coarse estimate, as it fluctuates quite a bit annually, but I can put a range instead (+ date)

• " its final configuration is planned to combine the light of two lasers to reach the required power" - is this a final configuration of the Advanced Virgo, or a planned future upgrade of the Advanced Virgo into something different?

Complicated as there were some issues with the laser before O4, but this is going to be hard to source, which is why I left it in the future tense for now.

• "This laser is sent into the interferometer after passing through the injection system, " - the laser itself, or the beam of the laser?

The beam, I changed it.

• "made from the purest glass obtainable." - can you point me to where this is found in the source? I'm not seeing any references to "purest" or "glass" in the source (a slideshow presentation), and the only references to VIRGO are in the image credits

Ah, fused silica is a type of glass. Changed to "extremely pure" to avoid issues; this matches slide 4 from the presentation. I had not realized that Virgo is barely mentioned in the presentation, but it was made by a Virgo researcher, and all the pictures are of Virgo mirrors (the LMA is the main lab working on the mirrors).

• "A reflective coating (a Bragg reflector made with ion-beam sputtering) is then added. " - I'm struggling to find where the source references a Bragg reflector?

Good catch, I added the source

• " This superattenuator, nearly 8 metres (26 ft) high, is in a vacuum" - is this still the case? The source is from before the Advanced Virgo updates, which I'm told in the article "kept the same vaccum infrastructure" but changed basically everything else? Is this part of the vaccum infrastructure - I'm not sure

Yes, this has not changed.

• "A fraction of this light is reflected back by the signal-recycling mirror, and the rest is collected by the detection system" - can light really be "collected", strictly speaking?

I think this is the correct term here. Could be changed to something like "continues towards" if you feel this is confusing.

• "With the O3 run, a squeezed vacuum source was introduced to reduce the quantum noise which is one of the main limitations to sensitivity." - the ref placement is clearly off here; the next reference in the paragraph is the 1981 paper proposing squeezed vacuums.

Fixed.

Ready for the history section; hopefully I should be able to finish in the next couple days if my work schedule cooperates. Hog Farm _Talk 02:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the comments! As for the other commenter, I made individual responses and corrected most of it. Thuiop (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Thuiop: - Apologies for not having a chance to get back to this yet. As to the naming, I'd personally stick a brief sentence about it in the first paragraph of the history section where you are talking about the formation of the entity. That's where I'd have it if I were writing the article - including the naming with the history of how it was formed. Hog Farm _Talk 14:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! I added a phrase for that. Thuiop (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to back out of the rest of this. I've been run into the ground figuratively at work and I need to take a break and catch my breath. Hog Farm _Talk 14:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Fair, thanks for the comments you already made. Take care! Thuiop (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• "The Virgo interferometer operates with similar detectors ...": it took me a few seconds to parse this. I took "similar" to mean "similar to detectors mentioned earlier". I understood the point by the end of the paragraph, but how about changing this to "The Virgo interferometer shares data with other similar detectors, including ..."?

  I see what you mean. However, the point was also that observations are jointly planned with other detectors. I modified the formulation to make it clearer and still reflect that.

• "Developed when gravitational waves were only a prediction of general relativity, it has now detected several of them. Its first detection was in 2017 (together with the two LIGO detectors)" This doesn't make it clear that the Virgo was not involved in the first such detection. Could we rephrase, maybe like so: "Gravitational waves, once only a prediction of general relativity, were first detected by the LIGO interferometers in 2015. The first event detected by Virgo as well as LIGO was in 2017; this was quickly followed by ..."?

  This is the only one I did not address yet; I wanted to also make clear that the instrument was developed at a time were no GW had been detected, and operated for a long time before the first detection. Your reformulation, although technically correct, makes it look like Virgo "came late to the party". I will try to think of a better formulation, perhaps extending what is in the parentheses in the current version. Edit: I ended up adding a bit more info on the history in the lead as suggested by the other commenter.

• "The Virgo Collaboration consolidates all the researchers": suggest "consists of" as simpler.

  Done.

• "which gathers scientists from the other major gravitational-waves experiments to jointly analyze the data; this is crucial for gravitational-wave detection": the source doesn't say that this collaboration is crucial for gravitational-wave detection -- I think it's a point worth making but we need another source that says it.

  Done.

• "Many believed at the time that this was not possible; only France and Italy began work on the project, which was first presented in 1987." It's not really clear what "this was not possible" refers to -- I think it must be the detection of low-frequencies, but it might mean, more specifically, that using an interferometer to detect low frequencies was considered impossible.

  Indeed, I made that more explicit.

• And "which was first presented" is vague: if I understand the source, "proposed" would be clearer.

  Done.

• "Virgo's first goal was to directly observe gravitational waves, of which the three-decade study of the binary pulsar 1913+16 presented indirect evidence." Meaning that the first goal was to observe these specific waves? The first part of the sentence reads oddly because detecting these waves is Virgo's only goal. To avoid that reading, how about "Virgo's first goal was to directly observe gravitational waves from the binary pulsar 1913+16, for which there was indirect evidence from three decades of study"?

  Maybe this was confusing; the goal was not to observe those in particular, rather it was somewhat clear at the time that they existed, but not whether it was feasible to detect them. I changed it to make that clearer.

• The article says both that initial Virgo "reached its expected sensitivity" and that "the original Virgo detector was not sensitive enough". Are these two statements are in conflict? The project did not intend to build an instrument that was not sensitive enough. If these aren't in conflict, then presumably that means the designed sensitivity turned out to be insufficient; if so I think we should say so.

  Your last sentence is correct. I removed the "not sensitive enough" part, to instead say that there were no observations.

• The first mention of "mirror towers" had me going down to the "Instrument" section to understand what these were, and I think it might be better to reverse the order of "History" and "Instrument". Putting the instrument description first gives the reader the vocabulary to understand the history section. That would also avoid issues such as saying "The new mirrors were larger (350 mm in diameter, with a weight of 40 kg)" when we don't know how big the old mirrors were.

  I did that, but I am actually now wondering whether this was a good idea, since the Instrument section also mentions the initial and Advanced Virgo periods.

• There's a mixture of tenses in the second paragraph of "Advanced Virgo detector": past tense ("the new mirrors were larger"); present tense ("The optical elements ... are under vacuum"); and subjunctive ("A system of adaptive optics would be installed"). I suggest sticking with past tense throughout.

  Done.

• "In the original plan, the laser power was expected to reach 200 W in its final configuration." Is this phrasing because we don't have a source that gives the laser power as built? Does "final configuration" refer to advanced Virgo, or does "original" mean this is a spec from initial Virgo?

  I left it like this; it is indeed complicated to source the exact laser power, as it was expected to ramp up and has changed many times throughout the detector's life.

• You introduce the abbreviation "aLIGO" and then don't use it anywhere. I think it can be dropped, but what is the difference between LIGO and aLIGO? Is it something the reader needs to understand?

  The abbreviation itself is not really useful indeed, but there was an important point, which is that the LIGO detectors also had their "Advanced LIGO" program. I reflected that.

• "during the O2 observation period": this is not explained until further below. I think an overview of the observational program, as outlined in the box, would be helpful to give the reader the O1, O2, ... vocabulary and some context, before we give the results of the runs. From the box it's not clear that O1 even applies to Virgo, in which case perhaps it's terminology from the LVK collaboration rather than just Virgo? If so I think we should say so. And looking at sentences like "Virgo announced that it would not join the beginning of O4" I see that must be right. I assume this planning of collaborative observations is in order to have the data to cross-check or reinforce the interpretation of detection events? That's implied but not stated.

  This is LVK terminology, I added a phrase to explain that.

• The post-O3 upgrades have an understandable difficulty with tenses since some are in the past and some in the future. I think the present tense ("the first precedes the O4 run") is not a good choice, though; the paragraph is written without making it clear what's been done and what remains to do, and I think doing that, with past tense and then future tense, would read more naturally.

  Good idea, I did that.

That takes me down to the end of the history section. I'll pause there, since I've suggested moving sections around; let me know what you think and I can continue when these points are resolved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! I have addressed most of them, and will put individual answers to make it easier to read. Thuiop (talk) 12:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that makes it much easier to see what's addressed and what isn't. I've struck most points above; I will read through again, though probably not tonight, and bear in mind what you say about the reversal of the sections perhaps causing other issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Hurricanehink

Support. Seeing as I have an active FAC, I figured I'd review another science article here.

• "The Virgo interferometer is a large Michelson interferometer designed to detect the gravitational waves predicted by general relativity. " - this is a lot for the first sentence, and I'm still not even sure what it is. I clicked on "Michelson interferometer" and it linked to "Interferometry", and I'm already on a bit of a wikihole. Is there a way to make the first sentence even simpler? I realize there's a link on Michelson interferometer, and Michelson stellar interferometer, and I think they're both similar. Also, the part of "predicted by general relativity" seems more like a description of gravitational waves. Mostly, could you expand on this and be broader?

I am not sure how it could be simplified without omitting the interferometric part, which is in my opinion pretty important. Regarding the link, I think that Interferometry is a bit clearer but it could go to Michelson interferometer to avoid surprise (Michelson stellar interferometer is however unrelated). The "general relativity" does apply to gravitational waves but it does not seem too out of place to me, although I am fine if you wish to remove it.

This is on the right track, but I still think just linking Interferometry doesn't help much if someone stumbles across this article, and they're reading it from the beginning. You should link Scientific instrument when you mention "instrument". I'm also not a fan of "huge". Could you reword that a bit? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Follow up, is it an experiment, or is it an instrument? It seems to me that it is an instrument at this point, which is why I thought it should be linked to scientific instrument. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I think both work at this point. I like experiment better, and I am not sure the link to scientific instrument would make it much clearer.

Makes sense. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• "three kilometres" - please convert this and all units to imperial in parenthesis.

Will do. Edit: Done.

This was only done in the lead. Every instance of km in the body of the article has no mile equivalent. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I was not sure if it was to be repeated when a measure is repeated several times. I will do it tomorrow. Thuiop (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• "The instrument has two arms that are three kilometres long and contain its mirrors and instrumentation in an ultra-high vacuum." - is there any more about the instrument? This is the only sentence in the lead about the actual device itself. All I know is that it's 3 kilometres long. But unfortunately, that's not sourced anywhere.

I can add more details but I think this would be more confusing than anything if you are not familiar with how the instrument works. For the source, I can add one but this is an extremely basic fact which you can find in basically every source from the article.

Again, all material in the lead should be mentioned somewhere in the article, and should have a citation. There doesn't need to be a citation in the lead, but as the lead summarizes everything, the article is incomplete for not covering this bit of detail. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Should the infobox list the "formation" as 1993 if it was completed in 2003?

Interesting question, I think 1993 is fine since it is the start of the project. I was also thinking about having a small "timeline", but unfortunately this infobox template does not allow for one.

That makes sense, but then why isn't it 1992? Also, since the focus is on the project, is there a way to get an updated map? It's a shame to only have it as of 2017 when that's already seven years out of date. Also, since the map is outdated, I would much rather have an image of the building hosting Virgo, maybe the aerial view of the detector? That is a much better idea for what it is, not some outdated map. ♫ Hurricanehink(talk) 22:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I think I forgot to answer this but I moved the map outside the infobox. Turns out the info is also more recent than I thought as it dates from 2021, although this is still somewhat outdated.

Has there been any attempt for an updated map? ♫ Hurricanehink(talk) 04:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, it seems the original was updated until 2021. It will however be hard to maintain it, as although most activity is in Europe, there are now people from other parts of the globe (notably Brazil has joined recently with a few different groups, and there are also people in Asia and Africa scattered around). I will however update the map to include Switzerland, and specify that the map is about European countries only.

Well since the group is such an important part of the topic, it would be nice if the map had everyone. I'm not going to oppose over it, but an up to date map would be appreciate. Also, is there a reason the infobox says 1993 when it was approved in 1992? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Only the CNRS approved it in 1992, it was in 1993 for the INFN (as is written in the first phrase of the history section); the collaboration was therefore established in 1993. As for the map, I agree that it would be nice in principle but in practice I think the hassle is not worth it, especially since the project is in its large majority European; the extra countries are still mentioned in the text. Thuiop (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

OK, but the article isn't about the Virgo collaboration. The article is about the interferometer, so either it started in 1992 when it was approved, or 2007 when it first started its science runs, but 1993 doesn't make sense IMO. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The INFN did not approve it before 1993; without the INFN approval the project would have either not seen the light of day or taken a very different form. So 1993 seems right to me.

• Could there be more about the history in the lead?

Hm, sure. I will whip up something but let me know if there are specific elements you want to see. Edit: Done.

• " including the two LIGO interferometers in the United States (at the Hanford Site and in Livingston, Louisiana) " - I'm not sure, but I don't see the Livingston part cited anywhere in the article. I wanted to a random spotcheck, and I didn't see the Hanford part even mentioned at all in the article other than an image caption.

Again, I can add a source but this is very basic information about the LIGO detectors which you would find anywhere LIGO is mentioned.

Any information in the lead needs to be somewhere in the article though. If it's important enough to get a mention in the lead, then that information should also appear in the body of the article. If it's not important enough to be in the lead, then it should be moved to later in the article when you mention LIGO. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Where is the budget that's in the infobox sourced in the article? "About ten million euros per year"

Good catch, I added a reference. I think the information is only in the infobox currently but could be introduced in the text if needed.

Ideally, it would be in the text of the article. In 2022, it was 11 million euros, for example, but that also mentions the staff, and the electricity, and some other details that aren't in the article at all. It says there are 62 people on the staff as part of the budget, for example. Stuff like that could be included under "Organization". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Is there a reason the "Organization" section is first? It wasn't formed til 2000, but since it was started before then, it seems like "Instrument" or "History" would make more sense being first.

The reason for this is what "the Virgo Collaboration" and "the LVK Collaboration" are constantly referred to in the sources, and also in a few places in the article, and I wanted these terms to be defined from the start to make sure it is less confusing. Also see the comments from Mike over the order of Instrument and History.

Makes sense. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I've only gotten through the lead and a little bit of the article, but there are some pretty big problems just in the lead. I'll wait to hear back from you before continuing my review, thanks. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! I added individual answers to each of them. I have been meaning to check out other FAC but have been pretty busy with work these past weeks, I will try to see if I can drop a few comments on yours in the next few days. Thuiop (talk) 09:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

More

• Is there a reference for Virgo being located in Santo Stefano a Macerata? All material in the lead needs to be mentioned in the article somewhere. The Virgo history reference (ref 72) only says it is near Pisa.

Added.

• I guess I need clarification, but since the headquarters are the European Gravitational Observatory, is that an actual building? Like, I'm trying to imagine the actual physical structure, but there isn't a mention of any building anywhere in the article, and the European Gravitational Observatory article says in the first sentence that it's also the Virgo Collaboration, but that seems to be the topic of this article, right? Why does that separate article exist if it's the same thing? That article also says "EGO has an annual budget of €9 million split evenly between the French CNRS and Italian INFN." But sadly the link that says that is broken. Either way, just trying to figure out clarification for what this thing is, and where it's housed. One image mentions the "Mode-Cleaner Building" - is that it? Shouldn't that building be mentioned somewhere?

Hmm, this is a tricky one. EGO is an entity, but it is also used to refer as its physical headquarters, e.g. "at EGO" means the actual site where the detector is. It seems someone messed with the EGO page somewhat recently, I should have put it in my follow list earlier; EGO is a separate entity from the Virgo collaboration. Also, as to why there is a separate article: EGO could in principle have activities beyond Virgo, such as managing another detector. In practice, it only manages Virgo, so the extra page is a bit superfluous.

I think I understand. But shouldn't the building that houses Virgo, the Mode-Cleaner Building, get more of a mention than appearing in image text? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Hm, I forgot to address that part, but the mode-cleaner building does not have much to do with it, it is just the building housing the input mode cleaner. The building hosting the Virgo headquarters is one of the "other buildings including offices...".

Could that be put in prose somewhere? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I added something to the Organization section.

I appreciate the addition, but it added a new problem:

"EGO is responsible for the Virgo site (which represents its headquarters; by metonymy, the Virgo site is sometimes referred to as EGO) and is in charge of the construction, maintenance, and operation of the detector and its upgrades."

This is a lot to put in parenthesis. The metonymy part should probably be its own sentence, considering my own confusion with EGO vs Virgo. But also, there should be something about the building that hosts Virgo. There's still very little. I'd expect something in "history", or "organization". Stuff like the "Mode-Cleaner" building shouldn't only get a mention in an image caption. ♫ Hurricanehink ng(talk) 18:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hm, I will think about something I can add to the Infrasturcture section. Edit: I had started writing something, but unfortunately this is unsourceable; I have not been able to find an annotated map, aerial view or description of the buildings on the internet.

Nothing about the building? This document talks about the various buildings, at quick search. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed that one even though I spent quite a bit of time searching. It is pretty out dated but I guess I can use it. I wonder if I should move the gallery to the new paragraph? It probably would be more useful than at the bottom of the page.

Yea it would be better if it wasn't tucked at the end. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I put it in the Infrastructure subsection. Thuiop (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• "Virgo is designed to look for gravitational waves emitted by astrophysical sources across the universe which can be classified into three types" - just to be nitpicky, but you format the three types differently. The first - Transient sources: - has a colon, but the other two has a comma.

Fixed

• " It slightly curves spacetime (changing the light path) and can be detected with a Michelson interferometer in which a laser is divided into two beams travelling in orthogonal directions, bouncing on a mirror at the end of each arm. " - too much for one sentence. Something like "It slightly curves spacetime, changing the light path, which can be detected with a Michelson interferometer. In such a device, a laser is divided into two beams travelling in orthogonal directions, bouncing on a mirror at the end of each arm." - something like that says the same thing, but it takes a bit more time so it doesn't overwhelm the reader. I sometimes have to think when I'm writing a hurricane article, what if the reader doesn't know about something specific, so I'll try writing it on the simpler side.

Split it in different phrases

• "A 50 W output power " - per WP:MOS - all units need to be spelled out before they are abbreviated. I'm assuming this is watt?

Indeed. Done.

• "Key components of the injection system include the input mode cleaner (a 140-metre-long (460 ft) cavity to improve beam quality by stabilizing the frequency, removing unwanted light propagation and reducing the effect of laser misalignment), a Faraday isolator preventing light from returning to the laser, and a mode-matching telescope which adapts the size and position of the beam before it enters the interferometer." - I hate parenthesis within parenthesis! And by the time I got to the word "misalignment" I completely forgot I was in the first set of parenthesis. I suggest starting by descripting the input mode cleaner, so you don't need the one set of parenthesis. And then mention the other two things.

I adjusted the wording to avoid the parentheses.

• "The mirrors are polished to the atomic level to avoid diffusing (and losing) any light." - how often?

Only one time, when they are manufactured. Do you want me to specify it?

Well it's confusing by having present tense, that implies they are polished regularly. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Got it, made it clearer.

• "It is planned to use a wideband configuration, decreasing noise at high and low frequencies and increasing it at intermediate frequencies. " - was it planned, or did it actually use this?

This is a bit of a complicated matter due to some issues with the instrument; I think for now it is more representative to leave it like this as this is how it will be used in the long term.

Sorry, I don't think I get this. Why is it present tense? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, this is touchy and I am not sure how much of this is actually public. Basically, there is some mystery source of noise in the detector, and it hase been found that placing the SR mirror in a "misaligned" state helps with reducing that noise (at the cost of not using the SR mirror for its intended purpose). This is supposed to be temporary (probably lasting until the end of O4 next year), and will be complicated to source as most of the investigations are internal to the collaboration. This is why I think it is better to leave it as a "currently planned" thing, which is factual as this is how the SR mirror should be used in the future according to current plans.

Got it, thanks. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• "nearly eight meters high" - I wish every metric unit had unit conversions for Americans like me to be able to understand. Ditto "6,800 cubic meters"

Damn, missed it as it was not in unit form. About the cubic meters, should I convert to gallons? I do not think there is a large enough imperial unit to match the cubic meter, this will amount to millions of gallons.

Yes, gallons is how we usually measure liquids over here. There are larger unofficial units, like "Olympic-sized swimming pools", or "Giraffe-sized", but neither would be very appropriate here. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, done.

• "After further upgrades, Virgo began its third observation run (O3)" - I was wondering where in the article you explained what "O3" was, because the first few times it popped up I had no idea what it was.

This is what I was discussing before with the previous commenter, regarding the placement of the History section. I now think putting it before Instrument makes more sense.

Yea that's a problem. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Any thoughts? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think I will move it back to before the Instrument section; I was waiting to see if anyone had a different opinion.

Thoughts on this? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I ended up moving it back up in the end, it is probably better this way. Thuiop (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• (improving from the original Virgo level by a factor of 100). - what does this mean?

The pressure is 100 times less. Does it need to be clearer?

Yea, I didn't know that "pressure" what was improved. Clearer would be appreciated. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• "with a mass of 1.4 M☉–1.4 M☉ " - 1.4 to 1.4? Am I missing something?

This is a binary system, hence there are two masses. Changed to plural to make that clearer.

I still don't think that makes the sentence clearer. I'm still overwhelmed at the info contained in the following, and would appreciate if it was simpler:

"The most common measure of gravitational-wave-detector sensitivity is the horizon distance, defined as the distance at which a binary neutron star with masses 1.4 M☉–1.4 M☉ (where M☉ is the solar mass) produces a signal-to-noise ratio of 8 in the detector."

I tried improving it a bit more by segregating the information.

Hmm, I guess my biggest question as a layman is why not say "both with 1.4 solar mass (M☉)"? I am still confused why it's written as 1.4 M☉–1.4 M☉ when as far as I can tell, they're both the same size, and that would be a whole lot simpler to read. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, this is the standard way to write it, and this is how you will find it in the literature (including the reference I used). I can see how it might be confusing so I will change it.

This now made the sentence a lot longer and more complicated. Could you make this simpler, grammatically speaking? The "typically" part referring to the solar mass could be its own sentence. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

"The most common measure of gravitational-wave-detector sensitivity is the horizon distance, defined as the distance at which a reference target (typically a binary neutron star with both components having a mass of 1.4 M☉, where M☉ is the solar mass) produces a signal-to-noise ratio of 8 in the detector."

Better now?

A bit, but is there a reason there isn't a space between 1.4 and solar masses? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Late night editing is why (+ in the editor it rendered the "solar masses" on the next line, so I missed it). Thuiop (talk) 09:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• "Construction of the initial Virgo detector was completed in June 2003,[26] and several data collection periods ("science runs") followed between 2007 and 2011" - why the long wait from 2003 to 2007?

Although they finished building it in 2003, it was not operational before 2007. I added a phrase to reflect that.

• Why the extra spacing in the "Advanced Virgo detector" section?

I am not sure what you mean.

There is an extra space after the fourth paragraph. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I apologize but I really am not seeing it from the editing interface. Is it perhaps because of the image placement for the timeline?

Yup, I get it, no worries. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• The new mirrors were larger (35 cm (14 in) in diameter, with a weight of 40 kg (88 lb)), and their optical performance was improved. - again I hate parenthesis within parenthesis, but that's just me

Removed the parentheses.

• "Observation "runs" for the Advanced detector era are planned by the LVK collaboration with the goal to maximize the observing time with several detectors, and are labelled O1 to O5;" - why the present tense "are planned"?

They are still planned? We are currently during the O4 run, and the O5 plans are susceptible to change still.

But the labeling was done in the past, and decided a while ago, so my big question is, why the present tense? ♫ Hurricanehink(talk) 17:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, this is still in flux. The names were decided from the start but the running periods have changed numerous times and are still decided today (in fact it is highly possible that O5 will not start at the current planned date, and the O4 run was extended this year). Hence I think the present is appropriate here.

Got it, appreciate the explanation. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• It was soon followed by the better-known GW170817, the first merger of two neutron stars detected by the gravitational-wave network and (by October 2024), the only event with a confirmed detection of an electromagnetic counterpart in gamma rays, optical telescopes, radio and x-ray domains. - seeing as this reference is from 2017, either it should be "by 2017", or use the template that lists the current month.

Hm, I can change it to current month, but aren't we supposed to put the month this was last checked?

Is this figure regularly updated? I'm mostly just going by the reference, which is as of 2017. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I can update it regularly if needed, but a second event like this would be a big enough thing to make the news, so this will definitely be updated when it happens. I think it is important to note that there were no other similar events observed for the time being, but providing a "negative source" will be hard.

So then you see that it will quickly become out of date. Since the next thing would be news (as I wondered would've been the case), it should be "as of November 2024". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, done.

And perhaps the same thing when you mention "as of 2024" in the lead? That should be {{currentyear}}. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Done.

• "No signal was observed in Virgo, but this absence was crucial to more tightly constrain the event's localization." - this could use a bit more explanation, since I'm not sure why it wasn't detected.

I completed the phrase.

That's my review. There is a lot of good information in the article, so I appreciate your work so far. Please let me know if you have any questions. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the review! I put in answers to your various comments and made some changes, including adding references to the stuff from the lead. Thuiop (talk) 00:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Added a few replies, thanks for getting back, Thuiop (talk · contribs). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, answered those. Thuiop (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, just a few small things to double check. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks again for all the comments! Thuiop (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Just a few more points for clarification. Some of the edits you made might've introduced some new problems. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for all of the edits and tweaks on my account. Happy to give the thumbs up now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Ajpolino

Happy to take a readthrough and do the source review once you've responded to Hurricanehink's comments above. Ajpolino (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Alright, got through the first couple sections over breakfast. It's a lovely article so far, clear even to a biologist. Small notes as I read through:

• Lead - "The Virgo interferometer is a large-scale experiment... The instrument..." Is the Virgo interferometer an experiment or an instrument? I gather the simple answer is probably "both" but we should at least be consistent in how we conceptualize it in the first few sentences.

Yes, this was also discussed in previous comments. I will settle for "instrument" in the lead, although both would be correct.

• Lead - "The instrument... instrumentation" an instrument's instrumentation seems redundant. Would it be appropriate to say "mirrors and detectors"? Or with the above you could rephrase to something like "the experiment centers on an enormous Michelson interferometer... mirrors and instrumentation...".

Conversely, I changed "instrument" by "detector" to avoid the redundancy.

• Lead - "The collaboration" should "Collaboration" be uppercase since it's referring to the Virgo Collaboration in particular?

I changed it, although it probably was also correct without the uppercase since collaboration is a common noun.

• Organization - "research on, and studies of" are these two different things, or is this redundant?

Yes, it is a bit redundant. It seems like the phrase was initially "research and studies on gravitation" but gradually became distorted; I removed the redundancy.

• Science case - Is there anything that can be done to make "instabilities in compact systems" slightly clearer? I think to my ear "systems" is a generic word (like "things"), but it's probably meant here in a specific sense?

Changed to "astrophysical objects", still somewhat generic, but the point of that specific bit was to be a bit generic.

• Instrument#Laser - O3 and O4 run are mentioned before we know what they are. I see there's been some discussion above on section order. I don't have an opinion on that (yet) but you can get around it here by referring to the date of the run or upgrades (e.g. "reaching 100 W during its 2019–2020 run" or "after 2018 upgrades...").

Yes. I moved the History section following one of the commenters, but I now think this was a mistake; I moved it back.

• Instrument#Laser - "The solution for Advanced Virgo" odd phrasing. Is "Advanced Virgo" used to refer to the upgrades, or to the instrument after it was upgraded? If the former (as the term is used earlier in the article) you could say "The Advanced Virgo upgrades replaced these lasers with..." instead.

I changed it to "Advanced Virgo design"; I myself are not 100% sure which laser is being used right now as there were some issues with the fibre laser early in O4.

• Instrument#Mirrors - "extremely pure glass obtainable" typo?

This was originally "the purest glass obtainable", I forgot to remove the second part when I changed it.

At Instrument#Mirrors. Still very clear. Will get through the rest asap. Ajpolino (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the comments! I addressed them; please note that I ended up moving the History section back up, so be sure not to miss it. Thuiop (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Instrument#Superattenuators - Just to make sure I understand, when you say "benches" do you mean tables that equipment goes on? Or does it have some specific meaning here that I'm not familiar with?

Yes. I clarified the first occurence and added a link to optical table.

• Instrument#Infrastructure - Is it important we learn the abbreviation HWS? It's not used again in the article.

No indeed, although it is widely used in the litterature.

• Instrument#Infrastructure - PCal or Pcal? Either is fine, just be consistent throughout.

Corrected

• Instrument#Infrastructure - Should the paragraph "Due to the interferometer's high power..." be up in the Instrument#Mirrors subsection? The two paragraphs after it also don't seem to quite fit with the first half of the infrastructure section. Maybe they'd go better with Detection system or Noise and sensitivity (or maybe I should just broaden my mental image of "infrastructure")?

No, I wanted the Infrastructure section to regroup all the peripheral subsystems which, although very important, are not as critical as the laser or the mirrors. I feel here that the TCS, the stray light control and the calibration fit in this category. I guess the section could be split in two, but I do not feel it is overly long; happy to hear your opinion.

• Instrument#Infrastructure - Does "additional precautions are needed" mean "additional precautions" are currently being used? Or does it mean they're needed for the future?

Currently. I replaced "needed" by "taken".

• Instrument#Infrastructure - "Dedicated hardware... have been developed for Virgo" Seems silly to say just after we spent 14 paragraphs reading about it. Maybe changing the end of the sentence to "for storing and analyzing Virgo data"? or whatever exactly you want to get across.

I meant specifically electronics, not the things mentioned above. I made it clearer

• Instrument#Detector sens - "a 2011 Virgo sensitivity curve is plotted with a log-log scale." we don't typically refer explicitly to figures in-text, so this can be cut. That said, I don't think there's any prohibition of it, and if your preference is to keep it as-is, I'm not complaining.

Yes, I thought about that when writing (the phrase was already there). I feel it is not too out of place as the juicy stuff is really in the figure, and explaining it without the figure barely makes sense.

• Instrument#Detector sens - On my screen there's a reference (currently 95) floating below this section. Not sure where it's intended to go, so just flagging it for your consideration.

I think it did not get moved properly when I moved the History section, thanks.

• Scientific results - "and putting tight" is the grammar wrong here or am I misunderstanding the sentence?

The grammar was wrong.

Done! Very clear and enjoyable read. Will commence the source review tomorrow. Ajpolino (talk) 03:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again for the comments Thuiop (talk) 09:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Support on prose. Source review below. Ajpolino (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Source Review

Opening as another section for ease of navigation. The article is cited to reliable sources for the topic: relevant scholarly work as well as explanatory webpages hosted by Virgo and its partners. There are a couple papers from publishers with chequered reputations (MDPI, [20] and [21]) but both are written by authors who would be in a position to speak with authority on the topics at hand.

The reference section needs a bit of sprucing up to meet the FA criteria. All small things:

• The webpage "The Virgo Collaboration" (currently ref 2) is dead and I don't see it on archive.org. Any chance you can find that page elsewhere?
• Can we get a date on the LIGO-Virgo MoU? Ditto [22]. And [23]. I'll stop posting each, but for anything dated (news articles, press releases, etc.) a date would be a nice addition to the reference. Makes it much easier to find the reference if it goes dark.
• "Consistent citations" is one of the FA criteria. Sometimes your source titles are in title case, sometimes sentence case (I gather you're following each referenced publication's style). It doesn't matter what style you pick here, but your reference section should be internally consistent.
• Can we get more reference info on What is Ligo??
• "Many authors of the Virgo Collaboration" reads informal. Perhaps just "The Virgo Collaboration" (as the document first notes) or the classic list a few authors followed by "et al."?
• The Virgo Physics Book - should the date be 2020? Not sure if 2006 is a typo or if I'm missing something.
• Is there any other bibliographic info we can find on the Virgo Final Design document?
• Reference 64 "Instruments_Laser&optics" doesn't seem to be working. It just takes me to Virgo's homepage.
• Can we get some formatting for the "VIRGO Vacuum System Overview" reference? You can plop it into {{cite web}} or just make it match the other official documents you cite.
• It looks like the "The Virgo Newtonian calibration system for the O4 observing run" manuscript has now been published in a journal. Flagging it in case you'd like to update your reference.
• Is "Analysis of sensitivity and noise sources for the Virgo gravitational wave interferometer" a PhD thesis? If so, you should format it like you do the other thesis (Li-Wei Wei).
• I think the paper "Distance measures in gravitational-wave astrophysics and cosmology" is cited twice in separate references (currently 93 and 94)

Once you get through those, I'll take a second look and then I think we can wrap this up. Ajpolino (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for the comments. I am quite busy this weekend so it will take a bit of time to address them all, but they are duly noted. Thuiop (talk) 09:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I have addressed all the specific comments, I will handle the broader ones later today or tomorrow. Thuiop (talk) 09:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ajpolino I added the missing dates and corrected the citation style. Let me know if there is anything I missed. Thuiop (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Super! Traveling for the American holiday, so it may take me a few days to return to this, but I will get to it as soon as possible. Ajpolino (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Sgubaldo

Will take a look. Ping if I haven't said anything by next week. Sgubaldo (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, here is the requested ping @Sgubaldo Thuiop (talk) 09:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, will try to have a look before Thursday Sgubaldo (talk) 13:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Apologies again, I've been ill. I'll have this done by the end of the weekend. Sgubaldo (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for still taking the time to notify me; I hope you will get better! Thuiop (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

La Isla Bonita

Nominator(s): Christian (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

This article is about one of American singer Madonna's most iconic and known songs, "La Isla Bonita". Having nominated this article previously, and having read the comments left by other users, I went source by source, making sure everything mentioned is properly cited. Christian (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Review from Hurricanehink

Support. As a musician familiar with this song, I figured I'd review it, due to having an FAC of my own.

• She also said: "[Pat and I] both think that we were Latin in another life [...] [because] Latin rhythms often dominate our uptempo compositions". - seeing as previously Pat was introduced as Patrick Leonard, perhaps the name should be Patrick here for consistency, especially since it's in a bracket.Done

• Did you fix this? It still says She also said: "[Pat and I] both think that we were Latin in another life ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• What about this? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Thoughts on this? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• "In 2014, while working on her thirteenth studio album Rebel Heart (2015) with producer Diplo, Madonna recorded a dubplate of "La Isla Bonita" with new lyrics that referenced trio Major Lazer.[15] This version premiered in March 2015 on BBC Radio 1Xtra." - I had to look up what a dubplate is... seems like this version is for vinyl release, right? I think a lot more people are aware of vinyl records. Either way, it sounds like it's a new recorded version, correct? If so, are the new lyrics in the form of a new verse, or is it just new vocals? This part comes out of left field and I'm not sure what to make of it. Shouldn't the dubplate version also be included under "Track listing and formats"?
• Done I aditionally changed the mention to the Composition and Lyrics section

• Should this get a mention under "Track listing and formats"? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't found any sources mentioning a release that merits being under the forementioned section, just YouTube and SoundCloud links.

Isn't digital release a format? It just seems odd this version of the song isn't included in this section. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not on itunes/spotify/amazon music; like I mentioned, it is only available on YouTube and soundcloud, and there are many links, and none from an official source.

Yea but Youtube and Soundcloud both cound as release format, don't they? Also, it seems like the remix version is available from the Madonna channel, which is considered the official Madonna channel on YouTube, having almost all of her stuff. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The dubplate Diplo Remix is not included on neither Madonna or Diplo's official YouTube Channel.

• "The song is set in the key of C♯ minor, with Madonna's voice spanning between G3 to C5." - because of the key signature, those notes should be G#3 and C#5. I appreciate you including this information, however.

  Done

• If you're going to be linking to the notes though, it should be linked to G# and C#, not G and C respectively. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Not a complaint, but I also really appreciated the balanced reviews of the song, plus its place in Latin music history in the US.
• "and became the most requested video in the channel's history for a record-breaking 20 consecutive weeks." - was that for TRL? How did people request the video on MTV pre-internet? This was a bit before my time.

  That's how/what the source mentions, that it was the most requested. I tried looking for sources that specify how it was requested (my guess is that people usually phoned the channels) but didn't find any valid sources.

• Yea I see this repeated in a lot of sources, but I don't see any clarification. No huge deal. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• "As of 2018, it is one of her most viewed music videos on YouTube." - what about 6 years later? Or I'm guessing you might not have an updated source, no biggie if that's the case.
• "La Isla Bonita" has been included on eight of Madonna's concert tours: Who's That Girl (1987), the Girlie Show (1993), Drowned World (2001), Confessions (2006), Sticky & Sweet (2008–2009), Rebel Heart (2015–2016), Madame X (2019–2020), and Celebration (2023–2024). On the first one, she wore a Spanish cabaret dress, and was joined by her backup singers Niki Haris, Donna De Lory, and Debra Parson. - just doing a random spotcheck here, but the references here are from 1987 and 1988, so how could those references cite the rest of the tours? Perhaps a source for the songs from Madonna's concert tours? Or otherwise a grouped citation?

  I could cite the tour's program, which mentions the vocalists; it does not, however, specify their participation on the performance.

• Then perhaps just a lumped citation for each tour? Similar to how you have the note saying "attributed to multiple references". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• What about this one? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Hurricanehink:! Just checking back! I quite personally like how this section looks/is structured; lumping citations for each tour, I believe would causeemore notes than necessary.--Christian (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't mind how the section is structured, but there isn't a citation that proves "La Isla Bonita" has been included on eight of Madonna's concert tours. It's implied that the song's appearance is in refs 103 and 104, but that's not the case. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

All in all a great read, and I'm shocked no one else has commented yet! Let me know if you have any questions about these comments. Cheers - ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your great comments @Hurricanehink:--Christian (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Few replies. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Let me see if how I've left it works @Hurricanehink:--Christian (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Just checking how you're doing about my last few comments? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Chrishm21 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Hurricanehink:! Just got back home from a trip so I hadn't got the chance to log in. I have included the citations that mention the song's inclusion on the mentioned concert tours. Let me know--Christian (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Happy to support now. I just fixed the one comment on my own, the one about linking Patrick Leonard, and changing the quote from [Pat and I] to [Patrick and I]. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator note

As per the instructions at the top of WP:FAC, please refrain from using graphics like {{done}} as they slow down the page load time. FrB.TG (talk) 08:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next five or six days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Madonna_-_La_Isla_Bonita.ogg needs a more substantial FUR, particularly purpose of use

• The FUR for File:La_Isla_Bonits_screenshot.jpg indicates that it is replaceable - if that's the case, why do we need a non-free image? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Nikkimaria:! Thank you for your comments; both files are meant to showcase the mentioning of the San Pedro line, and Madonna's Flamenco dancer character from the video--Christian (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

In both cases the rationale should be elaborated in the FUR template on the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Nikkimaria:! Let me know if how I've mentioned on the image talk page is correct.--Christian (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't quite follow the change you've made on the second - is it replaceable, or is it necessary to illustrate what you've said it's illustrating? And I'm not seeing any changes on the first? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Is is replaceable, but I mentioned why this particular screenshot was used. If it were to be replaced, it should first be discussed on the article's talk page. Same for the audio file; I explained the purpose on the section it's used. Let me if it works @Nikkimaria:! Christian (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support, following corrections. Vera (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Apoxyomenus

• Hi, article overall looks good at first glance. Here are some points from a quick view,

The Massachusetts Daily Collegian | It is a student-newspaper, and not sure if is enough reliable to use it.

Charts: West Germany (GfK) (weekly) vs West Germany (Official German Charts), you should use one only. Or GFK or Official German Charts to keep consistensy. The same goes to Iceland (RÚV) while in ref's parameter RÚV is italicized. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

All fixed. Let me know @Apoxyomenus Christian (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Good! Article looks fine to me. Support nomination. Cheers --Apoxyomenus (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Source review & spot-check

Some sources throw a "CS1 maint: others in cite AV media (notes)" error. There are a number of sources saying Billboard or Music & Media but linking https://www.worldradiohistory.com/ and should explain this, and Billboard needs no ISSN. What make https://chrisbungostudios.com/, http://www.chartsinfrance.net/Alizee/news-66412.html, https://www.logotv.com/news/bdtywh/madonnas-55-best-videos-in-honor-of-her-55th-birthday and https://infodisc.fr/Chanson_Certifications.php reliable sources? Does Los 40 need italics or other formatting? Wondering if "Chow, Victoria (2004). Madonna. Metro Media Publishers. ISBN 1-904756-12-3." is a reliable source, and AllMusic. "Consumption and Spirituality" is unused. Google Books needs no archive links. Does "Madonna: The Rolling Stone Files" not have an author? Spot-check of this version:

• 1 Need a quote for 1985.I also think not all of the content is on these two pages.

Page 40 of Madonna: A Biography by Madonna [Mentions the Virgin tour and the year 1985, and flows into '...Madonna was already into her next project that fall, writing and recording for her third studio album, True Blue'

I think the only part missing is "with whom she had worked on her previous album Like a Virgin (1984)" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The forementioned Mary Cross source also mentions Bray: She brought back Stephen Bray and hired a new songwriter... I have added two new sources that mentions Bray's input on both Like a Virgin and True Blue.

• 2 Does not say that the victory tour was in 1984

Per Victory Tour article.

I think it's better to omit the year, then. We can't rely on other Wikipedia articles as sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I've added a source too back up the year of the tour @Jo-Jo Eumerus:.

• 42 Does not mention Ed Schrodt.

Ed Schrodt reviews 'La Isla Bonita' on Slant Magazine's ranking, ref. 43

Where does it say "Ed"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

It's Paul Schrodt, my bad. Again, in the article; the first songs have the name and lastname of the author who's reviewing them (Sal Cinquemani, Eric Henderson, Paul Schrodt and so on) In the case of 'La Isla Bonita' (no. 15 on the ranking), it clearly lists Schrodt as the last name of the reviewer Schrodt = Paul Schrodt

• 56 Where is "On March 21, 1987" and "and one of the most added songs on radio stations"

Lean on Me' hits no. 1 for the 2nd time, by Paul Grein; ['Madonna's 'La Isla Bonita' is the new top entry on this week's Hot 100], dated March 21, 1987

Does that date really reference the debut, rather than the publication of the article? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I've added an additional source

Still not getting it. Perhaps a quote would help. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but what is it you don't get? It's clearly in ref 56 (The week of March 21, 1987) in the original unarchived link, number 49, it says the word 'New' next to the song's title. La Isla Bonita entered the chart, was a new addition to the chart... in the week of March 21, 1987 Same for ref 57 ('Lean on Me'); 'La Isla Bonita' is the top new entry on this week's Hot 100 at No. 49; the issue belongs to the week of March 21, 1987, therefore indicating the song entered the Hot 100 chart in the week of March 21, 1987. I did deleted the 'most added to radio stations' part, as nowhere in the sources does it mention that.

The radio thing was the problem. If it's gone, this one's resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• 66 This should be flagged so that it shows the archived link. It's not on place 58?

Sources taken from chart template.

• 76 OK
• 77 OK
• 82 OK

• 85 Need a quote or something.
• 108 Need a quote or something.

Cite AV Media

• 109 Need a quote or something.

Cite AV Media

'fraid that the photo is too small to make out the date. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Of which one? @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Are the others OK?--Christian (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The Italy one. Also, if the whirlpool image is the Japan one, it doesn't mention either the date or the place. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I've added web sources for all releases @Jo-Jo Eumerus: --Christian (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• 111 Need a quote or something from 110.

  Got the sailors part at least. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  Got 110, supports the rest, is the page number 74-75 correct?

• 154 Need a quote or something.

  Not sure what this source supports. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

It supports the Hasselhoff cover; the screenshot to the book is included on the google drive I shared with you @Jo-Jo Eumerus: --Christian (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• 158 Even accessing both sources, I don't get everything.

The AllMusic link -which by the way is a perfectly valid source used on multiple music-related articles- is that of the Mexican tour edition of Alizee's album; in the tracklisting section, it clearly mentions 'La Isla Bonita'

I remember that for a while, AllMusic was considered to be WP:USERGENERATED which is why I always wonder. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

AllMusic is used in multiple music-related FAs. See 4, Fearless, 1989, Holy Wood, and many more

• 162 This says nothing about leaks or anything untoward.

Native Spanish speaker here; ['la web de fans de la cantante, Breatheheavy, acaba de sacar a la luz = The singer's fansite, Breateheavey, leaked online']

• 175 What does this support?

My bad, it supports the Super Mix Green RSD Exclusive 2019 release

• 178 Where is "Flanders"?

Flanders, the dutch-speaking northern portion of Belgium; per chart-template configuration it shows up like that

I worry that this is a bit WP:SYNTH Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

That's how the chart template is programmed, so I don't see an isse. (See the forementioned featured articles)

What chart template? If it's on Wikipedia, it might need fixing. Same for the one below. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm using the Template:Single chart#Non-Billboard charts

• 186 Need someone who can read Japanese to verify.

* 196 OK

• 205 Pretty sure this source doesn't say "30000 exactly".

It doesn't mention the number, but it does mention the single was certified gold; 30000 was the amount of copies a single needes to sell/ship to be certified gold here in Spain

OK, but in that case it should say "at least 30000" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, per chart-template configuration it cannot be written/pointed out like that.

I don't think the chart-template configuration justifies writing it out like that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

See forementioned featured articles I've linked before. If you believe it should be specified differently, a discussion should be created in the template page.

See Template:Certification Table Entry

Bit many source/text disagreements if this article needs to be watched for fabricated content (per FrB.TG's note at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I've left some comments. I must digress a little and ask if it's really necessary to add quotes for the Harvard citations. I've looked into other featured articles and never once did I encounter this. I look forward to your answer @Jo-Jo Eumerus:--Christian (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant quotes or screenshots or photos here (not in the article) so that I can verify the content. For spotchecks I generally want to see everything for myself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

You want screenshots/photos... of the sources? @Jo-Jo Eumerus:--Christian (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. The relevant pages, at least. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I have posted a link to the Mary Cross (in fact, the most relevant book sources are linked on the 'Literary sources' section) , and found a new one for the Spain chart position -I was not able to access the Salaverri book. For the Cite AV media ones, shall I post the link to the releases sleeves? Let me know if it works. @Jo-Jo Eumerus:--Christian (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The usual ways is by either uploading a screenshot or photo to Google Drive and posting a link here, or by emailing them to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Will get back to you with the other sources in a bit @Jo-Jo Eumerus:--Christian (talk) 14:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

OK. Keep in mind that I'll be busy updating my own articles in these weeks, so I might not respond immediately. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

New comments @Jo-Jo Eumerus:--Christian (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Sent you an email @Jo-Jo Eumerus:.--Christian (talk) 15:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Got it, but I must note that Google Books links are personalized and don't work for everybody. The one you sent to me doesn't work for me, for example. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

-email! @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Christian (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks like it requires a password. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Let me know if it works now @Jo-Jo Eumerus: --Christian (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Jo-Jo Eumerus:! How are you? can you please let me know which sources need to be verified? I'll be out of home this weekend, but will get back on Monday --Christian (talk) 14:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, had computer problems and was working on other Wikipedia articles, so I now lost track a bit. I think I've handled the things you sent me in that Drive? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Jo-Jo Eumerus:! Sorry for the long reply; let me know if all your comments have been addressed. Christian (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Replied by points. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Jo-Jo Eumerus:! See my comments :) --Christian (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I've struck out a point, but there are several sources that still need checking 85, 108 and 186. Regarding 205 and 178, I am not sure if to ask for a fix here or on the talk pages; I don't work on these templates. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Heartfox

Apologies for the late comments, but I am confused by the structure of the critical reception section.

• "Upon release, "La Isla Bonita" was met with generally positive reviews from music critics and authors" opens the first paragraph, but then the majority of the paragraph actually includes retrospective reviews.
• Likewise, there is a retrospective paragraph with general commentary (not just a list of rankings), but retrospective reviews are already used throughout the section so this feels a bit selective.
• I'm also struggling with the second paragraph. There are different sentences about Latin influences, production, and Madonna's vocals, but there is not a theme about this given to readers. It seems like it is supposed to include more specific praise other than the generally positive comments in the previous paragraph, but it still feels wanting? A more effective structure might be a paragraph for each of these aspects, and then go into positive/negative comments there, rather than grouping everything into positive/mixed paragraphs.
• A review is attributed to the Kentucky New Era, but a search on Newspapers.com shows it was actually written by David Bauder of the Associated Press. Likewise, a review is attributed to Ryan Murphy of The Spokesman-Review, but this was actually written by Ryan Murphy of the Miami Herald and then syndicated to The Spokesman-Review. This type of thing leads me to believe there is not much research that has gone on in WP:TWL databases. Not saying you're going to get paragraphs worth of new information, but it doesn't feel like this article meets 1c "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". To only have 3 contemporaneous reviews of the song doesn't feel right; there is more available with a little more research.
• Likewise, a 2016 book chapter by Cambridge University Press (https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316663837.016) includes many pages about the music video, yet this seemingly very useful source is not cited in the article. This is on the first page of Google Scholar, so I'm not sure why it is overlooked.

I will have to oppose at this time per 1a, 1c. Heartfox (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Chrishm21 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry. My trip took a little longer than expected. I'm dealing with some work issues but was able to log in and do some editing. I have corrected the introduction paragraph in the Critical Reception section, in a way that so as to encompass initial and retrospective reviews. Regarding the praise for the song's Latin , the mentioned sources only make emphasis on the "exotic" influence. I think it would be redundant. I have added specified the reviews towards the production and Madonna's vocals. Let me know if it's OK

I have no access to newspapers.com or the Cambridge university website -Not that it's relevant to the subject, but I didn't attend college and therefore can't access through an university- Also, just like newspapers.com, I crated an account but I see it has a cost; right now my wallet doesn't allow me to invest on something like this. Besides, the sources are all properly quoted from the google books sources, so I really don't see the issue. If there's a way to view the ones you mentioned without having to pay, let me know.

Looking forward to your comments! @Heartfox:--Christian (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I linked WP:TWL above; a lot of research can be done for free using these databases. Other paywalled sources can also be requested at WP:RX. But this is something that should be done outside of the FAC process. Heartfox (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Boot Monument

Nominator(s): ‍Relativity ⚡️ 22:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a strange monument located in Saratoga National Historical Park, New York. It is shaped like a boot. However, the monument's honoree is never mentioned on the monument because his name was Benedict Arnold, someone who betrayed the Continental army to the British army. I've brought this article from Start-class to GA-class (review), and then had it reviewed for A-class, which it passed. I think that it's now ready for FAC. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 22:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Working Sorry, I'm inexperienced with alt text. I'm working on reading up on how to add that to an image in an infobox. Hopefully I'll find out soon. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 02:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• I just added draft alt text for the two images. Relativity, feel free to edit the text as you see fit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan

I was a reviewer at the ACR and can support the article for promotion to FA class. I also did the source review and spot checks at the ACR which passed, I can do these again if needed. Matarisvan (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "continued to grow ever more bitter towards the Continental Army when he was passed over for promotion, lost his business, and he was court-martialed" => "continued to grow ever more bitter towards the Continental Army when he was passed over for promotion, lost his business, and was court-martialed"

• Done

• Link Arnold on first use in body

• Linked in Background section; not sure if I need to link it elsewhere

• "American Major General Benedict Arnold had contributed to both Battles of Saratoga" - can we get a bit more context around this? I doubt that almost anyone outside the United States has the faintest idea what/when the Battles of Saratoga were, so you need to explain that this occurred during the American Revolutionary War and potentially even add that this was fought between the Americans and British

• added "two crucial battles of the American Revolutionary War that took place near Saratoga, New York."

• "a writer of several military histories about the Battle of Saratoga" - singular? It was plural earlier

• changed to "battles"

• "the only monument in Saratoga National Park that does not say the name of its honoree" - as a monument can't speak I would suggest that "show the name" would be better

• Done

• "The toe of the Boot Monument was stolen by college boys on a visit" - any idea when this was? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• As I stated in the ACR, unfortunately no. All of the sources that were used in that little section date from 1927-1931, but a specific date is never mentioned. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 18:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• On the last point, I think you should at least state that the "mysterious informer" bit occurred in 1931, because that seems indisputable. Currently there's nothing to give any sort of timeframe whatsoever within the entire 130+ year history of the monument...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: Done. Thanks for the review! ‍Relativity ⚡️ 00:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "However, at the end of the conflict, Arnold's leg and horse were shot. When the horse fell, Arnold's leg shattered." This doesn't really make sense, it is given almost in bullet point. It needs unpacking a litle and expressing in full prose.

• I tried changing it to "While fighting at the Battle of Bemis Heights, Arnold's left leg was severely injured after it had been shot and crushed by his horse, which had been hit by gunfire as well.". Let me know your thoughts.

How's about something like 'While fighting at the Battle of Bemis Heights, Arnold was shot and severely injured in his left leg. His horse was also hit by gunfire and fell on Arnold, crushing his already injured leg.'? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I like it :). Done

• "This contributed to Arnold's bitterness ... This along with the fact that his ..." Could we avoid two consequecutive sentences starting with "This"?

• Both sentences changed

• Also, suggest rephrasing the first 'Along with his combat wounds, business troubles, Congress having promoted some rival and younger generals ahead of him, and a court-martial which resulted in him being convicted of two minor charges of using his role as military commander of Philadelphia to make a profit, this being overlooked caused Arnold to develop a growing bitterness towards the revolutionary cause.' or similar.

• Changed to "In addition, his combat wounds, business troubles, the promotion of rival and younger generals by Congress, and a court-martial conviction of two minor charges of profiting off of his military commander of Philadelphia role further angered Arnold.", although I'm not sure how I feel about it.

"in his report of the aftermath of the battle". Delete "of the aftermath", I assume the report was on the whole battle. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Would 'which angered Arnold. In addition, his combat wounds, business troubles, the promotion of rival and younger generals by Congress, and a court-martial conviction of two minor charges of profiting off of his military commander of Philadelphia role further embittered him.' work better for you?

Better, yes. I've changed it.

• "with Sir Henry Clinton finally offering". Introduce Clinton.

• I added "British General." Hopefully that's enough...

• "and remained as a general there until the war ended." Could we be told the year it ended?

• Done

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• "In a Saratoga Monument Association (SMA) meeting in July of 1882". Introduce the SMA.

• Done

• "There were no objections to the stake." It is a little unclear by this.

• Tried "No one at the meeting objected to the stake being placed"

• "The monument underwent restoration after Adolph S. Ochs, publisher of The New York Times, financed it." Is it known when this restoration took place?

• As I said above, unfortunately no. All of the sources that were used in that little section date from 1927-1931, but a specific date is never mentioned.

• but it was later moved after further research as to where Arnold injured his leg, which was the more southern end of the main redoubt line." This is not clear and could probably be usefully rephrased.

• Tried "The monument was originally located further to the north at the top of the hill at the Breymann Redoubt site, but after further research as to where Arnold injured his leg, the monument was moved further south to where the main fortifications of the redoubt were"

Suggest removing the second "further", but otherwise that looks good.

Removed

• "Appearance" section. This should start with an overall description - not with the inscription. This could be resolved by swapping the first and second paragraphs of the section

• Done

• References: article titles should consistently be in title case, regardless of how they appear in their original.

• Done

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: I think I've addressed everything you've brought up above. Thank you for taking the time to review! ‍Relativity ⚡️ 22:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Grand. A couple of come backs and suggestions above. If I don't respond to something it means I am content. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Addressed everything. Thanks again ‍Relativity ⚡️ 01:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Source review: pass

I'll do this in a little bit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Here are a few comments to start:

• Aryes should be Ayres

• Fixed

• Ayres: I recommend replacing the url with this one that links directly to the book listing, rather than to a word search within the book.

• Fixed

• I can't find the Ayres book in WorldCat, but I can find a 2006 print book with a similar name by the same author. Is the 2008 e-book a less-distributed update on the 2006 print book?

• I suppose so, although I'm not 100% sure. There's a 2006 edition that has less pages than the 2008 edition.

• Ducharme and Fine: the pages parameter should show the page numbering, not the number of pages. For this entry, it should be 1309–1331, not 23.

• Fixed

• Ducharme and Fine: Social Forces appears to be published in Chapel Hill, NC. Where did you find the publication place to be Athens, GA?

• I believe that I had seen that Ducharme and Fine were both from the University of Georgia, and found that the university was located in Athens. Fixing now.

• Duling: I recomment this url in place of the one the article currently uses, for the same reason as the one above for the Ayres book.

• Fixed

• Frothingham: This listing makes it seem like it is for an article called "The Turning Point of the Revolution" by Frothingham and and Nickerson, whereas it is a review by Frothingham of Nickerson's book The Turning Point of the Revolution. You should remove Nickerson as author of the article and change the article title to "Reviewed Work: The Turning Point of the Revolution Hoffman Nickerson". Also add the full page range.

• I'm not sure how I messed this up, but this citation is for the actual book by Hoffman Nickerson. Oops. Hopefully I've fixed that accordingly.

I'll continue looking through the sources and add more comments later. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Here are a few more:

• Wikilink Benson John Lossing

• Done

• Lossing: add New York, New York as location of publication.

• Done

• Lossing: I recommend using this link.

• Done

• Lossing: the url goes to volume 2. If the citation is to that volume, then add the volume number to the works cited listing.

• Added volume number

• Lossing: In a works cited list otherwise entirely composed of publications from the 20th and 21st centuries, this work stands out. Is there not a newer work that can support the claim that Arnold fled to New York to join the British?

• Yes, Philbrick's book works as well. Should I replace it?

• I recommend that you do. WP:OLDSOURCES indicates that newer scholarship should be preferred over older. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Fixed

• I recommend Wikilinking Savas Beatie. It's a redirect to the founder of the company, which is not the most helpful, but I suppose there's a possibility someone will convert that redirect into a real article someday.

• Linked

• Murphy: I recommend using this link.

• Done

• Tonsetic: I recommend this link.

• Done

• Williams: I recommend using this link.

• Done

• Citation 5 is Luzader 2008, p. 388–390 but should be "pp."

• Fixed

• Citation 14 is Randall 1990, pp. 448–540. Is that supposed to be 448–450? 122 pages is way too long a range for this citation to be useful.

• I'd added the wrong pages anyways so I've fixed it now.

• This citation (citation 13 now) still gives 448–540 as the page range. That range is way too long to be helpful to the reader. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I've lost access to the book, but I'll message someone or ask at WP:TREX t. rex... :) to see if they know which pages that appears on specifically.

@Dugan Murphy: Done ‍Relativity ⚡️ 02:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Leopold: I recommend using a citation template like Template:Cite document to fix the formatting issues.

• Done, but now there's no link to the actual document. Is that okay?

• Oh, that url is important. I just changed it myself to Template:Cite report, which supports the inclusion of a url and archive url. The source listing has the important information and it is formatted better, so I think it's good now. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you!

I'll add more later. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

This is the rest of my comments:

• MOS:DATETIES tells me the date format for both the body and the citations should MDY instead of DMY. The exception listed there for articles on the modern US military, including biographical articles related to the modern US military doesn't seem to apply well to a history marker commemorating an 18th-century figure.

• I think I've now fixed all of the instances of dmy.

• When using Template:Poem quote, don't use the source parameter for the citations. That parameter is for the name of the person being quoted, which the reader already knows is the monument. Instead, move the citations to the main body so they attach to the end of the inscription, rather than appear on a new line, preceded by an emdash.

• Moved. Is that what you're looking for?

• I just moved the citations myself. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you (again)

• Watson: Add a publication place since this is not a super well-known publication.

• Added

• I recommend piping The Telegraph Wikilink so "(Nashua, New Hampshire)" doesn't show up in italics.

• Done

• "Find Clue to Missing Monument": Wikilink goes to wrong paper.

• It does? For me it goes where it should. Where does it go for you?

• It's the second use of that newspaper article, which is currently citation 28. The Wikilink goes to The Daily Telegraph instead of The Telegraph (Nashua, New Hampshire). You should use "ref name" anyway so both citations show up as one in the references list. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Fixed

• "May Find Toe of Only Statue to a Left Leg": Since there's no Wikilink for the newspaper, I recommend adding the publication city.

• Done

• Thompson: add publication date.

• Done

• Rather than including "(U.S. National Park Service)" in the web page title, you list National Park Service in the publisher parameter.

• Done

• "Digital Collections": It would be helpful to add New York State Archives using the publisher parameter. Also, capitalize "dedicated". Also, why is this the only web item without an archive link?

• Added publisher, capitalized, and added archive link.

• If The Washington Post is Wikilinked, so should The New York Times.

• Linked

• Coe: Capitalize the article title.

• Done

• I would say you should pipe The Evening Tribune Wikilink, but it goes to the wrong paper anyway. If there isn't a Wiki article for this paper, you should add Providence as the publication place.

• Unlinked and added location

• Duffus's initials appears to be R.I., not R.L.

• Fixed

• I'm of the opinion that information in the infobox shouldn't need citations because it should only summarize information that is already cited in the body. In that regard, I recommend adding to the body the monument's location within the historical park (that info seems to be indicated in the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph of the History section, but it says it is in "Saratoga National Park", not Saratoga National Historical Park, as the lead and infobox indicate. Anyway, once that information is clearly indicated in the body, I think you can remove all citations from the infobox because all that info is already cited in the body.

• Done

Summary: Everything in the works cited list are either books held by university libraries (with the semi-exception of Ayres, per comment above) or articles in academic journals. The inline citations includes a few other sources, which all seem reliable. There's an impressive breadth of scholarship and journalism represented in this article for how short it is. Earwig finds plagiarism unlikely. Most of the similarities it can find are quotes. Citations are consistently formatted with the exception of minor issues, outlined above. Overall, the sources look great and I think all the issues above are very fixable. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Dugan Murphy: I think that I've addressed all of your concerns above, although I have a few questions about the comments you left about Leopold's source, Template:Poem quote, and "Find Clue to Missing Monument". This is a very impressive review and thank you for taking the time to do it! ‍Relativity ⚡️ 00:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

No problem. I'm happy to see articles about esoteric history markers being improved. I've responded to a few things that still need work. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing a few more things. At this point, I think the only thing holding back this source review from passing is the Randall 1990 page range issue above. Dugan Murphy (talk) 12:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Great work with this article, Relativity! I see no other issues holding back this source review from passing. I have an FAC nomination of my own that needs more attention. If you are able to take a look, I would appreciate it. You'll find it here. Dugan Murphy (talk) 12:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

SC - Support

A marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• "The most accepted version of Arnold's contributions,[2] supported by Arnold biographer James Kirby Martin,[3] is that he led troops on the battlefield." The references here are in an odd position. Ref two is only supporting the first seven words of the sentence, while the final eight words are not supported by either of the citations that are supporting it. It would be better to move both to the end of the sentence where they will be supporting everything they need to.

• Done

• "Arnold to start making communications with": This is a bit clunky. Would "Arnold started to communicate with" be an improvement?

• I'm not sure. It sounds a bit odd with the "caused" in front. I changed it to "caused Arnold to start communicating with" though— let me know your thoughts

• "These troubles, along with the fact that his wife, Peggy Shippen, came from a family of Loyalists, caused Arnold to start making communications with the British army, with British general Sir Henry Clinton finally offering Arnold £20,000 (equivalent to £3,353,000 in 2023) for the capture of West Point,[11] a fortification that was important to the control of the Hudson River" This is a monster sentence of sixty words. There are a few places where it could be split in two, but I think that after "British army" would be the best place for a full stop.

• Fixed

• You have "British general" Clinton but "British Major" Andre – consistent formatting would be good

• Fixed— capitalized "General"

• "July of 1882": just "July 1882" would be more in line with the MOS

• Fixed

• Caption of "The Boot Monument from the back": "The reverse of the Boot Monument" may be a bit better?

• Changed

• "It never mentions Arnold": ->"It does not mention Arnold". Even better would be to reframe the whole sentence as "Because of Arnold's defection to the British it does not mention him by name"

• Reframed

• "(see damnatio memoriae)": Dropping a Latin tag, unexplained, in brackets into the prose isn't the best way to deal with it. Either inline ("in an example of damnatio memoriae—Latin for "condemnation of memory"—etc") or include as a footnote.
• Additionally, if it's in Latin, you should use a ... template, which also has the benefit of italicising it
• "Similarly to how Arnold's name does not appear on the Boot Monument because of his betrayal to the British side, the Saratoga" is a bit cumbersome and wordy: "As with the absence of Arnold's name from the Boot monument, the Saratoga" would be better for readers. Again, the two references are floating in the middle of the sentence, not supporting the final part of the sentence - probably best to move them to the end of the sentence.

• Fixed

An interesting piece. I hope these help. - SchroCat (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• @SchroCat: Definitely helped. Thank you for giving it a read! I had one minor qualm with your second point, but otherwise, all is resolved (I hope). ‍Relativity ⚡️ 02:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support All good from me. - SchroCat (talk) 06:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Spotcheck

Spot-checking this revision:

• 6 Can't access this source, but going by commons:Template:PD-US-expired it should be out of copyright, which means that a) you might want to link to a free version, or as Google Books to make its version public and b) is it that good of a source if it's this old?

• I linked to a different Google Books version, which has a free pdf of the book. On the age standpoint of the source, there are other sources in the article that are of a similar or slightly older age, so I'm hesitant to remove it, but I can probably replace it. Let me take a look...

• So I've looked through many sources and I was unable to find a source that supports the fact that Gates' orders reached Arnold after the battle had ended.

Seems like the emailed version checks out.

• 9 Can't access this source.

  Got it, checks out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• 10 Can't access this source.
• 19 Doesn't say he was a major general of the New York State Militia.

• I couldn't find a reliable source that said specifically that he was a major general of the New York State militia, so I altered the text slightly and supported it with a source that was already in use.

• 20 Doesn't say that de Peyster was a historian.

• Added source; see above

• 22 OK
• 23 OK

• 25 Google Books supports most, save for 1975.
• 26 Google Books supports.
• 27 OK

• 31 Partly supported by the Google Books snippet.
• 32 OK
• 35 OK
• 37 Can't access this source.
• 39 OK
• 41 Is two-stars = major general?

• The two-star part is actually supported by citation 42, so I moved citations 40 and 41 to where citation 42 is located. To answer your question, yes, two-star does mean major general, so I've clarified that.

• 42 OK
• 44 Can't access this source.
• 47 Can't access this source.
• 49 Can't access this source.

By the by, I don't think that the New York Times requires an ISSN.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I think that I've addressed everything you brought up here, unless I've missed something. Thank you for doing the spotcheck! ‍Relativity ⚡️ 04:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  Um, yeah, I wasn't clear - the sources I can't access also need to be verified. That means that either a) an uninvolved editor with access checks them or b) you send me copies of the pages questioned. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Jo-Jo Eumerus: So slight problem. I don't have email enabled, and I don't know how else to send you some of the sources which would be tricky to get access to. What do you suggest I do? ‍Relativity ⚡️ 03:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  I've seen people using them on temporary Google Drives and then post a link. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Bit the bullet and added an email on file. Working... ‍Relativity ⚡️ 03:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Relativity, Jo-Jo, two weeks on, what's the state of play? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild @Jo-Jo Eumerus I've sent all of the sources (Jo-Jo: I believe I also sent source 47 as well) except for source 10, but there's been a bit of a problem on my end regarding that source. I just got access to it again but there might be a discrepancy regarding the page numbers, which I'm trying to resolve. However, I plan to send that source in today. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 18:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

All sources have been sent. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 02:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Marked most as done, but I don't think I got all sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I just sent you source 47. Am I missing any other sources that you need to access? ‍Relativity ⚡️ 18:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

No, only two Google Books things that I can't verify. Remember that GBooks doesn't display the same thing to everyone. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)