Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nominations

Cherry on Top (Bini song)

Nominator(s): Royiswariii Talk! 15:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

All's eyes on us! Cherry on Top is here on FA Nom!

Bini Cherry on Top is deserve to nominate on FA because of the hype and featuring on all social media. Not just on the Philippines, but Worldwide like MTV, Popcrave etc. The boom of popularity of this song or the rising of Bini is deserve to be FA.

Little Background to girl group: Bini (Formerly Star Hunt Academy Girls or SHA Girls) is a Filipino girl group formed in 2019 through ABS-CBN Star Hunt Academy (SHA). The group composed by eight members: Aiah, Colet, Maloi, Gwen (singer), Stacey, Mikha, Jhoanna, and Sheena.

Background to the song: Cherry on Top is a bubblegum pop and was released on July 11, 2024 through Star Music. This song was topped chart on iTunes Philippines and became top trending music video on YouTube. It is rare or let say have a recognition on other countries especially to U.S because Cherry on Top was featured on NBA and perfomed by Los Angeles Clippers during the halftime show (This is the game Toronto Raptors versus LA Clippers).

This is my first time to nominated on FA so I expect have a problems here and open for criticism, changes on the article or you have suggestions, i will appreciate that. I love Modern OPM songs and I am a Blooms, it might not a Conflict of Interest just because of biases on the girl group (Lol).

Again, I will appreciate all your feedbacks and I will entertain as much as I can. And if you not familliar on some sources you might check WP:TAMBAY/RS where the sources on the Philippines is here (not might completely here). Thanks! Royiswariii Talk! 15:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to oppose here. Aside from the very thin and short nature of the article, the prose isn't up to FA standard (short stubby sentences rarely are). I also can't see anywhere in the body that supports the opening paragraph's claim that "its lyrical theme includes confidence" – such an error is a huge red flag for me.
  Terms such as pagmamano, balikbayan box, walis tingting and pandesal all need at least an explanation in the footnotes as we have a global readership who won't have a clue what these are. There are also a few MOS blips along the way that need sorting out. - SchroCat (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Heartfox

• "It was released on July 11, 2024, by Star Music" → can convert to active voice: "Star Music released it on July 11, 2024." (also, some info on the nature of the release would be helpful: promo single, single, a debut single, lead single, etc.?
• "and its lyrical theme includes confidence" → suggest converting this to a separate sentence and expanding on it. a "lyrical theme" is something, it doesn't really "include" something
• "with Bini members Colet and Maloi participating in the songwriting process" → this is confusing as we are previously told it was "Written by Boy Matthews and Gaby Ramirez". participation but not credited?
• "The song topped the iTunes Philippines Top Songs chart and became the top trending music video on YouTube, garnering two million views in less than 24 hours after its release." → Per WP:SINGLEVENDOR, we generally don't care about iTunes, especially as this song entered main Billboard charts for Philippines anyways. Ditto "culminating in topping Spotify's Daily Top Songs chart".
• "On November 17, 2023, Bini released" → we need to pretend readers are starting the article at the body, as the lead summarizes rather than introduces. Right now there is no description of what Bini is like there is in the lead.
• I find the background section lacking as it mostly focuses on past commercial successes rather than including a sense of artistry, vision, personal life, recording career, etc.
• The music video section generally doesn't come after the composition section.

Based on these examples, I would have to oppose right now. I would encourage revision of the article's prose and structure and hope to see it back at FAC in the future. Best, Heartfox (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Eternal Blue (album)

Nominator(s): mftp dan ^oops 14:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Greetings FAC, and happy holidays.

This article is about the debut studio album by Spiritbox, a work of musical art I consider to be a magnum opus of heavy metal. Spiritbox are groundbreakers in mixing metalcore with post-metal, and with this record they have become by far my favorite metalcore group from North America. I originally wrote this from spare parts on the band's page, and achieved good article status for it back in August 2023. I was left some helpful feedback by a reviewer who treated it in the style of a featured article, which I have since taken.

I attempted FAC for this last April, but it was closed in June as unsuccessful. I have expanded information of the album's content and promotion significantly since then and, after a copyedit, I am confident enough to go for another round. I'm really excited for this one, because I actually created this article and hope to reach the Four Award with it. mftp dan ^oops 14:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

GL Mk. I radar

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a British radar system that aided the Army's anti-aircraft gunners. I think it's interesting because it was so low-tech that it helped convince the Germans that British radars were not very good (along with the similar MRU, an article I'll get to) and the amusing bit about it causing a nationwide shortage of chicken wire.

The article went through A-class some time ago, and it looks like I'll have some time to work it over the holidays, so here goes... Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• Don't use fixed px size

• Why are there two of File:GL_Mk._II_radar_transmitter.jpg?

• File:GL_Mk._II_radar_transmitter.jpg: source link is dead

• File:GL_Mk_IIIc_radar_Accurate_Position_Finder.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Queries: (1) what should I use instead of fixed px sizes? (2) should I use an archive URL for the dead link, or find another page with the same image? (3) There are two copies of the one image simply because we needed one to be in the lede for the DYK - I'm trolling the web looking for one to replace it at the bottom. (4) Canadian pic, what do I need in this case, a second tag for the US as well? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Morlaix

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Another in my long running Lance and Longbow series, this article is about the first significant clash on land of both the Hundred Years' War and the Breton Civil War. A large French army attacked a smaller, possibly much smaller, English force and it ended badly. I am much reminded of Wellington on British cavalry 500 years later.

Our officers of cavalry have acquired a trick of galloping at everything. They never consider the situation, never think of manoeuvring before an enemy, and never keep back or provide a reserve.

This has recently been much expanded by me and is fresh from a GAN review by Serial Number ^Redacted so thorough as to approach the rigorous. All comments, concerns and complaints are welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

HF

I'll review this soon. Hog Farm _Talk 18:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• "He was released in 1943 on condition that he gave up the struggle. " - Was he released by the Free French or the Vichy? The date appears to be wrong

Vichy. His goalers freed him in the chaos of the German take over. Clarified.

• " By July Joanna had been forced back to the far west of Brittany" - is this an alternate name of Jeanne of Flanders?

Sorry, as this is the English language Wikipedia they should be standardised as "Joanna". They are now.

• Is there a link for cog as referenced in the caption?

Linked.

• "Northampton's 1,350 men are described by the historian Jonathan Sumption as being half men-at-arms and half archers. while Kelly DeVries says most were archers" - comma after archers instead of the period, or were you intending this to be two sentences?

Whoops. Comma inserted. (Not something I type very often.)

The sources all look to be reliable from a quick glance. I don't think I have anything else to add to this. Hog Farm _Talk 20:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Hog Farm. Is that it? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Yep, looks good to me. The GA reviewer didn't leave much for later reviewer to complain about. Supporting. Hog Farm _Talk 21:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size

• File:CarlosIdebritania.jpg needs a US tag

• File:Miniatura_dei_Carmina_regia_02.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

Another clear, well sourced and highly readable article from Gog about the Hundred Years' War. I look forward to supporting its elevation to FA, but first a few quibbles and carps.

• "and was shot to pieces by the English archers using longbows, it then broke without making contact" – needs a stronger stop than a comma.

Replaced with a semi colon. That do?

Yup. Tim riley talk 17:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• "his younger half brother, John of Montfort, claiming the dukedom; Joan was married to Charles of Blois, a well connected and militarily orientated French nobleman" – and there will be fisticuffs if Gog again persists in forgetting my wise words about three missing hyphenations and, in "orientated", two superfluous letters.

Oh deary me. Clearly old - and incorrect - habits die hard. Fixed. Um; I can only fond two missing hyphens. Should "militarily oriented" be hyphenated?

You're right, I think that the last doesn't need a hyphen, and I withdraw.

• "Philip found the idea of having a relative as the duke attractive, it would bring the traditionally semi-autonomous province more firmly under royal control" – another comma splice that needs a stronger stop.

Semi coloned.

• "Their fleet of 260 ships, including an unknown number of galleys, took the Genoese by surprise and 11 of their ships were burnt" – 11 Genoese ships, I presume, but it isn't entirely clear. If my assumption is correct may I suggest "took the Genoese by surprise, burning 11 of their ships"?

Restructured to, hopefully be clearer.

• "a force far inferior to that of the French" – we've been here before, too. Numerically inferior no doubt, but let's not get judgemental here. Perhaps just "a force far smaller..."?

Tweaked.

• "Edward III was planning to follow on with a substantial force, so Northampton's first mission was..." – I write as an old codger, and many younger non-codgers may disagree, but I don't regard "so" as a proper conjunction in formal English prose. In my view you need "and so" here.

Humf I say, as an old codger myself. Now "proper".

• "Morlaix is approximately half way between Brest and Guingamp" – I was going to ask for a hyphen here, but to my surprise the OED renders "halfway" in this sense as a single, unhyphenated word, so there you are!

:-)

• "Charles left it well-provisioned and well-garrisoned" – neither hyphen is wanted.

SOme people are never happy. Repositione elsewhere in the article.

• "Charles' force greatly outnumbered the English" – we've been through this before: if Charles is to be pronounced à la française then plain ess-apostrophe is right, but as John isn't Jean in your text and Philip isn't Philippe I think we are firmly in the realm of anglicised renderings of French names, and so Charles would be pronounced with an "s" on the end and the possessive would be Charles's.

A barbarous usage. Reworded to avoid the necessity.

But there are still five incidences of Charles' without an ess-apostrophe-ess. Or are you saying that just ess-apostrophe is right? Tim riley talk 17:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Even this was only sufficient for perhaps fifteen minutes continuous shooting" – either fifteen minutes' continuous shooting (with apostrophe) or fifteen minutes of continuous shooting.

Drat! Good spot.

• "although as the battle wore on the rate of fire would slow" – you and I are at one about eschewing superfluous commas, but I think a comma here would usefully break up "the battle wore on the rate"

I try hard not to argue with you over such things, if only because I usually lose. But for the life of me I cannot see where a comma might permissibly fit, much less improve the flow; although any possibility would certainly break up the flow. You have my permission to insert a comma into the sentence wherever you think best.

I'd put a comma after "on", but it's your text and I don't presume to pontificate. Tim riley talk 17:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Modern historians differ as to its composition." – This is the fourth "as to" in the text and one does begin to notice it. Perhaps just "about" here and there?
• "was made more difficult for the French by their mercenary crossbowmen having deserted" – have I bored you before about gerunds? Well I'm going to again. Grammatically this sentence should be " ... their mercenary crossbowmen's having..." but as that is a lumpen piece of prose, may I suggest "made more difficult for the French because their mercenary crossbowmen had deserted"?

You certainly may. (I am pleased to hear that your AI Gog is all but indistinguishable from the real one.) Changed.

• "the first time the English tactic of deploying their men-at-arms on foot with massed longbowmen on either flank was used outside Britain" – this is bound to pique your readers' interest, and it would be a kindness to add a footnote saying when and where it was used in these islands. And are you sure "Britain" rather than "England" is wanted here?

Re Britain, unless you wish to claim just outside Perth as English, which would be likely to pique some readers. I was considering adding a short paragraph to the main article about where historians consider Morlaix fits in the development of the English tactics. It seemed a bit of an overloaded, but this morning it seemed more reasonable. What do you think? Whatever it is I shall either footnote or main article the information, although it may not be for a couple of days due to social committments.

It was just a suggestion and I leave it in your hands. Tim riley talk 17:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

That's all from me. I hope some or all is helpful. Tim riley talk 15:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

As ever, all of it is most helpful Tim. Thank you. Most comments actioned and all responded to. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

After final rereading I'm happy to sign on the dotted line and support the consecration of this article as an FA. Tim riley talk 19:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Belvidere Apollo Theatre collapse

Nominator(s): Departure– (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the collapse of a theater venue in Illinois which had been hosting a sold-out concert. This is my first FA nomination, and the article has been out for around a week; it was assessed as B class and I've significantly expanded it since then. I have around 98% authorship but from my spot checks everything's cited, no tags are present in the article, and it has a good mix of sources. I do cite a Facebook post but I believe it's acceptable as a matter-of-fact statement by the Belvidere Fire Department. Departure– (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments from EF5

I love to see this at FAC, and I'll neutrally give feedback:

• Images need alt texts.
• A second paragraph in the lede would be marvelous, or at least paragraph out the current one.
• NWS -> National Weather Service for consistency.
• Template:2023 tornado outbreaks should be added.

Will do a prose review soon, but these are my opening comments. :) E_F⁵ 16:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for the suggestions! Departure– (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Now that my anxiety is a little simmered down, a prose lede review:

• Lede:

• causing the ceiling of the theater to suffer a critical structural failure and collapse onto a sold-out concert headlined by the death metal band Morbid Angel. Although not required, I'd suggest rewording this to say "causing the ceiling of the theater to cave in and subsequently collapse onto a sold-out concert headlined by the death metal band Morbid Angel".
• with over 200 in attendance 200 what? "people" or "concertgoers" should go after the "200".
• and was determined to have had winds of 90–100 miles per hour (140–160 km/h) struck the theater, The "km/h)" should have a comma at the end and as a result the comma after the "theater" should be removed. While we're at this sentence, , causing the failure of the lower roof structure, with large amounts of debris falling into the venue should probably reworded to say ", causing the failure of the roof's lower structure; large amounts of debris fell into the venue as a result".
• Multiple people were buried by debris caused by the collapse How many? It's best to be specific where possible.
• which was met with a swift response per WP:PEACOCK, I'd remove the "swift", but that's just a suggestion.
• one was pronounced dead at the scene and 27 were taken to hospitals by ambulance, out of a total 48 that suffered non-fatal injuries. As above, one what? While I do know that it's referring to, some readers may not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by EF5 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

For the first claim, we have next to no detail surrounding the specific means of collapse, so saying that the ceiling caved in would come without RS media's support. The wind speed thing bypassed my spot checks when I rewrote the lede. Over 200 in attendance will be changed to over 200 in the venue; I'm using "multiple" because the figure was over 10 but was never specified and 48 injuries occurred. I believe the swift response thing is discussed in RS media, and it is known that debris from the collapse made it onto the stage so I can't say anything about specifics other than the fatality being a concertgoer. Departure– (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I've gotten the above claims adjusted but the swift response claim will have to be verified by me later on. I believe the speed of the response was emphasized in the press conference, but if you see it in the lede but not the article that means I'll have to add it in the prose with a citation. Departure– (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually, no, it's already cited. Comments on the response were in the article, and are cited to Alicia Tate-Nadeau who my work here and on the 2021 Naperville tornado gave her her first links related to actual disaster response. Speaking of, this should be added to the disaster response project. @EF5:, you're more familiar with the rating tool, could you do that for me? Cheers! Anyway the quote is [i]f it wasn't for the fast and coordinated efforts, on Friday night, we would have seen a more tragic outcome from events from today and it's cited to Pritzker's visit to Belvidere under the Aftermath section. Departure– (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Done, good job! I'll take one last look tomorrow, and apologies if I did something wrong as I've never really commented on an FAC before. :) E_F⁵ 21:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

1914–15 Gillingham F.C. season

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

For my 37th nomination of a Gillingham F.C. season, we jump back 90 years from my most recent nom. This particular season took place against the backdrop of the first year of the First World War and the decision to play on was controversial. Following the football authorities finally giving in to public sentiment, the final game of this season would prove to be Gillingham's last game for more than four years. As ever, any feedback will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The Suicide of Rachel Foster

Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

As people say, second time's the charm. This article is about an Italian-made video game that received attention for its treatment of suicide and pedophilia. A walking simulator in the style of Firewatch, players control Nicole Wilson as she explores the Timberline Hotel, inspired by the one from The Shining. Years prior, her father Leonard had groomer her classmate Rachel Foster, and after this "affair" was discovered, Rachel killed herself. Despite attempt by the developers to treat the game's topics sensitively, most critics seemed to think they failed, romanticising the Rachel/Leonard relationship and forcing players to kill themselves in the ending. A sequel is in the works, so I guess we'll have to see if the developers took some of the criticism into account for creating The Fading of Nicole Wilson. Article has undergone some work since the previous nomination and has also been copyedited. PanagiotisZois (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Image review and Support from Crisco

• Returning from the first go, prose seems to have been tightened a bit. I've made some edits; please review. Only concern right now is the sequel; it's standing on its own in a one-sentence section, which doesn't really say FA to me. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  Should I just remove the section and put the citation in the lede? PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  Might work under release, especially if the company cited commercial/critical success as a driving factor. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, outside of briefly mentioning that a sequel is in the works, nothing else is brought up in the source. Which is also the only one to even discuss the development of a sequel. PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  Alright. Maybe merge to "#Release"? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  Has been merged, per our discussion. I'm happy to reiterate my support for this article.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  Hiya, I saw you removed the contractions from the article and I was wondering why? I assume it is just less encyclopaedic but if there was any other reasoning I'd like to know so I can be better. Moritoriko (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  Hi Moritoriko. We are not supposed to use contractions in Wikipedia's voice, per MOS:CONTRACTIONS. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for the link to the relevant section of the MOS! It's It is so big that I am sure I have read that section before and then forgotten it. Cheers~ Moritoriko (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Image review - Nikkimaria's recommendations were implemented at the first nomination, and have been maintained here. Looks good. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Jon698

• This is included in the release section: "The Suicide of Rachel Foster was developed by the Italian studio One-O-One Games—using Unreal Engine 4—and published by Daedalic Entertainment.[9][7] It was directed by Daniele Azara and the music was composed by Federico Landini.[8]" Wouldn't it be more fitting to have this at the beginning of the development section? Jon698 (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• I feel like the last sentence of the second paragraph in the lede would be better as the first sentence of the third paragraph. You could also change the current first sentence to "It received mixed reviews from critics." if you did that. Jon698 (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Jon698: Both done. PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Virtual Self (EP)

Nominator(s): Skyshiftertalk 21:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Third time's the charm!

Following the release of Worlds, Porter Robinson felt pressured to release a follow-up album with a similar sound, but couldn't come up with anything. His idea, then, was to break expectations and change his musical style completely, just as he had done with Worlds. This resulted in the Virtual Self alias and its self-titled EP, where he used the early 2000s as his main inspiration for visuals and sound. Following the recent promotion of Worlds, here is another article of a Robinson album that I believe is ready for FAC. Thank you! I'd like to invite the past nominations' and PR participants (LunaEclipse, Heartfox, Dylan620, and Dxneo) to participate in this nomination if they wish.

Skyshiftertalk 21:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Support from Dylan620

My concerns from the last nomination and the PR have been addressed, and I am happy to support this time around. Best of luck with the FAC! Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Aoba47

Apologies in advance as I will not be able to do a full review for this article, but I hope that these comments are helpful:

• This part, (releasing his debut studio album Worlds (2014), a deviation from his earlier sound), is unclear as there is not any context provided for this "earlier sound" or the sound for Worlds.
• I am uncertain about this part, (The alias is represented by two characters created by Robinson). I understand that it is focused on the different tempos for the EP's songs and it does follow after sentences on the EP's genre and sounds, but the mention of the persona comes off rather abruptly. I wonder if there is a way to make this transition more smoothly.
• Why is the persona used for this sentence, ( Virtual Self's visuals present cryptic messages and a mysterious atmosphere.), while throughout the earlier sentences reference Porter Robinson by his name?
• For this part, (Porter Robinson was initially known for his "aggressive" electro and complextro sound), attribution would need to be provided in the prose to clearly identify who is saying this quote.
• I do see a fair amount of repetition in the prose. For the first paragraph in the "Background" section, "released" is repeated for ("In 2012, he released 'Language', his first song" and "Two years later, Robinson released his"), and the first sentence from that section has "with releases such as", which adds to the repetition. The second paragraph from the same section has repetition with "follow-up" and there is repetition in this sentence, (Ultimately, Robinson resisted this idea, as he could not come up with new ideas or create anything he was satisfied with.) I would double-check the article for this type of repetition.
• For this sentence, (It was acclaimed and had an impact on the electronic dance music scene.), I would clarify who is making these claims. Is it critics, fans, etc.? Clearer attribution would help, and it would avoid having this sentence be in passive voice.
• I am uncertain about the use of the word "idea" in this part, (Ultimately, Robinson resisted this idea), as this is referencing something Robinson himself thought. I just do not think "idea" works for something that Robinson himself is describing about his own music.
• I am uncertain about this part, (Robinson realized that musical tropes from the early 2000s, albeit obsolete,). How can a "musical trope" become obsolete?
• Going back to the repetition point from earlier, I would see if you could avoid saying Robinson's last name twice in this sentence: (In August 2016, Robinson released "Shelter", a collaboration with Madeon that Robinson believed to be successful.)
• The last paragraph of the "Background" section comes off as a bit list-y with the dates, specifically with the repetition of the "In X year". I would see if there is a way to better and more cohesively represent this information.

Best of luck with this FAC. I wanted to leave these comments as I do notice issues with the prose in the lead and the little bit of the actual article that I have read. Based on what I have read, I do not think the prose is on the level expected for a FA/FAC, but I am not going to oppose as I have not read the entire article. I hope that this is helpful, and I hope you have a great rest of weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Aoba47, "I am going to oppose"? Missing a "not" based on the context...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for catching that and notifying me about that. Apologies for missing that. I have revised my original comment to add that in. Aoba47 (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Obsessed (Olivia Rodrigo song)

Nominator(s): NØ 11:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Moving onto a (somewhat?) bigger hit from Guts to spice things up, here is "Obsessed" from the album's deluxe edition. The song was a major highlight from her Guts World Tour and a fan-favorite long before she finally got around to releasing it as a single. There is something about Rodrigo's music that can make one feel like an angsty teenager no matter how old they are, and this song is a good example of that! I am sure reading it will be just as fun as it was writing it. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.NØ 11:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

NegativeMP1

I'll review this one as compensation for failing to review Can't Catch Me Now when it was at FAC. I'll get to this when I clear out the backlog of other articles I'm reviewing at the moment, shouldn't take any more than a few days. λ NegativeMP1 22:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Medxvo

• "two minutes and 50 seconds long" - "2 minutes and 50 seconds long" / "two minutes and fifty seconds long"—MOS:NUMNOTES
• "He plays guitar; St. Vincent plays guitar; and Garret Ray plays drums" - "played"?
• "Obsessed" is also about insecurity, channeling the negative inner voice in teenagers' minds and their persistent obsessive and envious thoughts" - shouldn't there be an oxford comma here? otherwise it's kind of confusing
• "described "Obsessed" as a "banger" ..... added that it was a "banger" like Katy Perry's song ..." - too many bangers here? :d
• "Miss Still His 'Closest Friend'" - "Miss Still His 'Closest Friend'"
• "It concludes with her cleaning up ..." - "The video concludes with her cleaning up ..."
• "On the Guts World Tour, "Obsessed" appears ..." - "On the Guts World Tour (2024–2025), "Obsessed" appears
• "the "most badass moment" ..." - "the show's "most badass moment" ..."
• Why are we not including the certifications in the lead?
• Check if you can use this source instead of the YouTube reference

That's all I've got, hope the comments are helpful. Best of luck! Medxvo (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the helpful comments! All of these should be addressed now. I hope you are enjoying the weekend.--NØ 06:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Support. Medxvo (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• ""Obsessed" became Rodrigo's seventh song to reach the top 10 on the Pop Airplay chart and ninth on the Hot Rock & Alternative Songs chart. " - given that these charts don't have "country-specific" names and you just named a load of different countries, maybe specify that these two charts are American.....?
• "Dan Nigro produced every single track on it" - the word "single" is redundant and can be removed
• "12 of the 25 songs recorded made it onto the standard edition of Guts" - probably not technically wrong but I always think that a sentence starting with a number written in digit form doesn't look great. Any way to reword....?
• "St. Vincent played guitar" - link St. Vincent, who hasn't been mentioned at this point
• "It later incorporates ripped guitars, warped vocals" - not sure what either of these adjectives means in this context, is there a link or an alternative explanation?

• There is no relevant wiktionary entry on either, unfortunately. I have swapped out "warped vocals" for "distorted vocals", but replacing "ripped" with "shredded" like the Billboard Philippines source states might hurt rather than help so I have kept the current wording.

• "He and the Official Charts Company's George Griffiths described "Obsessed" as a "banger"" => "He and the Official Charts Company's George Griffiths both described "Obsessed" as a "banger""
• "it was a good song like Katy Perry's "I Kissed A Girl" (2008) and Charli XCX's album Sucker (2014)." - this wording is a little odd - the writer thought that "Sucker" (an album) was "a good song".....?
• Not critical to this review, but bear in mind that the various present tense verbs describing her performances on the Guts tour will need to be changed to past tense once the tour ends
• That is what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for the great review, as always, ChrisTheDude. All addressed!--NØ 07:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Hotline Miami

Nominator(s): λ NegativeMP1 06:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

"No matter who you are, bearing too much weight... inevitably leads to the collapse of everything." - Don Juan

Hotline Miami is a lot of things. It's a highly influential and critically acclaimed indie game (considered one of the best games of all time, actually), a very successful title that put its publisher Devolver Digital on the map, a cult classic, a driving force being the rise of synthwave, and a lot more. It also happens to be my favorite video game of all time, which motivated me to put in the effort required to bring this article here today, starting back in April 2023. I've actually rewritten this article twice, once in 2023 (which led to a quickfailed GAN, not exactly my proudest moment) and again throughout this year. And this time around, I opted to use more high-quality sourcing, like academic sources and more retrospective articles commenting on all aspects of the game. And that time, it actually passed GAN (reviewed by Nub098765). Now, with the extra work I have done on the article since then, I believe that all high-quality sourcing about the game has been exhausted, creating what I believe to be the most comprehensive source of information on the game available. And with that, I believe that it should have little in its way from becoming a featured article. Its sequel passed FAC earlier this year, and I hope that here, the first game will be able to join it with a star of its own. I look forward to reading and addressing any comments. λ NegativeMP1 06:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Pokelego

Disclaimer: I am reviewing this as part of a review swap with the nominator. Not leaving comments on Lead and Gameplay among other areas because I did not find any noticeable problems with them.

Synopsis

-Looks very good, but I feel Richter needs some elaboration since he comes out of nowhere and I have no idea what his actual role in the story is.

Themes and analysis

-Again, very well-done. My only major gripe is, again, certain characters are only brought up here like they've been brought up before; I have no idea who Don Juan and Rasmus are because they haven't been acknowledged before now. While I can infer their significance, it would be good to clarify that they're the masked personas and that the personas have different tints before introducing them.

Reception

-Could the GameSpot source be more specific? What aspects of boss fights were irritating and where did the reviewer feel the game slipped up?

-"instead "serving as a mirror to the player." I feel this quote is very good, but at the same time could potentially be confusing on a first read. Maybe paraphrase this one, if possible?

Legacy

-"Many of these similar narrative themes, gameplay mechanics, or soundtracks to Hotline Miami" I assume this is meant to be "Many of these include similar narrative..."?

Overall this article is fantastically well-written and I have very few overall issues. Patch up the above and I'd be happy to Support. I will do a source check at some point in the upcoming days as well. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 14:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

All of the above should be addressed. Though with the GameSpot reviewer one, he himself was kinda vague, only pointing out the boss fights and something about the games dialogue that I don't think can be properly written into reception. Nevertheless, I've done what I could. λ NegativeMP1 16:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Steele's Greenville expedition

Nominator(s): Hog Farm _Talk 19:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

This was a little-known operation during the Vicksburg campaign, not to be confused with the better-known Steele's Bayou expedition. Grant and Sherman sent Steele's division up to Greenville, Mississippi, and then down Deer Creek, destroying cotton and supplies along the way. Additionally, the operation served as a bit of a diversion of Confederate attention from the main show further downriver. Some historians have opined that this operation is evidence of shifting Union views on forced emancipation, the use of Black troops, and the application of total war. Ironically, Sherman, who has historically known as a proponent of hard war, objected to some of the actions against civilians during the operation. Hog Farm _Talk 19:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Graham Beards

I have taken the liberty of making a few edits, which I am happy to discuss. There are a few other expressions that I think can be improved:

• Here "The naval historian Myron J. Smith and the historians William L. Shea and Terrence J. Winschel state that around 1,000 slaves were freed, while the historian Timothy B. Smith states that estimates range to up to 2,000 or 3,000 slaves followed Steele's column back to Greenville." Why do our US contributors always have to write "state that" instead of the simpler "said" or "say"?
  • I've rephrased these; it's an Americanism but I'm not sure why. Hog Farm _Talk 16:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• Here "Both Sherman and Steele believed that Union troops had gone too far in behavior that affected civilians, rather than just targeted the Confederate war goals." Should this be "targeting"?
  • Yes, I've fixed this. Hog Farm _Talk 16:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• "Going forward" is such a cliche!
  • Rephrased this sentence. Hog Farm _Talk 16:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• Here "although other operations such as Grierson's Raid also played a role in that." I think the "in that" is redundant.
  • Removed. Hog Farm _Talk 16:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I might have more comments later. Graham Beards (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text
  • I've added alt text, although I would appreciate if someone checked what I used for the maps. Hog Farm _Talk 02:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
• Suggest scaling up the second map
  • I've scaled it up to upright=1.6; please feel free to adjust to a different scaling if you think it would be an improvement. Hog Farm _Talk 02:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
• File:Frederick_Steele.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: - Would this clear derivative of the photo published in 1893 be sufficient support for pre-1929 publication for a PD-US tag? Hog Farm _Talk 02:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• • • Think so. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

How You Get the Girl

Nominator(s): Medxvo (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a song from Taylor Swift's 2014 album 1989. It was used in a Diet Coke commercial that stars the second-richest cat in the world, Olivia Benson, and has been performed in Swift's world tours since 2015. Fun fact—the choreography of the 1989 World Tour's performance was compared by several publications to Singin' in the Rain (1952).

I would like to thank Ippantekina, Dxneo, Gained, Heartfox, Brachy0008, and MaranoFan for being generous enough to participate in the PR and provide some constructive and helpful comments. Following the peer review, I believe the article is ready to be a FA, and I would appreciate any comment from everyone including the peer reviewers. Medxvo (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

support. article looks really great and as a final note, im really proud of you (and how you've helped grown the article). thanks for everything. =D brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 10:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so so much, Brachy! This means a lot to me :)) Medxvo (talk) 13:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

ur welcome =D brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 12:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Heartfox

• "Some critics praised the song as catchy and energetic: they particularly highlighted the chorus and how the track combines acoustic and electronic elements" → maybe semicolon rather than colon? – the first statement doesn't really "introduce" the second
• "It incorporates" → The record incorporates
• "was produced by Swift and Christopher Rowe, who had produced her" → "was produced by Swift and Christopher Rowe; the pair had produced her"
• "Swift sings in the outro of the song, "And that's how it works / that's how you got the girl". The outro, which is written in past tense, suggests a reunion between the two lovers and a happy ending." → "The outro, which is written in past tense, suggests a reunion between the two lovers and a happy ending. Swift sings, "And that's how it works / that's how you got the girl"."
• "Reviewing "How You Get the Girl (Taylor's Version)", critics praised the song's production and energetic sound; The Atlantic's Spencer Kornhaber deemed it one of 1989 (Taylor's Version)'s adrenaline-pumping and centerpiece tracks and Slant Magazine's Jonathan Keefe commented that the production "packs even greater heft" on the new version and considered it one of the tracks that validates the re-recorded album" → too much for one sentence
• "reached number four on the Billboard Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles chart" → the date would be relevant
• ""How You Get the Girl (Taylor's Version) reached number 29" → missing last song title quote mark
• suggest replacing E! with a better source of possible

Best, Heartfox (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @Heartfox: Thanks for the comments! I believe I've addressed all of them, let me know if anything needs further adjustments. Hope you're doing well :) Medxvo (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Support, all addressed. Great work! If you are interested, I have a FAC currently open. Heartfox (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

NØ

Thanks for the ping! I will read through the article again during the weekend to make sure I did not miss anything at the PR. Just two comments for now.

• The names and locations of studios in the infobox seem to be separated by brackets instead of commas on the other 1989 articles.
• The sample caption does not need a period as there is no main verb.--NØ 19:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for noting these, should be done now :) Hope you're having a good day! Medxvo (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Support, all addressed. Great work! If you are interested, I have a FAC currently open. NØ 11:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Vanishing (song)

Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

"Vanishing" is the first song that Mariah Carey ever produced. I started this article about a month ago and I really like how it turned out. Thanks in advance for your comments, Heartfox (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Placeholder

Comments soon. Ippantekina (talk) 02:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comma after "debut studio album"

  Added

• This is kinda convoluted: "Vanishing is a torch song ... She wrote the ballad ...". I would suggest something like, introducing it as a song by Carey, and the second sentence elaborates on its nature ("It is a torch song with a balladic production")

  Reworded/moved "torch song" to second sentence and "ballad" to last sentence

• "Situated in the gospel and traditional pop music genres" I'm all for phrasing variations but this reads kinda flowery for an encyclopedic entry. Maybe something more straightforward like "Categorized in the gospel and traditional pop genres"?

  Changed to "categorized"

• I notice inconsistent usages of false titles throughout: "American singer Mariah Carey", "the drummer Ben Margulies", "the American television program Saturday Night Live". Please be consistent throughout.

  I think they're all there now

• "Rather than release it as a single" releasing?

  Changed to "releasing"

• "A blues-inspired[17] gospel[18] and traditional pop record" I think "record" is often used for albums and not tracks. Maybe "song" or "number"?

  Changed to "number"

• I'm not sure if citing album liner notes for lyrics is the best practice, unless that lyric has been specified in album reviews or analyses.

  Ugh I knowwww but "You're vanishing / Drifting away" is basically the entire chorus and the gist of the song. I think four words is okay to quote without specific secondary coverage.

• I'm not sure if the hyperlink to oscillate makes sense because the link leads to an article about physics.

  Removed link

• "Its straightforward composition" not sure what straightforward means in this context.

  Changed to "Its composition is straightforward". This is meant to introduce the statement following the semi-colon: "an acoustic piano played by Richard Tee is the sole instrumentation" (ie straightforward/little going on)

• "Patrick Dillett performed engineering and mixing" I know the issue with sea of blue but can one perform engineering and mixing?

  Added "the": "performed the engineering and mixing"

• "Unlike "Vision of Love", Richard T. Ryan of the Staten Island Advance said" wrong subject here

  Changed to "Richard T. Ryan of the Staten Island Advance said "Vanishing" demonstrated Carey could limit the use of her vocal range, unlike "Vision of Love"."

• "in which she exercised commendable discipline with her voice" err.. I get what this means but this reads lengthy. Can we make it more concise?

  Changed to "in which Carey used her voice judiciously"

• "Critics have viewed "Vanishing" as a standout track in Carey's discography throughout her career"

  Removed "throughout her career"

• "Courier-Post contributor Jeff Hall considered the song her best work in 1993" does this mean that the song was considered Carey's best among her 1993 songs?

  Changed to "in a 1993 article"

• Which makes me notice.. is there not a release date in the Infobox?

  I think there is a difference among editors of whether album tracks should get infobox release dates. I don't personally care either way, it just seems to be a thing so I wasn't sure and have not added it.

• The third paragraph of the "Critical reception" is full of "A said, B said, C said..." I suggest some more cohesion here

  Cut down on the paragraph length by converting three sentences to sfns of the opening sentence. Made several wording changes.

• "Entertainment Weekly writer Sydney Bucksbaum and Billboard's Gil Kaufman considered the performance impressive" this adds little value to prose imo.

  Cut

My review is exclusively on prose and that should be it :) Ippantekina (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ippantekina: Thank you for the very helpful comments, responded to all above. Heartfox (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Medxvo

• I would be consistent with the WP:FALSETITLES. "recorded and produced by the American singer Mariah Carey" seems to be the only one with no false title

  Removed "the"

• "I enjoyed doing that because it gave me more freedom to sing" - enjoyed doing what?

  I thought it would be known that this is referring to "Vanishing" as this is preceded by the phrase "Carey described "Vanishing" as her favorite track on the album:"

  It was quite confusing to me so I checked the source and it seems like she's referring to the acoustic elements not the song as a whole, but even Carey's sentence structure is confusing to me so I guess that's fine. I suggest double-checking, though

• I think maxi single can be linked

  Linked

• "according to Stephen Holden" - a comma before according to?

  Added comma

• "in the book Soul Music A–Z" - "in the book Soul Music A–Z (1991)"?

  Added 1991

I believe that's all I've got. Best of luck with the FAC! Medxvo (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Medxvo: Thanks for your comments, I have responded above. Heartfox (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Support. Medxvo (talk) 07:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

James Scott (boxer)

Nominator(s): Red Phoenix ^talk 19:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

James Scott became the WBA's #2 ranked contender and defeated two #1 contenders for the Light Heavyweight Championship. He was named boxing magazine The Ring's light heavyweight champion. That's impressive enough as it is, but Scott did it while in prison.

Welcome to the bizarre story of a man convicted of armed robbery, and later of murder, who fought professional boxing matches inside the walls of Rahway State Prison in New Jersey. And make no mistake; he would likely have been a champion had the WBA not denied him the opportunity over his incarceration. James Scott's story is among the most unusual I've ever encountered, so much so it captivated me to leave my usual video game-related editing to research and tell this story. It speaks to the will of a prison inmate to stand out and show his talents, or as Scott called it, the "gold in the mud". Red Phoenix ^talk 19:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "After picking up boxing as an amateur" - I would personally say "After taking up boxing as an amateur"
• "This led to Scott being offered to be managed by an architect" - this reads slightly tortuously. I would try maybe "This led to Scott received an offer of management from an architect"
• Unless I am missing something, there's nothing to indicate when the whole thing with Russ happened. You say "While in New Jersey on a visit to the state on May 8, 1975, Scott was arrested and charged with murder and armed robbery." but had the murder only just happened? Or was it an earlier event which he was only arrested for in 1975?
• "In one account, he let Spinks borrow the car, and that Spinks partnered with someone" => "In one account, he stated that he let Spinks borrow the car, and that Spinks partnered with someone"
• "and called him "the Great Scott", his boxing nickname" - I think "and nicknamed him "the Great Scott"" is fine
• "Muhammad offered $15,000 to Gregory for the fight, while Scott was scheduled to make $2500" - inconsistent use of commas in the numbers (here and elsewhere)
• "However, he started to receive controversy on why he should be allowed to fight" - I think "However, he started to receive controversy surrounding whether he should be allowed to fight" would read better
• "According to boxing promoter Bob Arum, the WBA had only then found out " - when is "then"?
• "His next fight was against Jerry Celestine, who he defeated by decision " => "His next fight was against Jerry Celestine, whom he defeated by decision "
• " Scott was knocked down twice by Martin, once in the first round, and the second knockdown occurring late in the second round" => " Scott was knocked down twice by Martin, once in the first round and again late in the second round"
• "Scott also held an escrow account" - is there an appropriate link for whatever an "escrow account" is? I may be because I am not American but personally I have absolutely no idea what this term means
• "There, Scott worked with kids" => "There, Scott worked with children" ("kids" is too slangy)
• "after speaking with the trainers and kids from the boxing gym" - same here
• Opponent column in the table does not sort correctly (it should sort based on surname, not forename)
• That's what I got. An interesting read! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi ChrisTheDude, and thanks for your feedback! I've addressed all of your comments, with a couple of exceptions. I did see one use of "$7,000" with a comma and I removed the comma. Per MOS:DIGITS, four digit numbers are acceptable not to have a comma, so I did fix the one time it was inconsistent. I also did not change the comment Murad Muhammad made about Scott's nickname, since Muhammad doesn't actually directly say he gave Scott the nickname; he says "we" but doesn't identify who else, so he's a bit ambiguous here. Aside from that, I mostly used your wording and got the table corrected to sort by last name. Let me know if you have any more feedback, and I'm glad you enjoyed the read. Red Phoenix ^talk 18:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Image review - pass

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

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JamesScottBoxer.jpg

  Non-free image with a valid non-free use rationale

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

  Own work published under CC BY-SA 3.0

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

  Own work published under CC BY 3.0

All images are relevant to the article and placed in appropriate locations. They all have captions and alt-texts. I'm not sure that the building in the second image is "blue-colored". I think the alt-text should be changed to something like "A white and pale green theater building". Phlsph7 (talk) 10:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Updated per your suggestion. Thanks for the review! Red Phoenix ^talk 13:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks good. This takes care of the remaining concern. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Beverly White

Nominator(s): Jon698 (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

This article is about Beverly White, who was the longest serving woman in the Utah State Legislature. During her career she would sometimes be the only woman to chair a committee, held multiple leadership positions within the Democratic caucus, and was awarded as legislator of the year multiple times by multiple groups. She was also incredibly active in the Utah Democratic Party and the national party. Jon698 (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Steelkamp

As a biography and a politics article, I'm interested in reviewing this. Steelkamp (talk) 02:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Lead

• Three paragraphs in the lead start with the same word (White). Can this be reworded?
• (off topic comment: I am surprised that the districts of the Utah House of Representatives don't have Wikipedia articles)
• "She was educated at Tooele High School. She married Floyd White, who also became involved in politics. She entered politics with her involvement in the Tooele County Democratic Ladies Club and later became active in the Tooele County Democratic Party." This contains three sentences that start with the same word (she).
• I would link Tooele High School and Tooele County in the lead.
• "White first held office with her appointment to the Utah Board of Pardons by Governor Cal Rampton." I think a date for this should be mentioned.
• "She was on the board until Rampton appointed her to fill a vacancy in the state house created by Representative F. Chileon Halladay's death." I think a date for this should be mentioned too.
• I recommend linking whip (or a more specific link target if one exists).
• "She died in 2021." This sentence can be removed, as her lifespan is already mentioned in the first sentence of the lead.

• @Steelkamp: Done. Jon698 (talk) 03:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Can an image of White during her political career be used for the infobox instead.
  • I suggest adding a caption saying the year the image was taken, or published if the original date is not known.

Early life

• "Her husband was elected to the city council". Is this the Tooele city council? Probably best to specify in the article.

Career

• For both images in this section, I reckon the "upright" parameter should be used, otherwise the images are quite big. E.g. [[File:Calvin L. Rampton.jpg|thumb|right|upright|alt=Photograph of Governor Cal Rampton|White was appointed to serve on the Utah Board of Pardons and in the [[Utah House of Representatives]] by Governor [[Cal Rampton]].]]
• "She served as vice-chair of the Tooele County Democratic Party during the 1960s. She served as a delegate to the Utah Democratic Party's state convention multiple times.[3][4][5][6] She served as secretary of the Utah Democratic Party for sixteen years until she was defeated by D'Arcy Dixon in 1987." Should be reworded as that's three sentences in a row that start with the same word.
• "She was the secretary of the Utah delegation at the 1972 convention.[14] She served as an uncommitted alternate delegate to the 1976 convention.[15] She was a delegate for U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy at the 1980 convention." Same as above.
• "During the 1976 United States House of Representative election Representative Allan Turner Howe" -> "During the 1976 United States House of Representative election, Representative Allan Turner Howe"
• "as both of them were moved into the 21st district by redistricting." Is this strictly true that they were "moved into" the district, or did they both choose to contest the district? Would "as both of them moved into the 21st district due to redistricting" be better?

Political positions

• The problem with the abortion paragraph is that it starts by saying White was opposed to abortion but the rest of the paragraph outlines ways in which she is in favour of it. I think the change in her views should be more explicitly mentioned.
• "In 1977, the Utah state house voted 55 to 5, with White against, in favor of a resolution calling for a constitutional convention to amend the Constitution of the United States to ban abortion." I think this sentence is quite confusing. How about "In 1977, White voted against a resolution calling for a constitutional convention to amend the Constitution of the United States to ban abortion, while the state house voted in favour 55 to 5."
• "and that anyone who would send them through the mail would be arrested." -> "and that anyone who sent them through the mail would be arrested."
• "The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that capital punishment was unconstitutional in Furman v. Georgia ending the usage of capital punishment in the United States until the Gregg v. Georgia ruling." I think a comma should be added like so: "The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that capital punishment was unconstitutional in Furman v. Georgia, ending the usage of capital punishment in the United States until the Gregg v. Georgia ruling."

That's all for my first round of comments. Steelkamp (talk) 07:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• @Steelkamp: I have done all of your suggested edits except for three. I will have to look on Newspapers.com to see what specific city her husband was on the council and for a better image of White. White did change her political views over the course of her life. Would this be an acceptable changed? "During the 1970s White supported making abortion laws more restrictive, but was criticized by Nelson for her support of abortion rights during the 1990 election." Jon698 (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  What about something like this: "During the 1970s White supported making abortion laws more restrictive, but by 1990, she supported abortion rights". And then the thing about Nelson can be left chronologically. Steelkamp (talk) 08:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Steelkamp: Done. Jon698 (talk) 14:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Just did the image and added where her husband was a member of the city council. All I need is your thoughts on that change in the abortion segment. Jon698 (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• @Steelkamp: Any further comments or suggestions? Jon698 (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  I aim to do my second read through tomorrow, and will probably have comments from that. Steelkamp (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by Generalissima

Just a quick thought - if we're using a Fair Use image anyway, why not one of the much higher quality images from this article as opposed to a low-quality newspaper scan? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• (Unsolicited comment) When using non-free media, we have a responsibility to use the "least un-free" option available: WP:FREER is the relevant guideline. There is a good argument that a scan from an old newspaper is no longer of any commercial value -- the newspaper company is no longer selling that paper, and very few people can access it anyway, so no business or publicity is lost. On the other hand, if we co-opt an image from the Salt Lake Tribune, that might mean that some readers (for instance, using Google Image Search) end up here rather than the SLT website, or else that we push them down the search-engine rankings, which would have very obvious commercial, advertising and publicity implications. Whether that argument is definitive or convincing here, I will leave up to others. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• @Generalissima: Also all of those images are of her in her 80s-90s. The page was previously using one of the images from that article. Jon698 (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think that using an image from when she was active in politics is best, but it's unfortunate that the current image there is low quality and I encourage you to find a better quality image. Have you looked in Women Legislators of Utah, 1896–1993? Its possible that there is a better image of White there which could be scanned. Steelkamp (talk) 07:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• @Steelkamp: I do not have access to Women Legislators of Utah, 1896–1993 and WorldCat is not showing me any libraries that have copies of it. Jon698 (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The Man with the Golden Gun (novel)

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

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

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

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

Support. I peer reviewed the article and my few quibbles were dealt with satisfactorily. On a further read-through for FAC the article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria, and I am happy to support its elevation to FA. Tim riley talk 00:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• Many thanks Tim - both here and for your PR comments, which were, as ever, very useful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

SchroCat, my apologies for putting my oar in again, but I have just noticed that in the final sentence of your footnote h, you have repeated the opening words of the sentence at the end of it, which I don't suppose you intended to do. (Not, I need hardly say, that this affects my support.) Tim riley talk 13:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Well spotted, young man. Now deleted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Support as all of the suggested edits in the peer review were done and the prose is excellent. My edits to the page were just to add some archived links. Jon698 (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you very much - and for the archived links too, which I often forget to do. - SchroCat (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Ian

Recusing coord duties to review (as if I could resist!), I've always thought Golden Gun gets a raw deal from critics; yes there isn't the rich detail but it moves like lightning and unlike Benson I find nothing robot-like in Bond, who has some cracking dialogue with Scaramanga, Goodnight, Leiter and co. Of course, being a perverse creature I also think Licence to Kill is sadly underrated... ;-) In any case my opinions are of as little account as sparrow's tears so onto the commentary:

• It’s not often I read a lead section and find nothing I want to tweak – nice work.
• wrote to her bother – "brother" I assume (or perhaps she did find it a bother)?
• but also had two alternatives which he could offer: – perhaps trim to but also considered?
• the novel was viable for publication – trim "viable" to "fit", which I think flows better too?
• Similarly, Fleming used the name of the secretary of the Royal St George's Golf Club – I don't think "Similarly" is needed.
• Benson considers the character to have different personality from the previous stories and is robot-like – aside from needing "a" after "different", I think "to be robot-like" might be better grammatically.
• Successive sentences beginning "Benson also" – could we vary?
• Amis thinks Bond's personality is rather like that in Moonraker – I wonder if Amis expands on that, as I've recently re-read both books and I'm not sure how he means it.
• Black describes how the reference to the Gestapo serves as a frame of reference to readers – could we replace a "reference"?

Stopping at the end of Development for now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks Ian: all done in these two edits. Looking forward to any more you may have. (ps. for all the holes and lack of "the Fleming effect", it's one of mine too: the (ridiculously forced) entry of Leiter is always a welcome edition into the books, too). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Tks, the only thing I'm not sure about is Amis thinks Bond's personality has regenerated into "a more mature stage" than the return to his previous state. Reads a bit oddly to me, although you could probably fix it by just dropping "than the return to his previous state". Also still none the wiser about just how Amis compared his character to that in Moonraker... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Done. (Ignore the MR bit - it was a misreading on my part and has now been expunged) - SchroCat (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Continuing with Style and Themes:

• Within the text Benson identifies what he described as the "Fleming Sweep" -- tense change, should it be "describes"?
• keep the storyline moving along at pace without the novel dropping -- "without the novel dropping" sounds odd to me, do we need it at all?
• With The Man with the Golden Gun, Amis wrote of that the lack of the effect was one of "the deficiencies of The Man with the Golden Gun" -- "With The Man with the Golden Gun," seems superfluous.
• In contrast to Live and let Die (1954) and Dr No (1958), where Jamaica was still part of the Empire -- "wherein"?
  • I went with “in which” instead. Does that work? - SchroCat (talk) 10:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    • No prob. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Ian, all sorted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Continuing with Publication history:

• The artist Richard Chopping undertook the cover design again -- for the uninitiated, "again" begs the question, could we say "Fleming's regular cover artist" or some such?

No concerns with Adaptations but I'll spend a bit more time on Critical reception before signing off. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• • Done. Thanks Ian. - SchroCat (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Image and source review from PMC

Well, prose appears to be well and truly covered, so I'll put myself down for the fiddly bits. Hopefully tomorrow night if work isn't too busy. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

That's great - thanks PMC! I look forward to your comments. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Support from Crisco

• "it was not as polished as other Bond stories. Much of the detail contained in the previous novels was missing," - You already gave "The novel was not as detailed or polished as the others in the series," above, so this is redundant.
• bordello might be worth wikilinking; Eton and diastema as well
• Despite Plomer's original thought about the state of the manuscript, Fleming's publishers, Jonathan Cape, were concerned enough about the story to pass the manuscript to the writer Kingsley Amis to read on holiday, paying him £35 15 shillings for his thoughts and advice, although Amis' subsequent suggestions were not used by Cape. - Might be worth splitting
• The sentence starting "Tony Hugill, the sugar planter mentioned in the book" might be overly detailed and benefit from splitting, especially given that it's connected to the next sentence with a semi-colon.
• One of these was the poison gun used in the scene of the attempted assassination of M.
• He begins the novel having been brainwashed by the Soviets, but is soon deprogrammed by the Secret Service. - You use "de-programmed" above.
• Both characters use their criminal expertise in the service of communist Cuba and investing in casinos in Jamaica. - "Investing" should probably be "invest"
• possessing three nipples - Maybe a link to supernumerary nipple?

Overall, very tight and an enjoyable read. No going out like a lamb here.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• Many thanks Chris. All sorted in this edit. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Happy to support. Great work, as always. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Thanks Chris - that's very good of you; thanks for the review - very helpful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Aineta aryballos

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

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

Image review

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

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

Support from Iazyges

• Claiming a spot. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
• Lead: made in Corinth between approximately 625 and 570 BCE you may desire to explain to the reader where Corinth is (as ancient greek objects were not restricted to geographic Greece), perhaps made in Corinth (modern-day Greece) or made in Corinth (ancient Greece), whichever is preferred; since it has already been introduced as an ancient Greek object, the modern-day Greece option may be preferred.
  • Good point. I've clarified this as "southern Greece" (frustratingly, Corinth is right on the borderline between what's generally called "central" and what's generally called "southern" Greece, but it's just about in the Peloponnese and plenty of sources go for "southern". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
• Body: Rudolf Wachter concurs with Rhousopoulos's assessment that the vase was likely a "love-gift", while Matthias Steinhart and Eckhard Wirbelauer wrote in 2000 that it is universally considered to have been a gift of some nature. Highly semantic, but I would re-arrange this. For one, Steinhart and Wirbelauer appear to be offering support to a vaguer statement, rather than harshly disagreeing, and for two, the Wachter source appears to have been published after, so I would flip them. Suggest Matthias Steinhart and Eckhard Wirbelauer wrote in 2000 that it is universally considered to have been a gift of some nature, while Rudolf Wachter concurs with Rhousopoulos's assessment that the vase was likely a "love-gift".
  • Yes, good idea. Done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
• A secondary comment, Wachter is introduced by date in the "Decoration" section below; may wish to move the date introduction up here at the first mention, for consistency.
  • Done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
• often known as "grave-robbers" I would suggest often referred to as "grave-robbers"; the "known as" construct comes off as a little flippant to me, but perhaps that's a peculiarity of American English.
  • I'm not sure I see it, but the fact that you do means that at least some sensible and educated readers will too, so I've gone and made that change. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
• their owners secured the judgement of a state committee of three experts that the object was "useless" to Greek museums Since this is further mentioned below, I think a little more specificity on the committee could be helpful (here or in discussing Rhousopoulos's role in it). As it reads now, I think the average reader could draw three possible conclusions: 1) there were three sitting members of the committee (elected, selected, or appointed to terms), 2) many members of experts (and 3 would be randomly assigned to each case, such as judges in some legal systems), 3) or if you could collect any three experts you were good to go. I would presume the first is true, in which case I would add a short bit to explain the terms and system, such as perhaps their owners secured the judgement of a state committee of three experts, [appointed] on a [term] basis, that the object was "useless" to Greek museums, or something similar, swapping out appointed for whatever other method may have been used, and [term] for whatever their term was.
  • I'll have a look at what we can say from the sources: Greek archaeological law in this period is rather opaque and little published upon, especially in English. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

  OK, what I can draw is... not a lot. It sounds like what happened was that, whenever someone wanted to export an ancient object, the state (presumably via the Ministry of Education, which ultimately held the reins on archaeological matters) convened a fairly ad-hoc committee of three experts, who were not always necessarily the same people, and who themselves often called on other experts, to make the judgement. We're probably closer to (2) in your framing than (1), which I think is probably the surface reading of what we've got anyway? It's difficult to be too categoric here, as I can't find a source which really spells it out. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  This comment was more aspirational than anything; if there isn't more to say I don't think there is a problem, but it would have been nice; I am all too familiar with sources refusing to be specific. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• A neat little article! Thank you for your work. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
  • And thank you for your review: mostly straightforwardly done, one where I need to do a bit of reading. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
• Happy to support the nomination. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you -- and for your helpful comments above. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Choliamb

A few minor points:

Text

• The vase body, the neck and the handle were made separately and joined using a lathe. For "lathe" read "potter's wheel". (Tornio, the word used by Rhousopoulos's translator, is the normal term for this in Italian: see here, for example.) But even apart from that, the phrasing is a little odd. The pieces were not really "joined using a potter's wheel", which makes it sound as if the wheel was the tool with which the join was made; instead, the globular body and the disk-shaped mouth were each made separately on the potter's wheel and then the two pieces were joined together, presumably while still on the wheel, but not necessarily so. (The handle, of course, was also added separately, but it was just a strap of clay, not turned on the wheel.) What Rhousopoulos actually says is even less than this: he writes only that the body, the handle, and the neck with its disk were all made separately and then joined, and that traces of the wheel could be detected on the disk (sopra il quale si rintracciano vestigi del tornio, where the antecendent of il quale is disco).
  • Ah -- of course -- I thought that was a bit odd! I've rephrased, borrowing a bit of your phrasing here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• Nine men are named, each on an individual line.. "Each on an individual line" is a very generous way of describing the meandering layout of the four names on the right side of the handle.
  • This is true. Now "below the portrait". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• Is there some reason why the names of the men are not listed here? Yes, there's a drawing of the inscription, but even readers who know some Greek are likely to be baffled by the Archaic Corinthian alphabet, so providing the names (either transcriptions or transliterations) would be helpful.
  • I've stuck them in a footnote: none of the names other than Aineta and Menneas, as far as I can tell, have had more than a trivial discussion as to who these people might have been. There's also the question of the double consonants: see below. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• including a musician named Menneas. Just flagging this to be sure that Gallavotti really spells the name with two N's, since there's only one nu on the vase. (If he does, it's presumably because the form Μεννέας is well attested elsewhere: ca. 300 examples in the LGPN, vs. only 8 for Μενέας.)
  • I only have the citation at second hand (via Wachter), who writes it as "Men(n)eas", with a slightly opaque (to me) explanation: (or, again, 'expressive' Μεν(ν)εας: Bechtel, p. 312). Bechtel appears to be one of three 1920s German volumes about Greek dialects. He's earlier used this to argue that the name Dexilios could be Dexillios, so I assume his/Gallavotti's point is that there's a particular dialectical feature by which double consonants become/are written as single ones in particular contexts? From what I remember from a different source (Guarducci, possibly?), the argument is that Menneas (double n) is named as a musician on a different vase, and therefore that it might be the same guy. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
    • @Choliamb: Did you see this bit -- have I got the right end of the stick here with the bracketed double consonants? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
      • As I understand it (not really my field), the term "expressive" is used by linguists to describe certain morphological features, especially the doubling of consonants or entire syllables, that supposedly reflect the emotional state of the speaker. This is particularly common in nicknames (which linguists call hypocoristic names, because it sounds more fancy), and the idea is that they express affection or some other kind of intensification, rather than simply being the product of the regular processes of linguistic change. If you search for the phrase "expressive gemination" in Google Books, you'll find a lot of examples of doubled consonants explained in this way. The "expressive" explanation is not universally accepted; hence the scare quotes used by Wachter. The reference to Bechtel is not to Die griechischen Dialekte but to Die historischen Personennamen des Griechischen bis zur Kaiserzeit, which lists a bunch of names derived from the root μεν-, including both Μενέας and Μεννέας; it has nothing specific to say about expressive gemination. If you want my opinion, I don't think you need to mention the alternative forms with doubled consonants in the footnote at all, in parentheses or otherwise: just report the names as they are spelled on the vase. You don't need a source for this: simple transliteration is not OR, and your other Greek articles are full of transliterated words, phrases, and journal titles for which you cite no sources, which is perfectly fine. The fact that the spelling Menneas is generally more common across the Greek world than the spelling Meneas is irrelevant to this particular vase, as is the fact that the names on the vase have Doric spellings (to be expected in Corinth) rather than the more familiar Attic-Ionic spellings (e.g., Lysandridas and Kariklidas vs. Lysandrides and Kariklides). The only thing we know for sure is that these particular names with these particular spellings were expected to be intelligible to Corinthians of the late 7th–early 6th century BC, so in my opinion it's best to stick with what the vase-painter actually wrote rather than inserting hypothetical forms, however they might be explained. (But note that some of the transliterations currently in the footnote need to be corrected: for Eudokios read Eudikos, for Lysandrias read Lysandridas, and for Dexilios read Dexilos.) Choliamb (talk) 15:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

        Thanks, Choliamb. I've corrected those translations and removed Dexillos. I'll try and dig into the sources (possibly via an RX request for the original Gallavotti article): if he emphatically thinks the dancer was Menneas, then I think we do need to keep the doubled n as a possibility (otherwise, we're implicitly dismissing his argument, since Meneas is not Menneas); if he writes "Men(n)eas" or similar, we can content ourselves with a single nu. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:57, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• contrasted the vase with another excavated in Corinth in 1872, which showed three female names that she suggested were those of hetairai This is the pyxis 74.51.364 from the Cesnola collection, now in the Metropolitan Museum in New York. But do we know that it was "excavated in Corinth in 1872"? I don't think we do, and Milne herself does not make this claim. "Excavated" is a euphemism for "looted from a tomb", since there were no controlled excavations in Corinth at this date, and the pencilled notation "Corinth 1872" on the vase itself could mean no more than that it was acquired by Cesnola or an intermediary in Corinth in that year. Antiquities from throughout the Corinthia passed through Corinth (in part because it was easy to sell to foreign collectors on ships that stopped briefly at the Isthmus), and I don't think there's any way to know that this particular pyxis came from a tomb at Corinth itself rather than one of the other settlements nearby, or precisely when it was discovered.
  • All true: I've removed those details. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

References

• The way the five short articles published by Galanakis in 2012 are arranged here disgruntles me, for two reasons:

(1) They are referred to as Galanakis 2012a, 2012b, etc. in the notes, but in the bibliography they appear as Galanakis (17 October 2012), Galanakis (31 December 2012), etc. This seems needlessly confusing. You may reply that readers can always click on the link to discover that Galanakis 2012d in the note = Galanakis (30 November 2012) in the bibl, but that argument doesn't move the needle for me, and it's obviously irrelevant for anyone who makes the mistake of printing out the article to read later. In the author-year system of referencing, if something is cited as Galanakis 2012d in the notes, there should be a corresponding publication listed as Galanakis 2012d in the bibliography. I'm not saying the precise date should be removed, only that it should be placed later in the listing, not at the beginning.

I see the problem: the issue here is how the citation template works. "2012d" (for example) is listed in the citation, but the |year= parameter is overwritten by the template if the |date= parameter is also filled, and therefore not displayed. See reply on (2) below. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

(2) I understand that these five articles have been arranged alphabetically by title, but the result makes me seasick: the list starts in October, then jumps ahead to December, then back to November, and then back to October again. I'm willing to bet that most readers will not detect an alphabetized list here; they're just going to wonder why the principle of listing a given author's works by date of publication has been suddenly and conspicuously abandoned. Alphabetical order is conventional in such cases, but it did not come down the mountain with Moses: it's an arbitrary rule used when no other more rational sequence presents itself, and with a series of successive articles on related topics published by the same author in the same periodical in the same year, the most rational sequence is surely the order of publication. If you insist on alphabetical order no matter what, sooner or later you will end up with a situation in which Part Two of a two-part article is listed first while Part One of the same article, published six months earlier in the same journal, is listed second, simply because the titles of the two parts happen to be slightly different. That serves nobody's interest.

This actually becomes much easier if we implement the change I suggest above: rearranging which citation is 2012a, 2012b etc is a pain in the neck, but assigning them each to a specific date makes it a lot easier. I've gone and done that. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• It looks as if you have cited Lorber only at second hand, via Wachter. But Lorber's book is available at the Internet Archive and his discussion, although brief, is worth reading and citing independently, especially for his comments about the letter forms and date. Although it's true that he places this vase in his group of Early Corinthian inscriptions, most of the comparanda he cites, both for the letter forms and for other vases with women's heads on the handles and inscriptions of the names of presumed hetairai, are Middle Corinthian. The distance between Lorber and Amyx is less than the distance between either of them and Payne, and I would like to see Lorber get a little more credit for laying out some of the reasons why the date of ca. 625 proposed by both Payne and Jeffery is almost certainly too high. But you can read what he has to say and make up your own mind.
  • I've added something here. I'm a bit confused, reading Lorber: Wachter says he calls it EC, but I can only actually see in Lorber that he says that Payne went too early and the letter-forms look sixth-century to him: in other words, there's no necessary conflict with what Lorber says and Amyx/Wachter's MC date, though Wachter implies that there is. Between Wachter and me, one of us is missing something -- there's a clear balance of probability here, but any help in seeing it greatly appreciated. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC) It was me -- a wood/trees confusion: I had failed to see that the whole section was "transitional" (therefore could be no later than EC). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• For Rhousopoulos's article in the AdI it would be much more convenient to point readers to the Hathi Trust or the Internet Archive, where the article can be linked directly and read page by page, rather than forcing them to download a giant ZIP file containing an equally giant PDF file and then dig through it to find the right page themselves.
  • Absolutely; done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Regards, Choliamb (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for all these, Choliamb: sharp and well-taken as ever. I'm having a bit of difficulty reconciling Lorber with Wachter's citation of him: would you be able to throw me a rope on that one? The rest straightforwardly done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is genuinely confusing. The main reason Wachter says that Lorber assigns an EC date is because Lorber discusses this aryballos in the EC section of his book. (The heading for the section is on p. 18: "Die frühkorinthischen Vasen und Pinakes (Kat. Nr. 17–33)"; this includes Aineta, which is no. 28.) But since L. was chiefly concerned with pulling the date down from where Payne and Jeffery placed it, most of the parallels he cites, both epigraphical and iconographical, look ahead to the 6th century, and if you just read his discussion of the vase in isolation, with no knowledge of where in the book it appeared, you would naturally conclude that he considers it MC, not EC. The division between late EC and early MC is a judgment call, and while I don't have Amyx to hand, I doubt that he and Lorber would disagree very strenuously over where to place this vase stylistically. This is why I said that the distance between Payne and Lorber is more important than the distance between Lorber and Amyx. Putting the latter two into different periods and adding the corresponding date ranges (in Amyx's chronology) exaggerates a relatively small difference and makes it seem larger than it is.

I look forward to the next installment in your series on notable Corinthian aryballoi. The MacMillan has already been done, but the Pyrrias dance aryballos is still waiting for an article. It's a marvelous little vase, just as interesting as Aineta, and the inscription has generated a longer bibliography. Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 13:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks: I've adjusted the language a bit to soften that distinction. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Support — Choliamb (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

Not much from me. A few minor points on the prose:

• "and exposed the latter's widespread involvement in antiquities crime" – not sure why "the latter" as there isn't a former: wouldn't plain "his" do?
  • Yes, it would: done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
• "a relatively rare successful use" – relative to what?
  • Attempts to use these powers in general, which were generally not successful (see the bit on the Raftopoulos Affair in Panagiotis Kavvadias for what usually happened when the Ephor General tried to flex his muscles, particularly when the crimes crossed Greek borders). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
• "deposited as a grave good in her tomb" – I am, as ever, open to correction but I don't think there is a singular of "grave goods" (or any other kind of goods any more than you can have a trouser or a mump) and more to the point neither does the OED, which dates the term to 1883 and says: plural: valuables deposited with a corpse in the grave. Chambers likewise offers only the plural form.
  • It's used in archaeological HQRS: see here, here, here and here, for instance. The plural ("it was deposited as grave goods") feels very wrong indeed, and we can't say something like "it was deposited among the grave goods" because we have no idea what, if anything, was deposited alongside it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
• "the vase was likely a "love-gift" – unexpected Americanism: see current Fowler, p. 482, and these are the wise words of The Guardian style guide: In the UK, if not the US, using likely in such contexts as “they will likely win the game” sounds unnatural at best; there is no good reason to use it instead of probably. If you really must do so, however, just put very, quite or most in front of it and all will, very likely, be well.
  • Agh -- I normally catch that one! Now "probably". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
• "sold the aryballos to the British Museum for 1,000 drachmae" – giving a present-day equivalent of the sum would be helpful here, if possible.
  • Straight inflation calculations don't help very much from this period, given the change in the cost of living. There's an EFN immediately afterwards which contextualises this as three times an upper-middle-class salary (at least, that of a university professor), which is my go-to when ballparking smallish drachma amounts in this period. It's particularly relevant here, given that Rhousopoulos was the one being paid (and, later, paying) that amount. The elephant in the room is that his academic salary was trivial next to his ill-gotten gains from antiquities dealing, but that's somewhat beside the point here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
• "Efstratiadis had assumed the office in 1864, following the death of Kyriakos Pittakis" – "assumed" seems an odd word, suggesting some sort of coup. Presumably he was appointed to the office?
  • Perhaps: changed to "been appointed", though that calls for the question of "by whom", to which the answer is a definitive "dunno" (it would have been some mix of the King, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Education, but as far as I know the history of that decision is not recorded). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

That's my lot. Tim riley talk 12:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim. Replies above. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Fine. I'm not in the least persuaded about "grave good", but I don't press the point, and the article otherwise seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Happy to support. Tim riley talk 13:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Tim -- very gracious of you. Remind me of this one next time I'm trying to crowbar some postmodern literary criticism into one of your nominations. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Support Comments by Pendright

Lead

• The Aineta aryballos is an Ancient Greek aryballos, made between approximately 625 and 570 BCE in the city of Corinth in southern Greece .

Close the space after Greece

Good spot: done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Approximately 6.35 centimetres (2.50 in) in both height and diameter, it was intended to contain perfumed oil or unguent, and is likely to have been owned by a high-class courtesan (hetaira) by the name of Aineta, who may be portrayed in a drawing on its handle.

• portrayed in a drawing -> or portrayed in the drawing - seems specific enough

"A" is better here: if we say the, we're begging the question, since we haven't introduced to the reader that there is a drawing. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

<>Yes, but consider this: The body of the vase, its drawing, and its handle are a unit of one and are not severable. Pendright (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see the relevance. In any case, I think what we've got is perfectly grammatical and comprehensible, though of course individual preferences as to language will vary. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I concur with UC: the indefinite article is preferable here. Tim riley talk 09:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Description

• The vase body, the neck and the handle were made separately and joined using a lathe.[4]

Add a comma after neck

This article is written in British English, where serial commas are optional and generally discouraged when the items in the list are short (see MOS:COMMA). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

<>I'm aware with the British point of view on the use of serial commads. As for the MOS though, it says, in a list of three or more items but its examples favor your point of view. Pendright (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

All agreed that no Oxford comma is wanted, then. Tim riley talk 09:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Rhousopoulos believed that the vase may have been a gift from her lovers to a high-class courtesan (hetaira) named Aineta, or perhaps deposited as a grave good in her tomb.[a]

• lovers -> one of her lovers?
• or perhaps it was deposited?

There were multiple lovers (at least nine, to be exact). I don't see the improvement offered by the second, or the problem it's trying to fix: could you explain a bit more? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

<>The first clause, in part, says, Rhousopoulos believed that the vase may have been a gift from her lovers - literally, this says to me, that one gift was gifted by many, which is nether clear or concise - thus my comment. Pendright (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

That is absolutely correct: one gift was given by nine, according to Rhousopoulos (and many others). It's not uncommon for people to band together to get someone a present: think of a retirement gift at work, for example. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

<>The sentence has two clauses: the first clause is an indepemdemt one but the second one is a dependent clause. -> In British English, a comma is used to join an independent clause and a dependent clause when the dependent clause comes first in the sentence; if the independent clause comes first, a comma is not typically needed - my addition makes it a independemt clause. Pendright (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

That may be so, but what we have at the moment is perfectly grammatical: there's no rule that every clause should be an independent clause. Adding "it was" would break the grammar of the sentence and require a rewrite, which doesn't seem to be necessary here. As above, there may be individual preferences at work here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I should be sorry to see the superfluous "it was" added. There is no rule in the King's English that a comma is used to join an independent clause and a dependent clause when the dependent clause comes first (though I notice a couple of minor university sites advocating that American dogma). This spurious "rule" appears nowhere in Fowler (2015) or Gowers (2014).

'Decoration and date

• However, he contrasted this with the decoration of the vase body, where, he judged, "we immediately find ourselves in unknown regions of Asia: magnificent, ... but strange and exotic".[11][b]

Why the comma aftet where?

"Where" modifies we immediately find..., not he judged..., so needs a comma to separate it. Compare "Peru is a country where, I believe, bears live in the jungle": I believe that wherever I am, not only in Peru. Compare "Home is a place where I believe I am safe": there, I believe I'm safe specifically when I'm at home. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

<>>In British English, a comma precedes the word "where" when it introduces a non-restrictive clause, meaning it provides additional information that isn't essential to the sentence's core meaning. Pendright (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see. That's not really what's going on here: we simply have indirect/direct speech, where it's completely normal (indeed, required) to bracket off phrases like "he said" with commas when they interrupt the quoted material. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

In my view, people who pontificate about commas should refresh their memories of Gowers: The use of commas cannot be learned by rule. Not only does conventional practice vary from period to period, but good writers of the same period differ among themselves. ... The correct use of the comma – if there is such a thing as "correct" use – can only be acquired by common sense, observation and taste. Tim riley talk 09:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• In 1979, Fritz Lorber argued that Payne's date was too early: he discussed the vase among those of the Early Corinthian period (620/615–595/590 BCE),[17] and wrote that the letter-forms show features, such as the serpentine form of the letter iota, characteristic of sixth-century inscriptions.[12]

and he wrote that the letter

Not needed; we have a perfectly good grammatical subject ("he") in the previous clause, and I don't see any ambiguity: there's no other person mentioned here that it could have been. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

<>Correct, only if you drop the preceding comma— and wrote that the letter-forms show features clause can not stand on its own withou a subject noun or pronoun. Pendright (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

There's no need for every clause to be able to stand on its own: some do and some don't. Even then, "wrote" is syntactically part of the main clause: "he discussed the vase ... and wrote [subordinate clause]". That's perfectly standard English. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:57, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with UC on this, as my immediately preceding comment may illustrate. Tim riley talk 09:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Inscription

• The name Meneas (or Menneas) comes first in the list and is written slightly larger and more boldly than the others, and so seems to have been given particular prominence.[10]

and so it seems to have been given particular prominence.[10]

As with the Lorber comment, I don't see the problem or the improvement here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

<>Similar to the above Pendright (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Sale to the British Museum

• In 1865, Panagiotis Efstratiadis, the Ephor General in charge of the Greek Archaeological Service,[h] wrote in his diary of the size and richness of Rhousopoulos's antiquities collection, marking the first time that Rhousopoulos's activities had come to official attention.

marking it the first time that Rhousopoulos's activities had come to official attention.

That doesn't seem to be grammatical: have you read making where marking is written in the text? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

<> I have not, but I do believe I have a grasp of indepedent and dependent clauses whether in British or American English. Similar to the above Pendright (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

And see above: but here I don't see that "marking it the first time that..." actually makes sense. I've certainly never seen it or similar in print, whereas "marking the first time that..." is a common phrase. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

This is it - Pendright (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and your comments, Pendright. Replies inline above. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: I trust you'll not dismiss my responses without first consulting the related rules that apply - thank you. Pendright (talk) 03:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies. I'm afraid I've generally continued to disagree: in the cases we have left, I think we're dealing with matters of personal preference rather than anything grammatically wrong in a clear-cut way. The article has already been reviewed by Tim riley, who is a skilled and elegant writer of BrE: if you still think there are errors here, he might be a good person to weigh in as a third opinion? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

We are indeed dealing with matters of personal preference here. I started to add detailed comments on each of the above points but ran out of steam when I realised that no grammatical rules are at stake. What we have above is our old friend "I'd write it this way and so you must, too". A personal preference for grapes does not entitle one to forbid others to eat plums. I hope these few comments are helpful. Tim riley talk 09:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• I bow to your collective wisdom and support the nomination. Pendright (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• As a disinterested (but by no means uninterested) bystander I take my hat off to Pendright for that gracious response. Absolutely in the spirit of Wikipedia editing, if I may say so. Tim riley talk 16:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  Seconded: thank you, and for your time in reading, reviewing, commenting and discussing. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Doesn't seem like there is much to say here. Is "The Colors of Clay: Special Techniques in Athenian Vase Painting" a high-quality reliable source. Is it just the titles of the sources, or do they seem to cover the sale of the artifact much less than the article does? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus -- On The Colors of Clay, Beth Cohen is a grown-up archaeologist and it's a publication of a very reputable institution -- I think that's a HQRS by any of our normal standards? The Galanakis articles aren't specifically about this aryballos, but about archaeological crime and regulation in Greece more generally: one of the articles is largely focused on the Aineta vase, and it plays bit parts, along with Rhousopoulos and his antics, in the others. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  OK, I guess. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  Got a comment from an archaeologist in family who said that this article seems to cite all the important sources, and looks like it was written by a specialist. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 18:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  High praise indeed -- thank you! UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Ceoil

From the lead,.

• What is an Aryballos, and why is it referred to in many paragraphs as "the vase" without specifying which vase... to put it another way, it would be useful to explain early on what Aryballos and their elements are....especially before you detail the various dimensions in the opening praa in the "description" section, which are...a barrage and exhausting without a grounding on the these things structure. When you say vase later, do you mean a part of the object or are you referring shorthand for the object as a whole.
  • This is true: I've added a bit to the body on this. I don't see how "vase" could be anything other than the whole object -- what's your thinking here? When talking about the spherical bit, the word is "[spherical/globular] body" in this article and any other source. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
• illegal sale in 1865 can we say in lead why the sale was illegal and the grounds for Rhousopoulos prosuceation (rather than "an illegal sale
  • I'm not sure we can (or should), at least here. The reasoning is a bit complicated: it wasn't that selling it was illegal, but that selling it to someone outside Greece was illegal -- but not in itself, only if certain formalities hadn't been followed, and explaining those formalities itself requires us to sketch something of the complexities of C19th Greek archaeological law. What matters here (under WP:SUMMARYSTYLE) is that Rhousopoulos broke the law: interested readers can go to the body to find out precisely how he did that. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
• fined Rhousopoulos for selling the vase in contravention of Greek law - exporting the vase?
  • I'm not sure he strictly exported it (as in, loaded it on a ship and sent it to London), but he sold it to a buyer outside Greece without following the necessary procedures, and that was the crime. Compare "The singer was booed for singing a song against the audience's taste": we understand that singing that particular song was unwelcome, not that the audience disliked all songs. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
• Who is Yannis Galanakis.
  • Here, see User:Caeciliusinhorto/Context considered harmful: where the answer to that question is "a modern expert of the sort you'd expect to be cited here", I've made no introduction. As it happens, he was my teacher. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
• The Athenian art dealer and a professor at the University of Athens Athanasios Rhousopoulos,[5] made the first scholarly publication - "professor at the University of Athens" could just be "academic", and are publications "made"?
  • I'm not sure it can: Professor is a senior rank (Athens used a variation on the German system, where most academics were not professors), and it's relevant that Rhousopoulos was a prominent, respected and powerful figure. "Publication" here is a gerund rather than a concrete noun: compare "made the first ascent of Everest". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Later,

"provided their owners had secured the judgement of a state committee of three experts that the object was "useless" to Greek museums" - seems glib and a (frankly deliberate) misunderstanding/justification by an earlier British translator; can we give a definition of how "useless" was legally defined by the Greek courts. Ceoil (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it was defined, any more than the conventional meaning of the term. I would be utterly amazed, given the generally ad hoc nature of everything to do with archaeological legislation at the time, if a legal definition existed, and far more so if that definition was actually adhered to in practice. It's not a misunderstanding at all: the word in the Greek law is άχρηστον, which means 'useless' by any definition. The translator here, incidentally, is Greek. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Well its pleasingly odd language...adds colour and happy thus to keep. Ceoil (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Very interesting indeed, more later. Ceoil (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you, Ceoil. I note you've made a few edits, mostly very helpful: I've fiddled around with a few where grammar, EngVar, or sense required. Happy to discuss those if you feel the need. To get one thing in early: it's important to be clear when Rhousopoulos made the claims about the vase's provenance, as these predate his coming to the attention of the authorities as a likely criminal: if we just say "according to Rhousopoulos", we leave it possible that he made these claims after being required to prove that he acquired the thing legally. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Satisfied with responses. Support. Very nice work. Ceoil (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

History of chocolate

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

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

• Rollinginhisgrave Nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Passing comments only, but:

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

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

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

Support from Tim riley

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

It is a wonderful world

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

Spot check

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

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

Support from NØ

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

• "It is unclear when what can strictly be considered chocolate was first drunk" - I found it a bit difficult to understand what is being said here upon first reading it. Is there a way to simplify?
  • I reworded the full sentence sentence: "Multiple cacao beverages were consumed, including an alcoholic beverage made by fermenting the pulp around cacao seeds, and it is unclear when a drink that can be strictly understood as chocolate originated."
    • Yep, that more than takes care of my concern. Thank you.
• Psychedelic drug might be worth linking to
• "Since World War I, chocolate has developed further, creating couverture and white chocolate" - Maybe add "been" between "has" and "developed". It reads a bit like the chocolate developed itself currently. It is also not clear who did the "creating" in the second part of this sentence, and it reads like the chocolate did it.
• "This is considered unlikely as there is no clear reason why the 'sh' sound represented by 'x' would change to 'ch', or why an 'l' would be added." - Unlikely according to whom? Since there is just one source cited, it might be worth attributing if there is no larger consensus.
  • I'll walk you through my thinking briefly. The Coes gave opinions on several etymologies, initially in 1996. One of these was pretty influential (on cacao). Kaufman and Justeson wrote a paper, which is a crazy read because at times it goes into polemic. In it, they criticize a few of the Coes etymologies, but not this one, implicitly endorsing it. Further to this, the xocatl is dropped from the literature, and a different etymology has some consensus. I've attributed for now.
    • I will trust your expertise on this. The topic is way out of my domain so feel free to consider my suggestion optional.
• "The decorations on these high-quality ceramics suggest that cocoa was a centerpiece to social gatherings among people of high social status." - "high-quality" seems to be in wikivoice currently
• "Both cocoa beans and the vessels and instruments used for preparing and serving chocolate were given as important gifts and tributes" - "important gifts" sounds a little bit redundant, since I am not sure what would qualify as an unimportant gift. Do you mean to say it was given as a gift to important people?
• "The Maya then removed the husks and pounded the nibs" - Is the plural "Mayans" or "the Maya"? There seem to be usages of both whereas it is probably best to be consistent. I am also seeing "The Maya peoples" used a few paragraphs below.
• "The bean was used as a symbol for the human heart removed in human sacrifice, possibly as they were both thought to be repositories of precious liquids—blood and chocolate." - Avoid repeating "human" in close proximity if possible.
• "It was served to human sacrifice victims before their execution." - Might be good to mention who was serving it
  • The source's source says "On the festival eve, cacao beverages were served to the individuals slated to be killed as sacrifices to the god to “comfort them”"
• "Spanish conquistador Hernán Cortés may have been the first European to encounter chocolate when he observed it in the court of Moctezuma II in 1520." - You later go on to say there is no evidence he was responsible for its introduction in Spain, so should this be attributed or has this fact been proven beyond doubt?
  • This is not contested. If you can find the energy to get access to it through the Wikipedia Library, there is a very romantic poem about chocolate by William Baer I love on JSTOR [1] which features this fact prominently, even if it gets (basically) all the history wrong.
• "Chocolate was an acquired taste for the Spanish living in the Americas" - "people" would make sense after "Spanish" in this case to avoid confusion with the language, although this suggestion is in nitpicky territory. There is also "Spaniards" a few sentences later so you may change it to be consistent.
• "Its earliest documented introduction to the Spanish court occurred in 1544 by Qʼeqchiʼ Mayan nobles brought to Spain by Dominican friars" - Did the Mayan nobles do the documentation or the introduction?
• "Coenraad Johannes van Houten received a patent for the manufacturing process for making Dutch cocoa." - Repetition of "for" seems avoidable as "of" works instead of the second one.
• "At the time however, there was no market for cocoa butter, and it took until the 1860s to be widely used." - Add a comma before however
• "Quakers were active in chocolate entrepreneurship in the Industrial Revolution, setting up J. S. Fry & Sons, Cadbury, and Rowntree's." - The names at the end could be introduced as "companies" or "firms", whichever is appropriate, just to avoid any confusion.
• "In the 2000s, consumption grew in Africa; in Nigeria for example" - Add a comma before "for example"
• "In 2013 there were at least 37 bean-to-bar producers in the United States, increasing from one in 1997." - Add a comma after "In 2013"
• "In 2005, a non-binding, voluntary industry agreement called the Harkin–Engel Protocol was created to address child and forced labor." - created by whom?
• The absence of a close-up picture of an actual chocolate bar in the article seems worth bringing up. Surely one is available?
  • Uploaded one, just the one from the dark chocolate article.

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

MaranoFan, I believe everything has been addressed, hopefully to your satisfaction. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. Happy to support for promotion.--NØ 17:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Jens

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the diagram
  • Done by 35%

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

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

Comments from Llewee

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

• "Consumption was restricted to adult men, as the stimulating effects were considered unsuitable for women and children." - If this is based on the accounts and images that exist from the time, could that clarified? Giving that its unknown whether commoners were consuming chocolate it seems unlikely that we know for certain that no women and children were.
  • I've attributed, the source says "Furthermore, until the mid-16th century, chocolate was only consumed as a beverage by adult males, since Mayan and Mexica/Aztec traditions held that chocolate was too “ stimulating ” for adult females and children."
• "Chocolate was one of the two most important drinks to the Aztecs." - Could this be clarified? (e.g most valuable, most prestigious, healthiest)
  • I've added "It was a luxury," I'm not sure I can go much further from the sourcing.
• "Although chocolate was not consumed in the same way as the elite among commoners, it was widely available across Mesoamerica at the time of the conquest" - Could more detail be added about how commoners consumed it? My impression from the early part of the paragraph was that it was exclusive to the social elite with a few exceptions?
  • Yeah. This is a really good question. Given the tension is reflecting some disagreement in the literature, I've attributed each opinion.
• "An inferior gruel" - inferior to pure chocolate or inferior to other types of gruel?
  • To pure chocolate, clarified.
• "despite the spice only being introduced to Mesoamerica by the Spanish conquest" - the conquest is linked for the first time here though it and "Spanish invasion" have been mentioned previously
• "The primarily male Spanish population was systematically exposed to chocolate through the Aztec women they married or took as concubines" - The use of the word "systemically" creates the impression it was some kind of deliberate decision.--Llewee (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Removed.
• "Spaniards, casta and Afro-Guatemalan women who couldn't afford domestic servants likely learned to make chocolate from their neighbors" - This is partly a reiteration of an earlier point but we seem to have moved from chocolate being an elite food in south america to being a food of the masses without much explanation.
  • Tell me if above changes are adequate for this text.
• "and only in extreme cases did a man prepare it" - I think "unusual" or "rare" would be a better word than "extreme" here.
• "there was controversy whether chocolate was both a food and a drink or just a drink" - The word "about" should appear between "controversy" and "whether".
• "When chocolate was introduced to France is therefore difficult to pinpoint," - it is unclear what reason "therefore" is referring to.
• "it would only be settled as beneficial by 1684" - who decided it was beneficial?
• "taken from the Spaniards in 1655" - I assume conquered?
• "in England chocolate was a commercial product" - was this different from elsewhere?
  • Yes, quite. Do I need to make this clearer, or were you just checking if I was implying something I didn't mean to?
• "by the end of the 17th century it was compulsory to include it in British Navy rations" - While this was before the England and Scotland political union, it appears that the kingdoms' navies were integrated together in the 17th century so "British" is likely accurate. Perhaps link History of the Royal Navy (before 1707).
  • Oh, very good to know.
• "spread to the North American colonies by the late-17th century" - I'd suggest linking "North American colonies".
  • What is a good link here? This includes Canada.
• "was well established among the elite of late-17th-century Philippines" - I might be mistaken but I think there should be a "the" between "of" and "late".

Thankyou Llewee for these comments. I've actioned them unless noted above. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm going to be away from Wikipedia for a couple of days, I will answer these comments as soon as possible.--Llewee (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Fearless (Taylor Swift song)

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

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

Aoba47

Moved to Wikipedia:Peer review/Midnights/archive1

 – Aoba47 (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Aoba47: hey, thank you very much for the comments! I think this should go to Wikipedia:Peer review/Midnights/archive1 and not here. Ippantekina (talk) 04:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Apologies for that. I have never done that before. I feel quite foolish for it. I will move the comments over there, but I will make sure to comment on this FAC to make up for my mistake. I am leaving this up as a placeholder for that purpose. Aoba47 (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• I would mention the retrospective reviews and rankings in the lead.
• There is a bit of repetition in the first paragraph of the "Background and writing" section, specifically with these two parts, ("Taylor Swift wrote songs for her second studio album" and "Swift wrote songs about"). The second instance could be changed to something like "Swift based her songs on love and personal experiences", but that is just a rough idea so feel free to revise it in a different way.
• The last part of this sentence seems overly wordy to me: (She first conceived the track while touring, when she was unattached romantically: "I wasn't even in the beginning stages of dating anybody.") The "unattached romantically" word choice along with the quote seem like a lot to just saying that Swift was single at the time of writing this song. I think something along the lines of "She was single when she first conceived the track while touring." would be more concise with losing anything.
• I am uncertain on the information regarding the "best dress" lyric is organized in the "Music and lyrics" section. It is currently brought up at the end of the second paragraph and then discussed in different points in the third paragraph. When I first read this section, it came off as a bit unfocused and repetitive as the prose would bring up this lyric, seemingly move on from it, and then bring it up again. Why not discuss everything about this lyric together instead?
• I would avoid using "meanwhile" in this context, (Amanda Ash of the Edmonton Journal, meanwhile, thought). Meanwhile implies that two actions are happening at the same time, and this sentence is using a source from 2008 and the previous sentence is using a source from 2024. I would just avoid using this transition in general as I do not think it really fits when discussing critical commentary.
• For the "Release and commercial performance" section, why not put all of the chart information into its own paragraph? Right now, the U.S. charts are attached to the paragraph about the song's release as an official and full-fledged single and the international charts are put into their own paragraph.
• For this part, (She sang the song donning a silver sparkly cocktail dress), I think it is best to avoid the "sang the song" phrasing when possible as it does come off as unnecessarily repetitive. That being said, it is difficult to not make this section come off as repetitive when there are only so many ways you can say that an artist sang/perform something so it is not a major deal for me. It may be best to change this instance to "performed the song" and revise the previous sentence to "also sang it" to avoid this repetition.
• This is more of a nitpick-y so apologies in advance, but I am uncertain about the "On a less enthusiastic side" wording. I think that "In a less enthusiastic review" would read better.
• This is not a requirement for a FAC, but I would still encourage you to archive your web citations to avoid any potential headaches with link rot and death. I know from experience that it can be a real pain.

I hope that these comments are helpful. I do not notice anything major, and most of my comments above are minor and more nitpicks. Hopefully, this will inspire others to review this FAC. Once all of my comments are addressed, I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure I have not missed anything. Great work as always, and have a great rest of your week. Aoba47 (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Aoba47:, many thanks for taking time reviewing this article! Although it was not obligatory of you to make up for the Midnights PR, I really appreciate it :) I've addressed all of your points accordingly. Let me know if anything remains unresolved. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Media review and support from Crisco 1492

• Back when I was teaching, I'd usually use "When I was your age, Taylor Swift was country" as a joke. Happy to review

Media:

• File:Taylor Swift - Fearless (Single).png - Single cover is used with valid FU rationale.
• File:FearlessSample.ogg - Datestamp is... probably not correct. I'd use a less specific timestamp.
• File:Taylor Swift - Fearless Tour - Los Angeles 02 cropped.jpg - Licensing is good. ALT text is a full sentence, and should thus be followed by a period.

Prose:

• Generally songs and other media articles include year of release in the first sentence.

• done. Ippantekina (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• footage from the tour were - Footage uses "was", generally

• done. Ippantekina (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Is "character" the correct term when referring to something in a song? Persona is more commonly used in literary studies to discuss the narrative voice used in poetry, which seems like it would be more parallel to a song than the prose-oriented "character"

• Switched to "narrator". Ippantekina (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Fearless" a country pop and pop rock song. - Missing a verb

• done. Ippantekina (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• She pays attention to the details, such as how the pavement glistens in the moonlight after a rain, how her date "runs [his] hand through [his] hair", and how she gets excited and nervous anticipating a first kiss. - Is this the persona or Swift?

• done. Ippantekina (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• such as dancing in the rain in one's best costumes - Textually this is very similar to the song lyrics you just quoted. Perhaps a paraphrase?
• On the Billboard Hot 100 chart dated November 1, 2008, "Fearless" debuted and peaked at number nine on the Billboard Hot 100,

• done. Ippantekina (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Swift thereby became the first female artist since Madonna in 1998 to have two top-10 debuts in one calendar year - What was the first one?
• which evaluated the impact of Swift's songwriting. - Doesn't make sense to me
• Several critics have ranked the track highly among all songs in Swift's discography

• done. Ippantekina (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• tropes - Probably worth a link

• done. Ippantekina (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• to conjecture romantic whimsy - To "form an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information"? I'm not sure this is the correct term.

• Changed to "depict". Ippantekina (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• other dramatized Fearless songs - How are the other songs dramatized?

• done. Ippantekina (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• were used to comprise a music video - "to consist, make up" isn't quite the sense you're going for. Interestingly, searching for that phrase in Google gives almost exclusively forks of this page.

• fixed. Ippantekina (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• It intermingles Swift's performances of other songs and behind-the-scene footage. - The video or the footage? Also, intertwines with is probably the better phrase

• done. Ippantekina (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• I've made some edits. Please review. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the review! I've addressed your points accordingly. Let me know if anything remains unsatisfactory :) Ippantekina (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  Looks good. Happy to support.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Medxvo

• I think there is a MOS:PIPE issue with certified platinum and platinum certification. And why are we in prose wikilinking "It received a platinum certification in Australia" but not "The Recording Industry Association of America certified the single platinum"?
• "The song also charted in Canada and Spain" - what about the United Kingdom?
• "On the Billboard Hot 100 chart" - can we indicate that it's a US chart (and that the paragraph is mainly for the US charts)?
• "The Guardian's Alexis Petridis was not as welcoming" - perhaps we can add his singles ranking so the review's placement can be justified, otherwise it's kind of confusing
• "Jason Mraz's "I'm Yours" and Train's "Hey Soul Sister" - "Jason Mraz's "I'm Yours" (2008) and Train's "Hey, Soul Sister" (2009)" (why "Hey Soul Sister" instead of "Hey, Soul Sister"?)

That's all I've got, good work as always :) Medxvo (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Source review

• Refs 9 and 77 are duplicated
• Ref 20 is still active for me (and seems to have a subscription access now)
• Ref 29; also subscription access
• Refs 14, 46, 61, and 65 can be archived
• Can we use the liner notes of Speak Now World Tour – Live instead of refs 57 and 58 for the mashup songs details?

Medxvo (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Operation Matterhorn logistics

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

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

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

Drive-by comment

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

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

Support from Serial B-29

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

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

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

Drive-by (for now) from UC

• The $3 billion cost of design and production (equivalent to $51 billion today),: why not use the inflation template to get a dynamically updating year? Would seem both more durable and would reassure readers that the information remained in date (some Wikipedia articles are twenty years old). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  Y Used the {{Inflation/year}} template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• The creation of bases for the B-29s in India, Ceylon and China and their maintenance: this is a little ambiguous: was it difficult to maintain the bases or the aircraft? The former seems more likely, so "creation and maintenance of..." would be better.

  Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• I think we should explain the term "staged" per WP:JARGON.

  Y Piped to staging area Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• I need some convincing that the design process for the B-29 is appropriate material (under DUEWEIGHT) in an article on a particular operation involving them. We don't start the article on the Battle of Agincourt with a description of the invention of the longbow. Was this the first use of B-29s in action, or some other milestone that obviously feeds in from their development?

  Y Rewritten the first paragraph to highlight the key points from a logistical point of view. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• the Netherlands East Indies, which were the source of ninety percent of Japan's oil supplies. : I understand the desire not to spend half the article explaining the fundamentals of the Second World War, but I think it's germane here to say that they were under Japanese occupation at the time, since the name gives the impression of their being under Dutch control.

  Y Deleted the bit about alternative basing in SWPA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Because the war against Germany had priority: link (and perhaps briefly explain) Europe first?

  Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• the only line of communications with China was over "the Hump", as the air ferry route to China over the Himalayas was called: could cut as indicated? Seems fairly obvious that a line of communication with China would end up in China.

  Y Deleted as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Until the Burma Road could be reopened by the ground forces, all the fuel, ammunition and supplies used by American forces in China had flown over the Hump.: were these American forces limited to the B-29s we just discussed? It sounds here like there was more involved. If this was the only American presence there, I think it would be good to explain that briefly when we talk about the decision to put the B-29s in China.

  Y It was not; added a bit about the Fourteenth Air Force. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• with a target date of 1 May 1944: as we have WP:TIES to the United States, the US date order is preferable.

  Per MOS:MILFORMAT: articles on the modern US military, including biographical articles related to the modern US military, should use day-before-month, in accordance with US military usage

• China-Burma-India Theater : dashes, not hyphens (or spaces?).

  It is the form used in all the sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• The Twentieth Air Force: can we introduce who these people were and what their stake in the operation was?

  Y Oops. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• No full stop needed on the "Black Jack" caption.

  Y deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• When US Army Engineers: engineers should be LC here.

  Y De-capped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• To save time and concrete, dispersal areas were omitted: not knowing much about the business of constructing airfields, this went completely over my head.
• Is it the US Army or the U.S. Army? The article varies.

  Y Used U.S. form consistently. The MOS favours inconsistency. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• a tank farm : What's one of those?

  Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• A Navy tanker delivers fuel. Master Sergeant Gerino Terenzi (right) is the section foreman, constantly checking his pumping stations and storage tanks.: Is this (and similar) the original caption? It reads a bit like a propaganda release, especially with the "constantly checking..." (and, honestly, naming the individual). This should be clarified if so; if not, we should rewrite with a more encyclopaedic tone.

  Y Yes, it is the original. Tweaked the caption a little. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• thin, light-weight, "invasion-weight" pipe: perhaps better as "thin, lightweight pipe, known as "invasion-weight", as "invasion-weight" doesn't add or change anything from "thin" and "lightweight" (is the hyphen normal in AmerE? It isn't in BrE).

  Y Changed to "lightweight", but the AmerEng sources use the hyphen. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• "And the contractors' personnel policies, if they can be so dignified, were blends of inefficiency and time-honored skulduggery.": this quote seems to come out of nowhere. Who said it?

  Y There is a footnore. Added that it was from the American official historians. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• leaking 100-octane gasoline could be dangerous: leaking any sort of gasoline is dangerous, isn't it?

  100-octane is more volatile than 80-octane. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  Right, but would it be safe to have a leak of 80-octane gasoline? We've implied that it would. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Five days later, a vapor explosion set fire to thatched houses in the village. Seventy-one people died in the ensuing conflagration.: conflagration may not be quite encyclopaedic in tone (sounds more like journalism to me): simply set fire to thatched houses in the village, killing seventy-one people?

  I think that is just too matter-of-fact. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• He personally reconoitered: reconnoitred, but I would also cut personally as potentially WP:PUFFERY.

  Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• on the black market an American dollar fetched up to 240 Chinese yuan: as phrased, it's difficult to see the comparison here. Suggest "at the official rate of one dollar to 20 yuan".

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Arthur N. Young, the American financial advisor to the Chinese government was critical: comma after government.

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• averaged about 25 Chinese yuan per day (worth about $1 in 2023: this doesn't smell right: if the official exchange rate was $1 to 20 yuan, this implies that the US dollar is worth more now than it was in 1940.

  Y Ooops! Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Transliterated Chinese needs to be in a transliteration template, not a lang template (use that for writing in Chinese script).

  Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Men, women and children shaped them : this is the first time we've mentioned that the workforce included all three groups; I would have done so when we talked about the assembly of the workforce a few paragraphs ago.

  Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Neither was well-situated for the proposed B-29 missions: no hyphen in "well situated" here.

  Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• A sea-air service: endash needed here.

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Cargo ships usually went to Calcutta and troop ships to Bombay, which was safer: what was safer, exactly -- was the crime rate in Bombay lower?

  Y Added "as Calcutta was within range of Japanese bombers". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

More to follow, hopefully. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Let's do a bit more:

• there remained critical shortages in some military occupational specialty codes,: This is slightly military-ese, I think: it's not the code that was in short supply as the people holding it. Suggest "shortages of certain specialist personnel", with a link to MOS if you wish.

  Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• moved from the port at Calcutta to Assam by rail and barge, from whence they had to be flown across the Hump: not ideal structure with the from whence, given that the antecedent (Assam) is on the other side of a big block of meaning ("by rail and barge"). Grammatically, at least, we could be implying that they were flown from the barges. Suggest "barge; from Asasm, they had to be flown..."

  Y Tweaked the wording slightly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• 90-days' temporary duty: no hyphen here.

  Y Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• that the temporary-duty ATC pilots continued to fly them until they had to return to the United States: the pilots or the aircraft?

  Y The pilots. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• would receive 1,650 tons out of the first 10,250 short tons: is tons different here to short tons? If not, would cut it: if so, would find a clearer way to say this.

  Y Added another conversion template. Short tons is an unusual unit, but was used by the ATC for convenience in calculation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• one crewman was wounded. In turn, they claimed to have shot him down, but all the aircraft involved landed safely: Would clarify they as the Japanese; it's a bit tricky in context.

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• There were no supplementary rations, no additional personal or orginizational equipment, no clothing: typo. What do we mean by "personal or organizational equipment" -- anything that isn't strictly military? Would "personal or administrative" be clearer and accurate? I also have a slightly bizarre image in my head of these people working in the nude.

  Y Changed to "spare clothing" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• 2nd Air Transport Squadrons: typo in piped link.

  Y Looks okay to me. Oh, I see. The page was moved. It is not a typo though; just the official name, which in in American English, which we don't use on Wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• In late 1944, the Japanese Operation Ichi-Go offensive in China probed relentlessly toward the B–29 and ATC bases around Chengdu and Kunming.: not sure about this adverb: a probing action is, by definition, hesitant, at least by comparison with a regular offensive, while relentlessly implies a high level of pace and aggression.

  Y Changed to "advanced". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• That month, the Burma Road was reopened, and the inaugural convoy reached Kunming on 4 February 1945.: I'm not sure you can have an inaugural convoy on something that is being reopened.

  Y Changed to "first". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Chennault considered the Twentieth Air Force a liability: might consider reintroducing Chennault; it's been a while.

  Y Changed to "his Fourteenth Air Force". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• The final quotation is a long chunk of a non-free primary source: these are generally discouraged under a whole range of PAGs. How strong is the encyclopaedic argument for including all of it? It strikes me that most of it (from "Because Japan...") restates factual material that has already been stated in the article.

  Y Paraphrased it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Anna Filosofova

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

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

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

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size

• Fixed

• File:Анна_Павловна_Философова.jpg needs a US tag

• Added

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

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

Source review: passed

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

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

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

@Serial Number 54129, do you have any other comments? —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, Ganesha811, and thanks for the ping. SerialNumber54129^{A New Face in Hell} 18:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Breton Civil War, 1341

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jens

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sentence changed as discussed.

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

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

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

Ok.

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

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

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

River Loire linked.

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

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

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

Image review

• File:Jan_z_Montfortu.gif needs a US tag

Done.

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

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

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

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

UC

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

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

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

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

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

Capitalised.

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

Done.

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

Done.

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

Clarified.

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

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

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

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

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

Done.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hah! True. Done.

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

Oops. Corrected.

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

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

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

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

I have rephrased to avoid that unhappy commaisation.

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

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

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

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

Tweaked to "weak and fumbled".

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

Done. (Yes.)

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

De-hyphened.

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

I disagree.

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

Implemented.

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

Done.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changed to "Edward and his council agreed that the English army would be disbanded for the winter and the fleet paid off; while this was taking place representatives arrived from John announcing ..." Does that work?

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

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

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

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

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

Good point, changed to Joanna throughout. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

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

That was sloppy of me. I can tell that it was 18 months since I was last at FAC. To lose it I have rewritten the first sentence and a bit of the section. [2]

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

Added.

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

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

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

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

The wording has been changed per the discussion below.

• battle of Auray: capitalise Battle.

Done. But it will get reverted on the grounds that most sources don't. (Eg [3].)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Can I throw in another very nit-picky one: the short description is Start of the War of the Breton Succession, which implies (to me at least) that the "Breton Civil War" and the "War of the Breton Succession" are two different things. We generally say that we should refer to an individual thing in a consistent way throughout an article, and I think that applies here. When the name change comes through, it would probably be better set to "none" anyway? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Good spot. Short descriptions are one of my blind spots. Changed. There were a couple of minor edits due to the article being a DYK today. I'll check through them tomorrow when things are stable again. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi UC and apologies for the lull. I have added a couple of responses above and have now covered all of your points I think. There have also been a few copy edits - partly me rereading and tidying up, partly due to the article recently having been a DYK. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Support: I haven't ben able to get to the article, but it's already clear enough that the article meets the FA standards. I think the change of name is still required, for the reasons discussed above, but agree that this should be done after promotion. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Hi UC and thank you for the support. And a big thank you for the thorough review. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

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

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

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

Hmm, rendered more pointful.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clarified.

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

I am with you and the OED there. Apologies.

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

A twofer, gerund-hog day.

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

Haven't we been here before?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oops. Inserted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support by Borsoka

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

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

• Yes.

Thanks. Done. Cited to Sumption and Wagner.

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

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

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

Fair enough. I'll do that.

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

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

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

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

The sources are not that clear. Many of their divisions would require explaining (eg Breton speaking v French speaking), none of them were absolute, and almost all of them varied over time. I don't see that trying to communicate some of this is going to much help a reader, not least because it had very little effect on actual events.

• Still, I would mention that Charles was supported mainly by aristocrats and clerics, and commoners mainyl stood up by John. Borsoka (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I have added a bit to Background, [4] Gog the Mild (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Thanks. Done.

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Could the map also show Brest and Dinan?

Done.

• I would clarify that Angers is in Anjou.

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

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

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

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

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

I would work for me.

Done.

• Do we need a link to "siege"?

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

• ...was almost captured... Who?

Clarified.

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

Rewritten.

• ...was agreed in 1365 By whom?

Added.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your magnanimous offer. For the time being, I am concentrating on reviews and some aspects of the history of the crusader states. Later, I would like to improve articles about individual Briton dukes. Borsoka (talk) 03:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

That sounds interesting. I imagine Sumption could provide a sound framework for several. Give me a shout if you are hunting for a source, or what a second opinion on some text, or find one where you think collaboration might be appropriate. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Done.

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

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

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

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

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

• You caught me. :) I think there are only three pending issues. Borsoka (talk) 03:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Borsoka and apologies for the hiatus. Your remaining points now addressed. There have also been a few copy edits - partly me rereading and tidying up, partly due to the article recently having been a DYK. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you for this interesting article. I support its promotion. Borsoka (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Borsoka and thank you for the support and, especially, for the review comments. Remember, if you ever fancy collaborating on Breton Civil War/War of the Breton Succession, now or ever, let me know. It would be an interesting project, but not one I fancy tackling solo. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Source review

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

• Rogers: oh, nice spot. I am staring at the title page wondering how that happened. You are probably ahead of me. The article was later collected into a book with those ISSN and ISBNs. But I actually used the Journal of Medieval Military History. Things should match now and apologies for whatever went wrong.
• French and Breton: I can find nothing of any use in Breton. Several perfectly passable general histories in French - of the HYW or of Philip VI. Few as good as the English language sources, none better and none that I am aware of containing notable information not in the English sources. So, per WP:NOENG ("English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance"), I haven't used any.

Hi Jo-Jo and thanks for the swift and incredibly thorough review. My two responses are above, let me know if they still leave queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

My concern is that you get an article with WP:UNDUE weight being given to the English viewpoint if you use only English sources. Not all good sources are translated and that even researchers tend to focus more on their own/friendly countries. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Ceoil

• Brittany was a province of France but while the dukes of Brittany were vassals of the French kings they governed the duchy as independent rulers something explanatory is missing between "vassals of the French kings they governed". Vassals should be linked.

Vassal: it should, it is now, in both the lead and the main article.

Missing. Seems fine to me, and UC and Borsoka both ok'ed it before I swapped it in. A little reluctantly I have added a comma after "France". Does that help?

• What are the "great men" of Brittany

I think it's fairly self explanatory. (And if a reader is a little vague I don't think it is going to interrupt the flow of their reading nor distract from their understanding of the situation.)

• whereby he sided with French vassals of Philip in their disagreements with him. "whereby --> after which

I have gone with "by which".

• Have made some trivial edits; fine with being reverted. Otherwise thats my lot. Support a very well told article. Ceoil (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Your comments all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Request for the coordinators

Hi @FAC coordinators: as this is 16 days in and has five supports, image and (I think) source review passes could I have permission to nominate a second article? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Go for it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Tesla Model S

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

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

EG

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drive-by (sorry...) from UC

May not have time for a full review, at least not in the near future, though I note the article seems to be in pretty good nick following its last round at FAC.

In the footnote for "Rollover", we have This means it has a 5.7 percent chance of rolling over.. That needs some more context to me -- is that a 5.7% chance of rolling over while parked on your drive, or while taking a corner at speed? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Older nominations

Mount Edziza

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

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

Provisional support by JJE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  It's not much longer than previous sentences. Volcanoguy 20:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

  A bit over the line to "too long", in my opinion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  Added a semicolon. Volcanoguy 23:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• "in diameter " -> "wide"?

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

• Is this a high-quality reliable source?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  It turns out Churchill has a hazard score similar to Cayley, Price and Edziza. Volcanoguy 17:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've mentioned Churchill in the hazards section. Volcanoguy 18:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

  After thinking about it some more I agree the names section should be merged with the etymology section so that has been done. Volcanoguy 16:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Did these mineral explorations get to any point?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adding support, although I may revisit depending on Eewilson's prose notes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Meaning? Volcanoguy 05:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Meaning that I don't trust my own assessment of prose quality as much as some other people's, so I might reconsider if they find significant issues. Don't think that's particularly likely, though. For the coordinators, that means that this is a support, not a weak support or anything. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Generalissima

I admire your dedication to this volcanic complex. I'm gonna do a prose readthrough.

• Lede is good. Only note is that you don't really give a description for what Ice Peak is, so it reads as an unrelated mountain rather than the southern peak of the mountain.

  Clarified. Volcanoguy 18:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Under etymology: I wouldn't call those "misspellings", since they seem to predate a standardized spelling. I'd say "obsolete spellings" or something of that ilk.

  Done. Volcanoguy 17:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Additionally, maybe we could move the native name of Ice Mountain/Tenh Dẕetle to this section, so all name-related stuff is right at front? I would rephrase this to something like "its Tahltan name Tenh Dẕetle, translating to "Ice Mountain" in English" rather than the reverse.

    Reworded. Volcanoguy 17:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Geography and geomorphology is solid. As a rock, you could say.
  • "only one worthy of note" I realize the source might not say, but I wouldn't know if there were actually other ice caps or not on the plateau.

    Actually, the source directly states "Although nearly the entire area was ice-covered during the Pleistocene, only the glacier complex on Edziza Peak is presently worthy of note." Volcanoguy 17:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  • I don't think we need the "respectively" after listing the names of two ridges and two identically named creeks.

    Removed. Volcanoguy 16:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Bit of sea of blue on "Drainage", where [Stikine River] [watershed] appears to be a single link [Stikine River watershed]. You could link watershed somewhere else, or create a Redirect with possibilities from "Stikine River watershed" -> "Stikine River".

    Created redirect. Volcanoguy 18:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• I'll admit my geology knowledge is limited, but this seems pretty intelligible to me; you do a good job explaining it.
  • Underlying -> Basement (geology) was a bit confusing at first to find out what I needed to click to get to the Basement (geology) page. Maybe rephrase so the first sentence contains the word "basement"?

    Maybe it doesn't need to be linked at all? Volcanoguy 18:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• The last paragraph of Hazards and monitoring seems to not match with the citations that well. For instance, the Canadian National Seismograph Network and its location is not mentioned at all, nor is the mountain itself! Is there any other sourcing we could use here?

  The source doesn't mention the name Canadian National Seismograph Network but it does mention the seismograph network in general. Also, the source claims no Canadian volcanoes are monitored sufficiently which means Edziza isn't monitored sufficiently either. I'm using common sense here. Volcanoguy 17:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Optionally, I'd advise linking Tahltan at the beginning of the human history section since its quite a ways from its first mention.
• Image captions which scan as full sentences should end in periods.

  I think I got them. Volcanoguy 18:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Accessibility is a bit hard to read due to an excessive amount of road and trail names (many of which are quite similar). Do we need to list all of the lakes and creeks these trails pass by?

  Without the names it would be unclear which is what. Volcanoguy 16:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Volcanoguy: That's my piece. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Generalissima: I've responded to all of your points. Volcanoguy 18:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me IMO, Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Eewilson

My review will be here, mostly source review. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

It turns out I'm doing a prose reading and review as well. I have my notes in progress offline. I won't be able to do anything on this Tuesday because I will be out of town. After the prose review, I will do a source review. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 05:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Prose review

• Infobox
  • Need |map_alt=

    What should the alt text be? Volcanoguy 17:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  Make it say what someone who can't see would need to know. Your photos have good alt text. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 01:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• Lead
  • Mineral exploration just southeast of Mount Edziza commenced in at least the 1950s where gold, silver and other metals were discovered. This mineral exploration was conducted by several mineral exploration companies into the early 1990s. – maybe a few too many "mineral exploration"s?
• Location and climate
  • Mount Edziza rises from within the middle of the Big Raven Plateau, a barren plateau in Cassiar Land District bounded on the west by Mess Valley, on the north by Klastline Valley, on the east by Kakiddi Valley and on the south by Chakima and Walkout valleys, the latter two of which are separated by mountainous terrain. – Are the latter two Klastline Valley and Kakiddi Valley or Chakima Valley and Walkout Valley?

    Chakima Valley and Walkout Valley. Volcanoguy 17:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

    Do something to make that just a little clearer, even if you repeat the names or add a sentence. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

    I've just removed it since it's not important. Volcanoguy 17:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  • The following sentence seems out of scope of this article and can be removed: This complex of shield volcanoes, stratovolcanoes, lava domes, calderas and cinder cones forms a broad, intermontane plateau at the eastern edge of the Tahltan Highland, a southeast-trending upland area extending along the western side of the Stikine Plateau.

    It's not out of scope if Mount Edziza is a part of it, not to mention the Big Raven Plateau is mentioned in the article which is a subplateau of the intermontane plateau. Volcanoguy 17:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Instead of using "as well as" in consists of several upland summits as well as wide river valleys and deeply incised plateaus, replace it with a comma unless it changes the meaning.

    Done. Volcanoguy 17:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Next part of this paragraph needs to be in summary style to fit the scope of this article; in other words, pick out the parts relevant to Mount Edziza and remove the rest. It is one of seven ecosections comprising the Boreal Mountains and Plateaus Ecoregion, a large ecological region of northwestern British Columbia encompassing high plateaus and rugged mountains with intervening lowlands. Boreal forests of black and white spruce occur in the lowlands and valley bottoms of this ecoregion whereas birch, spruce and willow form forests on the mid-slopes. Extensive alpine altai fescue covers the upper slopes, but barren rock is abundant at higher elevations.

    It's all relevant since the geography and flora of this ecosection surrounds Mount Edziza. Volcanoguy 17:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• Glaciation
  • Several small outlet glaciers extending down to altitudes of 1,700 to 2,000 metres (5,600 to 6,600 feet) drain the ice cap. – "extending down to altitudes" is confusing. What does this mean?

    Changed "altitudes" to "elevations". Volcanoguy 18:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• Satellitic features
  • about 2,285 metres (7,497 feet) in elevation – those numbers seem precise to be considered "about".

    Not according to the source. Volcanoguy 16:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  • The northeastern side of Mount Edziza contains The Pyramid – is this one of those situations where a proper name begins with "the" but we don't capitalize it unless it begins a sentence (E.g., "The Beatles" is "the Beatles", etc.)?

    No, sources capitalize it within sentences. Volcanoguy 17:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

    See MOS:THECAPS in general – the would not be capitalized in running text – but this is an exception in that it is a proper name of a geographical unit (MOS:GEOUNITS), so I believe the way you have it is correct per the MOS. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  • I'm wondering about the purpose of this section. Are all of the satellitic features a part of Mount Edziza? Or are they a part of Big Raven Plateau. Instead of a point on the map, is Mount Edziza actually identifiable by a large outline that would contain all of these features?

    They're all subfeatures of Mount Edziza, but since some of them are near the base of Mount Edziza instead of directly on it, they can be considered subfeatures of the Big Raven Plateau as well. Volcanoguy 16:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

    I've retitled this section to make it clearer that these are subfeatures. Volcanoguy 18:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC) 18:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

    I'm not aware of there being an outline for Mount Edziza. Volcanoguy 18:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  • The elevations of all of these features are exaustive and actually exhausting to read. Are they necessary? Are they necessary in the prose or could they be relegated to footnotes?

    I don't see why their elevations shouldn't be mentioned in the prose when the elevations of both Ice Peak and Mount Edziza's summit are previously mentioned in the article. Not mentioning their elevations brings up the question "how high are these features"? Volcanoguy 16:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

    I will look at it again tonight to see if it was just me last night, or if I have trouble with it tonight and can make suggestions. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• Composition
  • Shouldn't the footnote for fractional crystallization be right next to it instead of at the end of the sentence?

    Yes, not sure how that happened. Volcanoguy 19:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• Hazards and monitoring
  • Seems like this should be a level-2 section instead of level-3 within Geology.

    Volcanic hazards and volcano monitoring are topics of geology; see geological hazard. Volcanoguy 17:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• Indigenous peoples
  • Most of this section is about the Tahltan people and the use of the volcano's obsidian. I'd like to see the term "Edziza obsidian" with wikilink used even earlier in the first paragraph, and for it to be more clear if "this obsidian", "this volcanic glass", "Pyramid obsidian", are all "Edziza obsidian" or just obsidian in general.

    I've mentioned Edziza obsidian a bit earlier in the paragraph but I don't see the need of making "Pyramid obsidian" more clear since The Pyramid is previously mentioned in the "Subfeatures" section and the Pyramid Formation is already described as a stratigraphic unit of Mount Edziza. Volcanoguy 18:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  I had not understood that Pyramid obsidian was from the Pyramid. See if you can clear all of this obsidian up so the reader knows what is what. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  The Pyramid is part of the Pyramid Formation (see Pyramid Formation section) and does state that two obsidian flows occur on The Pyramid. Volcanoguy 16:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  Changed "Pyramid obsidian" to "this obsidian". Volcanoguy 17:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• Mineral exploration
  • This section begins with Just southeast of Mount Edziza was the Spectrum or Red Dog property, and the past tense isn't clarified in the section. Could you explain? Is the land gone? Is the "was" in reference to the "Spectrum or Red Dog property"?

    That's explained in the next section about protected areas. Volcanoguy 16:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

    "was an area once known as"? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

    Done. Volcanoguy 16:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  • I think there needs to be a bit of an explanation of what the "Spectrum or Red Dog property" is. Is this one property with two names or two properties? Should it be "Spectrum and Red Dog properties"? "Red Dog" is never used again in the article, so what is its significance?

    Red Dog was another name for the Spectrum property. Volcanoguy 16:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

    "also called Red Dog"? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

    I've just removed Red Dog since it's not needed. Volcanoguy 16:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Can "mineral claims" be wikilinked to something – perhaps Mineral rights?

    Done. Volcanoguy 17:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  • on the Spectrum property began in at least 1957 when Torbit Silver Mines – clarify "in at least"? Do you mean "as early as"?

    Done. Volcanoguy 16:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• Protected areas
  • This small remnant of the recreation area lied east of Mount Edziza until 2003 when it was disestablished. – is "lied" correct grammar? Actually, I'm not sure you want any form of lay or lie here. Maybe just "was"? Also, "remnant" implies "small", and you already explained its size, so just remove the word "small".

    Done. Volcanoguy 19:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• Accessibility
  • Are Buckley Lake Trail, Klastline River Trail, and Buckley Lake to Mowdade Lake Route all horse trails?

    Don't know. Volcanoguy 16:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  Are any of the named trails in this section horse trails? The section talks about horse trails and doesn't clarify, so the reader is sort of led to believe that those trails are horse trails. If they are not, or if it's unknown, clarify these are two different topics: horse trails and other trails. Alternatively, find out if horses are allowed on those trails. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  Well, the Buckley Lake and Klastline River trails seem to be the only trails into Mount Edziza Provincial Park from surrounding roads so they most likely can be used for horseback riding. The BC Parks website claims horseback riding is promoted in Mount Edziza Provincial Park and those two trails enter the park. Volcanoguy 16:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I may have more for prose, but my brain is done for the day, and I wanted to get this out to you. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I am fairly certain that WP:CITE says we need to stick to one citation style in an article (MOS:CITEVAR?). I believe this means that (in addition to being consistent with cs1, cs2, Chicago, ALA, etc.) you should not combine shortened footnotes with list-defined references in the same article. If this is the case, pick one and modify your references accordingly, or find something that says I am misinterpreting (I have searched). I personally prefer sfn, but it's your choice as long as it's consistent. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

My sense is that at FAC we accept such a style combination (sfn+list defined references) when some sources are paginated and others aren't. Whether we should accept it is a different question, of course. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen both used in FA articles. Volcanoguy 17:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

It does seem like if FAs are representing our best work, they should completely follow the guidelines. It seems like I have brought this up before in an FAC review.

Check out what I found yesterday: talk page templates created in March 2023 in Category:Sfn usage style notice templates. Does anyone know the history? All but {{Note short footnote style 3 in use}} seem to support what I am saying, and it seems to contradict the others. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Eewilson: I'm not familiar with converting website links to use the sfn format, only books, reports, journals, etc. Volcanoguy 15:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It's no different really, but let me get awake and think about our referencing options. I did some research into those templates late last night (really early this morning) and want to write up what I found (with hopefully only a minor tangent). – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

My main problem is that several of the website sources in this article use the same publisher (e.g. Government of British Columbia, BC Geographical Names, Global Volcanism Program, Natural Resources Canada, United States Geological Survey). Volcanoguy 16:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Let's look first at some that you have as list-defined but that could easily be converted to shortened footnotes because they are in author-date format. Here are the first few:

• Souther, J. G. (1988). "1623A" (Geologic map). Geology, Mount Edziza Volcanic Complex, British Columbia. 1:50,000. Cartography by M. Sigouin, Geological Survey of Canada. Energy, Mines and Resources Canada. doi:10.4095/133498.
• Holland, Stuart S. (1976). Landforms of British Columbia: A Physiographic Outline (PDF) (Report). Government of British Columbia. pp. 49, 50. ASIN B0006EB676. OCLC 601782234. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2018-11-14.
• D.R. Piteau and Associates (1988). Geochemistry and Isotope Hydrogeology of the Mount Edziza and Mess Creek Geothermal Waters, British Columbia (Report). Open File 1732. Geological Survey of Canada. pp. 3, 4. doi:10.4095/130715.
• Field, William O. (1975). "Coast Mountains: Boundary Ranges (Alaska, British Columbia, and Yukon Territory)". Mountain Glaciers of the Northern Hemisphere. Vol. 2. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. p. 43. Retrieved 2023-08-23.

and others. After these are dealt with, let's see what's left. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Gusuku period

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

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

750h

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

Feel free to refuse my suggestions with proper justification.

lead

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

background

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

emergence

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

developments

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

emergence of the Ryukyu Kingdom

No problems here.

histography

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

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

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

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

Arconning - source review

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

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

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

Support from Crisco

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

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

  @Crisco 1492: Okay! I think I got to everything. Tried to add a few multiple image templates and moved some around. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• Great. I made one small fix, but otherwise looks good. Happy to support.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Image review - pass

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support by Lee Vilenski

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede

• "era of the history" - I could be very off, but surely it's "era in the history".Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Checking Google Scholar, both are attested but "era in the history" is a lot more common; corrected. - G
• Can we split the opening sentence? In my eyes the first sentence should be succinct in explaining what the article is about. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Fixed. - G
• Otherwise, the lede is quite tight. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• c. 1050 CE–15th century - considering circa just means roughly, can we not give a rough end date too? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Sure, 1429 works for that. - G

Prose

• Reconstruction of an elevated storehouse, Ocean Expo Park, Okinawa - image caption. Might seem petty, but I'd have something after storehouse. Don't want someone to think storehouse is a place, or Ocean Expo is a hut. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Added an "at". - G
• I'm sure you use it elsewhere, but could we spell out "ha" in full.Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Done. - G

Additional comments

• I've left some bare comments above, but I'm not finding enough to slow a support from me. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you very much! Made this fixes. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Paul Hunter

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

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

Image review

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

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose

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

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

Hi Lee, how are you doing with this? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi! So I did look through quite a few obituaries, and they seem to all just go through the paces of his career. Quite a few mention that he was popular by the media. The only thing that really stood out was a piece on him being caught running through Blackpool beach naked.

this source says he was snookers first 'pin-up'. the Guardian talks about his good looks the independent says about him being "snooker's answer to Posh and Becks" and this source says about his talent and that he "transcended his chosen pursuit to achieve celebrity status". I'm just struggling a bit to put this into a coherent section.

I can't find anything at all about his actual style of play. Most items just say about how talented he is, and how he made centuries, but not how he played. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Does any of this help? "With his easy. fluent style and ponytailed or braided blonde hair, it was easy to see him as Snooker's golden boy ... He became a hero for clubbers, carousers and ravers who recognised him as one of their own [although he realised] there was an imbalabce between his pursuit of pleasure and devotion to his craft" (Clive Everton, "Paul Hunter: Denied His Golden Future", Snooker Scene, November 2005, page 4). Willie Thorne said "He lit up the stage when he played. He was a very flamboyant player".("Tributes", Snooker Scene, November 2005, page 7) "Throughout his all-too-brief career, Hunter was defined by snooker and the manner in which he handled its inevitable ups and downs. ... Hunter never questioned a refereeing decision and he never publicly complained about playing conditions or his opponent's luck. He played the ball as it lay." (Phil Yates, "Heartfelt tributes as man with the golden smile is mourned", The Times, 10 October 2006, page 80). Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much for this. I've added a bit to the "legacy" section. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Rodney Baggins, I hope you don't mind a ping. As you've been heavily involved in getting snooker articles to FA status, I wondered if you had any views you could share on the Legacy section in particular or on the article in general. (I think the content of the Legacy section isn't far off but I feel like perhaps the prose could be omproved - as you know, that's not my forte! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Lee, there's a page about Hunter in Brendan Cooper's Deep Pockets: Snooker and the Meaning of Life (2023) if you can get hold of it, but probably nothing essential that isn't already covered in the article. The 2001 Masters final and his 2003 Crucible semi-final are both included in David Hendon's Snooker Scene's 50 Classic Matches ebook with a bit of commentary, but again nothing that I'd say is a real omission. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Guided by Jimmy Michie and Johnson, Hunter made his professional debut in July 1995 at age 16" is a bit close to the source's "Guided by two seasoned snooker professionals — Jimmy Michie and the former world champion, Joe Johnson — young Paul made his professional debut in July 1995 when he was 16." but might be OK per WP:LIMITED
  • I've reworded this. I think my version is superior as well as it puts the important bit first. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• Refs 2 and 58: I can't see Sadie Gray as a byline for "Paul Hunter (obituary, page 1)". I can't see a byline on the scan of the printed version either.
  • Removed. I have no idea why it is there. It's possible it is indeed written by her, but I also couldn't find her name associated with it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• Ref 5: wouldn't we noramlly credit the interviewer (Donald McRae)
  • I have no issue putting it in, but we don't have anything that says they wrote the piece, there name is only in the tagline. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• I don't think that Hunter's middle name is referenced. The Telegraph obit would do for that.
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

EG

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

Thanks for taking a look :) Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Lead:

• Para 2: "In his memory, a tournament in Fürth, Germany, was renamed the Paul Hunter Classic and, in April 2016, the Masters trophy was renamed the Paul Hunter Trophy." - Not really an issue, but I find it interesting that you give the date when the Masters trophy was renamed, but not when the classic was renamed.

• • The masters is a significantly more important event. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Para 2: "Following his death, Hunter was posthumously awarded the BBC Sports Personality of the Year Helen Rollason Award." - Either "Following his death" or "posthumously" is redundant, since "posthumously" means "after death". (Also, the sentence repeats "award" twice; I'd probably just go with "Following his death, Hunter received the BBC Sports Personality of the Year Helen Rollason Award.")

• • Removed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Early life:

• "Leaving school at 14" - To further his career?

• • I'll see what the source says. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Hmm, this is what it says: Hunter admits that when he won 37 out of his first 38 matches as a teenage professional, he was "hungover every match. I wasn't drunk but I felt very rough. Part of the problem was that I was good enough to turn pro when I was 13 but you had to be 16. I used to see my older friends, professionals I practised with and beat regularly, playing in the qualifiers and it did my head in. So I left school at 14." I'm not really sure what the exact bit is. He didn't leave to play snooker professionally (you can't). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
      • this source mentions that he left school "to concentrate on playing". AFAIK you are not allowed to stop education at 14 in the UK but lots of other reliable sources report that he left school at 14. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

        I'm not entirely sure it was all that strict back then. The rules around fines for not going to school are a post-2010 thing I think. I can certainly add that source and the rationale. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

        • Looking at Raising of school leaving age in England and Wales seems like it should have been 16 for Hunter ... and it's on Wikipedia so must be true. I think it's one of those where the subject says it and reliable sources repeat the claim, Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

EG ? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot about this. I was really busy last week, and I have an eye doctor's appointment later today, so I will return for more comments tomorrow. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Early life:

• No comments here.

Early career (1995–2000)

• Para 1: "world number six" - I know this means the sixth-highest-ranked player in the world, but it sounds somewhat informal (especially if you're using this or similar terminology in the article for the first time). Is there a way to reword this?

• • I've reworded. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• Para 1: "the last 16" - Similarly, I would clarify what this means, since it's the first time you use this particular terminology.

• I don't think I can. This is the equivalent of "quarter-final" (the round before). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, I see. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• Para 1: "docked the entirety of the ranking points" - Why not just "docked all of the ranking points"?

• • Oh, because he also lost points for what he did in qualification. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• Para 3: "successfully qualifying by defeating Euan Henderson." - I think "successfully" may be unnecessary, unless it's possible for him to have unsuccessfully qualified.

• • Agreed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

More in a bit. Given what I've seen so far, the rest of the review shouldn't take too long, so I apologize for the delay thus far. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Cheers, I've covered the above. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

As promised, the rest of the review.

Masters champion (2001–2004):

• Para 1: "After winning the championship, Hunter claimed he had sex with his fiancée when he trailed 2–6 between sessions, which had caused him to play significantly better" - I know you definitely didn't mean this, but for some reason I imagined Hunter having sex with his fiancee while he was literally holding the cue and losing 2–6, rather than having sex between sessions. Perhaps this could be "he had sex with his fiancée between sessions when he trailed 2–6".

• • Changed. I do like to think he was indeed holding his cue. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Para 2: The second through fourth sentences all begin with the name "Hunter". I suggest changing at least one of these to a pronoun.

• • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

• Para 3: "The BBC later broadcast the highlights of the match in place of the 2020 World Snooker Championship when the event was postponed because of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom." - Presumably the 2020 championship was postponed, so I would instead say "that event".

• • Sure. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Para 5: "The event was later renamed in his honour" - Out of curiosity, was that event renamed posthumously?

• • It was. You wouldn't do it in someone's honour if they were alive (maybe that's a British-ism?), you might say you named something to honour a career if they were alive. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Para 5: You use both "2004–05 season" and "2004–2005 season". Could this be made consistent?

• • Yeah, I've fixed these. This is a holdover from a frankly stupid naming convention we have. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Later years and illness (2005–2006):

• Para 2: "which would be his last professional match" - I'd change "would be" to "was". Though WP:WOULDCHUCK is an essay, I would only use "would" if we were talking about a conditional statement (as I'm doing in this comment), or if the article briefly "jumps" to a future date before returning to the current timeline. Neither of these situations is the case here.

• • Agreed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Para 3: You use "2006/2007 rankings" and "2006–2007 season", which should probably be changed as well.

• • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Death:

• No comments.

Personal life:

• Para 2: Out of curiosity, when was that memoir published?

• • 2008, so not all that long after he passed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Legacy:

• Para 1: "then non-ranking" - This should be "then-non-ranking", as the word "then" modifies "non-ranking" and thus, is a single phrase that should be hyphenated. (This might even be appropriate as an en-dash per MOS:ENBETWEEN, i.e. "then–non-ranking", but I'm not going to split hairs over that.)

• • I'll take your word on it, I have no idea. We always hyphenate "non-ranking". Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Para 2: "In 2006, Hunter was posthumously awarded the BBC Sports Personality of the Year Helen Rollason Award – his widow Lindsey accepted the award on his behalf" - I think it may be more appropriate to use a semicolon instead of a dash, since these are two full clauses rather than an interruption of existing text, but that's just my preference and not a requirement.

• • Sure. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Para 3: "11 year" - Similarly that should be "11-year".

• • Ok. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

That's it on my end. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• • That's me done Epicgenius. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

    Support - Nice work. Epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator note

While I realise that this nomination has attracted a fair amount of commentary, it is more than three weeks old and is showing little sign of garnering a consensus to promote. Unless there is a significent change to this by the week four point I am afraid that the nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll have a word. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Serial

I'll look in in a couple of days if that's OK Gog. Although you might wax a little sardonic at my recent interpretation of 'a couple of days' ') SerialNumber54129^{A New Face in Hell} 20:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Moi! Sardonic? Surely some mistake. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Prose review by Generalissima

• Lede: Solid, no comments.
• Early life: Also solid.
• Career also solid, I'm not finding much to comment on here.
• Personal life:
  • Why do we need to know how much his daughter weighed?
    • Probably overkill.Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Might be worth wikilinking Baize.
    • Sure. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

That's all from me! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Cheers Template:I. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Crisco

• Is Alan Hunter worth a redlink?
  • No, they simply aren't notable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• At a young age, Hunter played alongside his father, Alan, and won many amateur junior events including the England Doubles Championship aged 14 alongside Richard Brooke - Alongside ... alongside
• His form that season elevated him to 12th in the 1999–2000 world rankings resulting in automatic qualification into the final stages of ranking tournaments for the first time,[20][21] a position he retained for the 2000–01 season.[21] - Feels like there needs to be a comma after "rankings". Perhaps "His form that season elevated him to 12th in the 1999–2000 world rankings, resulting in automatic qualification into the final stages of ranking tournaments for the first time.[20][21] He retained this position for the 2000–01 season.[21]"
• He reached the quarter-final stage or better in six tournaments the following season: he was a runner-up at the 2001 Welsh Open - Are these the 2001-2002 season? If the 2000-01 season, the sentence "He retained this position for the 2000–01 season." would actually work well as an opener here (with Hunter instead of He)
• Despite leading by six frames, he won only one of the remaining nine, and lost 16–17.[39] The BBC later broadcast the highlights of the match in place of the 2020 World Snooker Championship when that event was postponed because of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom.[40][41] Despite the loss, he earned a place in the world's top eight in the 2003–2004 world rankings for the first time in his career, having been ranked number nine for the previous two seasons.[21] - The sentence "The BBC later broadcast the highlights of the match in place of the 2020 World Snooker Championship when that event was postponed because of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom." comes across as a non-sequitur, since Hunter had died years before COVID. Also, I'm not sure this COVID reference is really WP:DUE for the body; feels like footnote material.
• Making five century breaks in the match,[42][43] the match was voted as one of the best matches of all time by Eurosport in 2020.[44] - Hunter made the breaks, but the subject of this sentence is "the match". I'd recast this as "However, Hunter won the final three frames to win the match, making five century breaks in the match;[42][43] the match was voted one of the best of all time by Eurosport in 2020.[44]"
• On 6 April 2005, Hunter announced he was suffering from malignant neuroendocrine tumours in his stomach, a rare disease, the cause of which is unknown - Spotchecking this, I don't see Hunter and his announcement mentioned.
• He slipped from 5th to 34th in the 2006‍–‍07 rankings.[21][55][59] Hunter admitted he played worse than the previous year and confirmed that he had been in continuous pain - Perhaps "Slipping from 5th to 34th in the 2006‍–‍07 rankings,[21][55][59] Hunter admitted he was playing worse than the previous year and confirmed that he had been in continuous pain."
• On 27 July 2006, the WPBSA confirmed, following a members' vote, the organisation's rules would be changed to allow Hunter to sit out the entire 2006–2007 season with his world ranking frozen at 34 - You used "confirmed" in the previous sentence. Perhaps "Following a members' vote, on 27 July 2006 the WPBSA announced that its rules would be changed to allow Hunter to sit out the entire 2006–2007 season with his world ranking frozen at 34."
• He intended to devote the year to treatment for his cancer - The most recent subject was "WPBSA"
• On 26 December 2005, Lindsey gave birth to a daughter. - The phrasing makes it seem like Hunter wasn't involved. Unless there was questioned paternity, I'd make the familial relationship explicit. Also, two sentences does not generally a paragraph make... perhaps merge this with the following?
• Instead, the then-non-ranking German Open in Fürth was renamed the Paul Hunter Classic in his honour; a tournament first won by Hunter - "a tournament first won by Hunter" is not a full sentence. Perhaps "Instead, the then-non-ranking German Open in Fürth – a tournament first won by Hunter – was renamed the Paul Hunter Classic in his honour." — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Merchant's House Museum

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

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

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

Support from Crisco

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support by Lee Vilenski

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede

• Fourth street pipes to a redirect Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I have fixed this. Epicgenius (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
• I thought facade had an accent in it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
  • This comes up on occasion. Basically, Merriam-Webster says that both the accented and unaccented versions are acceptable in American English, but the unaccented version is less common. That's why I've used the unaccented version here. Epicgenius (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
• Otherwise, lede looks clean to me. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Prose

• As always, everything is extremely well cited. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I appreciate it. Epicgenius (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
• Is there really a point to naming all of the children in the note? Seems like trivia. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I removed the birth dates, which really were trivial. I was thinking about retaining the note for clarity, but the children who lived in the house in the late 19th/early 20th century are introduced in the main prose anyway (e.g. "The unmarried sisters—Julia, Phebe, Sarah, and Gertrude"), so on second thought I removed it. Epicgenius (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
• Hatmaker pipes to a redirect Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Fixed, I think. Epicgenius (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
• The New York Times wrote - personal pet pieve is when this is written, but there is an author to the cited source. The Times didn't write this, a person did. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Good point, I've reworded it to "A reporter for The New York Times". Epicgenius (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
• museum's operators were able to match the donation, - the link here to me is a bit of an WP:EASTEREGG. If "match the donation" instead linked to the article, I wouldn't worry so much. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I've fixed this as well. Epicgenius (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
• midst of a severe fiscal crisis, - same for this. The link being for "fiscal crisis" suggests the link would be for the definition of what a fiscal crisis is. Maybe "midst of the 1975 fiscal crisis". Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I've also fixed this. Epicgenius (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
• The Merchant's House Museum is operated by Old Merchant's House Inc - is this really a suitable search term that it needs to be bolded in the body? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I've unbolded this. Epicgenius (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Additional comments

• One of the see also links has changed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Vilenski. I'll work on these shortly. (Also I forgot that I was going to review your FAC nomination, I'll probably do that tomorrow too.) – Epicgenius (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Thanks again for the comments. I think I've addressed or replied to all of them now. Epicgenius (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy to support. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments from PMC

I'll pop in here eventually. Give me a sharp poke if I don't get to it within the usual slightly-over-a-week. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Image and source review

File:Historic American Buildings Survey, Arnold Moses, Photographer March 5, 1936, FRONT ELEVATION. - Seabury Tredwell House, 29 East Fourth Street, New York, New York County, NY HABS NY,31-NEYO,30-2 (cropped).tif, File:Historic American Buildings Survey, Wohlfahrt Studio, Photographer May 25, 1936, FIRST FLOOR HALL SHOWING STAIRS. - Seabury Tredwell House, 29 East Fourth Street, New York, New HABS NY,31-NEYO,30-10 (cropped).tif, File:Historic American Buildings Survey, Wohlfahrt Studio, Photographer May 25, 1936, KITCHEN FIREPLACE. - Seabury Tredwell House, 29 East Fourth Street, New York, New York County, NY HABS NY,31-NEYO,30-17 (cropped).tif and File:Historic American Buildings Survey, Wohlfahrt Studio, Photographer May 25, 1936, DRAPED WINDOWS AND BED - FRONT BEDROOM, SECOND FLOOR. - Seabury Tredwell House, 29 East Fourth HABS NY,31-NEYO,30-19 (cropped).tif have a bunch of bare URLs. ALT text is OK.

Don't think that The Christian Science Monitor, The New York Times, New York Herald Tribune, Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times get an ISSN. 'specially since The Atlanta Constitution doesn't get one either. I notice that New York Times sometimes links to articles and sometimes doesn't. What makes AmNY, Time Out, Conde Nest Traveller, guidestar.org, Playbill, rew-online.com, news.artnet.com/ and The Village Voice high-quality reliable sources? I am not saying they are necessarily unreliable, but I need more information. What's Town & Country and The Sun? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the source and image reviews, @Jo-Jo Eumerus. Here are my responses:

• I'm not sure what should be done with the URLs in these images. The images are hosted on Commons, and the URLs doesn't really affect the display of the article itself.
• AmNewYork Metro is NYC's main free daily newspaper. They have editorial oversight, and from the looks of it, this is a reliable source in its field.
• Time Out New York is part of the Time Out series of magazines. They also have editorial oversight, and although they do publish reviews of attractions such as bars and restaurants, their non-review content is generally reliable.
• Conde Nast Traveler is a travel magazine published by Condé Nast. They also have editorial oversight, but the only use of the CN Traveler in this article is for a review.
• GuideStar is a database of nonprofits operated by Candid (organization).
• Playbill is a theatre magazine. They do seem to have solid editorial oversight (and, unlike some other magazines, don't have freelancers).
• Real Estate Weekly is a real estate magazine. Their website seems to be down right now, but from what I can recall, they also have editorial oversight.
• Artnet is an art market website. This is probably the only source on the list that I don't have full confidence in, so I've removed it.
• The Village Voice is a weekly newspaper, which also seems to have editorial oversight. I've found them to be reliable for info regarding Manhattan (they don't really publish many articles about the outer boroughs).
• Town and Country (magazine) is a magazine, and The Sun is actually supposed to be The Baltimore Sun, Baltimore's newspaper of record.

I hope this helps. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd imagine you could go to Commons and edit them so that they have information that could help us restore them if the websites reorganize. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus, sounds good. I've formatted these bare URLs. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

OK, I guess. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

SC

Comments to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 10:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Lead

• "built the house as a speculative development and sold the house": "and sold it"?
  • Yes. I've done that. Epicgenius (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
• There are seven uses of "house" in the paragraph (as well as six in the first para and five in the third), and a couple of synonyms could be used. I think you can use "building" when talking about the building, particularly as it hasn't technically been a house since the 1930s ("the deteriorating house" ->"the deteriorating building", for example)
  • Thanks for pointing it out. Sometimes, when I expand an article like this, I sometimes repeat a word so often that I become numb to using it. I've gone through the article and replaced "house" with synonyms where applicable. Epicgenius (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Yeah, we've all done it at some point! - SchroCat (talk) 15:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Use as residence

• "Reynolds sold the house in 1835": Are you sure Reynolds did?
  • He most certainly wasn't alive back then. Oops. I've fixed that. Epicgenius (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Done to the start of the 1970s renovation; more to come. - SchroCat (talk) 10:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback so far SC. I've now addressed the issues you've raised. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

1970s renovation

• "project was Joseph Roberto's wife": why not just "Roberto's wife"?

Architecture

• You have Greek Revival linked twice in the same para

Operation

• "In addition, Old Merchant's House Inc. runs": You don't need the "In addition"
• Link for pie safe (it's not common outside the US, and I wonder just how well known the term is to most Americans)
• "shoot a movie": a bit slangy and informal. "produce a film" would work

That's my lot. - SchroCat (talk)

Thanks again @SC. I've fixed the additional issues you mentioned. (I don't have a pie safe, nor do I know anyone who still does, so I'm surprised that I hadn't linked it, but that's been fixed now.) – Epicgenius (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support. All good from me. - SchroCat (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Seattle Kraken

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

Nick-D

I'd like to offer the following comments

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

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

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

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

A single paragraph that ends its coverage in 1975 and provides no information on what happened between then and 2017 (which is obviously quite a bit given that there was a process in 2017 that didn't just appear out of thin air) isn't at all sufficient to be frank. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Nick-D ? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Replied above Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

XR228 Nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

My bad. I'll get to it shortly. XR228 (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Based on this version.

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

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

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

A few items were not addressed, so I went ahead and made the formatting changes. The comment on The Athletic has not been resolved, nor has the inconsistency between using "NHL.com" and "National Hockey League". SounderBruce 04:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: I fixed the NHL.com part. All instances of The Athletic are marked as limited-access. XR228 (talk) 04:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Avoid sandwiching text between images

• Wordmark is missing alt text

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

• Images shouldn't have watermarks per WP:WATERMARK

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

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

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

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

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

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

1920 Xalapa earthquake

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

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

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size

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

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

Alamy entries:

• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support from Ganesha811

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

Lead

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

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

Fair enough!

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

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

• Some prose oddities in the lead:

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

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

• accommodated by what does this mean, exactly?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seems reasonable.

• were raised should be "was raised".

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

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

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

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

Six points above this comment done. Some parts of the lede were modified following Mike's earlier comments.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 11:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Tectonic setting

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

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

• (slabs), dehydrate no comma needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OmittedDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 12:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• cease should be "ceases"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hypothetically it could look like this all along the volcanic belt. There isn't enough research on every part of the belt to give an accurate picture of how the faults actually look like, it's currently a blank canvas with no right or wrong, Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 12:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Damage and casualties

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

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

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

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

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

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

Done

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

Reworded

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

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

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

Done

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

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

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

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

Response

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

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

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

Hi @Ganesha811 will you continue the review? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 22:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there are a number of points above you haven't yet responded to (including under 'Lead'). Please mark them off as you go or reply with a comment, thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Please check again I don't think I missed any as of comment Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 12:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ganesha811 all your points have been addressed. Please continue. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 20:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I will take another look, thanks. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• After another read-through, I'm able to support. Thanks for your changes to the article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Further comments

• wooden jacales generally performed well this detail, while interesting, can probably be removed from the lead and kept only in the body.

DoneDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 22:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• 2008 hazard zoning...risk is higher this phrase can also be removed from the lead to keep the focus on the 1920 quake

DoneDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 22:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Mexico is one of the world's...Venta de Bravo faults and Chapala graben This whole paragraph (with the exception of the first sentence) feels like it could be removed or reworked. Perhaps some of the information can be brought to the start of the section (or Tectonic Setting) to provide broad context, but we don't need too much here.

Reworded and moved to tectonic setting. I added further details initially concerned the original description was vague.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 22:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• The landslide began this paragraph still reads a little confusingly - are we talking about one landslide? Two (Huitzilapa and Patlanalá)? Many? Please rework a little more to clarify the number of distinct events and make the sequence clearer.

Reworded. Hopefully it's clear to you there were multiple small landslides along the Huitzilapa and its tributaries that later combined into a single mass that traveled further downstream and swept away these villages.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 19:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ganesha811 All points have been addressed Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 23:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ganesha811 follow up, please Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 22:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll take a look tomorrow and see if there's anything else. Your changes look good. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Mikenorton

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

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

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

Lead

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

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

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

Tectonic setting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Earthquake characteristics

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

• Hi Mikenorton, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The True Record

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

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

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

Generalissima

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

Oh, I totally forgot about this. Source review:

• Cited mainly to quality academic sources. Brittanica is cited only for general context, which is a good use case. More marginal sources like Zhu 2017 (for the CPPCC) and Wang 2008 (for the Southern Metropolis Daily, a tabloid) are used only once and in good contexts. The Southern Metropolis Daily definitely seems like the sketchiest source here; in conjunction with another source its good, but I'd try to remove or add to its lone case of being cited by itself.

Citations are all properly laid out and seem consistently formatted. Only inconsistency is that the publishers are wikilinked for websites, but not wikilinked for books. You can remove the website wikilinks or add publisher wikilinks to books. My preference is the latter, but you do you.

Spot check to come. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Removed the links from the websites. I'll confirm that the SMD materials are supported by Pan and Xu. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
• Reworked to only include elements supported by Pan & Xu, with Wang 2008 removed in this instance. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

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

750h

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

• Hi 750, have you had a chance to look at the article? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry for the late response, comments incoming. 750h+ 08:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

lead

No problems here.

history

• They had returned to China in 1908 "had" is redundant
  • Nixed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
• throughout China via its offices Shanghai and Guangdong ==> "throughout China via its offices in Shanghai and Guangdong"
  • You'd think after rereading this article eight times I'd have caught that. Done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
• title The True Record was provided together with a mailing address "together" seems redundant
  • Together with changed to "alongside". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

description

• Questions of advancing the nation ==> "Questions about advancing the nation"
  • Changed to "The advancement of the nation" — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
• This reached a peak in 1913, when ==> "This peaked in 1913, when"
  • Done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the article @Crisco 1492:, and sorry for the late response. happy to support once all addressed. 750h+ 08:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks 750, I have responded to all of your comments.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  Happy to support. 750h+ 12:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

BP!

Placeholder 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Several articles detailed individuals who had fought against the Qing dynasty, such as Shi Jianru,[46] who had attempted to kill the Qing governor of Guangdong in 1900,[47] and Bai Yukun [zh],[46] who had been killed in the Luanzhou Uprising [zh].[48] Some articles, such as "Chu Ziwen Destroys His Family to Help the Country",[q] extolled the virtues of persons who continued to contribute to the nationalist cause; it asked, "the country is the family. If the country does not exist, where is the family?" I feel like this article is too long for a single sentence. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 15:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• That's two sentences. Several articles detailed individuals who had fought against the Qing dynasty, such as Shi Jianru,[46] who had attempted to kill the Qing governor of Guangdong in 1900,[47] and Bai Yukun [zh],[46] who had been killed in the Luanzhou Uprising [zh].[48] and Some articles, such as "Chu Ziwen Destroys His Family to Help the Country",[q] extolled the virtues of persons who continued to contribute to the nationalist cause; it asked, "the country is the family. If the country does not exist, where is the family? (well, technically three, though since the last one is part of a quote I'll count it as two). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Support After reading it again, I am trying to find anything to nitpick but found nothing. The article is actually written very well. I feel like the nominator is a professional writer. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 00:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Request for the coordinators

• Question for coordinators: This nomination is at three supports and has had an image review. It is pending a source review. Would I have leave to nominate another article? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

'Fraid not Chris, you need a source review pass first. And you get a swifter response if you stick a {{@FAC}} in somewhere. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Alright. No big rush (hence the lack of template), as I rather expected the need for a source review. Just thought it worth a try. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Are Modern China Studies, Jiangsu Social Sciences, Bulletin of the Graduate School of Social and Cultural Systems and Dute News a reliable source? Some author names have commas and others don't. Retrieval dates likewise are inconsistently applied to sources with DOIs. Bit odd that "Hong Kong Comics" is published by an Architectural Press. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus:

• Jiangsu Social Studies is an academic journal organized by the Jiangsu Federation of Social Sciences. It has an independent editorial board.
• Modern China Studies is an inter-university academic journal based out of Virginia. It has an academic editorial board of sinologists and Chinese scholars from both the United States and China. It is peer reviewed and has an editorial board.
• Bulletin of the Graduate School of Social and Cultural Systems is an academic journal published by the Graduate School of Social and Cultural Systems at Yamagata University. As per the submission guidelines, the journal accepts papers from faculty, students, and alumni, as well as visiting researchers, dealing with articles related to the humanities. Submissions are reviewed by editorial board.
• Dute News is a portal created by the Shenzhen Special Zone Daily, a newspaper published in Shenzhen. The article here appears to have initially been published in another newspaper, labelled the Jingbao (it's neither The Crystal nor the Peking Gazette; according to the Chinese Wikipedia page, it began publication in 2001 and is published by the same company as the Shenzhen Special Zone Daily). The author, Cai Dengshan, has actively researched the late Qing/early Republic era and produced a documentary series on it.
• The lack of commas in author names is determined by the use of the author-mask field, the use of which is required under the relevant MOS section. The examples provided therein omit the comma for authors without a Wikipedia article.
• I have removed the access date from the one DOI item that had it. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Gerald Durrell

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

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

Image review

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

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

Nikki, I've added a couple more images since you reviewed them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Don't use fixed px size

  I assume this refers to the pair of angwantibo pictures? If so, removed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• File:ArctocebusCalabarensisWolf.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

UC

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

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

  Comma removed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Link the Savoy hotel?

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Link Scilly Isles?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Link Guinness?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Link Princess Anne?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break 3

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

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

Great stuff. A few points on the new material:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• organizations: AmerE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think that's everything. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Sounds great. I'll give it another look through before formally voting, but this all looks in order to me. Sounds like you've done an excellent job of getting to the article right to the cutting edge without tripping over the electric fence into the gorilla enclosure of OR. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Support on a second read, during which I made some minor copyedits. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: No prejudice to the above, but reading SC's comments below, I am rather concerned that Louisa's drinking -- which seems to have been significant in GD's life, let alone in hers -- is only mentioned in footnotes. I really think it needs to be in the body, and perhaps the lead, given that Durrell himself had such consequential problems with alcohol. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

It's mentioned early on ("resorting to the bottle", quoted from Gerald) but I take your point. This afternoon I'll promote the note text about the reason for the move to Corfu to the body of the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Now done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Airship

The Corfu Trilogy is a perennial favourite of mine. Comments to follow.

I mean, the main thing, as noted in the nomination, Botting: has his work any irregularities, or received negative reviews, or anything of the sort? I think he would have to be regarded as essentially inviolate for FACR 1b) and c) to be met. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The only inaccuracy I'm aware of in Botting is commented on in note 9, and that's very minor. Botting was given access to all of Durrell's files and the papers at the zoo, and interviewed all the relevant people who were still alive, as far as I can tell. I agree the article has to stand or fall on whether Botting is accepted as a top-quality source, but I'm not aware of any problems with it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I had only read a couple of reviews of Botting, which is remiss of me; I've now read everything I can find on newspapers.com, which is most of the good British papers and a couple of Canadian and Australian ones, and those are all positive. A couple praise Botting, but most simply talk about Durrell. However, there is a negative review in the NYT. Some of the points the reviewer makes aren't really relevant to the article, but you may think some are. Here they are:

• Botting "falls short of Durrell's voice as a storyteller. We never learn the background of Cansdale's feud with Durrell, for instance, and the account of the fierce opposition to captive breeding by a later head of the London Zoo is also garbled. When one of Durrell's own trainees ultimately becomes director of the London Zoo, what ought to be a moment of triumph and vindication turns up instead as a footnote."

  I think the first two of these are odd complaints -- Botting quotes Jacquie Durrell on the background of Cansdale's feud with Durrell, and quotes the head of London Zoo in detail (an incident I didn't include in the article as it's already very long). These are not stories only told in Botting's own words, that's to say; he's quoting, not just citing. The third point, about the emphasis on the victory of Durrell's point of view, is one of emphasis, not of accuracy; again it's not something I've included in the article since if I stray too far into the world of conservation politics the article would balloon even further.

• "Botting also bungles the poignant story of Durrell's second marriage": here the reviewer's complaint is that Botting simply quotes the relevant sources rather than tells the story of the complex emotions of those two years. That's valid for readability but for me it doesn't raise doubts about accuracy.
• "The real frustration of this biography, however, is that Botting seems not to understand or care much about Durrell's work with animals". I agree with this, but I'm not sure it makes much difference to the validity of what is cited to the book. I did use some of Durrell's own books to add mention of some of the animals at a couple of points, but I refrained from going into detail about the breeding successes at the Jersey Zoo, for example. That could be an article in itself and perhaps should be. I could see adding a little more about that if reviewers think it's necessary.

Let me know what you think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29, the other reviewers have all concluded; no obligation to comment but I wanted to let you know in case you plan to comment further. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Seems acceptable, and the other reviewers are also satisfied, so should be good for me. Just a couple of things:

• "Durrell was devastated. Durrell began..." is slightly repetitive

  Changed to "Durrell was devastated. He began ...". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• Since the Corfu trilogy is normally referred to as, well, a trilogy, might be worth mentioning the third book?

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• "gave him a love of words" is a trifle too poetical for my liking

  The source has "Binns bestowed two great gifts on his ill-educated student -- how to unlock the treasures contained within the British public library system, and how to appreciate to the full the words of the English language in all their assocations and assonances, nuances and overtones", and goes onto describe a typical lesson. I think "a love of words" is actually a bit less poetical than it appears, given what it's trying to summarize, but if strikes you that way others will react the same way. I changed it to "a love of the English language and good writing". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• According to my admittedly fuzzy memory, note 5 is what Durrell noted at some point in the Corfu trilogy (I distinctly remember an extremely entertaining scene where the sister fell in love with a tutor and he was removed under threat of gunfire. or something like that anyway), meaning I'm not sure we can even have "according to Gerald".

  I'm not sure I follow you here -- Botting definitely says "according to Gerald" in giving the reason for the dismissal. There's no doubt Margaret had fallen for Pat -- Botting quotes her saying so. What is it that you feel needs to be changed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the review -- all dealt with or responded to above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

From a first canter-through for spelling etc:

• "died of a cerebral hemorrhage" – the usual BrE spelling is "haemorrhage"
• "a few days, househunting" – the OED and Chambers both hyphenate "house-hunting"
• "handrear four newborn Père David's deer" – ditto for "hand-rear"
• "parents permission" – lacks a possessive apostrophe
• "he traveled with the animals" – American spelling; the usual English form is "travelled".

More later after a proper read-through of the content. Tim riley talk 23:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

All fixed; thanks, Tim -- my eye for British English has been hopelessly corrupted after decades in the US. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Second batch of comments

Comment singular, in fact. I was taken aback to see the article weighing in at 9,650 words, which seemed on the lengthy side given that, e.g., Shakespeare's FA is only 7,000, and Darwin's is 500 words less than Durrell's, but after a slow and careful perusal I can see no excessive detail, and I found the text no hardship to read, length notwithstanding. I saw nothing in it to quibble at, and I am happy to add my support for the elevation of the article to FA. It meets all the criteria, in my view. (And it sent me back to Durrell's own works. He may have hated writing but he nonetheless wrote wonderfully. "'That bloody boy's filled the sodding bath full of bleeding snakes', said Leslie, making things quite clear", made me laugh in the 1960s and still makes me laugh sixty years later. Marvellous stuff, and thank you to Mike for reminding me how well Durrell wrote.) Tim riley talk 19:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim, and I appreciate the support and compliments to the article. And that's my favourite line too; I probably read it first in around 1971, and am likewise still laughing at it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Support Comments from Graham Beards

Just a few:

• "planning to make two colour films for television" There wasn't colour TV (in the UK) until the late 1960s.

  Removed "colour". The source for this is the biography, quoting a contemporary letter from Lawrence -- he does say "television films in colour", which is odd. Perhaps the films would be in colour but the TV broadcast of them would necessarily be in black and white? Or maybe Lawrence was just mistaken. Mike Christie(talk - contribs - library) 22:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  Colour filming but transmission in black and white was known in the BBC in the 1950s: thus. Tim riley talk 16:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• "Durrell contracted jaundice," You can't really contract jaundice as it is a symptom not a disease. How about "developed"?

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• "in order to prevent a reader from becoming bored " I think "in order" is redundant. (I took the liberty of changing an earlier occurrence.)

  Cut, and I cut another later example. I think Ian has removed a few of these from my work over the years. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• "It immediately became a bestseller, going into a third printing before it had even been published." How could copies of the book have been sold before the book was published?

  You're the second person to ask about this. A publisher orders a print run based on how many copies they think will sell. If pre-orders come in from bookstores that make it clear they need to print more, they'll order another printing from the printer. In this case that happened twice, a sign that the orders from bookstores were much stronger than the publisher had expected. However, I clearly need to provide a footnote or something similar that clarifies this for readers not familiar with publishing. I'll leave another note here when that's done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• "They planned a trip to the Great Barrier Reef, with no animal collecting planned." Planned...planned.

  Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

None of these are deal-breakers. Thank you for an enjoyable hour's reading. Graham Beards (talk) 13:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! And thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I've removed the comment about the third printing; I haven't yet found a good reference that explains how pre-orders can impact printings. I'll put it back if/when I can find one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Now returned to the article with a source explaining how pre-orders can affect sales before publication. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Source review: PASS

To follow shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 12:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on. AirshipJungleman29 asked above about the reputation of Botting, since it's so heavily used, and I left some comments there about reviews of the book. Since then I've found a few references to Botting in books about Durrell. All take Botting as reliable for the basic biographical data, and where I saw comments about Botting they were uniformly positive. So far the NYT review is the only negative comment I've been able to find. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Mike, I'll take that on board when I look into that part.

Unconnected with the source review, the OBE in the opening sentence should be removed per MOS:POSTNOM (a backward step, I feel, but that's the way the MOS bends these days). - SchroCat (talk)

Removed; I hadn't seen that change. A surprise -- I agree it seems like something an encyclopedic biography would put in the first sentence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

My concern is also Botting. Can his work, written "with the authorization of Gerald Durrell's widow, Lee, and his surviving family", be regarded as an independent source, or is it "closely affiliated with the source". Could we use hagiographies to write an article about a saint's life or do we need independent sources? Borsoka (talk) 13:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree a hagiography isn't an appropriate source, but Botting is quite direct about the negatives -- he quotes Durrell's diagnosis as an alcoholic and describes his problems with depression, for example. There are other things in the book that are uncomplimentary to Durrell, though I didn't think they needed to be in the article. For example he could be unpleasant when crossed: Botting describes Durrell's reactions to the end of his first marriage and to some contretemps with Lee McGeorge and Saranne Calthorpe, and doesn't put him in a good light. And I should add that the legacy section, which is where the most positive things in the article are said, is not cited to Botting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

You convinced me. I accept Botting as a reliable source. Borsoka (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Formatting

• Sport checks not done; if a coord wants them, please ping and I'll do that too.
• P -> pp: FN 5
• PP -> p: FN 115

  Both done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Capitalisation goes a little awry in the Sources section: Arnold, Durbin, Haag and Leader-Williams are sentence case but everything else is title case

  I intended this to be title case for books, and sentence case for journals and other periodicals, and for chapter titles. I think it's now consistent. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• I prefer to see some form of doi where possible (such as either an ISBN or OCLC for books), but this isn't part of of the criteria or the MOS, so I won't ionsist on it (although I do urge you to think about it)

  I've added some OCLCs and a DOI. I don't think ISSNs are much use but could add those if you feel it's worth it. Worldcat is giving me an error on the Jacquie Durrell so I have no OCLC for that yet, and crossref.org is not coming up with the Arnold or the Laubacher, so I don't have DOIs for those. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Is Leader-Williams a chapter? If so it should have the editor's name and the page range

  It's a chapter; not sure what I was thinking there but it's fixed now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Durrell 73: The page range is needed

  Added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Durrell 76: the "UK" isn't needed

  Removed. 02:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Mallinson 2009: Ditto, but it should be "Brighton, East Sussex"

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Why are "Our Facilities, Team and Bespoke Training" and "Nactus serpensinsula" the only two sources that appear inline, rather than being listed with the other sources?

  Anything that is a publication of some kind -- book, newspaper, journal article -- is in the sources. Anything that's only a web page is inline. The Daily Telegraph one could go either way, but I put it in the sources since no doubt it did appear in print, though the web version doesn't let me cite it that way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Representative and reliable

• To follow shortly - SchroCat (talk) 12:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I am still looking into this aspect, although I do have some concerns.

• The article is very heavily weighted towards Botting, with 183 of the 221 references (not counting doubles) are to Botting. That's over 80 per cent, which is a very high proportion. With Botting being an authorised rather than independent source, this does raise questions.
• Both Haag and Pollock seem to be sold enough biographies of Durrell, but there are only seven and two citations, respectively, from them, which does raise the question of whether this is 'a thorough and representative survey'. (I'm still looking into these)
• As an example of something not covered by the Botting, see Haag on the reason why the family moved to Corfu, for example, which he puts very heavily on Louisa's major drinking problem and her recent breakdown - this is skated over in Botting and is, as a result, not covered in our article. (It's pages 53-54 of the 2017 edition and he enlarges on the theme a little here).

I'm still looking through this, and should be done in a day or so. - SchroCat (talk) 09:58, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll go through Haag again and see what I can cite from there, probably tomorrow -- thanks for the specific pointer there. I'm not sure there's much I can use from the Pollock -- she summarizes Botting, evidently taking him as reliable for the biographical facts, and either talks in generalities (e.g. "Most of Gerald's expeditions followed the paths laid down by British colonialism and commercial interests, and he consulted government functionaries employed in colonial or post-colonial bureaucracies whenever he could") or are psychological speculation ("Gerald's Lear-like nonsense and relentless stereotyping might have served as strategies by which a youngest child could negotiate the adult world") or literary commentary ("Perhaps because they remain relatively unedited, the extracts from Gerald's diary included in A Zoo in My Luggage reveal more about his relationships with the animals than the rest of the narrative"). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:57, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. I'll be looking into Pollock today, so if she's just following Botting, then there should be no issues. Haag is interesting, but I think just the Corfu reason is the standout one for me; even if it's just his opinion of why, I think we need to include it. Aside from that, there isn't much in his work that isn't also in Botting (although I'd be a bit happier if I say a few more references from him dotted throughout to show that this isn't just sourced to Botting). Hopefully I should be finished up today. - SchroCat (talk) 10:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

In Botting's discussion of the reasons they moved to Corfu, he quotes a couple of paragraphs of Gerald's unpublished memoirs that give Louisa's drinking as the reason Lawrence encouraged the move to Corfu. He gives it as a possible reason, along with money worries and the climate. Haag gives a shorter excerpt of the same quote, along with the relevant quote from My Family and Other Animals, and says "much more than climate and illness lay behind the migration to Corfu", citing Louisa's drinking. I felt Botting's account was more thorough, which is why I cited it instead of Haag, but I can see the value of quoting both biographers at this point. I've expanded note 4 to cover Haag's view. I didn't put this in the main text because it's a bit indefinite, but I could promote this to the body of the article if you think that would be better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it would probably be best if all the possible reasons are in the main text. His time on Corfu was crucial and one of the best known things abut him (because of the book and, more recently, the TV series and TV film), so the reason why they took this unusual step is probably better in the body, even if there are several possible reasons. - SchroCat (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• OK, I've now managed to look at Pollock more closely and she is a rehashing of Botting, with no real additional information that could or should be added.
  I'm still a little uncomfortable that over 80 per cent is down to an authorised source, but with the key information from Haag (the reason for moving to Corfu) being moved into the body, this allays my concerns a bit. Pass of the source review. - SchroCat (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the review. I would have preferred the references to be less-lopsided, but other than Haag for Corfu I don't think there's much out there. If I run into other sources I will incorporate them if I can. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Support by Borsoka

• Perhaps a very short introduction to his mother when she is first mentioned? (We are informed her husband's profession in the second sentence, although it has nothing to do with GD's life.)

  I think it's usual to give the profession of the parents of the subject of an article, as context. I agree I would do the same for his mother here, but she did not work, so I'm not sure what could usefully be added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• I would mention that Dulwich and Upper Norwood are in London.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• I would link slug. I am pretty sure that 60% of our readers do not know the word.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• ...while out with his ayah one day... Is this necessary? (We are not informed that he visited the zoo with her as well in the same sentence.)

  I agree; it's left over from an anecdote about this -- his ayah was disgusted by his interest in the slugs -- but without the anecdote there's no reason to mention her. Cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• Louisa was devastated by his death, but... Is this necessary in an encyclopedic article about her son?

  I think so. It introduces the contrast between Gerald and Louisa's reactions to the death, and also gives context for her subsequent loneliness and excessive drinking. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• ... but eventually decided to move back to the UK Was her decision connected to GD any way?

  Not specifically -- Botting quotes Durrell as saying she was persuaded by others in the Anglo-Indian community who told her that her children should be educated in Britain. (Larry and Leslie were already at school in Britain so it was only Louisa, Gerald, and Margaret that traveled to England.) Given that Gerald's subsequent education was very haphazard I don't think this is a point worth bringing out in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• Introduce Corfu as a Greek island.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• George wrote to Lawrence... Why not past perfect?

  That paragraph is intended to be a continuous historical narrative. George and Pam emigrate, then Lawrence and Nancy live with Louisa and Gerald, then George wrote to Lawrence. I think past perfect would imply that the letters preceded Lawrence and Nancy's move. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• Lawrence and Nancy left England on 2 March 1935, and the rest of the family followed five days later, sailing from Tilbury. They reached Naples later that month, and took a train across Italy to Brindisi, where they took a ferry to Corfu. Are all these details relevant for GD's life?

  Cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• ...naturalists such as... Repetition?

  I trimmed a little from the previous sentence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• I would note that the Cameroons are in Africa.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• Margaret briefly returned;... Delete. Borsoka (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'd like to keep this for a couple of reasons. The family's time in Corfu is quite well-known because My Family and Other Animals has been very widely read. Durrell's account occasionally departs from the truth, as noted elsewhere in the article, and this is one of those occasions -- Durrell records Larry leaving Corfu with the rest of the family. To anyone who has read Durrell's version, it's of interest to read what really happened. I'd like to keep the note about Margaret because otherwise it appears she reached England in mid-1939 and was safe thereafter, which would be misleading. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the review -- mostly implemented, with a couple of replies above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• ...from Belgrade... Is this relevant? If yes, some context?

  Cut. I'd mentioned it to make it clear that he was not generally around and could not have been persuaded Gerald to write other than on this visit, but I now think it's distracting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• ...with the innumerable miscellaneous problems they had to resolve in Buenos Aires. One or two examples?

  Added a couple of examples in a note. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• ...it would be impossible to visit Tierra del Fuego... Why?

  Changed to "there were no flights available to Tierra del Fuego, which they had planned to visit". The details are a little more complicated than that -- the flights would have had to connect in southern Argentina and since it was the holiday season there were no flights available for months -- the flights to Tierra del Fuego itself from the south would probably have been available. I don't think the reader needs those details. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Malaya? Borsoka (talk) 03:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  Are you asking if this should be "Malaysia"? At the time the country was the Federation of Malaya, and I think was known as "Malaya", not "Malaysia". I've linked to that article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• ...trust's finances... Why not Trust's?

  Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• ...world's ecosystem types... Does it refer to biomes or biogeographic realms?

  I don't think either of those words quite captures what I was trying to get across. The headings are things like "Coastal wetlands" and "Deciduous woodlands". Mike Christie (talk - contribs -

library) 11:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• • ...it also covered all the world's ecosystem types I would delete or rephrase it. My concern is that I could not believe that a relatively small zoo could covern all ecosystem types (whatever it means): caves, high mountains, deep oceans, steppes, tundras... Borsoka (talk) 13:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

    Sorry, I don't follow you -- this was a book, not a reference to the zoo. Is there something in the phrasing that's misleading? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

    • Sorry, I wrote it by heart, without reading the introduction of the sentence. Still, after reading a review ([11]), I think the sentence could (should) be rephrased: "...it also covered several/more than a dozen/more than fifteen ecosystem types/habitats all over the world". Borsoka (talk) 02:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

      Changed to say "it also covered many of the world's ecosystem types, such as tundra, tropical forests, and wetlands" -- on reflection I think it's better to list two or three to make it clearer to the reader what the book covered. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Introduce William Beebe. Borsoka (talk) 03:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay in replying to these; all responded to now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Introduce Richard Conniff.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Are there any significant critics of GD?

  The only criticism that I can reliably source is the opposition to his work from London Zoo, which is already in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

An excellent article. I really enjoyed reviewing it. Thank you for it. Borsoka (talk) 13:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the review! Last few points fixed or responded to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Just a minor suggestion: could you place one or two pictures in the last four sections (sections 6-9)? Borsoka (talk) 02:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  I added a couple. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this excelelnt article. I support its promotion. Borsoka (talk) 04:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

2004–05 Gillingham F.C. season

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm back again with yet another article on a season in the history of Gillingham F.C. This season was, frankly, absolutely bloody awful, and writing about it brought back a lot of bad memories, so hopefully I can get a bronze star to offset my trauma ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Eric Idle's Cat

Hi Chris, funnily enough I was at that Forest game with a Forest-supporting friend of mine and we were talking about it only this week. I have a couple of minor points.

• In Background and pre-season: "they finished in 21st place, level on points with 22nd-placed Walsall and avoiding relegation to the third tier only because their goal difference of -19 was one better than Walsall's -20." – should this be either "avoided" or "Walsall, avoiding…"?
• In footnote 55, "Sunday" and "Telegraph" need separating. Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
  • @Eric Idle's Cat: - thanks for the review, both points addressed. As I recall (and it's a hazy memory, given that it was nearly 20 years ago) I sat about two rows from the front of the away end at that game, it poured with rain, and the roof didn't cover right to the front so I got soaked in addition to seeing my team get relegated....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Support - good work, as always. Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

750h

Will review. 750h+ 12:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@750h+: - hope all is well, just wondering if you were still hoping to review this FAC...? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, will try reviewing today or tommorow. 750h+ 02:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

lead

• competed in the Football League, and the 55th since remove the comma
• of 2004 Gillingham were still within "were" ==> "was"
• only lost twice, however the run this one's a bit of a personal opinion, but there's usually a comma after "however"
• Between the start of September and late November for consistency ("early" and "late" are opposites) i'd change "the start of" to "early" (personal too, not necessary)

background and pre-season

• Prior to the new season ==> "Before the new season"

football league championship

no problems here.

cup matches

• Ternent told the media "We have gone I would either add a comma after "media" or rephrase to "Ternent told the media that "we have gone"

players

• Byfield, Sidibé, Hope, and Nyron Nosworthy all played "all" is redundant
• in at least three quarters of the hyphen needed between "three" and "quarters"
• goals;[95][96] prior to this there had only "prior to" ==> "before"

aftermath

no problems here.

That's all i got, thanks for the article. i have an open FAC if you'd like to check it out. Best, 750h+ 10:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@750h+: - thanks for that review. All done, albeit a couple of them ever so slightly differently but hopefully still acceptable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Support. 750h+ 11:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

SC

Will swing by after 750. - SchroCat (talk) 09:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support. All good from me. - SchroCat (talk) 11:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Can we assume that #72 is about the previous day? Otherwise, it seems like this article has no issue wrt reliability and source formatting, although I didn't spotcheck everything. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: - I added a second source from a "live news" website that confirms that the players joined Gillingham on the 10th. The Telegraph, being a morning paper, would of course have reported it the next day -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "Byfield provided an assist for Paul Smith". I would be nice if "assist" could be explained in line. Per MOS:NOFORCELINK: "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links."
• "Gillingham followed this with defeats away to Millwall and West Ham United". Are the scores known?
• "but with a goal difference which was one worse than that of their rivals". Is it known what he two goal differences were?

And that is all I have. You are getting the hang of these. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• @Gog the Mild: - thanks for your review, I have addressed your comments with these edits. I couldn't think of a way to say "an assist, which is...." without it sounding horribly tortured, so I removed the term and just said that Byfield was the player who passed the ball to Smith to score the goal, which is all an assist really is..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Query

@FAC coordinators: - might I be permitted to nominate another article in the next day or so.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Sure. I'm just waiting for you to finish all the past seasons for the club and then unveil a time machine that allows you to write about the future seasons...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: - while it would be amazing to be able to nominate a 130+ article FT on the club's seasons, I suspect that would take me about another ten years......by which time of course there will have been another ten seasons to have to write about..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

If anyone can do it you can... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: Got to keep giving "football observers" something to talk about..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Teddy Wynyard

Nominator(s): AA (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

This article is about Teddy Wynyard, a noted sportsman and soldier. As a cricketer, he played Test cricket for England and had a substantial domestic career with Hampshire, where he was instrumental in their return to first-class status in 1894. He was also a footballer, playing in the infancy of the game. He played for the Old Carthusians and won the 1881 FA Cup with the team. He was also adept at winter sports, winning the International Tobogganist Championship at Davos in 1894, 1895 and 1899. In the army, he saw action in the Third Anglo-Burmese War (Burmese Expedition), for which he gained the DSO. He would retire from military service in 1903, but returned to serve in WWI. He was also an important administrator in cricket. Altogether, an interesting character who led a varied life. AA (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Placeholder

• Putting my name down to review this one when I have sufficient time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
  • One drive-by comment - as per the footnote immediately below them, football stats shown in infoboxes are "Club domestic league appearances and goals" only. As his Corinthians appearances were in friendlies, these should not be shown (and for the other teams you can remove the ?s and simply show blanks as league football did not even exist in that time period) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

    @ChrisTheDude I have removed the football teams/stats from the infobox, as I don't think the other teams need to be shown as they were not league clubs, and they are mentioned in the prose. AA (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Teddy_Wynyard_c1900.jpg: when and where was this first published?
  • Comment. @Nikkimaria: so far, the only version of this photo I can find is on ESPNcricinfo here, which attributes it to Hampshire County Cricket Club. Will see if I can find a publishing date, though undoubtedly prior to 1908 as he is wearing a Hampshire county cap, and his playing career with Hampshire ended in 1908. AA (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• File:Teddy_Wynyard_Vanity_Fair_25_August_1898.jpg needs a US tag
  • Done. Tag added. AA (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• File:Old_carthusians_1881.jpg: source link is dead, when and where was this first published, and what research was undertaken to try to identify the author?
  • Comment. It would appear to be from this source using the Wayback machine. AA (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
    • Comment. I've conducted a reverse image search, which doesn't bring up anything not searchable through certain keywords in Google. I can drop a message on the WP:FOOTBALL talkpage and see if anyone knows if it might be from a book. AA (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
      • Comment. @Nikkimaria:. I have contacted Charterhouse School who have confirmed this picture comes from an album in the Charterhouse School archives, and have provided permission for the image to be used in the article. I have filled out a reproduction agreement form and sent this back to their archivist. How do I proceed from here in updating the Wikicommons page? AA (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
        • VRT would usually be the way to go for documenting permission. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "The son of the soldier and judge William Wynyard, he was born" - I feel like the body should "start afresh" after the lead, so I would be tempted to say "The son of the soldier and judge William Wynyard, Edward George Wynyard was born"
  • Comment. Have gone with your suggestion, it reads much nicer and with a better flow. AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• "It was speculated, that had he not pursued a military career, he may have achieved" - comma is in the wrong place, it should be "It was speculated that, had he not pursued a military career, he may have achieved"
  • Comment. Comma moved about! AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• "His actions were praised by General's Sir Robert Low and Sir George White" - there should not be an apostrophe in the plural form of "general"
  • Done. I have removed the apostrophe. AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• "In recognition of his actions, he was appointed to command a company of the Welsh Regiment" - it was spelt "Welch" in the lead......?
  • Done. I have changed to Welsh in the lead as it wasn't known as the Welch Regiment until 1920. AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• "By the time he had returned home later in 1887, Hampshire had lost their first-class status since his departure for India, following a number of poor seasons." - I feel like the words "since his departure for India" are a bit redundant here
  • Done. Removed. I did toy with putting in "By the time he had returned home later in 1887, Hampshire had lost their first-class status in 1885, following a number of poor seasons", but it doesn't quite read right I don't think. AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• "who had noted that both Wynyard and fellow soldier Francis Quinton, had been missing" - that comma should not be there
  • Done. Nice spot on the rogue comma! AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• "With the outbreak of Second Boer War" => "With the outbreak of the Second Boer War"
  • Done. AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• "During the winter which proceeded the 1904 season" => "During the winter which preceded the 1904 season"
  • Comment. The final paragraph of the previous section talks briefly about the 1904 season. The section which follows begins by talking about his tour West Indies which happened in the winter which followed the 1904 season. AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
    • Gotcha. In that case I think it should simply say "the winter which followed the 1904 season". I'm not 100% sure that "proceeded" can be used as a transitive verb in the sense of "came after" (i.e. can you really say "Thursday was the day which proceeded Wednesday"......?) - if it can it must be an archaic/obscure usage and I cite myself as an example of it being confusing to readers ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
      • Comment. Yeah, I've always disliked using "proceeding", I'd prefer something more fancy! Have changed it :) AA (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• "with Wynyard heading the teams batting averages" => "with Wynyard heading the team's batting averages"
  • Done. AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• " she had become stuck under the ice following a mountain torrent.;" - there's a stray full stop before the semi-colon
  • Done. A good spot! AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• "forming his own club, "The Jokers" which was drawn" => "forming his own club, "The Jokers", which was drawn "
  • Done, comma inserted. AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• These very minor points are all I got - ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude:. Many thanks for your comments :) Please find my responses above. AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support on prose -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan

Hi AA, my comments:

• "played at domestic level": "played at the domestic level"?
  • Done. AA (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• Link "Warwick Militia" to Royal Warwickshire Regiment, both in the lead and body?
  • Done. Thanks for the suggestion, I was unsure as to their connection! AA (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• "he enrolled in the fee-paying Oxford Military College": what year?
  • Comment. I can't find a specific year(s) mentioned, nor do there appear to be any records available to view online from the college (it went bust in the mid-1890s). The 1885 book Oxford Military College looks like it might be a register, but the only UK copy is 200 miles away in North Wales!!! AA (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• Link "India General Service Medal" to India General Service Medal (1854–95)?
  • Done. I'll add the redlink the MILHIST article request page. AA (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  @AssociateAffiliate, the link here should actually be India General Service Medal (1854); I had transcribed the title improperly. Also, could you respond to points number 3, 6 and 10-12? Matarisvan (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment. I will amend, just working my way through them. Have been on a radiology reporting course most of the day, been taking one point at a time during breaks! AA (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Link "Thornhil" to Thornhill, Southampton in both lead and body?
  • Done AA (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• "1897 ... prestigious North v South fixture" and "1900 ... North v South fixture": who won, and what was Wynyard's score?
  • Done. "Prestigious"... North v South? Not how I would describe it... yikes, that should have been Gentlemen v Players! Amended, and summary of his performances commented on. Have double-checked the article, no other glaring mishaps from me :) AA (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• "alluded to be the": remove the "be"?
  • Done. AA (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• "heavy defeat on the Jamaicans": by how many runs/wickets?
  • Done. Victory margin added. AA (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• "though did earn selection": "though he did earn selection"?
  • Done. AA (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• "he struggled against the leg spin": what were his scores?
  • Done. Have given more of an overview of his struggles on the tour, mentioning his average and that he only passed fifty once in six matches. AA (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• "representative matches for London": What London FC was this? Consider linking if details available?
  • Comment. The source isn't specific. I would hazard a guess Warsop is referring to a London-wide county representative team (likely post-1889), similar to other county representative teams? AA (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• "captained Hampshire": was this Southampton F.C.?
  • Comment. The source is very specific that he captained Hampshire in three sports (cricket, football, hockey). There's no mention of Wynyard in any of the annals of Southampton F.C., so I am pretty certain it was for a representative county side; however, there is no mention of dates, but with the formal organisation of football in Hampshire occurring in 1889, I'd say it was probably after then. AA (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• "Wynyard was survived by his wife": do we have her name?
  • Done. We have her name and their year of marriage, and they had just one child. AA (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• Girdlestone, Hardman and Hay 1911; Humphris and Creagh 1924 need locations of publication, though for the first it would just be a formality.
  • Done. AA (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Will try to do spot checks soon. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 11:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Matarisvan many thanks for your comments. Please find above my responses :) AA (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

AA, can support on prose. Will try to do spot checks soon. Btw, are your recent FACs part of a featured topic? Say cricketers and soldiers, or team members of Hampshire or the MCC during a particular year? Matarisvan (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan cheers! A lot of my recent expansions have been Hampshire cricketers who were also soldiers, the two are sort of where my interests lie. I have several more Hampshire cricketers who were soldiers lined up to bring to FAC in the near future! No such featured topic though! Doesn't a featured topic have to have a featured parent article for the other articles to branch from? AA (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Please note: I will be out of the UK from 19/11 to 24/11, so might not be able to respond during that time. AA (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Source formatting seems mostly consistent. I am kinda dubious of using late 19th century newspapers from the now-UK; are these really high-quality reliable sources? And what makes the CricketArchive a high-quality reliable source? Did some spotchecking which didn't turn up anything. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• @Jo-Jo Eumerus: thanks for your comment. I consider the late 19th century newspapers to be reliable, none of them deviate from the narrative of the article. In fact, I'd consider them more reliable than modern-day cricket coverage, which is lacking and often shoddily written! CricketArchive is regarded as an authoritative source. It's run by the people from The Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians, who are trusted by the International Cricket Council to maintain and expand the statistical and biographical history of players, so it is a highly reliable source. AA (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Jo-Jo Eumerus just wondering where you might stand with your review? AA (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  Referencing this decade-old post here since it and what I've heard about British newspapers in other occasions (e.g Leveson Inquiry) are the reasons why I am so dubious about the British newspapers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  Admittedly, modern British media is "gutter", which is why I turned off long ago! But older newspapers and their editors arguably more integrity and less spin. In fairness to the BNA references used, they are all from reputable (per WP:SOURCE) Hampshire-based newspapers (with two in Buckinghamshire, who cover his life and death there, as that is where he retired to). None of them make any controversial or outlandish claims, simply backing up the chronology of events (such as him succeeding Russell Bencraft as captain in 1895 [ref 33], or being recruited by the South African Cricket Association in 1908 [ref 64]). AA (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

All-American Bitch

Nominator(s): NØ 06:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the first track on Olivia Rodrigo's album Guts, "All-American Bitch". A strongly-worded critique of society's expectations from women, this song has everything, from a Kennedy reference to a transition from folk to pop-punk and a scream for the ages. Although not given the full single treatment, it did receive a great SNL performance! I wanted to time this around Election season in America, but no comment on the outcome of said election... I hope all American Wikipedians voted, and thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 06:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Media review - pass

Hi MaranoFan, happy to do the media review. The article contains the following media files:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Olivia_Rodrigo_@_Theatre_at_Ace_Hotel_10_09_2023_(53422493857).jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:OlivaRO2150524_(8)_(53727178201)_(cropped).jpg
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All-American_Bitch.ogg

The first two are images licensed under CC BY 2.0. The third one is a copyrighted audio file under fair use with a valid non-free use rationale. I'm not an expert here but the quality may be too high: it's 173 kbps but WP:SAMPLE recommends 64 kbit/s for ogg files.

The media files are relevant to the article and placed in appropriate locations. They all have captions. Both images have alt texts. The last clause of the English caption at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Olivia_Rodrigo_@_Theatre_at_Ace_Hotel_10_09_2023_(53422493857).jpg is a little odd. If "with perfect all American lips and tits" is a direct quote, then it needs quotation marks. Or the clause could simply be removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the media review, Phlsph7. The 64kbit/s recommendation is referring to the value between length and file size, which is 63 kbps for this file. Similar sizes can be seen on other files like this one.--NØ 11:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah right, it seems I read of the kbps value of the mp3 file given at the bottom rather than the kbps value of ogg file itself. The caption has been adjusted, so this takes care of the remaining concern. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Medxvo

• "Lyrically, it is satire and explores society's ..." - "Lyrically, it is a satire song that explores society's ..."
• "comparing it to the work of other rock artists" - what is "it"? the production, the song, or the production and her vocals?
• "In the United States, it debuted at number 13 ..." - "In the United States, "All-American Bitch" debuted at number 13..."—The sentence before this isn't related to the song itself but to the vocals and the production
• "platinum certification" - "platinum certification"—MOS:PIPE
• "... on her face. This performance received positive reviews" - "... on her face; the performance received positive reviews from critics"
• "Dan Nigro returned to produce every single track on it" - did we state in the article before this that Nigro also produced Sour?
• "Joan Didion's book ..." - "Joan Didion's 1968 book ..."
• "Initially written on a piano, they turned it into a rock song with a live band" - "Initially written on a piano, the song was turned into a rock song with a live band"—I don't think the first one is grammatically correct
• "An online TikTok video compared the chorus of "All-American Bitch" to Miley Cyrus's 2008 single "Start All Over" - can we add something like "upon the song's release" to say that this is part of the immediate reception and justify the sentence being in the release section?
• "Its production received comparisons" - "The song's production received comparisons"—The sentence before this isn't related to the song itself but to Rodrigo's vocals
• "Laura Snapes described it as ..." - "Laura Snapes described the song as ..."—To clarify that they are talking about the song itself
• "comparing it to Sour's opener "Brutal" - "comparing it to Sour's opener "Brutal" (2021)"

• @MaranoFan: You probably just missed this one, so pointing it out before supporting. Medxvo (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• For this one, I think it is self-explanatory that the album's opener would have been released as part of it (and the album's full release date is mentioned earlier in the article).--NØ 19:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  An album opener can be released as a single many years after the release of the album, see "Fearless" (2010) from Fearless (2008). I get your point though, and I will add my support now anyways. Best of luck! Medxvo (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• "Some opined that the song would be suitable ..." - can we attribute this to the two sources instead of "some"?
• "Several others also described Rodrigo's vocals in the verses as angelic, and writing for MusicOMH, John Murphy believed her screams ..." - "Several critics described Rodrigo's vocals in the verses as angelic, with MusicOMH's John Murphy believing her screams ..."
• "Beats Per Minutes's Lucas ..." - "Beats Per Minute's Lucas ..."
• "was certified gold" - "was certified gold"
• "top 10 song" - "top-10 song"
• "in a concert exclusively for ..." - "in an exclusive concert for ..."
• "Rodrigo sang it on Saturday Night Live eight days later" - "Rodrigo sang "All-American Bitch" on Saturday Night Live on December 9, 2023"—This is a new paragraph so I'd say the full date
• "that provided 20 cakes for it became ..." - "that provided 20 cakes for the performance became ..."
• "the Apple TV+ series The Buccaneers" - "the Apple TV+ series The Buccaneers (2023)"
• the Guts World Tour is a 2024–2025 concert tour not just a 2024 tour; this is how it's currently considered... (for both the lead and prose)
• There are incidents of "Guts's ...", "The New York Times's ...", "Chicago Sun-Times's ..." that I think should be "Guts' ...", "The New York Times' ...", "Chicago Sun-Times' ..."

I hope these comments are helpful for now. Best of luck with the FAC! Medxvo (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

These are all done as well. Thanks for the well wishes!--NØ 18:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support Medxvo (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Source review - pass

• "She references the Kennedy family while encapsulating her desire to meet ideals: "I got class and integrity, just like a goddamn Kennedy" - which part of the NME source supports this claim?
• the Rolling Stone sources should have a limited access not a subscription access
• The Wall Street Journal and The Tennessean should have a subscription access
• The New York Times, The Cut, the Los Angeles Times, The Boston Globe, Vulture, Vogue, and the Minnesota Star Tribune should have a limited access for refs 1, 3, 35, 40, 46, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99
• Some sources need to be archived such as refs 44, 78, and 87
• Why not use this source instead of the Apple TV+ Press source?

Medxvo (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I have implemented all the suggestions except an archive for ref 47, since the archive sites just produce a paywall and it has a ProQuest link which are usually not affected by linkrot.--NØ 17:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• This passes the source review. Medxvo (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "returned to produce every single track on it." - i think "returned to produce every track on it." would suffice
• "Rodrigo would listen to Rage Against the Machine" => "Rodrigo listened to Rage Against the Machine"
• "some that were uptempo and others that were serious ones" - can a song not be both uptempo and serious.....?

• Nice catch! Now that I see, the source describes the uptempo section as fun too.--NØ 04:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• There's a bit of inconsistency in tenses - you have "Jason Lipshutz [...] thought it illustrates" (present) but then further on you have "Chris Willman of Variety believed that it tapped into" (past)

• Now consistently past tense, I believe.--NØ 04:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• "She would replace the word "hips" and sing" => "She replaced the word "hips" and sang"
• That's it, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for the review. All done!--NØ 04:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Support from Rollinginhisgrave

Happy to have a look over. Just a start, I'll continue when I can sit down again.

All done, ping me when you make it through and I'll have another look-over. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 13:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Happy with the changes, thankyou so much for your patience :) Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• "They commented on Rodrigo's vocal performance and the production" This is very vague, is the rest of the sentence elaborating on what these comments entailed? Else clarify the thrust of what they said (positively, capturing a mood/feeling etc)
• "comparing the song to the work of other rock artists" I only see one comparison listed.I see now, I was looking in the reception section
• Some incaution in wikivoice in reception, e.g. "thought it illustrated Rodrigo's talent for "genre refraction"." Even though this puts "genre refraction" in quotes, what is actually being attributed is that he thought it illustrated this, and wikivoice approves that she has this talent.
• I think the cake should just be called "red"; the source describes it as blood-red to evidence a claim they go onto make which you don't include. Without such a characterization, the red of blood-red is what remains as important.
• "following which she decided to take a break from songwriting for six months." a bit nitpicky, but it doesn't sound like the break was initiated in reaction to the release, but was pre-meditated. decided to taketook?
• "Rodrigo listened to Rage Against the Machine on her way to studio sessions, and they became her favorite band." again, some causation that doesn't appear to be in the source, it is equally good reading to say she listened to it every day on the way to and from the studio because it was her favorite band.
• "of which the more rock-oriented tracks were included on the album" → "including the more rock-oriented tracks on the album"
• "serious ones"
• "She was stimulated by the affronting nature of the words" redundancy, particularly in the second half of this is immediately repeated in the quote. Consider linking the preceding sentence with ", later reflecting "
• "Upon receiving the idea" I find the sourcing on this quite confusing. I can't imagine he's referring to the idea of having a song entitled "All American Bitch", it reads more fleshed out in the source, particularly "You just wrote the opening song of this record." The People source also reads that it was a whole song, although on piano.
• "she had repressed since the age of 15" She had been trying to express repressed feelings since 15, they weren't repressed at 15
• "always felt" attribute
• "pressure to portray gratitude" attribute

• This isn't a quote, so to whom?

• It's an interview with Rodrigo. She is a reliable sources for whether she felt pressured, but not whether pressure was being applied. If she had said the opposite, it would be just as true; even if you don't feel pressured it doesn't mean you weren't being pressured.

• I think I got it now. Reworded to make it more clear this is something she felt.

• Don't need source [16] "Fans Think Olivia Rodrigo Shared a Snippet of New Song ‘Vampire’: Listen", doesn't add anything
• "announced the album title on June 26, 2023" Sources listed don't verify this fact. Maybe an archived version did? The Billboard one could not have, given it is dated June 21
• If you are one for source economy, "Olivia Rodrigo Unveils ‘Guts’ Tracklist" can be cut and "Rodrigo announced... first track" can source both sentences.

• I prefer keeping more as long as there is no overkill.

• "in which Rodrigo sports a shirt with a picture of Fiona Apple" explain why this is not as trivial as it reads.

• I don't think it is a good idea to omit reliable secondary sources' descriptions of performances as triviality is subjective. Rodrigo has cited Apple as an influence on previous music, though, if that helps answer your question.

• I did read that in the source, and read it using it to make a broader comment on Rodrigo's influences rather than on her being an influence on the song in particular, which is what I would require. If you read this and disagree, I think this may fall to editorial discretion so treat it as a suggestion.

• "an online TikTok video" I can understand why you add "online", but it reads as boomer-speak
• In the composition section, surely it was also recorded in Nigro's garage based on the comments on the screaming?
• Some overreferencing in #Composition, for example does "A full band plays electric guitars and drums in the chorus" need three sources? I can't even see a mention of drums in these sources.

• Removed one. The drums are mentioned in the Elle source at the end of the sentence. The other two sources are necessary and source different bits of the sentence.

• "internal screaming" should be reworded to reflect what she is portraying, it is a metaphor. Else should be attributed, in a more concrete way than just quotations

• It is already attributed as something mentioned in the lyrics. The lyric itself is "I scream inside to deal with it" so I am not sure there is a clearer way to put it without using original research.

• The "something" herein being the issue. I'll break down my thinking a bit: "She screams loudly after mentioning her internal screaming in the song's lyrics." We take from this: she mentions her internal screaming. This is done in the lyrics. "Mentions" without giving any other considerations implies she is merely commenting on a fact. It is a fact that she has internal screaming, in wikivoice. Internal screaming is a metaphor, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Expressions that lack precision for an expression in the manual of style that we should not use metaphors in wikivoice. That she mentions this in lyrics rather than another medium is an irrelevant consideration within the sentence. You can substitute internal screaming for desire to be a dancer etc to see how the mention of it being featured in the lyrics does not constitute attribution.

• I have addressed this as best as the sources allow.

• You use "believed" a lot (15 times), even beyond light concerns with MOS:SAID it reads as very repetitive.

• Cut down to less than two times in any one paragraph.

• ""All-American Bitch" is a satire song..." this paragraph endorses in wikivoice Rodrigo's insights into womanhood. "Expressed her concerns of..." framing would be more appropriate. I'll come back to this paragraph when you have a chance to address this.

• It should be ready for your re-read.

• I will accept this as it stands, and if I can articulate concerns coherently I will raise them further.

• "while encapsulating her desire to meet ideals" reads awkwardly
• "young lady" → woman
• Another example of incaution in wikivoice in reception: "irrefutable success" is apparently in wikivoice.

• It is very clearly preceded by "Sowing of Sputnikmusic believed", but I have swapped it out for a direct quote.

• I will read the rewrite in a bit, but again, what is being attributed is their comment on her having irrefutable success.
• I've read the rewrite, the issue persists although you have lessened it. The belief being attributed is not that the album was an "undeniable success", but that such success began with All-American Bitch.
• I can see something similar down the page with "though Rodrigo traipsed through an age-old story". This is not as explicit, but the use of though makes it ambiguous what is in wikivoice (is "Rodrigo traipsed through an age-old story" what McNeal is opining on?). This can be rectified by eliminating "though" and placing "but" at the start of the next clause, hopefully you can see how the sentence reads differently and appropriately attributes opinion.

• I think I understand this a bit better now and have reworded both the parts. I welcome you to directly copyedit either part if you think it is still not clear enough, Rollinginhisgrave.--NØ 09:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• "He was joined by Sheffield and The New York Times' Lindsay Zoladz in comparing it to Sour's opener "Brutal"." you can cut this if you aren't commenting further on the contents of such comparisons.

• An opinion shared by three sources is a necessary mention imo. What they compared about the two songs differed, and separately including each's opinion would throw off the sectional weightage.

• Ah. I've had a read of the sources and I understand my confusion. I read "compared to" as simply that made comparisons with it (can be similar, dissimilar etc.), but I think by comparing to you were implying similarity? If so, best to clarify.

• Done.

• Mark Murphy, John as requiring registration
• "Critics also praised" if you are summing up the previous paragraph as "praise", write this rather than "commented on"
• "embracing the essence of adolescence without attempting to sound prematurely mature" is this not contradictory?
• "stated his respect for the lyrics about Rodrigo's award acceptance speeches" you haven't said what these are.

• As in which individual speeches? They are not mentioned by the source and it is more of a general comment.

• Do you know why she sings about acceptance speeches?

• Assumably, award acceptance speeches would be one of the venues where a famous woman would feel pressure to appear grateful. Apologies for not being able to include this in the article, as my reading does not appear in sources.

• "most impeccable" sounds hyperbolic
• "number five by BBC News and in the top 20" I would say these numbers are comparable enough for MOS:NUMBER to apply: "comparable numbers near one another should all be written in words or all in figures". Same with ""All-American Bitch" charted at number nine"
• "fluctuating between jumping, screaming, and singing delicately" redundant; this is the layout of the song and has been expressed exhaustively.
• "became popular on social media." MOS:DATED, the claim is more broad than the ten days afforded by the sources.
• "On December 13, the singer Noelle Denton alleged that the concept was "stolen" from the music video for her 2021 song "Your Mom Calls Me" and the creative director might have seen her video when it was shared by a mutual friend." With comments like this, how do you determine whether inclusion gives appropriate weight, given Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion?

• I would have definitely ignored it if a reputed source like HuffPost did not write a dedicated article. It's just one sentence in a big section/article so I think we are alright, though.

• I understand, thankyou for clarifying. I will leave two thoughts here for your consideration, and I will leave it to your judgement. 1) Googling Noelle Denton, she does not have a Wikipedia page, and many of the first results on Google are her accusation against Rodrigo. I am not sure how WP:BLP1E applies here; I am not so familiar with BLP policy. 2) The HuffPost article is filed under entertainment which does not appear to be held to the same quality or noteworthiness standards as their news articles; even just looking at another article the author of the article has published: Glen Powell Offers Winner Of His Look-Alike Contest A 'Personal Prize', would you consider this to be DUE in any content about Powell?

• I prefer to keep this in so I appreciate you giving me leeway with this. Admittedly, I do not feel comfortable omitting an entire article, especially when it is some of the only negative coverage related to the subject. I agree with you that Denton does not meet the notability guidelines for a dedicated biography article.

I sympathize with this, my thinking is moving from this preference for including some negative coverage so the article can read as neutral to understanding it as promoting false balance and separate from considerations of WP:BALANCE. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• "which recalls 1990s rock artists" the set or Get Him Back!?

• I think it is clear this is referring to the set, personally? Why would it be referencing just one song in a list of many? But do share any rephrasing suggestions you may have.

• Perhaps inserting "together" between which and recalls. If you think this is an unreasonable/silly read, ignore.

• "sang the original lyric" some ambiguity in "original", new or first one written?

• Both the Rolling Stone and Stereogum sources use the term "original", so, even putting aside sticking with the source, one has to assume the word choice must be clear enough.

• "left everyone's hearing permanently damaged" one of the more troubling examples of "believed" around MOS:SAID

Some more nitpicky points that may go more to preferences although I will claim they allow it to read easier:

• "where one of the runaway hippies" → wherein / in which
• "on the screen" → on a screen

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the in-depth review, Rollinginhisgrave. I have asked for some minor suggestions and made the rest of the changes.--NØ 22:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Query for the coordinators

@FAC coordinators: May I nominate another one if it's okay? I have a three-day weekend, which I would like to use for it.--NØ 04:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

History of infant schools in Great Britain

Nominator(s): Llewee (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

What if a history article but with cute pictures?

This is my second nomination of this article. It was previously nominated under the title "infant school" (see) but as there were concerns about that article's scope it's focus has been made more specific. I will link everyone who commented on the original nomination so they can decide whether to say anything about the articles current state; Wehwalt, Generalissima, Nikkimaria, WhatamIdoing, UndercoverClassicist, Gerda Arendt, Crisco 1492 and Serial Number 54129. Llewee (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Llewee: you're supposed to wait 2 weeks before starting another nominations. It's been five days. {{@FAC}} 750h+ 23:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

FrB.TG, said that doesn't apply in this case when they closed the last nomination--Llewee (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Just saw that. My bad 750h+ 02:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Support from Crisco 1492

• My support from the previous nomination still stands. I'm seeing that discussion of Ireland has been removed, and I think the change in scope has helped keep the article more specific.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

An instructive article by a writer clearly in command of the subject. A few minor quibbles about the prose:

• "It was somewhat common for children" – you like the word "somewhat" somewhat: it crops up five times in your text. Like "however", "somewhat" is usually better omitted. I think the prose would be less woolly without any of the five here.

  reworded to take out the somewhats, in some cases I've tried to keep the meaning the somewhat was conveying--Llewee (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• "However, the societies did not aim to cater for the younger age group" – you are even keener on "however" than on "somewhat" – there are eight "however"s throughout the text, and you could, and I suggest should, lose at least the second, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh of them.

  I've gotten rid of most of them. I'm not sure if they are the ones you suggested as I lost count a bit.--Llewee (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• "Various other figures also established infant schools and wrote books about the subject. David Turner, an academic, wrote ..." – I think it would be helpful to your readers to make it clear that Turner was not one of those writing contemporary books about the subject but was writing in 1970.

  added "who studied 19th-century infant schools" after "an academic"--Llewee (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• "By the mid 1830's" – does the source really have the naff apostrophe?
• "some schools were too dominated by religion" – a bit judgemental without a citation.

  I have taken that bit out as the point is also said in more neutral way in the quote.--Llewee (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• "W. B. Stephens, an historian" – unless you are aged 90+ and cling to the pronunciations 'otel and 'istorian, I'd make "an" "a".
• "According to historians Helen May, Baljit Kaur and Larry Prochner" – clunky false title.

  dealt with in the same way to the David Turner issue--Llewee (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• "He was not primarily interested" – the last person mentioned was "the pupil", and it would be as well to replace the pronoun with the name.

  done--Llewee (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• "some of the questions indicate to desire to avoid rote learning –should the first "to" be "a"?

  done--Llewee (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• "The number of children under seven in schools ... In 1840 the Council on Education in England and Wales" – the whole of this paragraph is given a single citation. Does it cover all 196 words?

  I've broke this and other long chunks of text into multiple citations.--Llewee (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• "Many more of the less financially secure working classes" – is this a posh way of saying "poorer"?

  It is a bit jargony. I think I was trying to emphasise the distinction from the "skilled working classes" mentioned previously. I have changed it to "Many poorer families".--Llewee (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• "The expansion of young children attending school" – I take this is meant to mean that the numbers rather than the children expanded.

• I don't think child obesity was as much of an issue in those days. Changed to "rise of".--Llewee (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• "the under five's" – we could well do without the apostrophe.

Removed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• "More middle-class parents" – this is ambiguous: were the parents more middle class or were there more parents from the middle class?

  I have changed "more" to many" to clarify this point.--Llewee (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• "In the first year, the 'reception class', children" – any reason for ignoring the MoS's preference for double quotes?

  fixed--Llewee (talk) 22:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• "This method quickly became the principle method" – you mean "principal", I think.

  changed this--Llewee (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

That's all from me. I hope some of these points are of use. – Tim riley talk 18:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Afternoon Tim, how is it looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The amendment of principle/principal was the final change I was looking for. After a last read-through I am now happy to support the elevation of this article to FA. Tim riley talk 16:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, the 1830s thing is in the source sorry.--Llewee (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Image and source review

Images seem well-placed. What's the copyright status of the painting in File:Flickr - USCapitol - Weaving.jpg? File:British Central School Borough Road.png has a bare URL, as do several other images. Some files may need a commons:Template:PD-scan. Viz File:Infants of the British school, Llanymddyfri NLW3363470.jpg, do we know when the photographer lived? File:A practical guide to the English kinder-garten (children's garden) - for the use of mothers, nursery governesses, and infant teachers - being an exposition of Froebel's system of infant training - (14596479949).jpg needs an actual copyright tag. OKish ALT text. Sauce-wise, is #37 really saying "infant school"? I figure a government or education website would be a better source for such a claim, too. What makes https://education-uk.org/history/index.html a reliable source? Are the ITV report, Morgan Thomas 1936 and Grimshaw 1931 influential enough to warrant mention? Nothing jumps me as unused or questionable otherwise, but I must caution that this isn't a field where I am an expert in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, The first image's page on commons says that it is in the public domain because it was created by an employee of the American government. I have added John Thomas's age range; he died in 1905. I have fixed the URL and PD-scan issues. The man who created History of education in the UK (See) appears to be a retired teacher who has a Diploma of Education; he says in his autobiography that he has strong political views but the history itself seems very well written and based on academic sources (for example, see the first section of chapter one). It appears that citizensinformation.ie is run by a agency of the Irish Government (See). The cited page doesn't mention infant schools but it does mention infant classes and the point when children enter them. The two early 20th century biographies correspond to what Whitbread says about the period; I included them in order to give more tangible examples as the academic sources can be quite abstract. The ITV News report received a little discussion recently; though Wales doesn't have much of a public debate. I included it mainly in order to add a bit more detail to the Welsh paragraph and as balance to a article cited slightly earlier which criticises phonics.--Llewee (talk) 13:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I guess this is OK, unless a spotcheck is needed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Support

Per my comment at the first fac, my concerns were pretty much solely 1B orientated; that the scope has been sufficiently adjusted that I see no major obstacles to promotion. Tight faded male arse. Decadence and anarchy. A certain style. Smile. 10:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Prose review by Generalissima

Always love seeing your attention to education - such an undercovered subject on-wiki!

• Lede solid, good length.
• Terminology good.
• I'm interested by the relatively limited mention of religion as a motivation for early childhood education within Great Britain itself; it seems to mainly come up in its spread elsewhere. Was there just not as much religious advocacy for these institutions?
• The second half of the article is especially very well-written. I like how you cover smaller details like teaching methods without ever getting too niche.

@Llewee: Really just have the one question about religion and I'll be happy to support; I'm not an expert in the subject matter, so I'm curious. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Llewee, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Generalissima There was some religious influence on infant schools which is mentioned a bit in the article. I have added a quote to illustrate the point in the home and colonial infant school society section. But sectarianism wasn't a major issue (which it definitely was in other aspects of 19th century English and Welsh education).--Llewee (talk) 18:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Valhalla train crash

Nominator(s): Daniel Case (talk) 05:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the deadliest train crash in the 40-year history of New York's Metro-North Railroad. Five people on a Harlem Line train were killed during a winter evening rush hour in suburban Westchester County when a driver stopped her SUV on the tracks at a grade crossing near one of the largest cemeteries in the New York area. Almost ten years, an NTSB investigation and a lawsuit later, we still don't know why because she was killed as well. Daniel Case (talk) 05:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment

Overall in very fine shape, though there are 71 instances of the word 'accident' throughout while there are only a handful of uses of that word in RS. Should be switched to better words throughout (crash, fire, collision, incident, etc). I've been challenged in the aviation space for suggesting the same and have been told that MOS overrules RS, but I think this shouldn't be so contentious for this article Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we had this discussion last year, and then its sequel. All I can say is that, for the reasons I gave in the first discussion, I feel you, and that should consensus come around on this I would be the first to make that change. Daniel Case (talk) 02:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

TAOT

I will be reviewing this over the coming days. I will start at the lead and go in the order of the article's sections.

Lead and infobox

• On the evening of February 3, 2015, a commuter train on Metro-North Railroad's Harlem Line struck a passenger car at a grade crossing on Commerce Street near Valhalla, New York, United States, between the Valhalla and Mount Pleasant stations, killing six people and injuring 15 others, seven very seriously. This is 307 characters long; I recommend splitting it into two sentences.

I took the middle part about which two stations the crash was between out (more detail than the lede needs to have) and split the section about the fatalities and injuries into a separate sentence. Daniel Case (talk) 06:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• It is the deadliest crash in Metro-North's history, and at the time the deadliest rail accident in the United States "Is" and "and at the time" do not go together, because "at the time" refers to a past event but "is" refers to something in the present.

Done

• how the passengers were killed Suggest "how the train passengers were killed" since a car can also have passengers.

Done

• In 2024, a jury hearing one found the railroad and Brody liable for the accident. What is the meaning of "one" here? Hearing one what?

Added the words "of the suits".

• For the infobox, suggest specifying that one train car and the automobile were destroyed, and the other train car damaged. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Changed.

• This is minor, but the crossing signage should really be "the crossing signals" since this is a crossing with active warning devices, not just crossbucks.

Done.

• Suggesting linking NTSB in the infobox photo caption.

Done.

I will continue this review soon. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I have responded above. I will have limited ability to respond to comments here early this week because I am working at the polls on Tuesday (aaaallll day here in NY) Daniel Case (talk) 06:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Background

• Bombardier M7A electric multiple units is a MOS:SOB.

Fixed, although it made the sentence a little wordier.

• Suggest linking M7A in the image caption.

Did that too.

• I'm curious about the use of "boom barrier", as I'm pretty sure the standard terminology in the U.S. is crossing gate. I do see that crossing gate is also linked in the following section, though both links go to the same page.

I don't remember writing this ... might have been someone else shortly after the article was started. I have changed it to crossing gates since the cited Times article uses that term.

• Probably worth mentioning the M7As are in pairs, as otherwise the mentions of 8 cars and 4 M7As seem contradictory.

Done Daniel Case (talk) 06:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Are all these links and mentions of the counties locations are in really needed? Imho they are excessive and make the sentences too long.

I trimmed them. Writing both this and December 2013 Spuyten Duyvil derailment drew a lot on my experiences visiting various Metro-North stations with my son when he was younger so he could take pictures and video, and the understanding of Metro-North's operations I gained. So maybe I was still thinking that way at the time, but it's not that time anymore.

• It might be best to reorder the second and third paragraphs, as you switch topics to the train leaving GCT and then go back to the previous topic in the next paragraph.

Saw your point. Reads better now.

• I really think making a turn onto Lakeview Avenue from the northbound parkway is too much detail for this article. What's relevant is that the parkway was closed, I don't think this adds anything to understanding the topic.

Tightened that a bit.

• Lakeview Avenue crossed the two tracks using a grade crossing should be "crossed the two tracks at a grade crossing". Also, grade crossing can be linked.

I made it "crossed the tracks at grade" and linked the whole phrase.

• After a crash at the Commerce Street crossing in 1984 that had killed the driver of the van involved remove "had".

Done.

• The sentences discussing Commerce Street should be consistent in tense, you use both present and past tense here.

I changed that "next crossing was" to "is"; obviously it's still there. Daniel Case (talk) 07:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Crash

• Why is there a citation after the word "Alan"?

I haved moved it to the end of the sentence. I suppose I might have left it there for some reason, perhaps temporarily, when I converted the NTSB report ref to {{sfn}}. Or there could have more near the beginning of the sentence. Daniel Case (talk) 05:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• Not liking the organization of the first paragraph. You start with the driver going up Commerce Street, then backtrack to her being on the Taconic and having to divert due to the crash. Consider reworking this paragraph to put events in order.

This took more work than anything else so far that's come up in this FAC. But that's why we have them.

• The same issue is apparent in the next paragraph, where the phone call is said to have taken place before the driver left the parkway at all.

I wound up rewriting those three grafs so everything's more in order. Daniel Case (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Isn't it original research to say the claim of hearing a bell was wrong and sourcing it to the inspection report, a primary document? There's also nothing in the cited source to support in New York bells are only required for pedestrian crossings. Additionally, trains are often equipped with bells as a warning device. My advice here would be to simply say an inspection after the accident found the crossing was not equipped with a bell.

The NTSB report is clearer that there wasn't a bell at the crossing, and has a footnote explaining that this is not required. I have sourced that and limited the endnote wording to just what the sources say. (All the same, I don't know if the train bells would have been as audible as any crossing bells would have been had there been any).

• Hit the air brakes should be "applied the emergency brakes" as specified in the NTSB report.

Changed.

• Passengers in the first car recalled being thrown from their seats on impact as the fire started There hasn't been any mention of a fire until this point, so it should be "a fire".

Changed.

• until a manual override was sent Was this from dispatch at Grand Central? Can you specify who did the override?

The NTSB credits this to the office of Metro-North's power director. Absent another source saying that office is at Grand Central (which, of course, I wouldn't be surprised if it was), we can't say anything more than that. Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Pages 23-24 of the NTSB report say the power director's office is in Grand Central Terminal. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

It's on page 23. I have added it and appropriately amended the footnote. Daniel Case (talk) 06:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Link the first mention of third rail.

Done. Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Victims

• Equity analyst is another MOS:SOB issue, since the reader would expect an article at equity analyst.

Changed to that. Daniel Case (talk) 07:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• Will pick up from the end of the victims section. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Aftermath

• Can we have inflation templates for cost numbers? I've been victim to those requests many times at FAC, and now I get to inflict them on you (joking).

Oh, no problem. That hadn't occurred to me, actually, since it has been for most of the lifetime of this article so recent that one wouldn't think to include it. But, it has now been nearly ten years, so yes—and of course it's easy because I've done it on so many other articles.

• This is nitpicky, but I've never seen anyone use the spelling "high-rail" in the U.S., it's usually hi-rail or hirail.

I've always heard them called hi-los — the idea being that they're high relative to the tracks but low to the road. But ... that isn't in the lede of the linked article. So I went with hi-rail, which is.

• The interim pastor at Nadol's Church of St. Mary the Virgin, noted that communities like Chappaqua depend on commuter rail for economic and cultural reasons Is that comma necessary? It seems out of place to me but maybe there's some MOS thingy that says I'm wrong.

Took it out. I think at one point we had used his name, so his job description was an appositive phrase. Daniel Case (talk) 03:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Investigation

• Any chance we can say a bit more about the NTSB team? How many members, and how long did they ultimately stay?

I looked hard just now. All the NTSB's original press release says is that they're sending a "go-team" and who was heading it, but not exactly how many members. I suppose more detailed information might be in agency financial records, which although they're probably public are not the sort of thing routinely put online.

• If you can find room, it might be a good idea to show a photo of the contact shoe with the third rail to illustrate how it works. A photo showing how the third rails used by the MTA often have a cover might also be a good addition.

Hmm. I spent a lot of time considering how I might be able to do this after I first read this. I realized that it would be best to get such a shot—or even better, video—at a station with an adjacent grade crossing, of which of course there are several on the electrified portion of the Harlem Line vs. none on the shorter electrified portion of the Hudson Line. There, you can deal with the train slowing down and/or outright stopping to make it an easier shot.

Brewster seems like it would be ideal for this, as you've got the third rails on the outside and they run close to the crossing, and can be photographed or videoed from or through nearby fencing, particularly on the northeast and southwest corners. Plus it is conveniently the closest crossing/station pair to where I live (although still a bit of a drive).

I wish you'd raised this possibility a couple of weeks back, now that Metro-North has revived its annual Open House down at Croton-Harmon. It might have been easier to get this there.

Obviously, as you suggested, this doesn't have to be done now, but I like the idea and I think we can do it soon.

Success! I went to Brewster last weekend and took a short video clip (OK, it's not perfect but it gets the idea across). Daniel Case (talk) 06:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• reduce the possibility of inadvertent contact with the high-voltage rail Suggest making it clearer you are referring to contact of people (or wildlife or anything that isn't a train contact shoe) with the third rail, obviously you would want the contact shoe to make contact with the third rail. I understand what you're saying here, but it is kind of confusing when it comes immediately after the explanation that the under-running is meant to prevent ice from building up (and presumably causing problems for the contact shoes).

Added wording to that effect

• When listing the safety features in the second to last paragraph, you did not include the flashing lights though my understanding is they also worked correctly.

Added. Daniel Case (talk) 06:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Reports and conclusions

• It's the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, not Manual of. Easy mistake to make, I work with the MUTCD on a daily basis at my day job and if you told me it was "Manual of" I'd probably believe you. Probably why we all just call it the MUTCD at work.

Thanks! Changed.

• I looked through my copy of Train Wrecks by Robert C. Reed, and it does agree that collisions involving the rail coming through the bottom of a train car are very rare and have been since steel rails were widely adopted, but they were unfortunately a common occurrence when strap rail was used in the 1800s. He says the terminology for such an event in a train accident is a "snakehead". Not sure this means any changes are needed to the article but I figured you'd find it interesting.

I looked this up, thinking it might have made an interesting endnote. You can't cite Reed's book through Google Books, which of course doesn't mean you can't. However, in the process of looking for other mentions online, I came across this forum post, dated 1/26/21 04:35, which references a Railway Age article from 1900 which found these accidents to have been less common in the preceding century than believed, and faults first a Harper's article in the pre-Civil War era for creating a public hysteria about this, then the manufacturers of passenger cars for adroitly responding to this by putting steel plates below the floors of their cars but then furthering the hysteria by widely advertising that they did so.

• the third rails were designed to break up in accidents and fail to the side Should this be "fall"?

The NTSB report uses "fail" a lot in the cited passage, but yes, "fall" makes more sense to readers here so I changed it.

• You write But in this case, with only two exceptions, the third rail's 6-foot (2 m) sections had largely remained joined in larger sections averaging 39 feet (12 m) in length, weighing a ton (800 kg) each, as they accumulated in the first and second cars but the NTSB report says "Of the 11 sections of third rail recovered, five were about 39 feet in length" which seems to me to suggest something different.

I changed it to read as the report writes. Daniel Case (talk) 04:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Post-accident official responses

• The second sentence here is very long, I suggest splitting it into two.

Made three out of it

• Can the section about proposed closing be updated? It doesn't clearly indicate if the crossings were closed or not.

(clutches forehead) I have regularly looked to see whether the town has publicly revisited this. I have found no evidence that it has ... perhaps the public opposition documented in the article and sources was enough to dissuade them from doing so. I sometimes feel like adding a "and it has not been discussed since then" but I don't think the absence of any sources for such discussion by itself is something we would consider a source for the absence of discussion.

• Why is Operation Lifesaver abbreviated as OLI (as opposed to OL)? This is not done in the NTSB report.

Because they themselves use it. And our OLI page also includes Operation Lifesaver among its links. We should probably put that in the article, too. Daniel Case (talk) 04:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Litigation

• Most were from passengers injured or killed Suggest adding something along the lines of "or their surviving relatives".

Done.

Other

• There are two periods after the retrieval date for the external link, pretty sure there should only be one.
• That's about it for me. I'll do one more readthrough once you've responded to these comments and then I expect to be in support of promotion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Done! Looking forward to anything more you have to say. Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Having read through the article again I don't have any further comments. Happy to support. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Generalissima

Very solid prose throughout. I took the liberty of fixing a few citation orders.

• In the paragraph beginning The call was dropped, you should say "Brody" instead of "she" for the first mention of her.

I went further. I changed it to "Alan's" per MOS:SAMESURNAME. Daniel Case (talk) 06:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• This also happens a couple times in the Driver's behavior.

Again per MOS:SAMESURNAME, I used "Allan" and "Ellen". Daniel Case (talk) 06:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• According to MOS:EMPHASIS, use em tags when italicizing for emphasis, like when you emphasize any under "Design of third rails".

Done. Daniel Case (talk) 06:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• I don't see any other problems. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Looks good to me - Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

EG

I will leave some comments later. I'm not sure if I can formally !vote on the nomination since I seem to have the second-most edits to this article, but I guess I'll ask the FAC coords when we reach that point. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I will just state for the record that I have no objections to you taking part. Daniel Case (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Lead:

• Para 2: "the first car" - More specifically, the first train car (since "car" can be misconstrued here for "private vehicle").

I went with "front car".

• Para 3: "Investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) focused on two issues in the accident: how the train passengers were killed, since that rarely occurs in grade crossing collisions; and why Brody went forward into the train's path." - I get why you used the semicolon; it may appear in lists with three or more items, where at least one item has a comma. However, it usually isn't used in lists with only two items. This would otherwise imply "and why Brody went forward into the train's path" is a standalone sentence, which it isn't. I suggest adding dashes, e.g. "how the train passengers were killed—since that rarely occurs in grade crossing collisions—and why Brody went forward into the train's path."
• Para 3: "town of Mount Pleasant, which maintains Commerce Street, Westchester County, the railroad, and the engineer" - Conversely, you can add semicolons here, e.g. "town of Mount Pleasant, which maintains Commerce Street; Westchester County; the railroad; and the engineer". This is because "which maintains Commerce Street" isn't a party to a lawsuit, but rather clarifying the town of Mount Pleasant's involvement in the lawsuit.

All done. Daniel Case (talk) 06:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Background:

• Para 1: "At about 5:30 p.m. on February 3, 2015, 14 minutes after sunset" - I'd change to "...fourteen minutes after sunset" or reword this to put more distance between "2015" and "14" per MOS:NUMNOTES, which advises to "avoid awkward juxtapositions" such as this one.
• Para 1: "both lanes of the southbound Taconic and one northbound lane" - How about "both southbound lanes and one northbound lane of the Taconic"?
• Para 2: " Bombardier M7A electric multiple units" - This is a pretty severe case of WP:SEAOFBLUE; there are three links in a row without any indicator that these links are separate. I would either put distance between these links (e.g. four M7A electric multiple units made by Bombardier) or remove two of them. Actually I see TAOT has mentioned this above.
• Para 3: "Lakeview Avenue crossed the two tracks using a grade crossing" - The wording "crossed...using a grade crossing" seems slightly repetitive. Is there a way to reword this?

I have addressed the first two; the latter were also pointed out by TAOT and I addressed them in response to his comments. And I want to thank you for refocusing my attention on this section, since looking at it while doing this brought to my attention not only a couple of minor copy errors but some awkwardness in the section as a whole (i.e., we mentioned Lakeview crossing "the tracks" well before we mentioned the train, and since we had said nothing about the line running parallel alongside the Taconic at that point a reader who, say, hasn't had the occasion in the years since the crash to go down to the site and walk around and take photographs, will have absolutely no understanding of this. Or, now, would have. Daniel Case (talk) 06:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

More tomorrow, probably. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Crash:

• Para 2, footnote [c]: In 2016, Alan agreed in a newspaper interview that she would have had to have driven over the Lakeview Avenue grade crossing to make the turn up Commerce Street and the accident site." - This seems to be missing a closing quotation mark.

I think that might have been a typo I made putting the source in. Removed.

• Para 3: "Both Hope and Brody had stopped for a few seconds at the grade crossing" - I don't think "had" is necessary here, unless this is a continuation of what Hope said. This sentence uses the past perfect tense, but the rest of the paragraph (except for the sentence about Hope's recollection to investigators) is in the simple past tense.

This might have been left over from an earlier version of the graf as, in response to TAOT's comments I rearranged this section of the narrative quite a bit. I am, as a result of having studied Russian and Polish very picky about the perfect aspect in English, so I would have used that for a reason. But you are correct in noting that it does not make sense here, so I took "had" out.

• Para 5: "He realized it was from a vehicle fouling the tracks, and immediately hit the emergency brakes and sounded the horn, earlier than he would have been required to take the latter action if the tracks appeared clear, in the hope that the vehicle would hear it and leave since he knew he could not stop the train in time" - This sentence is a bit convoluted, but as I understand it, Smalls hit the brakes, and he sounded the horn earlier than required. Regardless, I'd rephrase this, because "earlier than he would have been required to take the latter action if the tracks appeared clear" could probably throw off a reader.

Yes, ZKang had also pointed this out, so I reworded it when working through his comments. Daniel Case (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• Not strictly necessary, but I just realized that a map and/or further clarification of the directions may be helpful here. From what I can recall, the train was traveling northbound from Grand Central, and the SUV was heading northeast (which would mean that the passenger side of the SUV was facing south/southeast). Also, as the article says, the train was on the western track, which means it was actually running on the left-hand side of the line. However, this isn't spelled out in the article, which could confuse readers unfamiliar with the topic.

The map on Page 6 of the NTSB report looks like it would address this issue quite well. We could also add a bit to the photo cutline. Daniel Case (talk) 06:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Per discussions elsewhere here, I have added it. Daniel Case (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Collision:

• In this section (and elsewhere in the article), the word "car" seems to be used for both the SUV and the M7As. I would change each use of "car" in this section to clarify whether it's the SUV or the train car. For example:
  • Para 1: "Then the car moved forward" - which refers to the SUV
  • Para 3: "Passengers in the first car" - which refers to the first train car

Clarified.

• Para 3: "One said that moments after being thrown into the next seat, he saw a section of rail go through the seat he had just been in" - Is this the third rail mentioned in paragraph 4?

It is. And I checked to make sure that in the source, he said the third rail, which he did.

• Para 6: "Damage to a transition jumper isolated the rail on the east of the track, south of the intersection, from its counterpart west of the track and north of the intersection." - By "intersection" do you mean grade crossing?

Yes. I may have been unconsciously been echoing the NTSB's language. Daniel Case (talk) 07:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Rescue efforts:

• Para 1: "later it was reported" - I'd clarify that the NTSB reported this.

Done.

Victims:

• Para 3: "that exception was due to burns and other injuries" - Do the sources say who this passenger was?

No, they don't. At least not the NTSB report. I can see them deciding they didn't need to publicly say who.

Fair enough. I was wondering because, if we knew who this passenger was, we could have said "[Passenger's name] died from burns and other injuries" instead of using passive voice. Epicgenius (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Para 3: 'There were a total of six deaths and fifteen injuries" - Perhaps this sentence should be moved to the first paragraph instead, before the existing sentence, which already says there were six deaths.

Did that.

• Para 4: "At that time, it was the deadliest passenger train crash" - I don't think "at that time" is needed, since "It was the deadliest passenger train crash in the United States since the 2009 Washington Metro train collision" already implies that the crash was the deadliest in six years.

Good point. Changed.

Aftermath:

• Para 1: "The lead car caught fire and was eventually destroyed." - The sources are from the days after the crash. Do you know what ultimately happened to the lead car (e.g. was it scrapped)?

Nothing in the cited source says this ... the car was, as all the photos in the NTSB report suggest, pretty well gutted. So I would not be at all surprised if it was scrapped. But the sources don't say that it was (I get the feeling someone added something they just ... knew somewhere along the line), so I took that out.

• Para 2: "A crew of a hundred" - Minor pick, but personally I'd say "one hundred".

I decided to use a figure. Daniel Case (talk) 06:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Social and cultural commentary:

• Para 4: "Tanenhaus saw the car's collision with a commuter train as another indicator of the way in which Westchester had left the contradictions between its past and present unresolved." - I wouldn't characterize this as a contradiction so much as a holdover from a past era, but that could just be me.

Well, that usage is from the quoted text, where he talks about the "paradox" of Westchester, the way it still sells itself to people as offering a country life despite having grown increasingly suburbanized. Daniel Case (talk) 06:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• I did have a question about whether the brackets at the beginning of words were necessary, but apparently MOS:CONFORM allows it: "It is normally unnecessary to explicitly note changes in capitalization. However, for more precision, the altered letter may be put inside square brackets: "The" → "[t]he".
• I also noticed that most of this commentary is within a week of the accident. Is there any more-recent commentary?

If there had been, I'm sure I would have found it by now. I do check regularly. Daniel Case (talk) 06:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I see, and I wasn't trying to imply that you weren't being diligent - quite the opposite, as I wanted to confirm that there in fact really was nothing more recent. Yeah, it seems a bit strange that more recent commentary doesn't exist, though. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about that. No problem. Daniel Case (talk) 07:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Theories and issues:

• Para 1: Can some of these quotes be paraphrased? I'm not sure that all three quotes are necessary, since we can just say in wikivoice that "grade-crossing accidents typically don't kill passengers on the train". The same goes for the rest of this section, actually; there are a lot of quotes that can be rephrased of summarized

Trimmed them down.

• Para 2: "To facilitate this, the ends of the third rails adjacent to grade crossings have a slight upturn." - Is the implication that the ends of the third rails may have been jolted upward into the train cars as a result?

Yes, that's the theory. I am guessing you think it needs to be stated more explicitly? Daniel Case (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• Para 6: "While the crossing had undergone upgrades in recent years, including brighter lights and an additional sign warning passing drivers not to stop on the tracks, in 2009 another upgrade, which would have added a sign with flashing lights 100–200 feet (30–61 m) up the road west of the tracks was not installed." - Two things here.
  • First, I think this can be split into two sentences for readability.
  • Second, "in 2009 another upgrade ... was not installed" sounds strange. Usually, I'd say that upgrades weren't carried out, rather than that upgrades weren't installed (unless it's something like software). Also, do you know if the upgrade was proposed in 2009, canceled in 2009, or both?

More soon. Sorry for the delays, things have been pretty hectic for me in real life lately. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry again. I promise to finish this over the weekend. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

No worries ... this holiday weekend isn't exactly giving me a lot of spare time, either. Daniel Case (talk) 02:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Picking up from this version of this article.

Reports and conclusions:

• Para 1: "Two years after the accident, however, it had still not released its final report." - You mention in the second paragraph that the final report was mentioned in July 2017. Perhaps that detail could be mentioned earlier on?

OK ... that took some rewording, which should have frankly been done back after that report had come out since there was originally more complaining about how long the report was taking. Daniel Case (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• I notice that the word "car" is used in this section to refer both to railcars and to motor vehicles. Examples of the former include "They did not experience sufficient stress to break until the rail sections had already entered the car", while examples of the latter include "The investigators allowed, however, that their tests were done with the car's radio and heater off". I suggest clarifying each use of the word "car" to remove this ambiguity; this should probably be done throughout the article as well.

Alright, did this throughout the article, everywhere where (as far as I can see) whether the train or the SUV was meant is intended. Daniel Case (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Driver's behavior:

• Para 3: "The investigators allowed, however, that their tests were done with the car's radio and heater off," - Are you using the word "allowed" to mean "conceded", or "permitted", here?

Conceded. Do you think I should use that instead? In this context I don't see those two meanings being confused.

• Para 4: "Whether the train's lights were visible or not" - I'd remove "or not", as that is implied by the use of the word "whether".

Done. Yes, an overly common redundant usage that I have sometimes myself warned tutees/students about.

• Para 5: "While prior to purchasing the used[13] ML350 two months earlier she had driven a Honda with a shifter in the more common position between the front seats, Alan told the NTSB that she had not told him of any problems using the column-mounted shifter, which he had also used when driving her car and found easy to get used to." - I would split the sentence into two, as this sentence is so long that it's verging on a garden-path sentence, especially the first half.

Done

• Para 6: "Had she done so, it might have provided additional warning that a grade crossing was nearby." - Do we know if the NTSB investigated whether she was using a GPS on her phone or another device?

I checked. There's no mention of the possibility (and at that time it's entirely possible, I think, that someone that age might not yet have started using a smartphone, which if so would moot that possibility).

• Para 7: Most of this paragraph is quotes. I would recommend paraphrasing at least one of the quotes.

I got rid of one of the quotes entirely, as it was sort of redundant. But I do think it's important to read the NTSB's voice making its conclusion. Daniel Case (talk) 04:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Traffic signal preemption:

• No issues here.

Design of third rails:

• Para 2: "But in this case, with only two exceptions, the third rail's 6-foot (2 m) sections had largely remained joined in larger sections, five of the 11 recovered 39 feet (12 m) in length, weighing a ton (800 kg) each, as they accumulated in the first and second cars" - I recommend splitting this into two sentences as well, particularly after "largely remained joined in larger sections". In addition, the clause "five of the 11 recovered" seems like it may be missing a word, unless you're talking about five of the 11 sections that were recovered.

Done (broke it up and added a word for clarity.

• Para 5, note [i]: "In addition to Metro-North and the LIRR, those are Amtrak, the SEPTA and the Port Authority Trans-Hudson (PATH) trains between Manhattan and New Jersey" - If I'm not mistaken, the PATH does not have any grade crossings that are open to the public, while SEPTA uses overhead catenary exclusively. I think it would be better to clarify the note to say that the NTSB recommended that these systems be inspected. Currently, it reads like the note is saying that these systems use third rail and grade crossings.

Done. SEPTA, as noted in the article, does use third rail on its subways, including the only other underrunning third rail on one line outside of Metro-North. But while I would want to check on PATH, I do believe you're right given how little those trains run at grade in developed areas. This error wouldn't surprise me, however, given that the report also mistakenly states that the LIRR also uses underrunning third rails. Daniel Case (talk) 04:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Fire:

• Para 3: "but the testing carried out after the accident showed this to be no longer the case" - Presumably because the standards were updated?

The report doesn't say. It notes that flammability resistance can decrease over time as materials age and are exposed to environmental factors. I added another endnote to this effect. Daniel Case (talk) 06:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Concurrences:

• Para 1: " "I suspect some may have had the expectation that the NTSB would be able to explain with certainty why the driver of the SUV ended up on the tracks that fateful evening," Sumwalt began. But with Brody dead, that was impossible." - This could be summarized in one sentence. In fact, I don't think you even need a quote if you're just expressing the fact that no definite explanation for the car's presence on the tracks was readily available due to Brody's death.

Fixed. Daniel Case (talk) 06:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Dissent:

• There are a lot of quotes in this section. Could they be summarized or paraphrased?
• Para 3 includes two sentences that end in question marks. I suggest rephrasing to make it clear that these were issues that Weener brought up.

Addressed both of these. Daniel Case (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I won't be able to finish the entire thing this weekend, but hopefully I will be done by Monday. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Post-accident official responses:

• The MTA's full name should be spelled out the first time it's used, and the acronym should be placed in parentheses afterward (i.e. "Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA)"), per MOS:ACRO1STUSE.

Done. Daniel Case (talk) 06:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposed closure of crossing:

• Para 1: "to two within two miles (3.2 km) from four" - Two issues here.
  • Am I correct in understanding that there would be two crossings in a 2-mile stretch of track, rather than the previous four?
  • The numbers here are arranged weirdly. You list a quantity, a distance, and another quantity. I would put the quantities together, though this might require a little rewording, e.g. "This would reduce the number of grade crossings along the line from four—the most of any town in the county—to two within a two-mile stretch".
• Para 1: "high passenger train volume and speed, low road traffic volume, multiple tracks, a mere 82 feet (25 m) to a traffic signal, a poor approach angle (62°), poor visibility due to the substation, and the two fatal accidents in its history" - The clause "a mere 82 feet to a traffic signal" doesn't fit with the other terms in the list. Each term in the list is an adjective-plus-noun, except for this one, which is little more than a measurement. Perhaps this can be rephrased as "the mere 82-foot (25 m) distance to a traffic signal".
• Para 4: "Cleveland street crossing" - "Street" should be capitalized.

MTA grade crossing safety campaign:

• Para 1: "went up in trains and at stations on the Metro-North, the LIRR, and the New York City Subway" - LIRR should also be spelled out on the first use.

Safety improvements to Commerce Street crossing:

• Para 2: "Alan Brody, a former conductor in his native South Africa," - Since Brody is already introduced earlier in the article, should the clause "a former conductor in his native South Africa," be moved up? If not, I think it may be better to change this to "Alan Brody, who had been a former conductor in his native South Africa," since otherwise it sounds like we're introducing him for the first time.
• Para 2: "which would not have prevented the Valhalla accident anymore than the CCTV would" - This should be "any more". "Anymore" means "any longer"/"at present", but in this case "any more" isn't being used to refer to a time period (you could replace it with "any less" and it'd still make sense, which isn't the case if "anymore" really was meant).
• I take it that there's no further news on these upgrades?

More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Litigation:

• Para 1: "Most were from passengers injured or killed, or their surviving relatives, including the Brody family, all alleging negligence" - The Brodys weren't among the passengers or their families, so I'd just say "Most were from those injured or killed".
• Para 1: "Metro North" - The proper name "Metro-North" is hyphenated.
• Para 1: "Smalls answered that he had been trained to use the horn first if the tracks were blocked at a crossing, and not immediately use the emergency brake until he was sure of what was blocking the tracks since that could cause a derailment and injure any standing passengers in the train" - I'd add a comma after "blocking the tracks".
• Para 2: Perhaps this could be split into two sentences (after "as the train approached"). As it is, it's fairly long, and this entire paragraph is one sentence as a result.
• Para 4: Out of curiosity, when was the suit filed? This may give some context as to why it took so long for the suit to go to trial.

@Daniel Case, these are the rest of my comments. Overall, though the article is fairly beefy, it's already in good shape, and many of these issues should be relatively easy to fix. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

RoySmith

I reviewed this at PR I probably won't do another full review, but I'm happy to report that most of the issues I raised at that time, particularly those about going into excessive detail, have been addressed. I mentioned at PR my concern that an overwhelming number of the sources were from local news media immediately after the crash. I see that's still largely true. On the other hand for an article like this, that may simply be unavoidable; if those are the sources that exist, that's what we've got to use. I took the liberty of uploading a new version of the rail image, with some exposure adjustments which bring out the detail better.

Comments by ZKang123

Would give this a look.

Lead:

• Six people were killed and 15 others injured, seven very seriously. – The addition of the fact of "seven very seriously" sounds rather unencyclopedic and awkward. Might suggest rewording to: Six people were killed and 15 others injured, seven of whom sustained severe injuries.

I went with "severely injured"

• The sentences beginning with The crash occurred after traffic... and At the grade crossing, a sport utility vehicle (SUV) are quite wordy and could be broken up. Specifically, the first sentence took me some time to understand, that traffic from a certain road were rerouted to local roads following an incident.

I broke those up.

• Brody died when her vehicle was struck by the train; as her vehicle was pushed along the tracks it loosened more than 450 feet (140 m) of third rail, which broke into sections and went through the exterior of the train's front car, killing five passengers and starting a fire. – Also this sentence could be rewritten as Brody died when the train struck her vehicle and pushed it on the tracks. The collision damaged over 450 feet (140 m) of the third rail, which led to a fire and caused the deaths of five additional passengers. Or whichever else that retains the meaning.

Made those changes.

• With em-dashes it's not necessary for spaces—unless you're using en-dash.

Fixed. It used to be, and probably was at the time that this was written, that we didn't care whether you used the spaces or not as long you were consistent within an article. I see now that we've gotten off that fence.

• The board's 2017 final report found the driver of the SUV to be the cause of the accident. It found no defects with the vehicle, the crossing signals and associated traffic signal preemption, or the train engineer's performance. – The board's 2017 final report determined the driver of the SUV to be the cause of the accident, after finding no issues with the train engineer's performance or no defects with the vehicle, the crossing signals and associated traffic signal preemption.

Done.

• Remove the semi-colon and use a full-stop instead.

Done.

• I think in some way the board findings could be further summarised; not all the details need to be there. Especially when earlier you said the damaged third rail also killed the passengers.

I took that out.

• In 2024, a jury hearing one of the suits found the railroad and Brody liable for the accident. – I think "one of the suits" makes the sentence a bit confusing, and could be removed. I think the rewritten sentence In 2024, a jury hearing found the railroad... makes more sense.

Until about 2020 or so, we had a separate section on all the suits. Since they were largely consolidated into one, I just made it "a jury found ..." Daniel Case (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

More to come.--ZKang123 (talk) 04:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Giving a glance of the article, I felt the article could see more cleanups in the wording and be less chunkier at certain parts; some tend to use more complex sentence structures. Maybe I will wait for the others to give a copyedit of the article before I continue looking over.--ZKang123 (talk) 07:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi ZKang123. It is highly unlikely that much copy editing will take place at this stage in a FAC. Indeed, as a coordinator I would be concerned if it were to. If you believe that the prose is not engaging and/or not of a professional standard (ie that it does not meet FA criteria 1a) then it may be easier to just oppose. Regards. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

This is not to say that if ZKang is willing, as everyone else here has been and he has been previously, to provide specific examples, I would not be responsive. Daniel Case (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Continued:

• Investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) focused on two issues in the accident: how the train passengers were killed—since that rarely occurs in grade crossing collisions—and why Brody went forward into the train's path. – I might shorten to: An investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) was called to look into how the train passengers were killed and why Brody went forward into the train's path. I don't think saying the deaths are rare in such a collision is notable in the lead.

Fair enough. I kept the beginning of the sentence because investigations by the NTSB are automatic in these cases; i.e. they're not "called".

• The board's 2017 final report determined the driver of the SUV to be the cause of the accident, after finding no issues with the train engineer's performance or no defects with the vehicle, the crossing signals and associated traffic signal preemption. – The board's 2017 final report determined the driver of the SUV to be the cause of the accident, after finding no defects with the vehicle or crossing equipment, or issues with the train engineer's performance.

Done.

• which at this point is closely paralleled on its west by the two tracks of Metro-North Railroad's Harlem Line – where the highway closely parallels the two tracks of Metro-North Railroad's Harlem Line on its west.

Yes, thanks. This was added somewhat hastily during some revisions earlier in this process. Thank you for suggesting improved wording.

• Lakeview .[5] – something seems to be deleted here.

A bit of stray mess left over from those earlier revisions. Deleted.

• The next such crossing is Commerce Street, a lightly traveled local road to the north that intersects the tracks diagonally, also at grade. – The next at-grade crossing is Commerce Street, a lightly traveled local road to the north that intersects the tracks diagonally.

Done, although I used "grade crossing", as that's standard US English.

• It was an express train of eight cars,[9] formed by four paired electric multiple units (EMUs), all M7As made by Bombardier, bound for the Southeast station,[b] with Chappaqua its first scheduled stop. – This sentence should be further split up. Like It was an express train of eight cars,[9] formed by four paired electric multiple units (EMUs) – all M7As manufactured by Bombardier. The train was bound for the Southeast station...

Done

• with nine months as an engineer – who had been an engineer for nine months

Done

• She drove her 2011 Mercedes-Benz ML350 SUV south in order to meet a potential client for her bookkeeping business in Scarsdale, an appointment she had confirmed via text before leaving work, telling the client she had been running late and would be delayed. – Another chunky sentence, please split up.

Thank you. This is why we do this sort of thing. I wrote it so it takes someone else's eyes to make me see just how much that needlessly sprawls. I also fixed some other places in the surrounding text in the process.

• It was earlier than he would have been required to take the latter action if the tracks appeared clear. – I don't understand this sentence.

OK, this is in here primarily, but not exclusively, because when he blew the horn was an issue in the lawsuit. The point is that he technically didn't have to have blown it when he did, but, upon, seeing the car spoiling the tracks, went ahead and did it early. This is what he was trained to do, and that being so, the plaintiffs' lawyers argued, successfully at least for now, that the railroad was liable because if Smalls had hit the brake at that point instead of blowing the horn, the train could have stopped before hitting the SUV).

I am going to have to think for a bit about how better to word this—I agree as is it is not entirely clear.

OK, I came up with adding ", earlier than he would have had the tracks been clear" to the end of the sentence. Daniel Case (talk) 06:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• Then her car moved forward, 30 seconds after the gate had come down on her car, investigators determined later – why need to add "investigators determined later"? Is it exactly determining the duration?

You're probably right that this is not necessary. I think I added it because no one was really watching at the time since there were other things on the most likely witnesses' minds, and thus the timing, suggesting Brody had had ample warning of the oncoming train from the gate coming down on her car, is important. Daniel Case (talk) 05:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Shortened the sentence. Daniel Case (talk) 06:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• on the east of the track, south of the crossing – on the eastbound track south of the crossing. Similarly for the west of the track. I'm just trying to avoid too many commas here.

Done.

• While the former lost power within eight seconds of the collision, circuit breakers that had detected the loss in power to the former restored it to the last four cars of the train, which remained in contact with that rail, until a manual override was sent from the office of Metro-North's power director at GCT a minute and a half afterwards – Also split this

Done. Another one resulting from edits in response to earlier comments. Daniel Case (talk) 06:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

More to come.--ZKang123 (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

ZKang123 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Apologies; was revising for an exam and then also have work. Continued:

• In a text Brody sent to confirm the appointment before leaving work, she had told the client she was running late. – This is worded a little awkwardly. Might rewrite to: Before leaving work, she had told the client in a text/texted the client she was running late for their appointment.

Done.

• During the call he gave her directions to Scarsdale, telling her to get off the Saw Mill River Parkway, her usual route south from Chappaqua, at the exit with the Taconic and follow it to the Bronx River Parkway. – During the call, he gave her directions to Scarsdale, telling her to get off the Saw Mill River Parkway – her usual route south from Chappaqua – at the exit with the Taconic and follow it to the Bronx River Parkway.

Done

• which would have allowed her to keep both hands on the wheel, but according to Alan... – split such that on the wheel. According to Alan, however,...

Done

• Alan did not believe she was familiar with the area through which she was driving[13][15] or with grade crossings. – for "with grade crossings", does it mean she's unfamiliar on how to navigate grade crossings or unfamiliar with where the grade crossings are in the area?

I added "both" because he meant both.

• and took the detour for reasons unknown – actually how is it really unknown? LIke, isn't it because of the accident she has to reroute? Or is her choice of the reroute unusual that raised questions? Like is it out of the way to her intended destination?

Took that phrase out ... I think if we picked that language up from the source, it was referring to why she went forward into the train's path later.

• Hope says Brody's SUV – you mean "said" given he would have given his testimony in the past

Fixed. Daniel Case (talk) 06:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

(I just realised I was rereading what I have reviewed and actually forgot where I had left off. Oops. But still, those are my concerns upon rereading)

• head of Association of Commuter Rail Employees, the labor union which represents Metro-North workers. – consider using an en/em dash instead of the comma

This one I'm not as sure about. The phrase is in apposition to the one before it; I don't see what an em dash does there that a comma does not. Maybe it's an American English thing. But nothing in MOS:EMDASH supports this, as far as I can tell. Daniel Case (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• The firefighters were, however, able to suppress the fire before it had seriously affected the second car. – ...before it could spread to the second car.

Done.

• told The Journal News, Westchester County's main daily newspaper. – also consider an en/em-dash

Again, per above, I've never used an em dash in this situation, and don't recall ever seeing it used in written American English much. Daniel Case (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• But there were other exceptions to this pattern, such as the 2005 Glendale train crash in southern California, – another chunky sentence please split.

Done.

• Unlike other American commuter-rail agencies that operate trains powered by third rails, which have a contact shoe on top of their third rail, Metro-North trains' contact shoes draw current from the bottom of the third rail during operation.. – American commuter trains have their contact shoe above the third rail, but Metro-North trains' contact shoes draw current from the bottom of the third rail.

Reworded.

• The railroad's under-running third rails are designed in order to – This unique configuration prevents ice from...

Tightened. I didn't include "unique" because as the article points out this is also used on one Philadelphia subway line, and this configuration is more common in Europe. Daniel Case (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• as a consequence, they are much safer than the traditional over-running third rails – Is this the board's opinion or do other railway experts agree with this claim? Also would split this as a standalone sentence. "As a consequence" to "Consequently,..."

I just took the "safer" claim out as the unnamed "railway expert" quoted in the source does not make that claim. Daniel Case (talk) 03:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• The NTSB team theorized that the fire aboard the train might have been caused by gasoline from the SUV, ignited by a spark from the third rail, which had pierced the car's fuel tank,[60] and the force of impact. – Are you trying to say that the fire could be caused by both the SUV gasoline and the force of impact? Cos this part is rather verbose

Took that last part out, because while that's sort of implied, it's not really stated, and none of the other things really would have happened without an impact, so it's really superfluous to make it a cause anyway. Daniel Case (talk) 03:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• Some area residents suggested the crossing itself was the problem. – Some residents in the area...

Done, although I'm not sure what was causing enough confusion here to warrant additional wording.

• While the crossing had undergone upgrades in recent years, including brighter lights and an additional sign warning passing drivers not to stop on the tracks, in 2009 another upgrade, which would have added a sign with flashing lights 100–200 feet (30–61 m) up the road west of the tracks was not installed. – Again, split this up.

Done.

• Several weeks after the accident, the design of the ML350's gear shift lever, a small paddle that protrudes from the steering column, rather than the usual large lever between the seats, was suggested as a possible cause of the accident. – Could be reworded as: Several weeks after the accident, it was suggested that the design of the ML350's gear shift lever could have caused the incident. The gear shift lever was a small paddle that protrudes from the steering column, rather than the usual large lever between the seats.

Done, although I found a different way of splitting it up to avoid saying "gear shift lever" twice. Daniel Case (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

At this point I'm inclined to oppose based on 1a given a great deal of copyedits I have to point out. My principle for FACs is to try avoid writing very complex sentence structures, and I felt at times I have to struggle reading through as the various explanations (some rather technical in nature) are shoehorned into the prose. Or trying to wrap too many facts into one sentence, which can be confusing and harder to keep track. I might pass this up to GOCE for further clean-up of this article.

My added thoughts is also to add a map of Brody's route before the incident, because not everyone reading the article are from NYC nor familiar with the area. And also a photograph of the contact shoe below the third rail.--ZKang123 (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I actually don't have a problem with these requests ... the holiday period is over and I have time again to work on this when I'm not doing admin patrol work. And as I told TaoT I can get a picture or video of the underrunning shoe (might even try that this weekend). A route map? It's in the NTSB report (based on Google Maps, but we can always overlay a route on an OSM cap). Daniel Case (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not just about the requests. As Gog said, if I have to point out a lot of these edits, you edit, then I reread and still don't find it satisfactory, someone else also points out these issues, and then it continues on in a loop. The FAC stage shouldn't really be where we suggest thorough copyedits to keep this up to a readable professional standard.--ZKang123 (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Gog said that you can't just point out general issues, and I said that I'm willing to respond to your specific points. If you don't feel that anything I do in response could possibly even begin to address your concerns, then we're both better off if you don't express them and just leave things where they are. Daniel Case (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't recall saying that. Any chance of the diff to jog my memory? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

To me that's the gist of this comment. Daniel Case (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the point is to avoid a WP:FIXLOOP, which is what I am sensing here: a reviewer gives examples of loose wording, which are then fixed, but it doesn't mean the entire article is 'fixed' - that may be something which is best done away from FAC, rather than draining reviewer time and goodwill. - SchroCat (talk) 09:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, it's not like I haven't done end-to-end proofreads/copy edits several times before this. And I do appreciate many of the changes he's suggested—like a lot of people, I have a tendency to write unwieldy sentences, and thanks to this a lot of them have been broken up. Daniel Case (talk) 06:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Source review: pass

To follow. - SchroCat (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Spot checks

• Spot checks not not done. If a coord wants them done, please ping me.

Hi SchroCat. Spot checks and a plagiarism check are needed, so if you felt up to doing them that would be most helpful. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Gog, No problems: leave it with me. - SchroCat (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Formatting

• You need to select a capitalisation scheme and stick to it. At the moment you've got a mix of sentence case and title case;

Do we have something in the MOS on which might be preferable? I generally just stick with whatever the source used as long as it's not all caps.

This will take some time ...

The MOS is flexible on the point, as long as it's consistent throughout, so your choice! (and no rush in getting it sorted - whenever you're ready, just ping me) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

OK, @SchroCat:, this is done now Daniel Case (talk) 07:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• FNs 28, 28, 34, 60, 63, 66, 67, 71-73 and 75-79 need to be "pp." not "p."

Working on this ... Daniel Case (talk) 07:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

OK ... now this is done. Moving to the footnote cases ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Sources

• All the sources used are reliable, according to our guidelines;
• A little heavy on local news sources, but that's to be expected for events like this;
• Some superficial searches did not show up any better or missing sources, so it looks like there has been a good review of all available literature

That's my lot. Just a bit of tidying up to do on the formatting side. - SchroCat (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• Source review is a pass. - SchroCat (talk) 07:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

2009–10 Notts County F.C. season

Nominator(s): Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Have you ever wondered what happens when a struggling lower league football club is taken over as part of an elaborate attempt to defraud (among others) the North Korean government? Well, as far fetched as that might sound, you can find out! This article is about Notts County's 2009–10 season, a hugely successful one on the field, but one largely overshadowed by off-field events, as the club found itself unwittingly embroiled in a massive attempted fraud. This was unquestionably the most bizarre season in Notts County's (and maybe any football club's) history, and the story is complex and sometimes scarcely believable, but I hope I've been able to bring it all together in a sensible and understandable way. All comments and feedback gratefully received. Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks - alt text added Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 08:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Placeholder

Putting my name down to do a review of this one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Initial comments

• "the club were subject to a high-profile takeover" - although whether to treat a football club as singular or plural is a bit nebulous in British English, I would say that in this case the club is being referred to as a corporate entity and should therefore be singular
• That's all I got on the lead - more to follow! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Chris, the above is now amended. Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 13:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

More comments

• "Green "sold" his stake in the club to the Trust for £75,000" - why is "sold" in quote marks? If a transaction occurred in exchange for money, that seems like a pretty straightforward sale to me.....

Quotation marks removed

• "It was relegated from Division Two (now EFL League One) in 2004" - as the name changed in 2004, I think you could avoid the need for brackets if you frame it as "It was relegated to EFL League One in 2004"

Changed

• "as this would not be a sale, no money would need to be paid to the estate of Haydn Green" - I'm unclear why money would ever have needed to be paid to his estate - didn't he sell his shares to the Trust before he died?

I've edited the background section above to clarify that the money would become due to Green's estate in the event of his death.

• That's what I got as far as the end of the "Pre-season events" section - back for more later! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

These are now addressed. If there's anything further you need clarifying from these let me know. Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 09:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• " the second 2–2 at home to Torquay United, a result which left the team in fifth place" => pedantically, "the team" here could refer to either Notts or Torquay

I've switched to "the Magpies" to make it clear that this refers to Notts.

• "The club's off-field was by now deteriorating rapidly" - think there's a word or words missing after "off-field"

Word added

• "it was reported that Trembling was planning a management buyout of the club,[90] that Eriksson was on the verge of resigning,[91] and Armstrong-Holmes admitte" => "it was reported that Trembling was planning a management buyout of the club,[90] and that Eriksson was on the verge of resigning,[91] and Armstrong-Holmes admitte"

Done

• "it became apparent that the club were subject to a new winding-up petition" - I think "the club was" here per my earlier comment
• Suggest linking "brace" to somewhere appropriate on first usage

Done

• "Due to be played in the midst of Trembling's efforts to find a new buyer for the club, he had reportedly hoped" - don't think this works grammatically. Try "As the match was due to be played in the midst of Trembling's efforts to find a new buyer for the club, he had reportedly hoped"

Done

• "company with reserves of $1.9trillion" - think there should be a non-breaking space between 9 and trillion
• "supposedly worth $2billion" - same here
• Same for all the million amounts in the last section

All done

• "At a later hearing, Jersey authorities ordered he pay £322,212" => "At a later hearing, Jersey authorities ordered that he pay £322,212"
• That's all I got in the rest of the article. Great work!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to read through Chris, these are all now addressed. Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

SC

Comments to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• "attempts to recover often referenced the events of 2009": "often refer to" would be much better

Changed

• Page ranges in the references should not be "p. 127–8", but "pp. 127–128"

I've gone through and reformatted where necessary.

Sorry, I misread your point on this one. Thanks for going back through it for me.

• "buying the Magpies" -> "buying the club"
• Unbeknownst -> Unbeknown

Changed

• "suggested Brazil international and World Cup winner Roberto Carlos" -> "the Brazil international. This is supposed to be in formal, encyclopaedic English, so the definite article should be used. Journalists and Americans drop it altogether (which is fine for them), but not here

Definite article added

• "Campbell did not play immediately, and Notts were beaten 1–0 at Barnet in their final match of the month". This is a comma splice which appears to be connecting two unconnected events.

I've rewritten the sentence to remove the reference to Campbell.

• "Early in September, the Magpies strengthened" -> "Early in September, Notts County strengthened" (try and use the nickname sparingly, and best not when 'introducing' the club at the start of a new paragraph)

Changed

• "wealth was not real, and defender": this would be better as "wealth was not real; the defender"

Changed

• "Early November brought new revelations about the club's finances when it was revealed that Notts County's": too journalistic. "In early November it was revealed that Notts County's" is more succinct

Changed

• "one often repeated story is of the club being unable to pay even the local milkman": Too journalistic – and who cares about a repeated story: it's supposed to be a coverage of known facts, not repeated stories

I've removed the milkman anecdote.

• "buyout of the club, and that Eriksson was on the verge of resigning, and Armstrong-Holmes admitted" and...and... This needs rewriting
• "Holmes admitted": 'Admit' has overtones of confessing to a crime (see MOS:SAID)

I've split the above into a couple of sentences and replaced 'admit'.

• "The two men "scoured Europe", as the Press Association put it": Not sure why we need peacocky journalistic language here. This can be rewritten in good English without the hyperbole

Rewritten

• "saw the Magpies move" -> "saw Notts County move"

Changed

• "gifted the Magpies": I'm not sure there was a "gift", so formal language would be better

Changed

• "league leaders Rochdale" -> "the league leaders Rochdale"

Definite article added

• "this 3–2, meaning the Magpies" 'and' instead of 'meaning' would be better

Changed

• "by BBC journalist" -> "by the BBC journalist"
• "a decade later, journalist" -> "a decade later, the journalist" – ditto for Levine and Southall in the same sentence

Definite articles added

• "and Trembling would admit to Marshall": see above about "admit", but why "would admit", rather than "admitted".

Changed

At the moment it's a good article, but the prose is a bit flabby and journalistic in places. I'll go over it all again once these points have been addressed. - SchroCat (talk) 05:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for the feedback, the above has now been addressed. Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 13:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

A final few comments on another readthrough:

• "Former England manager Sven-Göran Eriksson" ->"The former England manager Sven-Göran Eriksson" (twice: once in the lead, once in the body)

Definite articles added

• "the Trust apparently did not ask": I'm never happy to see "apparently" in WP's voice: best if this could be attributed inline

I've reworded this paragraph so there's an in-line attribution to the source.

• "Goodley was quickly tipped off": do you mean "quickly"? Literally this is saying someone told him very fast. "Soon", maybe?

Changed

• "at Notts County's Meadow Lane": slightly confusing unless you what Meadow Lane is. "at Notts County's Meadow Lane ground", or "Meadow Lane stadium" or similar would help

I've added stadium here

• "stuck in mud before crossing the goal line": Needs reframing as it reads like it was temporarily stuck but also crossed the line

I've switched 'before' to 'without'.

• "Early in January, it became apparent that the club was subject to a new winding-up petition issued by HMRC": What was the actual situation at the time, because the weasel phrase "it became apparent" is slightly confusing here. If they were subject to it, then just say "Early in January, the club was subject to a new winding-up petition issued by HMRC", or "the club found out it was subject"

Changed

That's my lot. - SchroCat (talk) 07:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, these are now addressed. Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 10:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support - SchroCat (talk) 10:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Source review

What makes "Robinson, Ben (2024). The Trillion Dollar Conman. London: Icon Books. ISBN 978-183773-142-8.", https://leftlion.co.uk/, https://thesefootballtimes.co/2016/04/13/notts-county-and-the-bizarre-takeover-of-2009/ and https://fbref.com a reliable source? I presume the Tony Brown mentioned here is the author of the official history of the club? I believe I've checked many of the sources in previous FACses. Seems like source formatting is consistent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo, thanks for taking a look. In answer to your queries:

• The Trillion Dollar Conman: The author of this book is a journalist who (prior to publication) had been one of the makers of the BBC podcast series about the takeover (also cited in the article). It draws on a very detailed investigation including interviews with several of the figures involved (including other journalists cited in the article).
• These Football Times is a part of The Guardian; the latter sometimes publishes articles from the former on its own website.
• LefLion is a long-standing magazine in Nottingham which reports on local culture and arts. It covers the local football teams quite extensively.
• FBRef is a football statistics site. I've used it as it's used quite extensively for football statistics on articles, including articles with FA status. The site is a part of Sports Reference, which has other statistics-based sites cited on Wikipedia. For instance, Baseball Reference is cited several times in this FA.
• You're correct about Tony Brown. His co-author in the book cited in this article has also published on Notts County's history.

I hope this helps. Let me know if you'd like anything else clarifying. Eric Idle's Cat (talk)

Do we know how FBRef updates its information and the credentials of who does that? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Its data is provided by Data Sports Group and its advanced statistics by Opta (see here: https://fbref.com/en/#site_menu_link). Information on the people who run Sports Reference is available here: https://www.sports-reference.com/about.html. Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 09:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

OK, I guess. Are the data developers the folks responsible for keeping the database accurate? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I would presume so, the front page of https://www.sports-reference.com/ says that FBRef and several of its other sites are updated daily. Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 11:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

HF

I'll review this soon. I'm an American who doesn't follow soccer/association football so this will be a nonexpert review. Hog Farm _Talk 21:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Donkey Kong

Nominator(s): JOEBRO⁶⁴ 13:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

DK, Donkey Kong, DK, Donkey Kong is here (at FAC!). As the franchise that put Nintendo on the map, Donkey Kong's got one of the most bizarre and entertaining histories of any media franchise—did you know, for instance, that the 1981 original began as a Popeye game? Or that Shigeru Miyamoto, widely regarded as the Spielberg of video games, had never designed a video game before he had to create the big ape to save Nintendo from bankruptcy? Or that the franchise got a musical TV adaptation in the late '90s animated entirely through motion capture?

I've spent almost two years working on this article, from February 2023 until now. I think it paints a complete picture of the franchise's history, inner workings, and influence. I hope you enjoy reading the article as much as I enjoyed writing it! JOEBRO⁶⁴ 13:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

FM

• Probably won't get to it soon, but marking my spot, because I have to read this! And I sure know the TV series, because it turns out I'm apparently one of the only people who recorded the Danish dub, which is commercially unavailable now... FunkMonk (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• At first glance I'm seeing a bunch of WP:duplinks, which can be highlighted with this script:[12]
  • I believe I've nuked all of 'em JOEBRO⁶⁴ 19:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• "and the success of Taito's Space Invaders (1978)" While most readers would know, could add "Taito's video game Space Invaders".
  • I added "arcade game" JOEBRO⁶⁴ 16:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• " The $280 million windfall" I had no idea what this meant, could add "gain" to the term, as in the linked article, so it's easier to deduct.
  • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 16:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• "Four programmers from Ikegami Tsushinki spent three months turning them into a finished game." A bit unclear what "them" refers to, as the preceding sentence is very long.
  • changed to "Miyamoto's design". This was the result of some sentences being shifted around due to me adding more info during the GA review JOEBRO⁶⁴ 16:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• "had won a lawsuit years prior" Perhaps more interesting and informative (and less wordy) to just give the date?
  • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 16:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• "Popeye became Mario" Perhaps worth stating in a footnote it was originally "Jumpman"? Here it makes it seem like if he had the Mario identity from the beginning.
  • This is actually a common misconception—he was always known as Mario, as evidenced by the sales brochure. The "Jumpman" name was only used in the instructions. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 16:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• "Donkey Kong's appearances in the years following Donkey Kong 3 were limited to cameos in unrelated games" Worth mentioning them in a footnote, or even in-text.
  • Unfortunately the sources don't elaborate and I wasn't able to find any that did JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• "It begins as a remake of the 1981 game before introducing over 100 puzzle-platforming levels that incorporate elements from Donkey Kong Jr. and Super Mario Bros. 2 (1988)." I think it's worth mentioning that Mario was again the protagonist.
  • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• "Miyamoto named "Beauty and the Beast" and the 1933 film King Kong as influences" Perhaps clarify "named the fairytale "Beauty and the Beast"", so readers don't assume the film.
  • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 16:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• "but the sprite was too big to easily maneuver" Perhaps add "the sprite graphic" or similar for clarity, as many readers might not understand what's implied.
  • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• "but was moved to the Wii with support for the peripheral dropped" should that be "when support for the peripheral dropped"?
  • I changed it to "moved to the Wii with no support for the peripheral"—the Wii does support the DK Bongos but for whatever reason Paon decided not to let you use them. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• "as closer in spirit to his work on Banjo-Kazooie than Wise's Country music" Maybe "than to Wise's Country music" for clarity?
  • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• "before it shifted to producing and importing anime" What is meant by "importing"?
  • distributing outside Japan, changed to "distributing" JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• "A Donkey Kong cartoon produced by Ruby-Spears aired as part of CBS's hour-long Saturday Supercade programming block in 1983" You give the number of episodes for the other series mentioned, why not for this one?
  • So it's two things. (1) It's not in the sources. (2) A lot of Saturday Supercade is considered lost media because rebroadcasts and rereleases are very rare and much of it was never recorded, I think it's possible that there were more episodes beyond the 13 ones listed at the Saturday Supercade article so that number could be inaccurate. Best to omit it if we don't have the sourcing. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• Eveline Novakovic's lastname was Fischer at the relevant period, would it make more sense to use the name she was credited as back then?
  • Done. (I think the only DK games she worked on under the name Novakovic were the GBA ones.) JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• The intro says "The franchise has pioneered or popularized concepts such as in-game storytelling" while the legacy section mentions "The franchise's lack of storytelling". Seems contradictory? I'm also not seeing the former explained in the article body.
  • It's discussed in the legacy section, under effect on the industry. The "lack of storytelling" was referring to the fact the franchise doesn't have a super deep official backstory so I've clarified that. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• "Some games without the Country branding" feels a bit convoluted, why not just "outside the Country series"?
  • I just removed it outright as it wasn't necessary. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• You provide a long list of characters in the Country section under gameplay, perhaps worth mentioning the new player characters in the DK 64 part?
  • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• "Other villains include" Could specify that these are all post-Rare?
  • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• "A model of an original Donkey Kong (1981) arcade cabinet" Why use a miniature model? While perhaps not as nice an image, I think it would be more authentic to show an actual machine, like this free image:[13]
  • I chose a model as that was the one that was already on Commons, haha. I'll look into replacing it shortly JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Having looked into replacements, I think the model is actually the way to go. It actually shows gameplay and the joystick and buttons are a lot more discernable. Seems like other cabinet pics have been deleted but this has been scrutinized and deemed ok for Commons as well. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 19:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Changes look good, I see four unaddressed points. FunkMonk (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah I'll be coming back to those shortly. I've been busy with school and work so my wiki-time's been a bit limited. I should have everything from everyone addressed by the weekend. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 14:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support - great to see this here, and hope to see more DK articles at FAC. I still think an authentic arcade machine would be better than the miniature, perhaps a suitable photo will turn up one day. FunkMonk (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you! I'm keeping my eyes peeled for a better arcade photo, might make a trip to a local arcade that I know has a cab if I get the chance JOEBRO⁶⁴ 01:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Fathoms Below

Hey Joe, it's been a while right? This is a big step up from DKC so I'll save a spot here and I should have some comments up by next week. I also have a FAC open and would really appreciate some quick comments if you're available. Fathoms Below (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Update: working on comments right now! Fathoms Below (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Wow, you got a lot of comments on this one. Since my feedback would probably be less valuable at this point, I'll leave some prose comments and if you have a GAR or FAC in the future, you can ping me and I'll see what I can do. Fathoms Below (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

I'll have a proper run-through later, but some driveby thoughts for now:

• For the purposes of the lead, how important is it to list all of the supporting characters? I ask partially because the "Rare's games expanded the cast" sentence is trying to pack a lot of information in, is a bit confusing (when you get to the end and we're talking about antagonists instead) and hits you with a ton of names that most people are not necessarily going to know anyhow.
  • How's it now? I chopped it down to only the characters who have articles (e.g. Mario and Pauline). I think "friendly Kongs" should suffice for the supporting characters; I kept mention of the Kremlings since they're the only recurring antagonists. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 19:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• In both the lead and body, the text says "to provide a new game that could salvage the unsold Radar Scope cabinets", and I'm wondering if "salvage" makes sense here? They were taking the cabinets and putting a new game into them, correct, versus scrapping them for parts or the like, so "repurpose" maybe makes more sense?
  • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 19:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) I said the same thing here. You have disgraced the Kongs by not staying true. Panini! • 🥪 19:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
      • lol, since more than one person has now taken issue with it I determined it was best to change JOEBRO⁶⁴ 19:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• I get trying to show the variety of games with File:Donkey Kong Country Gameplay Elements.png, but from a practical standpoint, especially given that the core formula is unchanged between them in terms of platforming and with the limitations of non-free content, I think it would make sense to use a single, higher-resolution screenshot.
  • Looking for a decent screenshot right now, will update this when I get one JOEBRO⁶⁴ 19:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Replaced with a screenshot from DKCR that I think has every element that the three screenshots were trying to illustrate. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 19:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi David, anything you want to add at this time? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I've got more comments coming, I just decided to let everyone else get theirs in first :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• Circling back with a few more comments; I did some minor copyedits, but I think it's for the most part in a pretty great place there, and I think the layout is sensible and straightforward—I appreciate the reduced focus on stats tables at the bottom end, and think I'll steal the approach for other franchise articles. A few other things:
• While they were initially limited to including Donkey Kong Jr. as a playable character in Super Mario Kart (1992), the discussions led to the production of the Game Boy game Donkey Kong (1994),[1] the first original Donkey Kong game in ten years. — who or what was initially limited? If the idea is that ideas of reviving the franchise were limited to the inclusion of the character, it should probably be written more clearly.
• "It achieved greater success when it was ported to the Switch in 2018, outselling the Wii U version within a week of release." No edits here, but noting my shock at how hilarious this line shows the success of the Switch/failure of the Wii U. Dang.
• "Two Rare characters, Banjo the Bear and Conker the Squirrel, were introduced in Diddy Kong Racing ahead of starring in their own games,[1] Banjo-Kazooie and Conker's Bad Fur Day (2001).[1][2]" This is a bit duplicative of Banjo and Conker's mention earlier, and given that they're essentially cameos that aren't important to the DK franchise I would cut their mention here.
• "Donkey Kong 64 blends Country elements with "collect-a-thon"" As a gamer I understand what collect-a-thons are, but I think it might be worth for the casual reader stopping and explaining this a bit better rather than just comparing it to other games they might not have played.
• "Wise drew inspiration from" since this sentence immediately follows "Wise composed a replacement soundtrack [for the 2005 game]", it's unclear whether Wise drew inspiration for his work on DK in general from X, or whether he drew inspiration for the 2005 game.
• Would probably be nice to have the sales table sortable.
• Any of the statements that have more than three citations after them should probably get ref bundled.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Vacant0

Nice to see this at FAC. I'll review it during this week. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• What does make Ref 214 (Madison) reliable?
  • I actually removed it as part of addressing another reviewers' comments JOEBRO⁶⁴ 03:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• Other than that, I did not spot any issues with reliability of sources. Some sources are situational but do not have any issues upon checking them. I don't think that I'd have enough time to do a proper source spotcheck though.

The article is quite long, so I'll only take a look at the lede and some parts of the body in detail and draw up my conclusion from it.

• I did not spot any major issues in the lede. It reads to me quite well and covers important aspects of the franchise. Same goes for "1981–1982: Conception and first game" , 1995–2002: Franchise expansion", and "Original series".
• "IGN said that Donkey Kong Country's soundtrack contributed to an increased appreciation for video game music as an art form, and musicians such as Trent Reznor and Donald Glover have praised it." → "IGN said that Donkey Kong Country's soundtrack contributed to an increased appreciation for video game music as an art form; musicians such as Trent Reznor and Donald Glover have praised the soundtrack".
  • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 03:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• I did not spot any major issues in the Cultural impact section too.

This looks like a short review, but I really do not have any complaints for the prose I've read. It reads okay to me and some aspects are explained in detail, which is also good especially for readers with little knowledge about the franchise (e.g. in 1995–2002: Franchise expansion). Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Vacant0: thank you for taking a look! Responded above JOEBRO⁶⁴ 03:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have another look at the article tomorrow. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Support I did not spot any major issues after having another look. Congrats and good job on the article! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment from Panini!

I reviewed the GAN and I can't remember if there's a rule withholding me from reviewing and supporting here. But regardless, just wanted to say thank you! For swapping around those gameplay images! Those are definitely some excellent choices, considering that most of the games are dark jungles and finding good ones can be tricky. The second one does have a dark background, but the lack of intractable gameplay elements on top of that besides the barrels, which are the object of discussion, keep the image clear for demonstration. Panini! • 🥪 22:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

No rule. Reviews from editors already closely familiar with the article are welcome. Disclosing this is helpful mind. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Support from Bowser

Looks good and I enjoyed the read. Here's a few ideas:

• Rare began working on Donkey Kong 64, the first Donkey Kong game to feature 3D gameplay - since Diddy Kong Racing has been introduced, should we call this a "regular" Donkey kong game? Also, should we mention the N64 expansion pack?
  • changed to "first 3D DK platform game". I'm not sure about mentioning the Expansion Pak because I don't think it's really important to the franchise as a whole. It's definitely a neat tidbit about the game itself but this article's more about the grand scheme of things so I don't think it's necessary. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• In April 2023, Rogen said he saw "a lot of opportunity" in the prospect. Eurogamer wrote that Diddy and Dixie's brief cameo in The Super Mario Bros. Movie was obvious setup for a Donkey Kong film. - I think these sentences could be struck.
  • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• though Playtonic declined to label it a spiritual successor. - same
  • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• and journalists have described him as a mascot for both Nintendo and the video game industry. - could we just state this without attibution, as in "he has been described"?
  • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• to which Wise expressed approval. - it's been a while since he was last mentioned, full name?
  • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• Nintendo Life described one fansite, DK Vine, as "highly respected". - not sure about this one, feels a bit odd "reviewing" the fandom.
  • I think this should stay. Discussion of fandom is definitely noteworthy cultural impact and DK Vine is the most well-known DK fansite, having broken a few stories that ended up making the mainstream press (notably the canceled Vicarious Visions game, for which they were cited in Eurogamer and VGC) JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I also think the storytelling contradiction needs to be straightened out. Once that's done I plan to support this nom. Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Draken Bowser: thank you for taking a look! I believe I've addressed everything JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Nice! I stumbled over the answer to who the doubters were (FMs question) in: Wesley, David; Barczak, Gloria (2010). "Shigery Miyamoto and the Art of Donkey Kong". Innovation and Marketing in the Video Game Industry. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315588612. ISBN 978-1-317-11650-9. It seems the american marketing team had concerns (pages 11 & 13). I think it should be accessible through the wikimedia library, but otherwise I could share the pdf. Draken Bowser (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Draken Bowser: thank you! Can't seem to find it in the WP Library so if you can, I'd definitely be interested in reading that JOEBRO⁶⁴ 01:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Rjjiii

I'll add notes as I read through this week:

• With regards to Popeye, the very next arcade game that Miyamoto does for Nintendo is the licensed Popeye game. Is there any connection here? For example, was code reused, do the cabinets share hardware, or did Donkey Kong play any role in Nintendo getting the Popeye rights?
  • My understanding of the situation is that Nintendo's inability to secure the Popeye license for what would become Donkey Kong was due to negotiations taking too long. I'm doing some research to see if there's any relation between the two games. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 16:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I added a few more details from Sheff's book in a footnote to clarify the relationship between the two. Couldn't find anything specific regarding the cabinets or code but it's mentioned it was produced under the production system Nintendo adopted following Donkey Kong. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• "Miyamoto named the fairy tale" I found the verb/phrasing confusing.
  • Changed to "cited" JOEBRO⁶⁴ 16:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
• "He placed an emphasis on jumping to avoid obstacles and cross gaps. Miyamoto's ideas were uncommon in contemporary arcade games," This also confuses me. Note "a" reads like this game introduced the mechanic, not that it was uncommon.
  • I did some rearranging to make it clearer. Let me know if that clears everything up JOEBRO⁶⁴ 03:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• "was told it would be a failure," Does the source say who told them this?
  • No JOEBRO⁶⁴ 16:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
• "Game & Watch version" Would "adaptation" be more accurate than "version" here?
  • yeah, done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 16:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
• "The victory helped cement Nintendo as a major force in the video game industry." I would cut this per WP:IMPARTIAL. If the sentence is making an objective statement about the court case, it's going over my head with the current wording.
  • Done. I guess what it was trying to say was that the case brought Nintendo, which was then basically an upstart, a lot of prestige in the entertainment industry because it was able to swat away a titan like Universal like it was nothing, but Nintendo becoming a big company after Donkey Kong is mentioned anyway both in the section and later in the article. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• "Nintendo wanted a game to compete with Sega's Aladdin (1993), which featured graphics by Disney animators,[34][35] when Lincoln learned of Rare's SGI experiments during a trip to Europe." This sentence is hard to parse. Is Lincoln the company's lawyer? "when" seems an odd way to connect these thoughts.
  • Lincoln became an NoA executive following the Universal suit. I clarified his position and split it into two sentences without the "when". JOEBRO⁶⁴ 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• The Mortal Kombat influence is unclear to me. Were they not already planning to do pre-rendered graphics with the SGI workstations they had bought?
  • Leftover from when I was integrating my research from DKC over here, haha. Mortal Kombat inspired the art direction Stamper wanted to go with. I just cut it since it's not important in terms of the larger franchise. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• How common was the usage of these high-end SGI workstations to do video game graphics? Beyond being "groundbreaking" was anyone else in the UK or in the industry doing this?
  • It was extremely uncommon—Rare was the first UK developer to get them, and it immediately made them the most technologically advanced developer in the UK according to the sources. I've clarified this. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• "and the designers could not replicate the detail of Country's pre-rendering with real-time graphics" I think this could be slightly expanded so that a less-technical reader could better understand it.
  • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• "to create a new experience" I'd consider removing or rephrasing this. In some sense, any new media is a new experience.
  • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• "but it sold poorly in comparison to Returns" Is this due to the smaller market for Wii U games?
  • Primarily yeah. It also came out at a terrible time (I think there was a massive storm in Japan the week of release) and had an awful marketing campaign, but the Wii U itself failing was definitely the big reason. Clarified within the article JOEBRO⁶⁴ 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• "was working on a Switch Donkey Kong game" Do we know if they still are?
  • No word on what's become of the project. I would imagine it's gotten moved to the Switch's successor if it's still a thing but that's all that can be said for now. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• That's it for "History", Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
• "characterize him as the descendant of the Donkey Kong character" I found this kind of hard to follow. In Rare's games, is the Donkey Kong character the son of the original Donkey Kong? If so that would be more clear than descendant. Also, regarding the organization of material, it would be more clear to me if Cranky Kong or Rare's Donkey Kong was introduced and then the other. That would allow for placing the explanation about whether he is Donkey Kong Jr. closer.
• "Donkey Kong Country introduced Diddy Kong," ← this is really clear. No changes needed, just wanted to note that it does a good job of explaining his in-universe role and character background.
• "from a distance" This seems redundant to me. I would either cut it or specify the distance.
• ", with the second increasing their health." I'm not sure that someone who had not played the games would understand what this means.
• "and helped it avoid the video game crash of 1983" I checked the two end-of-sentence citations and the end-of-paragraph citation and they don't quite match this. TIME says, "Nintendo, powered up by Mario’s successes, largely managed to dodge the market’s profit-crushing projectiles."^[14] The Japanese source seems to talk about how the Famicom/NES was based on the Donkey Kong arcade hardware. This Guardian article talks about how Donkey Kong was "a key driver" for the design and launch of the Famicom in Japan. I think there a lot of sources out there to pick from that would say that Nintendo's success with the Famicom in Japan is how they weathered the 1983 crash (which most affected the North American market) so well. I realize that's kind of pedantic, but I do think the article should lay out the connections (Donkey Kong→Famicom→survive crash, instead of Donkey Kong→survive crash).
• Also, a few sources say that Gunpei Yokoi invented the cross-shaped d-pad for Nintendo's Game & Watch adaptation of the original game.[15][16][17] If sources about Donkey Kong mention this, it would be relevant to add somewhere. I haven't checked any longer sources though, so I'll leave it up to you if the inclusion is (un)due.
  • This is actually a common misconception—Yokoi was the head of the department that created Game & Watch games, but was relatively uninvolved with the individual games. Ichiro Shirai, one of Nintendo's hardware engineers, created the Donkey Kong D-pad and both filed and was awarded the patent for it. However, he did not create the D-pad! The D-pad was actually created by William F. Palisek for Tiger Electronics in 1979, and was awarded the patent for it in 1981, a year before the Game & Watch version of Donkey Kong came out. Nintendo's own patent for the Donkey Kong D-pad even mentions Palisek by name. (Sorry for the long-winded response, just felt this was worth clarifying!) JOEBRO⁶⁴ 14:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
    • Oh no, it's like when I found out that the sewer gators were an urban legend all over again! Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• Do the sources say if Nintendo has the trademark for "it's on like Donkey Kong" now?
• And that's it for the page overall. Nice work; I was surprised at the music being so influential, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Source review by LEvalyn

This looks like a fun article! I've used a random number generator to pick 10% of the citations for checking. That will be citations 19, 32, 39, 51, 66, 69, 98, 113, 115, 117, 121, 130, 132, 133, 136, 140, 147, 150, 181, 187, 188, 213, 214, 222, 224, 227, 232, 233, 255, and 269, based on the numbering in this diff. It may take me a few sessions to go through them but I'll work my way through! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• 19, 32, 66, and 69 check out, no comments. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• Source 39 says Lincoln was NOA's then president and CEO, which gives a slightly different impression than the article's gloss of a Nintendo of America executive. That's possibly a quibble so I don't insist on a change; otherwise, 39 checks out. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• I wasn't able to access 51, "The Making of: Donkey Kong Country 2" in Retro Gamer. No. 181. It looks totally plausible to me, but for thoroughness, can you share the quote from this source which supports the cited claims, or offer advice on accessing the original? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• 98: This is another quibble, but I'm not sure that this source strictly verifies that both games blend Country elements. Jungle Climber definitely does, but King of Swing is only mentioned in relationship to Country in order to contrast their graphics. Maybe just say that both games use DK characters/settings? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• 113, 115, 117, 121, and 130 check out. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• For 132, Milne's "The Evolution of Donkey Kong Country", again I haven't been able to access this issue of Retro Gamer. Can you share the relevant quote? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• 133, 136, 140, and 147 all check out. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• For 150, the Nintendo Power article, this doesn't feel right. I found the article about DK in issue 66 of Nintendo Power here, but it's not called "Now Playing". And I don't think it verifies The player begins in a world map that tracks their progress and provides access to the themed worlds and their levels. I can't find any mention of the world map. I'm honestly not entirely sure it's kosher to use this for the second sentence either, They traverse the environment, jump between platforms, and avoid enemy and inanimate obstacles, since the source itself is just maps and guide tips which basically imply that the game consists of traversing, jumping, and obstacles. Is there a more traditional review, rather than a map guide, which could verify these simple basics? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• Just a note to counterbalance the quibbles that so far that this is a really "clean" article and extremely easy to source-check-- you've done a great job! I'm taking another break for now but will finish the check over the weekend. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• 181, 187, 188, 213, 214, 222, 224, 227, 233, and 269 all check out. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• I am not able to verify 232, 2021CESAゲーム白書 (2021 CESA Games White Papers), due to the language barrier. (I am not confident I can locate the right source.) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• 255 is also in Japanese but since the link was provided, I used Google Translate and it appears to verify the content. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• All right, TheJoebro64, that concludes my source review! I raised a few clarification questions above, but my only real concern is source 150. I'd like to hear a defense of that source or see a different one provided, since I'm not convinced it verifies those sentences. I also had two pedantic quibbles and some sources I couldn't access, but those don't impede my support, since overall the quality was very high. Thanks for your hard work here! Please ping me in your response. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  @LEvalyn: thank you for the review! I should get around to addressing these within a few days. Just a bit chaotic right now with the holidays and school work. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 23:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  @LEvalyn and David Fuchs: just wanted to apologize I haven't finished addressing your comments; in addition to exams, I've been tied up with a family situation (my grandmother is on her deathbed), which has greatly limited my time on-wiki. I will aim to address them sometime this weekend; I just wanted to let you know that I haven't forgotten, real life just got in the way JOEBRO⁶⁴ 21:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Metaphysics

Nominator(s): Phlsph7 (talk) 12:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the basic structure of reality. Some of its main topics include the categories of being, the concepts of possibility and necessity, the nature of spacetime, and the relation between mind and matter. It is relevant to many fields, ranging from other branches of philosophy to the sciences, which often implicitly rely on metaphysical concepts and ideas. Thanks to 750h+ for their GA review and to Patrick Welsh for their peer review! Phlsph7 (talk) 12:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Generalissima's comments

Mark me down for a prose review here. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Generalissima and thanks for taking a look! I was wondering whether you had some initial comments. Please feel under no obligation if now is not a good time. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for my delay on this, Phlsph7! I knew I was forgetting something.

• Lede is very solid throughout.
• For ontology, in definitions, you need to italicize using the em template or em tags per MOS:EMPHASIS (I think this is for accessibility concerns.)
  • Same with bare particular, Haecceity, red, coming before, being next to, etc. later on. There's just a lot of these. The only time you shouldn't be using the em tags/template is for foreign language term, which should use the lang template.

    Done. I'm a little confused about which cases fall under MOS:EMPHASIS and which ones under MOS:WORDSASWORDS. For now, I used the em-template for all cases that do not use expressions like "the term...", "is called...", "means...", etc. I hope I got all. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• Should ontological deflationism be bolded, or redlinked? I feel if it's a possible split in its own right, itd be better to redlink it (especially as the bolding is a bit distracting so far into the article).

  You are right that having bold link target so far into the article can be confusing. I can't add a red link since we already have a redirect with that name. As an alternative, I put an anchor right to the paragraph where the bold terms appear and changed the redirect targets so they don't link to main section but right to the anchor. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• However, not really any prose issues through the thing. I wasn't confused at any points,
• Yay, a Deleuze mention. Love that guy.
• All images are properly licensed. They also have alt text which is nice to see.

@Phlsph7: Not much here to fix! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for reviewing the prose and the images! Phlsph7 (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me! Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Shapeyness

Another amazing article on a core topic in philosophy! Here are some initial comments from my first read through Shapeyness (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello Shapeyness, it has been a while. Thanks for reviewing the article! Phlsph7 (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• It is sometimes characterized as first philosophy to suggest that it is more fundamental than other forms of philosophical inquiry. It is probably best to attribute this idea, e.g. "Some philosophers, including Aristotle, designate metaphysics as first philosophy to suggest that it is more fundamental than other forms of philosophical inquiry."

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• Universals are general repeatable entities that characterize particulars, like the color red. Would suggest simplifying or rewording this sentence a bit for the general reader

  Done. It's probably still not ideal but I hope it's better now. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah that's better! :) Shapeyness (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• metaphysics was once declared meaningless, and then revived with various criticisms of earlier theories and new approaches to metaphysical inquiry. imo this is a bit vague and awkwardly worded

  Done. The new version is hopefull less awkwardly worded but I'm not sure I can do much about the vagueness without making it longer. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think that's clear enough now, don't need to make it any longer. Shapeyness (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Phillips 1967 and Haack 1979 are relatively old sources to be using for the sentence about Strawson

  I found a newer source to replace them. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks! Should the MacDonald source be citing page 18 instead? Shapeyness (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, page 18 supports our text more directly. I changed it. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Veldsman 2017 and Heidegger 1996 - are these appropriate for the etymology section? On that note, the sources for "Metaphysics got its name by a historical accident" could maybe be better, I would expect them to be from historians/historians of philosophy focusing on Aristotle or etymologists, but maybe I'm missing something?

  I removed Veldsman 2017 and Heidegger 1996 since the paragraph is already well-covered by the remaining sources. I found a source on the history of metaphysics for the part about the historical accident. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  Do you have the quote you are using from that source? Shapeyness (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  From Hamlyn 2005, p. 590: The term ‘metaphysics’ originated, however, as a title given to some of Aristotle’s works in the catalogue of the edition of them produced by Andronicus of Rhodes in the second half of the first century bc (although it may have come from an earlier library classification). It meant simply the works which followed those on physics in the catalogue. But those works, which were concerned with being, both as such and in respect of various categories of it, especially substance, contain discussions concerning matters which have an obvious continuity with later metaphysical theories. Hence it is reasonable to see Aristotle’s Metaphysics, untidy though it is in the form in which it has come down to us, as the first systematic treatise in metaphysics... Phlsph7 (talk) 09:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Ok I was wondering if it used the term historical accident. It doesn't use that phrase but paints the same picture as the other sources. Potentially could attribute "historical accident" phrasing but I'm not sure if that is necessary or not. Shapeyness (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  I weakened the claim about the historical accident. The exact term "historical accident" is found in the other sources. This became an issue during the DYK nomination since one of the suggested hooks used that expression. See Talk:Metaphysics#Did_you_know_nomination for the discussion and more quotes. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Metaphysicians often regard existence or being as one of the most basic and general concepts Very minor one but Gibson 1998 and Vallicella 2010 are slightly weaker inclusions in the citation here imo

  I removed them since the other references should be sufficient. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• exist outside space and time This is often used to get the idea across, but really "outside" is an inappropriate concept to use here as it is a spatial concept. The sentence is also quite long, although I didn't have any issue parsing it.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• The part on the problem of the many could do with some rewording so it's as clear as possible for the general reader

  Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  For instance, it raises the issue of whether a dust particle on a tabletop is part of the table. I think this could still do with some motivating, or the reader might just think "why would anyone think a dust particle is a part of the table?" I've not read the cited sources and whether they use particular examples, but could be worded in terms of atoms maybe, not sure what the best way to do it simply is. Shapeyness (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  I used a different example about a coffee cup and a printer. Another common example focuses on the boundary of a cloud and whether a cloud is one or many. We could also use something else if you have a different idea. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  I was trying to remember what example I'd heard before and it is the cloud one you mentioned. I think that is a more intuitive hook into the question because it it clear that the boundaries of the cloud are ambiguous, and hence that the question of which molecules of water it is that compose the cloud is also ambiguous. Shapeyness (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Done, I hope the cloud example is more accessible. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• They belong to modal metaphysics, which investigates the metaphysical principles underlying them This is a bit weirdly worded

  Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• A possible world is a complete and consistent way of how things could have been This is also a bit weirdly worded

  Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  I read through the sources and I think the wording I'm finding strange is "a way of how", but I guess this is an attempt to avoid close paraphrasing? I would word it A possible world is a complete and consistent way things could have been. I don't think "way things could have been" being a shared wording with some of the sources should be a problem per WP:LIMITED and the fact that a few different sources all seem to use the same wording as a kind of standard definition. Shapeyness (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  A possible world is a complete and consistent way the totality of things could have been might also work. Shapeyness (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  I used your second suggestion. I agree that for the short definition itself, WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE shouldn't be a problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• McLaughlin 1999 - should this have a chapter/entry?

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Züricher 2021 - is this a high quality source for metaphysics, it seems to be a psychotherapy handbook

  Replaced. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Imaguire 2018 - this is a bit more specific compared to the other sources in this citation, I think it isn't needed

  Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• For example, the statement "a tomato is red" is true because there exists a red tomato as its truthmaker - as far as I'm aware, truthmakers are generally not identified with ordinary objects like tomatoes, they are usually identified with facts, states of affairs or tropes. Slightly nitpicky but also quite important to the debate I think (I can provide sources if useful).

  I think you got a point that various truthmaker theories focus on facts. I tried to reformulate it in a way that leaves either option open so both thing ontologists and fact ontologists can read it the way they want. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Doesn't this still say that the red tomato is the truthmaker? A truthmaker of a statement is the entity whose existence makes the statement true. For example, the statement "a tomato is red" is true because of the existence of a red tomato as its truthmaker. The problem with the tomato being the truthmaker is that there is a possible world where the tomato is not red, so the tomato doesn't necessitate the truth of the statement. My understanding is that truthmaker theorists will generally say that the truthmaker is "the tomato's being red" or "the redness of the tomato" or "the fact that the tomato is red". Shapeyness (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Well, the expression "a red tomato" refers to a particular. The question is probably whether the expression "the existence of a red tomato" can refer to a fact.

  The issue of necessitation most likely also depends on how we interpret the expression. Interpreted in a simple manner, a red tomato can't be blue at the same time, so we would be on the safe side. However, if "a red tomato" means "a tomato that is red in the actual world" then the tomato could have a different color in another world.

  Our source, Tallant 2017 p. 1–2 (chapter 1. An introduction to truth-making), says: that ‘a tomato is red’ is true is due to there existing a red tomato. ... when we say that ‘ “the tomato is red” is true,’ we say this because there exists a red tomato.

  Some alternative formulations:

  • For example, the existence of a red tomato or the tomato's being red acts as a truthmaker for the statement "a tomato is red".

    This version covers several variations.

  • For example, the statement "a tomato is red" is true because of the fact that a tomato is red as its truthmaker.

    This version focuses on facts. It might sound too tautological to some readers.

  I'm also open to other suggestions. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  How about For example, the fact that a tomato exists and that it is red acts as a truthmaker for the statement "a tomato is red"? It mirrors the kind of language the Tallant source uses for other claims (except I explicitly added the word "fact"). I think maybe there isn't a perfect way to reflect the nuance here in a way that will be picked up on by the someone who doesn't know anything about the topic without being overlong. Fwiw I'm drawing from thoughts similar to those in these overviews:

  • Take an alleged contingent truth about a certain rose, say that <The rose is red>. Clearly, the rose itself cannot be the truthmaker for this proposition, since given that it is contingent that it is red, it is possible for the rose to be another colour. But if it is possible for the rose to be another colour, then the rose itself does not necessitate the truth of <The rose is red> and so it is not its truthmaker. (Rodriguez-Pereyra 2006)
  • The existence of such an object is not sufficient to satisfy [the truthmaker principle], however. The existence of something which happens to satisfy ‘x is a rose and x is red’ does not entail the truth of 〈The rose is red〉, since the object in question—a rose, which, as it happens, is red—might not have been red, and so there are possible worlds where that object exists yet 〈The rose is red〉 is false. (Beebee & Dodd 2005)

  —Shapeyness (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  Sounds good. I implemented the suggestion and added these two sources. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Ryckman 2005 - why is a book on philosophy of physics being used as a source on phenomenalism

  Replaced. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• The transcendental method is... do we need the sources other than Stern & Cheng 2023?

  I also kept Pihlström 2009 since it has a section explicitly dedicated to the transcendental method but I removed the others. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think we should label Hume a skeptic in Wikipedia's voice when that is a matter of controversy. According to the most recent philpapers survey only 37% of philosophers label Hume a skeptic vs 55% that call him a naturalist (when you filter by those specialising in 17th/18th century philosophy, that goes up to 63%)

  I think it uncontroversial that Hume has a skeptical outlook about metaphysical knowledge but I changed the term to "critical outlook" to avoid problems. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  I was thinking more about the discussion in the criticism section but I guess you're right that there's a difference between being skeptical of metaphysics and being a skeptic full stop. Do the sources generally phrase it using the term skepticism? If so then there's probably no problem. I don't have access to all of the sources used for those sentences. Shapeyness (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  From Rea 2021, pp. 210–211: A priori theorizing about the world ... has long been viewed with skepticism ... One of the most well-known expressions of this sort of negative attitude toward metaphysics comes from David Hume

  From Koons & Pickavance 2015, p. 4: A number of significant thinkers began to sound a new note in the late eighteenth century, raising doubts about the right of metaphysics to stand as a science among other fields of knowledge. David Hume, the great philosopher of Scotland, stands out as pre-eminent among these new antimetaphysicians.

  I can look for more, but I think they should be sufficient for the way it is currently worded. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yep they should be good. Shapeyness (talk) 10:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• New scientific discoveries have also influenced existing and inspired new metaphysical theories I think this should be something like "New scientific discoveries have also influenced existing metaphysical theories and inspired new ones."

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• History - do you think there is room for a sentence on Locke to fill out the major empiricist philosophers

  I found a way to mention him in relation to Hume. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• At the turn of the 20th century in analytic philosophy, philosophers such as Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) and G. E. Moore (1873–1958) led a "revolt against idealism" Maybe this can be explained slightly (e.g. why? how?), obviously we don't want lots of detail

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Shapeyness, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Have left some final comments below Shapeyness (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to those Phlsph7! Some more below, should hopefully be the final set of comments. Shapeyness (talk) 14:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• A related mereological problem is whether there are simple entities that have no parts, as atomists claim, or not, as continuum theorists contend. I think it would be clearer to list both options here, e.g. "A related mereological problem is whether there are simple entities that have no parts, as atomists claim, or whether everything can be endlessly subdivided into smaller parts, as continuum theorists contend."

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• The history of metaphysics examines how the inquiry into the basic structure of reality has evolved in the course of history. Imo this is redundant and the following sentence would be a stronger start

  Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• "The American Heritage Dictionary Entry: Existence" Believe the title should just be "Existence"

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Retrieved date seems to be used inconsistently unless I'm missing something, not sure if that needs to be consistent per 2c or not

  I removed them from all Google Book links, where they don't really belong. Did you spot other inconsistencies? Phlsph7 (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'm still not sure what the logic behind which have a retrieved date and which don't but this is such a minor point anyway. Shapeyness (talk) 13:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• A lot of the sources have urls linked from the book title that I think should be linked from the chapter title

  I think this happens for cite templates that use the parameter "url". For all templates that specify a chapter, I changed the parameter "url" to "chapter-url". I hope this solves the problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Chen 2023 - is this a high quality source for history of philosophy?

  This is one of the sources by a non-Western publisher. For them, I'm usually a little less strict since they can be hard to find. But let me know if you think otherwise. The sentence is covered by the remaining soures and this one could be removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Duignan 2009a - why is this 2009a and not just 2009?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Goffi & Roux 2011 - this is missing editors

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Kind 2018 - I think part of the book title should actually be the series title

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Macnamara 2009 - is this a hiqh quality source for philosophy?

  Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Mumford 2003 - this is missing editors

  Mumford is given as the editor in the template. I didn't add an author. The author would usually be Russell since the book is mostly a selection of Russell's writings but the passage in question is a comment by Mumford. I'm not sure if this is the best practice. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  Oops no that was a mistake from me. Shapeyness (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Poidevin et al. 2009 - this is an edited collection, should an individual chapter/chapters be cited?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Some more general comments: reading over the overview sources, there aren't any major areas that aren't covered although a few cover social metaphysics a bit more (having said that, some don't mention it at all). Also, the article mentions truthmakers, but it doesn't go much into theories of truth - a few of the overviews have truth as a high level section. Obviously there can never be a completely comprehensive article so fine to leave out if you think these would overexpand the article. This might be a reflection of the discipline across history, but I also can't see any philosophers mentioned that aren't men.

  I added a sentence on theories of truth. In principle, it could be expanded, but I'm not sure that we should. I found a way to mention Hypatia. I'm open to more suggestions. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  I don't have a broad enough knowledge of the history of philosophy to know which female philosophers would be the best to include sadly, but Anscombe might be worth a mention in relation to the idea that causation can be non-deterministic. Her SEP article has a good section if she isn't mentioned in any of the sources in that part already. Shapeyness (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

  I added a footnote to the section on causality. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support: While I think it would be nice for there to be more representation of philosophers who aren't men in the main body of the article, and perhaps more discussion of social metaphysics, I don't think either of these prevent the article from meeting the FA criteria. The article is as accessible as possible throughout, covers all major areas to at least some extent without delving into too much detail, and is well-structured, illustrated and cited. Shapeyness (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

750h

Will review once the above leaves their final comments. 750h+ 23:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi 750, I think we are ready for you. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Oops, sorry will get to this 750h+ 13:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I shouldn't have too many comments as I reviewed this article as a GA. Feel free to refuse my suggestions with proper justification. Will begin tomorrow (it's late night in Australia at the moment). 750h+ 13:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

lead

• have more recently also included ==> "have recently included"

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

definition

• Meta-metaphysics[d] is the this shouldn't be bolded (or would be preferable to mention/bold it in the lead)

  I removed the boldface. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

topics

• a table is made up of a tabletop would reduce number of words for conciseness (comprises, consists of)

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• a cloud is made up of many droplets ^^

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• numerical identity when the very same entity is involved is "very" required?

  Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• principle, known as identity of indiscernibles or Leibniz's Law ==> "principle, known as the identity of indiscernibles or Leibniz's Law"

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

methodology

• metaphysical systems by drawing conclusions from these ==> "metaphysical systems by concluding from these"

  I kept the original formulation to avoid misunderstandings since "concluding" can also mean "bring to an end". Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

criticism

• point is called metaphysical or ontological deflationism i don't think these should be bolded

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

relation to other disciplines

• often used by metaphysicians as a tool to engage "as a tool" seems redundant

  Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

history

No problems here.

As always great work on the article @Phlsph7: I do apologise for the late review. 750h+ 11:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi 750h+ and thanks for your help with the article both in this review and the earlier GA review! Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Happy to support. Thanks for the article. 750h+ 13:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Aristotle, Metaphysics, Incunabulum.jpg: checks out (there is a more elegant way to display the licences -- see the Hume painting -- but the necessary information is all there)

  I simplified the license tags. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• File:Kant_gemaelde_1.jpg: likewise.

  I simplified the license tags. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• File:Dualism-vs-Monism.png: The licensing here is fine, but it includes statements of fact, and I don't see a citation on the image page for that information. If we wouldn't be able to write "Cartesian duality sees both matter and mind as fundamental" in the text without a citation, we can't write it in an image without one either.

  I added a source to the caption in the article and to the wiki commons page. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• File:Allan Ramsay - David Hume, 1711 - 1776. Historian and philosopher - Google Art Project.jpg: checks out.
• File:Yin yang.svg: checks out.
• File:Boethius.jpeg: really needs to be licensed as PD-Art (like the Hume painting etc).

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• File:ANWhitehead.jpg: I don't see any publication info for this one?

  I added the relevant information and an external link. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The alt texts are not always particularly helpful -- for instance, we have "Painting of Immanuel Kant" for, well, a painting of Kant. The point of an alt text is to substitute for the visual image for a reader who cannot see it -- can you, here, describe what Kant looks like in the picture? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello UndercoverClassicist and thanks for the image review! I add some information to the alt texts but more could be added. I'm not sure what the right amount of detail is since the different aspects of body posture, dress, and background are not really relevant to the article. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I tend to try and think: "what do I expect a viewer to take away here?". After all, I included that image for a reason, not just to break up the text or to make the article look prettier. For Kant, for example, most readers will clock that this is an eighteenth-century, old-ish, posh, white guy, so I might write an alt text to that effect: "An oil painting of a European man in his seventies, wearing eighteenth-century formal dress, leaning on a table with pens and ink." UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I gave it one more try. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks good for the portraits, but doesn't seem to have been done for the other images. Same principle applies: what visual information (so: not the name of the artist, because you can't see that in the picture) should the reader take away from this image/diagram? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I expanded the alt-texts of the images of Aristotle's metaphysics, the dualism-monism diagram, and the yin-yang symbol. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:26, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Source review

I am not certain that I can possibly comment on the "comprehensive and thorough" part of the FAC criteria, so keep that in mind. Also a whole lot of sources, which suggests comprehensiveness, but means I might miss some bad sources. What's the logic between some sauces having retrieval dates and archives and others not having them? Why are some references linking to Google Books pages and others aren't? Looks like we are using major albeit mostly Western publishers, and the few I didn't know I checked the sources up a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello Jo-Jo Eumerus and thanks for doing the source review! I added retrieval dates for "cite web" templates. For the purpose of verification, this may be relevant in case the website changes so reviewers know which version to look for. Retrieval dates are also automatically added if an archive link is added to a template, which also makes sense so reviewers know which version is archived. I don't think there are any other templates in the article with retrieval dates but I may have missed some. As for the archives, InternetArchiveBot has not been working for me recently, so I can't add any new archives. One solution for consistency would be to just remove all archives. I'm not sure if that is desirable.

I usually link to Google Books pages if they provide a page preview to make it easier for reviewers to assess verifiability. However, not all Google Books pages offer page previews, so this is not always possible. The overrepresentation of sources by Western publishers in the article reflects the general prevalence of Western publishers regarding high-quality English-language sources on the subject. It can be challenging to track down sources from other regions that fulfill the FA high-quality requirements, but I could try to find some more if it is a problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind is that Google Books tends to be geolocked and personalized. So a link working for you doesn't mean that it will work for anyone else. Thus I generally don't think that putting links to Google Books pages is useful. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that these links are not ideal and that it is preferable to use non-commercial sources. However, other sources often do not provide page previews. Without simple previews, the problem is that running to a library or buying a book is a significant barrier to verification, especially if it's just about a single sentence. Clicking on a link to verify a sentence, on the other hand, requires very little work. Overall, I think the links are worth having in cases where no non-commercial alternatives are available. This matter is also discussed at Wikipedia:Google Books and Wikipedia. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Hurra-yi Khuttali

Nominator(s): Amir Ghandi (talk) 11:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I am renominating this article after it failed the first nomination only because of a lack of engagement from reviewers. This article is about a minor figure in the history of the Ghaznavid dynasty, the dynasty that ruled what is modern day Afghanistan and eastern Iran. Hurra-yi Khuttali was a princess from this dynasty and is regarded as the most politically active woman of her era because she interfered in the succession of her brother. Small details are known about her life, therefore the article itself is quite short. Amir Ghandi (talk) 11:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

ThaesOfereode

Hi Amir, it looks like you have Arabic transliterations in the {{Lang}} template. Unless the Arabic script is used, you should use {{translit}} instead. Other issues below:

• "free woman" → 'free woman' per MOS:SINGLE (also want single quotes around "agnomen").
  • Done
• Deitalicize established loan words like "amir", "harem", and "sultan". All of these are common enough terms in English that they don't need italics.
  • Done
• First instance of amir should be delinked to avoid a WP:SEAOFBLUE violation (i.e., before Mas'ud of Ghazna)
  • Done
• Any reason you picked the spelling "Seljuq" over the more common "Seljuk"?
  • Force of habit; changed it to Seljuk

More to follow later. ThaesOfereode (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @ThaesOfereode, would you be interested to continue this review? Amir Ghandi (talk) 14:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Amir. Yes, my personal life has become a little busy, but I should be able to get to this over the coming days. If I don't get to this by Wednesday, ping me again. In the meantime, it looks like your use of the {{lang}} template should be changed to the {{translit}} whenever the Arabic script is not used; as I understand, it will render oddly for screen readers. ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay; changed the templates. Amir Ghandi (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@ThaesOfereode Reminder. Amir Ghandi (talk) 13:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, some thoughts:

• You shouldn't replace hamzas/ayins with apostrophes; in names like Masʽud, it looks like you may have thought they should be straightened in accordance with MOS:CQ, but they should not be. Looks like the pipes can be easily removed. In other cases, the templates {{hamza}} and {{ayin}} can be added as appropriate for Arabic names.

• Fixed Mas'ud's name.

• Looks like the Maʾmunid page uses a hamza (not an ayin as in Masʽud; I've fixed this throughout as I may have been unclear), but I'm not sure that's correct; I don't speak Farsi, can you advise? If so we should expect it in Maʾmun's name as well. Same with Abuʾl-Fadl.

• Yes, all three use hamzas. I'll add them to the artilce

• Okay, done

• In footnote C, "Khatun" should be placed in a {{translit}} template. I'll let you decide whether it should be Farsi or something else.

• Done

• Consider a hatnote that says that the subject should be referred to as "Hurra" not "Hurra-yi" (my first guess) and that "Khuttali" should not be used as a surname. Thomas Aquinas's page has something similar for reference.

• Added

• For that matter, the name section should probably tell the reader what "-yi" means. Feminine suffix? Construct state?

• I don't have the source to add that unfortunately

• Bummer. No problem.

• Consider linking theology.

• Done

• which Ma'mun conceded to → to which Ma'mun conceded is more natural

• Done

• What is a "patriotic" rebellion? Aren't they all from the POV of the rebels? Unless there is compelling reason to keep it, I think the use of "patriotic" here should be removed.

• Deleted it

• Mahmud wished to retaliate the killing → Mahmud sought retribution for the killing is less awkward. (And remove the comma after "brother-in-law").

• Done

• Link concubines.

• Done

• "along with her younger brother"

• Done

• What Turkic military commanders? This alliance is not established for the reader. Did the Ghaznavids ally themselves with other Turkic tribes? Which? When? Why? Why did these leaders find themselves scheming (?) in the Ghaznavid court?

• I meant the commanders of Ghaznavid military who happened to be Turkic. Deleted it for clarity

• What was Masʽud "preoccupied" with in the west? Where in the west? Baghdad? Rome? Lisbon? Also, probably don't need the parentheses here.

• Added and deleted the parentheses

• In footnote E, {{translit}} for "vali ahd" should be Persian rather than Arabic, right? Is "b." short for "bin"? Not sure I understand the parenthetical about the passive voice; there are only two passive sentences. In any case, the parentheses can be dropped; they're not really doing anything.

• Added translit for vali ahd; changed b. to ibn. The passive voice is more present when you read the text in Farsi. I deleted the whole sentence for clarity.

• Mas'ud lacked political shrewdness, therefore, Hurra is suspected to have influenced [...] → Mas'ud lacked political shrewdness; Hurra is suspected to have influenced [...]

• Done

• Any reason footnote G is a footnote? Seems pertinent enough to Hurra's decision-making to include it in the prose. If so, recommend linking oases.

• Brought to the body

• No need for a comma after conquests in India. Delink India in favor of linking conquests in India with Ghaznavid campaigns in India unless I missed this link being made prior.

• Done

• WP:SEAOFBLUE violation with Oghuz Turkoman should be corrected.

• Deleted Oghuz

• Link caravans as appropriate (perhaps Camel train or Caravan (travellers)?)

• Done

• Why did you pipe Seljuk dynasty to Seljuk when dynasty is the very next word?

• Amended

• Comma after his other aunts.

• Done

• Footnote H should be prose.

• Can you explain what you mean? I'm not sure I understand

• Sorry, I mean bring this to the body rather than leave as a footnote.

• Might link India in the sentence following what is currently footnote H, provided you delinked it as per my previous comment.

• Done

• Remove comma after 1041.

• Done

• realis mood – Okay, so this is more of a category of moods rather than one mood. If you mean the indicative mood, this sentence doesn't make much sense. If you mean another (energetic mood?), it should be specified.

• Changed with imperative mood (per the source).

• contemporary historian – Can this just be historian or at least historian of [insert specific title of period studied]? My first thought upon reading was that Amirsoleimani was a contemporary of Hurra.

• Changed to modern historian

Good page all around, but there are some issues. Let me know what you think. Tremendously interesting topic. Looking forward to seeing more "women in bronze". ThaesOfereode (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Amir Ghandi. Have you addressed all of TO's comments? If so, could you ping them? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  Hi, @ThaesOfereode I've addressed all your comments Amir Ghandi (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yep, another quick read-through looks good to me so I'm happy to support on prose. Great work. ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Airship

As always, the following are suggestions, not demands:

• "considered the most prominent woman in Ghaznavid politics" this is not quite what the body says—that an action she took was the most prominent by a woman in Ghaznavid politics.
  • Changed it
• Not sure if "in modern Afghanistan" needs to be in the lead.
  • Deleted
• Two consecutive sentences starting "she was" could be combined.
  • Done
• "a direct cause for" "a direct cause of" sounds more natural.
  • Done
• "who was deemed unfit" this omits that she was one who deemed Muhammad unfit.
  • Deleted
• " Her letter was one of the main reasons for Mas'ud's usurpation of the throne." a bit vague, you could go into more detail about what actually happened.
  • Done
• "the Ghaznavid dynasty, who were a dynasty of Turkic origin" could be simplified to something like "the Ghaznavids, a dynasty of Turkic origin..."
  • Done
• "she sought to learn sciences" this is slightly ungrammatical, probably needing a "the", and also a little unclear—which sciences?
  • This was originally 'other sciences' beside theology, but one reviewer commented that theology is not a science, so I omited the 'other'. I'll add 'other' again since the source itself considers theology a science.
• The map provided is not that useful—a better one would show the Ghaznavid territories, which are referred to more often, instead of intricate details of Khwarazm. File:Ghaznavid Empire (map).jpg seems ideal, if you can find a source that verifies it.
  • Done
• "The latter" is unnecessary—it wouldn't be the person who's died, would it?
  • Replaced with 'He'.
• "patriotist" is not a word, is "patriotic" meant? If yes, I suggest "nationalist" instead as more suitable.
  • I myself prefer 'patriotic' since the source uses it
• "the rebels killed Ma'mun because of his submission" if the whole rebellion broke out because of the submission, I would suggest mentioning that at the start of the sentence, not the end.
  • I reworded the sentence. Thoughts?
• You could mention that Muhammad and his brother were twins.
  • Done
• "inviting him" is a bit oddly phrased, would suggest "encouraging him" or similar.
  • Done
• "Mas'ud marched east to claim the throne, and continued to receive letters from Hurra and his mother regarding the situation in Ghazna. On his arrival in 1030 in Ghazna, Mas'ud captured Muhammad and took the throne." these sentences are quite clunky; try to trim to reduce duplication.
  • Done
• "who had assumed total power in Ghazna after Muhammad's ascension to become the real power behind Muhammad's government" this also essentially says the same thing twice.
  • Amended
• The last paragraph of the "Biography" section needs a thorough copyedit—it really lacks clarity.
  • Done
• Too many commas in the last sentence of "Assessments".
  • Amended

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Amir Ghandi. Have you addressed all of Airship's comments? If so, could you ping them? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @AirshipJungleman29 I've addressed all your comments Amir Ghandi (talk) 14:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Support I especially like the new prose on the marriages—much clearer. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

FunkMonk

• Support - I seem to be the only one to have completed a review last time around, so here is my support again. FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

HF

• "Abu al-Hasan died at an uncertain date between 1006 to 1010 and was succeeded by his brother, Ma'mun II." - If I'm reading the source correctly, the source says The date of ʿAlī’s death and the accession of his brother Abu’l-ʿAbbās Maʾmūn II is not definitely known, but must have been ca. 399/1008-9
• "He, with the same intent as his brother, married Hurra in 1015" - source says 1015/1016 which doesn't seem to be quite the same as what's in the article?
  • When I was writing the article, I based the dated on the dates in the Encyclopaedia of the World of Islam article, which uses the Hijri calendar. I had to use an app that converts the dates, that is why the year is specified. For example, in the article the year of Hurra's second marriage is recorded as 406 AH, which in turn could be converted to 1015. I'll correct the date now.
• "a dynasty of Turkic origin whose realm included modern day Afghanistan, eastern Iran and northwestern India" - source specifies Baluchistan, rather than "eastern Iran"; is this really the best way to phrase this, as from what I can tell eastern Iran is more expansive than Baluchistan?
  • From the source: "GHAZNAVIDS, an Islamic dynasty of Turkish slave origin (366-582/977-1186), which in its heyday ruled in the eastern Iranian lands, briefly as far west as Ray and Jebāl; for a while in certain regions north of the Oxus, most notably, in Kᵛārazm; and in Baluchistan." The source doesn't single out Baluchistan, it is mentioned with other regions.

I was going to check Bosworth 1963 as well, but the Internet Archive is acting up again today. I'm a bit concerned about source-text after some issues came up at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sabuktigin/archive1. Hog Farm _Talk 02:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Hog Farm, would you be interested in doing a review? Amir Ghandi (talk) Amir Ghandi (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. I just keep getting busier and busier IRL. Hog Farm _Talk 16:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Amir Ghandi (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I hope to be able to restart a review this weekend. Hog Farm _Talk 14:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I've had a chance to read through this; I spot-checked a couple isntances and didn't have any significant concerns with that or with the read-through. Supporting contingent upon this passing the source review. Hog Farm _Talk 00:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Edwininlondon

Just a few drive-by comments from a complete lay person:

• would be nice if the opening sentence would mention which modern-day part of the world we're talking about
• ruler of Ghazna --> links to the city of Ghazni, or should it perhaps go to Ghazni Province?
  • I believe I've already linked Ghazna both in the lead and in the body
• She used two nisbas --> perhaps help the reader out a bit by explaining what directly in the textthat is, rather than forcing them to click through or guess that footnote c explains it
  • Done
• recorded by Shabankara'i --> add a description, just like British orientalist Clifford Edmund Bosworth
  • Done
• by Abu'l-Fadl Bayhaqi (d. 1077) a secretary --> comma missing
  • Done
• Amir Mas'ud of Ghazna --> 1) should Amir be linked? is it a title like emir? 2) am I right that this is the newphew? Better to say so, plus when the nephew is introduced I would refer to him by his full name and title
  • 1) to prevent WP:SEAOFBLUE, no, and yes it is the Persianized version of emir. 2) Yes, done
• since the Ma'amunids --> is there a stray "a" here, given that it is the Ma'munid dynasty?
  • Indeed, amended
• However, he was killed --> he is a bit ambiguous (and the subsequent his)
  • Mentioned the name
• Hurra, along with her younger brother, Yusuf ibn Sabuktigin --> is that the name of her brother or a different person? do we need some commas here?
  • Moved the comma to the end
• the Sultan --> the sultan (if I interpret MOS:JOBTITLE correctly)
  • Done
• the Seljuks --> who are they? what happened to the Turkomans?
  • My mistake, the Seljuks are a Turkoman dynasty that lead the other Turkomans. I replaced 'Seljuk tribes' with 'Seljuk dynasty.'
• footnote h: why not put this in the main text?
  • Its a hinderance to the flow of the text
• she is metaphorically covering their shame --> I would add attribution here
  • Done
• as it was Bayhaqi's intentions --> singular or plural? and did Bayyhaqi state this intention or is this an interpretation by Amirsoleimani?
  • Reworded the sentence
• Iranian historian, Shirin Bayani --> no comma here
  • Done
• The Boswell sources in ibliography should be order by time, not randomly
  • Done

That's all I have. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Amir Ghandi. Have you addressed all of Edwininlondon's comments? If so, could you ping them? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Edwininlondon I've addressed all your comments Amir Ghandi (talk) Amir Ghandi (talk) 14:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

All fine as far as prose is concerned, I Support on prose. I don't read Persian so can't do a spotcheck.Edwininlondon (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Borsoka

• It was most likely... Could you attribute this PoV to a scholar (and ideally explain it a bit)?
  • That makes two 'according to's in one paragraph. I don't think that's pleasing to read. Also, could not find anything to expand on that
• ...an honorific laqab 'agnomen'... I think the three non-cotidian terms are unneccessary; furthermore, the term "agnomen" is possibly misleading. Why not "a laqab (honorific)" with links? If you think all three terms are to be mentioned, the last term ("agnomen") should be enclosed in brackets.
  • Done
• ... and not her actual name Is this necessary? If not, delete it. If yes, could you add a link (because for me the laqab is also an "actual" name used in souces)?
  • Deleted
• Do we know what is the origin of her second nisba (Kaliji)? If we do not know it, we should make it clear.
  • No, and wouldn't that be an unsourced edition? None of the sources even mention that the origin of Kaliji is unknown.
• An explanation for khatun?
  • Done
• Could you expand the first section's second paragraph to avoid a one-sentence paragraph? For instance, it could be stated in a separate sentence that the only source contains only sparse references, and we could also be informed that it is reliable or unreliable. Based on section "Assessments and historiography", I understand one of her letters has also been preserved in a manuscript - is it the same source?
• Mention the period of reign of Mas'ud (as it is mentioned in the first sentence of the following section in connection with her father).
  • Done
• ...is a probable candidate Could you attribute this PoV to a scholar (and ideally explain it a bit)?
  • Done for the attribution, sadly can't expand it further
• This marriage would have secured an alliance... Why future-in-the-past?
• Hurra may have been taken hostage by them. Could you attribute this PoV to a scholar (and ideally explain it a bit)? Please also read my comment below.
• Hurra may have been taken hostage by them. Mahmud threatened the rebels with invasion unless they released Hurra. Contradiction? (The first sentence implies that she may have not been taken hostage, but the second sentence says that she had been seized.) Perhaps the two sentences could be rephrased to contain only facts ("Hurra was seized/imprisoned/prevented from returning to her homeland/...).
• ...after Mahmud's death, she was entrusted with the care of his wives... Why not widows?
  • Changed to widows
• ...who was crowned in Ghazna... Could you quote the text from the cited source verifying this statement?
  • Bosworth: "...Muhammad succeeded in Ghazna according to his father's will"
    • His coronation is not verified. I am not sure that Ghaznavids were indeed crowned.
      • Okay I'll delete it then
• ..., which was dependent on the powerful leadership of the sultan Could you quote the text from the cited source verifying this statement?
  • Bosworth: "...Ghaznavid empire was basically dependent on the military leadership and executive talent of its Sultan"
• ...encouraging him to take the throne while she and the other women of the court were confided in the Citadel of Ghazni I do not understand the relevance of the part beginning with "while she...".
  • Deleted
• He also imprisoned Ali b. Il-Arsalan Qarib, the al-hajib al-kabir (commander-in-chief) of the army, who had become the real power behind Muhammad's government. Is this relevant in the article's context? I would delete it.
  • Deleted
• ...Hurra is suspected to have influenced By whom?
• The region of Khorasan housed rich oases, centres of industry and crafts and important trade routes. Therefore it was an integral part of the empire. Therefore?
  • Deleted
• File:Ghaznavid Empire (map).jpg: 1. Explain that Mahmud was her brother in the caption (as you introduce similarly Mas'ud I in the other picture's caption). 2. What is the source of the map?
  • 1) done 2) map is compliant with the Cambridge History of Iran map of the Ghaznavids

Borsoka (talk) 11:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• • • I added the source to the file. Excellent article, so I support its promotion. Thank you for your work. Borsoka (talk) 07:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Image and source review

File:Mas'udIGhaznavidCoin.jpg has a few bare URLs as sources. ALT text could state a bit more what is being shown. File:Ghaznavid Empire (map).jpg ought to explain a bit more clearly where the map background is from. Clifford Edmund Bosworth is not consistently formatted in the sources section. Sources seem pretty good otherwise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Added a source to File:Mas'udIGhaznavidCoin.jpg and changed its ALT text. Clarified File:Ghaznavid Empire (map).jpg and changed the Bosworth sources for consistency. Thoughts? Amir Ghandi (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

That ALT is better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo, is that two passes? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Did some light spotchecking that raised no issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that Jo-Jo. As this is Amir Ghandi's first nomination at FAC the article needs a source to text integrity check and a check for plagiarism. Are these things which you may be able to do? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC) Or is that already covered in the above? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo, just checking if you have seen this? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Gog the Mild, is this good to go? Amir Ghandi (talk) 13:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Not until we hear from Edwininlondon and a sourcing spot check has happened. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Spot-check of this version:

• 1 Not on the page given.
  • I assume you mean Fouruzani 2014, which an encyclopedic entry, therefore doesn't have a page
    • No, I meant Bosworth 1998. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

* 3 OK

• 4 Can you send me a copy of this page via email, or put it on a Google Drive or whatever and then post the link here?
  • https://drive.google.com/file/d/15Ezp91xnaGkukHaZCFDkNQSSgYGBLmm3/view?usp=drive_link
    • OK, although you may want to move the reference into the parens, as otherwise it reads like the source supports "She used two nisbas" too (which it doesn't) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
      • Done
• 5 Can you send me a copy of this page via email, or put it on a Google Drive or whatever and then post the link here?
  • https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zDyuepOEU8mndWVOAlJDDoS6j79t-nPi/view?usp=drive_link
    • OK, and thanks for highlighting the text too. Makes it much easier to verify. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
• 6 OK
• 8 This needs someone who a) can translate this language (Farsi or Arabic?) and b) has source access.
• 10 OK
• 12 Can you send me a copy of this page via email, or put it on a Google Drive or whatever and then post the link here?
  • https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_WTL4HB1O-m5gqgZdrRd-ttA-mMq0VwD/view?usp=drive_link
    • OK.
• 13 OK I guess.
• 15 Unsure if "in secret" can be inferred from this.
  • Removed
• 16 Can you send me a copy of this page via email, or put it on a Google Drive or whatever and then post the link here?
  • https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bfcchz1NoaBlxUHEQ7P7VGJVtddECu8k/view?usp=drive_link
    • OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
• 17 This needs someone who a) can translate this language (Farsi or Arabic?) and b) has source access
• 20 Can you send me a copy of this page via email, or put it on a Google Drive or whatever and then post the link here?
  • https://drive.google.com/file/d/1js8unUOBSPCK6eS6MTQ7QjVWxuSBZU1V/view?usp=drive_link
• 21 Can you send me a copy of this page via email, or put it on a Google Drive or whatever and then post the link here?
  • https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MR5dEtZta4R8XW3Ef7tgHyymH9t1qGVd/view?usp=drive_link
    • "Weak" and "which was dependent on the powerful leadership of the sultan." isn't in the screenshot you gave me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
      • They're on the previous page/link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1js8unUOBSPCK6eS6MTQ7QjVWxuSBZU1V/view. Amir Ghandi (talk) Amir Ghandi (talk) 10:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
        • OK, although "weak" is a bit interpretative. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
          • Changed to inept
• 22 Can you send me a copy of this page via email, or put it on a Google Drive or whatever and then post the link here?
  • https://drive.google.com/file/d/1P62vo04fT--BBSZRlzT0D31ANVMYNMkw/view?usp=drive_link
    • Seems like that photo cut off part of the quote. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
      • Here the rest of the quote: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cSJk5ukGOiVLt1QhXAklVgeSAy1PRUo2/view?usp=drive_link
• 23 This needs someone who a) can translate this language (Farsi or Arabic?) and b) has source access
• 26 Can you send me a copy of this page via email, or put it on a Google Drive or whatever and then post the link here?
  • https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FpazeZU0vSVAKj2yNseeWVZUctuhQxkp/view?usp=drive_link
    • This needs a slight rewrite, as "political influence" and "succession" aren't equivalent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
      • Done

* 31 OK

• 34 Can you send me a copy of this page via email, or put it on a Google Drive or whatever and then post the link here?
  • https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HMsiShX4eEmptvL30d-dNN4JXEL7YiLe/view?usp=drive_link
    • Apparently not everybody agrees that Muhammad was executed too? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
      • Deleted 'executed'.
• 37 Not getting "Bayhaqi and his successors all respected her," from these pages at all?
  • Changed the source pages

I must stress that I probably can't complete this spotcheck w/o someone who can read Farsi/Arabic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Seems like I need to be approved for these Google Drive links. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus Changed the access settings of the files; I believe you can see them now Amir Ghandi (talk) 11:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• Citations: when a cite refers to more than a single page in a source, you should use 'pp', not "p".
• Bosworth (2020) does not seem to be used as a source.
• "She was married to two Maʽmunid rulers of the Khwarazm region" there is an ambiguity in this. So maybe follow it with 'first Abu Ali Hasan, and on his death his brother Maʽmun II'?
  • All Done
• Any reason why the infobox does not include Hurra's birth and death dates? And is the date of her first marriage known, or the date of her first husband's death?
  • All three are unknown

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Overdrawn at the Memory Bank

Nominator(s): GamerPro64 23:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Decided to try getting another movie shown on Mystery Science Theater 3000 to Featured Article status. This time around its Overdrawn at the Memory Bank, a major for public television movie starring the late great Raul Julia. A very bizarre science fiction film that tries its best to be profound but ends up being pretty confusing at times. Still a fun movie to watch and I believe that the article meets FAC criteria. Always looking forward for critiques, however. GamerPro64 23:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "It premiered on the CBC" - might be worth clarifying that this is a Canadian station. I for one didn't know this and just assumed it was American.
  • I unabbreviated it. GamerPro64 00:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
    • Can you unabbreviate it in the body too......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
      • I have also been looking at a few related articles and think maybe it would be more appropriate to say it was broadcast on CBC Television...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
        • Changed it to that. GamerPro64 20:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• "working for conglomerate Novicorp" => "working for the conglomerate Novicorp"
  • Added. GamerPro64 00:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• "assigns him mandatory prophylactic rehabilitation" - is there an appropriate link for "prophylactic"? I don't know what it means......
  • I wikilinked it. Its basically preventative healthcare. GamerPro64 00:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• "changing both his and Apollonia's identity" => "changing both his and Apollonia's identities"
  • Changed.
• "It was directed Douglas Williams directed the film" - some mangled wording there
  • Looks like it was left behind during the copyedit. Fixed. GamerPro64 00:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• "Paul Chaplin voiced his hatred" - is he also a cast member?
  • Cast member and writer for the show. Clarified. GamerPro64 00:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• "PBS and its pledge drives were also satirized throughout this episode." - source?
  • That does happen in the episode, more satirizing public access stations and their pledge drives. Don't think I can find a proper source beyond the show so I'll remove it. GamerPro64 00:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• "saying the film was ahead of its time and gave praise for the acting" => "saying the film was ahead of its time and giving praise for the acting" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Changed. GamerPro64 00:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Support from Crisco 1492

• Apollonia is assigned to locate him - His mind or body?
  • His mind. Clarified. GamerPro64 23:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• I'm seeing a mix of sentence case and title case in the references. Worth reviewing.
  • I don't know what that is. GamerPro64 23:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    • Ok I was told what you meant and to answer that, I was formatting the titles the same way as they are in their respective publications. GamerPro64 23:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
      • WP:CITESTYLE asks for consistency, which is why I flagged it. I'm not doing the source review, so it doesn't affect my response, but it's worth keeping an eye open.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
• The fact that it's based on a short story isn't actually cited in the article. It is citable to this book. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Added the book for citation. GamerPro64 23:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Otherwise, that's it. This is a nice and tight article. I'm going to look at the Wikipedia Library to see if there is anything production- or theme-related that could be found, but I doubt there will be much critical analysis of an 80s made-for-television film. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Not much. Orlando Sentinel called it "One of the worst scripts in drive-in history", giving it "one-half star for usin' government money to make it", but the reviewer also mentions a baboon brain transfer, so...
  • I think I stumbled across this before but didn't use it because it was Joe Bob Briggs reviewing it. And I wasn't sure if he was a source to use. GamerPro64 23:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that definitely seems to have been in character rather than an actual review. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
• Also Make the Heavens: Virtual Reality in Science Fiction. Uppsala, Sweden: Section for Sociology of Literature at the Department of Literature, Uppsala University, 2010 - Apparently discusses the short story. Might have some more detail.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• It didn't. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Support, based on prose, though with the caveat about references that I will leave to whoever does the source review. Looks good! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Image review

Oh, this didn't get an image review yet. There's just the one, File:Overdrawn.jpg, which has a well put-together rationale. I've seen a lot of articles like this include photos of the main actors, who do appear to both have useable images (though from long after this movie, so ultimately your call there.) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

There's File:RIVERSIDE SHAKESPEARE COMPANY RAUL JULIA 1983 2.jpg that got recently moved to Commons and that was taken in 1983. Not sure if its a good enough image to use though. GamerPro64 00:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Generalissima, just checking to see if you saw the comment above? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

EG

I will leave some comments in the next few days. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Lead:

• Para 1: "Based on the 1976 John Varley short story" - If we know the name of the short story, we should say "Based on the 1976 John Varley short story X". If not, we should say "Based on a 1976 John Varley short story"
  • Well the story is also known as "Overdrawn at the Memory Bank". I'm expanding this further since I found out its part of Eight Worlds. GamerPro64 03:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Para 1: "It was co-produced by Canada's RSL Productions in Toronto and New York television station WNET" - I wonder why this isn't "Toronto production company RSL Productions", for consistency with "New York television station WNET". Also, RSL is called "RSL Productions" in the lead and infobox but "RSL Films, Ltd" in the body; which is correct?
  • Re-watching the film it says RSL Film. Seems like they eventually merged with another company to become Alliance Films. Making it RSL Films all around. GamerPro64 03:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Para 2: "Overdrawn at the Memory Bank was featured in the eighth season finale episode of the comedy television series Mystery Science Theater 3000 in 1997." - I notice that there was critical reception about this as well. Perhaps you could add a mention of the fact that "The episode was considered one of the best episodes in the series, both by critics and by fans of the show."

• Not sure if I should since this articles about the film itself and not the episode. I didn't do that with Soultaker (film), Squirm or Zombie Nightmare. GamerPro64 03:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, I see. I suppose it makes sense not to change this, then. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

References:

• Is there a reason that the "Notes" subsection is a WP:PSEUDOHEAD, while the "Citations" and "Bibliography" sections are level-3 headers? In any case, pseudo-headings should use bold text, not semicolon markup, which is reserved for description lists.

• Changed. GamerPro64 03:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Plot:

• Para 3: "Aram vows to fight against the dystopian government." - I think the word "against" may be redundant in this context.
  • Removed fight. GamerPro64 04:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
• No other comments (with the caveat that I didn't watch the film, so I don't know whether all of the details are correct).

Cast:

• It seems that source [3] is being used to verify all nine primary cast members. However, the source only verifies that these cast members appeared in the film; it doesn't mention their specific roles.

• I don't think I could find a source for everyones roles. Not really sure why that section has a reference in it to begin with. GamerPro64 04:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Production and release:

• Para 1: "To alleviate the costs," - I'd say the word "mitigate" or "reduce" works better here than "alleviate".

• Changed to mitigate.

• Para 1: "with Lantos claiming that if it had been shot on photographic film, it would have been as expensive as Blade Runner." - I don't know how much Blade Runner cost, so a quote like this would be missing context for someone like me.

• The Wikipedia article says it costs 30 million in 1982. GamerPro64 04:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• Para 2: "The film premiered on CBC Television on September 22, 1984.[7] It was later shown on PBS's anthology series American Playhouse on February 4, 1985.[8] " - Given that these two sentences are relatively short, and the third sentence of this paragraph also begins with the word "It", I would consider merging these two sentences.

• Merged. GamerPro64 04:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Reception and legacy:

• "Julia and Griffiths' characters" - This should be "Julia's and Griffiths' characters", since these are two (three?) separate characters each individually played by Julia and Griffiths, rather than a group characters shared by Julia and Griffiths (which is what this sentence structure implies).

• Done. GamerPro64 04:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Mystery Science Theater 3000:

• Para 1: "Corbett also noted difficulties in mocking the film due to the death of Raul Julia" - It seems like these difficulties stem from the fact that they didn't want to disrespect Julia (the source says "So we spent much of the movie feeling a bit worried that we might be besmirching the late Mr. Julia's reputation."), but the current sentence structure makes it seem like his death physically prevented them from mocking the film. Is there a better way to word this sentence?

• Tried something out. GamerPro64 04:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• Para 2: "Jim Vorel for Paste ranked it as the 40th best in the entire series" - I don't know how many episodes the series had at that point, but 40th-best doesn't seem terribly high. Though looking at List of Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes, seems like it would have been among the top 25%?

• Before the show ended its original run in 1999, it had 197 episodes. Guess I could mention that. Added a note too. GamerPro64 04:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

That's it for me. Overall, this article looks pretty good. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to return to this. I support this FAC. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Is the content of source #15 in a video? Source formatting wise, what gets webarchives and what not? What is Creatures at Large Press? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

No I see in at the bottom of the article. Also I believe everything has an archive link where its acceptable. Don't think newspapers.com clips can be archived. And it looks like Creatures at Large Press might be John Stanley's publishing? GamerPro64 01:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Afternoon Jo-Jo, any comeback to GP's comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to know a bit more certainly what Creatures at Large Press is. "where its acceptable" is a bit too indeterminate for my liking. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I checked the bottom of John Stanley's website and its copyrighted Creatures at Large Press so I do believe its his publishing. I can't post the url here for some reason though. GamerPro64 02:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Pinging Jo-Jo re comment above. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

That seems fine, leaving the archive stuff the only thing still pending. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

What exactly is the issue with the archive stuff? GamerPro64 21:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

It's inconsistent when one URL has an archive and the other hasn't. Especially here where it's the same domain (newspapers.com) that sometimes has an archive and other times doesn't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I checked. The archived newspapers.com links dont even properly archive. Nor do I think you can archive books from Internet Archive. GamerPro64 07:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

In that case, some archives like #7 should probably be taken off. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Removed the archive links. GamerPro64 14:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Doing some light spotchecking, I am not sure that #16 details the plot of MST3K. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The source was mainly used to source when the airdate of the episode was. GamerPro64 19:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

As currently formatted, that reference has to support the entire sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

It does. They're two separate sentences. GamerPro64 16:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

But with the same source, that doesn't support all of these sentences. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I have never had this be an issue with the other articles involving mystery science theater that I've gotten to Featured Article status. Does there really need a source to explain what the show is about? Is a wikilink to the show not good enough? I just think this is just excessive. GamerPro64 18:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe? (second opinion needed) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

"Overdrawn at the Memory Bank was featured in the eighth-season finale episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000 (MST3K), a comedy television series" needs citing to a HQ RS. "in which the character Mike Nelson and his two robot friends Crow T. Robot and Tom Servo are forced to watch bad films as part of an ongoing scientific experiment" is a TV plot summary to which "Plot summaries, and other aspects of a program's content, such as its credits, may be sourced from the works themselves, as long as only basic descriptions are given" applies. Strictly this last only applies to the plot summary section, but I think a good IAR argument can be made in this case. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

Infobox: "Overdrawn at the Memory Bank" by Varley is a short story and so should be within quote marks, not in italics.

• Was the film ever shown on UK TV?

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Changed from italics to quote marks. And I haven't found evidence it played on UK television. GamerPro64 03:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

UK: me neither, despite having a clear memory of watching it on terrestrial TV in the UK in the eighties. I am a huge Varley fan and recall most of the bits where to film varied from the story. Ah well, if there is no source there is nothing to be done. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Voss (Alexander McQueen collection)

Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

It's late 2000. You've had it up to here with the jerks at LVMH telling you how to run Givenchy, with the press making snarky comments about your weight, and with the whole bloody madhouse of the fashion industry top to tail. Do you quit this all and become an accountant now? Hell no. You're Alexander McQueen, and you're going to channel your rage into the most beautiful showcase of your entire career: Voss.

Combining incredible showpieces, virtuoso staging, and – the biggest middle finger of all – beautifully wearable designs, Voss was McQueen at the top of his game, all killer no filler. I hope this article does it justice. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Alexander McQueen clamshell dress (51611p).jpg - CC-BY-SA 4.0
• File:McQueen, Musée des beaux-arts - 38 (Voss blouse).jpg - CC-BY-SA 4.0
• File:Alexander McQueen clamshell dress (51590).jpg - CC-BY-SA 4.0
• File:Publicité pour Elizabeth Arden 4 by Adolf de Meyer.jpg, PD, including a PD-US tag
• Two good fair-use images with appropriate rationale
• File:McQueen, Musée des beaux-arts - 15 (cropped to jacket).jpg CC-BY-SA 4.0
• File:Platos Atlantis at Savage Beauty.jpg - CC-BY 2.0
• File:ErinOConnor (cropped).jpg GNU FDL / CC-BY-SA 3.0

Everything looks good to me. :) Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

SC

• "beaches on the coast of Norfolk in London": there's quite a gap between London and the beaches of Norfolk – two whole counties worth England lie between them!
• "; some four thousand from the beach alone." It should only be a grammatical full sentence before or after a semi colon, and this isn't one
  • Ooohhh this was a consequence of bad clause swapping. I've revised the whole sentence now to account for the semicolon issue.
• "three seasons prior": "three seasons before" sounds a bit more natural
  • Done

Down to "Models and styling", more later. – SchroCat (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Finishing off:

• "the classic Johannes Vermeer": just "the Johannes Vermeer" would do ("classic" is a bit too peacock-y in this context)
  • Trimmed
• "The look was inspired by The Birds": as you've already mentioned that one of his collections and the film are called this, you may want to clarify which one here
  • Revised
• "Many analysis commented" -> "Many analyses commented"
  • Changed to academics, which is what I think I meant in the first place
• "becoming-indiscernible": is the hyphen there in the original? I'm not sure what it's doing there
  • Oh, it sure is. The whole article is littered with "becoming-this", "becoming-that". Trying to unpack it any further is, uh, challenging.
    • 'becoming-challenging' or just challenging? ;) SchroCat (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
      • Aaaaa wish I'd thought of that
• "of 'becoming' something else'," Is that ' after "else" doing anything or is it a rogue one?
  • Rogue
• "models acting psychotic" -> "models acting psychotically"
  • Done

That's my lot – I hope they're of help. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support. All good from me. - SchroCat (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Source review

I'll pick up the sources once I'm done with the prose. - SchroCat (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Spot checks not done. Please ping if needed and I'll pick up again.
• Formatting is mostly OK. The only quibbles are around the capitalisation in one or two places:
  • FN1: "Ready to Wear" should be lower case as it's not a formal noun
  • FN44: "spring/summer" should be capitalised (you capitalise the seasons elsewhere)
  • FN72: "Fashion" should be lower case
    • Fixed the other two, but "Radical Fashion" is the name of an exhibition so should be capitalised. I've italicised it though.
      • That's fine then - SchroCat (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Coverage seems spot on. I've run some additional searches and can't see anything that has been missed out or that is stronger than the extant refs.

Nothing more to add. – SchroCat (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for your comments, Schro, I've made fixes. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

David Fuchs

Forthcoming. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• General/Prose:
  • Just a general orientation thing for the lead for newbies, starting off with "Voss is the seventeenth collection by British fashion designer Alexander McQueen" seems a little less clear than saying Voss is the seventeenth fashion collection by British designer Alexander McQueen, given that it might not be entirely clear what a collection is.
    • Mmm...I think this is a fairly common term, and if it isn't, it's discernible from context. I feel it's analogous to using "album" in articles about music, which isn't spelled out as music album, even though it could conceivably mean photo album.
  • Overall I think the prose is solid, engaging, and fairly clear for a fashion novice to follow.
    • "common design flourishes included Orientalist flourishes" feels unnecessarily repetitious.
      • This was an oversight, I've fixed it
  • Probably one of the only times I'll say this, as a rando who knows really nothing about fashion, but I think the "background" section might be a little too thorough? A lot of it goes beyond the scope of this collection and feels like career details that are extraneous or don't make sense front-loaded versus placed somewhere else with greater context (for example, the details about being intended to be a critique on fashion and the previous/later shows that followed that doesn't feel like background so much as stuff that would belong in the analysis section once you've actually discussed the looks.) Others I think would make more sense somewhere else as well when you reach the point where that background is germane, rather than here where it's disconnected from why that connects to this fashion show (his role at Givenchy doesn't seem relevant at all except for a single mention in the contemporary reception section, where it's already adequately contextualized, for example.)
    • This section is pretty standard for McQueen FAs in terms of placement and length. I have trimmed as much wording as possible, but any more starts to feel like I'll be removing context. Even the Givenchy mention in para 1 is hard to remove, because it's immediately relevant in para 3. I don't think it would make sense to move this stuff to the analysis section, because so much of it is directly relevant to why he made this collection the way it was
  • "The press preyed on his insecurities about weight and looks" so they preyed on his insecurities about his weight and looks, right? Might want to make that clear.
    • Sure
  • "to watch themselves uncomfortably in the mirror" (lead) / "which forced the audience to watch themselves uncomfortably in the mirror" (body) feel like a tad buying in too much to McQueen's POV? The National Post source referenced later at least gives a specific but I don't think "the audience" as a whole can be said to watch uncomfortably.
    • It reflects what's said about the audience's reaction in significant refs. To quote a few others - Thomas: "feeling distinctly uncomfortable" (p. 253); Wilson: "deeply uncomfortable moment" (p. 313); Bethune: "the mood was tense" (p. 312). I could add those in and refbundle it if that helps.
      • I would refbundle just because it's a statement that needs strong evidence. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  • The pull quotes feel a little non-neutral and excessively privileging the designer; I also think a lot of what's in them feels like it belongs in a development section, since while there's a little in the background section and some of the production/staging section, there's not really a bit talking specifically about Voss and McQueen's intent.
    • I've used pull quotes in other McQueen FAs to break things up a bit without an issue. In what way do you find them non neutral? Doesn't it make sense to note the designer's thoughts on his own work?
      • I think my main issue is that set aside it's not important enough to be part of the main prose, so it comes across as decoration or extraneous. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
    • In terms of the location, I think they make sense where they are. The blurb under Staging directly refers to the mirror trick, while the quote about the razor clam dress doesn't make sense unless you know the model trashed it on the runway, so I placed it there.
  • The last part of the runway show section duplicates a lot of the following finale section, and it's weird that we get for example Olley name-dropped before she is actually introduced in the text, or that it explains the whole setup before backtracking. I guess this ties into my issue above with how production information and third-party interpretation are scattered throughout.
    • This issue is partly as a result of the finale being the overwhelming focus of a lot of coverage. Originally it was spread out through the article, but it felt disorganized, so I compiled it all into one section. (This is what it looked like farther back in the history, for example). Because of how much content there is about it, I considered splitting the finale into its own article – it worked well at Widows of Culloden / Illusion of Kate Moss – but people I informally polled said not to in this case because the finale is so tied to the theme. If you think it might make things cleaner though, it's not a ton of work to split it out.
      • Okay, actually, disregard - Ajpolino made a suggestion with regards to placement for these paragraphs, and I think I like it. Notably, the first two and the image are now a subsection under Concept and collection, and the remainder is now a Finale subsection under Runway show. I think that's better.
  • Likewise there's similar repetition of anecdotes in the runway show section and the aftermath (such as O'Connor cutting herself and Elson tripping.) I'm not sure how much it makes sense to have this much detail on the show split off from the actual coverage of the show much earlier.
    • These I think make sense to split. The cutting of the hands directly leads to McQueen using the blood as stage makeup for O'Connor's next look, so I don't want to remove it from the runway show portion. However, I've trimmed down O'Connor's recollections and moved some of the bits from the show down to the aftermath. How does it feel now?
  • I think the reception section makes a bit too much use of quotes versus just summarizing critical opinions.
  • The final paragraph of the museum appearances covers one of the halter top looks and then more about the razor clam dress, which are details that feel like they would make more sense included together; since it seems like it's the main attraction, it might make more sense to highlight that dress' showings, and then the other appearances of other parts of the show in exhibitions?
    • I think it makes more sense to keep them split up by exhibition, chronologically. I have added dates to make that organization more clear though. I've also reversed the order of Ownership and Museum appearances and moved some of the info about the restoration of the clam dress into the museum section.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

PMC ? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry Gog, this one slipped away from me, I will finish responding shortly. David Fuchs, could you take a look at my thoughts specifically about the finale and a possible split before I start making more changes? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Ajpolino

Will get to this in the next few days! Ping me if I fall behind. Ajpolino (talk) 03:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Ajpolino, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the nudge, will post feedback by tomorrow evening at the latest. Ajpolino (talk) 19:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The article is a fun read, clear even to someone totally ignorant of the topic (me). My only note is that at times the article drags a bit, particularly at moments where the text feels out of place or repetitious. Highlighting the ones that caught my brain below. By no means do these all need to be actioned:

• Concept and collection - "Some four thousand shells... Billingsgate Fish Market in London." would this very practical fact be more at home in the subsection below?
  • If you're meaning the "Showpiece ensembles" section, I'm not sure it fits better there. Each paragraph there is for an individual dress, and the four thousand shells were for the collection overall (multiple dresses, accessories, etc), so there's not really a place to put it.
• Concept and collection#Showpiece ensembles - Should Koda's analysis move down to the Analysis section?
  • Moved down
• Concept and collection#Showpiece ensembles - "The Icelandic singer Björk, wore the dress once, in concert." seems somewhat out of place here.
  • I'm not sure where else to place it - it doesn't seem to fit any of the existing sections in Aftermath/Legacy, and it seems odd to have a single sentence subsection. Open to thoughts though. Moved it down to analysis.
• Finale - "Her diary describes... up to the show." neat that she shared her diary entries with MOMA for us all to see, though I'm not sure the way this sentence is currently phrased adds to my understanding of the finale (since the surrounding material implies her mix of interest and apprehension).
  • Hmm. Okay, yeah. Trimmed.
• Reception - Echoing David Fuchs' comment above "I think the reception section makes a bit too much use of quotes versus just summarizing critical opinions". The structure of [Person X] said [thing] starts to wear after a while. Mixing in a bit more summary would lighten the load.
• Analysis - Ditto the above. Just a little judicious trimming or summarizing could improve the flow here.
  • Many of these academic analyses are incredibly dense and difficult to summarize without completely losing the meaning, but I'll give it a go. I cut down the first paragraph quite a bit and moved the Bjork sentence here as a bonus. Will try to do some more.
• Analysis#Materials and styles - I'm not sure the Skogh analysis is doing anything for me.
  • It's not the most sparkling, and I wish she went into more detail, but IMO the relation to cabinets of curiosity is of interest
• Glancing up at your response to David Fuchs above. I was not bothered by the Finale section, and don't think it should be split out to its own article. But I suppose the first two paragraphs of the Finale section might be more at home as a subsection to Concept and collection, while the third paragraph would fit with "Catwalk presentation"
  • Hmm. Okay. Yes. I think this is the fix. I didn't like it in "Production details", but as a subsection under "Concept", it fits nicely and ties into the themes of the clothing - and it gets the photo up there earlier. I've moved the last paragraph back up into the Runway show section and made "finale" a mini-section there.
• Ownership and Museum appearances - After the ownership section, I assumed the other showpieces were lost to time/private collections. But three sentences later a large number of items are at the Met and the V&A. Do we know anything about the ownership of these other items? Do they stay with the designer('s estate) and are lent to these museums?
  • I've revised this section and the ordering, adding a paragraph about the McQueen brand's ownership of some items.

Glad to have read another entry in your McQueen series! Looking forward to the next one. Ajpolino (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

PMC ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry Gog, I'd been hoping David would reply on the matter of organization before I made changes elsewhere that I might wind up undoing, but rather than leave a ping hanging completely, I've started on these. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

And have also, as noted, fixed my main organization issue (hopefully). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Pulgasari

Nominator(s): Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 01:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

This article is about Pulgasari, an absurd 1985 North Korean/Japanese/Chinese monster movie by a kidnapped South Korean filmmaker. It's been 39 years since its production, and the film has become a cult classic worldwide. I have done some major reworking of this page over the last few months, and so far it has since been listed as a good article and received a copyedit. This is my third time nominating an article for FA. Thanks in advance to anyone who offers any feedback. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 01:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Support

Emerging from the void to offer mt support. Looking over the article, I don't see any issues with sources or prose. The only issue would be making sure the image licenses are fully clarified as free to use and (or) have the right attributions to satisfy the WP:NFCC#8. Other than that, well done. Paleface Jack (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Pulgasari_poster_japan.jpg has a dead source link and incomplete FUR

• File:19660529申相玉.jpg has a dead source link and is missing info on first publication

• File:Pulgasary.png has an incomplete FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe I've fixed the link and FUR problems on File:Pulgasari_poster_japan.jpg and File:Pulgasary.png but there's not much I can do for File:19660529申相玉.jpg, as that one's source appears inaccessible, not dead. Could remove that and Kim's photo and replace them with a non-free one of Shin and Kim together. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I've just changed File:19660529申相玉.jpg to the Non-free use file File:Shin, Kim Il Sung, and Choi.png from the year of the film's production. I will remove it if its use is deemed unacceptable by anyone. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

See my comment about this file's non-free use at User talk:Eiga-Kevin2#File:Shin, Kim Il Sung, and Choi.png for more details, but I don't think this non-free use can be justified per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: @Marchjuly: My apologies for changing File:19660529申相玉.jpg to a non-free use file. I believe I have now done the right thing by replacing it with a fairly rare photo of Shin that is in the public domain in the United States and South Korea. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 07:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria, how is this now? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Shin_Sang-ok_(1964).png: when specifically did this become PD in South Korea? Did its publication include a copyright notice? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

It's publication did not include a copyright notice. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Is it known when it became PD in South Korea? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything else about the image, no republishing no nothing anywhere else. It's seemingly PD in the US regardless because it was published without copyright notice and outside the US. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 06:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Why would that make it PD in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Per the PD template: since it was first published outside the U.S. & "before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice or before 1964 without copyright renewal or before the source country established copyright relations with the United States." Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 07:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

That template requires that all three points be met, including the last: "it was in the public domain in its home country (South Korea) on the URAA date (1 January 1996)". Nikkimaria (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

seefooddiet - support

• For romanizing South Korean author names in references, are you following the procedure in WP:KOREANNAME? Some of the romanizations are non-standard; e.g. "Kim, Joo-won" should be "Kim, Ju-won" per KOREANNAME. seefooddiet (talk) 09:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't look at KOREANNAME, I just went by consulted my Korean friend about the English spelling of them a few times and went by Google Translate elsewhere. I'll do my best to re-write the names based on WP:NCKOREAN henceforth but might need more assistance. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

You can try this automatic converter [18] to get the Revised Romanization spellings. The converter is sometimes incorrect though; if you give it your best effort I can go through later and correct mistakes seefooddiet (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Also note that Google Translate doesn't produce the romanizations we prefer for Korean; see MOS:KO-ROMAN, second row of the table seefooddiet (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

My apologies for not replying sooner, I've been quite busy lately. I'll fix any romanizations that are incorrect over the next few days. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 07:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I've fixed all of the romanizations now as far as I can tell. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 00:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Some possible mistakes in ref romanizations. What would make these not mistakes is if you've seen these specific people using this spelling for their surnames.

• "Moon" -> "Mun" for "Moon, Seok"
• "Noh" -> "No" for "Noh, Sun-dong"
• "Choi" -> "Choe" for "Choi, Yeong-chang"
• For the Kim, Jung-ki ref I'm not seeing the author's name given on the article website. Is his name spelled 김중키 or 김중기? I suspect it's the latter; former is uncommon. If so, it should be "Kim Jung-gi".

Other comment:

• Cast and production section also need to be romanized per WP:KOREANNAME. These spelling systems will unfortunately vary by person, depending on who is North Korean and who is South Korean. North Koreans use McCune–Reischauer, South Koreans Revised Romanization. If you don't know a person's nationality, I think assuming North Korean by default is fine.

seefooddiet (talk) 01:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Changed "Moon", "Noh", and "Choi" per your suggestions. Kim Jung-ki's name is spelled 金重基 in the source and I've found it hard to directly translate. And for the staff and cast, I've already done some research on most of them and it seems Shin is the only one whose nationality is confirmed to be South Korean (IMDb does claim the film's star, Chang Son-hui, was born in South Korea but I can't find their source for that and a source in this article indicates otherwise). So probably keeping their names as McCune–Reischauer translations would be fine I presume. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

[19] 基 -> "gi". Unfortunately "重" can be read either 중 (jung) or 동 (dong). I can't find for certain what his name is through googling, but I suspect it is "Jung-gi". Think it's minimally harmful to put that down.

The MR for the cast and production crew are incorrect; I'll fix them. I'll just leave Shin Sang-ok's name as it is. seefooddiet (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Gave it a pass; you'll need to verify that the new spellings are consistent throughout the article although I gave it a solid try.

Notes:

• I try to avoid putting Korean text glosses in infoboxes; some of the names in there are not in the body of the article and effectively unsourced I think. Once you also put them in the body, you should also move the glosses to the body too.
• It's possible that 유경애 (Yu Kyŏngae)'s surname should be changed. It's reasonably common for the surname 柳 to be written 류 (ryu) in North Korea and 유 (yu) in South Korea due to dialect (similar to how 李 is 리 (ri) in North Korea and 이 (i) in South Korea), although this is not universal practice. Some South Koreans use Ryu and probably vice versa. South Korean sources sometimes South Koreanize these surnames by default, regardless of the personal preference of the person, although they did give "리" consistently. Tl;dr to be extra correct this person's name could be researched; probably a North Korean poster with Korean writing would work.

seefooddiet (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

These translations seem mostly fine but I think Chŏng Kŏnjo should be changed back to Chong Gon-jo since that's what Satsuma and Western sources call him. Also, maybe we could hide the translations within the article's source (using the <!-- --> thing) and use those translations featured on the English-langauge poster instead? Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 01:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for long answer, romanizing Korean is complicated.

• Yes you can change back "Chong Gon-jo" if you have know of wide attestation to that spelling, per step #1 of WP:KOREANNAME.
• For your second use of "translations", do you mean the orig Hangul text? See here for an explanation of why we would want to display Hangul. Also few non-Wikipedians know about invisible comments (<!-- -->), which is why we generally display Korean text in article.
• It's nice that we have an English-language poster, but some complications. Korean romanization is such a mess that a single attestation is often not enough to be confident in what spelling to use. E.g. on that poster it says "Pulgasary" on top; do we use that spelling? Instead of using the ad-hoc romanizations on the poster and risking confusion, it's often safer to default to a systematic romanization. This is what the community has settled on so far.
• The above confusion is why we have the steps laid out in WP:KOREANNAME. Chong Gon-jo meets step #1, I'm not sure if the poster is sufficient evidence of step #2; it may be, but often enough romanizations for people names differ by appearance or even across time so it's hard to be sure.

seefooddiet (talk) 02:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Alright understood;

• I've changed the co-director's name back to Chong Gon-jo and added sources for this.
• Yes I meant the Hangul text. I think it's fine to have them on display, and was mostly asking because I'm just not a fan of them being in the infobox if the translations are mentioned elsewhere on the article.
• As for the poster text, it coincides with how some older sources give the film the English title of "Pulgasary" so I'm thinking of mentioning that in the note for the film's title. And I don't think the name spellings on the poster apply with step #2 of WP:KOREANNAME after checking.

Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 03:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good, thank you for working with me! Romanization of Korean is unfortunately complicated. If you ever run into a similar situation with Korean feel free to poke me.

On another note, I think the footnotes subsection and the citations subsection should possibly be merged; they're functionally the same thing. seefooddiet (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Will notify you if I experience any further problems romanizing Korean. And I've considered merging those sections btw, but the GA reviewer and a friend of mine seemed to like how the References section is formated (also it's something pages like Mission: Impossible – Fallout feature). Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 07:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Forgot to say—I support this article's FA nom. seefooddiet (talk) 06:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments by ZKang123

If I'm correct, if this passes FAC, this might be one of the first North Korea-focussed article (outside of those related to the Korean War) to be given the bronze star. Let me have a look.

Lead:

• Shin and his wife had remained in North Korea since 1978, when their kidnapping was initiated by Kim Jong Il, the country's heir apparent. – This wording is a bit odd, probably especially the use of "remained" as though the couple voluntarily stayed in North Korea. I might reword as: Shin and his wife were in captivity in North Korea since their kidnapping by Kim Jong Il in 1978. or another wording, if you prefer. Also wikilink their abduction.
• Pulgasari was submitted in February 1985 – submitted to who and what for? Did Shin propose the film and submit it to Kim for approval? Also reading later, I would add "The pitch for Pulgasari was submitted..."
• Its Japanese critical reception was positive... – Critical reception in Japan was positive...

I don't as much comments for the plot and cast list.

Production:

• A collection of around 15,000[11][32] to 20,000[7][34] titles was reported to be in Kim's possession. New releases from around the globe were typically added to his collection shortly after opening in theaters. – Kim was reported to have a collection of 15,000 to 20,000 titles of Shin's films. Every new release from around the globe were typically added to his collection shortly after their opening in theaters.
• the film industry there – the country's film industry
• while a larger studio was under construction for the film. – while a larger studio was constructed for the film.
• The Japanese crew developed the Pulgasari suit at Toho from April 28 to late May. Nobuyuki Yasumaru was in charge of modeling it – The Japanese crew developed the Pulgasari suit at Toho from April 28 to late May, with Nobuyuki Yasumaru in charge of modeling it
• loved the reboot so much he sought – loved the reboot so much that he sought
• Shin recalled that Kim had suggested making the monster resemble a cow. – Shin recalled Kim’s suggestion to design the monster resembling a cow.
• For the sentence Pulgasari was ultimately set in Goryeo but..., I think it's a bit too long and could be split such that ...was based on the Forbidden City complex in Beijing. The special effects crew...
• which covered approximately 20,000 pyeong – I think a conversion to SI units might be in order here. Especially for other mentions of pyeong.
• Satsuma said about the destruction of the palace in the Pulgasari suit for the film, he was "impressed that the Chinese government could allow such an ambitious filming, even if it was just a movie". – Satsuma mentioned he was "impressed that the Chinese government could allow such an ambitious filming, even if it was just a movie" when talking about the destruction of the palace in the Pulgasari suit for the film.

Release:

• According to many retrospective sources, the film was, however, banned both in North Korea and overseas in the wake of Shin and Choi escaping North Korean supervisors in Vienna on March 12 and subsequently fleeing to the United States. – According to many retrospective sources, the film was, however, banned both in North Korea and overseas when Shin and Choi escaped their North Korean supervisors in Vienna on March 12 and subsequently fled to the United States.
• On January 21, 1995, Twin released Pulgasari on VHS in Japan – I was initially confused what is "Twin". Might clarify that.
• but were all turned down. – but all were turned down
• due to a cultural exchange agreement for the June 15th North–South Joint Declaration – Shouldn't it be "in the June 15th..." or "as part of the..."
• Johannes Schönherr said contemporaneous publications cited many reasons – "...said... cited..." I might just say Johannes Schönherr cited many reasons or reword in another manner like Johannes Schönherr cited reasonings by contemporaneous publications on its failure in South Korea.

Reception:

• South Korean reviewers also criticized the acting. – can further elaborate in what way from the source?
• Shin rejected interpretations the film may have conveyed a message about North Korea's contemporaneous class conflict. – Shin rejected interpretations about the film's messages on North Korea's contemporaneous class conflict.

That's all I have. Great work for this article so far.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I've just revised everything here based on your suggestions, clarified that Kim's film collection was not just of Shin's movies, and specified what kind of company Twin is. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Happy to support. Additionally, I found another review by a freelance journalist on the film. --ZKang123 (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@ZKang123: Thanks! I've recently added that content from that review btw Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 03:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Source review and spotcheck

Reviewing this version. What makes "レイジング・サンダー・ホームページ""大怪獣プルガサリ", "북한영화를 아십니까", アジア映画にみる日本", Incheon Ilbo, II Maeil Shinmun, www.fromthefrontrow.net and vantagepointinterviews.com a reliable source? The first three non-English sources also need some extra information on who is the publisher etc. Also, not necessarily an issue, but some citations are throwing incorrect "sfn error: no target: " errors. Spot-check:

• 4 This needs a Japanese reader.
• 6 Why does our article say republished?
• 10 This needs a Japanese reader.
• 12 Doesn't have that much to say about politics.
• 17 "Satsuma later said he adored Pulgasari and that he fondly remembered performing in it" doesn't show here. Everything else OK, but I note this source says that the film premiered in Osaka and Tokyo, not just Tokyo
• 22 OK
• 23 OK
• 26 This needs a Japanese reader who has access to the book.
• 30 Assuming that Google Translate is translating this correctly: Doesn't mention Raging Thunder or the under-1000?
• 39 Doesn't say that Pulgasari was the seventh.
• 40 OK
• 63 This one uses a different page number format than the other sources. OK assuming that Google Translate isn't making stuff up.
• 65 OK
• 67 OK
• 81 OK - I figure our article saying "controversial ideology" is a reasonable reading.
• 86 This needs a Japanese reader who has access to the book.
• 87 OK
• 90 OK I guess.
• 94 OK
• 95 OK

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorting out most of these now. The main issue is most of the Japanese publications are out of print. That's why I decided to translate their contents from Google Books. I've been learning Japanese for a while now and tried my best to make these things as accurate as I could. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

For starters, "レイジング・サンダー・ホームページ" is Raging Thunder's official website; "大怪獣プルガサリ" is the PDF of the film's 1995 flyer available on the Japanese archival website for movie flyers; "북한영화를 아십니까" is an article from the magazine Cine21 (which is generally conisdered reliable); アジア映画にみる日本" is a book by Takashi Monma (who's a critic and professor at Meiji Gakuin University); many articles also use Incheon Ilbo and Maeil Shinmun as sources because these are major newspapers in South Korea; fromthefrontrow.net is by a freelance journalist and was suggested by @ZKang123: in their review here; and vantagepointinterviews.com is a nonprofit site by very prolific interviewer Brett Homenick. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I've also just added publisher info for the first few non-English sources. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Eiga-Kevin2, is this ready for Jo-Jo to relook at? If it is, could you ping them. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Yup. @Jo-Jo Eumerus please take a look over the references again and my remarks. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Corleck Head

Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

A haunting three-faced Celtic stone head dated to the 1st century AD, ie only a few hundred-odd years before written Irish history, yet it seems endlessly ancient and enigmatic. The article has received a number of skilled copyedits (by John especially), became a GA during the summer (after a review by Hog Farm) and recently went through an exhaustive and very rewarding peer review (mainly UndercoverClassicist). Ceoil (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

UC

Good to see this here: will review once a few others have been past, as I've already said my piece on the current version at PR. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

As promised -- I hope this lot is useful. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Its use probably continued through the early Christian period into early modern celebrations of the Lughnasadh, a Gaelic pagan harvest festival.: We usually reckon "Early Modern" to be c. 1485 – c. 1688 or so in British history. Do I read rightly that it was used during that time period? Similarly, with "pagan": unless we're saying that a non-Christian community existed at that time, we need to say something more mealy-mouthed like "a harvest festival originally of pre-Christian origin" ("pagan" is something of a dirty word in Late Antique scholarship, since it would have meant nothing to the people whom it described, and lumps together a hugely heterogeneous religious world).

  Reworded as a "a pre-Christian harvest festival that continued into the modern period". In this instance pre-cristian means mythological kings or first peoples from c 1447—1407 BC. Ceoil (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• Historians assume they were hidden during the Early Middle Ages: this doesn't seem to fit with the dates established by the previous comment.

Addressed. Ceoil (talk) 00:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Almost a century later, it came to national attention in 1937 : do we need the almost a century later? Likewise, where it is usually on display: is that going to be a surprise to many readers?

  Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• a tricephalic skull cut off before the neck, with three faces.: not sure this is quite right. Tricephalic, strictly, means having three heads, and I don't think there's any indication that this skull would originally have had two siblings. If we simply mean "three-faced", it's tautological, as we say that a bit later.

  Done. Ceoil (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• a tricephalic skull cut off before the neck ... The head cuts off just below the chin: seems a bit repetitious (this is all within three lines on my screen).

Trimmed. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• They are similar but not identical in form and their enigmatic, complex expressions: consider cutting but not identical, which is implied (outside mathematics) by similar.

  Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• All of the embossed eyes are wide and round yet closely-set and seem to stare at the viewer: this isn't quite grammatical. Easy fix first: the hyphen in closely-set needs to go (MOS:HYPHEN): we only hyphenate compounds when they're used in apposition with a noun (his close-set eyes), and the Wikipedia MoS doesn't hyphenate those with -ly verbs in any case. We also have a bit of a garden-path sentence here. Suggest either bracketing (yet closely set) or, probably better, taking a breath: yet closely-set, and they seem to stare at the viewer.

  Done as per your suggestion Ceoil (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Archaeologists disagree on whether it: restate the subject in a new paragraph.

  Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• The hole under its base suggests it may have been intended to be placed on top of a pedestal, likely on a tenon (a joint connecting two pieces of material): the "likely" is a bit misleading here, since the two parts are totally linked: if there was no tenon, the hole would have no relevance to whether it would be on top of a pedestal. Suggest something like The hole in its base suggests that it may have been intended to be connected via a tenon joint to the top of a pedestal. I think this would also remove the need for the long gloss on "tenon", which becomes obvious in context.
• Most surviving iconic—that is, representational as opposed to abstract—prehistoric Irish sculptures: assuming that the date up to 100 CE is correct, would that be considered "prehistoric" in Ireland? It certainly wouldn't in Great Britain. Struck per Sawyer777 below, though perhaps it's worth a note to clarify that chronological boundary, as it goes so much later than it does in most other areas of European history? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Other tricephalic and bicephalic idols include the "Lustymore" figure in Caldragh Cemetery: is it still there?

  Yes, it originates from the nearby Lustymore Island, but was moved.[20] Ceoil (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• In addition, the late-19th-century tendency to associate objects with a mythical or a late-19th-century Celtic Revival viewpoint: I'm not totally sure what this means, if I'm honest.

  lol. Removed. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• The archaeological evidence indicates that Corleck Hill ... was once known as "the pulse of Ireland": this surely comes from literary evidence rather than archaeological?

  Yes and changed. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• "drawn away ... [revealing] a cruciform shaped chamber ... the stones from the mound were used to build a dwelling house nearby, known locally as Corleck Ghost House.": this is quite a long quotation. Any reason not to paraphrase it? If nothing else, we could thereby remove the tautology of cruciform shaped (which should be hyphenated anyway).

Yikes; paraphrased. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• a small contemporary spherical stone head from the nearby townlands of Corravilla, and the Corraghy Heads, also in the National Museum of Ireland.: given that the elements in this list are quite lengthy, a serial comma as indicated would be helpful. As we've already mentioned the Corraghy Heads, perhaps better not to gloss/introduce them here.

  Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• The number 'three' seems: from what I can see on Google Books, the overwhelming form is simply the number three seems.

  Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Triple-"mother-goddesses" : I don't think we want the first hyphen here, and probably not the second either. Hyphenating into quote marks is a bit of an odd look.

  Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Genii Cuucullati: This is Latin, so should be in a lang template. Can we translate it too?

  Its in Gaulish derived from Latin (maybe from 'genii loci but that's outside scope. Not sure we have a template for Gauilsh. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Is it not the other way around -- a Latin term that's got a Gaulish one hammered into it? Genii is a pretty distinctively/uniquely Latin word, and the morphology/inflection of Cuucullati (specifically, the -ati, "having-been-verbed" suffix) is definitely Latinate rather than Celtic. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  The Hooded Spirits article says "The name CucuIlātus is a derivative of Gaulish cucullos, meaning 'hood' (cf. bardo-cucullus 'bard's hood'), whose etymology remains uncertain. Cucullos is the source of Latin cucullus and Old French cogole (via the Latin feminine form cuculla; cf. modern cagoule). The Old Irish cochaIl ('monk's hood'), Cornish cugol, Breton cougoul, and Welsh kwcwIl are loanwords from Latin."

  I don't want to go too deep into this here, so have simplified the image caption as Early 3rd century AD depiction of the Hooded Spirits. Housesteads Roman Fort, Northumberland, England. Ceoil (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Works well. Incidentally, I read that as saying it's a Latin derivative, just like chivalrous is a derivative of the French chevalier, but is an English word rather than a French one. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• as with the Boa Island figures: we haven't actually introduced these. Are they the same as (or a superset of) the Lustymore figure mentioned further up?

  Have clarified and corrected this.... two figure: the Dreenan Figure (also known as the Janus Stone) and the slightly less interesting Lustymore Man. Ceoil (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• From surviving artefacts, it can be assumed that both multi-headed (as with the Boa Island figures and the Corraghy Heads) or multi-faced idols were a common part of their iconography and represented all-knowing and all-seeing gods, symbolising the unity of the past, present and future, or in cosmological terms, the upper-world, the underworld and the middle-world.: this may not be your problem, per se, but there are two claims here, and one is much easier to wear than the other. I can accept "these objects were common" as an inference from "we find loads of these things", but I need a bit more convincing as to how we can tell anything about omniscient gods or a tripartite view of the cosmos.

  Who knows really, but they are in probability, and the sources go along that life. Have added the word "assumed". Ceoil (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'm still not sure we can join these ideas in the way we have, though I don't dispute that most scholars believe these things about Celtic religion. I've made a small edit here (including a grammar CE) which I think fixes the problem and I hope will be uncontroversial: it now reads From surviving artefacts, it can be assumed that both multi-headed (as with the "Dreenan" figure and the Corraghy Heads) or multi-faced idols were a common part of their iconography; they are assumed to have represented all-knowing and all-seeing gods, symbolising the unity of the past, present and future. Please do revert if that misses the point. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• The hole at the Corleck Head's base indicates that it was periodically attached to a larger structure: isn't this what we said earlier about a tenon, only now we seem to have promoted it to a certainty from being a conjecture the last time around?

  Clarified. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Three-headed altar thought to depict the god Lugus, found Reims, France in 1852: in Reims, surely? Comma after France per MOS:GEOCOMMA.

  Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Early 3rd century AD depiction of the Genii Cucullati.: needs an italicising lang template. This caption itself needs a full stop at the end, as it has one in the middle. The Boa Island one, however, needs its full stop removed.

  Done. Ceoil (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• The modern consensus, as articulated by Ross: I don't think we can really hold up a 60-year-old source as "the modern consensus". If someone else has endorsed Ross as still representing the communis opinio, fine, but we need to cite them as well.

  Source from 2013 added, but Ross' view is generally accepted. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Classical Greek and Roman sources mention that Celtic peoples practised headhunting and used the severed heads of their enemies as war trophies: I mean, yes, but they have all sorts of reasons for doing so -- the same sources mention that the Nile once flowed from west to east and that the Ethiopians value iron above gold. I think we need to be a bit more sophisticated here: we can still use this information, but we need to be alert to the sort of evidence we're actually dealing with, and the idea that this might not be a face-value factual observation.

• Yes, and this is exactly why have started Celtic stone idols - heavy, heavy lifting for an article on a single object. Will update shortly on progress. Ceoil (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• that is Celts living in Great Britain and Ireland: comma after is.

  Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Medieval Irish legends tell of severed heads coming back to life when they are placed on standing stones or pillars: unless the legends say that all heads do this, I would cut they are to make clear that we mean specific heads.

  Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• While the Roman and Insular accounts: what accounts are these? We haven't talked about Roman accounts yet (I assume you mean Caesar/Tacitus here?), and the only Insular narratives we've mentioned are mythical traditions, which are generally too fluid for the label "accounts".

Getting to this. The source mentions Livy Book X, 26, 11. Ceoil (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

obviously this isn't my FAC, but re assuming that the date up to 100 CE is correct, would that be considered "prehistoric" in Ireland? It certainly wouldn't in Great Britain. - yes, the prehistoric period in Ireland is typically considered to last until the arrival of Christianity, and therefore literacy, in the 4th-5th centuries. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 17:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah -- very helpful, thank you. I've struck and amended accordingly. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi UC, excellent points, have them sized up re-sources but will take about a week to address all. The main problem is that there is no parent article for the group (Celtic stone heads), so the article is doing a lot of heavy lifting re context. Your comments are all on point, bear with me. Ceoil (talk) 00:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ceoil, having a bit of free time I was about to review this. But I am wary of doing so until the changes you have in hand are complete. Once these are complete, if you ping me I'll try to find the time to give it a once over. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Gog, that would be great. I'm going to spin out some the article to a parent Celtic stone idols page, which will take some of the pressure off this article, which as I noted above and Jens below at times gets very general. It will reduce the article size by about 350 words, but make it more focused and tighter. Yes will ping when done. Ceoil (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

As an update, have created Celtic stone idols, and trimmed this article, will tonight be asking for UC and Gog to revisit once the full merge is complete. Ceoil (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ceoil: Did you want me to take another look? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

In cased missed....yes I do! Ceoil (talk) 14:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ceoil: Now (eventually!) done: below. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!!!! Some of these are from the two spin out articles...will be working through tonight :) Ceoil (talk) 10:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Second read

• In the lead, we have The three faces seem to depict an all-knowing, all-seeing god representing the unity of the past, present and future.: this is now rather stronger than we have in the body, where it's a general statement (and an assumption) about the artefact class as a whole The types are assumed to have represented all-knowing and all-seeing gods, symbolising the unity of the past, present and future.

  Have expanded on this with info from the Hill article. Ceoil (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• the Lughnasadh, a pre-Christian harvest festival that in Corleck continued into the modern period: I don't see this in the body.

• The body reads " From the early Christian period, it became a major site for the Lughnasadh, an ancient harvest festival celebrating the Celtic god Lugh, a warrior king and master craftsman of the Tuatha Dé Danann—one of the foundational Irish tribes in Irish mythology.[a][17] " Ceoil (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Right -- that's compatible with the idea that the festival continued into the modern period, but it doesn't explicitly say it (William the Conqueror ruled England from 1066, but that doesn't mean that he's still in charge). At any rate, I think we need a source somewhere for the fact that the festival continued into the modern period in Corleck (and only in Corleck)? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Have removed the "modern" claim as although true via trad accounts, it's irrelevant for here. I don't dwell on the Lughnasadh aspect too much, but Ross believes that many of these objects were buried / hidden twice; in the early-Christian period for whatever reason, but were found in the early Galeic period and used during the Galeic festivals..often (again) fixed on poles.... To quote Ross "groups of them used to be kept in secret places such as we have seen for the Corleck heads, or buried in some safe sport, often beside a sacred well. They were then uncovered and played their own singular role, for example the Lughnasadh festival, often they must have been set up on some sacred mound. [several examples follow]." If was a gambling man, like later artefacts (ie early medieval Insular brooches, crosiers or chalices, it was buried / hidden again during the Viking or Norman invasions, but no sources that I have seen goe there. Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, she was speaking generally above about various heads (such as ...the Corleck heads...for example the Lughnasadh festival), but many sources are specific about Corleck and the Lughnasadh elsewhere. Ceoil (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• When rediscovered, the sculpture was regarded as an insignificant local curiosity and for decades was placed on a farm gatepost. It has been in the collection of the National Museum of Ireland in Dublin since 1937: I think we need something in the middle here about when and how people came to reconsider it as something worth looking at. The National Museum has plenty of things in its collection that are regarded as nothing special (endless thousands of potsherds, for example).

  The statement is now followed by "Its age and significance was realised in 1937 by the local historian Thomas J. Barron and the director of the National Museum of Ireland Adolf Mahr." Later we have "in a lecture to the Prehistoric Society that year, Mahr described the head as "certainly the most Gaulish looking sculpture of religious character ever found in Ireland".[11] He secured funding to acquire it for the museum". Ceoil (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• The Corleck Head was unearthed around 1855 by the local farmer James Longmore while looking for stones to build a farmhouse that became known colloquially as the "Corleck Ghost House": this reads as if he was intending for the farmhouse to become known as the Ghost House. Suggest "a farmhouse, later known colloquially as...".

  It became known as that due to the head. But reworded. Ceoil (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• On which, do we need the adjective local? Sounds to me like the sort of thing a journalist would put in without really thinking about it.

• ouch :) Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Archaeologists assumed the Corleck and Corraghy Heads once formed elements of a larger shrine: the past tense here implies that they no longer believe this.

• Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• after Longmore had sold the lease: sequence of tenses: cut the had here (and consider a comma before after).

• Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• He secured funding to acquire it for the museum: any idea of how much?

• Not that I've seen. Ceoil (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• How come Sliabh is translated as "Hill" the first time but "Highland" the second? We also have a "Three" in the second translation, but no Trí in the Gaelic.

  Its not worth getting into in this page, but planning an expansion on the Corleck Hill article. "Highland" removed. Ceoil (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  Your explanation may clarify, but if the word "three" isn't actually part of the Gaelic (but perhaps that "the Gods" in this context always means these three gods), we should have it in square brackets: "Hill of the [Three] Gods" -- to be clear that it's an editorial explanation rather than a direct translation. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  It reads as "Corleck Hill's Irish name is Sliabh na Trí nDée (the "Hill of the Three Gods")" Ceoil (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• Not sure about the capital on "Druidic", but will defer if a conscious decision.

• Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• When Barron asked him where the bowl was now, he said they had thrown it back "at once, fearing bad luck to have kept it: we're missing a close quote here. It's a lovely anecdote, though.

• Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• representational as opposed to abstract: consider wikilinks here (e.g. to abstract art).

  Mulled over this again, and going to leave it unlinked. The words iconic and aniconic have changed too many times over the centuries and seem to mean different things to different people. The article on Abstract art starts in 19th century Europe, and Aniconism is a different thing again. Ceoil (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• carved in the round (that is, fully three-dimensional without a side attached to a flat background) in low relief: I'm not sure this technically is low relief, since a relief is, by definition, not carved in the round, but rather projecting from a flat background. I think what you're getting at is that they're free-standing sculptures with relatively shallow carving?

  Agree and now reads..."The majority consist of human heads carved in the round (that is, free-standing without a side attached to a flat background) with relatively shallow carving to depict the faces" Ceoil (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• the Celtic scholar Anne Ross: was she a scholar of Celts, or a scholar who painted herself in woad?

• Now just a "scholar" but its was mostly of Celtic studies.. Ceoil (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• However, this view has been challenged by the writer John Billingsley, who points out that there was a folk art revival of stone head carvings in the early modern period.: what does he write? If it's anything other than academic history/archaeology (in which case, he needs an epithet to match), why are we giving his views equal weight to those of experts?

Billingsle replaced with Ian Armit who is an academic, agrees, and is cited Ceoil (talk) 09:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• The two paragraphs of the "Dating" section seem to say the same thing twice: compare:
  • Dating stone sculpture is difficult as techniques such as radiocarbon dating cannot be used. According to the Celtic scholar Anne Ross, the style of Corleck Head corresponds closely to other to other Iron Age anthropoid representations of the head [suggesting] a date in the late La Tène period". The Corleck Head is thus placed within this period based on stylistic similarities to contemporary works whose dating has been established
  • Although many of the Ulster group of heads are believed to be pre-Christian, others have since been identified as either from the Early Middle Ages or examples of 17th- or 18th-century folk art. Thus modern archaeologists date such objects based on their resemblance to other known examples in the contemporary Northern European context.

  Have rewritten the flow of the section. Ceoil (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• It is a relatively large example of the type, being 33 cm (13 in) high and 22.5 cm (8.9 in) at its widest point: can we give any sense of comparison with other examples to justify "relatively large"?

• The sources just say "large example", presumably because it is taller and wider than a typical human head (c. 22 cm x 18cm), and the others tend to be life-sized or smaller. 21:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Its faces are carved in low relief: I'm less upset with the use of low relief, but I think "shallowly" or similar is better.
• "Embossed" links to Repoussé and chasing, which isn't right: that's specifically a metalworking technique. I must admit I'm not sure what embossed means in the context of stonework: it normally means that the piece has somehow been stamped, but that's clearly not the case here.

  Replaced with "protruding", which yes is more correct. Ceoil (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• In 1972, the archaeologist Etienn Rynne described it: we need to restate the antecedent, as we had all sorts of new subjects in the preceding sentences.

• Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• with the exception of the c. 1000 – c. 400 BC Tandragee Idol from nearby County Armagh and the Ralaghan Idol, c. 1100 – c. 900 BC, found less than five miles east of Corleck Hill.: exceptions; there's two of them.

  Done. Ceoil (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• Archaeological evidence suggests a complex and prosperous Iron Age society that assimilated many external cultural influences: honestly, this seems a bit woolly to me. More precisely, though: in Ireland, or just in Corleck?

• Clarified as Corleck. Ceoil (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Roman-period Celts: Two things: one, did the Roman period happen in Ireland? Two, to what extent was there such thing as a "Celt" in the Roman period (or before, but that's another story)? I would need a lot of convincing that pre-Roman ethnic identities still existed in any meaningful way in (say) C2nd Gaul or Britannia, notwithstanding some rather dodgy early-medievalist attempts to make them return, Lazarus-like, in the C5th.

  Re[phrased as to the Celtics. The phrase Roman period was only to set the period in a useful historical context for lay readers (i.e. the Roman occupation of England and Wales), and it is used by a lot of the sources. Ceoil (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• The hole at the Corleck Head's base indicates that it was periodically attached to a larger structure: we already talked about this a bit further up, but went in a slightly different direction. I'm not honestly seeing that this bit is really about its function, so would advise moving up to the previous section.

  Obviously that it was intended to be periodically mounted is about its function, so have moved claims in the description sect to the function sect. Ceoil (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• I'm still not totally happy with letting the Greeks and Romans (Tacitus, really, I think) get an unquestioned bully pulpit to tell us all about the Celts. There are some major caveats here!

  Finally agree with the specific quibble, and have removed the statement, remembering that that the sources mention actual archaeological fonding of contemporary groups of skeletons without heads. To be added shortly. Ceoil (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

UndercoverClassicist, can you give another look pls. Ceoil (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Third read

• The archaeologist John Waddell believes the majority of the Iron Age stone idols were destroyed and then forgotten.: of which Iron Age stone idols? We have Archaeologists assume the Corleck and Corraghy Heads were intended as elements of a larger shrine a moment earlier, which allows the possibility that there were more idols, but doesn't actually say it. Do we mean "most idols made in Ireland" or "most of the idols that once existed at Corleck alongside these ones"? Either way, we need to be clear that the corpus in question actually existed first.

  Yes thorny. Have removed the claim. Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• The loacal historian and folklorist Thomas J. Barron was the first to recognise the Corleck Head's age and significance: typo. I'd be happier if this was phrased in a more verifiable way: how do we know that nobody walked past it a few years earlier, made the same realisation, and forgot to write it down?

  Would prefer not to go down this pedantic route. The point is its was held in low regard until Barron, who that year contacted the Maher...the NMI director rather than a researcher, who took a large interest in it and the museum has had it on permanent, prominent display since. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  OK, so simply "the historian Thomas J. Barron recognised ...", "brought the head to national attention..." or similar? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Through his initial research and interviews he found that: any reason not to shorten to "Barron found that..."?

  No. Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• The head cuts off just below the chin, giving it the appearance of being disembodied: I must admit that I don't really understand the importance of this. If "disembodied" just means "not attached to a body", isn't that just a restatement of what came before? On the other hand, if we're arguing that it looks disembodied (as in, never or no longer being associated with a body) rather than severed, I think we need better evidence, especially as we row in the other direction later on.

  It was a source trying to be colourful....agree not helpful here, so removed. Ceoil (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• their enigmatic, complex expressions: enigmatic I understand, but what does complex mean here? It usually has some idea of having lots of different interacting parts, but I'm not sure I see that any given facial expression can be more complex than another in that sense. Is this just hendiadys?

  It is totally hendiadys created by me when synthesising sources. But is no longer. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• the faces are clean-shaven and lack ears.: I wonder whether lack facial hair or ears would be better, since clearly nobody has actually gone and shaved the stone.

  Agree. Ceoil (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• a hole under its base: in its base, surely?

  Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• a degree of sophistication of craft absent in the often "vigorous and ... barbaric style": this seems not really to square with the idea we had earlier about it being "the most Gaulish-looking" sculpture of its kind found in Ireland. It sounds as though we're talking about an aesthetic reassessment, from seeing it as pretty rough to seeing it as unusually sophisticated. Is there anything to say about that?

  Not really appart from the various accolades over the last 80 years, though I get what you mean vs. is being said. Think minimalism - an understated level of detail leading to sophisticated and complex (!) facial expressions. I would defiantly appreciate some help with this. Ceoil (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  What I'm getting at here is that the artistic or aesthetic opinion on the head seems to have changed over time, as well as opinions as to its archaeological importance. Early viewers seemed to have viewed it as a bit primitive and "Gaulish-looking" (which surely meant "barbaric" at the time); later viewers seem to be doing the opposite, and describing it as relatively refined and sophisticated by comparison with "barbaric" artworks of the time. Can this change in appreciation be tracked in the sources? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Although most are thought to origionate from between 300 BC and 100 AD: typo.

  Yikes. Ceoil (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• given techniques such as radiocarbon dating cannot be used.: my EngVar really needs given that, but is that the case in Irish English? Can't find a good example of "given [subordinate clause]" (rather than "given [noun phrase]", like "given the stormy weather and lack of food, this expedition is doomed.") on Google Books, but it's also not the easiest thing to search for. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  I would usually say "given..." rather than "given that...", but its not a matter of going to war over. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• According to Ross, similarities include its use of the Celtic ideal of what she describes as "sacred triplism": I think we've got this a little bit backwards. The similarity in question is obvious: it's got a feature or motif repeated in triplicate. The important and contentious bit of the "sacred triplism" is that she posits an explanation for this: that the (obvious) fact that all these representations use sets of three reflects a belief that triple nature is somehow sacred. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  Im sorry but missing the point here, are you suggesting that they were producing secular three-faced heads at cultic sites in the 1st century AD? Ceoil (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'm suggesting that we've phrased it as if it's somehow a matter of opinion that the idol has three heads -- as it's strikingly obvious, that bit doesn't really need an "according to Ross". However, we do need to be explicit that Ross argues from the three-headed nature of the idol towards a broader idea that triple-natured things were inherently sacred to the Celts. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• have very similarly composed faces: what does this mean, exactly? Does it mean "three faces", or faces with similar expressions?

  Clarified as "faces with similar expressions". Ceoil (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• This view has been challenged: I'm not sure what "this view" is -- we introduced a lot of ideas in the previous paragraph, and the last one was that other British examples look similar to the Corleck one. I assume that Ian Armit is saying that the Corleck Head is probably modern in date? If so, we need to work that into The Corleck head is one of the earliest known figurative stone sculptures found in Ireland, unless we're going to unequivocally reject Armit's idea, in which case we need to bring in some sources to do that.

  Hmm. Now rephrased as "The Iron Age dating....", however Armit was equivocal and his suggestion, which I'm not sure he fully believed, is very much a minority view. Ceoil (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Archaeological evidence suggests a complex and prosperous Iron Age society in Corleck that assimilated many external cultural influences, with the early forms of Celtic religion generally thought to have been introduced to Ireland around 400 BC: with the recent edits, this no longer quite hangs together.

  Good spot removed...again glad that the article remains narrow in scope and does not try and explain/defend larger claims. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• The number three seems to have been especially significant to the Celts.: I think this bit really needs to be with the "sacred triplism" discussion: either move this up or bring that down.

Have regiged and brought down the few claims. Ceoil (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• the hooded figures known as Genii Cuucullati: as the Genii Cuucullati?

  Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• From surviving artefacts, it can be assumed that multi-headed (as with the "Dreenan" figure and the Corraghy Heads) and multi-faced idols (such as the Corleck Head) were a common part of Irish Celtic iconography: I think something is missing here. We can't infer from the artefacts themselves that the artefacts were common -- but we perhaps could from the number of surviving artefacts (knowing that most artefacts of any sort don't survive).

• Its an astute concern, but don't see the need to change here. I think its implied that the claim "multi-headed idols were a common part of Irish Celtic iconograph" is based on the ratio of that type of surviving artefacts vs the total. But of course there may have been a bias in those selected by hereditary keepers. Ceoil (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• ps...another in my get to list is Hereditary keepers, which is especially fascinating wrt to Insular art metalwork, but haven't yet found a source that discusses it generally, beyond mention of specific examples of families/objects. Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  If it's implied, but not explicitly stated in the sources, we should make it explicit; if it's not explicitly stated in the sources, we can't imply it per WP:SYNTH. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• who are traditionally associated with Corleck Hill: traditionally covers a multitude of sins. Do we mean that modern tradition (dating to the C16th or something like that) associates them, or do we have reason to believe that people in the Iron Age did?

  Iron Age people; now clarified. 00:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• The Aghadowey pillar was carved from a tree trunk and had four heads, each with hair, that is today known only from a very simple 19th-century drawing. Not quite grammatical. Suggest that the best solution would be to make a full stop and then "It is today known...".

  Agree...Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Archaeologists speculate if the larger structure represented a phallus—a common Iron Age fertility symbol: either speculate that or speculate as to whether.

  Not sure of the difference...but done. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note D needs a full stop. In most style guides, all footnotes should have full stops, including references (you'll notice that the SFN template family add one automatically).

  Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• In the bibliography, Mackillop should come before Mahr, and Aldhouse-Green before Armit.

  Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• What's the logic behind the order of the three Kelly sources? Ditto the middle two Ross sources.

  Reverse chronology. Ceoil (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Denbighshire is a county, not a city: is that the best we can do for the place of publication of Ross 1998? From the Companies House record, John Jones was based in Ruthin.

  Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• ISBNs should be given as the form printed on the source itself. 13-digit ISBNs weren't issued until 2007, so sources like Waddell 1998 should have the 10-digit form found on them.

  As am using the republications with 13-digits, have used them...there may be differences in page numbers. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  If it's a republication (rather than a new edition), the practice is to cite it with the original details (date and ISBN): if it's a new edition, it is cited with the new date (and the original date in the relevant parameter, ideally) and the new ISBN. We're currently going halfway, "updating" the ISBNs but not the years. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• The volume title for Rynne 1972 is in sentence case, not title case. Ditto Warner 2003.

  Done...I think...the titles were cut/paste from the publications. Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Some books have a place of publication, others don't, even when it's not obvious from the publisher (e.g. Routledge).

  Updated and think ok now...the publications left that don't have those were its obvious. 23:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Winter 2000" and similar as a date/volume should be capitalised.

  Done...I think. Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Sometimes "volume" and "number" are abbreviated, sometimes they are not. Using a citation template would help with this and other nit-picky consistency issues.

  Cleaned up. Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Some periodicals have ISSNs (which are good), others don't.

  I went with Jo-Jo comment that "Source formatting seems consistent, 'xcept for the lack of ids at Eamonn's second citation, Warner, Richard's and some of Anne Ross's"...ie add an ISSN if there isn't a JSTOR copy available. I can add, but not anxious to do that. Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

UndercoverClassicist, again a pleasure to work through all these further points during an expert review, which are hens teeth in my areads of Wiki. Think I have them all but have above made a request re a degree of sophistication of craft absent in the often "vigorous and ... barbaric style"...not sure of the point you are making. Thank u once again. Ceoil (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

sawyer777

i've also already reviewed this at the PR, and said i'd support it at FAC once it got here. i stand by that; the prose & sourcing on this article is excellent (indeed i spot a couple of my textbooks). i've given it another look-over and have nothing new to contribute. i'll keep up with this FAC though in case anything comes up. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 14:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

thanks for your help and support over the last few months. Ceoil (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

caeciliusinhorto

Some prose nitpicks. I also did some hopefully uncontentious fixes myself in these edits.

• "The three faces may represent an all-knowing, all-seeing god representing the unity of the past, present and future or ancestral mother figures representing strength and fertility": is there a way of rewriting this sentence so as not to say "represent" quite so many times in close proximity?
• "Archaeologists do not believe it was intended as a prominent element of a larger structure ... This suggests that the larger structure may have represented a phallus" seems self-contradictory. Was it or was it not an element of a larger structure? (Or is the point that it was part of a larger structure but not a prominent part, in which case that is not at all clear currently?)
• "on Corleck Hill in townland of Drumeague": I would expect "in the townland" here: is the omission of the article intentional? I know some varieties of English omit the definite article in some contexts where Br.Eng. speakers include it...
• The second paragraph on §Discovery has three mentions of "Barron", but his full name and the link to his article is only given in the following section.
• "only a small number three-faces": I would expect either "three-faced" or "have three faces" here.
• "only around eight known prehistoric Nordic stone heads have been identified": are both "known" and "have been identified" necessary here? It seems to me they are giving the same information and you can cut "known".
• 'Strabo wrote that heads of noble enemies were embalmed in cedar oil and exhibited to strangers"': unmatched quotation mark. Either the opening one is missing or this can be deleted.

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Caeciliusinhorto, all now addressed. Ceoil (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Caeciliusinhorto, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the reminder, Gog the Mild. I'm happy to support Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Jens

Very interesting.

• Although its origin cannot be known for certain, – I would say "never say never". Wouldn't "although its origin is not known for certain" be sufficient?
• a major religious centre during the late Iron Age that was a major site of celebration – no need to have "major" twice, I think.
• As with any stone artefact, its dating and cultural significance are difficult to establish. – I don't think that's true. As with the first issue, this is an absolute statement and I am sure there are exceptions. "As with many stone artefacts" maybe?
• They all have a broad and flat wedge-shaped nose and a thin, narrow, slit mouth. – "both" instead of "all"?
• One has heavy eyebrows; another has – "the other", as there are only two?
• is extremely difficult – do we loose anything if we remove "extremely" here?
• It may be not clear to readers what precisely "modern period" means; you should at least link it.
• More later. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  Hi Jens, done to here except using "both", as there are three faces. Ceoil (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  Re: "As with many stone artefacts"....have found a source that goes into deeper discussion on the basis for the dating; will add shortly. Ceoil (talk) 11:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• The head was found c. 1855 in the townland of Drumeague in County Cavan, Ireland, during the excavation of a large passage grave dated to c. 2500 BC. – This is stated as a non-controversial fact in the lead but has a "probable" in the body.

  Have removed "probable" form the lead. Ceoil (talk) 09:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• a mostly lost and stylistically very different janiform sculpture – but when the human head survives, then "mostly lost" seems like an overstatement?

  Not sure; the human head was [part of a larger structure, and only it survives. Ceoil (talk) 09:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• as are sculptures of the hooded figues know as – "known"

Sorted. Ceoil (talk) 09:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• and would, in the words of Ross: "tie them to the necks – maybe a , instead of a : flows better here?

  Its a quote. Ceoil (talk) 09:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• I was wondering about the article structure. It seems that this article starts with the specifics on the head first, and then provides the background information and context later. Usually, we write Wikipedia articles the other way around? I am not sure if this is necessarily bad in this case though. However, I'm a bit concerned that the last section "Head cult" does not seem to have direct relevance to the Corleck Head, and the head is never mentioned there. Ending an article with a section that is not really about the topic makes me wonder if there could be some better structure. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Jens, done until the last point, which I agree with. Have done some restructuring overall as suggested, but would like to weave the Corleck head into the head cult sect as suggested, as sources mention it as a major (Irish) example of the artefact type. Ceoil (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ceoil, re that last point, I was wondering if this article is ready for Jens to relook at yet? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Gog the Mild, I'll be taking another look tonight and will ping yourself, UC and Jens then. Ceoil (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, can you Jens and UndercoverClassicist pls take another look, as have done a significant reorg of the structure and coverage per Jens. Ceoil (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Second look: The structure looks much better and more logical to me. However, I feel it still needs work:

• It is not apparent to me what structure the lead follows; the order in which the information is presented looks a bit random. The easiest would be to organise the lead the same way as the article.

• Yes good point, have regigged. Ceoil (talk) 09:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• One example regarding lead structure: its placing in the Late Iron Age is based on the iconography, which is similar to that of other northern European Celtic artefacts from that period – this is in the second sentence, but in the second paragraph, you have this: As with many stone artefacts, its dating and cultural significance are difficult to establish. This makes two sentences on dating, but in different paragraphs, and the second one does seem quite isolated without connection to the paragraph it is placed in.
• I would also have expected to find a little bit from the "Description" section in the lead, but the only fact it states is (if I don't miss something) that it has three faces.

  Now contains the claim "shows three relatively primitive faces, each with similar features including bossed eyes, thin and narrow mouths and enigmatic expressions." Ceoil (talk) 07:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• I am also unsure about the division of the "Discovery" section, with the distinct section "Corleck Hill". I am wondering if these should be partly combined, to discuss the information in logical order when it becomes relevant. At the moment, the first paragraph simply lacks the context that is only provided in the "Corleck Hill" section.

  Agree very much with this and have spun out Corleck Hill so the head article doesn't have to do such explaining...corresponding cut to the text and merging of sections to remove duplication per your concerns. To say, the broader subject is not well covered on wiki, so have had to create more than one other daughter or parent artice so that our Head article isn't explaining everything about the long and vague transition period between pre-christian and Roman-British religion and idolotary. Ceoil (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• An example: passage grave that was then under excavation – when reading this, I think of an archaeological excavation, or at least an excavation with the purpose of extracting the artefacts. But later, in the Corleck Hill section, the info is repeated (not ideal), and only here it becomes clear: The monuments were excavated during the 18th and 19th centuries to make way for farming land. This is really something I would have liked to learn earlier.

  Have moved up the claim. Ceoil (talk)

• You have this in the first paragraph: to build the farmhouse that became known colloquially as the "Corleck Ghost House", and this one in the last paragraph: to build a dwelling house nearby, known locally as the "Corleck Ghost House." – Again, all these repetitions tell me that the structure of the "Discovery" section is not ideal yet. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Hvae added a teaser description I the lead as suggested, cant believe missed that opportunity! Ceoil (talk) 03:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

UC, Jens and Gog. I am getting hammered here as there is no easy-to-use temple to follow on previous FACs for such objects, and the suggestions seem to be, at times, contradictory. Thanks Jens, but Gog & UC need Help! Ceoil (talk) 03:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes! Ping me when ready and I will have a third look. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Sound Jans, almost there!! 12:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I had a look for comparable FAs: there aren't many on portable antiquities, but we do have a series on helmets, thanks to Usernameunique: Shorwell helmet, Pioneer Helmet and Benty Grange helmet, for example. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• File:JanusandLustymoreFigures_(cropped).jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Have swapped out the image. Ceoil (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

SC

Comments to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 06:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• "As with many stone artefact" -> "As with many stone artefacts"
• "or ancestral mother figures symbolise strength and fertility": "symbolising"? I don't think the grammar works otherwise
• "today, it is on permanent display": I think "today" is verboten by the MOS, which would prefer "As at 2024" or similar
  • • MOS:ART also discourages "on permanent display", as things rarely are. Johnbod (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
      • Has been reworded as "It has been in the collection of the National Museum of Ireland in Dublin since 1937, where it is usually on display". Ceoil (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• "Boa Island. County Fermanagh": that should be a comma, I think
• "Age;[43][44] and was" -> "Age;[43][44] it was" or "Age,[43][44] and was" ('and' should only really go after a semi colon in a list, it replaces the coordinating conjunction when joining two sentences).
• Corleck hill was a major site: Capital 'h' on Hill?
• "Insular Celtic": I think this could do with a quick explanation of what it is, even if in a footnote; it's not a readily understandable term, even from the context. If not, then a piped link to Insular Celts, although this seems to focus only on the British and Irish celts and ignores the European ones
  • • That's exactly the point of "Insular" - their relationship to Continental "Celts" is the subject of much controversy. Insular art is also available for linking. Johnbod (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

That's my lot – an interesting article. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Schro, all done for the last point as mentioned above. Ceoil (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

OK I still think you need something to explain what is meant in the context of this article by "Insular Celtic": it pops out of nowhere and people unfamiliar with the concept will be completely confused by it. I'll add my support to the nom, but I do think something is needed to clarify this point to, say, a Californian, Cameroonian or Canadian who reads this when it's a TFA and has no idea what is meant by the term. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Have added a note to explain. Ceoil (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Johnbod

• Looking good, after the PR. I may wait a while for changes after other comments above. Johnbod (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Johnbod are you still planning on reviewing the candidate? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, but I won't bwe opposing, so if you are ready to promote, don't wait for me. Johnbod (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "its placing in the Early Iron Age is based on the iconography". It is not Early Iron Age. The Late Iron Age in Ireland is first to fifth centuries AD. See [21] and [22]. You say late iron age in the next paragraph.
• "where it is usually on display". You do not appear to have a source for "usually". I suggest deleting the comment.
• "The archaeologist John Waddell believes the majority of the contemporary stone idols were destroyed". Contemporary is ambiguous. When made or existing, and contemporary to what?
• "stone idols were destroyed and "then forgotten"". I do not think you need the quotes.
• "Sam, placed the Corleck head on a gatepost. He also uncovered" This appears to refer to Sam but presumable Barron is intended.
• "unlocalised multi-faced ivory pendant head". Unlocalized is the wrong word. It means not confined to a particular location rather than the location being unknown, which I assume is what you mean.

  Done as far as here. Ceoil (talk) 10:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• "The early forms of Celtic religion were introduced to Ireland around 400 BC." Other sources put it earlier. The article on the Tandragee Idol, which dates to 1000 to 500 BC, cites sources which describe it as a representation of a Celtic god.

• Ross 2010 claims that the older "Neolithic agriculturalist" gods began to be mixed with Celtic gods from around the 4th century BC. Have updated the Tandragee artice; the span there is around 1000-400BC, and is "though" to represent Nuada, the mythological king of the Tuatha Dé Danann (FFE. 1500 BC) Ceoil (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• It is usual when listing articles and book chapters as sources to give the page numbers, although I do not know whether it is a requirement.

  I could add but it would take a lot of time and have not done it in the past at FAC...the individual refs have page numbers and the source listing gives isbns, JSTOR refs or issns. The difficulty is time, for consistency if I do it for one have to do it for all, and that might stall the nom. Ceoil (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• A very interesting article. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for these, very helpful. All done now except for the last one. Ceoil (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Source review

What makes https://www.tuatha.ie/boa-island/, "Gentleman and Scholar: Thomas James Barron" and "Lanigan Wood, Helen. Images of Stone. Belfast: Blackstaff Press, 1976." high-quality reliable sources? Source formatting seems consistent, 'xcept for the lack of ids at Eamonn's second citation, Warner, Richard's and some of Anne Ross's. I wonder if anyone has access to the JSTOR reviews of "Ross, Anne. The Pagan Celts. Denbighshire: John Jones, 1998. ISBN 978-1-8710-8361-3" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Have emailed a copy of Bruce G. Trigger, "Reviewed Work: Pagan Celtic Britain: Studies in Iconography and Tradition by Anne Ross". https://www.jstor.org/stable/480435 Ceoil (talk) 12:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, for some reason I couldn't find it while searching on the JSTOR website. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

It was behind a paywall on some subscription levels. Will replace Tuatha and Barron in the next day or so. Lanigan Wood is probably ok; see her referenced in many of the other books, but will dig further. Ceoil (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Have replaced Smyth, Tuatha and Lanigan Wood. ISSNs added for the sources without an ISBN or JSTOR id. Ceoil (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• What does "carved in the round" mean.

• Clarified as "fully three-dimensional without any side not attached to a flat background" Ceoil (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so now I am confused by the double negative "... without any side not attached ..." Is it possible to recast that with either no or one negatives? Or just go with a more positive description? "A fully three-dimensional carving that can be observed from every side" or similar.

Typo re not, since removed. We have Theatre in the round but that doesn't seem helpful to link. Ceoil (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, In the round (disambiguation) has, as #2, "Freestanding sculpture, distinct from relief carving — see Statue" Johnbod (talk) 01:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Given that in the round is not mentioned in the target article this link would be less than helpful to a reader and I would prefer that it not be used. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting it should be - but Sculpture#Types begins by explaining it, & I've changed the disam lk to that. That can be linked. Johnbod (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• I an not sure about "bossed". Wiktionary has it meaning "to decorate with bosses; to emboss." Protruding?

• Have gone with linking to Repoussé and chasing and clarifying "that is raised") Ceoil (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• "It shows three relatively primitive faces". Maybe 'primitively-carved faces' or similar to avoid ambiguity?

  Thinking about this as its not so much that the carving is primitave, more so the faces. Ceoil (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• "The three faces seem to depict". I don't think you mean "seem", maybe 'have been conjectured as depicting' or similar?

  Done I think...have used "apparently" instead? Ceoil (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

It still says "seem" in the lead.

• "Corleck Hill was a major religious centre during the late Iron Age". Could you point out where this is in the main article.

Ignore this, I found it

• "a relative of the Halls". Introduce them please.

• Done by moving the claim lower down. Ceoil (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• "The literary evidence indicates that the hill was a significant Druidic (the priestly caste in ancient Celtic cultures) site of worship during the Iron Age, described as once being "the pulse of Ireland"." This is a busy sentence, and falls foul of the MoS on quotations. ("The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.) Maybe 'The literary evidence indicates that the hill was a significant Druidic site of worship during the Iron Age, such and such described it as once being "the pulse of Ireland". Druids were the priestly caste in ancient Celtic cultures.'?

• Re priestly cast yes. Re the "the pulse of Ireland", cannot find an origin for this, but its used often. Ive rephrased as "traditionally known as", but thinking of removing. Ceoil (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I would go with 'and is known as once being "the pulse of Ireland"'

• Suggest moving note a from the lead to the first mention of Lughnasadh.

• Agree, done. Ceoil (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• "According to the Celtic scholar Anne Ross, the Corleck Head "correspond(s) closely to Celtic anthropoid ..." I can't find the closing quote marks. :-)

  Done. Ceoil (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• Optional: introduce the "Ulster group of heads".
• "Romano-British (between 43 and 410 AD) and Gallo-Roman iconography." No dates for Gallo-Roman?

• Have given 1st c. BC to the 5th c. AD. User:UndercoverClassicist might have a more exact range. Ceoil (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• "have similarly drawn faces". "drawn"? As with a pencil?

  Similarly "described". Ceoil (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• "were a common part of their iconography." Probably best to refer who "their" refers to.

  No clarifying as Irish Celts Ceoil (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• "indicates that it was periodically attached to a larger structure". Why is it suggested that this was periodic, as opposed to permanent or as a one off?

  Excellent point. Because of the flat base and the purpose of such ceremonial objects in them days. Its explained better in another source vs Waddell; digging through. Ceoil (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Any more to come on this point? Gog the Mild (talk)

No luck tralling the sources, but it might emerge again as work through the parent article. Ceoil (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• See comment above in green.
• Are "the Corraghy Idols" the same thing as "the Corraghy Heads"?

  No...the Corraghy Idols is a grouping for both Corraghy and Corleck Heads. Clarified. Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Genii Cuucullati". When italics are used for emphasis <em> templates should be used, not apostrophes. See MOS:ITAL.

  Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Archaeologists disagree on whether the Corleck Head was intended as a prominent element of a larger structure" and "The hole at the Corleck Head's base indicates that it was periodically attached to a larger structure". There seems to be a contradiction here.

  An older mid 20th-c source was used when the "disagree" claim was made...now removed. Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Gog; your support means a lot and your incessant gripes and demands brought the page on immensely :) Ceoil (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Virgo interferometer

Nominator(s): Thuiop (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

This article is about one of the major current gravitational wave detectors. This is the second nomination; during the first one, the article was found lacking in copy editing, so I submitted a request to WP:GOCER, which was completed a few days ago, hence the resubmission. Looking forward to your comments. Thuiop (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Thuiop, have you considered persuing Good article nomination first? It's not technically required for featured articles to be successfully nominated as good articles first, but it is almost always done and is strongly recommended—especially given that this is your first nomination. Good articles have less strict criteria, and a one-on-one dialog is often more efficient to identify and correct certain common problems, compared to the FAC process. Remsense ‥ 论 21:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Remsense, I was not aware of that. I did know about Good articles though, but considered it as a second option; I usually contribute to the French Wikipedia, where "FAC" are usually not already "GA" before the nomination. If you think this is a better idea, I am ok with rescinding this nomination and go to GA before. Thuiop (talk) 08:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I would recommend it, but keep in mind that it sometimes takes a prolonged period of time before an editor will pick up your submission for review—often days or weeks, sometimes even months. I think this one wouldn't sit too long though. Remsense ‥ 论 08:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok. I will do this if there are no other comment against this idea in the next one or two days. Thanks! Thuiop (talk) 08:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Graham Beards

I don't think a GA nomination is needed. I have made some edits to the article, which can be found in the history. The images look a little cluttered, at least on my screens, but this is no big deal. In my view this is an excellent, and fairly lay-friendly, introduction to an exciting new field in cosmology. I am interested in what other reviewers have to say, but I am happy to add my tentative support. Graham Beards (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Airship

I have placed {{cn}} tags in a few places; note that image captions do require citations if the information within is not sourced elsewhere in the body. In my opinion, the prose is good but in need of improvement; I cannot comment on the technical and scientific details. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I added the missing citations. Thuiop (talk) 12:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• How does the gallery here align with WP:GALLERY?

• File:Logo-virgo.png: source link is dead. Ditto File:GW170814.png

• File:GW170814_signal.png: where is this licensing coming from? The source site has an all rights reserved notice

• File:Virgo3_1.jpg: is a more specific source available? Ditto File:BestVirgoSensitivityCurveVSR4.png

• File:VirgoDetectionBench2015.jpg is tagged as lacking source information. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Indeed, it seems it does not. Do you think it would make sense to move it at the beginning of the instrument section, replacing the already present File:Virgo aerial view 01.jpg ?
• Fixed.
• I added the original paper which is indeed under CC.
• I added extra sources in the caption. Did you mean to add the sources in Commons? These files were directly uploaded by the collaboration, but I can link articles where they were used, although those articles are not necessarily under the correct license.
• Fixed.

Thanks for the comments! Thuiop (talk) 11:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• The Commons page for each image should include sourcing that confirms that the image is available under the licensing given. Do you mean that the licensing given is not correct, or that the articles where they are used don't credit them properly? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, no, I meant that these two files were produced by the Virgo collaboration and upload by someone from the collaboration in its name, falling under the "own work" category. It was also used by the collaboration in other places (including a journal paper), but these do not fall under the same licence as far as I know. If you think this is important, I can contact the person who uploaded it and have them confirm this officially. Thuiop (talk) 07:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Yes please - this should go through VRT. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents

  Understood, I will get this done in the next few days. Thuiop (talk) 12:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Took care of it ! Thuiop (talk) 13:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next four or five days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

HF

I'll try to start a review within the next day or two. Please ping me if I haven't started by Wednesday. Hog Farm _Talk 16:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Hog Farm here is the reminder. Thanks for your interest! Thuiop (talk) 08:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

My work schedule has gotten crazy this week - I am hoping to get to this Friday or Saturday. Hog Farm _Talk 12:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay on this; I should be considered to be a strictly nonexpert reviewer here. Hog Farm _Talk 02:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Generally, information should be found in the body, and not only in the lead. Some examples here include the fact that KAGRA is in the Kamioka mine (which probably isn't relevant enough for this article in general), and the information about the naming of the Virgo Cluster and the details about the Virgo Cluster. This isn't a comprehensive list though.

Ok. I am not sure where to put the information about the naming though, I am a bit iffy about making an extra section just for that but will think about it.

• "The budget of EGO is around 10 million euros per year," - I'm not quite a fan of this phrasing. This appears to be coming from the range of commitments on p. 5 of the source, which shows it ranging from barely 9 million to over 11.5 million. This also needs an as of date, as this is probalby to change in the future given that the source is talking about how the budget needs to increase

This is precisely why I put a coarse estimate, as it fluctuates quite a bit annually, but I can put a range instead (+ date)

• " its final configuration is planned to combine the light of two lasers to reach the required power" - is this a final configuration of the Advanced Virgo, or a planned future upgrade of the Advanced Virgo into something different?

Complicated as there were some issues with the laser before O4, but this is going to be hard to source, which is why I left it in the future tense for now.

• "This laser is sent into the interferometer after passing through the injection system, " - the laser itself, or the beam of the laser?

The beam, I changed it.

• "made from the purest glass obtainable." - can you point me to where this is found in the source? I'm not seeing any references to "purest" or "glass" in the source (a slideshow presentation), and the only references to VIRGO are in the image credits

Ah, fused silica is a type of glass. Changed to "extremely pure" to avoid issues; this matches slide 4 from the presentation. I had not realized that Virgo is barely mentioned in the presentation, but it was made by a Virgo researcher, and all the pictures are of Virgo mirrors (the LMA is the main lab working on the mirrors).

• "A reflective coating (a Bragg reflector made with ion-beam sputtering) is then added. " - I'm struggling to find where the source references a Bragg reflector?

Good catch, I added the source

• " This superattenuator, nearly 8 metres (26 ft) high, is in a vacuum" - is this still the case? The source is from before the Advanced Virgo updates, which I'm told in the article "kept the same vaccum infrastructure" but changed basically everything else? Is this part of the vaccum infrastructure - I'm not sure

Yes, this has not changed.

• "A fraction of this light is reflected back by the signal-recycling mirror, and the rest is collected by the detection system" - can light really be "collected", strictly speaking?

I think this is the correct term here. Could be changed to something like "continues towards" if you feel this is confusing.

• "With the O3 run, a squeezed vacuum source was introduced to reduce the quantum noise which is one of the main limitations to sensitivity." - the ref placement is clearly off here; the next reference in the paragraph is the 1981 paper proposing squeezed vacuums.

Fixed.

Ready for the history section; hopefully I should be able to finish in the next couple days if my work schedule cooperates. Hog Farm _Talk 02:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the comments! As for the other commenter, I made individual responses and corrected most of it. Thuiop (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Thuiop: - Apologies for not having a chance to get back to this yet. As to the naming, I'd personally stick a brief sentence about it in the first paragraph of the history section where you are talking about the formation of the entity. That's where I'd have it if I were writing the article - including the naming with the history of how it was formed. Hog Farm _Talk 14:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! I added a phrase for that. Thuiop (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to back out of the rest of this. I've been run into the ground figuratively at work and I need to take a break and catch my breath. Hog Farm _Talk 14:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Fair, thanks for the comments you already made. Take care! Thuiop (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Things have calmed down for me a bit; I hope to be able to finish this review by the end of the week. Hog Farm _Talk 14:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• "serious projects for detecting them only began during the 1970s. The first were the Weber bars, invented by Joseph Weber;" - ref placement issue? The following source is from 1968
• Is it known how much this thing cost to build?

I think that's all from me. I struggled to get through some of the harder science and the description of the instrumentation, but that's not an indictment of this article, rather my scientific knowledge and the Missouri public education system. Hog Farm _Talk 02:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Regarding your first point, it was more like Weber made its announcement in 1968, which sparked more projects in the 1970s. But I changed it to "late 1960s" and threw in an extra reference for good measure. As for the cost, I will look into it; I know it is in the order of 10s of millions, but I can check that.
Also, this is a highly technical and niche subject, so it is not surprising that people may struggle with some of the points (there is a lot I do not understand about the finer details of the interferometer either!); if there are parts that you feel are really unclear I am happy to take a look. Thuiop (talk) 09:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I think I'm going to support now. The concerns I had have been addressed, and there are supports for two science-focused editors here who judgment I trust (Graham Bears and Ajpolino), so I feel comfortable with the technical aspects. Hog Farm _Talk 14:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• "The Virgo interferometer operates with similar detectors ...": it took me a few seconds to parse this. I took "similar" to mean "similar to detectors mentioned earlier". I understood the point by the end of the paragraph, but how about changing this to "The Virgo interferometer shares data with other similar detectors, including ..."?

  I see what you mean. However, the point was also that observations are jointly planned with other detectors. I modified the formulation to make it clearer and still reflect that.

• "Developed when gravitational waves were only a prediction of general relativity, it has now detected several of them. Its first detection was in 2017 (together with the two LIGO detectors)" This doesn't make it clear that the Virgo was not involved in the first such detection. Could we rephrase, maybe like so: "Gravitational waves, once only a prediction of general relativity, were first detected by the LIGO interferometers in 2015. The first event detected by Virgo as well as LIGO was in 2017; this was quickly followed by ..."?

  This is the only one I did not address yet; I wanted to also make clear that the instrument was developed at a time were no GW had been detected, and operated for a long time before the first detection. Your reformulation, although technically correct, makes it look like Virgo "came late to the party". I will try to think of a better formulation, perhaps extending what is in the parentheses in the current version. Edit: I ended up adding a bit more info on the history in the lead as suggested by the other commenter.

• "The Virgo Collaboration consolidates all the researchers": suggest "consists of" as simpler.

  Done.

• "which gathers scientists from the other major gravitational-waves experiments to jointly analyze the data; this is crucial for gravitational-wave detection": the source doesn't say that this collaboration is crucial for gravitational-wave detection -- I think it's a point worth making but we need another source that says it.

  Done.

• "Many believed at the time that this was not possible; only France and Italy began work on the project, which was first presented in 1987." It's not really clear what "this was not possible" refers to -- I think it must be the detection of low-frequencies, but it might mean, more specifically, that using an interferometer to detect low frequencies was considered impossible.

  Indeed, I made that more explicit.

• And "which was first presented" is vague: if I understand the source, "proposed" would be clearer.

  Done.

• "Virgo's first goal was to directly observe gravitational waves, of which the three-decade study of the binary pulsar 1913+16 presented indirect evidence." Meaning that the first goal was to observe these specific waves? The first part of the sentence reads oddly because detecting these waves is Virgo's only goal. To avoid that reading, how about "Virgo's first goal was to directly observe gravitational waves from the binary pulsar 1913+16, for which there was indirect evidence from three decades of study"?

  Maybe this was confusing; the goal was not to observe those in particular, rather it was somewhat clear at the time that they existed, but not whether it was feasible to detect them. I changed it to make that clearer.

• The article says both that initial Virgo "reached its expected sensitivity" and that "the original Virgo detector was not sensitive enough". Are these two statements are in conflict? The project did not intend to build an instrument that was not sensitive enough. If these aren't in conflict, then presumably that means the designed sensitivity turned out to be insufficient; if so I think we should say so.

  Your last sentence is correct. I removed the "not sensitive enough" part, to instead say that there were no observations.

• The first mention of "mirror towers" had me going down to the "Instrument" section to understand what these were, and I think it might be better to reverse the order of "History" and "Instrument". Putting the instrument description first gives the reader the vocabulary to understand the history section. That would also avoid issues such as saying "The new mirrors were larger (350 mm in diameter, with a weight of 40 kg)" when we don't know how big the old mirrors were.

  I did that, but I am actually now wondering whether this was a good idea, since the Instrument section also mentions the initial and Advanced Virgo periods.

• There's a mixture of tenses in the second paragraph of "Advanced Virgo detector": past tense ("the new mirrors were larger"); present tense ("The optical elements ... are under vacuum"); and subjunctive ("A system of adaptive optics would be installed"). I suggest sticking with past tense throughout.

  Done.

• "In the original plan, the laser power was expected to reach 200 W in its final configuration." Is this phrasing because we don't have a source that gives the laser power as built? Does "final configuration" refer to advanced Virgo, or does "original" mean this is a spec from initial Virgo?

  I left it like this; it is indeed complicated to source the exact laser power, as it was expected to ramp up and has changed many times throughout the detector's life.

• You introduce the abbreviation "aLIGO" and then don't use it anywhere. I think it can be dropped, but what is the difference between LIGO and aLIGO? Is it something the reader needs to understand?

  The abbreviation itself is not really useful indeed, but there was an important point, which is that the LIGO detectors also had their "Advanced LIGO" program. I reflected that.

• "during the O2 observation period": this is not explained until further below. I think an overview of the observational program, as outlined in the box, would be helpful to give the reader the O1, O2, ... vocabulary and some context, before we give the results of the runs. From the box it's not clear that O1 even applies to Virgo, in which case perhaps it's terminology from the LVK collaboration rather than just Virgo? If so I think we should say so. And looking at sentences like "Virgo announced that it would not join the beginning of O4" I see that must be right. I assume this planning of collaborative observations is in order to have the data to cross-check or reinforce the interpretation of detection events? That's implied but not stated.

  This is LVK terminology, I added a phrase to explain that.

• The post-O3 upgrades have an understandable difficulty with tenses since some are in the past and some in the future. I think the present tense ("the first precedes the O4 run") is not a good choice, though; the paragraph is written without making it clear what's been done and what remains to do, and I think doing that, with past tense and then future tense, would read more naturally.

  Good idea, I did that.

That takes me down to the end of the history section. I'll pause there, since I've suggested moving sections around; let me know what you think and I can continue when these points are resolved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! I have addressed most of them, and will put individual answers to make it easier to read. Thuiop (talk) 12:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that makes it much easier to see what's addressed and what isn't. I've struck most points above; I will read through again, though probably not tonight, and bear in mind what you say about the reversal of the sections perhaps causing other issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Hurricanehink

Support. Seeing as I have an active FAC, I figured I'd review another science article here.

• "The Virgo interferometer is a large Michelson interferometer designed to detect the gravitational waves predicted by general relativity. " - this is a lot for the first sentence, and I'm still not even sure what it is. I clicked on "Michelson interferometer" and it linked to "Interferometry", and I'm already on a bit of a wikihole. Is there a way to make the first sentence even simpler? I realize there's a link on Michelson interferometer, and Michelson stellar interferometer, and I think they're both similar. Also, the part of "predicted by general relativity" seems more like a description of gravitational waves. Mostly, could you expand on this and be broader?

I am not sure how it could be simplified without omitting the interferometric part, which is in my opinion pretty important. Regarding the link, I think that Interferometry is a bit clearer but it could go to Michelson interferometer to avoid surprise (Michelson stellar interferometer is however unrelated). The "general relativity" does apply to gravitational waves but it does not seem too out of place to me, although I am fine if you wish to remove it.

This is on the right track, but I still think just linking Interferometry doesn't help much if someone stumbles across this article, and they're reading it from the beginning. You should link Scientific instrument when you mention "instrument". I'm also not a fan of "huge". Could you reword that a bit? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Follow up, is it an experiment, or is it an instrument? It seems to me that it is an instrument at this point, which is why I thought it should be linked to scientific instrument. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I think both work at this point. I like experiment better, and I am not sure the link to scientific instrument would make it much clearer.

Makes sense. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• "three kilometres" - please convert this and all units to imperial in parenthesis.

Will do. Edit: Done.

This was only done in the lead. Every instance of km in the body of the article has no mile equivalent. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I was not sure if it was to be repeated when a measure is repeated several times. I will do it tomorrow. Thuiop (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• "The instrument has two arms that are three kilometres long and contain its mirrors and instrumentation in an ultra-high vacuum." - is there any more about the instrument? This is the only sentence in the lead about the actual device itself. All I know is that it's 3 kilometres long. But unfortunately, that's not sourced anywhere.

I can add more details but I think this would be more confusing than anything if you are not familiar with how the instrument works. For the source, I can add one but this is an extremely basic fact which you can find in basically every source from the article.

Again, all material in the lead should be mentioned somewhere in the article, and should have a citation. There doesn't need to be a citation in the lead, but as the lead summarizes everything, the article is incomplete for not covering this bit of detail. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Should the infobox list the "formation" as 1993 if it was completed in 2003?

Interesting question, I think 1993 is fine since it is the start of the project. I was also thinking about having a small "timeline", but unfortunately this infobox template does not allow for one.

That makes sense, but then why isn't it 1992? Also, since the focus is on the project, is there a way to get an updated map? It's a shame to only have it as of 2017 when that's already seven years out of date. Also, since the map is outdated, I would much rather have an image of the building hosting Virgo, maybe the aerial view of the detector? That is a much better idea for what it is, not some outdated map. ♫ Hurricanehink(talk) 22:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I think I forgot to answer this but I moved the map outside the infobox. Turns out the info is also more recent than I thought as it dates from 2021, although this is still somewhat outdated.

Has there been any attempt for an updated map? ♫ Hurricanehink(talk) 04:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, it seems the original was updated until 2021. It will however be hard to maintain it, as although most activity is in Europe, there are now people from other parts of the globe (notably Brazil has joined recently with a few different groups, and there are also people in Asia and Africa scattered around). I will however update the map to include Switzerland, and specify that the map is about European countries only.

Well since the group is such an important part of the topic, it would be nice if the map had everyone. I'm not going to oppose over it, but an up to date map would be appreciate. Also, is there a reason the infobox says 1993 when it was approved in 1992? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Only the CNRS approved it in 1992, it was in 1993 for the INFN (as is written in the first phrase of the history section); the collaboration was therefore established in 1993. As for the map, I agree that it would be nice in principle but in practice I think the hassle is not worth it, especially since the project is in its large majority European; the extra countries are still mentioned in the text. Thuiop (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

OK, but the article isn't about the Virgo collaboration. The article is about the interferometer, so either it started in 1992 when it was approved, or 2007 when it first started its science runs, but 1993 doesn't make sense IMO. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The INFN did not approve it before 1993; without the INFN approval the project would have either not seen the light of day or taken a very different form. So 1993 seems right to me.

• Could there be more about the history in the lead?

Hm, sure. I will whip up something but let me know if there are specific elements you want to see. Edit: Done.

• " including the two LIGO interferometers in the United States (at the Hanford Site and in Livingston, Louisiana) " - I'm not sure, but I don't see the Livingston part cited anywhere in the article. I wanted to a random spotcheck, and I didn't see the Hanford part even mentioned at all in the article other than an image caption.

Again, I can add a source but this is very basic information about the LIGO detectors which you would find anywhere LIGO is mentioned.

Any information in the lead needs to be somewhere in the article though. If it's important enough to get a mention in the lead, then that information should also appear in the body of the article. If it's not important enough to be in the lead, then it should be moved to later in the article when you mention LIGO. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Where is the budget that's in the infobox sourced in the article? "About ten million euros per year"

Good catch, I added a reference. I think the information is only in the infobox currently but could be introduced in the text if needed.

Ideally, it would be in the text of the article. In 2022, it was 11 million euros, for example, but that also mentions the staff, and the electricity, and some other details that aren't in the article at all. It says there are 62 people on the staff as part of the budget, for example. Stuff like that could be included under "Organization". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Is there a reason the "Organization" section is first? It wasn't formed til 2000, but since it was started before then, it seems like "Instrument" or "History" would make more sense being first.

The reason for this is what "the Virgo Collaboration" and "the LVK Collaboration" are constantly referred to in the sources, and also in a few places in the article, and I wanted these terms to be defined from the start to make sure it is less confusing. Also see the comments from Mike over the order of Instrument and History.

Makes sense. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I've only gotten through the lead and a little bit of the article, but there are some pretty big problems just in the lead. I'll wait to hear back from you before continuing my review, thanks. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! I added individual answers to each of them. I have been meaning to check out other FAC but have been pretty busy with work these past weeks, I will try to see if I can drop a few comments on yours in the next few days. Thuiop (talk) 09:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

More

• Is there a reference for Virgo being located in Santo Stefano a Macerata? All material in the lead needs to be mentioned in the article somewhere. The Virgo history reference (ref 72) only says it is near Pisa.

Added.

• I guess I need clarification, but since the headquarters are the European Gravitational Observatory, is that an actual building? Like, I'm trying to imagine the actual physical structure, but there isn't a mention of any building anywhere in the article, and the European Gravitational Observatory article says in the first sentence that it's also the Virgo Collaboration, but that seems to be the topic of this article, right? Why does that separate article exist if it's the same thing? That article also says "EGO has an annual budget of €9 million split evenly between the French CNRS and Italian INFN." But sadly the link that says that is broken. Either way, just trying to figure out clarification for what this thing is, and where it's housed. One image mentions the "Mode-Cleaner Building" - is that it? Shouldn't that building be mentioned somewhere?

Hmm, this is a tricky one. EGO is an entity, but it is also used to refer as its physical headquarters, e.g. "at EGO" means the actual site where the detector is. It seems someone messed with the EGO page somewhat recently, I should have put it in my follow list earlier; EGO is a separate entity from the Virgo collaboration. Also, as to why there is a separate article: EGO could in principle have activities beyond Virgo, such as managing another detector. In practice, it only manages Virgo, so the extra page is a bit superfluous.

I think I understand. But shouldn't the building that houses Virgo, the Mode-Cleaner Building, get more of a mention than appearing in image text? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Hm, I forgot to address that part, but the mode-cleaner building does not have much to do with it, it is just the building housing the input mode cleaner. The building hosting the Virgo headquarters is one of the "other buildings including offices...".

Could that be put in prose somewhere? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I added something to the Organization section.

I appreciate the addition, but it added a new problem:

"EGO is responsible for the Virgo site (which represents its headquarters; by metonymy, the Virgo site is sometimes referred to as EGO) and is in charge of the construction, maintenance, and operation of the detector and its upgrades."

This is a lot to put in parenthesis. The metonymy part should probably be its own sentence, considering my own confusion with EGO vs Virgo. But also, there should be something about the building that hosts Virgo. There's still very little. I'd expect something in "history", or "organization". Stuff like the "Mode-Cleaner" building shouldn't only get a mention in an image caption. ♫ Hurricanehink ng(talk) 18:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hm, I will think about something I can add to the Infrasturcture section. Edit: I had started writing something, but unfortunately this is unsourceable; I have not been able to find an annotated map, aerial view or description of the buildings on the internet.

Nothing about the building? This document talks about the various buildings, at quick search. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed that one even though I spent quite a bit of time searching. It is pretty out dated but I guess I can use it. I wonder if I should move the gallery to the new paragraph? It probably would be more useful than at the bottom of the page.

Yea it would be better if it wasn't tucked at the end. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I put it in the Infrastructure subsection. Thuiop (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• "Virgo is designed to look for gravitational waves emitted by astrophysical sources across the universe which can be classified into three types" - just to be nitpicky, but you format the three types differently. The first - Transient sources: - has a colon, but the other two has a comma.

Fixed

• " It slightly curves spacetime (changing the light path) and can be detected with a Michelson interferometer in which a laser is divided into two beams travelling in orthogonal directions, bouncing on a mirror at the end of each arm. " - too much for one sentence. Something like "It slightly curves spacetime, changing the light path, which can be detected with a Michelson interferometer. In such a device, a laser is divided into two beams travelling in orthogonal directions, bouncing on a mirror at the end of each arm." - something like that says the same thing, but it takes a bit more time so it doesn't overwhelm the reader. I sometimes have to think when I'm writing a hurricane article, what if the reader doesn't know about something specific, so I'll try writing it on the simpler side.

Split it in different phrases

• "A 50 W output power " - per WP:MOS - all units need to be spelled out before they are abbreviated. I'm assuming this is watt?

Indeed. Done.

• "Key components of the injection system include the input mode cleaner (a 140-metre-long (460 ft) cavity to improve beam quality by stabilizing the frequency, removing unwanted light propagation and reducing the effect of laser misalignment), a Faraday isolator preventing light from returning to the laser, and a mode-matching telescope which adapts the size and position of the beam before it enters the interferometer." - I hate parenthesis within parenthesis! And by the time I got to the word "misalignment" I completely forgot I was in the first set of parenthesis. I suggest starting by descripting the input mode cleaner, so you don't need the one set of parenthesis. And then mention the other two things.

I adjusted the wording to avoid the parentheses.

• "The mirrors are polished to the atomic level to avoid diffusing (and losing) any light." - how often?

Only one time, when they are manufactured. Do you want me to specify it?

Well it's confusing by having present tense, that implies they are polished regularly. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Got it, made it clearer.

• "It is planned to use a wideband configuration, decreasing noise at high and low frequencies and increasing it at intermediate frequencies. " - was it planned, or did it actually use this?

This is a bit of a complicated matter due to some issues with the instrument; I think for now it is more representative to leave it like this as this is how it will be used in the long term.

Sorry, I don't think I get this. Why is it present tense? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, this is touchy and I am not sure how much of this is actually public. Basically, there is some mystery source of noise in the detector, and it hase been found that placing the SR mirror in a "misaligned" state helps with reducing that noise (at the cost of not using the SR mirror for its intended purpose). This is supposed to be temporary (probably lasting until the end of O4 next year), and will be complicated to source as most of the investigations are internal to the collaboration. This is why I think it is better to leave it as a "currently planned" thing, which is factual as this is how the SR mirror should be used in the future according to current plans.

Got it, thanks. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• "nearly eight meters high" - I wish every metric unit had unit conversions for Americans like me to be able to understand. Ditto "6,800 cubic meters"

Damn, missed it as it was not in unit form. About the cubic meters, should I convert to gallons? I do not think there is a large enough imperial unit to match the cubic meter, this will amount to millions of gallons.

Yes, gallons is how we usually measure liquids over here. There are larger unofficial units, like "Olympic-sized swimming pools", or "Giraffe-sized", but neither would be very appropriate here. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, done.

• "After further upgrades, Virgo began its third observation run (O3)" - I was wondering where in the article you explained what "O3" was, because the first few times it popped up I had no idea what it was.

This is what I was discussing before with the previous commenter, regarding the placement of the History section. I now think putting it before Instrument makes more sense.

Yea that's a problem. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Any thoughts? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think I will move it back to before the Instrument section; I was waiting to see if anyone had a different opinion.

Thoughts on this? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I ended up moving it back up in the end, it is probably better this way. Thuiop (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• (improving from the original Virgo level by a factor of 100). - what does this mean?

The pressure is 100 times less. Does it need to be clearer?

Yea, I didn't know that "pressure" what was improved. Clearer would be appreciated. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• "with a mass of 1.4 M☉–1.4 M☉ " - 1.4 to 1.4? Am I missing something?

This is a binary system, hence there are two masses. Changed to plural to make that clearer.

I still don't think that makes the sentence clearer. I'm still overwhelmed at the info contained in the following, and would appreciate if it was simpler:

"The most common measure of gravitational-wave-detector sensitivity is the horizon distance, defined as the distance at which a binary neutron star with masses 1.4 M☉–1.4 M☉ (where M☉ is the solar mass) produces a signal-to-noise ratio of 8 in the detector."

I tried improving it a bit more by segregating the information.

Hmm, I guess my biggest question as a layman is why not say "both with 1.4 solar mass (M☉)"? I am still confused why it's written as 1.4 M☉–1.4 M☉ when as far as I can tell, they're both the same size, and that would be a whole lot simpler to read. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, this is the standard way to write it, and this is how you will find it in the literature (including the reference I used). I can see how it might be confusing so I will change it.

This now made the sentence a lot longer and more complicated. Could you make this simpler, grammatically speaking? The "typically" part referring to the solar mass could be its own sentence. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

"The most common measure of gravitational-wave-detector sensitivity is the horizon distance, defined as the distance at which a reference target (typically a binary neutron star with both components having a mass of 1.4 M☉, where M☉ is the solar mass) produces a signal-to-noise ratio of 8 in the detector."

Better now?

A bit, but is there a reason there isn't a space between 1.4 and solar masses? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Late night editing is why (+ in the editor it rendered the "solar masses" on the next line, so I missed it). Thuiop (talk) 09:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• "Construction of the initial Virgo detector was completed in June 2003,[26] and several data collection periods ("science runs") followed between 2007 and 2011" - why the long wait from 2003 to 2007?

Although they finished building it in 2003, it was not operational before 2007. I added a phrase to reflect that.

• Why the extra spacing in the "Advanced Virgo detector" section?

I am not sure what you mean.

There is an extra space after the fourth paragraph. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I apologize but I really am not seeing it from the editing interface. Is it perhaps because of the image placement for the timeline?

Yup, I get it, no worries. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• The new mirrors were larger (35 cm (14 in) in diameter, with a weight of 40 kg (88 lb)), and their optical performance was improved. - again I hate parenthesis within parenthesis, but that's just me

Removed the parentheses.

• "Observation "runs" for the Advanced detector era are planned by the LVK collaboration with the goal to maximize the observing time with several detectors, and are labelled O1 to O5;" - why the present tense "are planned"?

They are still planned? We are currently during the O4 run, and the O5 plans are susceptible to change still.

But the labeling was done in the past, and decided a while ago, so my big question is, why the present tense? ♫ Hurricanehink(talk) 17:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, this is still in flux. The names were decided from the start but the running periods have changed numerous times and are still decided today (in fact it is highly possible that O5 will not start at the current planned date, and the O4 run was extended this year). Hence I think the present is appropriate here.

Got it, appreciate the explanation. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• It was soon followed by the better-known GW170817, the first merger of two neutron stars detected by the gravitational-wave network and (by October 2024), the only event with a confirmed detection of an electromagnetic counterpart in gamma rays, optical telescopes, radio and x-ray domains. - seeing as this reference is from 2017, either it should be "by 2017", or use the template that lists the current month.

Hm, I can change it to current month, but aren't we supposed to put the month this was last checked?

Is this figure regularly updated? I'm mostly just going by the reference, which is as of 2017. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I can update it regularly if needed, but a second event like this would be a big enough thing to make the news, so this will definitely be updated when it happens. I think it is important to note that there were no other similar events observed for the time being, but providing a "negative source" will be hard.

So then you see that it will quickly become out of date. Since the next thing would be news (as I wondered would've been the case), it should be "as of December 2024". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, done.

And perhaps the same thing when you mention "as of 2024" in the lead? That should be {{currentyear}}. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Done.

• "No signal was observed in Virgo, but this absence was crucial to more tightly constrain the event's localization." - this could use a bit more explanation, since I'm not sure why it wasn't detected.

I completed the phrase.

That's my review. There is a lot of good information in the article, so I appreciate your work so far. Please let me know if you have any questions. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the review! I put in answers to your various comments and made some changes, including adding references to the stuff from the lead. Thuiop (talk) 00:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Added a few replies, thanks for getting back, Thuiop (talk · contribs). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, answered those. Thuiop (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, just a few small things to double check. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks again for all the comments! Thuiop (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Just a few more points for clarification. Some of the edits you made might've introduced some new problems. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for all of the edits and tweaks on my account. Happy to give the thumbs up now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Ajpolino

Happy to take a readthrough and do the source review once you've responded to Hurricanehink's comments above. Ajpolino (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Alright, got through the first couple sections over breakfast. It's a lovely article so far, clear even to a biologist. Small notes as I read through:

• Lead - "The Virgo interferometer is a large-scale experiment... The instrument..." Is the Virgo interferometer an experiment or an instrument? I gather the simple answer is probably "both" but we should at least be consistent in how we conceptualize it in the first few sentences.

Yes, this was also discussed in previous comments. I will settle for "instrument" in the lead, although both would be correct.

• Lead - "The instrument... instrumentation" an instrument's instrumentation seems redundant. Would it be appropriate to say "mirrors and detectors"? Or with the above you could rephrase to something like "the experiment centers on an enormous Michelson interferometer... mirrors and instrumentation...".

Conversely, I changed "instrument" by "detector" to avoid the redundancy.

• Lead - "The collaboration" should "Collaboration" be uppercase since it's referring to the Virgo Collaboration in particular?

I changed it, although it probably was also correct without the uppercase since collaboration is a common noun.

• Organization - "research on, and studies of" are these two different things, or is this redundant?

Yes, it is a bit redundant. It seems like the phrase was initially "research and studies on gravitation" but gradually became distorted; I removed the redundancy.

• Science case - Is there anything that can be done to make "instabilities in compact systems" slightly clearer? I think to my ear "systems" is a generic word (like "things"), but it's probably meant here in a specific sense?

Changed to "astrophysical objects", still somewhat generic, but the point of that specific bit was to be a bit generic.

• Instrument#Laser - O3 and O4 run are mentioned before we know what they are. I see there's been some discussion above on section order. I don't have an opinion on that (yet) but you can get around it here by referring to the date of the run or upgrades (e.g. "reaching 100 W during its 2019–2020 run" or "after 2018 upgrades...").

Yes. I moved the History section following one of the commenters, but I now think this was a mistake; I moved it back.

• Instrument#Laser - "The solution for Advanced Virgo" odd phrasing. Is "Advanced Virgo" used to refer to the upgrades, or to the instrument after it was upgraded? If the former (as the term is used earlier in the article) you could say "The Advanced Virgo upgrades replaced these lasers with..." instead.

I changed it to "Advanced Virgo design"; I myself are not 100% sure which laser is being used right now as there were some issues with the fibre laser early in O4.

• Instrument#Mirrors - "extremely pure glass obtainable" typo?

This was originally "the purest glass obtainable", I forgot to remove the second part when I changed it.

At Instrument#Mirrors. Still very clear. Will get through the rest asap. Ajpolino (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the comments! I addressed them; please note that I ended up moving the History section back up, so be sure not to miss it. Thuiop (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Instrument#Superattenuators - Just to make sure I understand, when you say "benches" do you mean tables that equipment goes on? Or does it have some specific meaning here that I'm not familiar with?

Yes. I clarified the first occurence and added a link to optical table.

• Instrument#Infrastructure - Is it important we learn the abbreviation HWS? It's not used again in the article.

No indeed, although it is widely used in the litterature.

• Instrument#Infrastructure - PCal or Pcal? Either is fine, just be consistent throughout.

Corrected

• Instrument#Infrastructure - Should the paragraph "Due to the interferometer's high power..." be up in the Instrument#Mirrors subsection? The two paragraphs after it also don't seem to quite fit with the first half of the infrastructure section. Maybe they'd go better with Detection system or Noise and sensitivity (or maybe I should just broaden my mental image of "infrastructure")?

No, I wanted the Infrastructure section to regroup all the peripheral subsystems which, although very important, are not as critical as the laser or the mirrors. I feel here that the TCS, the stray light control and the calibration fit in this category. I guess the section could be split in two, but I do not feel it is overly long; happy to hear your opinion.

• Instrument#Infrastructure - Does "additional precautions are needed" mean "additional precautions" are currently being used? Or does it mean they're needed for the future?

Currently. I replaced "needed" by "taken".

• Instrument#Infrastructure - "Dedicated hardware... have been developed for Virgo" Seems silly to say just after we spent 14 paragraphs reading about it. Maybe changing the end of the sentence to "for storing and analyzing Virgo data"? or whatever exactly you want to get across.

I meant specifically electronics, not the things mentioned above. I made it clearer

• Instrument#Detector sens - "a 2011 Virgo sensitivity curve is plotted with a log-log scale." we don't typically refer explicitly to figures in-text, so this can be cut. That said, I don't think there's any prohibition of it, and if your preference is to keep it as-is, I'm not complaining.

Yes, I thought about that when writing (the phrase was already there). I feel it is not too out of place as the juicy stuff is really in the figure, and explaining it without the figure barely makes sense.

• Instrument#Detector sens - On my screen there's a reference (currently 95) floating below this section. Not sure where it's intended to go, so just flagging it for your consideration.

I think it did not get moved properly when I moved the History section, thanks.

• Scientific results - "and putting tight" is the grammar wrong here or am I misunderstanding the sentence?

The grammar was wrong.

Done! Very clear and enjoyable read. Will commence the source review tomorrow. Ajpolino (talk) 03:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again for the comments Thuiop (talk) 09:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Support on prose. Source review below. Ajpolino (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Source Review

Opening as another section for ease of navigation. The article is cited to reliable sources for the topic: relevant scholarly work as well as explanatory webpages hosted by Virgo and its partners. There are a couple papers from publishers with chequered reputations (MDPI, [23] and [24]) but both are written by authors who would be in a position to speak with authority on the topics at hand.

The reference section needs a bit of sprucing up to meet the FA criteria. All small things:

• The webpage "The Virgo Collaboration" (currently ref 2) is dead and I don't see it on archive.org. Any chance you can find that page elsewhere?
• Can we get a date on the LIGO-Virgo MoU? Ditto [25]. And [26]. I'll stop posting each, but for anything dated (news articles, press releases, etc.) a date would be a nice addition to the reference. Makes it much easier to find the reference if it goes dark.
• "Consistent citations" is one of the FA criteria. Sometimes your source titles are in title case, sometimes sentence case (I gather you're following each referenced publication's style). It doesn't matter what style you pick here, but your reference section should be internally consistent.
• Can we get more reference info on What is Ligo??
• "Many authors of the Virgo Collaboration" reads informal. Perhaps just "The Virgo Collaboration" (as the document first notes) or the classic list a few authors followed by "et al."?
• The Virgo Physics Book - should the date be 2020? Not sure if 2006 is a typo or if I'm missing something.
• Is there any other bibliographic info we can find on the Virgo Final Design document?
• Reference 64 "Instruments_Laser&optics" doesn't seem to be working. It just takes me to Virgo's homepage.
• Can we get some formatting for the "VIRGO Vacuum System Overview" reference? You can plop it into {{cite web}} or just make it match the other official documents you cite.
• It looks like the "The Virgo Newtonian calibration system for the O4 observing run" manuscript has now been published in a journal. Flagging it in case you'd like to update your reference.
• Is "Analysis of sensitivity and noise sources for the Virgo gravitational wave interferometer" a PhD thesis? If so, you should format it like you do the other thesis (Li-Wei Wei).
• I think the paper "Distance measures in gravitational-wave astrophysics and cosmology" is cited twice in separate references (currently 93 and 94)

Once you get through those, I'll take a second look and then I think we can wrap this up. Ajpolino (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for the comments. I am quite busy this weekend so it will take a bit of time to address them all, but they are duly noted. Thuiop (talk) 09:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I have addressed all the specific comments, I will handle the broader ones later today or tomorrow. Thuiop (talk) 09:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ajpolino I added the missing dates and corrected the citation style. Let me know if there is anything I missed. Thuiop (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Super! Traveling for the American holiday, so it may take me a few days to return to this, but I will get to it as soon as possible. Ajpolino (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Thuiop, I've taken the liberty of tweaking some references to make them visually consistent (slightly silly perhaps, but an FAC requirement). Please check to make sure I didn't mess anything up. I tried to match what I assumed was your preference based on the other references. With that, and my comments above, happy to Pass this source review. Thanks for the interesting read. Ajpolino (talk) 03:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, these look good to me. And thank you again for all the review work! Thuiop (talk) 09:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Sgubaldo

Will take a look. Ping if I haven't said anything by next week. Sgubaldo (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, here is the requested ping @Sgubaldo Thuiop (talk) 09:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, will try to have a look before Thursday Sgubaldo (talk) 13:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Apologies again, I've been ill. I'll have this done by the end of the weekend. Sgubaldo (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for still taking the time to notify me; I hope you will get better! Thuiop (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Infobox

• Could we have a more specific value for the budget (perhaps the 2024 value)?

Done.

• |fields= feels redundant when you’ve already got Gravitational Wave detection under |purpose=::

Done.

• Instead of having Italy under |region=, why not include it after Cascina in |Location= (i.e. Santo Stefano a Macerata, Cascina, Italy)

Done.

• Do we have a more specific number of staff? If not, then just have ≈880, no need for the whole sentence

The exact count changes very often which is why I went for an approximate amount. I feel the sentence is necessary as I would like to stress that these are the people forming the collaboration and not e.g. the people employed by EGO.

• The title above the inbox is ‘The Virgo experiment’, but this isn’t used anywhere else in the text?

Changed to "Virgo".

Lead

• I feel like the first two sentences could be merged. Why not "The Virgo interferometer is a large-scale instrument for detecting gravitational waves located in Santo Stefano a Macerata, near the city of Pisa, Italy."

Done.

• "....was first approved in 1992 and the construction was completed in 2003." – no need for the 'the'

Done.

Organization

• Shouldn't the title be Organisation if you're using British English?

Done.

• ”The Virgo project is managed by…” ==> As this is the very first sentence after the lead, I’d use ‘interferometer’ rather than ‘project.’

Done.

• ”By metonymy, the site itself is sometimes referred to as EGO, as it represents its headquarter” ==> I presume this is trying to say “By metonymy, the site is sometimes referred to as EGO, as the consortium is headquartered there.” It would also be good if you could have a source after this sentence.

Done; I will see if I can find a source but it may be a bit complicated since this is mostly implicit.

• ”EGO is responsible for the Virgo site and is in charge of the commissioning, maintenance, and operation of the detector and its upgrades.” ==> “EGO is responsible for the Virgo site and is in charge of the detector’s commissioning, maintenance, operation, and upgrades.”

Done.

• ”he budget of EGO fluctuates between 9 and 11.5 million euros per year (2018-2024 period), employing around 60 people” ==> “Between 2018 and 2024, the budget of EGO fluctuated between €9 and €11.5 million, employing around 60 people.”

Done.

• ”The Virgo Collaboration consists of all the researchers working on various aspects of the detector.” ==> Is ‘all the’ necessary here?
• ”…Collaboration in October 2024.” => Probably ‘as of’ would work better rather than ‘in’

Done.

Science Case

• I think ‘coalescenses’ is spelt wrong?

Indeed, rectified.

• ”Detection of these sources is a new way to observe them (often with different information than classical methods such as telescopes)….” ==> Do you mean “Detection of gravitational waves from these sources….”

Done.

History

• ”It began making observations again in 2017, quickly making its first detections with the LIGO detectors.” ==> “It began observations again in 2017, and made its first two detections soon after, together with the LIGO detectors.”

Done.

• ”….Weber; although they could detect gravitational waves in theory, none of the experiments succeeded.” ==> True, but I don’t think it tells the full story. Perhaps in place of “although they could detect gravitational waves in theory, none of the experiments succeeded.”, I would specify that he claimed to have detected waves but no one could replicate his findings. Consider adding some information from this source

This is indeed not the full story, but I did not want to go into too much details since this is not a page about Weber bars. However if you think that this is important I can think of something to add.

• Ref. 26 is 118 pages long, could you specify the particular pages for when it’s used?

This one is tricky. I would love to do it but I only have access to the ebook version, which does not have page numbers, and whose pages in the PDF seemingly do not match the physical edition. Is there a way to cite the relevant chapters instead?

• Move Ref. 37 after the bracket and full stop

Done.

• Ref. 41 is over 700 pages long, please specify page numbers

Done.

• ”Observation "runs" for the Advanced detector era are planned by the LVK collaboration with the goal to maximise the observing time with several detectors, and are labelled O1 to O5; Virgo began participating in these near the end of the O2 run.” ==> Should it be ‘were’ instead of ‘are’?

It was discussed above; my opinion is that the runs are still being planned, with the dates of the O5 run not being finalized yet, and the present is therefore correct.

• ”A system of adaptive optics were installed to correct the mirror aberrations in situ…..” ==> “A system of adaptive optics was installed to correct the mirror aberrations in situ.”

Done.

• ”After further upgrades, Virgo began its third observation run…” ==> There’s an extraneous space before this line

Removed it.

• ”The upgrades following O3 are part of the Advanced Virgo + program…” ==> is there an extraneous space before the plus?

Yes, removed.

• ”Plans to enter the O5 run are expected to be known before the end of 2024” ==> Since we’re getting to the end of 2024, is there more info that can be added to this?

It seems it was delayed to early 2025, I reflected that.

• ”The signal, produced by the final minutes of two neutron stars spiralling closer to each other and merging…” ==> There’s a MOS:SEAOFBLUE for ‘neutron stars spiralling closer

I removed the link on "spiralling closer" which was less useful.

Scientific Results

• ”in particular, it was found that the deviation from perfect spinning balls for close known pulsars is (at most)” ==> ‘spheres’ instead of ‘balls’, and no need for the brackets between ‘at most’

Done.

• ”and put tight constraints on the speed of gravity….” ==> Could you add some detail as to what the constraints were?

Done.

• ”the first merger of two neutron stars detected by the gravitational-wave network and (by November 2024) the only event with a confirmed detection of…” ==> ‘as of’ instead of ‘by’

Done.

Outreach

• "The Virgo collaboration participates in..." – capitalise collaboration?

Done.

• "The collaboration is involved in several artistic projects,...." - ditto as above.

Done.

• ”One important activity is the organisation of guided tours of the Virgo facilities for schools, universities, and the public” ==> reads a little puffery. “One example of an activity is guided tours of the Virgo facilities for schools, universities and the public.”

Done.

• ”….which develops methods and devices for the public understanding of gravitational waves and related topics” ==> I don’t understand what this sentence is saying

Rectified.

Other Comments

• Remove ‘as of 2021’ In the image of the countries with institutions contributing to EGO/Virgo since checking Commons shows the image was updated this year

Done, I forgot to upload the legend after having the image updated.

• I realise that the very first detection of gravitational waves was done by LIGO, but Virgo was part of the announcement if I remember correctly. I see it's mentioned in the lead but not the body

I added a mention of it in the body.

• Most non-journal sources are not archived. Perhaps run IAbot on the page

Will do.

Comments above. Feel free to refuse with justification. Sgubaldo (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your comments! I haved addressed most of them and put answers above, as with the other commenters.Thuiop (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments by RoySmith

My apologies for jumping in at the last minute (and my false start yesterday). I've looked at this a few times but was finally prodded into action by WT:FAC#Science articles are underrepresented. I'm not going to do an in-depth review, but do want to convey my general impression of the article.

My basic concern is the overall structure of the article. This is about a scientific instrument. I think it should put more emphasis on description of the equipment and the experiment it was designed to perform. And, per WP:TECHNICAL, it should make this approachable to a typical reader. I recognize that this is a highly technical topic which can't truly be understood by a reader who doesn't have a grounding in university-level physics, but I think a better job can be done.

The lead section starts with a short paragraph that does indeed talk about the instrument itself, but the majority of the lead is about the international consortium that runs it and the history of its construction. By the end of the lead, the reader still knows almost nothing about with it is, unless they already know what a Gravitational wave or a Michelson interferometer are. The body of the article follows the same pattern. The first section is "Organisation", which goes into detail about who manages is, how it got named, who analyzes the data, etc. The next two major sections (Science case and History) continue to describe things which do not answer the question, "What is this thing?" It's not until we get down to "Instrument" that this question begins to be addressed.

I get the impression that this article shies away from a technical discussion by concentrating too much on the political aspects of how large-scale scientific projects work. Compare with Large Hadron Collider, which is another mega-project run by an international consortium. There, the lead certainly talks about the political aspects, but mostly talks about the instrument itself: what it does, how it works, and the experiments it has performed. The article has a similar structure; it starts out with "Background", which immediately dives into the science. International Space Station is another good example. The lead presents a much more balanced mix of describing the station itself and the international cooperation that went into building and operating it. The body certainly starts out with the organizational stuff ("Conception"), but quickly gets into the science and technology, and spends more time there. I'd like to see this article follow more of that pattern.

Hello Roy, and thanks for your comments.

I think this is mostly a section order question. I do not feel there is too much imbalance into the content; the Organization section is pretty short, and apart from the regular "History" section, the only other non-technical section is the Outreach one which is also very short. Now, as to why the order is that way, it was already partly discussed in the above comments. Basically, it boils down to two things

• I wanted the Organization section to be at the beginning to be able to use terms such as "LVK Collaboration", "EGO" or "Virgo Collaboration", especially in the History section, which requires the reader to understand what these things are.
• It was discussed moving the History section after Instrument, but this ended being confusing to the following commenters. This is because Advanced Virgo is mentioned in the Instrument section, but is introduced in the History section.

So that is the explanation for the article body. For the lead, I do get what you mean, but I am unsure what the alternative is. It is pretty complicated to describe what a Michelson interferometer is, what a gravitational wave is, how the interferometer can detect them and why it is interesting in a sufficiently short manner to fit in the lead. I would like to point out that it is also pretty difficult to understand what the Large Hadron Collider does from reading the lead, unless you already know what a particle accelerator is (although it is later explained in the Background section). Would you be advocating to introduce a Background section? I can try to write something of the sort if you want. Otherwise, I could add a bit more details to the first paragraph of the lead, although I think it would still be cryptic to people. What do you think of the following proposition?

"The Virgo interferometer is a large-scale instrument for detecting gravitational waves in Santo Stefano a Macerata, near the city of Pisa, Italy. The detector is a Michelson interferometer, which can detect the minuscule length variations in its two 3-km (1.9 mi) arms induced by the passage of gravitational waves. The required precision is achieved using many systems to isolate it from the outside world, including keeping its mirrors and instrumentation in an ultra-high vacuum." (with
the correct wiki formatting)

In any case, I am happy to hear your thoughts, either on the body structure or the lead, with these explanations in mind. Thuiop (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I think restructuring might address some of Roy's concerns. A start would be to switch paragraphs two and three of the Lead around. In the body perhaps bring Instrument and to the top. Perhaps History could go at the bottom? Graham Beards (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The issue with History at the bottom is the mentions to Advanced Virgo, which I think are important since the changes were very significant. The Organisation one is a bit more flexible but I would still put it before History. In that sense, the Background section would make sense. As for the lead, this may work. Thuiop (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll take a shot the lead. This draws from a few other articles and may not be a strict summary of what's in this article, so further edits to the body might be required if this is used. The three paragraphs talk about, in turn, the history and scientific background, a technical description of the instrument, and finally the organizations that run the experiments.

possible lead replacement

The Virgo interferometer is a large scientific instrument which detects gravitational waves. These waves, produced by massive objects in space such as pulsars and binary stars, radiate outward from their sources at the speed of light. Their existence was theorized in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and predicted by the theory of general relativity. The first attempts in the 1970s to detect the waves failed but led in the early 1980s to the idea of using a large interferometer as a detector. An instrument design, proposed in 1987 by Adalberto Giazotto and Alain Brillet, was approved by the Italian Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN) and the French Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS) with construction beginning in 1996 and the first observations made in 2000. The instrument is a large Michelson interferometer; this is an optical device which splits a laser beam into two parts, sending each on a different path and measuring extremely small differences in how long it takes for the beams to traverse the two paths. In Virgo, the two paths are 3 km long steel tubes maintained under an ultra-high vacuum. One path is oriented east-west and the other north-south, and thus react differently to gravitational waves impinging on the system. A set of mirrors at the ends of the tubes cause the beam to bounce back and forth thousands of times through the tubes, increasing the sensitivity of the instrument. The Virgo facility is located in Santo Stefano a Macerata, Italy and operated by the European Gravitational Observatory (EGO), an international consortium of over 800 researchers in 21 countries. Activities are coordinated with the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) the United States and the Kamioka Gravitational Wave Detector (KAGRA) in Japan, with joint observation runs lasting months or years interspersed with periods used for maintenance and upgrades. The device is named after the Virgo Cluster, which includes about 1,500 galaxies in the constellation Virgo.

RoySmith (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Roy, while we await our expert, the nominator's comments, may I suggest "located" is redundant and "be reflected" is better than "bounce back"? Graham Beards (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Both of those suggestions sound good to me. RoySmith (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Hm, I am not too fond of it. I find it strange to have historical information in the first paragraph, instead of basic information about the instrument such as its location and what it is. Overall, I feel like the focus is not on the correct information: for instance, in the historical part you describe the genesis of gravitational waves and interferometers, but nothing about the history after the year 2000, which is where the interesting stuff happens. I am also not sure about describing what gravitational waves are. For the instrument part, the exact orientation of the arms does not seem relevant to me; the fact that the light bounces thousands of times is also a "technicality"; it is more important to note that a lot of precautions are taken to isolate the instrument from the outside world. Finally, the organisation part does not make the difference between EGO and Virgo Collaboration which is very important. It also does not explain why joint observation is important, while it is a crucial point of operating a gravitational wave detector. Thuiop (talk) 00:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I still think swapping the second and third paragraphs is worth considering, (and massive objects alone don't cause waves). Also, we need to agree that the focus of the article is as much on the project as it is the interferometer. Graham Beards (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm eager to see your improved version. RoySmith (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, let me try something:

New lead proposition

The Virgo interferometer is a large-scale instrument for detecting gravitational waves in Santo Stefano a Macerata, near the city of Pisa, Italy. The detector is a Michelson interferometer, which can detect the minuscule length variations in its two 3-km (1.9 mi) arms induced by the passage of gravitational waves. The required precision is achieved using many systems to isolate it from the outside world, including keeping its mirrors and instrumentation in an ultra-high vacuum and suspending them using complex systems of pendula. Its observations are concentrated on specific periods, between which the detector is upgraded to increase its sensitivity. These "observation runs" are planned in collaboration with other similar detectors, including the two LIGO in the United States and the Japanese KAGRA, as cooperation between several detectors is crucial for detecting gravitational waves and pinpointing their origin. It was conceived and built when gravitational waves were only a prediction of general relativity. The project, named after the Virgo galaxy cluster[4], was first approved in 1992 and construction was completed in 2003. After several years of improvements without detection, it was shut down in 2011 for the "Advanced Virgo" upgrades. In 2015, the first observation of gravitational waves was made by the two LIGO detectors, while Virgo was still being upgraded. It resumed observations in early August 2017, making its first detection on 14 August (together with the LIGO detectors); this was quickly followed by the detection of the GW170817 gravitational wave, the only one observed with classical methods (optical, gamma-ray, X-ray and radio telescopes) as of 2024.[5] Virgo is hosted by the European Gravitational Observatory (EGO), a consortium founded by the French Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) and the Italian Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN).[1] The broader Virgo Collaboration, gathering 880 members in 21 countries,[2] operates the detector, and defines the strategy and policy for its use and upgrades. The LIGO and Virgo collaborations have shared their data since 2007, and with KAGRA since 2019, forming the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA (LVK) collaboration.[3]

Thuiop (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Two comments.
  • In the first sentence it is ambiguous as to whether it is the waves or the detector which are in Santo Stefano a Macerata. It needs rearranging to something like. "The Virgo interferometer is a large-scale instrument in Santo Stefano a Macerata, near the city of Pisa, Italy for detecting gravitational waves.
  • And this is a little awkward "Its observations are concentrated on specific periods, between which the detector is upgraded to increase its sensitivity." How about "Between its periodical observations the detector is upgraded to increase its sensitivity." ? Graham Beards (talk) 11:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

    Ah, I had missed this comment. I am happy to implement these suggestions, depending on @RoySmith opinion. Thuiop (talk) 14:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

    I don't think we need to have "in Santo Stefano a Macerata, near the city of Pisa" in the first sentence. That's just not the most important thing about it. Imagine you were in an elevator taking a ride up to your office and had 30 seconds to tell a colleague about this instrument. How much of that precious time would you spend explaining that it was in that specific town, and that the town was near Pisa? Wouldn't it be enough to just say that it is "in Italy"?

    My understanding of the physics here is that while it's not essential that the arms are oriented east-west and north-south, it is essential that they are at right angles to each other as that lets you decompose the signal into two orthogonal components, maximizing the directional sensitivity. RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

    I can replace by "near Pisa, Italy".
    I can also mention the perpendicularity of the arms, but Michelson interferometers typically have perpendicular arms already so this does not seem to be an important information to me. Also, the picture in the infobox shows them to be perpendicular. Thuiop (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

    I think it's already there: "From the air, the Virgo detector has an "L" shape with its two 3-km-long (1.9 mi) perpendicular arms." Graham Beards (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

    In the body, sure; I think he was talking about the lead in particular. Thuiop (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

    I am not convinced that is needed. As you say, it is shown in the Lead image. Graham Beards (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

    Ok, in any case, I changed the lead to this new proposition. Thuiop (talk) 09:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Boot Monument

Nominator(s): ‍Relativity ⚡️ 22:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a strange monument located in Saratoga National Historical Park, New York. It is shaped like a boot. However, the monument's honoree is never mentioned on the monument because his name was Benedict Arnold, someone who betrayed the Continental army to the British army. I've brought this article from Start-class to GA-class (review), and then had it reviewed for A-class, which it passed. I think that it's now ready for FAC. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 22:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Working Sorry, I'm inexperienced with alt text. I'm working on reading up on how to add that to an image in an infobox. Hopefully I'll find out soon. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 02:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• I just added draft alt text for the two images. Relativity, feel free to edit the text as you see fit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan

I was a reviewer at the ACR and can support the article for promotion to FA class. I also did the source review and spot checks at the ACR which passed, I can do these again if needed. Matarisvan (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "continued to grow ever more bitter towards the Continental Army when he was passed over for promotion, lost his business, and he was court-martialed" => "continued to grow ever more bitter towards the Continental Army when he was passed over for promotion, lost his business, and was court-martialed"

• Done

• Link Arnold on first use in body

• Linked in Background section; not sure if I need to link it elsewhere

• "American Major General Benedict Arnold had contributed to both Battles of Saratoga" - can we get a bit more context around this? I doubt that almost anyone outside the United States has the faintest idea what/when the Battles of Saratoga were, so you need to explain that this occurred during the American Revolutionary War and potentially even add that this was fought between the Americans and British

• added "two crucial battles of the American Revolutionary War that took place near Saratoga, New York."

• "a writer of several military histories about the Battle of Saratoga" - singular? It was plural earlier

• changed to "battles"

• "the only monument in Saratoga National Park that does not say the name of its honoree" - as a monument can't speak I would suggest that "show the name" would be better

• Done

• "The toe of the Boot Monument was stolen by college boys on a visit" - any idea when this was? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• As I stated in the ACR, unfortunately no. All of the sources that were used in that little section date from 1927-1931, but a specific date is never mentioned. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 18:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• On the last point, I think you should at least state that the "mysterious informer" bit occurred in 1931, because that seems indisputable. Currently there's nothing to give any sort of timeframe whatsoever within the entire 130+ year history of the monument...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: Done. Thanks for the review! ‍Relativity ⚡️ 00:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "However, at the end of the conflict, Arnold's leg and horse were shot. When the horse fell, Arnold's leg shattered." This doesn't really make sense, it is given almost in bullet point. It needs unpacking a litle and expressing in full prose.

• I tried changing it to "While fighting at the Battle of Bemis Heights, Arnold's left leg was severely injured after it had been shot and crushed by his horse, which had been hit by gunfire as well.". Let me know your thoughts.

How's about something like 'While fighting at the Battle of Bemis Heights, Arnold was shot and severely injured in his left leg. His horse was also hit by gunfire and fell on Arnold, crushing his already injured leg.'? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I like it :). Done

• "This contributed to Arnold's bitterness ... This along with the fact that his ..." Could we avoid two consequecutive sentences starting with "This"?

• Both sentences changed

• Also, suggest rephrasing the first 'Along with his combat wounds, business troubles, Congress having promoted some rival and younger generals ahead of him, and a court-martial which resulted in him being convicted of two minor charges of using his role as military commander of Philadelphia to make a profit, this being overlooked caused Arnold to develop a growing bitterness towards the revolutionary cause.' or similar.

• Changed to "In addition, his combat wounds, business troubles, the promotion of rival and younger generals by Congress, and a court-martial conviction of two minor charges of profiting off of his military commander of Philadelphia role further angered Arnold.", although I'm not sure how I feel about it.

"in his report of the aftermath of the battle". Delete "of the aftermath", I assume the report was on the whole battle. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Would 'which angered Arnold. In addition, his combat wounds, business troubles, the promotion of rival and younger generals by Congress, and a court-martial conviction of two minor charges of profiting off of his military commander of Philadelphia role further embittered him.' work better for you?

Better, yes. I've changed it.

• "with Sir Henry Clinton finally offering". Introduce Clinton.

• I added "British General." Hopefully that's enough...

• "and remained as a general there until the war ended." Could we be told the year it ended?

• Done

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• "In a Saratoga Monument Association (SMA) meeting in July of 1882". Introduce the SMA.

• Done

• "There were no objections to the stake." It is a little unclear by this.

• Tried "No one at the meeting objected to the stake being placed"

• "The monument underwent restoration after Adolph S. Ochs, publisher of The New York Times, financed it." Is it known when this restoration took place?

• As I said above, unfortunately no. All of the sources that were used in that little section date from 1927-1931, but a specific date is never mentioned.

• but it was later moved after further research as to where Arnold injured his leg, which was the more southern end of the main redoubt line." This is not clear and could probably be usefully rephrased.

• Tried "The monument was originally located further to the north at the top of the hill at the Breymann Redoubt site, but after further research as to where Arnold injured his leg, the monument was moved further south to where the main fortifications of the redoubt were"

Suggest removing the second "further", but otherwise that looks good.

Removed

• "Appearance" section. This should start with an overall description - not with the inscription. This could be resolved by swapping the first and second paragraphs of the section

• Done

• References: article titles should consistently be in title case, regardless of how they appear in their original.

• Done

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: I think I've addressed everything you've brought up above. Thank you for taking the time to review! ‍Relativity ⚡️ 22:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Grand. A couple of come backs and suggestions above. If I don't respond to something it means I am content. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Addressed everything. Thanks again ‍Relativity ⚡️ 01:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Source review: pass

I'll do this in a little bit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Here are a few comments to start:

• Aryes should be Ayres

• Fixed

• Ayres: I recommend replacing the url with this one that links directly to the book listing, rather than to a word search within the book.

• Fixed

• I can't find the Ayres book in WorldCat, but I can find a 2006 print book with a similar name by the same author. Is the 2008 e-book a less-distributed update on the 2006 print book?

• I suppose so, although I'm not 100% sure. There's a 2006 edition that has less pages than the 2008 edition.

• Ducharme and Fine: the pages parameter should show the page numbering, not the number of pages. For this entry, it should be 1309–1331, not 23.

• Fixed

• Ducharme and Fine: Social Forces appears to be published in Chapel Hill, NC. Where did you find the publication place to be Athens, GA?

• I believe that I had seen that Ducharme and Fine were both from the University of Georgia, and found that the university was located in Athens. Fixing now.

• Duling: I recomment this url in place of the one the article currently uses, for the same reason as the one above for the Ayres book.

• Fixed

• Frothingham: This listing makes it seem like it is for an article called "The Turning Point of the Revolution" by Frothingham and and Nickerson, whereas it is a review by Frothingham of Nickerson's book The Turning Point of the Revolution. You should remove Nickerson as author of the article and change the article title to "Reviewed Work: The Turning Point of the Revolution Hoffman Nickerson". Also add the full page range.

• I'm not sure how I messed this up, but this citation is for the actual book by Hoffman Nickerson. Oops. Hopefully I've fixed that accordingly.

I'll continue looking through the sources and add more comments later. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Here are a few more:

• Wikilink Benson John Lossing

• Done

• Lossing: add New York, New York as location of publication.

• Done

• Lossing: I recommend using this link.

• Done

• Lossing: the url goes to volume 2. If the citation is to that volume, then add the volume number to the works cited listing.

• Added volume number

• Lossing: In a works cited list otherwise entirely composed of publications from the 20th and 21st centuries, this work stands out. Is there not a newer work that can support the claim that Arnold fled to New York to join the British?

• Yes, Philbrick's book works as well. Should I replace it?

• I recommend that you do. WP:OLDSOURCES indicates that newer scholarship should be preferred over older. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Fixed

• I recommend Wikilinking Savas Beatie. It's a redirect to the founder of the company, which is not the most helpful, but I suppose there's a possibility someone will convert that redirect into a real article someday.

• Linked

• Murphy: I recommend using this link.

• Done

• Tonsetic: I recommend this link.

• Done

• Williams: I recommend using this link.

• Done

• Citation 5 is Luzader 2008, p. 388–390 but should be "pp."

• Fixed

• Citation 14 is Randall 1990, pp. 448–540. Is that supposed to be 448–450? 122 pages is way too long a range for this citation to be useful.

• I'd added the wrong pages anyways so I've fixed it now.

• This citation (citation 13 now) still gives 448–540 as the page range. That range is way too long to be helpful to the reader. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I've lost access to the book, but I'll message someone or ask at WP:TREX t. rex... :) to see if they know which pages that appears on specifically.

@Dugan Murphy: Done ‍Relativity ⚡️ 02:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Leopold: I recommend using a citation template like Template:Cite document to fix the formatting issues.

• Done, but now there's no link to the actual document. Is that okay?

• Oh, that url is important. I just changed it myself to Template:Cite report, which supports the inclusion of a url and archive url. The source listing has the important information and it is formatted better, so I think it's good now. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you!

I'll add more later. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

This is the rest of my comments:

• MOS:DATETIES tells me the date format for both the body and the citations should MDY instead of DMY. The exception listed there for articles on the modern US military, including biographical articles related to the modern US military doesn't seem to apply well to a history marker commemorating an 18th-century figure.

• I think I've now fixed all of the instances of dmy.

• When using Template:Poem quote, don't use the source parameter for the citations. That parameter is for the name of the person being quoted, which the reader already knows is the monument. Instead, move the citations to the main body so they attach to the end of the inscription, rather than appear on a new line, preceded by an emdash.

• Moved. Is that what you're looking for?

• I just moved the citations myself. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you (again)

• Watson: Add a publication place since this is not a super well-known publication.

• Added

• I recommend piping The Telegraph Wikilink so "(Nashua, New Hampshire)" doesn't show up in italics.

• Done

• "Find Clue to Missing Monument": Wikilink goes to wrong paper.

• It does? For me it goes where it should. Where does it go for you?

• It's the second use of that newspaper article, which is currently citation 28. The Wikilink goes to The Daily Telegraph instead of The Telegraph (Nashua, New Hampshire). You should use "ref name" anyway so both citations show up as one in the references list. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Fixed

• "May Find Toe of Only Statue to a Left Leg": Since there's no Wikilink for the newspaper, I recommend adding the publication city.

• Done

• Thompson: add publication date.

• Done

• Rather than including "(U.S. National Park Service)" in the web page title, you list National Park Service in the publisher parameter.

• Done

• "Digital Collections": It would be helpful to add New York State Archives using the publisher parameter. Also, capitalize "dedicated". Also, why is this the only web item without an archive link?

• Added publisher, capitalized, and added archive link.

• If The Washington Post is Wikilinked, so should The New York Times.

• Linked

• Coe: Capitalize the article title.

• Done

• I would say you should pipe The Evening Tribune Wikilink, but it goes to the wrong paper anyway. If there isn't a Wiki article for this paper, you should add Providence as the publication place.

• Unlinked and added location

• Duffus's initials appears to be R.I., not R.L.

• Fixed

• I'm of the opinion that information in the infobox shouldn't need citations because it should only summarize information that is already cited in the body. In that regard, I recommend adding to the body the monument's location within the historical park (that info seems to be indicated in the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph of the History section, but it says it is in "Saratoga National Park", not Saratoga National Historical Park, as the lead and infobox indicate. Anyway, once that information is clearly indicated in the body, I think you can remove all citations from the infobox because all that info is already cited in the body.

• Done

Summary: Everything in the works cited list are either books held by university libraries (with the semi-exception of Ayres, per comment above) or articles in academic journals. The inline citations includes a few other sources, which all seem reliable. There's an impressive breadth of scholarship and journalism represented in this article for how short it is. Earwig finds plagiarism unlikely. Most of the similarities it can find are quotes. Citations are consistently formatted with the exception of minor issues, outlined above. Overall, the sources look great and I think all the issues above are very fixable. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Dugan Murphy: I think that I've addressed all of your concerns above, although I have a few questions about the comments you left about Leopold's source, Template:Poem quote, and "Find Clue to Missing Monument". This is a very impressive review and thank you for taking the time to do it! ‍Relativity ⚡️ 00:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

No problem. I'm happy to see articles about esoteric history markers being improved. I've responded to a few things that still need work. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing a few more things. At this point, I think the only thing holding back this source review from passing is the Randall 1990 page range issue above. Dugan Murphy (talk) 12:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Great work with this article, Relativity! I see no other issues holding back this source review from passing. I have an FAC nomination of my own that needs more attention. If you are able to take a look, I would appreciate it. You'll find it here. Dugan Murphy (talk) 12:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

SC - Support

A marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• "The most accepted version of Arnold's contributions,[2] supported by Arnold biographer James Kirby Martin,[3] is that he led troops on the battlefield." The references here are in an odd position. Ref two is only supporting the first seven words of the sentence, while the final eight words are not supported by either of the citations that are supporting it. It would be better to move both to the end of the sentence where they will be supporting everything they need to.

• Done

• "Arnold to start making communications with": This is a bit clunky. Would "Arnold started to communicate with" be an improvement?

• I'm not sure. It sounds a bit odd with the "caused" in front. I changed it to "caused Arnold to start communicating with" though— let me know your thoughts

• "These troubles, along with the fact that his wife, Peggy Shippen, came from a family of Loyalists, caused Arnold to start making communications with the British army, with British general Sir Henry Clinton finally offering Arnold £20,000 (equivalent to £3,353,000 in 2023) for the capture of West Point,[11] a fortification that was important to the control of the Hudson River" This is a monster sentence of sixty words. There are a few places where it could be split in two, but I think that after "British army" would be the best place for a full stop.

• Fixed

• You have "British general" Clinton but "British Major" Andre – consistent formatting would be good

• Fixed— capitalized "General"

• "July of 1882": just "July 1882" would be more in line with the MOS

• Fixed

• Caption of "The Boot Monument from the back": "The reverse of the Boot Monument" may be a bit better?

• Changed

• "It never mentions Arnold": ->"It does not mention Arnold". Even better would be to reframe the whole sentence as "Because of Arnold's defection to the British it does not mention him by name"

• Reframed

• "(see damnatio memoriae)": Dropping a Latin tag, unexplained, in brackets into the prose isn't the best way to deal with it. Either inline ("in an example of damnatio memoriae—Latin for "condemnation of memory"—etc") or include as a footnote.
• Additionally, if it's in Latin, you should use a ... template, which also has the benefit of italicising it
• "Similarly to how Arnold's name does not appear on the Boot Monument because of his betrayal to the British side, the Saratoga" is a bit cumbersome and wordy: "As with the absence of Arnold's name from the Boot monument, the Saratoga" would be better for readers. Again, the two references are floating in the middle of the sentence, not supporting the final part of the sentence - probably best to move them to the end of the sentence.

• Fixed

An interesting piece. I hope these help. - SchroCat (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• @SchroCat: Definitely helped. Thank you for giving it a read! I had one minor qualm with your second point, but otherwise, all is resolved (I hope). ‍Relativity ⚡️ 02:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support All good from me. - SchroCat (talk) 06:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Spotcheck

Spot-checking this revision:

• 6 Can't access this source, but going by commons:Template:PD-US-expired it should be out of copyright, which means that a) you might want to link to a free version, or as Google Books to make its version public and b) is it that good of a source if it's this old?

• I linked to a different Google Books version, which has a free pdf of the book. On the age standpoint of the source, there are other sources in the article that are of a similar or slightly older age, so I'm hesitant to remove it, but I can probably replace it. Let me take a look...

• So I've looked through many sources and I was unable to find a source that supports the fact that Gates' orders reached Arnold after the battle had ended.

Seems like the emailed version checks out.

• 9 Can't access this source.

  Got it, checks out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• 10 Can't access this source.
• 19 Doesn't say he was a major general of the New York State Militia.

• I couldn't find a reliable source that said specifically that he was a major general of the New York State militia, so I altered the text slightly and supported it with a source that was already in use.

• 20 Doesn't say that de Peyster was a historian.

• Added source; see above

• 22 OK
• 23 OK
• 25 Google Books supports most, save for 1975.
• 26 Google Books supports.
• 27 OK
• 31 Partly supported by the Google Books snippet.
• 32 OK
• 35 OK
• 37 Can't access this source.
• 39 OK
• 41 Is two-stars = major general?

• The two-star part is actually supported by citation 42, so I moved citations 40 and 41 to where citation 42 is located. To answer your question, yes, two-star does mean major general, so I've clarified that.

• 42 OK
• 44 Can't access this source.
• 47 Can't access this source.
• 49 Can't access this source.

By the by, I don't think that the New York Times requires an ISSN.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I think that I've addressed everything you brought up here, unless I've missed something. Thank you for doing the spotcheck! ‍Relativity ⚡️ 04:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  Um, yeah, I wasn't clear - the sources I can't access also need to be verified. That means that either a) an uninvolved editor with access checks them or b) you send me copies of the pages questioned. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Jo-Jo Eumerus: So slight problem. I don't have email enabled, and I don't know how else to send you some of the sources which would be tricky to get access to. What do you suggest I do? ‍Relativity ⚡️ 03:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  I've seen people using them on temporary Google Drives and then post a link. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Bit the bullet and added an email on file. Working... ‍Relativity ⚡️ 03:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Relativity, Jo-Jo, two weeks on, what's the state of play? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild @Jo-Jo Eumerus I've sent all of the sources (Jo-Jo: I believe I also sent source 47 as well) except for source 10, but there's been a bit of a problem on my end regarding that source. I just got access to it again but there might be a discrepancy regarding the page numbers, which I'm trying to resolve. However, I plan to send that source in today. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 18:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

All sources have been sent. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 02:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Marked most as done, but I don't think I got all sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I just sent you source 47. Am I missing any other sources that you need to access? ‍Relativity ⚡️ 18:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

No, only two Google Books things that I can't verify. Remember that GBooks doesn't display the same thing to everyone. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Sent both GBooks sources. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 00:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks like this is done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking the time to do this! ‍Relativity ⚡️ 02:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments from KJP1

First, apologies for coming late to the party. It's an interesting monument and an equally interesting article. On my read through, various questions do arise. I'll set these out fully over the next day or so, but as an initial aide memoire for me:

Lead

• "the most brilliant soldier of the Continental Army" - as a point of interest, is this a view widely held by military historians, or just de Peyster's view? It's quite a claim. I'm no expert in the area, but doesn't Washington have some right to that title? Secondly, it's given in quotes in the inscription, which says it is a quote from someone. Do the sources say who?

• This is de Peyster's view and is inscribed on the Boot Monument.

• "Battles of Saratoga" - I did not know that these were two battles, neither called the Battle of Saratoga. If I understand it correctly, the first was the Battle of Freeman's Farm, and the second, the Battle of Bemis Heights. I therefore got confused between the first paragraph which talks of Saratoga, and the second which talks of Bemis Heights. Could this be unpacked a little? I know you do so in the Background section but would it be possible to have something in the lead? Perhaps - "While fighting at the Battle of Bemis Heights, the second of the Saratoga engagements..."

• Done.

• What about his leg? - The article isn't explicit as to whether or not Arnold lost his leg. Given the centrality of the leg to the monument, I think it would help to clarify this point. Our article on Arnold makes clear that he didn't, and that it was badly re-set.

• Added

• "passed over for promotion" - I struggled to reconcile this with the Background section, which says "not having been promoted by Congress", and the Appearance section which says "Arnold did not earn the rank of Major General after, and because of, Saratoga, but he became more senior than the other officers who had been promoted before him". Our Arnold article says "Congress restored Arnold's command seniority in response to his valor at Saratoga". I am confused as to whether he was promoted after Saratoga, or he wasn't. I'll come back to the sentence referenced in the Appearance section below as I find it confusing.

• Yeah, this part can be a bit confusing. Basically, Congress had promoted a couple of other people to Major General before Arnold. Later, Congress promoted Arnold to Major General, but because those other generals had been promoted first, they still technically had a higher "rank" than Arnold did even though they were all Major Generals. There was no official change in Arnold's rank though. Should I clarify this?

• "lost his business" - apologies if I've missed it, but I could find no reference to this intriguing point in the body of the article. Given that the lead is a summation of the body, I think this also requires a little expansion.

• I had that in the body previously but had to reword it. I removed it from the lead.

Background

• "both Battles of Saratoga, two crucial battles of the American Revolutionary War" - we have "battles" twice, separated by only four words. "engagements"/"conflicts"?

• Good catch! I reworded it to "engagements"

• "However" - you've two sentences beginning with this, and more elsewhere. Are they necessary?

• They're not. I removed the "however". For some reason, I really like to start sentences with "however". However, I really shouldn't when it's not necessary.

• False titles - I'm no expert on this, but "British General" / "British Major" jar slightly, as does the intro of "American Major General Benedict Arnold". Could they be rephrased? Perhaps - "The British commander-in-chief", assuming he was by that point / "a British officer"?

• I reworded one of the instances of "British General", but I'm not sure how I can remove them without having that information clog up the text. I was also asked at the A-Class review to include specific ranks of people, so I don't think I can remove them entirely.

History

• "The SMA...held a meeting in 1882" - given they were formed in 1859, possibly a little explanation as to what took them so long would be helpful.

• Added explanation. Basically, they faced financial problems which delayed the construction of the Saratoga Battle Monument.

• The stake story - this puzzled me as to its significance. Who put it there, and when? Did it bear Arnold's name? Does the fact that no one at the meeting objected to it matter? Is there anything more in the sources to enable expansion of this point?
• "simply a slab of granite to commemorate Arnold" - did anyone actually suggest a "slab of granite"? And was this to bear his name?
• "However, the monument was still at the Breymann Redoubt before the time of its move and is still at the southern end of the redoubt" - aside from being another sentence beginning "However", what is this actually saying? "It was where it was and now it is where it is"?
• Arnold's toe - When did this occur; do the sources suggest whether it was a schoolboy prank or a political gesture; "they were only discovered" suggests the perpetrators were apprehended, were they or was it the absence of the toe that was discovered; and was the restoration solely to restore the appendage, or more?

Appearance

• "One error in the inscription is that Arnold did not earn the rank of Major General after, and because of, Saratoga, but he became more senior than the other officers who had been promoted before him" - see Lead comment above. I'm afraid I just don't understand this sentence.
• Inscription - this also threw me. I think the first four lines are actually referring to Peyster, not to Arnold. Is it possible to make this clear? Looking at a blow-up of the inscription, is there a spacing between these lines and the rest? Also, is it possible to explain all the acronyms, perhaps in a footnote; "Brev: Maj: Gen: S.N.Y. 2nd V. Pres't Saratoga Mon't Ass't'n" - I can work them out but they aren't clear to any non-specialist.

I shall return to this tomorrow to tidy up. You may find it easier to wait until then, but feel free to respond now should you prefer. KJP1 (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Now done. Hope the comments are helpful. Let me know if any clarifications are needed. KJP1 (talk) 10:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Relativity have you noticed these comments? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

They have, and have responded to the first two sections. I think they will respond to the rest shortly. KJP1 (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I will. Sorry, I've just been quite busy in real life. Hopefully I'll respond to some of these later today or tomorrow, ‍Relativity ⚡️ 01:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)