Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2024

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 31 July 2024 [1].

---

Mario Party DS

Nominator(s): ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Mario Party DS is the second handheld game in the Mario Party series and the only installment in the series originally released for the Nintendo DS. I've already successfully nominated the article for good article status, and I feel that subsequent revisions/additions I've made to the page have only enhanced its clarity; for instance, the caption in the article's infobox has been changed from North American packaging artwork, depicting Mario, Luigi, Toad, Wario, Waluigi, Princess Peach, Princess Daisy, Yoshi and Bowser on the stage Toadette's Music Room to North American packaging artwork, depicting Mario, Luigi, Toad, Wario, Waluigi, Princess Peach, Princess Daisy, Yoshi, and Bowser on the Toadette's Music Room board for more consistency with the use of the serial comma within the article, as well as better indication that "Toadette's Music Room" is in fact the name of a board in the game. Naturally, I look forward to feedback for this FA nomination, and I would be willing to make any necessary changes to the article. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Review by Hurricanehink

Big fan of this series! I figured I’d review since I have an ongoing FAC and needed something light and game like to read this morning. I haven’t played the DS version, so I’m curious how this stacks up.

• ”It is the second handheld game in the Mario Party series” - worth linking Handheld game console?
• ”The game has sold over nine million units, making it the 11th best-selling game for the Nintendo DS.” - the source doesn’t say the 11th best selling for DS, so could find a source for that?
• ”Much like other games in the series, Mario Party DS allows up to four players to compete in an interactive board game.” - small nitpick, but can you play with only two or three players? I thought every MP game was four players.
• ”rolling dice to move between one and 10 spaces at a time” - another small nitpick, but when two numbers are used in the same sentence, I prefer they’re written in the same style, so “ten” not “10”
• I see that other MP games’ articles capitalize “Star”, but is there a reason why? Especially sentences that mention coin and Stars, it’s just odd with that capitalization.
• ”Once there are five turns remaining, an event known as the "Final 5 Frenzy" occurs in which Bowser aids the player in last place by giving them coins or a Star, depending on the outcome of a roulette.“ - ref 11 doesn’t mention the Final 5 Frenzy (but rather Bowser helping halfway through?), and I don’t recognize that from other games by that name. Also, is it really Bowser? Other games have Koopa Troopa (and not King Koopa) giving that.
• I love that there are five bosses, I didn’t know MP had that! Aside from Bowsers, who are the others? Idk if worth mentioning, but I’m curious. (Petey Piranha, Big Boo, Dry Bones, and Kamek I’m guessing…. And it appears I’m right!)
• I see ref 18 citing part of the plot section. What about refs for the rest of the section?
• I take it the game isn’t available on the Switch?
• I appreciated the Japan sales figures, but anything for any other areas?

All in all, a good read! The game sounds interesting how it’s a bit different on the DS. The microphone aspect was unexpected, I can’t imagine how that was used (not that you need to go into detail on that). Let me know if you have any questions, but I hope none of these comments are too difficult. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your feedback! Here's a few notes in return:

• I have linked two known instances of "handheld game" in the article.
• To my knowledge, it is possible to play with only two or three players, except in Story Mode and certain modes that require all four players.
• Every instance of "Star" is actually capitalized in-game, while most if not all instances of "coin" are not. I'm not sure why, but that's just the way it is with most titles in the series.
• The recurring event is in fact known as "Final 5 Frenzy" in this game, and although it is hosted by Koopa Troopa in several other games in the series, it is hosted by Bowser here.
• You're mostly correct with the bosses in the game—Piranha Plant, Hammer Bro, Dry Bones, Kamek, and Bowser, in that order.
• The game is currently not available on the Nintendo Switch, though the first few games in the series are available via the Nintendo Switch Online service.

I'll be sure to keep all of your feedback in mind, particuarly that regarding references, as well as suggestions from other editors! ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! Were you able to find a source for the plot section by chance? That’s my only outstanding comment. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The reference that's currently used in that section actually appears to summarize the game's entire story mode (it even includes dialogue from some of the cutscenes), so if anything, it could probably just be moved to the end of the section. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Yea if the reference covers that all, I’d love if the whole plot section could be sourced. I don’t like supporting articles for FAC if there’s any section without a reference. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Support thanks! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Source review (LunaEclipse)

First heard about this game when the fake anti-piracy screen for it went viral. Honestly can't believe this article is up for FAC. Will start reviewing in a few days. lunaeclipse ^(talk) 20:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support on source review. Found no issues with sourcing or ref formatting. The Nintendo sources should be fine per WP:ABOUTSELF, as the claims are not that big of a deal (i.e. they are not contentious). lunaeclipse ^(talk) 00:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Image review by CosXZ

First FA review that I have done.

• File:Mario Party DS US cover.jpg: looks good.
• File:MarioPArtyDS.jpg: source link is dead.

Support on images alone. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 17:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Vacant0

Will leave comments here. --Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• References mostly seem to look okay. I do have a couple of recommendations, though. I initially got confused about the "Nintendo of Europe, 2007" refs until I noticed that this is meant to be Ref 9 re-used a couple of times. Instead of adding them as a ref, I recommend re-using Ref 9 with the {{sfn}} template. If you don't know how, move the Ref 9 to a new subsection in the References section and use the {{sfn}} template at places where it is used in the text (e.g. {{sfn|Nintendo of Europe|2007|p=17}}).
• Is it possible to expand Refs 24 and 27?
• The director, producers, designers, programmer, artist, and composers (present in the infobox) are unsourced.
• "Much like other games in the series" → specify, "Much like other games in the Mario Party series" then unlink Mario Party in the fifth paragraph.
• The rest of the text appears to be in a good shape.
• Unsure whether it is relevant enough to be included in the article, but you can add the fact that it costed $34.99 (ref: {{cite news |title=Party games make their way to the Wii |agency=[[The Associated Press]] |publisher=[[Gainesville Sun]] |date=29 December 2007 |page=2A}})

Thanks for your feedback! I've done my best to take all of it into consideration:

• Used the {{sfn}} template where I felt it was appropriate
• I looked into both the Nintendo Power and Famitsu references, but was unable to find either of them online.
• The director, producers, designers, programmer, artist, and composers in the infobox are now sourced (and a couple of previously unnoticed typos were corrected).
• The phrase has been altered and Mario Party unlinked later in the section.
• I'm not sure if there would be a good place to insert the price information, unless it could be worked somewhere into the "Sales" subsection.

★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 14:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll fix the {{sfn}} templates for you, if that's not a problem? There are harv errors now, that's why. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you maybe have offline access to Famitsu? The page is missing, that is why. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I unfortunately do not. I've noticed the same citation is used on Professor Layton and the Diabolical Box, albeit also without a page number. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay. You can remove the reference considering that the reference next to it (Ref 30 also) cites Famitsu as a source with 1,730,191 copies sold as of 30 July 2008. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The reference has been removed. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 00:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I do not see any other issues. Support then! --Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Random comment by Cukie Gherkin

I won't actually have time to review it at the moment, but I just wanted to ask, is such a long caption normal for infobox images? I feel like the identify of the characters featured on the box art would be better served as alt text. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 10:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The caption for the infobox image could be condensed to "North American packaging artwork", while the current caption becomes the alt text. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 03:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I would recommend doing that - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Support from Bowser

Nice work, I have but two queries.

• The fourth paragraph under "Gameplay" seems to use "game" in lieu of "game mode(s)", which makes me unsure whether "Extras Mode" features two additional games in which players can either work together or compete against one another. might refer to two "game modes" or "minigames".
• By March 2011, the game had sold more than eight million copies worldwide. - do we need this interim sale figure? If so, it can be merged with the next sentence save a few words.

Regards. 🐉Bowser (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Bowser! I've changed "games" to "game modes" in the sentence you provided, as they are in fact not considered part of the game's 73 "minigames". As for the sale figure, I personally find it somewhat helpful in its current context, as it suggests that between March 2011 and September 2015, the game sold around one million units. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 03:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be good to go through the entire paragraph and replace "game(s)" with either "game mode(s)" or "minigame(s)" to avoid any ambiguity. To comply with MOS:NUMNOTES I recommend homologizing to move between one and 10 spaces. I can't find anything else that needs attention so I'm wrapping up here. 🐉Bowser (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Both of these suggestions have been implemented. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 03:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• "though characters can also be computer-controlled. The game also features a single-player story mode". Is it possible to avoid having "also" twice in six words? Perhaps simply delete the second occurrence.
• "and criticism for its absence of online multiplayer." This is not grammatical. Online multiplayer what?

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the second instance of "also" and changed all instances of "online multiplayer" I could find to "an online muliplayer mode". ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 03:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 31 July 2024 [2].

---

Teardown (video game)

Nominator(s): IceWelder [✉] 20:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Dear colleagues, please find attached my favourite game of 2022: Teardown. In this game, the player is given the tools to destroy and shape the game world around them, which is made entirely of destructible voxels. The core gameplay loop has the player plan and create efficient paths between objectives (say, cars to steal) that must then be completed within only 60 seconds. I began writing the article just as the game was about to enter early access in October 2020. It has been a Good Article since November 2022 (thanks, @Shooterwalker) and was a DYK item on the Main Page in December 2022 (cheers, @Theleekycauldron). Following the release of the console versions last year, plus the completion of the GOCE editing spree just this week (props to @Dhtwiki), I feel ready to tackle my second Featured Article nomination. Thank you to all commenters in advance! IceWelder [✉] 20:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Teardown cover.jpg – good.
• Teardown screenshot.jpg – good.
• Alt text explains all images perfectly.

This passes the image review. — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 02:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

LunaEclipse (Source review)

I will get to this in the following days. If I somehow don't, trout me. — lunaeclipse ^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• There is a CNET citation in the article. I'd heavily recommend removing it as the publication is unreliable per WP:CNET.
• You should also remove the Game Rant source (situational per VG/S).
• What makes Voxagon reliable?
• Ref formatting seems ok to me. Nothing to do here.

lunaeclipse ^(talk) 23:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, @LunaEclipse!

1. I removed the CNET source.
2. The VG/S comment for Game Rant reads "Topics of low potential for controversy such as general pop culture topics or game information are allowable areas." I reduced its usage to the mention of the top-down view, which I think is invaluable to state. I also left the Reception comments intact for now, although I have no hard feelings in this regard. Would you say that this usage is justified in this case?
3. Voxagon is the blog of the game's designer, Dennis Gustafsson. It should be treated as a primary source.

Regards, IceWelder [✉] 09:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

IceWelder, ehh... I don't think if Game Rant should be here though. FAC demands high-quality sources, and Game Rant is not one. Additionally, many video game FAs don't use it at all. lunaeclipse ^(talk) 11:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

That's fair enough. I removed it entirely. IceWelder [✉] 16:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Support on source review. lunaeclipse ^(talk) 20:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Support from Draken Bowser

I think we have everything we need here content-wise, which means I'll focus on tweaks. I like the sleek leads of the last few video game articles and would prefer for the lead to be just a bit shorter. For the first paragraph I'd suggest something more like this (additions are underlined, omissions are not struck):

Teardown is a 2022 sandbox–puzzle video game developed and published by Tuxedo Labs. The game revolves around the owner of a financially stricken demolition company, who is caught undertaking a questionable job and becomes entangled between helping police investigations and taking on further dubious assignments. Teardown features levels made of destructible voxels, and the player follows the campaign through consecutive missions. In most missions, the player must collect or destroy objects connected to a security alarm, which triggers a timer. The player has unlimited time to prepare and is given upgradable tools, vehicles, and explosives to create a path within the level that allows them to complete the objectives and escape before the timer runs out.

The second paragraph feels like it tries to follow the twists and turns surrounding Bengtsson's involvement, but I don't think it's necessary to describe it here because it is not possible to adequately cover it with so few words, and the lead doesn't need more text. I'm not satisfied with my attempts to resolve it so I can't provide an example, yet. The third para seems fine.

Will return to discuss the body later. Draken Bowser (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I rewrote the portion around Bengtsson a bit to make it flow better. I didn't remove him outright as his involvement in the development seems large enough to warrant a lead mention. IceWelder [✉] 09:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Nice! Moving along:

Gameplay

• The first sentence asserts that the game "is played from a first-person perspective", but it's a bit confusing since there's an in-game image displaying an apparent third-person perspective right beside the text.
• "Some voxel materials require stronger tools to destroy." -- should probably be moved down a bit, the use of tools hasn't been introduced yet
• "The spraycan can be used to mark points of interest." -- this feels a bit vague on its own, I think you'd need to elaborate on the utility of the spray can and/or points of interest.
• "New structures can be erected using planks." -- one or a few examples of how this might help the player could be useful to the uninitiated.
• "previous progress" -- level-specific?
• "the player can design levels and objects by painting with voxels of various materials within the game world." -- I'd turn this into at least two sentences with a little more info on how the editor of this mode and it's interface works.
• "Teardown on PCs highlights developer-curated mods" -- how are they highlited?

Pausing here for a moment. Draken Bowser (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Reworded a bunch. Vehicles are driven from a third-person perspective, everything else happens in first-person. I'm having trouble finding a source for this, though (except for this blog post, even highlighted by the developer, but it would likely not stand a chance here). Perhaps I should exchange the image? IceWelder [✉] 13:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, such a shame that the sources ain't cooperating, but that's one way to resolve the mismatch.

I'm gonna cut my review short here to go on vacay for about two weeks. If the review is still pending by then I'll resume. Draken Bowser (talk) 07:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

After some scouring, I finally found that the review in Multiplayer.it (reliable per WP:VG/S) mentions verbatim that "Teardown uses a first-person camera, but when you're driving machinery this will switch to a more useful third-person." It appears Google is no huge help when the target text is in Italian. I included the source to mention the camera shift, leaving the image as-is. Thank you for now, and safe travels! IceWelder [✉] 11:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi DB, gentle nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Draken Bowser, assuming you're back, would it be possible to continue the review? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• Certainly, I had lost my print-outs, but they were recovered two days ago, so at this point I'm just dragging my feet. Thanks for the nudge. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Plot

• I think introducing characters by name only is a bit abrupt, let's give Mr Woo a job title or something. Mr Lee is immediately tied to his company, so I don't think he necessarily needs one.
• In the meantime, Tracy purchases a new company vehicle and retains the old one for herself. - this statement is a bit isolated, we don't get the follow-up until the end of the plot section. Perhaps we could even remove it, since Tracy has been introduced as the mother of the owner it is not inconceivable that the company car would occasionally be parked at her house.

Development and release

• Prefer Destructible voxels appeared easier to implement to re-emphasize the destruction element.
• Prefer which Gustafsson had discovered on Twitter early in his work.
• stochastic transparency - very technical, since we don't have an article on this might we add a footnote or inform the reader some other way?
• A popular request from fans was to have the security helicopter not spot the getaway vehicle when the timer runs out and instead chase after the player. Gustafsson disliked this idea, saying that it "would introduce an element of randomness that would discourage the strategic thinking and careful planning". - is this important?
• He once looked into procedurally altering levels to reflect damage the player had inflicted earlier but scrapped the idea due to time. - so like, between sessions?
• Gustafsson revealed the game as Teardown on 1 October 2019. - do we include the title if the title didn't change?
• Gustafsson formally founded Tuxedo Labs in Malmö in 2019. - it's been a while since the reader last heard of Tuxedo Labs, and the sentence doesn't tie into neither the preceding or following sentence.
• Gustafsson planned to release the game as a Steam Early Access title for Windows later in 2020. He made it available as such on 29 October 2020. - if things go as planned I don't think planning needs to be mentioned, these sentences could be merged.
• The initial release included one half of the game, Part 1, with the second half in development by January 2021. Part 2, released on 2 December 2021, added further missions and tools, enemy robots, and tornadoes. The completed game was released on 21 April 2022. The trailer announcing the release date, published earlier that month, included the updates made during the early access phase. - is it important to stress that it was in development by then, and wouldn't it rather be weird for the updates not to be included in the trailer?
• which was itself owned (by) - is it better to say "a subsidiary of"?
• alongside the ports - my concern is that the uninitiated won't know what this means, even in context.

That's it for tonight! Draken Bowser (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Scratch that, just realized that I have a total of one more comment: under accolades the sentence beginning with For the latter site seems to have been moved from somewhere else and could use a rephrase. Draken Bowser (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually just one more itty bitty comment: It developed like a mod as a way to introduce players to the modding system's capabilities. - I'm a bit confused by this. Draken Bowser (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

My edits continue! Thank you for your continuing comments. To clarify a few things:

• I don't really know what "stochastic transparency" transparency is. I could take an educated guess, but the specifics of the engine are not necessarily the focus of the article, so I removed the mention instead.
• Yes, I think the mention of the requested-but-unimplemented mechanic is important because it would have lifted the 60-second restriction that is now a key pillar of the game.
• When Gustafsson "revealed the game as Teardown", it was the first time the name was mentioned publicly. There may be better ways to phrase this; the current solution is just quite concise.

Regards, IceWelder [✉] 20:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

That's fine by me, and since there's nothing else I'd like addressed I'm ending my review with a pledge. Nice work on this one! Draken Bowser (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments Support by Vacant0

Will leave comments here. I saw the FAC at WP VG. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• Dennis Gustafsson also worked on Smash Hit, so that is another reason to review this FAC.
• I don't see any issues with references themselves, some of them have been addressed above.
• There are two images in the article and both of them are properly licensed, under the non-free licence.
• Could add Portal:Video games at the bottom of the article (where it is supposed to be, according to MOS:ORDER)?
• Gameplay: New structures can be erected using planks. Could this be moved at the end of the first paragraph?
• In the rest of this section, and the Plot, I did not find any problems. I will review the other two sections by the end of the week.

Hmm, the planks are part of the standard tool belt that can be upgraded (number, width, length), so it currently flows into the sentence about upgrades. Is there any particular way you would want me to rewrite this portion? IceWelder [✉] 09:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, okay. The rewording sounds nicer, so it can stay there, IMO. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• Continuing the rest of the article.
• Post-launch content and console ports: Typo in "divsted".
• I've read the rest of the article and did not notice any issues. The article is well-researched, this can be seen in the inclusion of foreign-language sources, for example. For the rest of the FA criteria, I think that this article does meet the listed criteria. I will change my vote towards support once the typo gets fixed.

Fixed :) IceWelder [✉] 07:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me then. Good luck! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Spotcheck by NegativeMP1

Since there's already been some prose comments posted and a source formatting review, but no spotcheck, I'll do one within the next couple of days. I'll aim for checking about 50% of the articles references, which will hopefully be satisfactory. λ NegativeMP1 19:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'm still planning on doing this. I've gotten a few sources checked so far and added to a text document, but I haven't gotten to check 50% of them yet. Sorry for the wait, and hopefully I'll be done by this weekend. λ NegativeMP1 08:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry this took a bit, this is a fairly long article and certainly longer than my own FA. Spotchecked several uses of 46 (two-fifths, reduced it from 50% due to some sources not being in English) out of the articles 115 sources. Hopefully this is satisfactory.

• 1: Verified.
• 3: Verified. It doesn't say the player starts with a spraycan, but 5 does.
• 4: Verified.
• 5: Verified.
• 6: Verified.
• 7: Verified.
• 8: Verified.
• 9: Verified.
• 10: Verified.
• 11: Verified.
• 14: Verified, but it doesn't state that the game has getaway vehicles. I'm going to assume this is verified by ref 13, which I can't check due to it not being in English.
• 15: Verified. Source review above states that this a primary source, so reliability isn't a concern.
• 17: Verified.
• 19: Verified.
• 25: Verified.
• 33: Verified.
• 34: Verified.
• 39: Verified.
• 41: Verified.
• 42: Verified.
• 43: Verified.
• 45: Verified.
• For 46, please add video timestamps to the citation/source since it's fairly long.
• 47: Verified.
• 50: Verified.
• 55: Verified. Again, another primary source.
• 56: Verified.
• 57: Verified. This one and the prior are primary sources.
• 60: Verified.
• 67: Verified.
• 71: Verified.
• 72: Verified.
• 73: Verified.
• 74: Verified.
• 76: Verified.
• 83: Verified.
• 88: Verified.
• 98: Verified.
• 99: Verified.
• 100: Verified.
• 106: Verified.
• 107: Verified.
• 108: Verified.
• 111: Verified.
• 113: Verified.
• 115: Verified.

Pass on the spotcheck, and support. λ NegativeMP1 03:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Cheers for this! I added {{rp}} tags for when citing the GDC video. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 22:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Support from Shooterwalker

I reviewed this article for GA and believed it was well on its way to FA. Based on the latest improvements and the support from other editors, I would like to add my support as well. This is great work. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you again! :) IceWelder [✉] 22:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• References: article titles should be in a consistent case - sentence or title - regardless of how they appear in their original.

• "The game was announced in October 2019 and made available as an early access game in October 2020 with one half of the campaign". I don't understand what this is meant to be communicating.
• "Teardown had sold 1.1 million copies by August 2022". Nothing more up to date than a year ago.

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Thanks! I shortened the release sentence a bit and added the updated player count from the body, though I'd avoid calling it a sales number since it includes PlayStation Plus members who could play it for free. The source capitalization is new to me since it wasn't a requirement for my previous FA and GAs. I'm a big fan of "source-case" (apart from all-uppercase shenanigans), espcially since some outlets have short, work-esque titles ("Teardown Preview"), others have full sentences or even quotes as titles. How strict is this requirement? IceWelder [✉] 18:16, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks.
• It is strict. I used to work like you, but the MOS has always been for consistency and 'enforcement' at FAC is stricter these days. There was a chat on FAC Talk about it recently.
• I think there is a minor issue around whether a non-expert would understand what is meant by early access. Would it be possible to pipe something more generally understandable in with it? Or, if not, give a brief in line explanbation, either instead or as well? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  Amended capitalization in this edit; can't say that I'm a fan and MOS:TITLECAPS is extra confusing when you're not a native speaker. Is "Looking Into" a phrasal verb? Oh well, please review if this is alright. "Early access" clarified here. IceWelder [✉] 19:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 29 July 2024 [3].

---

Iron Man

Nominator(s): Thebiguglyalien (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm renominating this two weeks after the previous nomination was archived. I'm feeling confident about its chances, as it managed to reach a rough consensus to promote at 3:1 with another review in progress before failing due to a deadline (I probably should have resolved that by doing some quid pro quos to get early reviews like most nominators do, so that's on me). Most of the problems raised by the lone oppose !vote should be addressed per my replies in the previous FAC before it was archived. I justified not acting on the remaining ones, which were largely style preferences or things that I and other reviewers disagreed with. Since the last nomination, I've made two changes: I spent a few minutes addressing the remaining concerns that were cut off when it was archived, and I reverted a few instances of copyediting that I had done during the nomination, as I felt they were detrimental to the article.

I think it's in pretty good shape now, and I look forward to any further feedback! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

PanagiotisZois, Aoba47, Premeditated Chaos, David Fuchs: Since all of you commented on the short length of the legacy section, I've tried taking a different approach and started looking for sources about more specific stories (despite my philosophy to avoid handpicking sources whenever possible). Do any of you have thoughts about combining several "top Iron Man stories" lists to comment on which were the most well-received? The ones I found from major pop culture websites are: IGN, IGN(2), Slashfilm, Den of Geek, and GamesRadar. If you're all okay with this method of sourcing, would you consider all of these sufficiently high quality to include? Also, Den of Geek is the only one to cover the worst Iron Man stories, so would there be weight concerns there if that alone were used to cover poorly received stories? I feel that there would be, but I've yet to find any other

I did not receive a notification for this ping. I believe that is because the comment was left unsigned. It would probably be best to try and ping them again. This seems like a good idea, and I do not have any issues with the proposed citations. They would be appropriate for a FA. That being said, I would also like to hear from the other editors about this, and I would trust their opinions on it. Apologies if I already asked this in the previous FAC, but have you looked through any newspaper sources? There may be some useful resources there on how the character was viewed prior to the internet. Aoba47 (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Fixing ping. PanagiotisZois, Premeditated Chaos, David Fuchs Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what prose you're intending to draw from the above sources, but for the purposes of citing critic opinions I think they're appropriate. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

For me at least, all the sources are appropriate for an FA article. You could synthesize them to indicate the most well-received Iron Man stories. As for the "worst" ones... I'm not sure that's soemthing that should be included, primarily because you'd be arguing a given story arc was viewed as bad based solely on just one source.

I do agree with Aoba47 that using something like newspapers.com might be useful for pre-2003 comics-related stuff, but I also understand it would be a pretty tall order to shift through decades worth of material, so simply using the 5 aforementioned, online sources is all right. PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I've added another paragraph of reception based on these sources. I don't know if it's what the article needed or not, but I'll leave that for the reviewers to decide. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

All right. I've checked the new material. I think it works. I do like how that section is to a certain degree based on chronological order, detailing aspects of the character in the 60s and 70s, then discussing some of his storylines from the late 70s to the 2000s, and then discussin how the MCU in 2008 and after affected response to the character. I do also appreciate that the section doesn't just say "X storyline was well-received", but discussed how Iron Man is depicted. PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with PanagiotisZois. It looks good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Support from PanagiotisZois

Resolved comments from Panagiotis Zois

Happy to see this article being nominated again. Continuing from where my previous review ended, I'll start with the "Characterization" section. Fictional character biography Paragraph 1: Long Island, New York should be linked. Wong-Chu should be linked. Does the source state when Siancong was created to explain Iron Man's origin? Given the previous sentence, it probably wasn't in the 1990s, but at least by the 2000s. Links added. Siancong is interesting; as far as I can tell, there was no one definitive moment that it was changed. Paragraph 2: It's stated that Tony helped found S.H.I.E.L.D. But if I'm not mistaken, given the "sliding scale of continuity" in Marvel, hasn't this been changed to have Tony's father be the one who helped found the organization? "As he to regret". I guess you meant "As he [comes] to regret". It could also be "Coming to regret" or just "regretting". I'd change "he relapses as part of a plot by Obadiah Stane" to "he relapses due to a plot orchestrated by Obadiah Stane", which makes the point clearer. Also, although this is briefly mentioned in the "Publication history" section, the reference to Stane being Tony's business rival should also appear here. "After he recovers". Although I get you mean Tony, since we've brought up three men in the previous section, it would be best if you specified who "he" is. I've made the grammar changes. Friedenthal (2008) says that he "helped establish" S.H.I.E.L.D. Any thoughts on what other approach you might want to take with this? I tried looking for a source that discusses this, but I've come up with nothing. :/ Not even one source that at least refers to Howard as SHIELD's founder. Taking that into account, there is nothing to do but leave that section as is. Pagragraphs 3 & 4: "After returning, Stark falls under Immortus's control, turning Stark evil". Repetition of Stark. "until the Scarlet Witch alters his mind, causing him to embarrass himself and leave in disgrace". How does Tony embarrass himself? Is it something that happened in public, forcing Tony to resign, or something else? "their real son could". Probably better to replace real with biological. I'm not sure how to handle the Stark repetition, because a "he" there would be ambiguous, even if it can be inferred from context. Made the other changes. Paragraph 5: Best to have "morally corrupt" be hyphenated. "protects himself from the counterspell and takes over San Francisco to augment the residents with Extremis". Does that mean that Tony is still under the effects of the spell? I get that the biography section lists the most important aspects of Tony's life based on what the handbooks and secondary academic sources state, but this is something that would require clarification. The biography sections seems to end at around 2019. Again, understand that it's going based on the handbooks, but could something from the past 4 years be added? Like Tony marrying Emma Frost and becoming her trophy husband? This article clarifies the spell about as much as the writers did. They basically just dropped it and moved on without resolution, and I didn't see any sources that covered their mistake specifically. I have the Emma Frost thing under his relationships, but I added a mention. Iron Man 2020 seems like the obvious inclusion, but there aren't really any good overview sources of its in-universe effects yet. Besides that, I can't find any major developments in his character in the last few years. Comic writers sweeping things under the rug? Wish they'd do that with Wanda and Pietro being non-mutants and not-Magneto's children. If there aren't any good sources detailing Iron Man 2020, I understand leaving it as is. Glad to see the Emma Frost thing included, so that we at least have a relatively recent plot element from the past couple of months being mentioned.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC) Personality and motivations I would appreciate some explanation over how the 6 paragraphs are structured; as in, which is the topic they cover. Par 2 for example seems to focus on Tony's relationship with his technology and the Iron Man armor, with his fears relating to losing the armor and also himself; clearly, Tony views the armor as integral to his identity. Taking that into account, doesn't the "innovate and improve his technology" section fit better with the second paragraph, rather than the first? Taking the above into account, wouldn't the last paragraph work better as the third one? That way, you discuss Tony's technology, his views on it, and his fears, and then go on talking about how he's actually better with machines than people; with the section outright stating at the end that Tony "identifies with the Iron Man armor as an extension of himself". It seems to me that paragraphs #3 & 4 are connected in that they both deal with Tony's personality traits and specifically his "weaknesses"; whether it's his heart problems, misogyny, or alcoholism. I just wanted to put out that I do think the order could be reversed and they'd still work, but leaving them as is would be fine. "problem solving" would work better hyphenated. "The character is represents" probably goes without the "is". I think the improving his technology aspect is good for the first sentence, as an introduction to who he is first and foremost. There are a lot of notes about the arrangement of this section under PMC's review in the previous nomination, if you're curious about the thought process behind it. But I agree that the last paragraph should be higher up and I moved it accordingly, and I made the grammar fixes. I'll go over the "Themes and motifs" section in its entirety before I post my comments here.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC) Politics and economics "opposing radicalism associated with 1960s counterculture". I may need a clarification. Do you mean that Tony opposed radicalism in general sense, which in the 1960s was associated with the counterculture movement? As in, he was a liberal and skeptical of the US government, but not to a radical degree; like the counterculturists. "Iron Man opposed the Vietnam War.[127] This gave the" can work as one sentence. "opposed the Vietnman War, which gave the". "examination of both perspectives". In terms of what? The role of invetor and technology? That Iron Man represents the inventor's personal use of technology, while Tony Stark's role as a businessman and owner of his company shows the "bureaucracy of governments and corporations"? Yes, that's what the radicalism part means. Do you think it should be reworded? I also reworded the "both perspectives" part, which is hopefully an improvement. Technology Seeing as you are talking both about technology and technology's impact on society, it should be "are common themes". "and the story's writers". Unless only one Iron Man story deals with this theme, it's plural. Also, wouldn't it be better to say that "various writers have portrayed" In "Iron Man's use", I'd write it as "The character's use", so that you avoid repeating Iron Man twice in the same sentence. "arise from progress and advancement" as in scientific progress and advancement or technological? Or is it speaking about progress and advancement in a broad sense? "Misuse of technology and [the] implications of cybernetics are regular themes" could be combined without previous sentence, especially since it begins discussing what the previous one ends about. Link "automation". I assume the source means both in a broader sense. Made all grammar fixes. Armor "strength from powered armor of" would be either "a powered armor" or "powered armors". "replaced with integrated circuits as real world technology advanced". Is a date provided? "it also protects him internally as it keeps his heart beating". Based on previous data, isn't this somewhat outdated? Since his heart surgery, Iron Many doesn't need his armor to keep his heart beating. No date, it doesn't seem to have been an all-at-once thing. Made the other fixes. Here are the comments regarding the "Themes and motifs" section.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC) PanagiotisZois, not sure if you're still in the middle of the review, but I jumped in and addressed everything to this point. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC) Hey. I was waiting for you to address my current comments before I continued the review. In the past, I've had users drop the peer review or equivalent without addressing my comments, which made me feel like I was wasting my time. I'll go through your changes and then finish with my review. PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC) Allies Still believe it's better to have characters go by first name; Pepper rather than Potts or Happy over Hogan. Considering that many of these characters are rarely even referred to by their last name, it often just comes off weird. Done. "have become Iron Man besides Stark" to "have taken up the Iron Man mantle besides". Done. Romantic interests "Hogan eventually married Potts". Don't suppose a date is provided? It is mentioned in the next sentence that Roxie Gilbert was introduced in the early 1970s. Is that when Pepper and Happy tied the knot? Might be a stupid question, but where it says "The series then introduced", it's referring to Tales of Suspense, not the Iron Man comic, right? This particular source does not give a date; I figured that the relevant part to Tony was that he and Pepper didn't get together in the early comics. And "in the 1970s" would refer to the Iron Man series. "the second-wave feminism encouraged" remove the article. Done. Besides Pepper and Happy's marriage above, are dates provided in the sources for any of his other love interests? Only Emma Frost has a given time period mentioned. Roxie Gilbert and Whitney Frost both have a time period. I added a year for Bethany Cabe. Cultural impact and legacy "Iron Man is credited with redefining the superhero film genre". The character or the movie? I meant the character, but I guess it makes more sense to say the movie. Fixed. Given the character's decade-long existence, the section does seem quite short, and I would prefer if it was somewhat longer. At the same time, given his long existence, there must be various sources out there reviewing the character, so you can't include all of them. I'm assuming the ones present were the ones you could extract from academic sources? There are plenty of sources examining the cultural impact of superheroes, a fair amount analyzing the impact of Marvel and the MCU, and a few analyzing the impact of the 2008 film. If there are lots of sources out there analyzing how the comic book version of Iron Man changed pop culture, they have evaded me. In other media This is more about this section's mention in the lede. Given how influential the MCU's depiction of the character in perception of the comics version and boosting his popularity, it makes sense this would be brought up in the lede. I would recommend adding a brief mention that outside of the MCU, Iron Man has also appeared in animated films, cartoon series, and video games; if you want to specify, you could add "self-titled X Media". Added a sentence at the end of the lead.

Here are my final comments @Thebiguglyalien:. Partly due to the sections being smaller, there's not much to discuss.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

PanagiotisZois, I've replied to the final comments. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

All right @Thebiguglyalien:. Thank you for addressing my comments and being patient with me and how anal I can be. You have done a wonderful work with this article, and I am happy to support its promotion to featured article status. PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: The source review and discussion on primary sources got me thinking about using them to enhance the article. Although I don't think the Iron Man article needs any further changes or has any major omissions, I do think the section about Tony founding SHIELD could be slightly changed with this source. Either as an add-on sentence or as a note, you can add that due to a retcon or Marvel's floating timeline, Tony's role as one of SHIELD's founders was erased. But again, this isn't anything major or something that would make me change my mind about supporting this FAC. PanagiotisZois (talk) 09:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Support from PMC

Based on my thorough review at the previous FAC, I am happy to support this article again. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Support from BOZ

This article has gone through some serious improvements leading up to the last FAC and even moreso during the nomination, so I believe it is in excellent shape now. Also repeating my comments from the last one about hoping this sets a precedent: "There are a great many comic book characters, superheroes having dominated the field for most of the media's existence, that have this kind of potential; right now at GA we currently have Captain America, Joker (character), Norman Osborn, and Spider-Man which have the most potential for FA, and several others that are GA but may not be suitable for FA, and easily dozens of other characters that could be GA or better if someone could find the time and energy to find the sources and basically rewrite them from scratch. Batman and Superman are former FA articles, so it would be nice to see a comics character back up there." BOZ (talk) 05:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Since you've brought it up, I'll take this chance to shoutout Morgan695, who's expressed interest in bringing Captain America to FAC. I did the GA review for their work on Captain America's article, which is what got me into writing comic book character articles and heavily influenced how I approached it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

Delightful article. I will confess that I haven't read an issue of Iron Man published since the turn of the century. My only comment is that you mention Steve Ditko's brief run, but there is no mention of Gene Colan (aka Adam Austin). While the article says that the switch from Communist villains occurred in response to the failing war in Vietnam, I always thought it was the change from Heck to Colan. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't too worried about cataloguing every artist that drew the character, but Colan is a good call. I've added a sentence for him, and for good measure one for George Tuska as well. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Pleased to support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I was wondering if David Fuchs, who opposed the nomination the last time, would like to review it again. FrB.TG (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I think my issues from the last FAC remain, but it doesn't appear to be a majority view. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Image review (pass)

Unfortunately, I will not be able to do a full prose review for this FAC, but I still wanted to help out here. For clarity, I participated in the previous FAC. My comments are below:

• File:Iron Man (circa 2018).png has a clear caption and purpose in the article and a complete WP:FUR. The WP:ALT text is appropriate. I voiced some reservations about the infobox image choice in the previous FAC as I was concerned that the external pieces of armor could potentially confuse readers who are not as familiar with the character design, but it is not a major issue, especially when I do not have a clear alternative in mind.
• File:Errol Flynn1.jpg also has a clear caption and purpose in the article. I would recommend adding WP:ALT text. It may be helpful to note in the caption what year the photo was taken to more readily provide that context for readers, but that is not required. Everything looks appropriate on the licensing and Wikimedia Commons side of things.
• File:7.24.19BrianMichaelBendisByLuigiNovi2.jpg looks good to me. It has a clear purpose in the article and the licensing and permission aspects look good. Again, I would recommend adding ALT text. Adding the year the photo was taken could be helpful, but again, it is not a requirement.
• Both File:Tales of Suspense 39.jpg and File:Iron Man's armors.jpg have clear purposes in the article and appropriate WP:ALT text. I believe that both instances of non-free media are justified as they illustrated points that readers may not fully understand through the prose alone. The WP:FUR are complete for both, but I do have a small comment for the second image. The source link (here) does not display the image and instead has a screen saying the original image is no longer available so that should be revised.
• Everything with File:Robert Downey Jr 2014 Comic Con (cropped).jpg checks out. It has a clear purpose in the article as illustrated with the caption. I am a bit confused on why the summary has non-English text (as in why is it there at all and why is it before the English text), but it is not a major issue.

I hope this image review is helpful. I only have quite nitpick-y suggestions. Two of the images need WP:ALT text while one of the non-free images needs to have the source link updated. Once both are done, I will be more than happy to pass this image review. Aoba47 (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I checked the ComicsAlliance source for the last non-free image, and the image is actually there. With the exception of the cover image saying that it's not available, all of the other images from the various comics—including Iron Man #258.1—are still up.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. That makes sense to me, and I see what you mean now. My only remaining point would be the WP:ALT text then. Aoba47 (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: Apologies for the ping, but I just wanted to double-check on this. The only thing that is holding up my peer review is the absence of ALT text for some images. Aoba47 (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

No apologies necessary, I must have missed that there was still an issue. I've added the alt-text, but the remaining pictures were just portraits so it's rather plain; I don't know if that's sufficient or not. And I'd also love to replace the infobox image, but the best replacements I could find all had their own problems. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing this. The ALT text looks good to me. This passes my image review. Aoba47 (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Support from Igordebraga

Support Well-written article, and my one objection from last time (that the fictional biography ended with Infamous Iron Man) has been fixed, so seems good for promotion. igordebraga ≠ 16:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Why do #201 and #202 use a section title rather than a page number? It seems like most sources are prominent publishers and authors. I wonder about DK (publisher) though. One major omission is that I don't see any individual comics/issues being cited, or am I wrong? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The #201 and #202 sources are reference works that use entries instead of page numbers, so those are the titles of those entries. You're correct that there are no individual issues cited, and I don't think I'd consider it ready for FAC if there were. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

That raises some questions about completeness, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

When you are writing about works of fiction (or as here fictional characters), one generally expects the work itself to be cited at least a couple of times. Secondary sources don't work for every thing; especially when citing basic facts, you risk copying errors committed by the author of the secondary source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I've never seen a reviewer say that there should be more primary sources in an article, and I have to say that I disagree with that approach. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Providing a second opinion as requested on WT:FAC: I think Jo-Jo is quite right about fiction articles; the focus on secondary sources is to (ideally) remove bias and provide context & understanding; for most non-fiction things, the "primary source" is contained within the secondary source. For instance, when the New York Times makes an article about something Biden or Trump said or did, they would include whatever they said or did. Sometimes that involves mutation/disagreement of the primary from the secondary source. To provide an example, Trump's famous "They're bringing crime. They're rapists" quote. The primary source, Trump, contends that it was said as "Their rapists" rather than "They're rapists", meaning that rapists who happen to be Mexican are being brought to the US, rather than all Mexicans being rapists. In this case, it is not so much a dispute of interpretation of Trump's words, so much as what words Trump literally said. A more extreme example, but I also think useful in pointing out the usefulness of primary sources: It's possible a secondary source may misunderstand the wording, and therefore unintentionally misrepresent a primary source, especially when you have such a long-running series, our language has not remained unchanged for the last 60-some years that it has been running). Even beyond language, there are many "basic facts" that are best supported by primary sources, for fiction. In this case, as a non-expert in Iron Man, I don't see any glaring omissions, although some might perhaps say that a deeper coverage of the major arcs might be due (though this is not my specialty area) which would presumably involve some primary references. As such, I do not necessarily believe the article needs more primary sourcing, but I think it would be welcome, and Jo-Jo may be more experienced in the comic/pop culture field and more easily able to answer that question. Although, if I'm reading Jo-Jo's comments correctly, I think his concern was more on if primary sources were consulted, than if they are inserted as a citation. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

"they would include whatever they said or did." but sometimes they misquote. Not necessarily in a high-profile situation like Trump/Biden and NYT, but with lower-level secondary sources sometimes this reliability issue comes up. If anyone can vouch that this topic is comprehensively covered even with omission of primary sources, that would mostly satisfy my worry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

A third opinion I suppose. I completely disagree with the idea that a more thorough article cites the primary source directly. Who is more likely to misquote or misinterpret a primary source, a Wikipedia editor or a published writer/scholar on the topic? The basis of our reliability policies is that we trust established professionals over amateurs. There's no need for TBA (an amateur, one assumes, no offense intended of course) to provide his own analysis of primary source material. His summary of the published analysis of experts should suffice. Ajpolino (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for intruding on this discussion. I do not see an issue with using secondary sources. The character has been around for decade so using secondary sources to determine which parts of the character and his stories are notable enough to discuss makes sense. I think it depends on context; while primary sources are great and can be the best option for some character articles, it is not the case for everything. Secondary sources can get information wrong, as I have even read scholarly articles that make mistakes with even basic plot information, but primary sources can also be misinterpreted and misrepresented. I do see comprehensive work when I look at this article as it brings in different types of sources (ranging from scholarly work to websites), and I have more confidence in Thebiguglyalien after he added further sources in response to concerns with the legacy section. I have been unable to thoroughly look through the article (and apologies again for that), but I do not think the lack of primary sources should be an issue. Again, apologies for intruding and leaving a long message. Aoba47 (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus If the current sourcing isn't enough for comprehensiveness, a compromise might be using some TwoMorrows Publishing magazines about comic books and the comics industry. They're high quality, but I've leaned away from them because it would be more granular details and tidbits instead of the broad overview sources and push the article toward excessive detail. But if you think that the article doesn't have enough of the finer details, this might be a good way to get them while still allowing a secondary source to determine which ones have due weight. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

That seems like a good compromise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, I went through and added info from the main articles about Iron Man. I can go through further for other places he might be mentioned in passing, but it's over 7,000 words at this point and I don't know what you think the ideal word count is for an article like this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, how is this one going? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I must confess that I generally do not opine on article length. That is something other people need to assess. Sourcing-wise, it's probably fine now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments Support from BP!

I am about to nominate my article to FAC also, probably next week I think. But this article caught my attention, thanks to PanagiotisZois' contributions. This article is very well written anyway.

• Add author at ref 218
• Add authors at ref 222
• Add author at ref 223
• I feel like Comicbook is a low-quality source for such a well-known character. Ref 220 and 223 I think should probably be removed.
• SlashFilm is reliable? 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Boneless Pizza!, thank you for your review of the sources! SlashFilm has an editorial team and as far as I can tell it's treated the same as other reliable entertainment news websites. I've made the other changes you suggested. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 27 July 2024 [4].

---

Hurricane Hilary

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a hurricane that struck California last August, causing unprecedented flooding across the western United States. Hurricane Hilary was at one point a powerful Category 4 hurricane. It caused flooding across Desert Valley, which I actually got to witness firsthand, including an image (not the best, but still relevant enough to include in the article). It just passed its GA review (today actually), and I would love to get it featured by its one year anniversary. Enjoy the read, please let me know how I can improve it. Thanks in advance. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

MyCat

Surprised to see no reviews yet, this looks interesting! Would be happy to review soon MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks MyCatIsAChonk (talk · contribs) - I actually forgot to put it on the FAC list until like last week. *blush emoji* ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Operationally, NHC had tracked the two systems as the same, assessing that Hilary continued into southern California as a tropical storm,[6] which would have had made it the first tropical storm to cross into the state since Nora in 1997 - it's stated that Hilary was a tropical storm, but then says that it "would have had made it the first tropical storm... in the state since..."- these seem to contradict each other

• Yea, the original assessment was that Hilary entered California as a tropical storm, so a lot of media reported on that fact as being the first TS to enter the state. It was only after the fact that the National Hurricane Center realized that it wasn't a true tropical storm in the state. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• Wl Baja California Sur

• Done. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• The Mexican government issued watches for southern Baja California Sur on August 17.[19] They were upgraded - the Mexican government was upgraded? The watches? I assume the latter, but best to avoid "they" when the direct object is what's being referenced here

• OK, I reworded it and combined with the subsequent sentence. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• School classes and public activities were canceled in Baja California, with a baseball game postponed - is the game notable enough to get a whole separate clause

• Agreed, removed the baseball game bit. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• The Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation announced that all parks and facilities were closed for two days - because the department is doing the act of announcing something (present tense) the end of the sentence should be "were to be closed for two days (or at least, this makes more sense in my head)

• Good catch, fixed the grammar. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• They also truncated the August 19 runs - again, careful with they- I'd put Amtrak again

• Got it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• The US section is much larger than the Mexico section, and yet the hurricane landed in Mexico- any specific reason? If lack of english sources if the issue, consulting a Spanish-speaking editor would be helpful (I know some if you need connections)

• I might need to look into this more, admittedly. But it was a weakening tropical storm when it made landfall, which is why the impacts weren't extreme. Even in California, the floods were more on the rare/unusual side than catastrophic. I'm going to look into this today and tomorrow when I have time (my folks are visiting me and my partner this week, so it might be until the weekend). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

more soon MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• The strongest gusts were recorded in Los Angeles County – 87 mph (140 km/h) at Magic Mountain, and San Diego County – 84 mph (135 km/h) at Big Black Mountain. - I'm confused here- is 87 for LA county and 84 for San Diego? Right now, I associate 87 with San Diego because they are next to each other visually

• Agreed. I split up these clauses. I still believe the San Diego wind reading is significant, as it was still a hurricane-force gust. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• Any photos of washed away roads available? Might be on Flickr or similar sites, but I assume such a major event like this would be widely photographed

• Do you mean aside from the one in the article? I checked on Flicker, and I didn't see any freely accessible images. It would be great getting images in the San Bernardino/Coachella Valley area, especially of active floods, but the best image Wikipedia commons has is a street image in Los Angeles that isn't worth adding. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• Nothing about Mexico in "Aftermath"?

• Will check more into this. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

That's all I got, wonderful work overall! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the review, and I love the user name MyCatIsAChonk (talk · contribs)! I'll look more into Mexican sources, admittedly that's an area I might have overlooked. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

All good- let me know when you're done! Best of luck, MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Alright, update time! I found more for Mexico. It wasn't much. Hilary had some localized damaging effects. I added the number of power outages in Mexico, schools damaged in Baja California Sur, and details about people who lost their houses. Lemme know what you think of the additions - @MyCatIsAChonk:. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink The aftermath looks much better, but preparations is still rather small. Are there no more sources left? It's entirely possible that the media didn't effectively cover this event. If you need ideas, try newspapers.com for some local coverage. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I checked Newspapers.com, but there really wasn't much to add. I added a little more about evacuations, and fleshed out some other details. Whatcha think @MyCatIsAChonk:? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Got it then- if there's no more, it's likely all good. Support now! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

Nearly four weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) - not sure if it matters, but I goofed and didn’t put this FAC on the list until it was already open for ten days. I’m going to do a spree of reviews for other FAC’s, maybe that’ll help. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

LOL! I missed that. Yeah, it helps. Get a couple of reviews under way within a week or so though will you? You probably know this, but from my boilerplate on finding reviewers.

Sometimes placing a polite neutrally phrased request on the talk pages of a few of the more frequent reviewers helps. Or on the talk pages of relevant Wikiprojects. Or of editors you know are interested in the topic of the nomination. Or who have contributed at PR, or assessed at GAN, or edited the article.

Driveby comment by Esculenta

• the "Hurriquake" is mentioned in the article, but not the scientific "proof" that hurri didn't cause the quake; see doi:10.32858/temblor.322 Esculenta (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Added! Thanks for the reference, Esculenta (talk · contribs)! Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

12george1

I am going to take a look at this article. I can't remember the last time I reviewed an FAC

• "becoming post-tropical before being absorbed into a new system shortly after." - Maybe clarify that the "new system" was an area of low pressure? That phrase could refer to any weather system, including another tropical cyclone

• " Hilary became a post-tropical cyclone over land, before being absorbed into a new non-tropical low pressure area early on August 21." - I incorporated the "new" part. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• "Damage in the United States were estimated at US$900 million" - Shouldn't it be was, or maybe the first word could be switched to "Damages"?

• I went a step further and rewrote it as "The estimated damage total in the United States was US$900 million, much of it in Inyo County, California, where most of the roads in Death Valley National Park were damaged by floods." I felt like that succinctly captured what was responsible for the costs. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• "Operationally, NHC had tracked the two systems as the same" - I think that should be "the NHC"

• Got it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• "Portions of I-5, I-8, I-10, I-15, the Pacific Coast Highway, and other roads closed.[48][49][104][105] A nearly 48 km (30 mi) stretch of Interstate 10 (I-10) " - Why is interstate spelled out in the first sentence instead of the second?

• Must have been an error when I was moving stuff around. I linked the Interstate highway system, then shortened the second usage of I-10. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• "floodwaters reformed the ancient Lake Manly in what the usually dry Badwater Basin, lasting several months" - It looks like "what" is an unnecessary word here. You may have meant "what was" but that also might not be needed

• Yup, done. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• There are several instances in the article of units of measure being switched around. For example: "including warm sea surface temperatures of near 30 °C (86 °F)", "the chance for 130 millimetres (5 in) of rainfall in the mountains of Idaho", "at an elevation of 1,949 m (6,395 ft).", "which grew to a length of 9.7 km (6 mi), a width of 4.8 km (3 mi), and a depth of 0.30 m (1 ft)."

• Oversight on my part. I believe I got them all. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• I'm noticing that the refs have inconsistent name formats (last name-first name vs. first name-last name)

• I also standardized all of the references wrt naming consistency. I went with just "author=" to make it all consistent. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Speaking of that, some refs are missing names and a few have errors relating to that. For example, "Avitabile, Rafael; Feather • •, Bill"; "Now, Spaceflight"; "Staff, LA Blade Digital"

• Yup, removed "now", "staff", and other errors because of the names. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• The TCR and 11th advisory are missing their publication dates (and author name for the latter). Check for other instances

• I removed the ref for the 11th advisory since it's replaced by the TCR. Also added publication dates. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Why are the titles of some Spanish sources translated into English, while others aren't? To remedy this, it might be easier to just use the Spanish titles

• No se, puedo fix that. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that's it. These are generally minor qualms and I am open to supporting this nomination if my above comments are adequately addressed --12george1 (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks 12george1 (talk · contribs). I believe I fixed all of these issues. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I will now support this nomination--12george1 (talk) 03:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Image/media review - pass

I see this article still lacks an image review so I'll see what I can do about it. The article uses 9 media files (8 images and 1 video):

• File:Hilary_2023-08-18_1410Z.jpg
• File:Hilary_2023_path.png
• File:Hurricane_Hilary_Mesoscale_Color.webm
• File:WPC_Excessive_Rainfall_Outlook_Graphic_for_Hurricane_Hilary_on_August_20,_2023.jpg
• File:WPC_Mesoscale_Discussion_0955_for_Hurricane_Hilary_in_2023.jpg
• File:Hilary2023filledrainblk.gif
• File:Death_Valley_Road_Damage_After_Hurricane_Hilary.jpg
• File:Lake_Manly_from_Badwater,_Death_Valley,_Dec_2023_(2).jpg
• File:2023_Pacific_hurricane_season_summary_map.png

All of them are in public domain with several ones from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Weather Prediction Center. I'll continue later. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• All the media files are relevant to the topic
• All media files have captions but they don't all have alt texts, which should probably be added.
• For File:Hilary_2023_path.png, would it make sense remove the Storm type explanation in the Map key since we only have one type of storm?
• For File:Hurricane_Hilary_Mesoscale_Color.webm, would it make sense to simplify the caption by removing the description of how it was recorded (as imaged by the GOES-18 Advanced Baseline imager in simulated true color) or moving it to a footnote?
• Unless there is a good reason otherwise, it's usually best to place the media file next to the paragraph that discusses its topic. For example, road damage in Death Valley National Park is discussed in the 2nd paragraph of the subsection "California" and Lake Manly is discussed in the 3rd paragraph of the section "Aftermath"

Otherwise, I didn't spot any issues. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Phlsph7 (talk · contribs)! I added alt texts. As for the storm path, I think the map key is useful showing the different map points being related to different intensities on the Saffir-Simpson scale. The most intense is purple, but that is for Category 5 hurricanes only, which Hilary didn't reach. I changed the one caption to "Timelapse of Hilary from GOES-18 weather satellite". I moved the images as suggested. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks good. Regarding the storm type explanation in the caption, I agree that the Saffir-Simpson scale should be included. I meant the part below it, i.e., circle = Tropical cyclone, square = Subtropical cyclone, and triangle = Extratropical cyclone. But this is a minor point. Pass on the media review. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

I know next to nothing about meteorology and can't offer any useful comment on the content of the article. To my layman's eye it looks thorough, neutral and well sourced. A few points about the prose:

• "before being absorbed into a new non-tropical low pressure area early on August 21" – I think when a phrase is used attributively like this it needs a hyphen, otherwise what we have is a pressure area that is low.

• Added in both instances, agreed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• "and the region was placed under a high risk threat for flash flooding by the Weather Prediction Center (WPC)" – another attributive adjectival phrase that could do with a hyphen. And the use of the passive voice makes it read as though it was the WPC that was doing the flooding. Better recast in the active voice – "and the W– P– C– placed the region …"

• I rewrote the sentence to avoid the passive voice. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• "Hilary quickly weakened as it accelerated north-northward" – "north-northward" is a term with which I am not familiar, and I wonder if it is what you meant.

• I chuckled at that lapse of my sanity - fixed it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• "sparsely-populated region of northwestern Mexico in the state of Baja California" – no need for a hyphen between the adverb and the participle.

• Thanks. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• "1-in-100 year rainfall totals" – I'd add another hyphen, after 100.

• Added. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• "Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) staff and personnel were ordered to be positioned in southern California by President Joe Biden" – Another passive voice that would be better in the active – "President J– B– ordered …"

• I changed to active voice and split this part up to add even more. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• "The United States Navy moved carriers and ships out to sea and out of Hilary's path, including the USS Theodore Roosevelt, and to park aircraft in hangars." – The grammar goes off the rails towards the end of the sentence. If I interpret your meaning correctly you need something like "…and parked" rather than "and to park".

• Changed to - "The United States Navy evacuated about a dozen ships out to sea while also landing its aircraft in hangars in Coronado and El Centro." ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• "would closed for two days" – ungrammatical. Either "would be closed" or, just as good and shorter, "would close".

• D'oh, thanks for catching that. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• "The remnants of Hilary moved through the western United States, producing rainfall from California as far north as Montana." – I think you need a "to" before "as far north as…" otherwise rain is falling horizontally and a very long way.

• Agreed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• "semi-trucks" – an unfamiliar term: perhaps a blue link?

• Is "tractor-trailer" better? I don't want to use "big rig". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• "U.S. President Joe Biden announced a major disaster declaration – we've been introduced to him earlier. A plain surname is all that is wanted here.

• You caught me, I'm a plant to try and get his entire name mentioned as many times as possible on Wikipedia for his reelection bid Fixed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I hope these few suggestions are helpful. Tim riley talk 11:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Tim riley (talk · contribs), these were quite helpful! I believe I've addressed all of these concerns. Please let me know if there's anything else that's holding back this article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I wish the nomination well, and I certainly don't oppose it, but I don't know enough about the topic to feel confident in supporting at this stage, and will wait to see if there are comments from better-informed reviewers. Tim riley talk 10:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Dylan620

I reviewed the GAN for this article back in May, and was greatly impressed with the nominator's work. (Indeed, I have respected him for many years as one of Wikipedia's foremost contributors to weather articles.) There were some things that I let slide at the GAN that I wouldn't have let slide here, but they have already been caught by other reviewers and corrected by the nominator. I've reread the article for the purposes of this review and I do have a few niggling qualms about the prose:

• Portions of interstates 5, I-8, I-10, and I-15 were closed, along with the Pacific Coast Highway and other roads. – spelling out "interstates" and then using the I-n abbreviation for the other interstates in the list reads a little awkwardly to me. I would suggest either removing the plural, or removing the I- portions so that the list is just numbers.

• I wondered which would be better. I removed the I- portions. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Late on August 21, crews reopened state route CA-190 – state routes are abbreviated elsewhere as SR nnn, and I would suggest tweaking this to be consistent with the rest of the article.

• Changed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Damage in Inyo County alone was estimated at $500 million.[107][108][106][109][110] – that is a lot of superscript all at once. I would recommend bundling these citations.

Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• I moved it around, now there's only three citations in a row. Thanks for the review and the kind words Dylan620 (talk · contribs)! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• No problem! The new changes generally look good to me. I will say that "state route SR 190" seems a little redundant and could probably be condensed to just "SR 190", but it would feel rather silly to withhold support over something so minor. For what it's worth, if you have any time or interest, I would greatly appreciate feedback at my first-ever FAC. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Hah oops, I fixed the writing for SR 190. Thanks, and will check out the article if I get a chance! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

SC

Only a few from me:

• Having the {{tl:clear}} template leaves about five inches of whitespace between the end of the lead and the history section. That's about the same amount of space as is taken up by the lead. I appreciate that settings, screen sizes etc differ between users, but if I'm seeing it, others will too.
• "The origins of Hilary": as it's the first reference in the body of the article, maybe giving the full "Hurricane Hilary" might be beneficial?
• "9-1-1 phone service": is it often written like that? I've only ever seen it as our article has it: 911 (as a Brit, I don't see it that often, so it's likely my ignorance here, but having it in line with our article seems a beneficial course)

I hope these are of assistance. - SchroCat (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, SchroCat! I removed the clear to remove the whitespace, added "Hurricane Hilary" to that suggestion, and changed to "911", which, agreed, I don't usually see the dashes. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Nice work - meets the criteria to my eye. - SchroCat (talk) 03:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Source review

The Guardian does not need an ISSN. #41 and others say www.cbsnews.com, this probably can be turned into a non-URL format. #40 probably needs its source rewritten - "California Governor." What is #57 and #85 and #103 and #143? The Twitter/X links need to say by who they are. Should Telemundo and Newsweek and #150 be italicized? Seems like we are using media and government reports as sources - do we also have academic papers etc? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the source review Jo-Jo Eumerus!

• I removed the ISSN in Ref 14
• I believe I corrected the instances where it says website, and removed instances of the website in favor of a publisher.
• I corrected Ref 40 - "California Governor" to "Office of the Government of California"
• Ref 57 is a news release from the National Park Service (added that as publisher). Added publisher for #85, 103, and 143.
• I believe all of the Tweets have publishers.
• I changed refs to make sure they're italicized.
• As for non media/government sources, there is an academic paper discussing the storm's unlikely connection with the earthquake, and I just added a conference which expanded on some of the Nevada impacts. Because the storm was so recent, there hasn't been enough time for the research to paper to publishing cycle.

Please let me know what you think. Thanks again. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, any additional comments on the source review? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

No, I think this passes now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Penitentes

• The launch for Falcon 9 and Starlink satellites from Vandenberg Space Force Base near Los Angeles was postponed by SpaceX. – Suggest rephrasing slightly to "A Falcon 9 launch carrying Starlink satellites", since the former is the vehicle and the latter the payload. I might also say "near Lompoc" or "in Santa Barbara County" instead of "near Los Angeles"; the launch site and Los Angeles are about 140 miles distant.

• Thanks, I changed the wording per your suggestion, with Santa Barbara County. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

• ...a 5.1 magnitude earthquake that struck north of Los Angeles near Ojai, California... – The epicenter was northwest of L.A., not so much north.

• Yea, I removed LA this time since it says Ojai. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

• In Death Valley National Park, flash floods damaged all of the nearly 1,400 mi (2,300 km) of roads, forcing the park to close for two months. – The way this is phrased suggests that every single mile of road in the park was damaged, instead of some portion of each road. Reference [109] (Inyo County Storm Events Database) says "Four hundred miles of NPS roads were damaged or destroyed" in DVNP; this could be used if you want a more specific number.

• I included a more up to date reference that also included the end of the emergency period, which confirmed that 1,323 miles in the park were damaged. The National Park Service said here "All roads in the park were damaged." ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

• ...floodwaters from the Lone Pine Creek destroyed portions of Whitney Portal Road... – Not sure "Lone Pine Creek" needs the definite article?

• I'm in Cali. We put "the" in front of everything. Ever heard of "the 405"? I removed it :P ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

• Farther north, heavy rain produced mudslides and flash flooding in Siskiyou County near Mount Shasta, damaging roads and rains. – Checking the source, should this be "roads and drains"?

• Hah yes it should be, thanks for catching that mistake. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

• The project was intended to withstand the 100 year flood. – Suggest changing "the 100 year flood" to "a 100-year flood" and wiki-linking the subject page.

• Oh good I didn't know that page existed! That'll be useful because this comes up fairly often with tropical cyclones. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

• You mention briefly in the 'Elsewhere' subsection of 'Impacts' that the storm was beneficial for the control of wildfires in Washington state. Hilary also seems to have (at least temporarily) quashed wildfire conditions in California as well during the peak of fire season—some of the coverage of that may merit inclusion.

• https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/23/us/california-tropical-storm-hilary-fire-risk.html
• https://www.kpbs.org/news/local/2023/08/21/tropical-storm-hilary-douses-wildfire-risk-for-a-few-weeks
• https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/remnants-of-tropical-storm-hilary-help-reduce-norcals-fire-danger/

• Great find, added! Thanks. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Overall, great work on a generational (hopefully) weather event for the Western United States! — Penitentes (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much Penitentes, I believe I've addressed your comments. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

You have indeed! Thanks for making the changes; happy to support. — Penitentes (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 12:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 25 July 2024 [5].

---

Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Wrath of the Darkhul King

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 00:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

In truth, Wrath of the Darkhul King is a rather unremarkable video game. It has all the standard elements of a typical platformer and action games—so a lot of jumping around, beating up enemies, and solving rudimentary puzzles—but this time, it is told with a generic Buffy the Vampire Slayer story, in which Buffy Summers must yet again stop an apocalyptic event. The game received negative reviews and fell into obscurity, even for Buffy fans. Despite this, I still enjoyed working on this article. As always, any comments would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 00:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Pinging @FrB.TG:, @MaranoFan:, and @PanagiotisZois: who participated in the latest peer review and @Gog the Mild:, @J Milburn:, and @Pseud 14: who did so for the previous FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

No need to apologise, this seems an appropriate notification to editors whom you could reasonably assume to have some interest in the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy to support again. I note that there's some quite extensive discussion of Buffy video games in this recent open access book, but it seems to focus on the 2002 game, only mentioning this one in passing. I'm honestly surprised there's not more academic work mentioning this game, but I suppose that just indicates how 'unremarkable' it is. (It looks like it's never been mentioned in the Buffyology journal Slayage, for example.) Josh Milburn (talk) 11:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the support and for the links. I hope that my nomination statement does not come across as flippant. I was trying to think of a solid way to discuss this game, and this was the best I could think of at the time. I was also surprised that this game did not receive more scholarly attention. Buffy is a big draw for research, and I could see this game fitting into larger papers on the Buffy video games as a whole or licensed games in that time period. From my understanding (and I could be wrong as I am admittedly not active in fandoms and such), it seems that only the 2002 game and Chaos Bleeds are the only Buffy games that are really remembered or discussed. Aoba47 (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Image review (pass)

• The images are licensed appropriately, include alt text, and provide context where appropriate.
• Use of non-free images in the Gameplay section seems to be justified and (IMO) provides illustrative reference to better aid readers about the game. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
  • PS, I'll endeavor and try to review the prose sometime later in the coming days/week. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the image review. Take as much time as you need for a prose review as there is absolutely no rush. Aoba47 (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

NØ

• "THQ produced Wrath of the Darkhul King in a publishing agreement with Fox Interactive, and chose Natsume as the developers because they had been working together since 1999." - There is a WP:CINS issue with this sentence.

• Removed the comma. Aoba47 (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• "Obstacles include pendulums, falling rocks, unstable platforms, electrified water, and pits with spikes; in certain areas, the player must punch or kick down walls to continue further" could benefit from a sentence split where the semicolon is.

• Separated this part into two sentences. Aoba47 (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• "Willow identifies the individuals who stole talisman as Baruk demons" - should this be "the talisman"?

• You are correct. I have added "the" into that part. Aoba47 (talk)

• "Other reviewers praised the soundtrack as retro" - Do you think retro style would be an appropriate wikilink?

• I think that it makes sense so I have added it there. Aoba47 (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Glad to see this back here since I believed it deserved to be promoted the first time.--NØ 13:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: Thank you for the kind words and for your comments. I believe that I have addressed everything, but let me know if there is anything else that I can do to improve the article further. I hope you are having a good start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support--NØ 15:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• You are welcome. Apologies for retroactively adding a comment to my review, but I noticed that Craig Harris is cited after the sentence about Griffiths finding the gameplay formulaic.--NØ 20:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• No need to apologize. It was a good catch, and I appreciate that you let me know. I have revised it. Aoba47 (talk) 22:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• The lead seems over long for a relatively short article, and MOS:LEADLENGTH suggests it should consist of "One or two paragraphs".

• Thank you for the suggestion. I honestly forget about this aspect of the lead. I have condensed the lead into two paragraphs. Let me know if any further work would be needed. Aoba47 (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Neat work.

• "based on the supernatural series Buffy the Vampire Slayer." Maybe 'based on the supernatural television series Buffy the Vampire Slayer'?

• Added. I think that I must have somehow accidentally deleted "television" when adding the "supernatural" part in. Aoba47 (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• "Natsume presented Buffy as an aspirational character to their young audience." Who does "their" refer to? Natsume?

• "Their" does refer to Natsume. I have changed it to "the company's" to hopefully be clearer, but let me know if another change would be better. Aoba47 (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• "Furthermore, Buffy's boyfriend Riley Finn". Optional: consider deleting "Furthermore".

• Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• "to continue further." Suggest deleting "further".

• Deleted. Aoba47 (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• "Each weapon can only be used a limited amount of times." Suggest "amount" → 'number'.

• Changed. Aoba47 (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• "a ritual along with the talisman." Maybe "along" → 'together'?

• Replaced Aoba47 (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• "and they added puzzles to vary gameplay." Suggest that one of "and" or "they" be deleted.

• Deleted the "they" from that part. Aoba47 (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• "and that could be defeated in unique ways." Should "that" be 'who'?

• You are correct as this part is referencing characters. I have revised this part. Aoba47 (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• "such as being compared to the music in a ..." Maybe 'comparing it to the music in a ...'?

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

That's all I have. Great work. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Gog the Mild: Thank you for your review. I believe that I have addressed everything, but please let me know if I have missed something (or a change somehow did not save properly) or if there are any further areas that would benefit from revision. I hope you are having a wonderful week so far, and thank you again for your help. Aoba47 (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• Lead: " For the month of its release, the game was in the top ten most-ordered games on Amazon."; article: " For two weeks that month, it was in the top ten most-ordered games on Amazon." The lead doesn't seem to be reflecting what the article says here.

• Thank you for catching this. I must have accidentally introduced this mistake while rewriting the article. I have revised it to clarify that it was the most-ordered for only two weeks, not for an entire month. Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• "The game was released on June 24 in North America and on June 27 in the European Union. For two weeks that month, it was in the top ten most-ordered games on Amazon." But there wasn't two weeks left in "that month" (June) after the release dates. (If pre-orders are included, I think you should explicitly say so.

• I have revised this part to specify that these lists were for the week of X date. Since the first list was created on June 22, 2003, I would assume pre-orders must have been included, but I cannot say for certain. The citation does not explicitly mention pre-orders anywhere so I could not include that in the article as this information cannot be verified in the source. All the citations do is source the information to Amazon.com without any further clarification. Given the issue with the information, I could remove this part entirely. I cannot find this information in any other source. I did try to look up information on how Amazon collects this information, but it likely changed over the years since this game's releases. What are your thoughts on it? I wanted to get your opinion on it first as I could just be missing something obvious. Aoba47 (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Gog the Mild: Thank you for bringing both of these points to my attention. I have revised the issue with the lead, and although I have done a small copy-edit to the issue in the article, I am not entirely sure how to proceed as the citations doe not go further into how these numbers were calculated (i.e. whether or not pre-orders were included). Given the lack of clarity, I would be okay with removing this part, but if there are any other paths forward, then I would be open to any alternative ideas. Aoba47 (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Ho, hum. As you say, an odd one. I think that it is information which is worth including. If the sources aren't as helpful as we would like, we just have to do what we can with them. How you have thinks now seems to me to both read well and reflect the source. So I am happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the support and for your help. Hopefully, I did not cause any edit conflicts while I was trying to streamline my replies. Apologies for that. I hope you have a great weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Heartfox

• "Because of rules placed on developing GBA games, Natsume could only have four bosses in the game" → do we know what these rules are/can there be a note added here? Heartfox (talk) 04:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Heartfox: Thank you for the question. Unfortunately, I could not find any further information about this. When I tried looking for more sources on this, I only found information about other types of restrictions or limits for the GBA hardware. Upon further reflection, I am a bit skeptical about this claim as another GBA game, Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories, had far more than four bosses, but I could also see different rules being applied to different companies and types of games. I have revised this sentence to attribute as something Natsume said themselves. Let me know if anything further should be done with this part. Aoba47 (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Support. Everything looks good to me. Heartfox (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the support and for your help. I hope you are having a good weekend so far. Aoba47 (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

LunaEclipse (Source review)

Going to review this in the following days. lunaeclipse ^(talk) 14:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate it. Take as much time as you need as there is absolutely no rush. Aoba47 (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Aoba: For the time being, would you mind checking out my Undertale peer review? lunaeclipse ^(talk) 13:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am taking a small break from reviewing. When I start doing reviews again, I will make sure to prioritize either the peer review or FAC (depending on what stage it is in at that point). Apologies again. Aoba47 (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Aoba47, ok, there's nothing off with the sourcing and ref formatting, and I'm very confident that the game citations and the press releases are fine per WP:ABOUTSELF as they're not contentious. Support on source review. — lunaeclipse ^(talk) 13:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, and apologies again for not being able to help with your peer review. Best of luck with it. Aoba47 (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Pseud 14

• The artists were Tomoki Hamuro, Masashi Kudo, and Chie Yoshida -- just for context, these are visual artists who designed the game? Or are they voice artists/actors? Since the following statement mentions "they" were directed by... (Although it does mention in a section that dialogues were limited, so I'm assuming the former)

• That is a good question so thank you for bringing it up. The "artists" wording is quite vague so I can understand how that is confusing. The game does not really feature voice acting, aside from grunts and the like. I have explicitly clarified that these individuals are visual artists in the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• on June 27 in the European Union -- would it be better just to say Europe?

• Agreed. To be completely honest, I am not sure why I used "the European Union" here rather than just "Europe". I looked through the source again to see if it specified just that area, and since it did not, I have revised the prose accordingly. Aoba47 (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• The website calculated a 44/100 score based upon 16 reviews. -- Perhaps this can be clarified as "The website calculated a weighted average score of 44 out of 100 from 16 critic reviews."

• Your wording is much better. I think I was trying to be concise, but it is better to be clear so readers can understand what is being said. Aoba47 (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• That's all I have and not much to add. Great work. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Pseud 14: Thank you for your comments. I believe that I have addressed everything, but please let me know if I have missed anything or if there is anything else that could be improved. I hope you are having a good weekend so far. Aoba47 (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for addressing. Support on prose. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you for the support. I appreciate it. Aoba47 (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment Just a passing comment: Influenced by their family-friendly image, Natsume presented Buffy as an aspirational character to the company's young audience appears in the lede, coming from a source that says (Q:) Natsume are quite a family-oriented publisher. How does the Buffy game fit in to this? (A:) Our focus is always kids. We hope they dream of becoming heroes through our games. As far as I can tell this is a throwaway line in a random interview, hardly a defining statement from the company. I suggest removing this from the lede.

And now that I'm looking at the lede, ... chose Natsume as the developers because they had been working together since 1999 is uncorroborated by refs Harris 2003 and Natsume A: neither mentions the year 1999, and neither says anything about choosing the company because of any history. Perhaps the citations got mixed up. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 14:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hameltion: Thank you for your comments. I have removed the "family-friendly" part from the lead. I agree that it puts undue weight on a single statement in a single interview (from dead links no less). Should this part be removed from the article as well. I would imagine that part would run into the same issue, but I wanted to get your opinion before changing anything else.

As for your second comment, I did mix up two Natsume citations. Apologies for that. The correct citation (i.e. Natsume B) says the following: (Q:) How did you come to produce this game? (A:) Natsume have been worked on many THQ titles since 1999. While Power Rangers was in development, THQ asked us to develop Buffy. I revised the prose as the source does not explicitly say that THQ hired Natsume because of this history (which I imply in my reading of it, but I can see and understand why people would disagree with that). I have removed that part from the lead as it did not seem necessary there. Thank you again for your help. Aoba47 (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

No worries! Edits look good. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 18:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate it! Aoba47 (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Vacant0

Will leave some comments here, after I take a look at the article. --Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Sources appear to be reliable, I've checked all of them at WP:VG/S.
• I've noticed that there are footnotes with several citations in them. Instead of putting them inside ref tags, you could use the {{sfnm}} template!

• Thank you for letting me know about this template. I was unaware of it, and I will keep it in mind for the future. I do not think that it is necessary to change the citations here though. The ref tags are used consistently here for multiple citations (and consistency is the most important thing when it comes to citation style), and I just do not see an obvious benefit of going through all these citations and changing them. That and I have used this method in previous FACs without issue. That being said, I will consider using this template for the future. Aoba47 (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• Notes are sourced.
• The Video games set in California category is used, but California is not mentioned in the article.

• Thank you for catching this. I have added it to the "Gameplay" section. Buffy the Vampire Slayer is set in the fictional town of Sunnydale which is located in California, and the citations support that this game is set in Sunnydale. Aoba47 (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• Infobox is sourced.
• You could add a caption for the image in the infobox. I do not know whether this is the NA or EU artwork, but you could style it as "North American/European packaging artwork". This is optional.

• That is a good point. I looked through this again, and I could not find anything that distinguishes the cover as being specific to a region. I believe that the same cover art was used for the North American and European releases as I could not find any evidence to say that they were different. Aoba47 (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• The prose looks alright.

A very good article overall. Once these things get addressed, I'll change it to support. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Vacant0: Thank you for your comments. I greatly appreciate them. I have added California to the article to support the category (and to clarify where this game takes place for readers unfamiliar with this show), but I have kept the ref tags for multiple citations. Again, I appreciate that you let me know about the {{sfnm}} template as I was unaware of it and I will play around with it for future projects, but I do not think it would be necessary to change here. Thank you again, and I hope you are having a great week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, looks good to me, then. I'll change my vote towards support, because I believe that the criteria has been met. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Aoba47 (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Request for a status update

@FAC coordinators: Apologies for the ping. I was curious about the status of this FAC as I have noticed that it has recently become of the older nominations on the list. There is absolutely no rush of course as it is best to get as many different perspectives and opinions as possible to make sure the article is in the best possible state. I hope you are all doing well, and have a great rest of your week. Aoba47 (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 July 2024 [6].

---

Tiger

Nominator(s): LittleJerry and BhagyaMani 15:21 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I've avoided doing this article for years since there are already felid FAs including lion and jaguar, but the tiger is in a category of its own. Its the most iconic animal of Asia and one which many would consider their favorite animal. Its absence from mammal FAs has left a gaping hole. We've worked on this article for months, preening through each line and cite and rewriting along the way when needed. It has had a peer review. Special thanks to Wolverine XI and UndercoverClassicist.

PS. This article can't make it to the front page in time for International Tiger Day on July 29 this year, but I'll like to save it for next year. LittleJerry (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@LittleJerry: (close the peer review) 750h+ 15:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I did. LittleJerry (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Airship

The most majestic creature to walk this earth, in my mind. Will certainly make time for this.

Apologies for the delay. As usual, these are suggestions, not demands; feel free to refuse with justification. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• We have a number of tiger-related featured pictures not currently used in the article. Obviously, we don't have to include them, but it would be nice for high-quality articles to include the best-quality media.
  • They include: File:Bengal tiger (Panthera tigris tigris) female 3 crop.jpg, File:Panthera tigris tigris Tidoba 20150306.jpg, and File:Siberischer tiger de edit02.jpg (all featured on en:wp) and File:Amurtiger-Zoo-Muenster.jpg, File:White Tiger in Touroparc.jpg, File:Standing white tiger.jpg, File:Tiger Zoo Vienna.jpg, and File:Close-up view of the head of a white tiger, yawning with the tongue out.jpg (all featured on Commons).

Etymology & taxonomy

• "In the 1st century" probably best to specify either AD or BC
• "originates" I think this should be past tense, as you're talking about the Latin word?
• "between the early 19th and early 21st centuries; namely the" not sure this is the right use of a semicolon
• The repetition of "namely" seems unnecessary.
• " calling for recognition of P. t. tigris comprising the Asian mainland tiger populations and P. t. sondaica comprising the populations of the Sunda Islands" isn't this just repeating the end of the previous paragraph? I would cut it.
• "the two-subspecies proposal of the comprehensive 2015 study" could be shortened to "the 2015 two-subspecies proposal"
• "and recognised the tiger populations in continental Asia as P. t. tigris, and those in the Sunda Islands as P. t. sondaica" more repetition, could be shortened to "recognising only P. t. tigris and P. t. sondaica.
• "These results were corroborated in 2021 and 2023." while acknowledging WP:CRYSTALBALL, can we say anything about the possible future developments of the classification?
• "the classification used by the Cat Classification Task Force in 2017" did the CCTF use or recognise this classification?
• I assume that the † in the Population column of the tables means "extinct"? A key to that effect would be helpful.
• "from Turkey to around the Caspian Sea" slightly vague; how far southeast or northwest was its range?
• I believed that the Siberian tiger was thought to be the largest subspecies. If this is correct, might be worth mentioning?
• " all living tigers have a common ancestor 108,000 to 72,000 years ago" think the tense is off

AirshipJungleman29, fixed all. The Siberian and Bengal are both the largest as stated below. LittleJerry (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay.

• "has a typical felid morphology;" should it be a semicolon or a colon?

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• "Stripes are likely advantageous for camouflage" I'm surprised to see "likely" here: is there any reasonable doubt that it isn't?

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• "The white dots on the ear may play a role in communication." how so? I'm assuming they flap about in certain ways?

Clarified and moved to communication section. LittleJerry (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• "The tiger historically ranged from eastern Turkey and northern Afghanistan to Indochina and from southeastern Siberia to Sumatra, Java and Bali." This reads like the range was unbroken, but looking at the infobox map, that is incorrect.

BhagyaMani? LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• "has a scattered range that includes the" "includes the" suggests that the range covers the Indian subcontinent etc. , would suggest rephrasing.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• "In the Amur-Ussuri region" might be useful to say where this is, seeing as neither of "Amur" or "Ussuri" have come up in the article before.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• The article's switching between direct speech "The tiger has/does..." and impersonal wording "There are five digits.../It will take to water..." is somewhat stilted; I would suggest sticking to the former.

I don't understand. We can't keep saying "the tiger..." over and over. LittleJerry (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• The first paragraph of "Social spacing" is quite lengthy indeed; would suggest splitting or cutting—do we really need exhaustive listings of data from (five?) tiger ranges? It is the most unreadable part of the article.

I suggested keeping the Sundarbans and the Sikhote-Alin Biosphere Reserve as they appear to represent the lower and higher ends respectively and as well as Panna which shows how they change during the seasons. BhagyaMani? LittleJerry (talk) 01:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

What do you think is difficult to understand re the home ranges? Please suggest how to reformulate this part to improve readability. BhagyaMani (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I think they're referring to all the different number ranges and technical information. Anyhow, better? LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I disagree to removing this entirely. BhagyaMani (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is the second person to object to the structure of the paragraph. (first at PR). LittleJerry (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• "while in still mode" sounds too technological for my liking

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• "Death of cubs by predators" rather ungrammatical

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• In the image of the Chinese medicinal market, do we know what is the tiger claw/penis?

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Many of the initiatives outlined in the second paragraph of the "Conservation" section end in 2022-23. Any updates?

Its only been a year. LittleJerry (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• "The use of tigers and other animals in shows would eventually decline in many countries" seems to contradict "As of 2009, tigers were the most traded circus animals"

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• No mention of The Tiger Who Came to Tea? :(

Not mentioned in general sources. We have a main article for more. LittleJerry (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29 done. LittleJerry (talk) 04:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Support on prose ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Jens

Will try to have a closer look soon, but it seems the subspecies table needs work (below some nitpicks just on the table that immediately struck me, but I guess there are more, so it would be great if you could re-read it to clean it up):

• The table contains information that should better be discussed elsewhere (e.g., "Linnaeus's scientific description of the tiger was based on descriptions by earlier naturalists such as Conrad Gessner and Ulisse Aldrovandi" – that clearly should rather be the second sentence of "Taxonomy", just after Linnaeus description is mentioned, no?).

Done. BhagyaMani (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• Bengal tiger skins in the collection of the Natural History Museum, London were described as bright orange-red with shorter fur and more spaced out stripes than northern-living tigers like the Siberian tiger – why has the Natural History museum to be mentioned here (unnecessary detail?), and isn't there a recent source for this quite obvious feature (you cite a paper from 1939 for this)?

Revised. No more recent source than Pocock (1939)'s article with descriptions of skins in this apparently huge collection. BhagyaMani (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

My question was rather why this needs to refer to the collection in the first place; isn't this feature valid for the entire population? Other Bengal tiger skins do not show this pattern? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Your question made me read Kitchener (1999) again who wrote that 14 of the total 51 skins in the London museum collection are from Bengal tigers and cautioned that the variation in colour and striping may be much greater than represented by these 51 skins. While I agree that it is not so important to link to the London museum collection, I think it relevant to mention that all descriptions are based on museum specimens. So I amended text in the 1st paragraph. I also removed statements on number of stripes, as Kitchener (1999) showed that the range of stripes from continental to island tiger specimens overlaps and again emphasized that samples are too small to know whether these are representative of populations. Your thoughts? BhagyaMani (talk) 06:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I want to reiterate that number of stripes – i.e. "fewer" or "more" – is a characteristic of only a few museum specimens, which does not allow to generalise to the entire populations; see Kitchener (1999). – BhagyaMani (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I see. Do you think we can add this to the article (e.g., … striping patterns and body size of specimens in natural history museum collections that are not necessarily representative for the entire population or similar?). Without this information I fear that the reader is just confused why museum collections are mentioned (I was, at least). Independent from that, I suggest to change "specimens in natural history museum collection" to "museum specimens"; short and simple is better. Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Authors are not properly introduced with full names (e.g., you say "Illiger's description", seemingly assuming that the reader already knows that Illiger described the subspecies).

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it redundant to repeat names of authors in the 2nd column of the table and therefore shortened descriptions. More details are anyway given in the resp. pages on the populations. – BhagyaMani (talk) 10:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Better now. There is still one "Temminck" in the description of the Javan Tiger, I don't think we need that there, too. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• Illiger's description was not based on a particular specimen, but he only assumed that tigers in the Caspian area differ from those elsewhere. – why "but" rather than "and"?

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• Should the column be named "Population" instead of "Populations"? The column "image" is singular, too.

Done. BhagyaMani (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• with long hairs and dense coats – should that be "long hair" and "dense fur"?

Done. BhagyaMani (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Check for "hairs" at other places, too. We usually use the singular. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 02:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• reach as far west as Turkey – "reaching"?

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• "It was noted to have"; "It was also said to have"; "The skull is described as"; etc. – Why use such convoluted wording? Any reason why simply "It has", "The skull is", etc. won't work? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Done. BhagyaMani (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• The type specimen from Sumatra had a dark skin. – I'm confused about this sentence. Only the type specimen had, not the population itself? "Had" means that the type specimen is lost? "Skin" refers to the naked skin under the fur?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• It has particularly long hairs around the face, a broader and smaller nasal region than other island tigers with many thick stripes. – "It" still refers to the holotype specimen? What exactly is meant with "nasal region" (technical term to be avoided here; better describe where that region is relative to the nose or other landmarks that every reader will understand). In the photograph I do not see "many" thick stripes, only four at the whiskers.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• The skull is shorter and broader then the skulls of tigers further south – "than"?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• and a broad occipital bone – for another population below, you call it "occipital plate", is that referring to the same thing? Also, this should be explained (state where it is). Is this a feature that is visible in a living animal (if so, maybe write "broad back of the skull" or something if possible) or is this only visible when looking at a skeleton?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• For Panthera tigris sondaica, you give the nominate subspecies and author in the "Population" field, but you don't do the same for the Bengal tiger. Why this inconsistency?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• You link Temminck twice in the table, but other authors are only linked once.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• I found that the "subspecies" section is a bit confusing and difficult to follow. It could be clearer. It starts with the nine tiger subspecies, but at first does not make clear that this view is already outdated. (Not sure, maybe start with pointing out the current classification, and then dive into the issue with the other proposed subspecies?). More suggestions on the issue in the following comments:
• The validity of several tiger subspecies was questioned in 1999. – This is followed by some explanation, but while reading, it first wasn't clear to me that these directly relate to that sentence. Maybe use ":" or directly combine parts of the following sentence with this one to make this clear.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• Later, you have Therefore, it was proposed to but it was not clear to me that this relates to the 1999 study. Text could be re-arranged for better flow.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• This two-subspecies view is still disputed by researchers, since the currently recognised six living subspecies can be distinguished genetically. – Now this directly contradicts your previous text: "Disputed by researchers", you mean by "some" researchers? Currently recognised are only two subspecies, not six, right? And of course populations can be distinguished genetically, even single individuals can be, that does not make any sense to me.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• Its genetic distinctiveness and separation were corroborated in 2021 and 2023. – "Its" refers to what, exactly? I can't follow.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• Results of a 2018 whole-genome sequencing of 32 samples support the Bengal, Malayan, Indochinese, South China, Siberian and Sumatran tigers being distinct monophyletic tiger clades – Do these researchers propose to recognise the mentioned tigers as distinct subspecies, or what is the conclusion here? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29 and Jens Lallensack? LittleJerry (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• however, today, the connection between 'arrow' and the river's name is doubted, and they are likely to be Latin homonyms. – I can't really follow here. This means that the connection between "tiger" and "arrow" is firmly established? What does "they are likely to be Latin homonyms" mean here? You were talking about Armenian and Persian, not Latin?

The source does not make it clear whether the connection to arrow is discredited.

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Following Linnaeus's first descriptions – why plural, did he publish several first descriptions? I furthermore think that this part of the sentence can be removed; it does not add anything as far as I can see.

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Results of genetic analysis – "analyses"?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• modern cladistics place – "places"?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• least two recent studies – "subsequent" instead of "recent"? Also because you are already using "recent" with a very different meaning.
• link synonym to appropriate cladistics article

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• sister taxon, sister species – these refer to exactly the same thing. Using two different terms here confuses. I would stick with "sister species", since it is a bit more accessible than "sister taxon".

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• originated from a refugium in Indochina that spread – a refuguium cannot spread, right?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Genetic studies of modern and ancient lineages suggests – "suggest"? And why "modern and ancient", what does this add? Or where fossils sampled for DNA?

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• The ancestors of the South China tiger intermixed with a relict population in northeastern China. This comes out of the blue and without any context, and I really cannot follow.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• tigons are around the same size as either species. – same size as which species? "either" does not make sense to me because tigers and lions are not the same size?

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not completely convinced about prose quality, but I will try to list everything I find. I am very busy at the moment in RL so I cannot promise anything though. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• The tiger's skull is large – You already stated that the head is large, so this feels repetitive.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• link cranium?

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• resembles a lion's skull, with the structure of the lower jaw and length of the nasals being the most reliable indicators for species identification. – I am not sure how helpful this information is when you do not specify how the lower jaw differs (seems that the underside is concave in one species and straight in the other, so this is something a lay person can easily see, not some obscure detail).

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

an incurved lower jaw – are you sure? The German Wikipedia article says that the jaw is convex at the underside, not side, so the underside is "upcurved", if anything. Also, you now mention the jaw twice in two subsequent sentences, which sounds repetitive. I would propose to change the sentence It resembles a lion's skull, with the structure of the lower jaw and length of the nasals being the most reliable indicators for species identification to It resembles a lion's skull, but differs from it in the convex (rather than concave) underside of the lower jaw and in its longer nasals, which would be shorter, easier to read, and more informative (I assume that the nasals are longer (?), this is another thing that is unnecessarily unspecific; instead of stating "differs in the length of the nasals" it would be easy to state that the nasals are longer or shorter). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• The information about size is a bit lacking. I think you should not only provide total length, but also body length excluding tail length. Also, height at the shoulders is important.

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• Is the tiger really larger than the lion? It seems to be longer, but that only seems to be because of the longer tail? You could also mention that the tiger's tail is longer than that of the lion.

There's no information on the that. LittleJerry (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

See [7]: The team also looked at the popular idea that tigers are ‘bigger’ than lions (which could mean that the tiger’s relatively bigger brain size simply reflects its bigger body). However, careful re-evaluation of original field data and relatively well-documented hunting records does not support this idea. – If this is correct, than our Wikipedia article is in error. We have to dig deeper into this; the question "which is the biggest cat" is absolutely central for this article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Addded. LittleJerry (talk) 01:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• It has been hypothesised that body sizes of different tiger populations may be correlated with climate and be explained by thermoregulation and Bergmann's rule. – This is not as accessible to general readers as it should be. This sentence need some explanation; what does it mean? Thermoregulation is not even linked.

Revised + removed the term thermoregulation, as I think it is not appropriate in this context. BhagyaMani (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Better, but temperatures do not really seem to differ between India and Indonesia? And doesn't Foster's rule apply here? Also, there is a wording issue I think: you now state that Bergmann's rule has been used to explain, but Bergmann's rule does not explain anything, it is just a correlation. There are different possible explanations for Bergmann's rule, but the rule itself does not explain why animals in warmer climates are smaller. Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we should remove this reference to Bergmann's rule altogether? Kitchener states .. there are too few data to confirm this. So it is pure speculation whether size is influenced by this or any other circumstances like availability and size of prey. Little Jerry : your thoughts? BhagyaMani (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• ventral surface – Again, way too technical. Why not simply "underside"?

That are not the same thing. The inward side of the legs is not the "underside". LittleJerry (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

But the "inward side of the legs" would be the medial surface, not the ventral surface, right? Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Dorsal and ventral scale are two dimensional. LittleJerry (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Where does your definition of "ventral" come from? It is, as far as I can see, not supported by our article anatomical terms of location, and I don't think that our average readers will be able to follow. Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Why not simply "the underside of the body and inward side of the legs", avoiding these terms that >95% of the readers won't understand anyways? Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Because the sources don't state it this way. LittleJerry (talk) 01:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

"Ventral surface" means "underside", nothing more and nothing less. Anyways, here are a few pages of the Mazak book about the tiger. It seems to be the most comprehensive resource available, a pity you don't have it. It is in German, but I will see what's in there. For a start, on p. 23 he states that "the inner parts of the ears, the snout region, the throat, the cheek beard, the chest, the belly and the inner sides of the limbs are pure white to light cream coloured." Do you like me to add important bits of this source? Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Changed. I don't see the need to use that source. We've already got seven major books, one of which is an written by an expert from India and another is an English translation of a Russian language book. I don't think we need a German language book (no tigers in Germany) for granular information. LittleJerry (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

You were saying that you don't have a source stating that the inner side of the legs is white and therefore cannot fix the accessibility issue I pointed out. I then found a source for you that explicitly states this. And now you don't want to use it. You can fix it anyway you want, but unnecessary technical terms like "ventral surface" in such a central article are a no-go for me. Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

It no longer says ventral. LittleJerry (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I am ok with that change. Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• posterior – same

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• spatial frequencies – same

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• dichromats – same. There are too many unexplained and often unnecessary terms to list them here; please look for others. Many things could be formulated much more simply.
• It also has a prominent white spot on the back of the ears which are surrounded by black – That means that the ears are surrounded by black?

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• Do the stripes join at the body midline on the back? Nothing about this mentioned.

Yes but the sources don't state this. LittleJerry (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• What is the nose colour?

Doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that nose colour is so obvious and basic that it should be inside here. The German Wikipedia cites Mazák "The tiger" (p. 115 and following) for this. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't have access to that. We already have plenty of major sources and they don't mention nose color so its not significant. LittleJerry (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Let's see what others think, then. "What is the nose colour of a tiger" is something every child could ask, and it is even more relevant because nose colour in the lion is quite different. Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

[8] – This is an entire article just on the tiger nose. It says that the nose is pink and without spots in young tigers, and that black spots appear and become more numerous as the tiger gets older. This has even been used to estimate the age of wild tigers. I think that this is a fascinating fact to mention! Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Even if tooth count is the same as in other cats, I think this needs a sentence as well.

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• Hair length and density are interested facts to mention, especially when comparing the Sumatran tiger with the Siberian tiger.

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 02:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• and three Indian zoos; population genetic analysis – "a" missing?

Done. BhagyaMani (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• radio-collared – link to appropriate article?

Done. BhagyaMani (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• they exhibited a high temporal overlap with ungulate species. – Maybe try a simpler, plain wording like "similar to the ungulate species they prey on"?

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• Tigers groom themselves – In this paragraph you switch between plural (tigers) and singular (it) back and forth, which I found quite confusing.

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• Tigers groom themselves, maintaining their coats by licking them and spreading oil from their sebaceous glands. – What's the function of the oil? Water proofing? You could also mention why they groom, I don't think that casual readers usually have an idea. (removing parasites? maintaining functionality of the coat?)

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• The first two paragraphs in behaviour are without second-level heading, so the reader doesn't know what they have to expect there. Maybe call it "Activity and locomotion", move the grooming to the section "health and parasites", and move the information on sprinting speeds here? I know that organising all this diverse information into clear-cut sections is not easy, but I feel that it is possible here.

I don't see the need. But I moved the activity paragraph to the top as it is a better header. LittleJerry (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The benefit of avoiding paragraphs without heading is that the reader would know what the section is about before reading it, and they would also know where to find the information about activity and locomotion by looking at the content menu and without looking through the entire article. Don't you agree that this would be an improvement? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the non-sectioned header looks better for the section. "Activity and locomotion" is just an awkward section title. "Locomotion" is probably one of the topics that would be least searched for anyway. LittleJerry (talk) 01:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I personally still disagree for the reasons mentioned, but it is not a dealbreaker for me. Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• establish and maintain home ranges - can one really "establish" and "maintain" a home range? Maintainance can only mean defending it, but then it would be a territory, no?

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• Males and females defend their home ranges from those of the same sex, – Home range or territory? As you formulate it, "home range" does not appear to meet the definition provided by the linked article.'

They mean the same thing for tigers. An author of one of the papers confirmed this for me. LittleJerry (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• Young males have an annual mortality rate of up to 35 percent. By contrast, young female tigers die at a rate of only around 5 percent. – Why is this in "social spacing", wouldn't mortality be better paired with the health section?

No. Disease is not the only and sole reason for mortality, I presume. BhagyaMani (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC) But I concur that the sentence is somewhat misplaced under #Social spacing, so moved it to #Reproduction and life cycle, where relation between adults and young is explained. BhagyaMani (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

What I had in mind was a section "Mortality and diseases", as both are related, but your solution looks good as well. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• Also, what is the reason for this striking difference in mortality?

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• increasing her vocalisations – complex, convoluted wording again. And too unspecific, too (what kind of "vocalisation"?). "Roars more often" or something like that?

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• A tigress in oestrus signals her readiness to mate by scent marking more frequently and increasing her vocalisations. – Why is this in social spacing rather than reproduction? It does not seem to have anything to do with spacing.

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• rather than outright violence. – Maybe "rather than fighting" is more appropriate and to the point? I never saw "violence" applied to animals.

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• as long as they do not live in close quarters – What does this mean? They live in some quarter of their home range but not in the rest? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• I think the Conservation section has a structure problem:
  • It starts with the protection status in the different countries, and then dives into specific measures the individual countries have taken. So far so good. However, then you have one general remark, (In 2010, representatives of the tiger range countries agreed to double tiger populations.), which is then again followed by measured of more individual countries. I think this general remark should be moved into the first paragraph of the conversation section, before going into the actions of the specific countries.

Imo, this general remark can be removed, because this multilateral agreement is just a political statement of a multi-decades long-term vision. Far more relevant for conservation, I think, are the action plans developed in range countries with participation of researchers and other stakeholders working in the field who have a more realistic understanding of what is feasible and achievable in shorter time frames of 5–10 years. That is why we grouped all the info about the national action plans into one paragraph. – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

However, I agree that the remaining sentences in the 3rd paragraph are somewhat disconnected. I therefore propose to move statements re legal issues into the 1st paragraph about nationals laws and statements re patrolling into the next paragraph on anti-poaching measures. Since the last sentence .. one unit under the Central Forest Spine initiative is about management, not about conservation, it can be removed as well. – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• • Parts of the conversation section is organised around countries, but some is organised around one particular measure, wildlife corridors, which has a paragraph on its own. As a result, for example, some of the content on Indonesia is discussed in the second paragraph that discusses actions country-by-country, while other content on Indonesia is discussed in the wildlife corridor paragraph. The structure (succession of information) of the whole section is therefore a bit confusing and inconsistent. A possible solution of this problem could be to start with a general paragraph that lists and briefly explains the principal conservation actions taken (e.g., protection of habitats, protection of prey species, anti-poaching, wildlife corridors). This could then be followed by the country-by-country accounts. As a result, the lone "wildlife corridor" paragraph could be resolved, with the general content going into the new introduction paragraph and the rest into the country accounts.

BhagyaMani? LittleJerry (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that info on wildlife corridors merits a separate paragraph. Several more articles on such corridors have been published in the 2010s, but we decided to focus here on transboundary ones + reference only the most recent post-2020 articles. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• • Conservation breeding is not mentioned under "conversation" but surely plays an important role too?

Already mentions South China tigers breeding. Otherwise, captive breeding does not appear to be important for conservation. LittleJerry (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

The South China tiger is the best example since this population only exist in captivity; this highlights the importance for conservation. However, I think some more general remarks are needed. Or maybe in the "Captivity" section. In that section, the role of coordinated breeding programs modern zoos is not covered (the goal is to establish a “genetic reservoir” as "insurance against extinction in the wild", see e.g. [9]). Captive tigers in zoos are also important for education (people protect what they know), which indirectly aids with conservation. Zoos and their positive aspects come too short; the section only lists negative aspects of captivity but this positive aspect should be there too. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 23:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

A good start, but you should mention the coordinated breeding programs of zoos that make this happen. It needs to be clear that you are not talking about the circuses and pet trade that the "captivity" section is all about. This uncoordinated breeding can in fact have a negative impact on conservation (e.g., overrepresentation of white tigers, as already mentioned earlier in the article), so it is absolutely crucial to make this distinction. Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• Tigers will move around their ears – "move their ears around" sounds less confusing to me.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Tigers kill large ungulates like gaur and opportunistically, smaller prey like – I think the comma behind "opportunistically" is too much.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Occasional attacks on Asian elephants and Indian rhinoceros – the latter should be plural, too?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• More often, tigers take the more vulnerable small calves – I found the "small" a bit irritating, can it be removed? Goes without saying that calves are smaller?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• They sometimes prey on livestock and dogs in close proximity to settlements. They – Two sentences starting with "they" could be combined with "and".

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• They occasionally consume vegetation, fruit and minerals for dietary fibre. – Consuming minerals for dietary fiber? Does not make sense to me.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• which is important but not necessary – Sounds a bit like a contradiction. Use "essential" instead of "necessary"?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Depending on the prey, they typically kill weekly though – "Depending on the prey" can mean so many things. Prey abundance? Type of prey? Should be more specific.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• with a bite to the back of the neck or skull – "head" instead of "skull"?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• They can leave the denning site in two months - "after" two months?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• she will guide them to the kill – bit repetitive as it was already stated that she takes them to kill sites earlier in the text.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Tigers are recorded as hosts for various parasites including Diphyllobothrium erinacei, Taenia pisiformis and Toxocara species in India and Physaloptera preputialis, Dirofilaria ursi and Uiteinarta species in Siberia. – I think you should also state what these are, respectively (tapeworms, nematodes, etc), to give the casual reader the necessary context.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• The tiger has been listed as Endangered on the IUCN Red List since 1986, as the global tiger population is thought to have continuously declined – "and" instead of "as"? The causality implied by "as" does not make sense. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• In 1830, two tigers and a lion were accidentally put in the same exhibit at the Tower of London. This led to a fight between them and, after they were separated, the lion died of its wounds. – I wonder what this anecdote adds to the article. I am inclined to suggest to remove it.

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 07:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• conducted by cable television channel Animal Planet – you don't usually provide that level of detail elsewhere. Maybe remove the mention of the TV channel?

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 07:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• The "Hunting" section is basically a list of examples of tiger hunts, but without connection and context. Instead, the section should ideally focus on general information, and provide examples only to illustrate these general points. For example, a sentence like Historically, tigers have been hunted on foot, horseback, elephant-back, and from machans (from the article tiger hunting) would be such general information (just to give an example; I am not suggesting to necessarily include this particular sentence). Also, the paragraph needs some introductory sentences and stuff to guide the reader, to provide some red threat, to provide a logical structure.
• The "hunting" section also is exclusively about India, which is undue weight. I think the section needs to be rewritten. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Fixed all. LittleJerry (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support on prose and content. I didn't look at sources. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  One last comment: In the "hunting" section, I would include a sentence stating why they were/are hunted, pointing out the different reasons (to reduce attacks on humans and livestock; for sport; for their coat and other parts; etc.). Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Sarah Christie

The following is feedback from my sister, Sarah Christie, who was a significant figure in the tiger conservation world in the 90s and 00s. She's one of your cited authors (Seidensticker, Christie & Jackson, Riding the Tiger). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

"I would be very wary of using that 1967 International Zoo Yearbook paper as an authoritative source ('cubs born in spring').I don't recall the details of the paper, but I bet the sample size wasn't high and it was from only one reserve, in India. Probably the authors cited it because it was the only statement available on the matter, which is presumably because nobody's ever found any signfiicant data. I can't give you details, but I and others looked for birth seasonality in our substantial zoo tiger datasets and didn't really find anything significant, and I know that Dale Miquelle and others, looking for it in wild Amur tigers - the one place you might expect it to confer benefits, and where we found a weak bias in our zoo Amur tiger data - also failed to find it, to their and everyone else's surprise. Get the authors to check this with a current expert. (Breeding in zoo tigers can be managed by separation, and a motive exists for ensuring cubs are present through the summer season, so I think wild data are better - they're also much harder to get, of course.) Tara Harris now runs the American Zoo Association Species Survival Plan for tigers (Ron died) and has good links to the WCS tiger people for wild data, she would be a good place to start. Look for contact details for the AZA Tiger SSP Coordinator."

"The captive section is somewhat lacking. It mentions tigers in AZA facilities in passing only. This gives the impression that the US is the only place with zoo tigers which is incorrect, and there's no info on numbers or role. I'm not suggesting an essay, but a couple of paras on current numbers and what roles zoo tigers play might be worth adding in. A LOT of money has been raised by 21CT, primarily from zoos, and the tiger SSP now raises funds for WCS projects. Zoo expertise has also been helpful in the rehab and release stuff particularly in Sumatra. Tara Harris and 21CT will have all this stuff."

"I wonder why there's nothing from Russia in the para on Population Density, which is lower there than elsewhere, in general. Maybe it's because they're too thinly spread there for a proper camtrap study to work and so the data would not be directly comparable. The next bit on social spacing has plenty of Russian info, from radiotracking rather than camtraps."

Sarah also mentioned a point that would be harder to cite, but I'll pass it along:

"I doubt this is worth adding in, not least because I can't think of a way to cite it, but I know of at least two instances in which male tigers have been seen associating with a female and cubs not actually on kills. One is photos by Valmik Thapar in India showing a family group using a pool to keep cool in the hot season; another is a series of camtrap pics by Linda Kerly in Lazovsky NP in Russia, showing a male followed, at intervals, by a female and several cubs along a trail. I don't know if she ever published on that outside the ZSL internal conservation newsletter I put it in (she was our person in Lazo)."

End of Sarah's comments. If you have any questions for her I can pass them along. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Mike_Christie Please pass this along. Thank you for the comments. I have added numbers for captive tigers in the US, Europe and Asia. The captivity section mainly focuses on tigers used for display and entertainment. I'm sure we could add a little more on the role of zoos in conservation in that respective section. A few paragraphs seems a bit much. We do have tiger conservation as a spin-off article where more information can be added there. I'll look for a replacement for the Yearbook article. I've replaced the Yearbook as a cite in regards to the mating season and gestation period but I have also contacted Dr Harris for her comments. LittleJerry (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, Thapar 2004, pp. 55–56 does mention and includes a picture of a male tiger swimming with family. Thats what is referred to with "They socialise and even share kills". LittleJerry (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Re fund raising in zoos for tiger conservation projects : the latest I found in this regard is a book chapter dating 2004, see https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/full/10.5555/20093032085, hence rather outdated for the purpose of this wiki page. If there is nothing more recent, e.g. post-2020, I suggest to skip this issue of funding here. Some authors acknowledged zoos for partly funding their projects, but it seems that the donor landscape has changed in the past 20 years to Panthera Corp and WWF being major funders of tiger focused projects. BhagyaMani (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Wolverine

Just recently I happened to cross paths with a female Bengal; quite the experience that was. A second look into the article won't hurt. Comments forthcoming on the 10th of June; if not, give me a ping. Stay tuned for more. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 23:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• This population inhabits the Indian subcontinent.[17] The Bengal tiger has shorter fur than tigers further north,[8] with a light tawny to orange-red colouration,[8][18] and relatively long and narrow nostrils. Why link tawny?

Its less familiar with average readers. LittleJerry (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Its ground colour varies widely from ochre-yellow And this one?

Same. LittleJerry (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• and larger postorbital processes; skins are yellowish with rhombus-like stripes. I don't understand the sudden change of tense

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• It has a unique mtDNA haplotype Could you explain why?

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

•  Indochinese tiger specimens are smaller with smaller skulls than specimens from India.[27] They appear to have darker fur than specimens from India with stripes being slightly narrower. "Specimens from India" in the second sentence is a bit repetitive

Revised BhagyaMani (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• the stripes were longer, thinner and slightly greater in number. Greater? Do you mean more numerous?

Revised BhagyaMani (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I didn't review the table in PR, so I thought it would be appropriate to do so here. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 14:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Support comments in PR and FAC have all been addressed. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 12:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

From a first skim-through looking for typos etc I take it that the article is intended to be in BrE (behavioural, colour, colouration, hypothesised, recognised etc) but a couple of AmE spellings have crept in: "molt" (the OED favours moult, and Chambers calls molt "N. Amer") and, in a section heading, "Behavior [and ecology]". "Flehmen response" becomes "flehman" at one point, which is not in either dictionary (and the OED capitalises Flehmen as it is a proper noun).

Fixed. BhagyaMani (talk) 07:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

More when I have had a proper perusal. Tim riley talk 06:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Support. I've found it difficult to spot anything else to quibble about. The few following points are so minor that I can happily support without waiting for a report back.

• "transverses across rivers" should be just "traverses rivers" – no "n" and no preposition.
• "A young male may have to live as a transient in another male's home range until he is older and strong enough to challenge the resident male. Young males thus have an annual mortality rate of up to 35%" – two points here: I can't work out why "thus" is there – the implied causality is unclear. And in prose (though not in tables) it is usual to write "per cent" rather than using the % symbol.
• "Tigers typically move kills ... though they have been recorded dragging it..." – plural "kills" has become singular "it" by the end of the sentence.
• "four of these do not harbour tigers any more at least since 2013" – this reads rather awkwardly: perhaps "four of these have no longer harboured tigers since at least 2013" or some such?
• "Man-eating tigers tend to be old and disabled" – this looks puzzling at first glance until one realises that homo sapiens is easier prey than elephants or rhinos. Might be worth a word of explanation here.
• "Methods to counter tiger attacks have included face masks worn backwards" – eh? How do they help? A brief explanation would be a kindness.
• Delightful closing paragraph – Blake, Kipling and Milne: a pleasing combination.

Excellent article, and I can't see anything that doesn't meet the FA criteria. Happy to add my support. Tim riley talk 11:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Made some changes LittleJerry (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "It is traditionally classified into nine recent subspecies, though some recognise only two subspecies, mainland Asian tigers and island tigers of the Sunda Islands." You imply in the subspecies section that most experts recognise more than two, and I think this should be in the lead.
• "overlaps with that of multiple females with whom he has reproductive claims." "claims" is an odd word here.

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• "This two-subspecies proposal was reaffirmed in 2015 through a comprehensive analysis of morphological, ecological, and molecular traits of all putative tiger subspecies." If I understand the source correctly, by molecular traits they mean MtDNA, which supports two subspecies, whereas you say below that whole genome analysis supports more subspecies. If so, this should be clarified. There is a parallel with the debate on Neanderthal/modern human interbreeding. Early results of MtDNA analysis found no evidence of interbreeding, and it was only when methods of whole genome analysis were developed that this was found to be wrong. Was the two subspecies theory based on outdated methods? Mike Christie does your sister have anything to say on this?

  I've emailed her and will post any response here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Here's what my sister sent in response to the question.

  With regard to the number of species, the key sentence in the article is “In 2017, the Cat Classification Task Force of the IUCN Cat Specialist Group revised felid taxonomy in accordance with the 2015 two-subspecies proposal and recognised only P. t. tigris and P. t. sondaica.” This is cited to Kitchener et al. (2017). "A revised taxonomy of the Felidae: The final report of the Cat Classification Task Force of the IUCN Cat Specialist Group". The key statements on the Cat Group page are “"However, based on recent studies, only two tiger subspecies are proposed:" and "These inconsistencies in the number of proposed tiger subspecies are thought to partly be a result of the lack of genetic samples across the tiger range. Given the varied interpretations of data, the taxonomy of this species is currently under review by the IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group." I’d recommend that the Wiki article reference this second statement. They certainly should not ditch the two subsp thing in favour of the larger set. Being published later doesn't automatically make it more valid, and the existence of genetic markers capable of distinguishing poulations doesn't necessarily mean those populations should be managed separately, which fundamentally is the point of subsp distinctions.

  Note they give the two subsp thing the status of proposed, meaning it is under serious consideration, and don't give that weight to the larger set. I haven't spoken to Urs [one of the two Cat Group Chairs] on this since the noughties, but given ref 12 I suspect they lean towards the two subsp thing but are retaining the rest of the info, and not stating the larger set has been superseded, for political reasons - and to be cautious.

  Also, a note about both Sarah’s background and the authority of the specialist group. Sarah was for a few years a member of the core group of the Cat Specialist Group. Per Sarah:

  “it might be wise to follow the Cat Group’s lead; while there is no central, international formal authority on taxonomic revisions, IUCN Specialist Group positions on it do tend to be taken up over time, and this particular group is highly competent (most of them are). There is no other method of settling such disputes. It's about consensus, not enforcement.”

  And with regard to her credentials for reviewing the article in general, she asked me to add this:

  Please ensure your contacts are aware I have no recent information on status in the field, ecological info etc, nor have I ever been a field scientist. They should not consider that those aspects have been reviewed by an expert.)

  I checked with Sarah, and she confirmed that she didn't mean that the 2018 studies finding six subspecies should not be mentioned, just that the Cat Group's position should be cited as the most authoritative current statement on the number of subspecies. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Made changes. LittleJerry (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• "It was found to have repeated sequences that parallel those in other cat genomes and "an appreciably conserved synteny"." I am not clear what this means - that the tiger's genome has diverged less than that of other cats from their common ancestor?

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 11:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• "Results of a phylogeographic study indicate that all living tigers have a common ancestor that lived between 108,000 and 72,000 years ago." No change needed, but it is interesting that this is similar to modern humans, but no subspecies of modern humans are recognised. I wonder whether tigers have diverged faster or humans are treated differently for cultural reasons.

Hmm, I don't know. But given that the tiger's generation length is way shorter than the human's, it may be plausible that it diverged faster. BhagyaMani (talk) 11:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Hybrids - perhaps mention that male hybrids are infertile and female ones fertile.

Its not mentioned in current sources and I don't like to dig through non-scientific news articles. LittleJerry (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree, neither do I. BhagyaMani (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The question is anyway : WHY are hybrids under the section on Taxonomy ?? They are NOT a taxonomic unit. I suggest therefore to move this subsection under #Captivity, as they were ONLY bred in zoos to experiment. BhagyaMani (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

They are the union of two taxons and show how closely related the two parent species are. The section goes into detail on genetics. LittleJerry (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• "Records in Central Asia indicate that it occurred foremost in Tugay riverine forests and inhabited hilly and lowland forests in the Caucasus." "occurred foremost" is an odd expression. I would say that most lived in the Tugay riverine forests if that is what you mean.

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 11:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• "pine forest of Jim Corbett National Park". I suggest adding "in northern India".

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• "moved an average distance of 4.6 km (2.9 mi) per day". This seems very low. The source says that it is the only large population in mangrove forests, and that the tigers are reluctant to cross wide water channels. You say below that the home ranges in other reserves are much larger, in Sikhote-Alin Nature Reserve around 30 times larger. These factors make this population atypical. Are there no estimates for other populations?

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• "Though the female and male act amicably, females are more tense towards each other at a kill." This is clumsy and the first part repeats what you have just said. Maybe "Females are most tense with each other at a kill."

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• "Tigers will move around their ears to communicate with the white spots, particularly during aggressive encounters and between mothers and cubs". "communicate with the white spots" sounds odd. Maybe "display their white spots".

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Paragraph starting "Tigers learn to hunt from their mothers". This switches back and forth apparently at random between singular and plural cases.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Conservation - protection of tigers has presumably collapsed in Myanmar due to the civil war. Is there no information available on this?

Couldn't find specific information on the current conflict's effect on tigers. BhagyaMani? LittleJerry (talk) 02:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Who presumed so? – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• "During the Mughal Empire, tiger hunting became a sport; they were chased on horseback and killed with spears". This is wordy and seems to imply that tiger hunting as a sport was something new. Maybe "In the Mughal Empire, tigers were chased on horseback and killed with spears".

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• "Tigers are said to have directly killed more people than any other wild mammal." What does "directly" mean here? What would indirect killing mean?

Indirect killing would be via disease. LittleJerry (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• "and used for public executions of criminals". Do you mean that criminals were killed by tigers? This should be clarified. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments by FM

• While it already has a good bunch of reviewers, it's such an important and long article that it probably needs as many as it can get, so I'll mark my spot for now. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• The range map and cladograms could be scaled up (with the upright parameter), per MOS:IMGSIZE, as they are almost impossible to decipher at default size.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• "The following tables are based on the classification of the species Panthera tigris provided in Mammal Species of the World,[9] and also reflect the classification recognised by the Cat Classification Task Force in 2017.[12]" You should make it clearer in this paragraph that what's shown reflects more traditional schemes, and that the edition of Mammals of the World you cite is from 2005, so quite long before any meaningful genetic work.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• If there is a potentially valid six subspecies scheme, showing even more subspecies than that in the table seems misleading. The table is already extremely long, and I don't see any good reason other than completism to give subspecies that no one recognises today their own space, they should instead be covered under the entries of the potentially valid subspecies (one of the six possible ones) they belong to .

The DNA papers focused on the living subspecies, they did not invalidate the three extinct ones, which are still recognized in the literature. LittleJerry (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• You are inconsistent in whether you present people mentioned with nationality and occupation or not. A bit jarring when it's within the same sections.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• "and gave it the scientific name Felis tigris" You could explain for context that at the time, most cats where grouped there.

Not supported by source. There no why to know "most". LittleJerry (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• "the species under the genus Panthera"

Seems I forgot to list the issue, but the somewhat awkward wording seems to have been fixed in the meantime. FunkMonk (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Link felid at first mention.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Explain monophyletic.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Why are two cladograms needed when they show the tiger in the exact same position? Could just use one and save the space. Even better, use a code cladogram with links, can be requested at WP:treereq.

Requested. LittleJerry (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 04:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• "Captive tigers were bred with lions" Probably say "have been", now it's worded as if it only happened in the past. Tiger King at least showed there are still some around.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• "However, as of 2023, at least two recent studies considered P. zdanskyi likely to be a synonym of P. palaeosinensis, noting that its proposed differences from that species fell within the range of individual variation." Not something that has to be done for this FAC, but this would suggest the two articles should be merged, no?

• "Middle- to late-Pleistocene tiger fossils were found throughout China, Sumatra and Java." Have been found would sound more fitting, again sounds like it's only in the past.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• While you mention their historical range, how was the prehistoric range? Did it expand further into the west and north?

Sources don't make that clear. LittleJerry (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Don't we have a better view of a tiger skeleton? That foreshortening doesn't show the anatomy well.

None of the alteratives are any better. LittleJerry (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• "shortened legs" in relation to what? Their legs don't really seem short at all.

The sources does say. I'm not changing it.

• "and can reach 10 cm (3.9 in) long" In length.

I prefer to not use too much of the same wording as the source.

• "The nose ends" The snout? "Nose" sounds very human.

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• "a lengthened cranium with a large sagittal crest" Should behin with "and" as it's the last listed item in the sentence.

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Link nasal bone.

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• "The tiger has a head-body length of 1.4–2.8 m (4.6–9.2 ft) with a 0.6–1.1 m (2.0–3.6 ft) tail and stands 0.8–1.1 m (2.6–3.6 ft) at the shoulder." This seems strange as a flat statement when the preceding sentence says tiger populations vary in size. So what are these measurements, an average, the maximum of the largest subspecies? Needs more precision.

The source just gives these measurements. The differences in size between populations is within those ranges.

• "The extinct Bali tiger was even smaller." How much smaller? "Even" means little.

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• "The tiger is considered to be the largest living felid species. However, there is some debate over averages compared to the lion." This could be a single sentence, reads disjointed now.

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Since multiple subspecies are covered, and a good part of the text is devoted to distinguishing them, it would be best to state which subspecies are depicted in image captions wherever available, for comparison.

Done where possible. LittleJerry (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• "Tiger coat" This image caption has little value if you don't state where on the body it is.

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• "The three colour variants – nearly stripeless snow-white, white and golden" It seems from their respective articles that each variation is found in specific populations, which should be clarified here, otherwise it seems as if it can occur in all tiger populations. LittleJerry (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

What the spin-off articles state doesn't matter. Its about reliable sources and what's relevant for this article. LittleJerry (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying you have to take the spin-offs at face value, but if there's anything to it according to the sources used there, it should be stated here. FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Added that they occur in Bengal tigers. LittleJerry (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• Link ungulate at first instead of second mention.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• "Phylogeny of the Panthera" Link Panthera and add "the genus" for clarity.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Could also add year of the study. "Based on a 2016 nuclear DNA study".

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• "they were largely active at the same time as ungulate species" Presumably their prey? Specify?

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

FunkMonk? LittleJerry (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I've reviewed down to Threats now. More to come. FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• "Bengal tiger attacking a sambar deer" Link sambar deer in caption. Also wild boar.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• Link tiger subspecies in captions as you do in the infobox.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• There are more names and terms that could be linked in image captions.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 02:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• "they reduced their home ranges and steadily enlarged them until their offspring were 13–18 months old.[86]" Why? I assume it has something to do with this, stated much further down, so should probably be elaborated more generally at first mention: "maximised the time spent with her cubs by reducing her home range".

BhagyaMani? LittleJerry (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• Anything on subspecies hybrids?

Not in the wild. LittleJerry (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• Considering the tiger isn't particularly closely related to the lion according to the cladogram, can it reproduce with any of the other members?

Yes, but ligers and tigons are the most common and notable tiger (and big cat) hybrids. Other hybrids are discussed in the above linked articles. LittleJerry (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The issue is rather that the article now reads as if it's only possible with lions, which I assume is not what you want. You don't have to go into a whole paragraph like you do for ligers, just state that it's possible. FunkMonk (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• Link oestrus at first instead of third mention.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• "will sometimes share a carcass with the females and cubs within this home range" Because there's a chance they're his, or no?

Yes, and I think the article already implies it. LittleJerry (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Where does it imply this clearly? It is very ambiguous from reading the article and could benefit from an explicit statement. FunkMonk (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

"A resident male mates with all the females within his home range".... When a new male takes over, dependent cubs are at risk of infanticide as the male attempts to sire his own young with the females." LittleJerry (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• "a characteristic grimace" Specify this means it curls its lip up, since you go so much into this topic.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• "One male was recorded looking after orphaned cubs whose mother had died.[161] By defending his home range, the male protects the females and cubs from other males." Can it always be assumed the young in a male's home range are his offspring? If so, should be stated so explicitly somewhere.

Removed "orphan".

• "Tigers learn to hunt from their mothers, which is important but not essential for their success" I'm not sure what the latter part of the sentence means. Does it mean that it is not essential that they learn to hunt from their mothers? But how is this known if they generally learn to hunt this way?

Based on the cited study of captive tigers hunting in the wild. LittleJerry (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Then this should be specified, otherwise it seems contradictory. FunkMonk (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• There is WP:image sandwiching under Hunting and diet between the deer and boar images. Could perhaps be solved with a multi image template.

Sandwiching is when the text is completely smushed in by images on both sides. LittleJerry (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is how it looks on my rather large screen:[10] Text should never be entirely between two images like that. FunkMonk (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Switched LittleJerry (talk) 01:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• You go into detail about relations with dholes, but how do they interact with leopards?

Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• "Younger, transient males are also attracted, leading to a fight in which the more dominant male drives the usurper off." This wording implies that the younger male could also be the winner, but then you specifically say "usurper" later, perhaps specify it's always the resident that wins at "which the more dominant male drives".

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• "Copulation is generally 20 to 25 seconds long" Seems oddly worded, "Copulation generally takes 20 to 25 seconds"?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• "In the Tanintharyi Region of southern Myanmar, deforestation coupled with mining activities and high hunting pressure threatens the tiger population in the area." - "In the area" is redundant.

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• "have no longer harboured tigers since at least 2013" - "Have not harboured tigers since" would sound better.

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• "A Javan tiger skin on display" Could give date in the caption. Since it's not exactly a recent photo, perhaps a newer one could be dug up to show the continued severity of this threat? Like tigers being trapped or similar, there's a big selection on Commons.

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Not sure why a general term like "retaliation" needs a link, and it should be linked at first instead of second instance either way.

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Personally, I think it makes more sense to have the Relationship with humans section come before Threats and Conservation, as the latter two are actually subjects within the former.

I prefer the way it is now. Like Tim riley said, William Blake, Tigger and the Jungle Book make for a nice ending. LittleJerry (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Considering that Tiger conservation has its own article, the section seems extremely long here, especially considering the length of the overall article. In particular, descriptions of individual countries' measures seem excessively detailed, and could be condensed into a paragraph covering general measures taken by multiple countries, instead of listing the same/similar measures over and over for each country. Kind of like you do in the intro.

BhagyaMani? LittleJerry (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

You are the first to criticise the length of this section : in about a dozen review rounds. We already amended content as suggested by previous reviewers. And unless you find glaring mistakes or incorrect statements, I think the content with details on conservation measures in range countries is important for this main page. BhagyaMani (talk) 08:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• "Tigers are said to have directly killed more people than any other wild mammal.[53" Seems like a pretty strong statement that could be supported by more sources or a statement as to who have said this.

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• "Modern authors speculate that feeding on meagre human flesh forced the cat to kill more and more" I'm not sure what this implies as to cause and effect. It was forced to eat humans because it was weal, or it became weak by eating humans and then had to eat more humans?

Human flesh is of lower quality but easier for a weakened tiger so the cat had to keep eating it more frequently because it couldn't sustain itself on one human too long. LittleJerry (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• "In the 1840s, the number of deaths ranged from 200 to 300 annually.[232]" Worldwide, or in Singapore you cover in the preceding sentence?

Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Perhaps worth stating outright that there are more tigers in captivity than in the wild.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support - good to see another big cat here, might as well do the rest now you're at it... FunkMonk (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Image review by Generalissima

Wait, no one has done an image review?

• File:Walking tiger female.jpg - CC-BY-SA
• File:Tiger distribution.png - CC0
• File:Sher Khan (cropped).jpg - CC-BY-SA
• File:Panthera tigris virgata.jpg - PD
• File:P.t.altaica Tomak Male.jpg - CC-BY-SA
• File:2012 Suedchinesischer Tiger.JPG - CC-BY-SA
• File:Panthera tigris corbetti (Tierpark Berlin) 832-714-(118).jpg - CC-BY-SA, GNU Free Documentation License
• File:Panthera tigris jacksoni at Parc des Félins 15.jpg - CC-BY (I will note here that MOS:IMAGELOC advises not to flip images around in order to achieve facing towards the text. an image like File:2012-09-15 Tierpark Berlin 26 (cropped).jpg (CC-BY-SA) might be more appropriate here.
• File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM Een groep mannen en kinderen poseert bij een pas geschoten tijger te Malingping in Bantam West-Java TMnr 10006636.jpg CC-BY-SA
• File:Bali tiger zanveld.jpg - PD
• File:Panthera tigris sumatrae (Sumatran Tiger) close-up.jpg - CC-BY-SA, GNU Free Documentation License
• File:Two cladograms for Panthera.svg - CC-BY-SA
• File:Siberian Tiger by Malene Th.jpg -CC-BY-SA, GNU Free Documentation License
• File:Bengal Tiger Skeleton.jpg - CC-BY-SA
• File:Tiger Stripes (29808869755).jpg - CC0
• File:White tiger Nandankanan.jpeg - Released into public domain
• File:Sundarban Tiger.jpg - CC-BY-SA
• File:Tigerwater edit2.jpg - CC-BY
• File:Queen of Ranthambore.jpg - CC-BY-SA
• File:Panthera tigris altaica 28 - Buffalo Zoo (1).jpg - Released into public domain
• File:Sumatran tiger (Panthera tigris sumatrae) vocalising.webm - CC-BY
• File:RANTHAMBORE TIGER RESERVE.jpg - CC-BY-SA
• File:Tiger's killing wild boar.jpg - CC-BY-SA
• File:Tigerdholes.jpg -PD
• File:Tigress with cubs in Kanha Tiger reserve.jpg - CC-BY-SA
• File:Panthera tigris altaica 13 - Buffalo Zoo.jpg - Released into public domain
• File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM Een jager poseert bij de huid van een geschoten tijger bij Kalitapakdoewoer TMnr 10024166.jpg - CC-BY-SA
• File:Wild Sumatran tiger.jpg - CC-BY
• File:ElephantbackTigerHunt.jpg -PD
• File:Tipu's Tiger front view 2006AH4173.jpg -CC-BY-SA
• File:Clean Toes are a Tiger's Friend (15588882074).jpg -CC-BY
• File:Ringling Bros and Barnum & Bailey Circus Gunther Gebel-Williams 1969.jpg -PD
• File:Bronze Tiger Tally "Jie" with Gold Inlay from Tomb of Zhao Mo.jpg - CC0
• File:Durga Mahisasuramardini.JPG -PD

All of the licenses check out, and all the images seem appropriate for the article. They do need alt-text, however, before I can approve this. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Adding alt text where appropriate. LittleJerry (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Generalissima? LittleJerry (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Ope! Did not see that you were done. Alt-text looks good now, but the File:Panthera tigris jacksoni at Parc des Félins 15.jpg still needs to be fixed to no longer be mirrored around. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Generalissima Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks good! Support on image review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

And let the record show that the new image File:Tiger in Ranthambhore.jpg is CC-BY-SA. LittleJerry (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Generalissima, I added and replaced some images. Can you confirm they are free to use? LittleJerry (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• All the images in the evolution section are CC-BY-SA
• File:TigerSkelLyd1.png is PD
• File:Tigress Anna Savelevna 01.jpg is CC-BY-SA
• File:Sundarban Tiger.jpg is CC-BY-SA

Looks good. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

AK

• Will see if I can find anything to quibble about. AryKun (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

AryKun, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• The use of the Oxford comma is uneven.
• "is the largest living cat species and a member of the genus Panthera native to Asia." Confusing to read and seems like it implies that it's the largest cat native to Asia. Maybe split it into two sentences instead: "is a species of cat native to Asia. It is the largest living cat and a member of the genus Panthera."

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• "with black, mostly vertical stripes" to "with mostly vertical black stripes"?

"mostly" applies to only "vertical", but not to "black". BhagyaMani (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• "and island tigers" to "and the island tigers"?
• The wl for Endangered in both the lead and body lead to the article for the general concept, not the IUCN classification.

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• "Tigers are also...prey is scarce." doesn't make sense, how can they be victims for preying on livestock?

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• "ratified conservation action plans, established anti-poaching patrols" to "ratified conservation action plans and established anti-poaching patrols".

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• "Major reasons for this decline...medicinal purposes." The previous sentence refers to a decline in its range, which the latter two reasons mentioned here are not responsible for.
• "subordinated the species under the genus" reads weirdly to me, I'd use "placed the species in the genus" instead.
• "early 21st centuries, the Bengal" to "early 21st centuries, namely the Bengal"?
• "The validity...Greater Sunda Islands." Run-on and difficult to understand.
• "from a of low 5% to" typo.
• "in between three and nine week intervals" to "at intervals of between three and nine weeks"?
• "paid bounties for tigers since 1757" to "paid bounties for tigers beginning in 1757"?
• The George V statistic is a factoid and not really DUE imo.
• The articles linked in See Also seem very randomly thrown together. Why are we linking one random tiger attack from 2007 and Tiger King instead of other man-eaters that have eaten dozens of people or a cultural depiction of tigers that wasn't a 3 week phenom during COVID?
• Refs seem fine.
• That's what I got. AryKun (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  "At intervals of between three and nine weeks" is exactly how the source put it so no. Fixed the rest. AryKun when you say "refs seem fine" did you also do a spotcheck? LittleJerry (talk) 21:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Support. I didn't do a spotcheck, I just checked the formatting and whether the sources were HQRS. AryKun (talk) 04:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Source review

I see Mike Christie above has already pointed out some things about the sources. What makes Cat News a reliable source? It looks like we are working with major books and journals here. I notice inconsistent application of archives and identifiers like DOIs. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Cat News IS a peer-reviewed journal. Why do you consider it not to be reliable source? BhagyaMani (talk) 10:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Removed archiving of journal articles. Some articles don't have DOIs so we can't put them. Cat News is part of the IUCN Cat Specialist Group. LittleJerry (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Only because I couldn't find a lot about it. I generally question sources when I can't find anything endorsing them. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 09:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, we need a spotcheck. Right @FAC coordinators: ? LittleJerry (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Spotcheck

Based on this version;

• 3 OK
• 10 Is "Amur tiger"="Siberian tiger"?

Yes. LittleJerry (talk) 10:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• 19 Can't access this source.

  That works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• 30 Can't really find "Indochinese tiger specimens are smaller with smaller skulls than specimens from India and appear to have darker fur with slightly narrower stripes" in there.

Its on page 269. LittleJerry (talk) 10:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, can you confirm now? LittleJerry (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• 68 Can this page range be narrowed a bit?

Why this one in particular? LittleJerry (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

'cause I am dubious that this information would be spread across so many pages. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• 73 OK
• 74 OK
• 79 This says "dawn and early morning hours" not "the early morning with a peak around dawn" which is slightly different.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• 92 OK
• 119 Can't access this source.

  OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• 148 Can't access this source.

  Not sure what this source supports. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  It mentions that floods, fire and predators kill cubs [b]. It also mentions that mothers transport cubs when "disturbed", The statement in the article; "When she suspects an area is no longer safe, she moves her cubs to a new spot, transporting them one by one by grabbing them by the scruff of the neck with her mouth" is more fully supported by Thapar 2004 p. 51 so I removed it for that anyway [a]. LittleJerry (talk) 08:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• 158 Can't access this source.

  OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• 163 OK
• 178 Where does it say "people harvesting forest products that are vital for prey species to survive in winter"?

It mentions poachers taking lichens "which can comprise up to 65% of the musk deer's winter diet". BhagyaMani? LittleJerry (talk) 10:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Correct. But this is ref 179. BhagyaMani (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Source number changed during editing. LittleJerry (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• 184 This would benefit from a page number.

BhagyaMani? LittleJerry (talk) 10:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• 188 OK although I wonder how good this source is.

Its the World Wide Fund for Nature. The Top conservation organization. LittleJerry (talk) 10:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• 221 OK
• 230 OK
• 241 Can't access this source.

  This checks out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• 247 Is the original source still available?

No, thats why its archived. LittleJerry (talk) 10:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, are the sources to your satisfaction now? LittleJerry (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to the sources I noted as "can't access"? For spotchecks I like to have every source singled out checked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The Thapar book can be accessed online. Click their title links. Otherwise, why single out sources you can't access? LittleJerry (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Grassing myself up to @FAC coordinators: , but frankly LittleJerry you'd find your reviews more malleable and your reviews more to your liking if you weren't so fucking confrontational and aggressive about everything. You seem to delight in turning everything into a sodding argument. ——Serial Number 54129 18:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

You guys can access the 2004 book by creating an account on archive.org and borrowing the book for 1 hour. I don't know what's so difficult about that. Besides that, I think LittleJerry should send an email to JoJo for ref 19 and 241. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 19:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for coming access as confrontational but if one needs to shotcheck more sources than there are others freely available online. Anyhow Thapar (2004) and Mills (2004) are both available for borrowing on archive.org. I can send an email for Mazák, J. H. (2010) along with a screenshot from Green's book. LittleJerry (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I single out the sources matching a number from a random number generator. For spotchecks, I generally insist on getting a copy of offline sources, since they aren't easily verified and thus more likely to have issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I can email you Mazazk and Green. LittleJerry (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus; is that it? Thapar (2004) and Mills (2004) can be accessed with an archive.org account. Those cover your last three cites that you couldn't access. LittleJerry (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: , I think we're ready. LittleJerry (talk) 08:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

That would seem hasty as Jo-Jo Eumerus doesn't appear to have signed off. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus are we done? LittleJerry (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this seems done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• Why no publisher location for Wozencraft; Novak and Walker; Perry; and Ministry of Forestry? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Added publisher locations in the last three refs. Wozencraft is embedded in the template msw3, which does not contain location of the publisher, apparently. – BhagyaMani (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

And publisher location for Novak and Walker is already provided : Baltimore. – BhagyaMani (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 July 2024 [11].

---

Genghis Khan

Nominator(s): ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

...I don't think he needs an introduction, do you?

Encouraged by Aza24, I began work on this in November 2022. It received a GA review par excellence from Borsoka late last year, and was subsequently improved at peer review by Tim riley, Gog the Mild, and UndercoverClassicist. I thank all of you for your help.

If successful, this will be the first VA3 biography promoted to FA since Cleopatra six years ago; it will also be used in the WikiCup. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Tim O'D

Exciting. Marker for now: ping me if I've not done a first round by next Monday. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Read down to Defeating rivals and no real nitpicks so far. More over the next week. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Tim, any more to come? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry Gog, slipped my mind. I'll get going. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Down to Death and aftermath and again find myself with no comments. Great work: clearly the PR and GAN have strained it into the tightest article possible. More to come (hopefully sooner than before). Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Read in full now and no bones to pick. Support. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate your time, Tim. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments from PMC

I love seeing obscure historical figures at FAC. I will try to get to this within a week; the full review will likely take me a bit as this is a chonky one! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Prose comments

Lead I'm not sure about the placement of "it later became the largest contiguous empire in history". It feels a bit of whiplash to go from "he ruled, after he died, he ruled" I've removed a couple of phrases, I think it flows better now, and is better focused on the man. "Reduced to near-poverty, they managed to survive" - could tighten this to "they survived near-poverty" (it's the "managed to" that feels most unnecessary) "although Temüjin killed his half-brother Behter to secure his position" - what position did he secure? weren't they abandoned? also, the "although" isn't really working here. Usually you'd use an "although" to say something that contrasts the first thing, but killing your brother to help yourself isn't really in contrast to white-knuckle survival Addressing the above together: I've tightened the bit about poverty, removed the although, and specified that the killing was to secure the familial position. "he began to gain followers" - do we know why or how? I know we need to be concise in the lead but it'd be nice to have context, even if it's just "His forceful personality" or "His ability to kill thirty dudes without breaking a sweat" It's a bit jarring to discover that he had a wife at the same time as we're discovering she got kidnapped Too many events, too little lead space. I've noted his charismatic personality and that they were newlyweds when she got kidnapped, to explain why she hasn't been mentioned earlier. "possibly spending" - "and may have spent" sounds better to me, but I'm not gonna die on this hill I like it. "as a threat, and launched" channeling the comma master Sammi Brie here, you can remove this comma "he then transformed" - you can ditch "then" Done all. RIP Khwarazmian Empire 1219, you guys blew it harder than a truck full of trumpets I have no further gripes until the last part of the last paragraph. It feels odd to mention everybody else's feelings about him before the Mongolians. I like it as a personal touch: it means the lead ends on a stable, simple note. Also, "his legacy has undergone considerable reassessment in recent Western scholarship" doesn't actually tell us what his legacy was reassessed from or to Rephrased. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC) Name & title / Sources "In addition to "Genghis", introduced into English during the 18th century based on a misreading of Persian sources" - is there any more detail about this? Who introduced the error, why sources were misread, why it became the popular usage vs anything else? This sort of thing happens fairly often with transliterations—if an early, well-read translation gets things wrong, the incorrect term tends to stick.. I'm fairly certain some source specified "French scholars" misread the Persian, but I can't remember where I read that. I'm not ordinarily an MOS wonk, but the format for the translated titles in Sources appears to be inconsistent with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Titles_of_works#Translations. Unsurprising, considering I didn't know that was a thing. Should be fixed. is "received text" a general technical term? I'm not familiar with it and when I google it, it appears to apply to Biblical text I was not personally familiar with it either, Remsense introduced it in this edit. I have reverted to the earlier version, does that work better? "The most important Persian source" according to who? Everyone. Ratchnevsky considers it second only to the Secret History, while Morgan notes that all Persian writers are eclipsed in importance by it. Early life Who's Paul Pelliot Defined. "1162 remains the most accepted date" why? best evidence, most agreement? If it's sheer numbers, you may want to reword to something like "1162 is the date accepted by most historians" or something Done. "but this has been placed" unclear what this refers to in this context. Does "this" mean Genghis' birthplace or the true location of Delüün Boldog? Both, rephrased to hopefully clarify. "The most prominent is that of a blood clot he clutched in his hand as he was born" - could maybe simplify to "The most prominent is that at birth, he clutched a blood clot in his hand" Done, sort of, didn't want too much repetition of "birth". "However, the Tatars recognised their old enemy, and slipped poison" rm second comma Done. Since Hö'elün is so prominent in the adolescence subsection, perhaps an image of her? I won't insist My instinctual response was "that's not possible", but then I remembered that the Mongolian freedom of panorama laws have recently been updated, and it is indeed possible! Rise to power - early campaigns A number of questions here and in subsequent sections may be a result of my own ignorance of Mongolian history and/or my sometimes goldfish-esque memory. If the answer to anything I've asked is "you've misunderstood something really basic" or "it's the thing I mentioned two paragraphs ago", please say so and that's on me. "Temüjin then chose" - lose "then" Done. So Genghis Khan regifted the sable cloak? Yes. It may seem odd to focus on the transaction history of a single item, but I think everyone does because it highlights a) the family's lack of wealth, where one cloak is a big deal to them and b) the very practical, mercurial nature of life on the steppe. The thing is, right now the passive voice puts the focus on Toghrul receiving the cloak in a way that skates over the significance of Temujin giving it. If you want to highlight what you've noted above (and I agree it's worth doing), I would rephrase it into active voice. Also, the implication of the connection between the first half (Toghrul rules but is suspicious of his own people) and the second half (Toghrul gets bribed with a sweet coat and loves Genghis Khan) isn't super clear. Is it like...he's suspicious of his own guys and that makes him susceptible to Genghis who is new and brings gifts? Is it that he's suspicious of everyone including Genghis who only barely manages to seduce him because he has a cool coat? Or a secret third thing? Ah, hopefully clarified now. There we go. I did make a tweak to get rid of followers twice in one sentence, but revise it at your leisure if you like. I guess here again is the question of how/why Genghis "began to build a following" - was he just incredibly charismatic, or was he getting up to impressive deeds that made people want to follow him at so young an age? Some is discussed in the Character section, but also people who are known to be close to the most powerful do tend to attract attention, simply by virtue of their position. This is a nitpick, but "Temüjin and Jamukha camped together for a year and a half, during which, according to the Secret History, they reforged their anda pact, even sleeping together under one blanket." feels very comma-heavy. Any way it could be revised? My arch-nemeses, these commas. Half of them have been exiled. Also, why were they camping together? Was there another campaign going (the previous para says "the campaign was soon won" so I assume this takes places after that campaign) or were they just boys being boys? Ah, this is on me not remembering the very different modern conception of "camping together". It's a nomadic society, so "camping" is not just a jaunt to the wilderness, it's the home of you, your family, your followers, and their families. To camp with another leader is to say "mi casa es su casa" except more, because it also implies "my followers are your followers, my authority is your authority, etc." I don't know if there's a way to explain that in a few words, but I've had a go. Right, duh, sorry, that was absolutely one of those goldfish brain comments on my part. I'm not sure the difference between anda and nokor is sufficiently clear for it to be impactful that Jamukha might have become a nokor. Can this be clarified a little? Simplified into plain English. "ostensibly on account of a cryptic remark made by Jamukha on the subject of camping" any more about this? Was it related to camping generally or like... their boys trip specifically I can tell you exactly what the cryptic remark is: If we camp close to the hill those who herd our horses will have their tents. If we camp beside the mountain stream those who herd our sheep and lambs will have food for their gullets. Make of that what you will. So Borte is Lady MacBething Genghis Khan, here? No comment. Hah! I was partly being snarky but also it's a significant point that I think is getting a bit glossed over. Genghis Khan, the conquering king, the barbarian emperor, the absolute textbook example of Ambition Embodied - his wife's ambitions may have outweighed his? I think it's worth getting into, if we can, because the idea that the greatest conqueror in history may have been nudged into conquest by his wife is quite something. I've reread the sources and I think I was reading too much into one sentence in May 2018, so I've rewritten that part in line to also accomodate a reviewer below. Looks good to me. "forty-one leaders joined Temüjin" along the lines of the camping together question, was there a campaign going? Else what are they joining him for? No, they're just setting up their loyalties. It was probably obvious to all that hostilities were going to break out, and they would need to choose a side. I've also added a sentence on what was attractive about Temüjin at this point. Right, yes, camping thing again. Temujin acclaimed as khan - solely because of the successful campaign against the Merkits? No, because he had gained the support of forty-one leaders and lots of commoners, and they wanted to say "we serve the Mongol khan!" instead of "we serve this random Mongol leader" (it just sounds better). Makes sense. I love getting to include a sentence like "this guy lied and said they won, but it's obvious he was lying after the fact, because of the obvious lies" "Temüjin was able to subdue the disobedient Jurkin tribe" as a matter of chronology I might introduce this factoid earlier when discussing the Tatar campaign. This might be a personal quirk but to me it always feels a little odd to insert things in the format of "by the way, this happened earlier and here's what he did as a result". I think too much is going on in the previous paragraph to say "oh by the way this random tribe refused to join"—they are only DUE a mention because of how Temüjin dealt with them. I see where you're coming from, I still I don't love it, but I won't die on the hill of it "dissatisfied tribes including the Onggirat, the Tayichiud, and the Tatars, swore to break" rm last comma I think Cocking commas. "existing social norms" "existing" seems redundant? if they didn't exist, they wouldn't be norms, right? That seems fair. "but though the ensuing battle still lasted three days" I'm not sure about the "still lasted" phrasing here. It feels like the implication is that it's unusual the Kereit held out that long despite being caught unawares - was it unusual? Yes. A three-day battle is extraordinarily long, especially for a surprise attack. Early reign Why engage in extensive discussion of the title Genghis Khan here when you have a whole section for that above? Feel like it distracts from the history I tried that originally, but you run into having to explain who Jamukha was and why Genghis wouldn't want to hold the title that Jamukha had held, and the general reader still wouldn't really understand until they'd learnt the whole Genghis—Jamukha story. Mmmmm...okay. It's not deeply important, but why "white bone" and "black bone" as titles? The bones are the structure of the body, the white bones are the purest (as they are meant to be), the black bones are those that have been removed (?) something like that idk I agree with Kusma below that linking "military decimal system" in this way is odd, as the "decimal" article doesn't really explain a military decimal system. I might unlink it entirely Unlinked. "even after the division of the Mongol Empire" when Various points in the late 13th and early/mid-14th centuries "whose father Münglig had previously been allowed to marry Hö'elün" this is confusing. When did this happen? After Münglig defected to Temujin in the "Defeating rivals" section. "When Temüge, Genghis's youngest brother, attempted to intervene he too was publicly shamed." by Genghis again, I assume? It feels mildly confusing to go from Borte warning Genghis who still reveres the shaman to suddenly Genghis allowing Temuge to kill the guy. I'm normally the "cut the fat" poster child but I think some insulation here might help the abruptness "...allowing Temüge to have Kokechu killed, he usurped the shaman's position as the Mongols' highest spiritual authority." Genghis assumed the shaman's position, or Temuge did by killing Kokechu? I've rewritten some of the sentences in this section, so hopefully should be clear now; you have a lot of people acting variously in concert with and against each other, so it does get a little confusing. The whole section is much clearer, thank you. Perhaps this is just my browser size and use of V10 instead of V22, but the image on the left breaks the "Campaign against the Jin" subheader ever so lightly, shoving it off to the right. add {{clear}} maybe? I think it's fine, most readers will be using V22. Really not a lot to gripe about here. I think I said something like this in the Shigi Qutuqu FAC, but your prose is really top-notch. I appreciate your ability (and willingness!) to summarize things in a way that gets the important ideas across but doesn't get bogged down in detail Thanks! Helps that there's a lot to summarize and not much space for the detail anyway. Later reign "might be a potential threat" feels redundant, I think one or the other is enough Edited. "Muhammad had however grown" - the placement of the "however" feels odd. "Muhammad, however, had grown" seems more typical (but - not dying on the hill of it) I do think that same sentence is a bit overlong and comma-heavy, and might split it somewhere I've rewritten the sentence, so the however is gone entirely along with many commas. "Peter Golden" who's this Completely random dude, no idea why he's mentioned (no not really). Poor Muhammad II, history's poster child for fucking around and finding out. "Bewildered by the speed of the Mongol conquests". Buddy. Dude. My guy. The {{convert}} template here wants to have the adjective parameter on to correct the grammar That's a thing?? It sure is I know he's a minor figure, but it feels odd that Shigi Qutuqu is only first mentioned here despite being Mr Genghis' adopted son. If it's any consolation, there are lots of blood sons who don't get mentions at all? I am consoled by this, yes :P "and losing decisively" - maybe "after losing decisively" or "after a decisive loss"? " he was compelled to swim across the Indus river into India" this is kind of hilarious but - compelled by whom? By his own decision, to escape with his life? Or by the victorious Mongols as a punishment? The former. There's a nice picture of it on the left. It is a pretty great image "the omens were additionally unfavourable" this is mostly curiosity, but any idea what omens? Genghis didn't get the right responses from a sheep's shoulder he was in the habit of caressing. Also, a unicorn appeared and said "Your ruler must go back home". This was either a rhino, or the shamans getting too high, or both. I wish a unicorn would tell me it's time to go home when I'm sick of being at work Again this may be my browser/V10 usage, but the image captioned "Depiction of Jalal al-Din crossing the Indus River..." unattractively bumps the subheader and the hatnote on the left I kinda like that, sorry. I hate that you like it, but it's not worth fighting over Family / Death and aftermath / Character Combining these sections under one as I don't have very many comments for them. Generally I find them to be well-written, thorough summaries of difficult, interesting aspects (especially Legacy, which could likely have its own article) The placement of the family section between his later reign and his death puzzles me. It feels jarring, since we've been proceeding along chronologically and suddenly we're interrupting that to lay out his family tree and succession. I've rearranged so that that it goes death, succession, family, everything else: that better? Yeah It also feels odd that the family section hatnotes Descent from Genghis Khan but does not discuss it whatsoever Removed. Context for Marco Polo and Carpini? I know Marco Polo is pretty famous, but he's not necessarily universally famous, and Carpini is much less so. They're mentioned in the sources section, that's where all the source-context goes. Sure but even in the sources section they don't get any context, just "works by Europeans such as Carpini and Marco Polo". I don't know what context would be helpful—I could say "later European travellers"? Travellers, explorers, something like that. A little bit to set up the perspective they were coming in with, you know? If they were mercenaries they're going to have different biases than if they were missionaries or merchants (I didn't set out to be alliterative there, but I'll leave it) The footnote about Juzjani and Zhao Hong could work in-text, although I won't insist if you prefer it as a note Oh, don't get me started. That bit has been fought over by sockpuppets innumerable since time immemorial, and I think the current version is actually agreeable to all sides, so I'm reluctant to make any changes. Really?? What a bizarre thing for people to fight about. Yeah, it's part of the Turkic vs non-Turkic ethnic group/genetics battle that keeps going off. "showed good judgement in choosing his heir" - this feels like a subjective opinion expressed in wikivoice. Can we give some context to it? Even "modern historians agree" would be fine Done. Legacy Left-aligned image under "Legacy" bumps the subheader again That one I will move. "the empire started to split" - I might give some context as to when. 5 years after his death? 30? 100? "in which he will return" - perhaps better phrased as "which says he will return" Done all. Are there any images of the banknotes or postage stamps? Any "pop culture"-y images of Genghis? Added a couple, also thanks to the new FoP laws. I don't find the Mongolia section to be overdue or over-filled in the least, but I think the "Elsewhere" section could be expanded. The opinions of Russia and the entire Muslim world are each concluded in one sentence. There's really no more to be said? I'll come back to you on that. Further, it feels odd to hatnote "Genghis Khan in popular culture" but not actually discuss portrayals of him in pop culture Removed. I would detach the sentence about Russia and the sentence about the Muslim world from the paragraphs they are attached to, and make them into a separate paragraph

Okay! We've reached the end of the rainbow at last. This is an incredible piece of work and you should be proud of it. Take your time responding, I know I've left you with a lot. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• • Thanks very much Premeditated Chaos for an exhaustive set of comments. Replies are above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
    • I've left some comments above - mainly agreement with context, one or two further suggestions. If I didn't respond, it's fine and there was nothing to say. Once again, really fantastic work here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Premeditated Chaos, I think I've addressed the two outstanding issues. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Looking great. I'm happy to support this. Well done. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Image review

Image review

Image review: File:YuanEmperorAlbumGenghisPortrait.jpg - Clearly public domain. Good to go. File:Secret history.jpg - Public domain. File:Jame' al-Tavarikh (Compendium of Chronicles) manuscript by Rashid al-Din Fazlullah, Iran, early 15th century AD, ink, watercolour, and gold on paper - Aga Khan Museum - Toronto, Canada - DSC06735.jpg - Own work upload, book itself in public domain. File:OnonRiver.jpg - Own work upload. File:Burkhan Khaldun mount3.jpg - CC-BY-SA 2.0 upload from Flickr. File:Djengiz Khân et Toghril Ong Khan.jpeg - Public domain. File:Serven Khaalga inscription.jpg - Hmm. The inscription is public domain, but the image lacks author information, and comes from a 2009 work. Just because the image contains inscriptions of an ancient law code, I'm not so sure it falls under the Mongolian copyright exemption listed. That's reasonable. Commented out while I try to find alternatives. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC) File:Mongol Empire c.1207.png Made and uploaded by a Wikipedia user, good. File:Temüjin proclaimed as Genghis Khan in 1206 Jami' al-tawarikh manuscript.jpg - Public domain. File:Mongol Invasion of China.png Made and uploaded by a Wikipedia user. File:Bataille entre mongols & chinois (1211).jpeg - Public domain. File:Chingiz Khan in battle - Collection of epic poems (1397-1398), f.49v - BL Or. 2780.jpg - Public domain. File:Siège de Beijing (1213-1214).jpeg - Public domain. File:Genghis Khan empire-switch.svg - Translation of an own-work-upload map uploaded by a Wikipedia user, good. File:Jalal al-Din Khwarazm-Shah crossing the rapid Indus river, escaping Chinggis Khan and his army.jpg - Public domain. File:YuanEmperorAlbumOgedeiPortrait.jpg - Public domain. File:Genghis Khan with sons (Marco Polo, 1400s).jpg - Public domain. File:Emperoryuandinastycollage.jpg - Compilation of public domain images. File:モンゴル政府宮殿あおり2023.jpg - Own-work upload by a Wikipedia user. Licensing-side, everything seems good except that Serven Khaalga inscription (which is, IMO, the weakest image used in the article anyhow). The images seem high quality, relevant to the subject, and I can't think of anything that needs more illustration. However, there is some formatting concerns: Sandwiching issues near the beginning of the "Early life" section: I would put both the images of books there on the right side (it almost always is the best place to put them anyhow) and move them up a little bit. The Temüjin and Toghrul could be argued to go either per MOS:IMAGELOC, but when it doubt, right-align it. File:Temüjin proclaimed as Genghis Khan in 1206 Jami' al-tawarikh manuscript.jpg should also be right-aligned. Both maps should be right-aligned. On the flipside, the portraits in the Bust Portraits of Yuan Dynasty Emperors are facing right, so should be left-aligned as to face towards the text. I've moved the sources images up to prevent sandwiching, and switched the alignment of certain images. I think the remaining images look better on the left. The discussions here make it clear that MOS:IMAGELOC should not be a blanket prohibition against left-aligned images. To my knowledge, there are no actual accessibility concerns with left-aligned images, other than "look a little to the right to find the next words". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC) Many images have proper alt-text, but the infobox image, the three images detailing the Mongol-Jin conflict, the crossing the Indus one, the portrait compilation, and the Government Palace are missing it. Added.

Looks like just a couple things to fix. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Replies above, Generalissima. Thanks for your time. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Fair justification (no pun intended) on the left-aligned images. Alt-text, sandwiching, and the potentially mis-licensed image resolved. Seems good to go — Support on image review. Good work as always. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment by Buidhe

At the article's present length, I am unable to support it. In terms of concrete suggestions on how to reduce length while maintaining comprehensiveness, I would suggest reducing the length of Genghis_Khan#Mongolia by half and moving that content to another more appropriate article. Seems rather UNDUE to write twice as much about how he is perceived in Mongolia compared to the rest of the world. (t · c) buidhe 02:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I think 9.6K words is fine for such an article. Cleopatra has 4,000 more words. Plus Taylor Swift—a non-historical figure—has almost exactly the same amount of words. 750h+ 05:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I also wonder why it would be undue for the article to heavily discuss how Genghis Khan, probably the most famous Mongolian to ever walk on planet earth, is perceived in Mongolia. It would be odder to focus more on his perception everywhere else, I should think. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

What this passage suggests is that his impact everywhere else, and attention paid to him, combined of the entire rest of the world is half that for Mongolia, which is not plausible to me. The section also goes into substantial detail that may not be necessary for the reader to understand the subject as a historical figure. (t · c) buidhe 05:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

9.6K is easily under the recommended 10k size. Since there is room, this argument would be much more persuasive if reversed: there should be more on Genghis Khan's impact on the non-Mongol world. As the single most important person in Mongolia history, it seems essential that the reader understands how his reception has fundamentally changed over time in his native country. I can't see trimming resulting in anything but oversimplification. Aza24 (talk) 06:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I too don't think the article too long. I read it twice at Peer Review and found it no hardship, and have just given it a third perusal for FAC, with a fourth and final one to come. It is fully manageable, and is a lot shorter than some existing FAs. I don't know enough about the topic to say whether this or that section should be expanded or trimmed, but as a whole I find the article entirely satisfying. Tim riley talk 06:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment buidhe. Which part of the FA criteria, or which editing guidelines, prohibit articles of this length? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The same problem unfortunately took place at the FAC for the reign of Cleopatra. 750h+ 11:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

That article should not have been promoted. It does not meet the FA criteria imv and would benefit from a more aggressive approach to improve conciseness by moving details to sub-articles, which would improve readability while preserving encyclopedic information for those readers seeking additional detail. (t · c) buidhe 13:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it's an issue with #4, length, and #1d because of excessive detail that is better covered in sub-articles and incorrect relative size of sections. Even if you think the overall length of the article is OK, it does not mean that all content that is currently in the article belongs. (t · c) buidhe 13:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Barring further evidence, I will take objections to the length as subjective—I personally feel that it is fine, and I am glad to see that others agree with me above.

On whether the Mongolia section is too long I would point out that Genghis has been the most prominent figure in Mongolian culture, only rivalled by the Buddha, for most of the past 500 years. He has been alternately a deity, a legendary figure, a national hero, a national villain, and a founding father. Please note also that this article is about Genghis Khan personally, not the Mongol Empire, and that the man's personal impact on Mongolia has been far more consequential than his impact on the rest of the world, much of which is hard to distinguish from the impact of his successors. Genghis himself never went further West than modern Afghanistan, he only campaigned in Northern China, etc. Yes, his name is remembered much further afield—but only his name.

As Aza says above, I would be far more open to a conversation on expanding the "Elsewhere" subsection. But saying that the "Mongolia" subsection should be trimmed, is for me like protesting that Joseph Stalin#Legacy is overwhelmingly focused on the Soviet Union. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

If the prose size was north of 10k, I'd agree for trimming, but I think the legacy section is fine. A Legacy of Genghis Khan article might be very interesting, but I feel it's already pretty well summarized here, especially for a figure so central to the foundation of Mongolia (and whose empire had not yet reached the Eurasia-spanning heights upon his death) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a very key point here. As an individual, Genghis's importance to the outside world is heavily dwarfed by the Mongolian empire. Much of the empire's advances and effects occurred after his death, giving him an indirect (albeit essential one) connection to them. Aza24 (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Although I think prose size is not a problem, I tend to agree with suggestions about a more concise "Legacy and historical assessment" section, and the creation of a separate article about Genghis's legacy. My concern is that for the time being the section implies that he is first of all a Mongolian national hero, although he was one of the most important rulers and military leaders in universal history. Borsoka (talk) 01:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan

Prose and sourcing comments

Hi AirshipJungleman29, I appreciate that you took up this monumental task. My comments: "later became the largest contiguous empire": This might be pedantic, but could we specify the year? The link says 1270 or 1309 was the year when the Mongol Empire reached its peak area. No—"borders" (if they can even be called such) fluctuated significantly, along with questions of subdivision autonomy and internal cohesion. "in the Mongolian steppe": "on" would be better instead of "in"? Perhaps—changed. "Ibn al-Athir's Al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh (lit.)": reword to "the Al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh (lit.) by Ibn Al-Athir" to avoid SEAOFBLUE? There is an " 's " in between the links; if that is insufficient I will do as you suggest. Was Hoelun pledged to Kokechu or Munglig? Consider rewording this sentence? Also do excuse my not using diacritics. Rephrased those sentences. Below the Defeating rivals section, could we add a See also template linking to Mongol conquest of Central Asia and Mongol conquest of Siberia? These articles have a lot of detail on the subjugation of rival tribes which readers might want to read. I don't think that would be a good idea for three reasons: a) the "Defeating rivals" section would definitely be the wrong place for that, b) those articles contain information on various campaigns over multiple years, thus not fitting into any one section, and c) I regard those articles as WP:SYNTHesised messes, as can be seen from this discussion. Why did Genghis dislike Wanyan Yongji? Do any sources or historians speak or speculate on this? No, sorry. Translate or explain chevauchee in one or two words per NOFORCELINK? I don't believe this falls under NOFORCELINK any more than mountain passes or siege engineers in the same paragraph, but if it does, I'll just replace the word. Do we know which cities in the Gansu Corridor were granted clemency, or at least their number against the total? Ganzhou and Xiliangfu are specifically mentioned, but I think that level of detail is more suited for the dedicated campaign article, when I get around to it. Link to Siege of Gurganj? Already linked. Why do we have nothing on the tumens? We have details on the minqads and their composite decimals but not the tumens and how Genghis reorganised them in a way which differed from the Magyars. The minqan was the fundamental unit of society; the tümen was merely a military designation of many (not always ten) minqad. In any case, they were much less important under Genghis than subsequently—many minqad were not even assigned to a tümen, and the sources do not describe them in detail, showing their lack of real use in this period. I don't believe there is anything in the major sources about differentiation from the Magyars—that seems odd, considering the decimal system had been widely used in eastern military organisation. In the Later Reign section, could we have a new subsection titled Other campaigns, and include details on the early invasions of India and the Kievan Rus, respectively the raids on Lahore and Multan by Dorbei and Bala and the Battle of the Kalka River, both of which were approved by Genghis? Jebe and Subutai's expedition is mentioned in the third paragraph of the Khwarazmian Empire section; Dorbei's pursuit of Jalal al-Din, unsuccessful and no more than 42 days in length, has not received much attention in RS, so I think an entire subsection would be undue. In the family or character section, could we mention that Genghis endeavoured greatly to educate his willing children, as mentioned in the article on Shigi Qutuqu? "Endeavoured greatly" is not supported by the sources, which only state that he appointed a captured scribe as a tutor. In the family section, could we mention Batu Khan as the son of Jochi, since we have already done so for Mongke and Kublai as the sons of Tolui? Also, could we add Hulegu as another son of Tolui? Otherwise we could be seen as leaning towards the Yuan and Chagatais and passing over the Golden Horde and Ilkhanate. Hulegu is already mentioned, as part of the later imperial line, while no son of Chagatai is. I don't see a reason to mention Batu, nor how the article can be construed as "leaning towards the Yuan and passing over the Ilkhanate" when the section does not mention the former but does the latter. "killing nokod who wavered in their loyalties": do we have any more details on this, the number of people so killed or the underlying circumstances? I think at least the number of such deaths should be mentioned. The history of the Mongol Empire is not friendly to numbers. Incidents covered in this article include Kokechu, who attempted to take power, and almost Genghis' brother Qasar, who he always distrusted; not mentioned are followers who acclaimed him as khan in 1187 but subsequently turned against him. Since we have the Family section between the Later reign and Death sections, could we remind readers that the siege we mention was around Zhongxing? Good call. What was Altan Khan's religion before converting to Tibetan Buddhism? Was it Tengrism, Taoism, Confucianism, Islam, Christianity? Whichever one it was, consider mentioning? Probably shamanism, but it's unimportant to this article. "the martial bodhisattva Vajrapani": consider rewording to "Vajrapani, the martial bodhisattva" to avoid SEAOFBLUE? Done Translate glasnost and peretroika per NOFORCELINK? No, they're well-used terms in English. In the Legacy section, I am inclined to partially agree with the assessment by Buidhe that we focus too much on Mongolia, although I don't think that section should be trimmed but instead maintained as is. I believe we have ignored Genghis' legacy in Northwest, South and Southeast Asia. I believe we could add a paragraph on how Genghis is viewed in Korea, Japan and Southeast Asia. Also, we mention Timur only once, but it is important to note that Timur, his Timurid dynasty and the Mughals claimed legitimacy primarily due to their claimed descent from Genghis. We should consider mentioning that. I am open to expanding the "Elsewhere" section—the Timur link is a good one, and I will muse on that. Seeing as Genghis never reached Korea, and none of his successors reached south/southeast Asia or Japan, I feel confident in saying that there is likely very little in high-quality scholarship on those topics, but I am open to being corrected. Hi Matarisvan, I have significantly expanded the "elsewhere" section with details on Genghis's historical evaluation in the Muslim world, his role as legitimator in various states and societies, and his current position in Central Asia and Japan. I have not found anything on his legacy in South and Southeast Asia, nor how he is viewed there. Hope that satisfies you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC) Hi @AirshipJungleman29, the content you added was great. I don't know how I forgot about this but you should introduce the topic of the Gurkani. The word in Persian means son-in-law, specifically of women from Genghis' line. It is how the Timurids and the Mughals identified themselves, they did not self-identify as the two words I have used here and which are commonly used today to refer to them. Also, the Mughals were often mocked for being mere son-in-laws of Genghis' descendants and not being the descendants themselves, I don't know if the Timurids were as well. Also, on the strategic and military evaluation of Genghis, I think you could get some material from these books, if not for this article then at least for the ones on his campaigns: ISBN 9781472810212, ISBN 9781913118228, ISBN 9781473853829. Matarisvan (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC) Hi Matarisvan, I've added a line on Timur marrying into Genghis's line, but I think any more detail would be WP:UNDUE. I am aware of the books you've mentioned but don't think they provide that much more relevant detail. If you disagree please let me know. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC) In the biblio, to maintain consistency, you will have to link to: The International History Review, Kim Hodong, Marie Favereau, Peter Golden, The Cambridge History of Inner Asia, George A. Lane, Hachette Books, Frank McLynn, Jack Weatherford. Good catches all. Change the website for Craig 2017 from www.bbc.com to just BBC? Done. Why have we used Hung 1951 here, when in the article on Shigi Qutuqu we preferred to use newer, updated sources? At Shigi Qutuqu, the relevant parts of Hung 1951 discussed the authorship of the Secret History, which today, nearly seventy-five years later, is a debate that is still raging—there is no point citing seventy-five year old sources for a current debate. By contrast, in this article it is used to cite a definite fact which is unlikely to change, and which Hung 1951 remains the most in-depth discussion of—the matter of the Secret History's transmission. That's all from me for now. I may or may not add more comments depending on whether I find anything to add. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 08:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC) Thanks for an often thought-provoking set of comments Matarisvan; I'll get back to you on the Timur thing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC) Hi AirshipJungleman29, have you addressed all of Matarisvan's comments? If so, could you ping them? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Happy to support for promotion to FA class. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

I was one of the peer reviewers last year; my fairly extensive comments then were thoroughly dealt with. After rereading for FAC I have nothing to add, and I am happy to support promotion to FA. This warts-and-all presentation of the man seems to me admirably balanced, the historical context is clearly explained, the sourcing is formidable and generally up to date, the illustrations are splendid and the prose highly readable. I could do without some of the slightly unnecessary blue links – age of majority, clemency, command structure, defection, discipline, fortifications, funeral procession, royal court and wrestling for instance – but I don't press the point. The article meets all the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 13:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Tim, much appreciated; I'll have a look at those blue links. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

MSIncccc

• Marker for now. Ping me if I have not left any comments by Friday. Regards MSincccc (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Prose comments

Lead Born between 1155 and 1167 and given the name Temüjin, he was the eldest child of Yesugei,... Using "eldest" because it is the correct term in British English for the firstborn child, providing greater clarity and precision. I've never heard that before—can I have a source? In British English, "eldest" is preferred over "oldest" when referring to the firstborn child in a family, which aligns with the formal tone required for a featured article. Source - Oxford English Dictionary (OED): "Eldest" is specifically used for people, particularly within a family context, while "oldest" can refer to people or things in a general sense. The OED definition clarifies this usage distinction【56†source】. That seems fair, I'll adjust the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC) When Temüjin was eight, his father died and his family was abandoned by their tribe. Using "their" in place of "its". Tim riley pointed out at the PR that this changes the subject from singular to plural mid-sentence. Reduced to poverty, they managed to survive, although Temüjin killed his half-brother Behter to secure his position. Dropped "near" before "poverty". Why? As he grew to manhood, he gained followers and formed alliances with two prominent steppe leaders, Jamukha and Toghrul; they collaborated to retrieve Temüjin's kidnapped wife, Börte. You could also retain "worked together" but the rest of the suggested version is a definite improvement. Partially done. Temüjin retreated, then regrouped and overpowered Toghrul; after defeating the Naiman tribe and executing Jamukha, he was left as the sole ruler on the Mongolian steppe. ...he was left as the sole ruler on the Mongolian steppe. could be replaced with ...he became the sole ruler of the Mongolian steppe. for a more concise phrase. That wouldn't work with "after" at the beginning of the phrase, so I am inclined against the change. In 1209 he led a large-scale raid into the neighbouring Western Xia, who agreed to Mongol terms the following year. and In 1227 Genghis died while subduing the rebellious Western Xia;... Dropped the comma as it follows the British convention of not placing a comma after introductory phrases. Never heard that before either—can I have a source? The same convention has been followed in the articles of British politicians, businessmen and members of the British royal family. According to The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, the comma after introductory phrases is often considered optional if the phrase is brief and clear. This aligns with contemporary editing practices that frequently omit the comma for conciseness and readability when the meaning remains unambiguous. Links-[12], [13] and [14]. I don't think two commas greatly reduce concision, and in fact they enhance readability to me. This source indicates that using commas with introductory phrases is the traditional route in BrE, so I'll continue using them. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC) The Mongol army under Genghis killed millions, yet his conquests also facilitated unprecedented commercial and cultural exchange across a vast geographical area. Preferred version. I like it. Changed. I will leave the remaining comments later. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC) Thanks for your time MSincccc. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC) Name and title There is no universal system for romanising Mongolian; consequently, modern spellings of Mongolian names vary significantly and can lead to considerably different pronunciations from the original. What is the improvement? I have no further suggestions for the prose of this section. I will leave further comments later. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 10:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC) Birth and Childhood Early life section The location of Temüjin's birth is similarly debated; the Secret History records his birthplace as Delüün Boldog on the Onon River but this has been placed at either Dadal in Khentii Province or in southern Agin-Buryat Okrug, Russia. Replaced the colon with a semi-colon and dropped a redundant comma. Done the first, not the second. When Temüjin was eight years old, his father decided to betroth him to a suitable girl. Yesügei took him to the pastures of Hö'elün's prestigious Onggirat tribe, which had intermarried with the Mongols on many previous occasions. By using this version (or similar ones), the use of "he" becomes clearer. Good call. As the betrothal meant Yesügei would gain a powerful ally and as Börte commanded a high bride price, Dei Sechen held the stronger negotiating position, and demanded that Temüjin remain in his household to work off his future debt. Dropped the comma after "ally". Done. Adolescence Taking up a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, they collected roots and nuts, hunted for small animals and caught fish. Dropped the last comma as it is unnecessary. I will return with further suggestions later. Looking forward to your response @AirshipJungleman29 both to these as well as to the previous comments. It's been quite sometime since I last heard from you. Regards MSincccc (talk) 03:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC) I will get round to your comments when I have the time MSincccc; there is no reason to keep pinging me. Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC) Sources His contemporary Juvayni, who had travelled twice to Mongolia and attained a high position in the administration of a Mongol successor state, was more sympathetic. Added "a" before "high position in the administration..." which is more grammatically correct. Done. Juzjani was an eyewitness to the brutality of the Mongol conquests, and the hostility mentioned in his chronicle reflects his experiences. I suppose you refer to the hostility of the accounts mentioned in Juzjani's article; hence this phrase is more suitable in British English. No, I refer to "the hostility of his chronicle". Will an article on Zhao Hong (Song diplomat) be created anytime in the near future? If not, should the red link still be retained? See WP:REDLINK—I see no reason why the article could not be created. I have no further suggestions for this section and will continue with the article later. Looking forward to your response @AirshipJungleman29. MSincccc (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC) Adolescence As Temüjin was only around ten and Behter around two years older, neither was considered old enough to rule. Dropped redundant comma. Removed. Both Temüjin and Behter had claims to be their father's heir; although Temüjin was the child of Yesügei's chief wife, Behter was at least two years his senior. Replaced colon with a semi-colon. The clauses are related, so a colon is proper use. Behter's younger brother Belgutei did not seek vengeance and became one of Temüjin's highest-ranking followers alongside Qasar. Dropped "full-" before brother. The distinction is important. Belgutei was also Temüjin's brother, but not his full-brother. I have read upto the "Rise to power" section and will leave further suggestions later. MSincccc (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC) Thanks for the comments, MSincccc. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC) Kurultai of 1206 and other reforms' Genghis Khan reorganized Mongol society into a military decimal system to diminish traditional tribal loyalties. No, it was not to diminish loyalties, it was to break the whole concept of loyalty to tribes. In a demonstration of Genghis Khan's meritocratic ideals, many of his trusted generals hailed from humble backgrounds: according to Ratchnevsky, figures like Jelme and Subutai, sons of blacksmiths, as well as a carpenter, a shepherd, and even the two herdsmen who warned Temüjin of Toghrul's plans in 1203. The first half misrepresents the source, the second half doesn't make grammatical sense. No they were just minor suggestion from my end. Are you disappointed with them? Anyways, I will be leaving detailed suggestions for the rest of the article later. Looking forward to your response @~~ AirshipJungleman29. MSincccc (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC) I have read upto Later reign: western expansion and return to China (1216–1227) and will leave further suggestions later. MSincccc (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC) Invasion of the Khwarazmian Empire (1219-1221) Genghis had now assumed complete control of the eastern portion of the Silk Road, and his territory bordered that of the Khwarazmian Empire, which ruled over much of Central Asia, Persia and Afghanistan. Don't see the "attained"-->"assumed" improvement. Muhammad's empire was large but disunited; he ruled alongside his mother Terken Khatun in what Peter Golden terms "an uneasy diarchy",... Replaced colon with semi-colon. You could also introduce Peter Benjamin Golden in a word or two. The clauses are related, so a colon is proper use. Glossed Mr Golden. Leaving his sons Chagatai and Ogedei to besiege the city,... Suggested phrase. Added. Jalal al-Din moved southwards to Afghanistan, gathering forces on the way and defeating a Mongol unit under the command of Shigi Qutuqu, Genghis's adopted son, in the Battle of Parwan. Could this sentence be rephrased in order fro it to become clearer as far as its meaning is concerned? What is unclear? Jalal al-Din moved southwards, gathering forces. At the Battle of Parwan, he defeated a Mongol detachment commanded by Genghis's adopted son, Shigi Qutuqu. Seems fine to me. ...—a number regarded as grossly exaggerated by modern scholars. ...is there a change? Return to China and final campaign (1222–1227) Initially aiming to return via India, Genghis realised that the heat and humidity of the South Asian climate impeded his army's skills, while the omens were additionally unfavourable. Replaced with "he" as his name appears in the sentence preceding this one. I don't think that's helpful. Returning to Mongolia in early 1225, Genghis spent the year in preparation for a campaign against them. Could use his first name at the beginning of a new paragraph. Done. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 06:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC) Ögedei was also known to drink excessively even by Mongol standards—it eventually led to his death in 1241. Trimmed along those lines Initially, the bounds of this ambition were limited only to Mongolia,... Good catch I have read upto the Legacy and historical assessment section. Sorry for the delay. I will be leaving my final comments sometime this week. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 05:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC) I will be leaving further suggestions later. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC) Hi MSincccc, it's been a couple of weeks, so I am checking to see if you are ready to comment further yet. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC) @Gog the Mild I left a few suggestions earlier today and would be wrapping up my list of suggestions soon. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 13:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC) Elsewhere The Muslim world has associated Genghis Khan with a myriad of ideologies and beliefs. Not done, because "its first instinct" would be somewhat confusing. The West, never directly affected by Genghis, have viewed him in shifting and contrasting ways. Altered similarly to clarify.

Minor suggestions above. See if you can implement them @AirshipJungleman29. Rest of the article is fine. Support. MSincccc (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for your extensive comments. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Source review – Pass

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Formatting A bit confused with your linking of locations. What is the pattern here? I'm guessing you're always linking unless they're well-known, i.e. London and New York. But then I question linking Oxford & Cambridge That is the pattern: Oxford shouldn't have been linked, and Cambridge wasn't (Cambridge, Massachusetts is) Some kind of identifier for Togan 2016 would be nice, ISBN, OCLC or something of the sort It would make sense to include the editors of Golden 2009 – Aza24 (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC) Joel Achenbach has an article Added all. Reliability The reliability of this article's sources are excellent. All Academic from reliable publishers or high quality news articles when necessary. Some of the sources err on the side of older publishing dates. Boyle, Kwanten, Kagchid and Hung seem fine—they're all used sparingly (once each) and for a specific reason. Given that Barthold is an updated edition, edited by a contemporary scholar, that seems suitable. But I do wonder if there are newer sources available, since the source is cited a handful of times. Pelliot seems to have similar issues as the above. Its an older, albeit important source, but used quite a few times. Some of these are unavoidable, but I do wonder if many of them could be switched with newer sources. I can try to look to see if I can swap Barthold out, but Pelliot is only used to cite details of language, and as such will be harder to swap out. However, as they are possibly the two most influential Mongol historians ever, still cited by the highest-quality sources today, I think they are fine as stopgaps. Fair enough, as long is there is a well-reasoned rationale, and its not simply an oversight. Verifiability No issues here. Happy to do spotchecks if requested by the coords – Aza24 (talk) 04:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• • Thanks Aza24, sorry for the delay. Responses above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
    • No worries, everything looks good. Pass for source review. Again, I'm happy to do spotchecks if requested. – Aza24 (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Kusma

Planning to join the fun. —Kusma (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Prose and sourcing comments

Name and title: The source (Pelliot 1959) just talks about "Chingis", not about "Chingis Khan". In particular, the Chinese in the source is 成吉思 and the Persian is just چنگیز The "Khan" title should probably be treated separately (or a source used that discusses "Genghis Khan", not just "Genghis"). Fair enough, removed. I think the Mongolian in this section is still too long (it looks too long), but I could be wrong. Sources: I just tried to find out who the "Zhao Hong" mentioned here is (and to find his name in Chinese characters). The Cambridge History of the Mongol Empire (TWL) seems to indicate he is actually Zhao Gong (趙珙) who wrote a book Meng Da beilu (蒙韃備錄); see zh:蒙韃備錄 or de:Mengda beilu. Can you cross check this with your other sources? I had a conversation with Folly Mox about him at Talk:Genghis Khan/Archive 11#*Zhao Hong. Most sources (Ratchnevsky 1991, Buell 2003, May&Hope 2023, ) use "Hong", and only Atwood 2004 (in addition to the CHME) uses "Gong", so I'm inclined to stick with the former? I would suggest to at least make a footnote that says there is a different name, and perhaps to mention the name of his book (after all, our source nowadays isn't a Song-era diplomat, but his book). I can't tell which sources are better for Gong vs. Hong, but I agree "Zhao Hong" is reasonably common also in relatively new scholarly sources. The (not so new) Cambridge History of China mentions him twice [15] [16] as "Chao Hung" (Wade-Giles transcription for "Zhao Hong"). The second link actually has some comments on sources on pp. 699–700; I found it interesting that they claim that Travels to the West of Qiu Chang Chun (Arthur Waley's translation here) "contains the only eyewitness description of the empire's founder," meaning Genghis Khan. —Kusma (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC) Added a footnote. That works. I would personally add an {{ill}} pointing to de:Mengda beilu, but I am not expecting you to. It might be good to say when the Persian and Christian sources were written. Done but vaguely. A rough indication of the century was all I was looking for; perhaps this could also be added for Marco Polo and others? Why not link Qojin and Tümelün? (various other Wikipedias also available) I'm not sure that those two are notable, so I've unlinked them. Various other red links could also perhaps use {{ill}} if articles exist somewhere (I have not checked in detail) I am not good with checking either. Defeating rivals: "humiliated the bodies of leaders who had opposed him" what does humiliating the bodies (as opposed to the leaders) mean? They were dead, and he did the 12th-century equivalent of teabagging. I've changed "bodies" to "corpses" to make their death more explicit. Early reign: "military [[decimal|decimal system]]" what do you mean by this? It should at least be unlinked and maybe glossed. Done. Consolidation of power: "Most Xia troops were stationed along the southern and western borders of the kingdom to guard against attacks from the Song and Jin dynasties respectively" that doesn't make sense given the map: the Jin were to the East? That is indeed correct. Defeating rebellions and Qara Khitai: "the subdued Hoi-yin Irgen tribes in Siberia" do we know a little more precision where this is? Siberia is larger than Canada... Glossed above as "a collection of tribes on the edge of the Siberian taiga"; the "in Siberia" was added because a previous reviewer felt the reminder would be helpful. Invasion of the Khwarazmian Empire: no idea why, but in my settings (300px thumbnails) there is no writing on File:Genghis Khan empire-switch.svg. SVG bug?? Probably, don't know how to fix that. I'll try to ask for technical advice, but there is nothing for you to do here. Gloss Peter Golden Done. "Ogedei" should be "Ögedei", here and in at least one other place. Done. I would recommend to recruit a military history expert to read the campaign sections, if you haven't already. Gog and UC had lots to say at PR. Succession: "reducing the wealthy city" not sure this is the best possible expression Changed to "besieging". Death and aftermath: "may have buried the khan in the Ordos to avoid his body decomposing in the summer heat" why would the Ordos Plateau help? Gloss this? Or is it the Ordos Desert? Clarified. "Yelu Chucai" should be Yelü Chucai ("lu" and "lü" represent different sounds in Chinese). Fixed. Legacy: it would be nice to hear a little bit more about perception outside of Mongolia. Is the "modern Muslim world" completely united in its assessment? (One could imagine Iranians to have different opinions from Uyghurs). Did the view of Genghis Khan among historical Europeans depend on whether the Mongols came to their lands in the 1200s? (Ukrainians might think about him different from French). Did Western European knowledge of Genghis Khan come only via Marco Polo or did medieval historians learn anything from Mongol-occupied Eastern Europe? Will do. Length: the article is long. It probably has good reasons to be long. If cutting is desired, I would suggest to leave the interesting "Legacy" section alone and to summarise / subarticle-ise more of the comparatively boring sections about the military campaigns. (Other people probably disagree). I think they do, and I am naturally one of them. An interesting read; I look forward to being able to support once some issues have been addressed. —Kusma (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC) Thanks, responses above Kusma; I'll come back to you on the legacy question, which I've been doing much thinking about Mostly discussed Zhao Gong/Hong above. Looking forward to reading what you come up with for legacy. —Kusma (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC) AirshipJungleman29 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC) Kusma, I have expanded the "Elsewhere" section with more details on Genghis's historical and modern assessment in the Muslim world. In general, there is not the level of detail you were hoping for with regard to Europe. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC) Not finding more is OK if you have searched. I like the Japanese legend about Yoshitsune, it seems very odd (this source seems to trace the history a bit further back). I do have a further comment: At the start of the paragraph "Genghis was also a source of political legitimacy" I think slightly more context would help: you are talking about legitimacy of 14th-15th century rulers in Muslim territories that had been conquered by Mongols in the 13th century (and were lacking other legitimacy like descent from Muhammad or its family). Without such context it is a bit surprising that there is a paragraph on Mongol legitimacy between two Arab/Muslim paragraphs. —Kusma (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Does the clarification work Kusma? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it works OK now, happy to support. —Kusma (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Remsense

Ping me if I don't get to this by Wednesday. Remsense诉 18:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• @Remsense: It's not wednesday and I'm not airship, but I'm pinging you :P Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Remsense Ping! Gog the Mild (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Withdrawing, as I don't feel I'm presently qualified for this. Really sorry. Remsense诉 15:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

No worries, I'll try to get back to the Chinese characters PR soon. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments from HAL

Much respect for tackling an article like this. Comments to come soon. Ping me if I go AWOL. ~ HAL333 14:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Over the next decade and a half, Temüjin and Börte would have --> "Over the next decade and a half, Temüjin and Börte had" per WP:WOULDCHUCK
• This same issue pops up several times:

• As he would later go on to overthrow that state --> "As he later overthrew that state"
• later known as the Baljuna Covenant, to his faithful followers, which would later grant them exclusivity and prestige -- also has a repetitive use of "later"
• the white tuq pictured here represent peace, while a black tuq would represent war - Why would "would" only be used for black tuq?
• whom they would serve and who in return would evaluate
• a grant which the Taoists would later use to try to gain superiority over Buddhism
• which would become the Chagatai Khanate
• and who would succeed his father as ruler of the empire
• You get the point. Check all other uses of "would" to determine if they're actually necessary. Some (e.g. for the subjunctive) certainly are of course.
  • Removed all which are (to my eye) unnecessary.

• "that the chronology of the work" --> that the work's chronology" for concision
• "the historian Paul Ratchnevsky notes that Temüjin himself may not have known the truth" -- Ratchnevsky is deceased, so I might change that to "noted"
  • Done both, the second at all relevant points.
• Should "birth-name" be hyphenated? It isn't per the Oxford, Cambridge, and Collins dictionaries.
  • Separated.
• "a motif in Asian folklore which indicated the child would be a warrior" --> "a motif in Asian folklore indicating the child would be a warrior"
  • Done
• "prestigious Onggirat tribe" -- How was the tribe itself 'prestigious'? Were they wealthy? Powerful? Is a better word/explanation needed here?
  • All of the above? I think "prestigious" is a good word for the context.
• "they exchanged knucklebones" - Their own? Of some kind of animal? Is this an idiom for a fistfight?Further elaboration is needed.
  • No, "knucklebones" refers to a variety of historical games. See knucklebones, or shagai for the Mongolian variant.
• "at the age of eleven" --> "at age eleven" would suffice.
  • Done.
• "before allowing him to escape" - was he holding him against his will? Did he simply aid his escape?
  • Changed "allowing" to "helping" for clarity.
• Maybe reword "an adolescent named Bo'orchu who aided him in retrieving stolen horses" as "Bo'orchu, an adolescent who aided him in retrieving stolen horses" but feel free to disregard.
• "had been lost" --> to the less literary and more concise "had died"
  • Done both.
• "Ratchnevsky has questioned if Temüjin actually became Jamukha's nökor" - I know you previously defined nokor as "personal companion", but the way this is worded suggests there is some weight to this? Likely some cultural significance? Could you explain/clarify?
  • Someone above mentioned this as well; I've put it in plain English.
• "cryptic remark" - Could you explain this remark, maybe in a footnote?
• "Temüjin was able to subdue" --> "Temüjin subdued"
  • Done both.
• "being termed" -- I don't think "being" is needed.
  • Removed.
• Maybe change "to catch the Kereit unawares" --> "to ambush the Kereit"
  • Done

That's all for now. Nice work. ~ HAL333 00:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments HAL333, replies above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi HAL333, gentle reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi HAL333, do you have any further comments? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

HAL has been inactive since June; it seems unlikely that they'll comment further. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: with the above in mind, is this ready for promotion or are more reviews needed? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: , it's been close to a week; are we waiting for HAL to return, or for more reviewers to show up? If it's the latter, I can ask some other editors for their comments? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• "Temüjin was decisively defeated in c. 1187". Except it wasn't decisive in any of the usual dictionary definitions of the word. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Adjusted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 18 July 2024 [17].

---

Alia Bhatt

Nominator(s): Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Back to the FAC grind after very many years with another Hindi film actress bio. Might be a bit rusty, but looking forward to constructive comments to get this one to its best version. Cheers! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• File:Alia_Bhatt_at_the_promo_launch_of_'Student_of_the_Year.jpg: source link is dead. Ditto File:Alia_Bhatt_2016.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Nikkimaria: alt texts added. I've replaced the former pic with a different one that has a working source link, and have updated the sources of the latter pic. Thank you for the review! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Aoba47

• Is there a citation in the lead's first sentence as it is particularly controversial information or wording?

Her British citizenship leads to a lot of vandalism/edit-warring, which is why the refs & hidden note were added.

• I'd revise "troubling circumstance" in the lead as it is pulled directly from the CNN quote in the article.

Done.

• This part, (One of India's highest-paid actresses, Time magazine), is referring to Time as one of the highest-paid actresses.

Tweaked.

• By "victim of drug abuse", do you mean drug addict? If so, I'd use that. The current version reads a tad sensationalized to me.

"drug addict" wouldn't technically be correct in this context, coz in the film, her character is forcefully fed drugs, so a "victim of drug abuse" seems more apt.

• I do not know about the "titular prostitute" phrasing. I get it is more descriptive, but why not "title character"?

Changed.

• Do you know anything further about where she was born other than just the country?

This has been a bit controversial, and no definitive information exists about it.

• I have a clarification question based on a discussion on the talk page. That discussion claims that India does not allow for multiple citizenship. So is Bhatt no longer an Indian citizen? Would it be worthwhile to clarify that? Also, when did she get her British citizenship? Some further context may be helpful.

Well, India doesn't allow dual citizenship, and she is a British citizen by birth. Unfortunately, no other definitive information exists beyond this.

Apologies in advance for the stupid question. My knowledge about India is extremely limited. How is she a British citizen by birth if she was born in India? I get that according to the citation that she has a British passport, but as an outsider, I am unsure on this. Aoba47 (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The Times in the UK reported that her mother is British, which is why she has a British passport.

• I do not think it is necessary to say "has said" for the quotes. I believe you can just say "said".

Yep, removed.

There are still a few instances of this in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• This quote, ("I don't remember much of the shoot. I would go to the sets only for the food"), seems unnecessary to me.

Removed.

• This quote, ("a washout. Not only is she inelegant in the dance numbers, but her expressions are limited; and the digital retouching of her face throughout the film is a distraction"), is rather long. I think it would be better to paraphrase it.

Tweaked.

• I am uncertain about this part, (Bhatt was keen to play a better role). It implies in Wikipedia's voice that Student of the Year was a bad role, and I think that should be avoided for something more neutral.

Tweaked.

• I would be mindful of WP:SEAOFBLUE in areas like (Imtiaz Ali's road film Highway).

Tweaked.

• I would avoid one-word quotes like ("surprise" and "stupendous") as it does not really add much to the article.

Removed.

• This sentence is trying to convey too much information: (She played a Punjabi girl who has an affair before her wedding, in Humpty Sharma Ki Dulhania, directed by Shashank Khaitan, which was described as a tribute to Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge (1995) by Johar.)

Tweaked.

• What is meant by "accomplishments" in this sentence: (Her accomplishments in 2014 established her career.)? Critical reviews? Box office? It also seems a bit tacked-on at the end of the paragraph.

Changed.

• Is Central Board of Film Certification controversy with Udta Punjab notable enough to mention in this article? It seems to be more about the movie than Bhatt.

Removed and condensed.

• Would it be possible to find a link for "a ghetto dialect"? I am an American and I likely have a very different reading on this.

Linked and changed wording.

• How did death of Sushant Singh Rajput lead to a debate on nepotism? It is not clear in the article.

Tweaked the wikilinks so people can read up on the nepotism debate caused due to his death.

• I am unsure of this sentence: (The year 2022 was key for Bhatt.) I get it is a topic sentence, but I am not sure if it is worded the best, particularly when done in Wikipedia's voice.

Tweaked.

• Memoirs of a Geisha is about sex work to some degree, but I would not lump geishas and prostitutes together generally. I just do not really think of Memoirs of a Geisha under the header of "films about prostitution" as done in the article.

Removed.

• Because Bhatt's personal life is so separated into its own section, this sentence came off as very abrupt: (Filming and release were delayed by a few months due to her pregnancy.)

Is there any other way you'd suggest to include this?

• For this part, (the unplugged version), is "unplugged" referring to an acoustic performance? If so, I'd use "acoustic" instead.

Done.

• In the "Singing and stage performances" subsection, there are a few sentences that start with "In X year". I would be mindful of that as it does make the prose less engaging and come off more as just a listing.

Tweaked.

Welcome back to the FAC process. This review goes up to the "Personal life" section. Apologies for not doing it all in one go. I hope that these comments are helpful. I will continue my review once everything has been addressed. I hope you have a good weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 02:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

So good to have you review my work again, Aoba. Looking forward to the rest of your comments. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I am glad that I could help. Thank you for addressing everything. I will post the rest of my review momentarily. I have left two responses above. One is a clarification question and the other is pointing out that there are still instances of "has said" in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about missing out on those. Should be done now. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• I have similar issue with titular prostitute in the article as I did for the lead.

Done.

• This was recently added to the article: (As per the Netflix engagement report, it received nearly 110 million views, making it the second most watched film in the second half of 2023.) I wonder if there is a way to condense it. Something like (According to Netflix, Heart of Stone was the the second most watched film on the platform for the second half of 2023)?

Trimmed it further to just say "The film had strong viewership on Netflix", which I think is sufficient for her bio.

• I think it would be worth linking trolling.

Done.

• I would condense (for being a beneficiary of nepotism) to (for benefiting from nepotism).

Done.

• I am not entirely sure of the relevancy or need for this part, (which journalist Malavika Sangghvi described as an extension of the dumb blonde stereotype). It is already established that people were trolling her intelligence based on this so I do not think that this specific journalist and this specific stereotype adds much beyond that.

Removed.

• Is "clicking pictures" is correct? I am mostly seen it as "taking pictures".

Changed.

• This is more an observation, but I am unsure about the third paragraph of the "Media image and artistry" section. It comes off more like an indiscriminate listings of lists that involve Bhatt. I would be curious if there was a way to present this information in a more engaging manner. Right now, it seems like a lot of a lot and is a bit repetitious. I am not saying you need to change it, but it is something that caught my attention.

I can understand this, although I've tried to make the text flow in the most engaging way, much like how it has been written in other FAs such as Deepika Padukone or Priyanka Chopra who also regularly feature in such lists.

• I would italicize film titles in the citation titles per MOS:CONFORMTITLE.

Done.

• Could you explain to me how works/websites are linked in the citations? I am not entirely sure I follow it. For instance, I do not see The Indian Express being linked.

I've gone through the refs, and have linked the first occurrence of each publication.

• Citation 27 does two authors in the byline (Neha Sharma and Navdeep Kaur Marwah) so that should be added to the citation. Citation 99 also has an author credited in the article (Namrata Joshi), but not included in the citation. It would be probably worth double-checking through the citations to see if there are any other instances of this.

Added.

Thank you for addressing this. The authors are missing for the following citations: Citation 90 (Stutee Ghosh) and Citation 103 (Simon Abrams). Aoba47 (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• Citation 159 is missing a work/website parameter (in this case India Today).

Added.

This should be everything, but once all of my comments are addressed, I will read through the article a few more times to make sure I have not missed anything. I have actually seen Heart of Stone so I was honestly surprised to remember that I have seen Bhatt in a movie. Aoba47 (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the detailed review, Aoba47. Do let me know if there are further improvements to be made. Also, Heart of Stone is one of her weakest films, and definitely not a good barometer to judge her abilities. Haha. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I thought Heart of Stone was just okay, but I would imagine that she would be better in a better role (and just a better movie lol). I have three quick comments on the citations below:

• Do you think that The Live Mirror should be linked? There is nothing wrong with red links, but do you think that there is potential for an article here?

I've replaced the source.

• Citation 16 no longer leads to the article. Citation 124 is dead.

I've replaced citation 16 with a better one. Updated the other ref, which is now # 123.

• For Citation 15, I would clarify in the citation that it accessed through Google Books with the "via=" parameter.

Done for both the book sources.

Once these are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

All should be done now. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 05:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Just wanted to point out that my above comment on Stutee Ghosh and Simon Abrams not being attributed in the citation still needs to be addressed. Other than that, the article looks good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 06:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Oops, so sorry. Didn't see that comment. Done now. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything and for your patience. I support the FAC for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC, but I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. Best of luck with the FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 06:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your thorough review, Aoba! :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• Drive-by comment, as this is outside my area of expertise; the lead somewhat bowdlerizes the description of Gangubai Kathiawadi; the film, and Bhatt's role in it, were pathbreaking precisely because they examined sex work, and avoiding naming it in the lead does them a disservice I think. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Vanamonde93, thank you for your comment. I've added that she played a prostitute in the lead. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I see Aoba47 said the opposite above: if "prostitute" sounds too crass, how about "sex worker and activist"? Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I guess Aoba47 didn't like the phrasing "titular prostitute" and not the word "prostitute". Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for jumping into this conversation. I did not have an issue with the word "prostitute". I had an issue with the phrase "titular prostitute" as it sounded off to me. It could just be a matter of personal preference on my part. If other editors think that "titular prostitute" would be better, I would not be opposed to it being reinstated as it is not a major point for me. Aoba47 (talk) 18:34, 16 June 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 three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comments on sourcing

There are a few academic sources that might be worth using.

• https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-15-0191-3_17 - a prominent book on Hindi cinema with one chapter dedicated to Bhatt.
• https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-981-99-5700-2 - Bhatt appears in two chapters here, including Young Women.
• https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26607476 - this is "merely" a review of Bhatt's performance in Raazi but I still think this can be included to offer some variety of the reviews of her performances in the article.

I can't say if the list of academic sources is exhaustive though since my research didn't take very long. FrB.TG (talk) 11:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

FrB.TG, thank you for the links. But how do I get access to these books as I am unable to read them in full. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response; I’ve been down with a very bad fever for the last few days. You should be able to access at least the JSTOR one with WP:TWL. The Springer ones might also be available. FrB.TG (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey, FrB.TG, I hope you're better now. I added the one JSTOR "review" of Raazi, but did not get much else of value there. Unfortunately, I could not get access to the Springer ones. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Another drive-by from me: the first of those (Stardom in Contemporary Hindi Cinema) has such poor grammar in its abstracts that I cannot see how it a heavy-weight source. The second, however, seems necessary to incorporate. WP:RX should be able to help, if you cannot access it through a library. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey, FrB.TG and Vanamonde93 I've paraphrased the analysis on her personal life from the two chapters in the Being Bollywood source. Do let me know if this works. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. This gives the article a much more comprehensive feel even if it's just a few sentences. FrB.TG (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Hurricanehink

I wanted to review this, seeing that there haven't been many reviews, and I have an ongoing FAC, so might as well help out.

• (Lead) – "In addition to acting, Bhatt has launched her own sustainable clothing brand, Ed-a-Mamma, an ecological initiative, CoExist, and a production company, Eternal Sunshine Productions." - Considering how much of the article is about her filmography to this point, I think the last paragraph could take a bit more time expanding on her other interests. This is a lot for one sentence, so I suggest start with whatever one happened first, and then go from there.

Tweaked.

• (Early life) – Alia Bhatt was born on 15 March 1993[3][4] in India. - what state? Do you have a city?

This has led to discussions before. Unfortunately, no definite information exists beyond the fact that she was born in India.

Are you sure? I'm reading a lot of Google searches saying her birthplace was Mumbai. This source backs up up. India is too big of a country, and Alia too big of a star evidently, for me to be OK with just listing "India". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I was always ready to add Mumbai (which logically too makes the most sense), but had been challenged before. Anyway, I've added it back now. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• Four sentences in the Early life section start with "She". The writing could be improved by some variety, instead of the same sentence structure.

Tweaked.

• I feel like you could get the point of the second Early life paragraph without using the quotes, and just describing it, but if you feel strongly about the quotes, I won't object, because on the other hand it's nice to have quotes describing an event.

I've tried to not use too many quotes. I'd say two of them (which are not too long) should be fine.

• "She next appeared in Vikas Bahl's short film on women's safety, entitled Going Home." - any more about this? "appeared" is vague, as is whatever the film was, and when it was, and the importance of it. If it's not important, should it be removed?

Expanded, for clarity.

• So I just noticed you mentioning currencies in the article. I appreciate you listing both the Indian and the US. It might be worth putting a note somewhere whether the box office totals are unadjusted or inflated. I presume it's just box office sales. And this is a bit of a picky note. I'm enjoying the read so far.

Since she's only been active for a decade, I don't think "inflation" would be much of a factor anyway, so all figures are unadjusted.

• "This led to vote brigading on the film's trailer on YouTube, on which it became the second most-disliked video." - apparently it's number three, but wow.

Added, "to that point".

• "Even though she learnt to speak her lines in the language, a dubbing artist eventually voiced her lines." - the "eventually" feels unnecessary, and almost pointed.

You're right. Removed.

• "Earning over ₹3.5 billion (US$42 million) worldwide, it emerged as one of the year's highest-grossing Hindi films." - why not specify it was 7th? "one of the" feels wishy washy

Done.

• " she walked the ramp to support the cause" - is "walked the ramp" a well-known phrase? It seems odd to me that would be such a significant event worth noting

To me, it's pretty common to use this phrase, in Indian English.

But what does it even mean? As an American, I've never heard of this phrase. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

It refers to a ramp walk. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

To do a random source spotcheck, I used a random number generator between 1 and 203 (the number of references).

• 25 - checks out, the source covers the information, and is properly cited.
• 202 - yup, covers the information and is properly cited.
• 79 - covers a significant moment and is properly cited.
• 144 - backs up the information and is properly cited.

Thank you for the source review.

I get the picture. One last thing, should Bhatt's political views be mentioned in the article? Her views on Gaza I thought were good, calling for peace. On the other hand, Alia Bhatt attended the opening of the Ram Mandir. I know Bhatt is known for being an actress, but given her widespread activities in other ventures, there should be more about what she actually believes, says she believes, that kind of stuff.

This is a tricky one. She has never been vocal politically or religiously, which might have to do with the kind of trolling one receives these days. Having said that, I didn't find including an Insta story re-share to be particularly notable enough to include. As for the Ram Mandir inauguration, she did so without speaking about the whys or whats, or lending supporting to the ruling party, which is why I once again did not really find the need to include it. I'm keen to hear your thoughts. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I hope my comments aren't too difficult to address. I enjoyed the read, not really knowing anything about her (other than having seen RRR, incidentally). Let me know if you have any questions, Krimuk2.0 (talk · contribs). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the thorough review, Hurricanehink. Hope to hear back from you soon. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick replies! I'm OK with not having the political views (after all, she's an actress), so the only thing left is her birthplace. Also, is it worth mentioning the name of Alia's daughter? I'm guessing that you opted not to for editorial reasons, which is fnie, but if the daughter starts acting in films like her mother at some point, then it should be added. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Her daughter's name had been removed by someone else. I've added it back now. All should be done now, Hurricanehink. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Happy to support now! Thanks for the fixes. Good work on this. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

SC

Very enjoyable article. Just a couple of comments:

• "walked the ramp": I'm not sure what this is - you may need to make it clearer
• There's some inconsistency in your capitalisation in the sources, with some having every first letter caps, and others being sentence case. These should be consistent.

That's my lot. - SchroCat (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, SchroCat. Your first point has been addressed. I just have a doubt about the second one, and would like to clarify it. I've followed the capitalisation in titles as written in the source itself. Shouldn't that be the case? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

No, they should be formatted consistently, rather than as the source. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Alright. All done, SchroCat. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support. All good for me; this meets the FA criteria on prose. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Seems like a spotcheck took place above. Given what is says on paid news on The Times of India, I must ask if the sources have been checked for the presence of paid news. Source #12 has a "{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)" error message. Firstpost seems to have a questionable reputation. I doubt that JSTOR links need archives. Why does #168 need a red padlock when other uses of this source don't? What makes bollywoodhungama.com a reliable source? Reliability-wise, I must caution that I am not deeply familiar with the reliability of Indian news media. Also, are there biographies? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The Times of India and Firstpost, along with numerous other Indian media sources, may carry paid reporting. I have taken caution to use these, as well as other sources such as NDTV or Hindustan Times with due caution. As for the portal Bollywood Hungama, it has been used as a significant source for Hindi film FA-class articles for over a decade, including in Deepika Padukone to Priyanka Chopra, and has such never been challenged.

Sources 12 and 168 are now fixed. JSTOR archive removed.

No reliable biography of the actress has been published, as yet. Thanks for the comments, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, do you have any further query? FrB.TG (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

No, that's all, although someone who knows about the reliability of Indian news outlets would be appreciated. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm well-versed on the reliability of Indian film sources and these are all by top publications, and I took a brief look at the sources myself before I posted by drive-by comments above. With no further concern from you, I'll be promoting this shortly. FrB.TG (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 14 July 2024 [18].

---

The Girl Who Lived in the Tree

Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

After the death of his frenemy Isabella Blow, Alexander McQueen took a month-long trip to India to process his grief. The result was The Girl Who Lived in the Tree, a wildly imaginative and critically beloved collection that smashes together imagery of the British monarchy with the culture of India during the British Raj through the story of a fairy tale about a feral girl who becomes a princess. It's a joyous collection that's rightfully remembered as one of his best. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Image and source review by Generalissima

Oh hey, I remember this one!

Doing images first:

• File:Dress by Alexander McQueen at Savage Beauty exhibition V&A.jpg - CC-BY-SA 2.0
• File:Queen Elizabeth II official portrait for 1959 tour (retouched) (cropped) (3-to-4 aspect ratio).jpg - Public domain / CC-BY 2.0
• File:Woman sitting wearing red anarkali dress.jpg - CC0 1.0
• File:Pavo cristatus - Jardin botanique - Toulouse - 2012-05-07.jpg - CC-BY 3.0
• File:Indian jutti, 1940-1998 - Bata Shoe Museum - DSC00438.JPG - CC0 1.0
• File:The Girl Who Lived In The Tree - Look 23.png - CC-BY 2.0
• File:The Girl Who Lived In The Tree - Look 29.png - CC-BY 2.0
• File:The Girl Who Lived In The Tree - Look 31.png - CC-BY 2.0
• File:The Girl Who Lived In The Tree - Look 34.png - CC-BY 2.0
• File:The Girl Who Lived In The Tree - Look 10.png - CC-BY 2.0
• File:Werner en Abraham Jamnitzer (1579-1586) Drinkbeker in de vorm van Daphne Grünes Gewölbe Dresden 21-10-2018.jpg - CC-BY-SA 4.0
• File:The Girl Who Lived In The Tree - Look 42.png - CC-BY 2.0
• All images are relevant, well-arranged, and have alt-text.

Support on image review.

Source:

• I did a pretty thorough spot-check during the GAN review here, and it passed without any serious errors. I can do another spotcheck if you would like it, however, I don't see any major changes on that front since when I reviewed. The sources are basically the same as all the other McQueen FAs; that is to say, using basically the entire available corpus of RSes on McQueen's designs, alongside contemporary critics' responses in the fashion press. Since this is a pretty pivotal moment in his career, it seems this collection is well-covered among the overview sources. The sources are consistently cited; all books are placed in the Bibliography, news articles in the standard Citation section. Books all have ISBNs and OCLCs. If you wanted to be extra (fitting considering the subject matter), you could always add ISSNs to the newspaper and magazine sources, but this isn't really a requirement.

Support on the source review as well. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for doing these Generalissima, I appreciate it :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Joeyquism

Below is a very quick prose check; I have very little to add, as much of it is already excellent! Feel free to refuse suggestions with justification.

• Their relationship was turbulent, and they were estranged when Blow committed suicide in May 2007. - I initially interpreted this as meaning the estrangement was a result of Blow's death. Though I may be a little silly for reading it as such, perhaps "had been" instead of "were" would be a bit clearer?
  • Sure, tweaked
• Grey-based tartan referenced McQueen's Scottish heritage. - Wikilink to the wonderfully logorrheic page for tartan?
  • Oh, yeah
• Treacy used driftwood to build the bird's body and sea fan coral for its tail. Treacy recalled McQueen being "speechless" when he saw it. - Can likely just be made one sentence with a semicolon, or substitute either of the "Treacy"s for the corresponding third-person pronoun.
  • Yes, that is better
• McQueen personally invited Hillson to the show as a gesture of gratitude for her mentorship. – I would say this sentence is far enough from the previous mention of Hillson to warrant the inclusion of their full name again.
  • Sure, although sometimes I've done this and people have disagreed, so we'll see if other reviewers bring it up
• The bag was decorated with gilt... - Is "gilt" gold leaf?
  • Not necessarily
• Writer Cassandra Atherton described using several McQueen collections, including The Girl Who Lived in the Tree, in a university-level creative writing course to teach a connection between poetry and fashion, particularly how one can inspire the other. - Is there any indication in the JSTOR article as to which university this course is/was taught at?
  • Yes, but it seems like an unnecessary level of detail to add to the article

Otherwise, this is a very well-written article about a lovely topic - Well done! I think there is much to be written about regarding fashion history, and I'm especially appreciative of your work on fashion-related articles on here. joeyquism (talk page) 22:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments Joeyquism, I've responded. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  Support - Looks good. Thanks! joeyquism (talk page) 01:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Support from Kusma

Review to follow soon. —Kusma (talk) 08:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Background: would it help for context to know when McQueen was born and when he died? I would also suggest to add a sentence or two about his success between 1992 and 2008.
  • I'm not sure birth/death is necessary, I don't usually see it in comparable articles such as albums. I think "known in the fashion industry for..." covers his success
    • The graduation in 1992 is probably enough to guess at his age, but I think something about founding his fashion house, winning prizes, having two collections per year (many of them notable) would help to give some background on who McQueen is. (Imagine a reader arriving here from the Main Page who has never heard of him and only reads this article).
      • I don't see that it's valuable to recap his biography, nor the minutiae of the fashion industry (two major seasons a year is an industry standard, not a McQueen thing). I would prefer to avoid overloading the reader with detail when the article should be focused on what's relevant to this particular collection, such as his relationship with Isabella and his love of heritage.
        • I take your point on the two collections. But I still think there is so much focus on some details (indeed, those that are relevant for this collection) that the reader isn't presented with the big picture: that McQueen had achieved mainstream publicity by this point of his career, and was no longer just "known in the fashion industry". —Kusma (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
          • Kusma, I've added a sentence about a 20-year career and the various themes/ideas he got into. I also pulled "known in the fashion industry". How's that?
            • Now we have a short overview of his entire career; that should do to give enough context.
• Concept and collection: "It was presented as a fairy tale about a feral girl who lived in a tree before falling in love with a prince and descending to earth to become a princess." who presented the fashion collection as a fairy tale and how did they do that? Or do you mean that the show was presented according to this narrative?
  • I've tweaked the phrasing, does that help?
    • Yes.
• Sorry for being obtuse and to continue harping on this point: I can imagine separating a show into "phases", but I have difficulty imagining "phases" of a fashion collection
  • This refers to the show, I've split the sentence so hopefully that's clearer
    • Indeed.
• "He also drew heavily on the clothing he saw in India" should it be "had seen"?
• Runway show: do we know how long it took/how many people saw it? Or is that something nobody cares about in fashion?
  • No RS discuss the runtime. I could pull it from a video but the problem is that in my experience the available videos of McQueen's shows sometimes exclude bits so it wouldn't necessarily be accurate. No audience numbers reported for this one either.
    • OK.
• "site-specific environmental installations" is a MOS:SEAOFBLUE violation; perhaps two of the links would suffice in a less blue reformulation?
  • tweaked
• "Gainsbury & Whiting" is this a company name?
  • Yes, but not a notable one, so no point redlinking it
• Do you know who chose the music?
  • McQueen usually worked with the same DJ, but no sources mention him in relation to this show, so I didn't want to assume
• Suggest to unlink atelier, it does not help here.
  • Not sure I agree, it's an uncommon word
    • My point is the content of the article atelier. If you want to explain the word, it may be better to link to atelier instead.
      • I see your point, but although the article doesn't directly mention jewellers, it's still about the concept of a private artistic workshop, so I'd prefer to retain the link
        • As "atelier" is the standard word for an artist's workshop in German, I find it hard to judge how rare it is in English, so I will stop complaining about this. —Kusma (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
• Notable ensembles: Images of the various Looks are spread all over the article. Have you considered experimenting with a gallery that could keep them all close to where they are being discussed?
  • I would prefer not to, as a gallery renders them all quite small and reduces the visual impact, plus there is room in the text
    • My main question here is how to keep the images close to where they are being discussed. I agree that you should not use the old-fashioned default of the "gallery" tag, but with "mode=packed" or similar (and at a decent size) the visual impact could be just as good as it is now.
      • I understand your concern, but I disagree that it's better than the current format, which presently has the important images alongside where they're being discussed in detail.
        • OK. Most of them are reasonably close (other than Look 10, which is mentioned twice, it is usually in the same or adjacent section when looking at images on mobile, where this is most relevant). BTW is Look 33 the only one not discussed in the text? (Nothing wrong with that per se). —Kusma (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
• Analysis: Is the link Gothic fiction the best way to describe "Gothic elements"?
  • Yes, "Gothic" in this context refers to elements - tropes, ideas, cliches, etc - that originated in Gothic fiction
• Writer Cassandra Atherton: isn't this more "legacy" than "analysis"? If it is "analysis", can we hear more about how Atherton sees the mutual influence of fashion and poetry in this specific show?
  • I don't think so, since her point is using the collection to teach the connection, which strikes me as analysis, even if it isn't very deep. (Speaking of which, she doesn't really get into the weeds of this individual collection, just sort of describes how her students took inspiration from it)
• Legacy: the first half of the intro paragraph is just publication of photographs of dresses from the collection. That strikes me as not ideal for introducing the legacy, and perhaps should be in its own (sub-)section. The discussion of the legacy proper in my view only starts at "Playwright James Phillips produced the 2015 semi-biographical play McQueen".
  • I'm not sure a separate section is necessary for what a fairly short paragraph. The other McQueen collection FAs I've done place photoshoot information in the same location, as mostly they come first before any other Legacy stuff
• "several items from the retail collection" this is the first time we hear about the retail collection; anything worth saying about it in general?
  • No, there is almost never any coverage about the retail versions, they're almost never as fun nor as flashy as the runway items
    • I was more wondering if there was any boring information of the type "it was for sale from March 2008".
      • Nope, not even that.
• "Ownership and exhibitions" could perhaps be "exhibitions and ownership" as this is the order in which they are discussed.
  • I swapped the paragraph order instead as I think it reads better

I am pretty clueless about fashion but enjoyed reading this! —Kusma (talk) 10:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Kusma, thanks for your comments, I've replied above. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Some further replies above. No need to do anything where I have not replied. Where I have replied, don't do anything if it makes the article worse. —Kusma (talk) 08:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Sorry for the long delay, Kusma, I've replied above. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
      • No worries, I was less active than planned myself. I still disagree on one point, but nothing big. —Kusma (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
        • Supporting now. —Kusma (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Aoba47

• Since Palais Omnisports de Paris-Berc is a venue in Paris, shouldn't it be (the Palais Omnisports de Paris-Bercy in Paris) rather than (the Palais Omnisports de Paris-Bercy, Paris)? I have this question for both the lead and the article.
  • Lol, I do this every time, and every time I tell myself I'll remember for next time and I never do :P
• For this sentence, (The looks from the first half represented the girl's feral state, taking inspiration from punk fashion to create a look McQueen called "punk princess".), I would avoid repeating looks/look in the same sentence if possible. The very next sentence also starts with "looks" so it feels a tad repetitive.
  • Reworded, nice catch
• For the "Reception" section, there is an instance of four citations being used. I would consider citation bundling to avoid any citation overkill concerns.
  • Done
• I think it would be beneficial to specify in this part, (including the long-running Les Misérables), that the musical is being referenced. It would likely be understood from context, but I think it is always best to clarify to avoid any potential confusion.
  • Yes, good point
• Sarah Burton should be linked in the article. It may be helpful to note about McQueen's death in 2010 and how that shaped Burton's involvement in the fashion house as I could see readers questioning why she was creating a collection for McQueen. I am specifically referencing the second paragraph in the "Legacy" section just to be clear.
  • I considered this, but I'm generally hesitant to give explanations that are longer than the thing that is being explained, you know? I revised it a bit to say "Sarah Burton for the Alexander McQueen brand" and maybe that'll do
    • That is fair. All the readers really need to know is that Burton was designed a collection for the McQueen brand at the time and a source that there were similarities to this collection. The revision clarifies that for me, and I can understand and agree that a note would be excessive. Aoba47 (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
• For Citation 30, I think it would be useful to specify in the citation formatting that it is from Gale. I have a similar comment for any similar citations used in the article (such as Citations 55, 59, and 76) to avoid potentially confusing readers who may be expecting to be directed somewhere else when clicking on the link (like to the Toronto Star for Citation 30). There are citations that already do this, specifically Citations 56 through 58.
  • Done
• Citation 76 should specify that a subscription is necessary in the citation formatting. When I click the link, I get directed to a log in screen. I would do the same for any similar citations.
  • I generally avoid doing this; I feel it adds a lot of work for minimal reader value
    • That's fair. It is not a major issue for me and it would not hold up my review in any way. Aoba47 (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
• This is not required by any means for a FA/FAC, but I always think it is best to archive web citations whenever possible.
  • I tried to do this but IABot is apparently "experiencing a high load. This may cause delays in processing your request. The current estimated lag is 2099 minute(s) and 22 second(s)" (34 hours, lol!). I'll have to do it another day.
    • I am sorry to hear that. That does suck. Again, it is not required for a FAC, or even a FAC, so it is nothing to worry about. It is always a pain, at least in my opinion, to do these kinds of changes after already writing ad revising the article. Aoba47 (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I hope this review is helpful. Once all of my comments are addressed, I will look through the article a few more times just to make sure, but I do not imagine that I will find anything further. Great work as always, and best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Aoba! Sorry for taking so long to reply. I've generally made the suggested changes except in one or two places. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• No need to apologize. There was absolutely no rush. I agree with your replies to my comments. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Great work as always! Aoba47 (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

SC

Lead

• "descending to earth" makes it sound like she was living in the heavens, rather than just a tree. Striking the last two words would be much cleaner (ditto for the phrase in the Concept section)
  • Done both

Concept

• "girl's transformation into a real princess": don't think we need "real" – she turns into a princess, not a real (ie. actual) princess
  • Removed
• "Queen Elizabeth II": just "Elizabeth II" would suffice
  • Sorry, do you mean all throughout or just where I repeat the name?
    • Just on the repetition. - SchroCat (talk) 09:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
• "peacock headpiece": is there an image we can see of this?
  • Yes, it's Look 10, down under Analysis where I've paired it with the Daphne figurine it's being compared to

That's my lot - another very nicely put together article. - SchroCat (talk) 07:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• • Hi SchroCat, thanks for your comments! I've made the above tweaks except one that I've asked for clarification on. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support - another excellent article in this topic area. - SchroCat (talk) 09:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• @FAC coordinators: Hello coords, is there anything further you're looking for from this nom? I'm sitting at four prose supports and a complete source/image review and no comments in just over a week. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

drive-by comments

• "with an enormous artificial tree". It may just be me, but "enormous" sounds hyperbolically unencyclopedic. How would you feel about 'large'?
  • Sure
• "Forty-two looks were presented". "look" seems a bit of a specialist term. Is there a link?
  • It feels like common English to me. It's also been present in nearly every other one of these FACs, many of which you have reviewed, so I'm not sure why it's a concern in this one.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source and there is no rule of precedent. What reviewers for example agree on, or fail to comment on, in a FAC has no bearing on any subsequent FAC. In the case of "look", it may well seem common English to you, but I am querying whether it will be understandable to non-fashionistas. In support of it not being, I note that Wiktionary has three definitions for look as a noun; I assume the usage intended is the second "(often plural) Physical appearance, visual impression." with the usage examples "She got her mother’s looks" and "I don’t like the look of the new design." I also checked a pair of paper dictionaries and the closest definition was "appearance". In short, even a reader who had memorised the obscurer corners of several dictionaries is unlikely to readily understand the word in the context you use it. IMO, YMMD. (It may be that it is so cutting edge that it has not reached even online dictionaries yet.) To leave it without even a link would seem to be doing readers a disservice, especially as it does not seem to me - and I could be wrong - that it would be difficult to recast in a more readily comprehensible way.

Certainly there may not be such a thing as legal precedent at FAC, but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask why something that was not an issue for a specific reviewer in something like a dozen previous FACs has suddenly become one. Furthermore, I don't think it's quite fair to say that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and then quote Wiktionary definitions at me. The reliability level is the same, isn't it?

The word "look" in this context is roughly synonymous with "outfit" or "ensemble". I would argue that it is a commonly used English term, not just in fashion circles. It is a term that I would expect to be understood or easily inferred from context by most readers, regardless of their experience with fashion. As it happens, "look" is in the dictionary with this context. Merriam-Webster defines it as "a combination of design features giving a unified appearance", while Oxford English Dictionary defines it as "the appearance of someone or something, especially as expressing a particular quality", with bullet point two noting the context of "a style or fashion". Neither identifies this usage as slang, jargon, idiomatic, neologistic, or otherwise inappropriate for use in Wikipedia. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• "The most significant items presented included". In what way did they signify something or carry meaning; or have a noticeable or major effect? (Definitions from Wiktionary.)
  • Again, I'm not sure why this particular word is an issue when I have used it in this way in previous FA collections, such as The Widows of Culloden, Irere (Alexander McQueen collection), or The Hunger (Alexander McQueen collection) to pull a few examples.

I have no idea why no previous reviewer has previously picked this up if you have used it in the same sense, But that is not really to the point. I think you probably mean important or major or substantial. To paraphrase Fowler's Modern English Usage, "significant" should not be wasted as a mere synonym of "important". My query was based on the two definitions offered in Wiktionary. You seem to be using the word in a way not included in that dictionary. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

OED defines "significant" as "sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention". Given that these two looks attracted the greatest degree of attention from critics and analysts, I think the word applies. In the interest of not arguing for the sake of arguing, however, I have revised it from this article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• Normally I would not push back against coord comments like this, but with apologies, I confess I do not understand the reasoning behind them. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Coord comments, reviewer comments: either way you should feel entirely free to push back against anything you disagree with or are unhappy with. Comments on your two push backs above. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 14 July 2024 [19].

---

Elinor Fettiplace

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Yet another cookery book writer from history for your entertainment. This time it's an Elizabethan lady whose manuscript was handed down through generations and it was over 380 years between writing and publication. – SchroCat (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

HF

I'll review this soon. Hog Farm _Talk 16:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• In footnote h, shouldn't "fettiplace" be capitalized?

I'm sorry, but I think I'm going to have to regettably oppose on the grounds that I don't think there's really a sufficient need to have a separate article here, rather than a section at Elinor Fettiplace's Receipt Book. About half of the article is about the book.

Taking a further look - the content for Fettiplace's biography is supported by footnotes 1 - 20. All but four of those citations are to the Fettiplace/Spurling cookbook. Of those four - Clark supports a monetary conversion, Pevsner and Historic England support a description of Appleton Manor, and Dickson Wright supports a statement about the customs of guest feeding at Christmastime. As none of these statements are actually about Fettiplace, we're at a situation where we have a potential FA biography where the entire biographical content of the article is sourced to a single source, and I don't think we can have an article compliant with the FA criteria in that case. If the Spurling/Fettiplace book is truly all that is written about Mrs. Fettiplace biographically, then I don't think there's a basis for a second article separate from the one about the cookbook.

This is a remarkably well-written article, but I think there's issues here that are too foundational. I recognize that "this subject is fundamentally incapable of being turned into a featured article due to the nature of the underlying sourcing" isn't exactly an actionable oppose that you can work with, but I will let @FAC coordinators: be the judge as to if this oppose should be discounted or not. Hog Farm _Talk 14:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Hog Farm, Thanks for your comment; I've sat on this article for four years wondering about FAC, mostly because of the same point as your comment. I decided to run with it after looking at it critically: it's mostly from two sources, rather than one, albeit both are by the same person. One is from Spurling's book; the other is from the ONDB entry she wrote (although Dickson Wright was speaking specifically of Fettiplace, rather than general Christmas traditions for well-connected families).
  I would argue that despite the biography being from two sources/one person, it still fulfils the criteria as it is still a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", given there are no other reliable and high-quality quality secondary sources that examine Fettiplace's life (as opposed to her cookery book). If there were other such sources, I would hold my hands up and withdraw straight away, but Spurling's two works constitute the full biographical output on the subject.
  Fettiplace was a separate entity to her book, with a rich and full life that went beyond keeping a cookery book, so I really do believe quite strongly that she should have a separate article from her book. I'm happy to let the co-ords mull this over, as well as anyone else who wishes to chip in. - SchroCat (talk) 14:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

My first thoughts as a FAC coordinator and a Wikilawyer are that any article is required to meet the FAC criteria and "the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles". "I don't think there's really a sufficient need to have a separate article here" does not fit under either, IMO. However, "it should be AFDed" does. There is no requirement that the article be AfDed, but a reviewer could base an oppose on an opinion that a nominated article would or should be. If Hog Farm cared to tweak their oppose into this format - perhaps arguing that it is a content fork or fails separate notability - that would be valid. Currently I might draw the inference that that is what they are basing their oppose on, but linking it explicitly to a policy or two would help me as a coordinator. And would overcome the this "isn't exactly an actionable oppose that you can work with" issue. Hog Farm, fancy doing that? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild - Yes, I feel strongly that this is a WP:CONTENTFORK. I also disagree with the idea that the two Spurling works should count as separate sources - see note 4 of WP:N where it states "Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source." I do think this article is a net positive to the encyclopedia and are appreciative of SchroCat for working on this, but especially after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (where a nest of content forks, some of which were FAs, was all redirected) I just can't support a content fork based on the work of a single author for FAC. I don't want to cause any hard feelings, but I just can't support this on principal. Hog Farm _Talk 19:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Have you found any reliable sources on Fettiplace’s life that have been missed out? If not, then it’s a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". I would disagree strongly that it’s a content fork. Writers like Fettiplace had a life apart from their works. We may as well just dump a whole stack of articles and get the women writers back in the kitchen with no real examination of their lives or the context of their works. - SchroCat (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but we're just going to have to disagree on this then. Hog Farm _Talk 19:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

1. There are now three sources that deal directly with Fettiplace's life, putting it outside the WP:N restrictions (ie. it meets GNG guidelines);
2. As someone has pointed out below, WP:ANYBIO comes into play, which puts the onus more towards inclusion than not (although there is some wiggle room). As this article has a corresponding ODNB entry, there is a strong case for inclusion, which would render an AfD moot. - SchroCat (talk) 07:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

   The ANYBIO argument is compelling; I'm going to strike my oppose for now. I hope to be able to finish my review soon but the next several weeks will be very busy for me no guarantees on when I can get to this. Hog Farm _Talk 14:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

   Thank you. I look forward to the review. - SchroCat (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• "He was also buried in Sapperton's church." - he was literally buried inside the church?
• "When her husband was absent, the family estate, was interested in modern cookery," - is something missing here?

I think that's it from me. Hog Farm _Talk 22:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Hog Farm; these two tweaked and sorted here. Thanks- SchroCat (talk) 06:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

"His memorial stone in St Kenelm's Church outlines his status from the view of her importance and ancestry" - should this be at St. Kenelm's Church given the phrasing change made for the similar concern I raised above? Hog Farm _Talk 00:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The source says "in the church" - a mark of his wealth and position. - SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it could be made a bit more explicit that Rogers had wealth and position (presumably derivative from Elinor) as I would have expected it to be with her marrying a man described in the article as a commoner. I do think I can support here though. Apologies for taking so long to finish this. Hog Farm _Talk 13:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The 'wealth and position' point is my OR only (sorry - I really should have made that clear in my comment), and - again some more OR - it may have been a result of her wealth and position, rather than his. Unfortunately, the sources are sadly lacking on any description of him. That may not be too surprising, as we're looking at a non-notable individual who died over 400 years ago!

Many thanks for the review, and no worries about the timeframe - it was all worth waiting for. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "in the Vale of White Horse, (then in Berkshire, now in Oxfordshire)." - don't think the comma after Horse is needed
• "Elinor had two sisters—both younger—Frances and Dorothy" - could simply say "two younger sisters"
• "with farming area" - this doesn't seem to make sense, are there words missing?
• "and across approaching Herefordshire" - this doesn't really seem to make sense either
• "Spurling concludes Fettiplace was" => "Spurling concludes that Fettiplace was"

  According to the current edition of Fowler's Modern English Usage, "Omission of the conjunction that is standard"; it's not needed and just personal preference. - SchroCat (talk) 07:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• "the social historian Janet Theophano suggests Fettiplace began" => "the social historian Janet Theophano suggests that Fettiplace began"

  As above - SchroCat (talk) 07:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• "were remedies for a bad back (11), insomnia (7)," - what do these numbers mean/indicate?
• "manuscript have survived from the Poole's manor at Sapperton" => "manuscript have survived from the Pooles' manor at Sapperton"
• That's what I got - a very interesting read! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Chris; much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  Done, thanks - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Support from TR

I peer reviewed the article and my few queries were dealt with then. A handful of new quibbles after rereading for FAC:

• "Their eldest child John was born in 1590" – this needs a couple of commas: "Their eldest child, John, was born in 1590", otherwise they had other children also called John.

• If you click on the link from Sources to the Theophano book you get the message "Borrow unavailable". I think if you use the following link the reader may be able to view the page you are citing: https://archive.org/details/eatmywordsreadin0000theo_k0o8/page/86/mode/2up?q=87.

• Same for the Singman book, where I think this may work: https://archive.org/details/dailylifeineliza00forg/page/210/mode/2up?q=211

  Odd - both these work for me. Still, different links added. - SchroCat (talk) 08:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• The authorlink for the Spurling book looks a bit odd: if you click on "Elinor Fettiplace" you are taken to Hilary Spurling's article.

No further questions m'lud. Happy to support: the article seems to me to meet all the FAC criteria – it's a splendid read, well proportioned, thoroughly referenced, evidently balanced and impartial, and nicely illustrated. Tim riley talk 08:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for the above: all sorted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Support from UC

• The Sapperton church memorial photo makes me slightly sad: it's a lovely photo, but just a bit squint to really suit our purposes. It might be an idea to ask on Commons whether someone could take a front-on image, focusing particularly (if this is possible) on the depiction of Fettiplace? It would then make an excellent lead image (perhaps even in an infobox, at the risk of starting a fight...) -- while not a hard-and-fast requirement, it is good to have an image of the subject in the lead of a biography if we can.

  I’ll put in a request, but I’m not sure it’s known which of the relief statues is actually Elinor. - SchroCat (talk) 04:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• and the surname given as variously as Fettyplace, Feteplace, Phetiplace, ffeteplace and Ffetiplact, among others (note a): I think we need is given or else and with the surname. I'd apply MOS:WORDSASWORDS to these names as well, as we're talking about the names themselves rather than the person who held them.
• upper class land-owning farming family: if one hyphen is good, two are better: upper-class should have one for the same reason that land-owning does.
• In common with many ladies of the Elizabethan era, Fettiplace wrote a manuscript book, now known under the title Elinor Fettiplace's Receipt Book: precisely how many other ladies wrote a manuscript book now known under that title?

  Many will have made receipt books, but I think we have to give the full and formal name of the book, given it was wasn't named in the 380 years between being written and published. - SchroCat (talk) 08:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yes: this is a phrasing problem. Suggest "... wrote a manuscript book. It is now known..." UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  OK, done. - SchroCat (talk) 05:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• until it was handed to the husband of the writer Hilary Spurling.: I'd put a date on this. We do put a ballpark on it in the next sentence, but it's odd to make the reader wait.

  We don’t know when it was given to Spurling. One presumes the 70s or 80s, but all that is known is that it was published in 1986. - SchroCat (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  That's fair enough: could we say "in the twentieth century", "the twentieth-century writer..." or similar? Otherwise, could we move the publication date earlier in the sentence? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  OK, done. - SchroCat (talk) 05:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• There are a lot of dashes in the first paragraph of "Life", which makes for a slightly breathless, Emily-Dickinson feel. Could easily and more concisely do Elinor had two sisters—both younger—Frances and Dorothy as Elinor had two younger sisters, Frances and Dorothy, for example.
• with farming land down to Wiltshire: I would suggest farmland: there's a slight infelicity here brought on by the grammatical (though not meaningful) ambiguity as to whether farming is acting as a gerund ("the farming of land") or an adjective ("land for farming").
• farming land down to Wiltshire: the cadence of this bit is wonderful. Could perhaps add a map of the West Country here? Might also wish to reorder a little (assuming that it is Herefordshire and not Hertfordshire you mean): you've taken us on a lovely ramble south-east from Gloucestershire, landed us in Berkshire, then quite sharply yanked us back to the Welsh borders.

  I'll think about a map, although without knowing the extent or boundaries of their land, a map is of rather limited use. I've reworded though, so it moves more logically. - SchroCat (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• The family was well-connected within the upper classes: we wouldn't normally use a hyphen here, as the compound modifier isn't in apposition ("it was a hard-won victory" but "the victory was hard won").
• Suggest giving inflation or context to the monetary amounts (I think her dowry was a lot of money in those days?)
• Two of their daughters died as infants and a third aged 16.: MOS:NUM would like consistency.
• Their son Henry was born in c.1602: in circa is a tautology, but I'd advise not using abbreviations in flowing text anyway and saying in about 1602, born around 1602 or similar.
• It is possible there was a fourth daughter, but the point is unclear: can we footnote the reason for the confusion?
• The cite on Spurling and Fettiplace needs a look: I can see what you're thinking here, but the parameters are stretching to breaking point. We can't have a work co-authored by a C20th author and give it an original date in the C17th. While the manuscript was published then, the edited volume published by Penguin wasn't (it would be like me putting "[c. 750 BCE] on an edition of the Homeric Hymns) Suggest only crediting Fettiplace as the author and using the |editor= or |others= parameters to explain Spurling's role? If Spurling wrote a contribution, I'd cite it separately to the book itself and use the |contributor= param. This would also avoid the current ambiguity as to whether we're citing Spurling's research or an autobiographical passage by Fettiplace: the latter would be a dicey under WP:HQRS and WP:PRIMARY.

  I've separated out the introduction into a separate entry; the main text we have to leave as both Fettiplace and Spurling. The book will give some background from Spurling, then a recipe from Fettiplace, then more discussion from Spurling, so it's input from both of them intertwined throughout. Still, it's now clear the introductory essay from Spurling is now a separate entry in the sources and citations. - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  It's a tricky one: I think your solution here is pretty good. I suppose the only thing to suggest is using the |loc= parameter or similar in the footnotes to indicate which author is "speaking" (e.g. to mark Spurling's commentary with "author's note to page 10" or similar). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  It’s not an author’s note, though, or at least to describe it as such would be misleading. It’s within the main text of the book. I think we could go too far in identifying the author when the text is so intermingled, and think what we have may be the best option. - SchroCat (talk) 05:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  I haven't seen the text itself, but surely it's clear which of Fetterplace or Spurling is "speaking" at any given point? The issue here is that one of those voices passes WP:HQRS and one doesn't: Fetterplace is not independent of Fetterplace, and so the entire book would have to be used strictly within WP:PRIMARY, WP:ABOUTSELF and so on (which it currently isn't), unless we can demonstrate to the reader that those concerns don't apply to the part of the text we're citing. Is there not some form of Spurling's commentary, editor's remarks, introduction to... and so on that would be close enough for the purpose? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  I’m not ignoring this! I’m at friends this weekend and away from the text. I think I know how to sort this, but need to work on it when I’m back with the text. - SchroCat (talk) 10:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  OK: all now sorted, showing it's mostly Spurlig's text we're reliant upon, but also noting where Fettiplace is being quoted. - SchroCat (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• We're inconsistent about who gets an introduction and who doesn't: Pevsner does, even though we'd expect an architectural historian to be giving opinions on architectural history, but e.g. Charles Estienne and Henry Danvers don't.
• Being picky, there's no such thing as being "II* listed": we always say e.g. "Grade II* listed".
• Is there a language tag for early modern English? I can imagine these quotes would play hell with a screen reader.
• she continued the practice even after she married a commoner and he had died. His memorial stone in St Kenelm's Church outlines his status from the view of her importance and ancestry: is this Edward Rogers? I'd spell it out if so.
• Details of her death are unclear, but it was in or after 1647: again, I think it would be nice to share with readers how we know this, if only in a footnote.
• Spurling concludes Fettiplace was an "efficient and practised manager" in the way she ran her household and, when her husband was absent, the family estate, was interested in modern cookery, and had a "cautious and considerate approach" to dispensing the medicines she prepared: this one runs on a bit; I find it loses its coherence slightly after ran her household. Suggest breaking up a little.
• Sir John Horner, who was immortalised: I think immortalised might be a bit flowery for an encyclopaedia.
• I'm not sure I see the point of the aside "To wash gould and coloured silk, but I'm very willing to be convinced.
• Sir Walter Raleigh provided a recipe for "Syrup of Tobacco", used to sooth lung trouble, or curing a long-held cough, and "Tobacco Water", and John Hall, a physician and the son-in-law of William Shakespeare, provided a method of stopping nosebleeds: the two "ands" (each meaning something slightly different) make things awkward here: I think it would be wise to split this sentence up.
• Among the other medicinal entries included in the book, were eleven remedies: no comma here.
• including in around Oxfordshire and Berkshire in 1604: either in and around or simply around. Does Shrewsbury actually say that it was unsurprising? I'm not disputing that it's unsurprising that people would want one, but I'm a little surprised to find one in a cookbook.
• Spurling concludes that the recipes were, for the time, modern, and embraced new tastes and styles: clearer as modern for the time and [that they] embraced...
• "Mediaeval" is, while a lovely term, now outdated even in British English.

  Boo. Hiss. - SchroCat (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Not quite outdated, though on the way there: this is from the current (2015) edition of Fowler: medieval, mediaeval. The second is now rapidly passing out of use in favour of the shorter version, which is much more often used. In the original 1926 edition the old boy wrote that it "seems advisable" to use the shorter spelling, rendering the ligature as a single letter in medi(a)eval, ph(a)enomenon, (o)ecumenical, p(a)edagogy and so forth, though not, for reasons he doesn't make altogether clear, in homoeopathy, diarrhoea, Boeotian and Oedipus. I've just twigged that we are approaching the centenary of the first edition. I hope the OUP will mark it with a new edition. Tim riley talk 07:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Her book contains a recipe for meringues (which she called "White biskit bread"), which pre-dates the appearance in French recipe books in François Massialot's 1692 work Nouvelle instruction pour les confitures.: something's gone wonky here. Suggest "which predates their first appearance in French recipe books, in François Massialot's 1692 work...}}
• French text needs to be in a language template.
• Dersin 1998 doesn't strike me as a very scholarly source: I don't recognise the publisher but it has the general feel of a school textbook to me.

  While it’s not an academic text, it’s certainly not a school textbook either. The publishing arm is now closed, but it was part of Time Life. - SchroCat (talk) 04:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  Happy enough here given the weight that it's bearing, which is simply to show that good publications have drawn on Fettiplace's work (though see my note on SYNTH below). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• the work has been used as a source in several such published works: do any of the cited sources actually say that? Per WP:SYNTH, we shouldn't simply cite examples of this happening to support a claim like this, though I'd probably be happy enough with a footnote that says "For example", and then goes through them.
• Caps: the two news sources use different schemes: MOS:CONFORM would like us to pick one.
• Consider giving the series for Pevsner's book, so that we can see that it isn't just a one-off book on a county.
• McGill–Queen's University Press really should have an endash, even though their own website sloppily uses a hyphen.
• Suggest capitalising the first letter of "receipt and recipe", per MOS:CONFORM if you like but really per Orwell's final commandment.

Another lovely article and certainly the best thing I have read on Elizabethan cookery for a long time. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I think I've covered all these (except where commented on), but please let me know if I've missed out on any. Thanks as always for your comments. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi UC, Just a gentle nudge on this to see if you have any more thoughts or comments?

LEvalyn - including source review

To comment on the content fork issue -- inclusion in the ODNB is an automatic pass of WP:ANYBIO, so I don't see how an AfD could be successful. I suppose it could still be a content fork from a WP:PAGEDECIDE angle-- but that would be more persuasive to me if Elinor Fettiplace's Receipt Book was about the manuscript book, whereas it's actually about a 1986 publication by Spurling, who, e.g., curated & cooked the recipes, and contextualized it in the 20thC study of Elizabethan history.

Anyway, I thought I'd try my hand at some of the source review!

• I don't have access to the main Spurling book, so I'll aim to check some of the others.
• Checked ODNB -- all the citations check out.
  • On a normal day the manor would provide for between twenty and thirty people - ODBN says this includes "servants, retainers, and dependants as well as her own two sons and three daughters", maybe give some indication of that? Otherwise my natural inclination is that servants and retainers aren't "counted"! Though Dickson Wright p. 150 says "At least twenty people would have sat down to eat" and is not counting the servants...
• Checked the citation to Wall 2015, p. 191; looks good. Wall mentions here that the book had the Poole crest stamped in gold on the cover, which is cool.
• Checked all the citations to Dickson Wright 2011, looks good. The source talks about Fettiplace for quite a while but I think you made the right call in leaving most of this out.
  • Dickson Wright also mentions that the book cover is "stamped in gold with ... the fleur-de-lys of the Poole coat of arms" (p 150), worth including?
  • OK, important: p 149-150 Dickson Wright describes her as a rich heiress with a family fortune from wool, and says the Fettiplaces were heavily mortgaged -- which contradicts the article's description of the Pooles as heavily mortgaged. It also calls this part into question for me, which I find confusingly written to begin with: the dowry may have come with conditions that her new in-laws put their finances in order by selling some of their land. Dickson Wright quite clearly frames the marriage as one where Elinor brings money and the Fettiplaces bring prestige & an old name. Dickson Wright post-dates Spurling quite substantially so I'd ordinarily trust the newer source. Thoughts?
• I found a Masters thesis not cited in the article, but I think it's an appropriate exclusion. Masters theses are often of borderline reliability, and every single statement about Fettiplace is simply cited to Spurling.
  • However, the thesis says this, which is interesting: "Elinor Fettiplace had enough resources to have the main body of her receipt book written out by the scribe Anthony Bridges, who apprenticed in her father’s house, and only the marginalia is written in her own hand" -- it's cited to Spurling 21, and seems like a detail worth including if you can find it there.
• Is there some nicer way to format the citation to "Appleton Manor, Appleton-with-Eaton – 1198061". Historic England." ? It looks out of place. But the content checks out.

  It's the same format as the "Receipt and recipe" one, which is how I normally do them: it's the webpage title followed by the publishing organisation. Historic England have a rather ugly way of displaying their webpages, unfortunately.

Other thoughts:

• Appleton estate was largely self-sufficient should this be the Appleton estate?
• Footnote H is so useful in clarifying what's known about her death, should it go directly in the article? I don't see much reason to assume she died in 1647

Overall, I feel like I need to be more convinced about who was heavily mortgaged, but otherwise this is a very polished and thorough article. My other notes are not deal-breakers, just thoughts to refine the article further. I expect I will be ready to support soon. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

LEvalyn, Many thanks for these: I shall work through them over the course of the day. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks LEvalyn, The changes made with these edits, except the one commented on. - SchroCat (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

What a fast response! This looks great, except I feel like the sentence the dowry may have come with conditions that her new in-laws put their finances in order by selling some of their land is still confusing/ambiguous. I keep changing my mind about who the two “their”s refer to. Can you revisit this phrasing? All the rest of my concerns thus far have been addressed. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi LEvalyn, Clarified with a small tweak; how does that look? - SchroCat (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

That makes it clearer to me, thanks! I am happy to support the FA. I don't have concerns about the sourcing based on what I examined, but if there is a desire for more source review of the ones I didn't look at (I am new to FAC and not sure of the norms) let me know and I could check a few more. Thanks for this article! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Joeyquism

@SchroCat: I should get to this in the coming week or so; feel free to liberally ping me if I don't somehow get to this in a timely manner. I should also re-mention that Album covers of Blue Note Records is now open for comments at its own FAC - I was very glad to have received your helpful comments on its peer review, and would appreciate if you were to give it another look (or skim - neither are obligatory). joeyquism (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi {{u|joeyquism}], Many thanks. Don't worry: I've seen Blue Note pop up and it's on my list of things to get to. Hopefully it won't be too much longer before I'm there. Cheers -SchroCat (talk) 06:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• Books: should Lehman be in alphabetical order?
• I am not sure that the link in "manuscript book" is helpful.

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Cheers Gog, all sorted. - SchroCat (talk) 22:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 13 July 2024 [20].

---

2002–03 Gillingham F.C. season

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Back again with yet another of those Gillingham F.C. season articles! This season marked literally the high point of the club's history, as the team finished higher in the English football league system than ever before (or since). Also of note: the season started with one of the team's star players unavailable because he was in prison, and the first game had no home fans present (I was there - it was quite surreal!). I hope the article is a decent read and I look forward to feedback :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Support from Joeyquism

Marking my territory here. Should be back with a review + some additional comments soon. joeyquism (talk page) 19:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• File:Mamady Sidibé 1.png - Published under CC-BY-SA-2.0, and has been reviewed by a Commons admin. LGTM.
• File:Marlon King vs Antwerp (cropped).jpg - Published under CC-BY-SA-3.0; modifications are good.
• File:NyronNos.png - Published under CC-BY-SA-2.0, and has been reviewed by a Commons admin.
• File:Leeds elland road stadium.jpg - Published under German CC BY-SA 3.0, uploaded by original author Arne Müseler. LGTM.
• File:London Stamford Bridge.jpg - Ditto above.
• File:PaulShaw.jpg - Released under CC0.
• File:Jason Brown goalkeeper coach Arsenal Ladies Vs Notts County (20054335525) (cropped).jpg - Published under CC-BY-SA-2.0, and has been reviewed by a Commons admin. Modifications are good.
• File:AndyHess2009.jpg - This is your picture! At least, I would hope it actually is your picture. Published under CC BY-SA 3.0. Looks good.
  • @Joeyquism: - yup, definitely my picture. I distinctly remember I was standing at the side of the pitch and he happened to walk across near me and I just yelled "Oi! Hess!" and as he turned I mimed taking a picture and he was happy to pose :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

As far as prose goes, I have made the following notes:

• Lead looks great.
• I am now finding that I know very little about association football to properly judge the technical writing. I'll defer to others on this. Apologies.

That being said, support on image review and read-through of prose alone. joeyquism (talk page) 19:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• @Joeyquism: - thank you so much for taking the time to look at the article! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  Woops, I forgot to mention alt text - the alt text is also good. Perhaps not as descriptive as I personally would go, but looks good enough (I would still suggest spiffing it up just a tad). Regardless, my stance of support remains as is. :) joeyquism (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

• Would it be beneficial to split up the lead's first paragraph into two paragraphs? It is a tad on the long side so I am curious on if a split would help readers to better navigate and engage with the material.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• I am uncertain about the "sent" word choice in this part, (after being sent to prison). I more often see this information represented as "sentenced to prison", but it could be difference in different types of English. I just find "sentenced" to be the more formal and accurate word choice rather than "sent", and "sentenced" is already used in the article anyway.
  • "Sent to prison" is standard British English usage (see eg this BBC headline), "sentenced to prison" is never used. "Sentenced to N years in prison" is used but never simply "sentenced to prison" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• This is more of a clarification question, but I was wondering if it would be better to position File:Mamady Sidibé 1.png to the left? It would avoid having the subject of the photo looking away from the article, and it would some variation as all the photos in the article are currently positioned to the right.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• For the images (of both the players and the stadium), I think it would be helpful to include in the caption the year that the photos were taken. Readers may get the impression that they were taken during this particular season.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• For the Hessenthaler quote near the end of the "Background and pre-season" section, I would use some sort of punctuation to mark the full quote from the rest of the sentence. Something like a comma or colon would work. I have a similar comment for the Hessenthaler quote used in the "January–May" subsection.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• I am uncertain about the "picked up" word choice in this part, (picked up another injury), but it could be because of the difference between American and British English or something that is more often used with sports.
  • This is pretty standard usage, see for example the first bullet point in this BBC article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• The last paragraph of the "Players" section mixes which numbers are spelled out in words versus which are left as numerals. The instances are ("Fifteen players") versus ("12 goals" and "11 goals"). It is not major, but it did catch my eye.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• For the Newspapers.com citations, I do not think the "paid subscription required" parts are necessary as they are presented as clippings, which readers can access without needing a paid subscription.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I hope that this review is helpful. My comments are fairly nitpick-y as I do not see anything major that needs to be addressed. Once everything has been addressed, I will look through the article a few more times, and at that point, I will likely support. Best of luck with this FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Aoba47: - thank you so much for taking the time to review the article. All the above points have now been addressed, hopefully to your satisfaction..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion. I hope you have a great start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 12:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Support from Pseud 14

• In the FA Cup the team reached the fourth round -- comma after FA Cup
• Previewing the season, an uncredited writer for The Independent said of -- I think it is fine to drop uncredited
• but after that game would again be out of the team -- could use referring to Wallace in this context: 'but after that game he would again be out of the team
• and conceded a 90th-minute equaliser -- link to Equaliser (sports)
• After a 1–0 defeat to table-topping Portsmouth -- does table-topping here mean that Portsmouth is at the top of the league table? If so, perhaps a less-informal wording or description
• Hessenthaler told the press "We've been a real force at home but we can't have joke defending like that. Seven goals in two games is just not good enough". -- comma or a colon before the quote
• Four days later they played away to Wolverhampton -- comma after Four days later
• That's all from me. Great work as usual. Pseud 14 (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Pseud 14: - thanks for taking the time to review the article. All the above points have been addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Support from SchroCat

• Support. Nice work - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Support from Wolverine

I'll give this a look. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 07:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Gillingham had originally been scheduled to begin 2003 with a home game against Norwich City on 1 January, but it was postponed due to a waterlogged pitch,[63] and so the team's first league game of the calendar year was ten days later away to Derby County. Any reason to repeat that this is the first game of the year?
  • Really just to indicate that they went quite a while (two weeks) without playing a league game -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• remaining but then conceded a goal from a penalty kick and had to settle for a draw; Hessenthaler told the press: Turn semicolon to full stop, and colon to comma
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• In the fourth round, Gillingham were drawn at home to Leeds United of the Premier League in a match which was selected by Sky Television for a live broadcast Which to that
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: I checked all the images and all seem to be accurately licensed. The only problem I have is with File:Mamady Sidibé 1.png, which doesn't have a proper author.

That's all I got; this article is well-written, comprehensive and appropriately sourced, so you have my support. When all is done, I'd appreciate a review of the narwhal FAC. Thanks, Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 08:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Wolverine XI: - many thanks for your review and support. I will endeavour to take a look at the weird sea unicorn article when I have a sufficient chunk of uninterrupted free time (which I fear may not be till Wednesday but I will do my best) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  I appreciate it. Could you perhaps add a "Comments from ChrisTheDude" section to the nomination page? Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 09:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Source review (BennyOnTheLoose)

• Sources all look to be suitable.
• Wikilinking of locations in "Works cited" is inconsistent - is that because London is so well known compared to the other towns/cities?
  • Precisely that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• I think Sunday Telegraph should be The Sunday Telegraph
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• Shouldn't BBC news be listed as work rather than as publisher? (Same for BBC Sport)
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• Is it usual not to add a publisher for sources like Gillingham Vs Portsmouth Matchday Programme? I suppose it is obvious who the publsher is.
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• "Woeful Wednesday" is mising the author.
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• Will take another look very soon... BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • @BennyOnTheLoose: - thanks for your review, see above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• "Gills complete Wallace signing" is missing the author.
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• I assume that the note about Edusei's squad number is sourced to Brown 2004 (p.112) like the rest of the table, so I don't think it requires an extra instance of the citation; but if that's not the case then please add a source.
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Pass for source review from me. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Minor non-source points

• perhaps the "o.g." could be removed from the Cup matches table keys, as it isn't used there. No issues from me with it being retained for consistency though.
  • Left for consistency if that's OK -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• "English football league system" and "Premier League" are wikilinked twice in the lead. (I think this is allowed nowadays, but is probably unnecessary)
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Support - the list was in great shape before I got here. Nothing else needed as far as I can see. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Source review (Jo-Jo Eumerus)

I swear that I have discussed most sources here in other FACses before. Is KM Media Group a reliable source? Need some information on the books, though, as I don't know them very well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: - KM Media Group is one of the biggest media groups in the UK, publishing a number of newspapers and operating seven radio stations. Their website says "Our journalists work according to The Editors’ Code of Practice, which sets the benchmark for ethical standards in journalism, enforced by IPSO". The company has a large editorial team and a board of directors. I personally can't see any issues with reliability. What info do you need on the books? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Mostly whether their authors, publishers etc. are well-known/often-cited or so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Well, the Rothmans/Sky Sports Yearbook (it changed sponsor when cigarette advertising was banned in the UK) is widely regarded as the "bible" of English football. It's been published for over 50 years and is essentially regarded by fans as the definitive annual publication on the sport. Jack Rollin, the editor of the editions cited here, spent many years as a statistician for the BBC and was very highly regarded. The other two publishers are both well-regarded publishers of specialist sport/football books with large catalogues. Dozens of Pitch books have been shortlisted at the British Sports Book Awards, Cricket Writers’ Club Book of the Year Award, William Hill Sports Book of the Year, etc. Soccerdata have also published books by the aforementioned Jack Rollin. Tony Brown, author of the Gillingham book, is or was a member of the Association of Football Statisticians and has had many football books published. Does that help at all....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Seems like they pass muster, then. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 09:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13 July 2024 [21].

---

Fourpence (British coin)

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

This article is about... a coin which was never very popular, but which when brought back in the mid-19th century caused minor controversy. For some reason, it was more popular in Scotland and in British Guiana than in England and Wales, though the reasons for that lineup seem a bit obscure. Enjoy. Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments Support from RoySmith

• Not really an issue for FAC, but right now Fourpence is a redirect to Groat (coin). You probably want to make that into a WP:DAB page instead. Actually, the bigger question is why do we need both articles? Aren't they talking about the same coin?

I think groat (coin) should probably be moved to groat (English coin) which is the usual naming convention for pre-1707. I've moved that now.

I've been thinking on this a bit and your comment on the forked discussion clarified things for me. You mention in the lead (but not the body) about the Acts of Union 1707 but I didn't fully understand the significance. I think it would be useful briefly explain what the Acts of Union is, for the benefit of readers who aren't well versed in British history. That will help them understand why these groats are not the same as those groats. I'm thinking something like "the Acts of Union 1707, in which Scotland and England joined to form Great Britian, leading to the issuance of a common currency". Maybe put this right before "The first groats following the union of England and Scotland in 1707 were struck the following year..." and make that the start of a new section, perhaps called "Post unification".

I think I've done what you wanted, through perhaps in different words.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks great, exactly what I had in mind. Happy to support at this point. This is a topic that I previously knew nothing about, and never would have suspected I would find interesting, but you wove this into a compelling narrative that kept me reading through to the end. Nice work. My support is just on the quality of the prose; I'm relying on other reviewers who know the subject matter to validate the correctness and comprehensiveness. RoySmith (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for that. Thanks for a thorough review. I've often found it's the people who come in without knowledge of the subject matter who can make the most compelling points.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Unless it's established usage for coinage articles, I don't think the use of {{sfrac}} is a good idea. I generates something which is illegible on my phone, and doesn't look so great on my desktop either. Why not the more common 1/3?

I've switched to {{frac}}, which is commonly used in coinage articles.

• pre-Union groat see WP:SEAOFBLUE. Same with "Radical MP" elsewhere.

Both are now changed.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Explain what "struck" means, or at least link it to some appropriate place which does explain it.

Linked to mint (facility)

• The groat was struck throughout the 18th century, though by its end... Does that mean "the end of the 18th century" or "the end of when groats were produced?"

""Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• For the latin inscriptions which contain abbreviations, you use (short for "..."). I get the desire to indicate that you are expanding abbreviations instead of just literally translating, but I find the "short for" stuff breaks up the flow for the reader. I think it might work better without those.
• I'm not convinced there. People might assume it's the literal translation.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• What is "Snr" as in "Johann Rudolph Ochs Snr"?

As I understand it it's "senior". See MOS:SR.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Link "obverse" and "reverse" the first time they're used; many people will not be familiar with those terms.

OK

• Groats were available by application at the Royal Mint... I don't know what most of this paragraph means. I'm assuming it make sense to somebody who is well versed in coinage, but I'm just lost. Who would be making these applications? What does "the cost of carriage" mean?

I've striven to make this clearer. As far as I can tell, anyone could go there and buy as many groats as they cared to purchase. The cost of carriage is the expense of getting the coins from London to Manchester at a time when the railways were just starting. It was more usual for the Bank of England to distribute coins to local banks and for them to reach the public that way.

• Beginning in 1838, the coin bore the portrait, by Wyon, of Queen Victoria Wyon was introduced far enough before this (in the previous section) that it's worth mentioning again who he is.

I've changed to "also by Wyon". We don't give any detail on him so that at least sends the reader back to the William IV groat.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• The threepence was one of the Maundy coins... why is this mentioned in an article about the fourpence?

The threepence replaced the groat in commerce, and in the discussion of how the Britannia groat came to be in 1836, the proposal was to take one of the Maundy coins and strike it for use in Britain. So the threepence fit the original criteria.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• The infobox images need ALT text.

That is done now--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if I'll get around to doing a full review, so for now just consider this some random comments.

Taking another pass:

• who noted that fourpence was the cab fare for short journeys I'm guessing that means in London, so clarify.

It's at least implied, so I've added it.

Hmmm. In another review I just finished, I made a big stink about only saying what a source said, not what it implied, so I'm concerned that you're doing the same thing here.

Lobel says at p.559, "It was initially popular for the payment of London hackney (taxi) fares, being the exact fare or half a mile ...". Added as second source.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• The new coin did not endear him to hackney drivers Is "hackney" a synonym for "cab"? I think it is, but not sure and some readers may not have any clue. Maybe just use the same word everywhere?

  Done, more or less. I've kept one use of hackney as "hackney cab" and avoided it elsewhere.

• English coins were generally struck by machine, including the groat -> "English coins, including the groat, were generally struck by machine"
• Since, from 1689, groats bore a crowned numeral 4... I'm having a hard time parsing this sentence. I don't understand what "Since" is referring to.
• The placement of the "Edward I groat" image is strange next to text talking about the Anne version.
• there probably was not room for them I'd treat this as an opinion which needs to be attributed, i.e. something like "According to Lobel, these were left off due to a lack of room".

I don't think inline attribution is needed, it's hardly controversial that there was no room to list the titles George I imported from Germany. So I've just stated that it was likely.

• infrequently-struck Should be two words, I think.
• The third obverse, by Benedetto Pistrucci in 1817, moved the date to the obverse, if the date was moved, then the reverse changed too (to remove the date), no?

The most obvious changes were the date and the inscription. Pistrucci also changed the bust and did his own version of the crowned four. I'm trying to hit the highlights here.

I think I've hit everything. If I haven't responded to something above, I've just gone ahead and done it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Image review by Generalissima

• File:1888 groat obverse.jpg and File:1888 groat reverse.jpg - Released into PD by Heritage, coin design PD. Not FA criteria, but it'd be nice if someone could make the background transparent here. I might do it later.
• File:1792 groat obverse.jpeg and File:1792 groat reverse.jpeg - Released into PD by heritage, coin design PD.
• File:1836 groat obverse.jpg and File:1836 groat reverse 1.jpeg - Released into PD by heritage, coin design PD.
• File:Edward I groat obverse.jpeg and File:Edward I groat reverse.jpeg - Released into PD by heritage, coin design PD.
• File:1839 groat obverse.jpeg and File:1839 groat reverse.jpg - Released into PD by heritage, coin design PD.
• File:Groat group.jpg - CC-BY 4.0

All images are relevant to the article. All have alt-text except the infobox image, which needs it. Once this is done, all will be ready.

Is there a way of getting alt text into the infobox?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's documented anywhere, but obverse_alt seems to work. See my sandbox for an example. RoySmith (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

(Also, side note: there's an error in the mintage figures. You've listed 1851 twice, and the years don't line up with the description you give in "Reaction, later issues and colonial striking" - Where's the 1857-1862 issues? Also, I'd be very interested if you could find any info on the 1850 - that's a pretty high mintage for no survivors, so there must have been some melting going on.) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The 1850 mintage was probably with dies dated 1849. I'm not coming up with anything on the 1857 or 1862, this were proof-only mintages. There was no general proof set of those years so I can't go around by trying to find the mintages of such sets. I've fixed that typo you mention.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Alt text is now added. That's everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay! It might be good to just mention the proof-only years in the mintage figure list, even if specific dates are not available. Anyhoo, Support on image review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• "It is a continuation of the groat series struck before the Acts of Union 1707, issued intermittently beginning in the late 13th century." I don't think that the reverse chronological order works here. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Reordered.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

750h

Comments incoming. Feel free not to agree to them (with justification,, of course).

lead

• a function it still fulfills "fulfills" should be changed to "fulfils" per WP:BrEng.
• sixpence without a request for change "request for change" ==> "change request" (conciseness)

I think it's worth the words, the shorter way is less clear.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

origins of the groat

• This is done despite the fact that the groat was never used "despite the fact that" ==> "even though" (conciseness)
• Prior to that, only the silver penny "Prior to" ==> "Before"

post-unification

• the groat made no reference to George's "made no reference" ==> "did not refer"
• identical inscriptions but for the roman numeral II added "Roman" should be capitalised
• have been by Richard Yeo, and saw slight modifications to the reverse comma isn't needed

britannia issues

• silver coins, even twopence as a sixpence could receive a groat in change ==> "silver coins, and even twopence as a sixpence could receive a groat in change"

I'm not sure this would read correctly. What about a comma after twopence?

• I'd also recommend linking the newspapers

I only saw one that needed it.

reaction, later issues and colonial striking

• one of the Maundy coins, and was struck for colonial use remove the comma
• and circulated there for many years after it ceased to elsewhere in Great Britain remove "to".
• There's a single sentence paragraph. Anywhere we can put this?

I don't really think so. I can't think of anything else to say on the subject.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

collections

• There are a number of overdates and other varieties "a number of" ==> "several"

Fantastic work on the article as always. I hope the comments were helpful. 750h+ 03:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

That's it I think. If I havent' responded, I've just done it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Happy to support. With the “britannia issues” section, I’m fine with either. 750h+ 16:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

Blest if I can find anything much to carp at after two read-throughs. I don't think a blue link from the lead to hackney drivers would hurt. And perhaps the connexion between "joey" and Joseph Hume could be made more explicit: here is the OED on the point: These pieces are said to have owed their existence to the pressing instance of Mr. [Joseph] Hume, from whence they for some time bore the nick-name of Joeys. (E. Hawkins, Silver Coins of England 421). Nothing there to stop me adding my support. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria and is well up to the standard of Wehwalt's continuing series on British coinage. Tim riley talk 13:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the supports. I've taken care of those two points. Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Question from Graham Beards

What makes this a reliable source? Robert Leach (2013). "Legal Tender" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 October 2014. Retrieved 16 June 2017. Graham Beards (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Even if self-published, Leach seems to be an expert in the field.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Is there not a better one? Graham Beards (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Not that I've found. The point is theoretical, the Decimal Currency Board didn't waste time calling in coins that were unlikely ever to be seen in commerce. They didn't call in the double florin either. If you feel strongly the source should go I'll just delete the text. Wehwalt (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support Graham Beards (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

SC

• "defender of the faith}." – Wrong closing bracket
• "Maundy coins,\ and": A rogue virgule has found its way in there
• Mintage: do the entries need to be hidden?

That's my lot – very interesting. - SchroCat (talk) 08:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I've made those two changes. My rule of thumb is that if the list takes up more than a screen on my laptop, it's better to collapse, and it takes up more than two. A bit subjective in a way I know but I don't want too long a gap.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support - All good - another nice article - SchroCat (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Source review (pass)

Coming up. —Kusma (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Lobel and Spink are coin catalogues that appear reliable for coin related content, but I can't access them.
• Other books listed in "bibliography" section are well-footnoted scholarly secondary RS.
• Sources not in the bibliography section are mostly 19th century newspapers, an original royal proclamation related to the coin and a museum website, which are fine given what they are used for. None of these have named authors that could be credited, so the way they are cited here is acceptable. Two minor concerns below.
• What makes Robert Leach a reliable source?
• Royal Mint Annual Report 1888: would be nicer with page numbers
• Both reference section and bibliography section are almost consistently formatted.
• Exception: Dyer & Gaspar has the chapter name in title case, while the titles of the newspaper articles are in sentence case. Is there a good reason for this?
• Is it worth linking to Standard Catalogue of British Coins?

Spotchecks available on request. Just a few minor queries above. —Kusma (talk) 16:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I've deleted Leach, standardised the capitalisation, added the link to the Standard Catalogue and added page numbers for the 1888 report. That's everything I think. Thanks--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is all. Passing. —Kusma (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• The lead doesn't mention that this is a silver coin.

Added.

• "from the late 13th century until the Acts of Union 1707." Would that read better as 'from the late 13th century until the Acts of Union in 1707'?
• "It is a continuation of the English groat series struck intermittently from the late 13th century until the Acts of Union 1707. The groat was struck throughout the 18th century ..." The first sentence suggests that it ceased to be struck in1707m, the second otherwise.

The English groat ceased to be struck in 1707, the series known as the British groat began. It made no great difference in the case of the groat, since the design continued, but 1707 is considered by the sources the dividing mark between English and British coinage, because the 1707 acts required a single currency in Great Britain, and that was what was formerly known as the English series. There were some design changes to the heraldry on the coinage and changes in inscription but because of its small size, those did not affect the groat.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah ha. In which case "The groat was struck throughout the 18th century ..." → 'The British groat was struck throughout the 18th century ...' may help prevent puzzlement in future readers.

• More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Done up to date. If I haven't said anything, I've just done it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• "This is done even though the groat was never used as part of the Royal Maundy charity distributions ..." Perhaps 'This is done even though the groat was not used as part of the Royal Maundy charity distributions'?

Done, although I like the emphasis the original had.

• "Croker and/or Bull designed". MOS:ANDOR, "Avoid writing and/or unless other constructions would be lengthy or awkward." Perhaps 'Either Croker or Bull, or the two together, designed'?
• "Rudolph Ochs Snr". I'm unsure about the US usage in a VarUK article.

It's not a US usage, but what I imagined to be the British. The source says ... Ochs, senior."

Then perhaps follow the source, spell it out and lose the upper-case S?

• "The reverse depicted the crowned 4". Why "the" rather than 'a'?

Because earlier issues also had a crowned 4, this is just a variation on the theme.

• "the fact that the groat was infrequently struck meant that the earlier design was kept for the groat". Is it possible to rephrase this to avoid "the groat" twice in the clause?

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• "and was even issued in 1760, the year of George's death, even though". Similarly with "even".

I think the "even" calls attention to the fact that the early issue outlived the later, being struck to the latest possible date.

• "the obverse of his groat bears three different designs." Should groat be plural?

No. It's referring to the issue as a whole.

• "which has led it to be termed "wire money"." Consider deleting "has".

The terminology still persists as a coin collecting term, the "has" makes it clear that it was not just a 1792 term.

• "BRITANNIAUM REX FID DEF ( ... King of the Britains, defender of the faith)." Why the elipsis?

It's a continuation of the royal titles that started on the obverse.

• "other on a shield bearing a Union cross". What is a "Union cross"? Do you mean Union Jack or Union Flag?

King William's proclamation said "Union cross". I would imagine that it is the same crosses that appear on the Union Jack, and the examples of the coin we picture bear that out but I hesitate to indulge in original research.

If the source is William's speech or repeats of it, that's a primary source. What do the HQ RSs describe it as?

The most elegant I can find is "the crosses of the Union Jack" and I've altered to that.

• "In Manchester, though, the banks sold eight shillings worth of groats for ten shillings, to cover the cost of conveyance from the Royal Mint in London." That's interesting. Was that sort of thing common? And are any other similar regional discrepancies known for this issue?

Not for this issue. I've read that some of the early 19th century coppers could only be purchased at the Royal Mint in London and they did not pay for transport. Had the coins been distributed through the Bank of England's correspondent banks, this would not have been an issue, but then people would not have been able to buy them from the Royal Mint.

• "Britains", rather than Britons, is very old fashioned.

It doesn't refer to people but of countries, or islands originally, Great Britain and Ireland. When they added "OMN" in 1902, "All the Britains", this made it clear that it referred to places, not people.

• "King of the Britains, defender of the faith". Why the upper-case K?

It's how I read WP:JOBTITLES, the Louis XVI example.

• "and circulated there for many years after it ceased elsewhere in Great Britain." Should that be 'and circulated there for many years after it ceased to elsewhere in Great Britain'?

Yes. Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks. I've done or responded to all.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Good stuff. A pair of come backs above. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I've made those changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13 July 2024 [22].

---

Laysan honeycreeper

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 12:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

One of the saddest articles I've written here, as it follows the path to extinction of this species almost by the minute, like a train wreck in slow motion. I've been able to track down all sources that say anything substantial about the species, and luckily it lived so recently that we have footage and photos of it, which are also old enough to be in the public domain. FunkMonk (talk) 12:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Pass-by comment

• Not an image review per se but I'm concerned with File:Laysan honeycreeper in 1923.jpg. You use the tag "This work was never published prior to January 1, 2003" yet the source is a book from 1956. Presumably that would be publication prior to 2003? Also you say "The work of art itself is in the public domain in its source country..." yet according to our article Donald Ryder Dickey he was an American, so was the image first published in America? Is there an earlier publication for the image other than the 1956 book? If not, I'd check the Stanford copyright renewal database to see if the copyright on the book was renewed. If not, the tag needs updating. Therapyisgood (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I've had a few cases like this, and this is the answer I got when I asked about it on Commons, which led me to use that tag:[23] That said, the image may also have been published early enough to be PD, the 1956 source is just the earliest I've been able to find. The footage it's from was also used in some contemporary newsreel[24], but I haven't been able to find out much about it. FunkMonk (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720

Non-expert prose review:

• Made some changes to the article. Feel free to revert if they are not helpful.
• No major concerns.
• "Taxonomy" and "Evolution" sections are longer than I would like: I recommend adding additional level 3 headings if possible.

Overall, no concerns with prose, support. Z1720 (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits, I'm not sure how these sections could be split in a way that would make sense, and they're not really longer than most other such sections I've worked on, so I'll leave them for now. FunkMonk (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments from UC

A sad story indeed: beautifully written, though. Comments below:

• The MoS tolerates species', but it's generally advised to try to avoid forms like this (that is, singular possessives with the trailing apostrophe) by using "of the species" where possible.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• The bird was first noticed in 1828: hm: do we know for sure that none of the native people of Hawaii noticed it, ever? Suggest "first noticed by Europeans", "first described in a scientific publication", "the first recorded sighting was..." or similar. I notice lower that we have Native Hawaiians never appear to have visited Laysan Island, but I suspect we're still dealing in absence of evidence rather than evidence of absence.

The sources all indicate that Hawaiian natives didn't visit the island, which is also why the island itself has no native name. While I see where you're coming from, in this case I think it goes a bit too far beyond the sources to cast (indirect) doubt on this. FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be much happier with "the first recorded sighting" or similar (on a different note, it's far from impossible that European sailors visited the island or sailed past without recording it), which I don't think casts doubt. You may be right on going beyond the sources: what do they say here, exactly? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Went with "recorded", as this leaves wiggle room for any possible other sighting. Sources say "first mentioned/noted". FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Perfect. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• George D. Freeth sounds like an interesting chap: worth a redlink? I wonder if he's the "George Freeth Sr." given as the father of George Freeth?

Added a link, and yes, seems probable it's his son, given the Hawaiian connection. FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• This was accepted by most subsequent authors throughout the 20th century, and it: the antecedent of it is this, which is the change of name: we therefore need a new noun phrase here instead of it.

Said "the bird". FunkMonk (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• its wing measured 64–69 mm (2.5–2.7 in): is it worth giving a dimension here? "From socket to tip", or whatever the usual form is?

Unfortunately, none of the sources specify. I'm not aware of any standard apart from simply "wing-span", which is probably not what's referred to here, but the length of each individual wing. FunkMonk (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• scarlet vermilion: is there any sort of vermilion that isn't scarlet?

This is how several of the more recent sources put it. They look similar to me, but I can't really judge, as I have a sort of colour blindness. FunkMonk (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• (probably taken from his footage) in the image caption isn't particularly clear until you get right the way to the bottom. You could make it "video footage", perhaps?

Removed that part from the caption, as I've since explained it in the article body, and the caption is long enough already. FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• The ʻapapane differs from the Laysan honeycreeper in being blood-red overall, with black wings and tail, whiter under-tail covert feathers, and a longer bill: is all this relevant in the lead of an article on the honeycreeper? We've already described its coloration, so you could just say that it had a shorter bill than the ʻapapane?

Hmmm, I think it's important to briefly describe the ʻapapane for comparison, and this is also what several of the sources do. It's sort of a convention in bird articles to compare with similar birds. FunkMonk (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Is it a convention to do so in the lead, though? Not a problem as such, just seemed a lot of valuable real estate to devote to a different bird. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah, didn't realise you were talking strictly about the lead, shortened it to "The ʻapapane differs from the Laysan honeycreeper in features such as being blood-red overall and having a longer bill" since I think some distinction is warranted even there (the middle paragraph of the lead isn't much longer than the other two anyway). FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Great stuff. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• This bird was very active: I'd almost always restate the noun at the start of a new paragraph. Can we do without the word very? John Keating is ringing in my ear...

Added the bird's name to the earlier part of the sentence, but I'm not sure what "active" would mean in itself that isn't too vague for the purpose? FunkMonk (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Entirely reasonable. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• sometimes entered buildings for moths: perhaps clearer as "to hunt moths" or similar?

Done, had already changed that in the article body, not sure how I forgot it there. FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• In 1903, domestic rabbits were introduced to the island, which proceeded to destroy the vegetation: reads slightly oddly: its vegetation would sound more natural to me.

Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Is Colibri English, a Latin (scientific) name, or something else? Not sure why it's capitalised but not italicised.

This is German for hummingbird (German capitalises nouns), made it clearer in the parenthesis. FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

That's a new bit of vocab for me! Can it be in language templates, then? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Added template. It's "kolibri" in my native Danish as well. FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• restricted Himatione to the red species, the ʻapapane and the Laysan honeycreeper: potentially ambiguous with the comma: suggest a colon instead (it was only two species, wasn't it?)

Changed to colon. FunkMonk (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• This classification was followed by most other taxonomists and the trinomial name was used throughout the 20th century.: five citations seems like a lot here. Do they all support all three sentences? If so, do we need them all to do so? If so, can we bundle at least some of them?

Spread it out a bit. FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• fraithii a lapsus calami: what does a lapsus calami mean, and why doesn't the a get italicised?

It's explained in the following parenthesis (misspelling), or do you mean the etymology of the Latin term? The "a" is not part of the term, it's just the article of the word. FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I understand now. Suggest the American ornithologist Dean Amadon considered the spelling fraithii [to be] a lapsus calami ('slip of the pen', or misspelling). 'To be' very much a matter of taste: as a is also a Latin word (albeit one which makes the phrase difficult to understand), it just makes clearer what's in English and what's not. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Harold D. Pratt also indicated that the name had been corrected within the same publication: I'm not sure which publication is meant here.

Changed to "within the original description". FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• based on recent research that supported this: is this the name change, the species split, or both?

Both, changed to "supported these conclusions". FunkMonk (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• under the common English name Laysan honeycreeper rather than Laysan ʻapapane: MOS:WORDSASWORDS applies here (we're talking about the name, not the bird with that name), so we should italicise or use quote marks (I'd advise the former, as quote marks will be tricky with ʻapapane). Similarly elsewhere, particularly with They considered the name Laysan ʻapapane a modern retrofitting

Went with quotation marks because that's what I've done in other parts, because the word ʻapapane is preceded by Laysan, so the formatting doesn't clash. FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Some museums have multiple specimens, such as 24 in the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum in Honolulu: I'm not sure this is quite grammatical: better as "some museums have multiple specimens: the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum in Honolulu has 24...}} etc.

I wanted to make clear that these are just examples, a colon alone might indicate it's only the mentioned museums. Tried with "Some museums have multiple specimens, including:" FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• The sex ratio between adult specimens in museum collections is 1.7:1: I'm curious how do we get this ratio out of 105, which doesn't divide by 2.7: unless we've got some interestingly sexed hummingbirds (not a phrase I ever thought I'd write), we've used at least two different counts of the specimens in this paragraph. OK, 66:39 is 1.692:1, which is close enough to round up, but might still be worth making sure that the source is using the same corpus. At any rate, probably clearer as "the ratio of males to females", to save readers having to check the link to remember which way round the ratio is typically given.

Pipelinked. FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Schauinsland considered the Laysan honeycreeper an example of how a new species may arise through isolation.: did he say what he thought it had arisen from?

He doesn't say it outright, but talks about its relatedness to the ʻapapane, so that would be implied, but I don't think we can really do that. I made the connection indirectly by adding "and noted its resemblance to the ʻapapane." FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• He pointed out that the length of their wings was rather short, which perhaps indicated a beginning tendency in such a direction. The wing of the finch was shorter, perhaps because it had reached Laysan earlier than the honeycreeper.: is there something about insular dwarfism to be said here?

It's only the wings, so if anything, it would be flightlessness, which often develops in island birds, but the source doesn't specify further. FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• it could be seen as: better as it could have been, I think: it either was one or it wasn't, surely?

I think the source was vaguer, but took your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• They speculated that if this bird could survive on Laysan, there could also be a niche for a relative on the island of Nihoa.: can we give some indication of why this might be the case?

They don't specify, but Rauzon below says: "wondered why there were no descendants on Nihoa, which is closer and has more vegetation", which is probably what they had in mind. FunkMonk (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

We could move that up, but I think we'd be in danger of WP:SYNTH. Perhaps "nearby island of Nihoa"? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

The info is ordered chronologically, so I'd be wary of that, but added your last suggestion. FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• They also pointed out that the idea that Hawaiian honeycreepers were an upland group is an artefact of them: this sentence gets a bit long and tricky: it might be clearer phrased more directly as something like "they also argued that Hawaiian honeycreepers are not truly an upland group, but that the perception of them as such comes from..."

Took your wording, but said "actually" instead of "truly", since that could imply they are so at least in part. FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• due to its distinct physical features, the Laysan honeycreeper was unquestionably distinct from the ʻapapane following the phylogenetic species concept: I'm not sure I fully understand this: generally speaking, we assume that two animals that don't look alike aren't the same species, but how do we tell from this that the two birds are any more different than (say) dachshunds and dalmatians?

See, that's the fun part of taxonomy, it's largely arbitrary. What really matters is that there's a scientific consensus, the criteria are often blurry and inconsistent across cases. But that said, there's a big difference between naturally developed variations within groups of animals and products of man-made breeding. What this particular species really needs is DNA analysis, but this work hasn't been done yet (though I will of course add it if it happens). FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• formerly spelled Drepanidae or Drepaniidae: another MOS:WORDSASWORDS

I presume this means quotation marks should be added, which I've done. FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Olson and Ziegler also suggested in 1995 that the difference in plumage of the Laysan honeycreeper: is this the difference between the honeycreeper and the ʻapapane?

Tried with the following, though it seems a bit inelegant: " Olson and Ziegler also suggested in 1995 that the Laysan honeycreeper's difference in plumage from the ʻapapane was". FunkMonk (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not bad, though it does create a problem with the next clause (what's the antecedent of it?) How about something like Olson and Ziegler also suggested in 1995 that the intense sunlight of Lysan had caused the honeycreeper's plumage to fade, accounting for the difference from the ʻapapane's bright colour.?

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Took your wording (though the source doesn't specify the ʻapapane's colour, so left that out). FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Munro added that it also frequented grass tops and other plants on the fringes of the lagoon. Their bright, scarlet plumage made them conspicuous as they fluttered among the soft green Chenopodium bushes. It was the only nectar-feeding finch of the northwestern Hawaiian Islands.: advise consistency on whether we're going for singular or plural when talking about the bird(s) in general.

Tried to distinguish between the species singular and birds plural, but I think it's difficult to make it entirely consistent while also reading well. FunkMonk (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Few naturalists personally encountered the bird: can we do without "personally" here?

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• What's the principle behind having maiapilo etc in italics but ʻapapane not (and, later, "aweoweo")?

Right, removed all italics from such names. FunkMonk (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• when Palmer saw full-grown juveniles: can a juvenile be full-grown: don't we call those adults?

This could mean that they were of adult size but with juvenile plumage, but the source uses the more informal "young ones", which is even more ambiguous, so I've replaced it with "young birds". FunkMonk (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• Dickey's 1923 photos of the last ironwood to survive introduced rabbits: this is a perhaps unintentionally ambiguous clause: can we rework it a bit?

Added " to survive destruction by", not sure if that's what you're asking for? FunkMonk (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Works perfectly. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• noted the birds were still fearless towards humans after this wholesale slaughter: I think wholesale slaughter is a bit flowery for Wikipedia, especially as it wasn't wholesale (some survived to remain fearless)

These are the words of those who reported it (they actually say it no less than three times), I've added quotation marks and in-text attribution: "after this "wholesale slaughter", as Dill and Bryan described it". I agree it shouldn't have been said like that in Wikipedia's voice. FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I like that: it's good to get both a) what happened and b) the sense of horror that observers felt about it. We could even promote it a bit: something like Dill and Bryan described what they saw as "wholesale slaughter": they found thousands of bird skeletons left over by feather hunters, as well as several Laysan honeycreeper skins, but noted the birds were still fearless towards humans.. Very much a matter of taste, but I think that's a good enough detail to let it colour the description more strongly. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Took your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• They estimated that 300 Laysan honeycreepers remained, and that it and other birds: as we've just used the plural, better as they?

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• They were less common than other birds, but were constantly around their building: advise switching their for "the naturalists'" or similar: the switching antecedent is a little awkward (sounds as if the birds had taken out a lease on it).

Said "around the building the researchers inhabited". FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• the American First Lieutenant William H. Munter: a bit odd to give a rank like this: more usual as "naval officer", "army officer", or so on. At any rate, as we're saying that he was a first lieutenant rather than giving it as part of his name (as we haven't called everyone else Mr. Jones, Dr. Smith etc), we should decapitalise.

Went with naval officer. FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• a scientific survey onboard the USS Tanager: WP:NCS and common usage discourages the before a ship's name (there is, after all, by definition only one USS Tanagar at any one time), but the page does say that it isn't technically wrong.

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• While filming a Laysan finch on April 18, Dickey heard a male honeycreeper, and managed to turn around and film it singing on a coral rock: neater and more concise?

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• I would spell out "photo" as "photograph" in formal writing, but that may be me being old-fashioned.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• during US military construction: can we put a date on this?

Added "beginning in 1940". So WW2 pretty much killed off that species. FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I figured as much. Nice to make that sad detail (one among many) absolutely clear to the reader. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• When using the |edition= parameter with books, you need to give it as an ordinal -- eg. 1st, 2nd, 3rd -- otherwise, the template outputs "2 ed.", which is odd and possibly ambiguous.

Changed to "2nd". FunkMonk (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• Some journals seem to have ISSNs, others don't.

Not sure what should be done about this, remove the few occurrences of it for consistency? FunkMonk (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I'd go to ISSN portal and add the rest: giving the ISSN, particularly when you can't link the article, is a good way to reassure people that a) the source exists and b) it's reasonably kosher. It wouldn't be wrong to remove the ISSNs (though some reviewers would then suggest putting them back in), but I think it would be a step backwards. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

So how does this work, do you search for a specific article or journal, or only those with a DOI? Will save this for last, seems a bit tedious. FunkMonk (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Pretty much all journals have ISSNs: just stick the name of it in there and it'll come up. DOIs are a different thing -- those are just more stable versions of a URL (for the article itself), whereas an ISSN is an identifying number for the journal as a publication. If you've reused the same journal, it'll be the same ISSN regardless of date, issue, volume etc. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Done to the ones that showed up in the search (some of the older ones didn't), yikes, that should really be automated, like adding of so many other identifiers are when pushing the "expand citations" button... FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

That's my lot on a first pass. I truly enjoyed this article, and apologise for the long list of nit-picks: please take them as questions, for the most part, rather than demands. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, a lot of nice observations, might take a few days to get through it all. FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Phew, I think everything is addressed now, UndercoverClassicist. FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Happy to support: it really is a wonderfully-written article, and certainly one of my favourites that I have read on here, despite its sombre subject matter. Excellent work and thank you for your forbearance with the comments. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Ian's drive-by

• Laysan should become a government preserve for bird life, protected by human-made destruction -- "protected from human-made destruction"?

Yikes, good catch, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• wholesale slaughter stood out for me too, similar reasoning to UC.

Copied from above: These are the words of those who reported it (they actually say it no less than three times), I've added quotation marks and in-text attribution: "after this "wholesale slaughter", as Dill and Bryan described it". I agree it shouldn't have been said like that in Wikipedia's voice. FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Support by Esculenta

I conducted the recent GA review as a FAC-level review (after prior agreement with FunkMonk), including citation spot-checks and a search for other unused sources. Have no problems with supporting this as FA. Want to also add I'm quite impressed with UndercoverClassicist's attention to detail, and have read his suggestions carefully to see what I missed and to improve my "nitpicking" skills! Esculenta (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Image review by Generalissima

• File:Laysan honeycreeper in 1923.jpg: Public domain.
• File:PAT - Hawaii.gif: Released into the public domain.
• File:Hawaiian passerine bills.jpg: Public domain.
• File:PSM V63 D335 Laysan finch honeywater and wingless rail.png: Public domain.
• File:Pezzillo Hosmer ʻApapane-2.jpg: CC-BY-SA 4.0
• File:Himatione fraithii.jpg: Public domain.
• File:Map of Laysan Island.jpg: Public domain.
• File:Laysan Island 2010 USGS Lidar.JPG: Public domain, from USGS.
• File:Starr 030202-0066 Capparis sandwichiana.jpg: CC-BY 3.0
• File:Starr 030626-0023 Sesuvium portulacastrum.jpg: CC-BY 3.0
• File:Laysan Honey Eater nest.jpg: Public domain.
• File:Henry Palmer among frigate birds on Laysan.jpg: Public domain.
• File:Poached albatross on Laysan Island.jpg: Public domain.
• File:Tanager Expedition camp after sandstorm in 1923.jpg: Public domain.
• File:Last Ironwood on Laysan in 1923.jpg: Public domain.
• File:Laysan ʻApapane.ogv: Public domain.

All images are appropriate to the article and well-captioned. They all have good alt-text. Everything looks good to me - Support on image review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I disagree with changing the image layout, though, the MOS section you refer to (MOS:IMAGELOC) specifically says "Mul­ti­ple im­ages can be stag­gered right and left", which was the case here. In cases with few images, right aligning them all makes sense, but here it makes it look cluttered, like a wall of images further down the article. Note it also just says "Most images should be on the right side of the page", so it's not a hard rule. FunkMonk (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Wolverine

Placeholder for now. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 10:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• The lower abdomen was dusky gray that faded into brownish white, and the under-tail covert feathers were grayish. Rm hyphen

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• Immature birds were brown, with paler lower parts, and had green edges to their wing-covert feathers. Please remove the commas; they're grammatically incorrect

Removed the first comma, but kept the second, as it flows better this way. Not convinced there's anything incorrect about it. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• The honeycreeper lived throughout it, but was most abundant in the interior among tall grass and low bushes near the open plain that bordered the island's lagoon. A comma is not needed here and I'm not sure about "throughout it"

Removed "it", but kept the comma, as it flows better. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• From 1893 to 1900, Rothschild published a three-part monograph on the birds of Laysan, with further observations about the honeycreeper, which he referred to as the Laysan honey-eater. Hyphen here is grammatically incorrect

Which hyphen? If you mean in the name of the bird, that's the form he used, so I've added quotation marks. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• Pyle therefore concluded that according to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, the name should not be emended, and the original spelling should be reinstated. No need for the last comma

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• In 2015, the AOU implemented these propositions in their check-list. Again no need for the hyphen

Removed, though the hyphen is present in the official name of the organisation. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• Some museums have multiple specimens, including: 24 in the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum in Honolulu, 20 (including the type specimen) in the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, and 20 in the National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C.. What is happening at the end?

There don't seem to be clear rules about how to handle it, so I just removed the D.C. part. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• Some museums have multiple specimens, including: 24 in the Rm colon

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• whereafter erosion and tectonic subsidence reduced it in height, I propose you just say "its height"

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• Immature birds were brown, with paler lower parts, and had green edges to their wing-covert feathers. No need for commas here

Removed first comma, but flows better with the second comma. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• but much of it was destroyed by human activities by 1923, leaving near-desert like conditions and several extinct plant species, though the extent of the vegetation had almost recovered by 1973. Add a hyphen between desert and like

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• In 1903, Fisher stated that the Laysan honeycreeper was found all over Laysan Island, but was most abundant in the interior among tall grass and low bushes near the open plain that bordered the lagoon, an area where all the land-birds appeared to congregate. Again, no need for the hyphen

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• Munro added that they also frequented grass tops and other plants on the fringes of the lagoon. grass+tops = grasstops

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• Fisher noted that the nest of the Laysan honeycreeper was more difficult to find than that of the Laysan millerbird, Rm comma

Disagree, it is a very long sentence which flows better when broken up by a comma. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• Fisher collected a nest with an egg in mid-may, while the American zoologist William A. Bryan collected an egg on May 10. May should be capitalized

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• The ovate eggs were glossless white, with grayish blotches and spots at the larger end, and reddish brown spots above these, these markings often forming circles. Awkwardly phrased. I don't like the double "these", the last two commas seem unnecessary and "forming" should be "formed"

Changed first "these" to "them". I think the rest is better as is. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• In 1909, the US president Theodore Roosevelt issued an executive order that made several Hawaiian islets and reefs (including Laysan) part of the Hawaiian Islands Reservation. Rm "the" and capitalize "president"

Both are valid, but I use "the" in front of occupations everywhere else, so it should be consistent. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• probably the last photographic evidence of this bird, by some authors called the "swan song" of the species. By? Should be "which"

Both work, but changed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

That's all I got. It was indeed an interesting read. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 10:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Unsolicited feedback, I know, but a lot of these grammar points are contrary to the MoS. Compound modifiers should always have a hyphen (MOS:HYPHEN), commas are perfectly good to break sentences into their constituent parts (MOS:COMMA) and are perfectly fine in a list before "and" (MOS:SERIALCOMMA). Compound modifiers with more than two words use an endash (MOS:DASH). The current framing on Roosevelt is correct per MOS:PEOPLETITLES. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I use common sense not MOS. Plus, it really depends on the context. Some of the commas and hypens are unnecessary, and it has nothing to do with serial commas or MOS. FYI, a serial comma is used after the penultimate term in a list of 3 or more items, not necessarily before "and". Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 11:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, as this is Wikipedia, not a personal website, the MOS is what the follow at FAC, but I'll see if there's some of it I can implement if I feel it works better. FunkMonk (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

All should be answered now. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Support - Nice work. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 06:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Jens

• and brown down from Laysan albatrosses (Phoebastria immutabilis) – Birds of the World states "Phoebastria spp", not providing the full species name. This might indicate that modern ornithologists are not convinced that Fischer (1903) could have reliably identified the down to species level. I guess that immutabilis is the most likely but others cannot be excluded. Maybe add "according to Fischer (1903)" to mitigate the issue? (edit: I personally would probably go with just "brown albatross down"). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Went with "and brown down from albatrosses". FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• finch family Drepanidae – but the finches where their own family since the beginning, wasn't the Drepanidae considered as a family distinct from finches?

Yes, what is meant is that they are a family of finches. I tried with "and classified it in Drepanidae, commonly called the Hawaiian honeycreepers, a finch family recognized at the time". FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• member of the finch family Drepanidae, the Hawaiian honeycreepers – I think this needs some hint that this family is no longer in use, and I found it confusing. Maybe write "a member of the Hawaiian honeycreepers, which at the time were considered a separate family named Drepanidae"?

I wanted to include the term "finch", proposed wording in answer above. FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

My concern was that Drepanidae cannot possibly be a "finch family", because finches are (and have always been) considered a family on their own. The sentence would imply that Drepanidae are a family within a family, which is not possible. I know that "finch" may also be colloquially applied to a diffuse wider grouping, but in that case, the wikilink is misleading as it points to "true finches". What about "and classified it in Drepanidae, commonly called the Hawaiian honeycreepers, which are now classified within the finches (Fringillidae)."? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I only just realised the source of confusion, as I haven't read everything in the old papers concerned with higher taxonomy, but apparently at the time this species was named, Drepanidae and Fringillidae were considered two separate families[25], while it was unclear how the two were related to each other.[26] The easiest would of course just be to gloss over it, but I think I need to find a way to explain it, while also mentioning when drepanids were considered a subgroup of finches... Will have to look through some sources, well-spotted! FunkMonk (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

The article already hinted at this, I just didn't put two and two together: "Their relationships to other finches remained uncertain, and they were often considered a distinct lineage outside the Fringillidae." FunkMonk (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think I understood it when reading about it later in the taxonomy section; I just found the sentence confusing without being aware of that later information. Now, I think we just need to adjust the sentence, I see two issues: First, it's not really a "finch family", and second, the Hawaiian honeycreepers are still recognised today (just not as a family under the name Drepanidae). Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm thinking about just leaving out mention of finches until the evolution section, and just letting that section explain the issue as it is. It isn't really relevant to the taxonomic history of this species in itself anyway. What do you think? FunkMonk (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe just "and classified it in the now defunct family Drepanidae"? Just needs some hint that the family is no longer recognised, I think. Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I tried with "classified it as a member of Drepanidae which was recognized as a family at the time, commonly called the Hawaiian honeycreepers" because I don't want to editorialize too much by retroactively calling it defunct. But it should make it clear that it is specific for its time. That Hawaiian honeycreepers are still used as a group today is indicated by the evolution section. That said, it seems odd a clade name isn't used for them anymore... FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Probably it is without clade name because the clade is currently below subfamily rank. Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• "generic name" needs a wikilink I think.

Done, as it seems I hadn't linked genus either, which is at the same article. FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• which is found across the main Hawaii archipelago, while differing in various details. – the word "while" does not make sense to me here. Would "and differs in various details" work?

I just removed "while". FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• Some museums have multiple specimens, including: 24 in the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum in Honolulu, 20 (including the type specimen) in the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, and 20 in the National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C.. – Any information where the holotype is? London? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Did you overlook it or is it unclearly worded? "20 (including the type specimen) in the American Museum of Natural History". FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, just overlooked that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• The wing of the finch was shorter – Using past tense here made me think that the finch is extinct as well, but it is not? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Changed to present tense. FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• Laysan had been a raised coral island until 18,000 years ago – Was it really a coral island (one formed from coral detritus)? Later in the text you instead state that it formed from volcanic activity. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Are the two mutually exclusive? The source for that part says "The aspect of Laysan as a raised coral island 18,000 years ago may now be observed in the high coral islands of Makatea and Henderson". Another cited source says "Laysan is a coral island capped by large sand accumulations and with a large salt water lagoon in its central depression. The island is probably the flattened top of a once massive volcanic peak formed perhaps during the Miocene, since eroded far below the present sea level, and subsequently built up by the action of coral, other marine invertebrates and calcareous algae. The depth of the coral deposits capping Laysan has not been determined but is probably considerable."[27] So from what I read, the base is volcanic, but the surface is coral? FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, got it. It had been a volcano-like island long before it became a raised atoll. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• due to the limited building materials – do you mean "due to the limited selection of building materials"? As it is now, it reads as if the total amount of building material would be limited, but that does not really explain why the nests are similar. It makes sense when there are only a few types of building materials available (irrespective of their abundance).

Added "selection of", as the source says. FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• and rootlets with some dry grass (variously described as loosely or well built) – the gloss appears to refer to "some dry grass", but that does not make much sense to me. Should this refer to the nest as a whole instead?

I tried to move it out of the parenthesis as " The nest, which was variously described as loosely or well built, was lined with fine rootlets". FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• That's all I have. Very well written and detailed, but without going into excessive detail. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I've answered the rest. FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Support on prose and content. Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

AK

• Will do soon. AryKun (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
• "in 1892, and was placed in the" to "in 1892, who placed in the"? The current structure feels a bit off to me because I expect parallelism and there isn't any.

Tried with "who placed it in the genus Himatione along with the ʻapapane", if that's what you had in mind. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• "long, and its wing" Comma unnecessary.

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• "under-tail" I'd remove the hyphen because I've seen "undertail" used more often in ornithological literature.

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• "to the island, which proceeded" to "to the island and proceeded"

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• You spell it Drepanidae in "classified it as a member of Drepanidae". I'm not sure it that's intentional or not.

It's how it was spelled in the publication where this species was named, see last paragraph under evolution for details on variations. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• "arise through isolation, and noted" Comma unnecessary.

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• "colonizing the island, and he divided" to "colonizing the island and divided"

I think it flows better like that, as it's a very long sentence with two distinct parts. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• "honeycreeper, and few accounts" Comma unnecessary.

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• "the Laysan finch, and the nests" to "the Laysan finch; the nests"?

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• "begin with, and only three" Comma unnecessary.

As above, I think the long sentence flows better this way. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• "Laysan were abundant, and that there" Comma unnecessary.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• "honeycreepers remained, and that they" Comma unnecessary.

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• That's all I got. Hawaiian birds truly are depressing to read about. AryKun (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, all should now be addressed. And yeah, tough to see how easily these species could had been saved... FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Support on prose. AryKun (talk) 08:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Source review

1. 2 probably needs an archive link, and should say what the source is rather than just the domain. Some sources like #15 need archives. I notice inconsistent applications of identifiers like DOI and JSTOR, is this an artifact of distinct sources having distinct parameters? It looks like we are dealing with prominent journals as sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Added archive to PDF link 2. It also says "Bishop Museum", so I'm not sure what else you mean needs to be added? Not sure why sources like 15 need archives, it's a link to the museum journal's repository where the PDF can be found, do you mean all sources to PDFs need to be archived? As for DOI/JSTOR, both don't necessarily exist for all the same sources. FunkMonk (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I think he means you should have Bishop Museum instead of the domain name. AryKun (talk) 03:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps? That was automatically filled in, so I would assume that's what the template wants. But pinging Jo-Jo Eumerus for clarification. FunkMonk (talk) 13:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Aye, in this case it should say "Bishop Museum" rather than giving a domain name. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Did my last edit solve this? FunkMonk (talk) 02:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Seems like. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 12 July 2024 [28].

---

Arthur O. Austin

Nominator(s): RoySmith (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Have you ever listened to a radio broadcast or admired the pretty blinking lights on a radio transmitter tower? Have you ever wondered how aircraft survive being hit by lightning? Has it ever struck you as odd that every electrical appliance you buy has a label warning you about the dangers of electrocution if you get it wet, but the high-tension lines that bring power to your house do just fine outside in the rain and snow? If so, you'll want to read this article to find out how some guy you've probably never heard of was a big part of making all that work. RoySmith (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Image review by Generalissima

• All images have good alt-text.
• File:Arthur O. Austin 1933.jpg has been found to be in the public domain. Good to go.
• File:Residence of O. C. Barber, Anna Dean Farm (12840459315).jpg, no known copyright restrictions according to the Miami University Libraries.
• File:Arthur O. Austin 1905.jpg, public domain
• File:US Patent 1968868 (A. O. Austin, Radiotower).pdf Public domain due to being a government document.
• File:Austin Ring WMCA WNYC cropped and annotated.jpg Published under CC B.Y. 2.0, and modified by RoySmith, good to go!
• File:Ohio Insulator Company high voltage lab.jpg Public domain.
• All images are appropriately positioned and relevant to the text. I think we're good to go here; Support on image review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Generalissima I recently found File:Ohio Brass factory staff, Barberton, Ohio.pdf. It doesn't explicitly identify the person front-center as Austin, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that's him. Any thoughts on adding this to the article with a "believed to be" caption? RoySmith (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Hmm, I feel "believed to be" implies that another source described it as that. I'd just label it as the Ohio Brass Company staff, and viewers would just sorta presume Austin is in there. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, thanks for the input. I'll keep looking and keep this one in reserve for now. I'm starting to gather notes for Ohio Brass Company and this will make a lot more sense there. RoySmith (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Support from Draken Bowser

An interesting account of Austin's various exploits. I'm left wondering about two things:

• Did he have any friends or close associates, at college or later in life?

• What, if any, was his impact on local society through politics, association membership and/or patronage?
  • I haven't seen anything that talks about those things.

And two pointers on the "Personal life"-section:

• "The couple were in an accident in 1919" -- what kind of accident?
  • I've filled in some details. It turns out, it was kind of gruesome. I've left the gory stuff out; people can read the source if they want. RoySmith (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
    • That's quite enough, no more details needed! /DB

• "By the 1920s, Austin was a wealthy man." -- since this is the first mention of wealth in the body it should be briefly stated how he acquired his fortune.
  • The source doesn't go into details. It does say "He apparently hit it off well with management, and this, coupled with his particular expertise in insulator design, provided him free rein for innovating and developing products for Ohio Brass." from which one can infer he was well paid by Ohio Brass, but I think putting a statement like that in the article would be kind of WP:OR-ish. However, it's good that you mentioned this because it made me see a typo, which I've fixed (1920s -> 1930s). RoySmith (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Do we need to specify "US patents"? He has a lot of Canadian duplicates, but I don't know how these things are usually counted/represented. Draken Bowser (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Good question. What I've done so far is to use "U.S. Patent" when I'm referring to a specific patent by number and just plain "patent" for more generic mentions. I think that makes sense, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise or to consider any specific suggestions. RoySmith (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I have anything to add, and the article has seen additional polish over the last couple of days. Nice work! Draken Bowser (talk) 15:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Just a comment: I suggest shuffling the lede a bit to put what he's most known for closer to the start, in the second sentence, say (or maybe even flipping the two paragraphs). Would help to clarify who he is more than all the names of his non-notable companies. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 00:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Done. RoySmith (talk) 01:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "He is most known". Not 'best known'?

  Fixed

• "He had 225 patents". 'He registered 225 patents'?

  Fixed

• "Personal life" sits very oddly at the start of the article.

  I'm not sure I understand the objection; are you saying that this section is poorly titled or that it should be moved to another place in the article?

That it would be better after "Career".

It seemed to make sense to keep "Career" and "High-voltage laboratories" together, so I moved it after both.

Hmmm, I'm having second thoughts about this. The personal life section introduced his estate and described the various outbuildings that ended up being used as labs, as well as the ornate architecture of the mansion. These aspects all feature in the description of the labs and it doesn't flow quite as well in the inverse order. Would you be opposed to my moving the sections back to their original order?

Er, like, "after "Career" " wasn't picked at random. But the gripping hand is it's your article, put it where you think it works best.

• "seeking post-secondary engineering degrees." What is post-secondary?

  Linked

• "RF leakage"; "radiated RF energy". What is RF?

  Clarified and linked

• "5,000 Watt transmission tower". I realise that a watt is named after James Watt, but - like an ampere or a newton - it is usually written with a lower-case initial letter.

  I was taught in school that you capitalize units which are named after a person, which is supported by the NIST style guide. On the other hand, Watt, Joule, and Newton (unit) all use lower case. On the third hand, MOS:UNITNAMES says, Except as listed in the § Specific units table below, unit symbols are uncapi­tal­ized unless they are derived from a proper name, in which case the first letter ... is capitalized.

On the fourth hand that only applies to symbols, which is emphasised in the original. Lose the upper case. You know you want to.

On the gripping hand, I read somewhere not to argue with your reviewer too much...

... or you get fed greeps. Sound advice.

• "Austin is best known for inventing the Austin Ring Transformer!. Why the upper-case R and T?

  Because brain? Fixed. BTW, if memory serves, I first got onto this when I stumbled onto Austin transformer and got hooked on the story.

It's odd what can serve to hook us into rewriting an article, although I can see how it could work with this.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

No, there isn't. A splendid article. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

HF

I will try to review this over the coming week. Hog Farm _Talk 17:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to wait to start my review until after the source review issues have been resolved. Hog Farm _Talk 00:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• "After graduating from college in 1903, Austin worked for General Electric in Schenectady, New York." - I think this needs rephrased, since later in the article it notes that sources differ as to if he graduated in 1903 or 1901
  • I finally nailed this down by finding a copy of the (1903) commencement brochure, so went with that.
• "In 1906, he moved to Lima, New York, to work for the Lima Insulator Company. The company's factory was destroyed by fire in 1908, after which Austin moved to Ohio to work for Akron Hi-Potential Porcelain Company, which had started operations on November 1, 1906.[3]" - there's evidently some reference placement issues here. The source following this only supported the date that the Akron Hi-Potential Porcelain Company opened.
  • Fixed.
• "which had started operations on November 1, 1906." - why is this tidbit relevant to an article about Austin?
  • Deleted.
• "which in turn was purchased by Hubbell in 1978" - I don't think this is relevant to an article on Austin; the purchase occurred 14 years after his death
  • Several of the references are on the Hubbell web site, and I make reference to the 4th lab being "Hubbell's Frank B. Black Research Center, named in honor of Ohio Brass's founder". Unless I tell the reader that Hubbell bought Ohio Brass, that won't make any sense.
• "The 1971 Austin Insulator product catalog listed 21 standard types with power ratings from 0.7 to 7.0 kVA weighing 70–340 pounds (32–154 kg), with the larger units only available on special order. Prices ranged from $300 (equivalent to $2,300 in 2023) to $800 (equivalent to $6,000 in 2023) quoted in USD, FOB Toronto" - what makes this due detail, especially if we can only cite this to a catalog? If this were a modern business this would be a definite WP:NOTPRICE violation.
  • I felt there was some value in explaining to the reader that these weren't just some cheap widgets you can buy for $0.39. But I don't feel strongly about that, so I've dropped the pricing info.
• "He was a Republican, a mason and a member of the Order of the Eastern Star, " - isn't Mason usually capitalized when referring to members of the Freemasons?
  • Fixed.
• If Austin was involved with only the first two high-voltage labs, then I have my doubts that the latter two labs are relevant enough to an article on Austin that they need a full two paragraphs of content
  • I've deleted some of the detail and combined these two paragraphs into one.
• "In 1933, Austin started the A. O. Austin Insulator Company. After Austin's death in 1964, the company passed through a number of ownership changes, being at various times part of Decca Navigator Company (a division of Decca Records) and Litton Marine." - this is partially a reference placement issue - most of the content is in reference #2, not #21, but I'm not seeing where the reference to Litton Marine is found in either of the citations provided in that paragraph
  • Fixed.

That's the first pass through the article from me; I'm concerned that the article is containing information that isn't directly connected with Austin. Hog Farm _Talk 19:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I fixed a couple of these; the last few will take me a bit longer. I'll ping you when I've got those done. RoySmith (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

OK @Hog Farm I believe I'd addressed all of your points. RoySmith (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm still not sold on the Engineering and Technology History Wiki being a high-quality reliable source. Per their information page, All the registered users of the ETHW can collaborate on any encyclopedic article. and Anyone can register on the ETHW creating a account using the account creation form. Yes, there is some sort of vetting (I see that the account approval process involves uploading a CV), but I don't see how this source can make it to the greater high-quality RS sourcing standard. Hog Farm _Talk 18:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

You're talking about https://ethw.org/Ohio_Brass_High_Voltage_Laboratories, right? This was originally published in IEEE's Today's Engineer (later incorporated into IEEE-USA InSight) which I think should be considered reliable. The initial part of the InSight article is at https://insight.ieeeusa.org/articles/from-matches-to-lightning-the-ohio-brass-high-voltage-laboratories/, but that's not the entire article, so I cited the copy on ETHW. Note that the version on the IEEE web site refers you to ETHW, which I would treat as just the content deliverer and IEEE InSight as the original publisher. Does that help? If not, let me know and I'll keep digging to see if I can find a better source. RoySmith (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@Hog Farm I've cogitated on this a bit and come to the conclusion that the statements sourced to ETHW aren't really critical, so I deleted them. Hopefully at some point I'll find a better source and can add them back, but at least for now, ETHW is gone. RoySmith (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

PS, ChatGPT was able to supply me with some wonderful verbiage about the early history of these labs, if you're into that sort of thing. RoySmith (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

BTW, see Engineering and Technology History Wiki RoySmith (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm ready to support. Hog Farm _Talk 13:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Source review by Z1720

• What makes "Engineering and Technology History Wiki" a high-quality source?
  • Per https://ethw.org/ETHW:About, I would consider this similar to an internal publication of a professional society. One of the articles (Ohio Brass High Voltage Laboratories) is a reprint from the IEEE's Today's Engineer.
• What makes "Decca Navigator News" a high-quality source?
  • Removed
• What makes "Past Pursuits" a high-quality source? This seems to be a publication of a library system.
  • I'm working on this one. I've contacted the author to see if they can provide a bibliography of the sources they used.
    • Well, they sent me exactly what I needed, so I've replaced all of the citations to this source with those to the underlying newspaper articles.
• What makes "IEEE-USA Insights" a high-quality source? This seems to be a careers/labour collective and lobbying organisation.
  • The IEEE is the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, a major professional society. I would certainly not call them a "careers/labour collective and lobbying organisation."
• What makes "Mehla, Ishwar Singh" a high-quality source? Notion Press seems to be a self-published source.
  • I didn't notice that about the publisher. I'll look for a better source for this statement.
    • Replaced with another source
• What makes the "Obituary for Martha (Austin) Gormley" a high-quality source, considering that it is unknown who wrote it and it is published on a funeral home website? Since it is the second supporting source for a sentence, can it be removed?
  • The only thing that source is used for is the year of her death. I think the funeral home which conducted her funeral can be considered authoritative for that.
  • I could replace that with her death notice in the Akron Beacon Journal, but it's really just the same thing from the same funeral home.
    • Removed that entire section.

Those are my initial thoughts. Looking foward to your responses. Z1720 (talk) 00:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I've responded to some of these in-line above. I'll get to the others as I'm able. RoySmith (talk) 01:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

This is going to take a bit of time for me to work through this. I will confess to a certain amount of frustration that I brought this to peer review explicitly to get input on the quality of the sources but didn't get any response. So here we are going over the same question at FAC. I'm not saying it's your fault (or that you should't raise these objections), just venting a bit at the process. RoySmith (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith: PR has a lack of reviewers, especially for potential FACs. The only way to fix it is for editors to take time out of their own projects to review articles nominated there. Z1720 (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. OK, now that I've indulged my inner grumpy cat, can you clarify the issue with the two sources on ETHW? Are you OK with Ohio Brass High Voltage Laboratories, as a reprint from Today's Engineer? RoySmith (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720 OK, I've eliminated all the the questionable sources. I believe that article reprinted from the IEEE Today's Engineer and the IEEE USA Insights article are WP:RS, so left those in place. RoySmith (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Some more notes on IEEE Insight... Per their editoral guidelines, "Submissions are published at INSIGHT's discretion. Editors will review each contribution and accept, return to the author for revision, or reject the article". The editorial staff is listed here. I believe this meets the requirement of WP:REPUTABLE for sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy RoySmith (talk) 02:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Took another look, and have no concerns with quality of sources. One formatting concern: Refs 1 and 27 missing the name of the newspaper (I assume they are both "The Akron Beacon Journal"?) Let me know when this is resolved. Z1720 (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720 Done. Thanks for the review. Some of those sources were a bit dubious; prodding me to find better ones was a good thing. RoySmith (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Pass source review. No spot checks were conducted. I'm glad better sources were found: great work. Z1720 (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Joeyquism

Committing to a review because you've been so kind to provide peer reviews for both Album covers of Blue Note Records and Sergio Brown. Should get to this soon; feel free to comment on my talk page if I haven't provided anything in a timely manner. joeyquism (talk page) 07:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

A very engaging read about a very interesting person! I'm not too big a fan of the electrical engineering subject myself (I actually changed majors from EE to computer science after massively failing my breadboard classes), but to me this guy seems like fun. Some things that I've noted are listed below; feel free to refuse suggestions with justification:

• A native of California, Austin graduated from Leland Stanford University with a degree in electrical engineering. - MOS:OL on California? Notably, Ohio is not wikilinked in the career section; I would think those unfamiliar with California would also likely be unfamiliar with Ohio.
• He bought a large estate in Barberton, Ohio, lived in the mansion, and built an extensive outdoor electrical laboratory on the grounds. - "Estate" generally means "an extensive area of land in the country, usually with a large house"; while the common definition per whatever dictionary Google gets its information from does indicate that estates "usually" contain large houses/mansions, it does not imply that an estate is always defined by the existence of a large house/mansion. Perhaps "the mansion" should be "a mansion"?
  • Sources pretty much universally refer to it as an estate, and the house as "the mansion".
• ... and orientated so rain water can drip off the secondary without hitting the primary ring. - "Orientated" should be "oriented"; I think the former is British English.
• Patrick Warr of Austin Insulators ... - Remove the space before the ref template
• He graduated from Stockton high school[1] then went to Leland Stanford University ... - Wikilink Leland Stanford University. Should it be "high school" or "High School"? If it is indeed a nondescript high school in Stockton, it should likely be just "high school in Stockton".
• ... and hundreds of thousands of amps. - Wikilink "amps". I think the only other mention of something related to amperage is volt-ampere.

Otherwise, I'm not seeing anything glaring that needs to be fixed; of course, let me know if I'm being a pedant above. Well done! Feel free to follow up with comments of your own. joeyquism (talk page) 15:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you for the review. Except as noted above, I've addressed all of these issues. And, yeah, what a cool job getting to blow shit up with lightning bolts and be paid for it. RoySmith (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Support - Looking much better. I'd also love to blow shit up as a career, but I guess that's already a part of working in a technical field, no? A most excellent article; great work! joeyquism (talk page) 19:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 11 July 2024 [29].

---

Alice of Champagne

Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a Jerusalemite royal princess who ruled the Kingdoms of Cyprus and Jerusalem as regent for her son and an absent relative for years in the first half of the 13th century. She also laid claim to a French county but could not seize it. I was planning to nominate the article with Surtsicna as a co-nominator because they had been a major (and critical) contributor but they have been inactive for months. As I have always loved Surtsicna's articles about medieval royals, I hope they are well and will return to our community soon. I would be really grateful for any comments and suggestions. Borsoka (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• File:SilverDenierHenryIOfCyprus1218-1253.jpg needs an explicit tag for the original work

• Thank you for your image review. Tag added.

• File:Map_Crusader_states_1240-eng.png needs a source for the data presented, and see MOS:COLOUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Source added, and I sought the assistance of editors at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop. Borsoka (talk) 02:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Airship

As always, these are suggestions, not demands; feel free to refuse with justification.

Childhood

• somewhat odd that we get a definition of the Third Crusade ("a large military campaign for their rescue proclaimed by the papacy") but not the First. I think the "a large military campaign" bit can be moved to describe the First, or just removed.

• Rephrased.

• "in the aftermath of the First Crusade by western European knights in Palestine but it was nearly annihilated by Saladin, Sultan of Egypt, in 1187–89" somewhat obscures the fact that there were 90-odd years between the beginning and end of the sentence.

• Expanded.

• "who joined the crusade. Before departing for the crusade..." could probably be combined for smoother prose

• Rephrased.

• The phrase "the widowed Isabella" appears twice within short order in the second paragraph.

• Rephrased.

• "agreed that Aimery's eldest surviving son was to marry Henry's eldest surviving daughter would receive the County of Jaffa in the kingdom as dowry" is there an "and" missing?

• Rephrased.

• I think the mentions of Alice and Philippa could go earlier in the paragraph, possibly right after their parents' marriage. As it stands, the chronology and names are a bit confusing for a non-specialist reader.

• Restructured.

• "King Philip II of France invested their uncle, Theobald III, with Champagne and Brie in January 1198" why was it up to Philip to decide who to invest the counties with?

• A previous sentence now clarifies that the two counties were situated in France.

• Some background on Isabella herself wouldn't go amiss (first husband isn't mentioned at all, second husband and eldest daughter aren't mentioned until third paragraph, no details of fourth marriage, etc.) The article places much less prominence on her and her life/lands compared to her husband.

• Expanded info on Isabella.

• • Also, according to Isabella I of Jerusalem#Family Alice had an elder full-sister who died in 1205. This surely has to be mentioned, if true?

• Alice was her parents' eldest child, according to the cited sources. Her youngest full-sister, Margaret "almost certainily died in childhood", according to Bernard Hamilton (Hamilton, p. 225). Borsoka (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Cyprus

• I believe "stepsiblings" is typically hyphenated.

• Modified.

• "They had two daughters, Maria and Isabella, and a son, Henry." birth years would be helpful

• The dates are uncertain.

• I think the prose in the final two sentences of the "Queen consort" subsection could be tightened.

• Rephrased.

• What was the practical difference between the positions of regent and bailli? The fact that Alice installed Philip suggests that she had greater power (was that a royal prerogative?), but then he prevailed over her in the tithing dispute.

• I doubt this is the consequence of a difference between their position, and also doubt that an exact definition of their position could be added, for it was changing (as it is demonstrated by the article itself).

• "Negotiations ... concluded with an agreement in October 1220" do we know when they began?

• Rephrased.

• "In time, the agreement was revised, as the Cypriot noblemen opposed the payment of a tithe (as prescribed by the agreement). The Holy See had also demanded that the estates the nobles had seized from the Orthodox Church be restored to the Catholic clerics. This new agreement, reached in 1222, neither freed the noblemen from the tithe nor prescribed the restoration of Church property." Little bit wordy, and could probably be trimmed.

• Rephrased. Borsoka (talk) 03:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

In exile

• "who did not want to allow her" I don't think the "to allow" is needed.

• Done.

• "Still, Alice, who continued..." this sentence doesn't really expand on the last one enough, and could easily be combined.

• Rephrased.

• "Pope Gregory declared that Frederick did not fulfill his crusader oath and excommunicated him." is this sentence necessary?

• Deleted.

• "When Philip of Ibelin died" when?

• Added.

• "son and successor of her niece Isabella II and Frederick" the "successor of ... Frederick" made me think the latter was dead at this point.

• Reference to Frederick deleted.

• "Henry I" is written once, "Henry I of Cyprus" twice; I'm not sure the regnal numbers are necessary in the context they are being used (there aren't any other Henry's to talk about) and the "of Cyprus" is definitely unneeded.

• Rephrased.

• "When Henry I of Cyprus reached the age of majority on 3 May 1232, Alice abdicated from her regency of Cyprus, which she had retained despite having left Cyprus" too much "Cyprus"

Jerusalem

• Rephrased.

• "the barons opposed to Frederick's rule" as the only barons referred to thus far have been Cypriot, might be best to clarify

• Done.

• "Alice nonetheless exercised... She annulled ... She granted ... " these three short related sentences could be combined

• Done.

• Nothing about her burial or legacy? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• No, all sources inform us about her death and succession. Borsoka (talk) 02:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• Thank you for your comprehensive review. Sorry, but I need to wait until weekend to address the problems you indicated above. Borsoka (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• I think I addressed the above problems. Thank you for your patience but I was extremly busy in real life. 02:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Airship, just a reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Support ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• Dunbabin is listed in Sources, but is not cited. Similarly Runciman 1979a and Treadgold.

• Thank you for starting the review. The three sources were cited in an ancestors' table and they remained when the table was deleted. Now, I deleted them. Borsoka (talk) 02:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• I think it would be worth mentioning in "Childhood" when Jerusalem the city ceased to be part of the kingdom.

• That the city remained in Muslim hands is now mentioned in the article.

• "could challenge a count's posthumous son's claim to his counties." Should "a" be 'the'?

• I preferred "their uncle".

• "the investigation was not "pursued with any degree of rigour" (Bernard Hamilton)". You can't attribute in brackets like that. Either introduce and name the person quoted properly in line or paraphrase it.

• Rephrased.

• "The administration of the kingdom was, according to the contemporaneous lawyer Philip of Novara, arranged by Hugh I on his deathbed, although the contemporaneous Chronicle of Ernoul and Bernard the Treasurer suggests that Alice acted independently, whereas a papal letter of February 1226 states that the Cypriote nobles, barons, knights, and people elected Ibelin as bailli." This sentence is getting a bit long to follow.

• Divided into three sentences.

• Link Consanguinity.

• Linked.

• "renounced her claim to Champagne and Brie for 40,000 livres tournois and estates yielding a yearly income of 2,000 livres". Who paid her this? It is in the same sentence as talk of a papal tribunal, so the implication is the Pope!

• Rephrased.

• "She allegedly renounced the County of Jaffa". Is this what you mean, or does 'It is assumed that she renounced ...' capture the source better?

• Rephrased ("probably")

• "he concluded that Frederick could no more administer the Kingdom of Jerusalem on his son's behalf". I think ' could no longer administer' works better.

• Done.

A cracking article. Explains complicated situations about as well as they can be. Just the mostly nit picks above from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you for your thorough review and suggestions. I hope I addressed all issues. Borsoka (talk) 04:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• Dictionaries I have checked show stepbrother as one word.

• Done.

• "After a dispute with Philip of Ibelin, bailli of Cyprus in 1223, she left the island." This raises several issues. 1. You need a few words of explanation of why Philip was powerful enough to drive her out even though she was the regent. 2. The Bailli link goes to a northern French official. 3. You need a comma after "Cyprus" as without it 1223 is when Philip was Bailli, not when she was driven out.

• Rephrased and delinked.

• "because of kinship". I think "because of their close kinship" would be clearer.

• In modern eyes, their kinship was not close. The grandfather of Isabella's grandfather, Baldwin II of Jerusalem was their common ancestor.

• How about "because of medieval rules concerning consanguinity"? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Rephrased with a reference to canon law.

• "The kingdom and two other Crusader states—the Principality of Antioch and County of Tripoli—survived due to the Third Crusade, proclaimed by the papacy for their rescue, but the city of Jerusalem remained in Muslim hands." Maybe clarify that the kingdom was confined to a small strip along the coast.

• Added.

• "Under popular pressure". I would take this to mean pressure by the common people, but presumably you mean by the nobility and if so this should be clarified.

• No, the townspeople also urged her to remarry.

• Maybe "under aristocratic and popular pressure". Dudley Miles (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Rephrased. Borsoka (talk) 02:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• "both born while their father was count," What is the significance of this qualification? Was there a time when he was not count?

• Yes, of course there was a time when he was not count. A link to "born in the purple" added.

• You are inconsistent Cypriot or Cypriote.

• Fixed (Cpyriote).

• "Alice "spent the revenues of the kingdom liberally", resulting in conflict with Philip of Ibelin.[26] After some debate with the bailli about the tithes payable to the Orthodox clergy, Alice left Cyprus". This is vague and confusing. You refer to conflict over her extravagance, and then say she left after "debate" over tythes, which does not sound serious. What was the cause of her leaving and was it voluntary or was she expelled? Did she consent to leaving her children?

• Rephrased.

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you for starting the review. I hope I addressed all the above problems. Borsoka (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• "visited with Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II". I assume you mean that he visited Frederick, not visited some place with Frederick. I would delete "with".

• Indeed. Deleted.

• "accusing Eustorgius of partiality". In whose favour?

• Done.

• "but a disease prevented Frederick from departing Italy". This does not sound right to me, which may just be a personal preference. I prefer he was too ill to depart Italy.

• Sorry, I do not understand your concern.

• "Alice and Bohemond's marriage was subsequently annulled but this did not temper her ambitions." Why should it have tempered her ambitions? This seems a non-sequitur.

• Deleted.

• "Runciman, Steven (1989) [1951]. The Kingdom of Acre and the Later Crusades. A History of the Crusades. Vol. III". The publication date of this volume is unclear on WorldCat, but you link to a review which dates it 1954, and there were no later editions. I am not sure of the rules, but I would take orig-year to be for first editions of books which had more than one edition. 1989 is presumably just the date of the reprint which you are using, and it is misleading as it implies that the book is more up to date than it really is. I have always assumed that you should cite the date of first publication of the edition you are citing, not of the unaltered reprint you happen to be using. Serial Number 54129 I see you are doing the source review. What is your view on this? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  I absolutely agree, Dudley Miles, including the use of the |orig-year parameter. I take it we're both looking at OCLC 958220960? ——Serial Number 54129 13:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• I deleted the link. Sorry, I do not understand your concern. I cannot refer to the 1951 edition because I do not cite it. Section "Sources" makes it clear that the work was first published in 1951, so nobody misleads anybody. I refer to two other FAs, that follow the same method: Raymond III, Count of Tripoli and Raynald of Châtillon. Borsoka (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• There is no 1951 edition because the book was first published in 1954 and there was no later edition. You are citing the original publication as your copy is just a reprint so you should give the date as 1954. I have a 1986 reprint of Stenton's 1971 third edition of Anglo-Saxon England. The orig-date for the book is 1943 when the first edition was published. If I cited the date as 1986 then people would suppose that the third edition was published then, so I give the date as 1971. How would you show the dates for Stenton? Ian Rose what is your view on this? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• WP:CITE seems pretty clear that that the date(s) are for editions, not mere reprints, so if 1954 is the date of the sole edition then "(1954)" alone is what I'd expect to see. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• The book was published several times: first in 1951, and I used the 1989 publication. Borsoka (talk) 02:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• That is incorrect. According to WorldCat, volume I was published in 1951 and volume III, which you cite, was published in 1954. There was a reprint with corrections in 1955, but all subsequent issues were reprints. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• The 1989 reprint I used says that it was first published in 1951. Borsoka (talk) 00:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC) WorldCat does not say that volume III was first published in 1954 ([30]). Borsoka (talk) 02:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• The page you link to is for the 3 volume series and it says 1951-54. As I point out above, it is 1951 for vol 1 and 1954 for vol 3. it is also wrong to give the date of the reprint. In view of the source errors, I am unable to support, but I do not think the errors are serious enough to oppose, so I am closing this review without giving an opinion either way. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you for your review. Just for clarification, WorldCat does not say that vol 3 was first published in 1954. My copy of vol 3 makes it clear that it was first published in 1951, and reprinted in 1951 (!), 1953, 1954, 1957, 1962, 1968, 1975, 1980, 1987, 1988 and 1989. When mentioning the year 1989 and indicating the original year of publication (1951), I followed an accepted (and quite logical) practice. If somebody wanted to compare the text in the article with the cited book, they could easily find the relevant pages. Borsoka (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• An early review ([31]) indeed says that vol 3 was first published in 1954, so I change the original year. Thank you for spotting the mistake. Borsoka (talk) 01:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• That oclc looks right. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Pending. A little before my period, but I have the basic texts. ——Serial Number 54129 21:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Formatting is fine. Ignoring the false-positive of Runciman's appendix. Authors are all established historians (Cardiff, Cambridge, glad to see Nottingham, punching above its weight...), independent scholars, or work at Western Maryland College. No obvious omissions from the canon, and nothing that jumps out as outremer  :) It is slender and well-presented.

I also echo what Borsoka said above regarding Surtsicna; there is a hole in Wikipedia's medieval coverage where once he edited. I also benefitted from his collaboration and incisive input into discussions. ——Serial Number 54129 12:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your source review. Sorry, I do not understand your reference to Runciman's appendix. Could you explain it? Borsoka (talk) 02:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Serial Number 54129: pinging. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

​ It is total trivia. Completely irrelevant. Absolutely inside baseball. I only mention it because if I do not, someone even more retentive than myself will notice. All AGF notwithstanding. All it was: because Borsoka delineated fn2a/b with a comma, it calls a |pp= error. But being an appendix, it's a false positive. In my book anyway. Now that took far more time to explain than it should have done. *bizarre faced emoji here*  :) ——Serial Number 54129 13:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan

Hi Borsoka, saving a spot, will be adding comments soon. Matarisvan (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Matarisvan, just a reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Borsoka, my comments:

• In the infobox, we should add Isabella I of Jerusalem and Alix of Montferrat as the predecessor and successor respectively as the Queen consort of Cyprus. We have this in the Royal titles section at the bottom but not in the infobox.

• Added.

• In the infobox, consider adding her tenure, predecessor and successor as Countess of Jaffa. Also consider adding this to the first sentence of the lead.

• Added. Her rule in the County of Jaffa is mentioned in the same paragraph in the lead.

• What were her titles from 1233 to 1243? We have a 10 year gap here.

• She was dowager queen.

• In the lead we have her as the regent of Cyprus from 1218-1223, but in the infobox we have 1218-1232. Which one is correct?

• Fixed.

• When did the High Court of Jerusalem reject her claim? Do we know the year?

• Sentence rephrased to make it clearer.

• Link to Acre in the sentence on Henry's fall?

• Done.

• Do we know the year of death of Isabella I? If so, we should add it to the Aimery died and Isabella followed sentence.

• Rephrased to make it clearer.

• Link to papal legate and prelate?

• Both linked.

• Link to High Court of Jerusalem in the body?

• Linked.

• Is the Thomas of Acera we speak of the same as Thomas I of Aquino? If so, consider linking?

• Yes. Linked.

• In the biblio, link to University of Wisconsin Press and Steven Runciman?

• Both linked.

That's all from me, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 11:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed review. I think I fixed all problems. Borsoka (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

A great article, happy to support for promotion to FA class. Matarisvan (talk) 05:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 11 July 2024 [32].

---

Windswept Adan

Nominator(s): joeyquism (talk page) 21:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

In 2018, Japanese folk musician Ichiko Aoba made a small splash in the international market with the album qp. Over the next two years, the ripples from that splash grew into waves, culminating in her mesmerizing 2020 album Windswept Adan, her first truly global release. Aoba's creativity is on full display on this record, which follows a narrative written by Aoba about a young girl exiled to a mystical island inhabited by bioluminescent "creatures". With its psychedelic-chamber folk instrumentation and beautiful vocal performances, Windswept Adan is an immersive experience and certainly an interesting listen. It's one of my favorite albums of the past 10 years and has a very endearing story behind its development, and I'm of the belief that its article meets FA standards. Thank you! joeyquism (talk page) 21:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "during the production of "Choe,"" - shouldn't that comma be outside the quote marks?
  • Done
• "The album's composition has been analogized to those of composers Erik Satie and Philip Glass" - I think maybe you need to say something like "The album's composition has been analogized to that of works by composers Erik Satie and Philip Glass", otherwise you are saying that the album's composition has been likened to the composition of literally Satie and Glass themselves
  • Done
• "Mattox compared Aoba's singing on the track to "birdsong"." - not sure those quote marks are really needed when the quote is just a single word and it could simply be made a statement of fact
  • Done
• That's all I got - great work and a very interesting read! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for your comments! I've gone ahead and addressed your concerns above. Let me know if you come across anything else! joeyquism (talk page) 14:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Dylan620

I reviewed the recent GAN for this article and found little of concern. The article is thorough, well-written, and engaging. The only remaining feedback I have is that the URL titles for each source should consistently be in either sentence case or title case; right now, the article uses a mixture of both. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 13:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Good to see you again! I've put all the applicable references in title case; let me know if you find any other issues. joeyquism (talk page) 14:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Likewise! I think we're good to go – support! Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 14:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Aoba47

• I am not sure a citation in the infobox is necessary for the single release date. That kind of information should be included and cited in the article.
  • Removed the citation.
• For the lead's second paragraph, I would clarify in the prose who is describing the album with these genres (i.e. critics, fans, etc.). You could alternatively cut the "described" wording to say it is "a chamber folk and psychedelic folk album with elements of jazz, classical, and ambient music". I think the second option would be better.
  • Done.
• Do you think any of her albums, such as Kamisori Otome or qp, would be notable enough to have red links?
  • Unfortunately, coverage of her earlier albums is sparse in both English and Japanese. Only Sputnikmusic has cared enough to review qp in English (there's also a review for Kamisori Otome, but it's made by a user and not a staff member), and I'm not sure that one English source is enough to warrant notability. If only there was more literature on her; I would have loved to create those articles.
    • That makes sense, and thank you for clarifying this point for me. Aoba47 (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Why did qp bring more international attention to Aoba? What about this particular album was unique? Some additional context may be useful here if possible.
  • I'm not sure how to expand upon this, seeing as most mentions of qp in the sources simply state that it was her breakthrough record and received international attention. If there's a particular thing you were thinking about with regards to how I could elaborate on this, please let me know.
    • If there is not further coverage on this, then the current wording is okay. I was only wondering what about qp caused international audiences and reviewers to pay attention to it and what was different about this particular album than her past ones. It just seemed like a bit of context is missing, but I understand if that information is simply not available. Aoba47 (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• For this part, (by "creatures" of an unspecified species), I am uncertain that "creatures" needs to be quoted. Is there a reason for this?
  • "Creatures" is how Aoba describes them in the Windswept Adan companion book. I suppose the quotations are there to clarify both that it is a quotation from the book and also the general descriptor for them, as opposed to "animals" which is a bit more specific and may not accurately reflect the text I'm referring to. For now, I think it would be okay to leave it as is, though if there is further justification as to why I shouldn't quote it, feel free to let me know. I can also provide pictures of the text if needed.
    • Pictures would not be necessary, but thank you for offering. I am still not fully convinced that the quotation marks are necessary for a single word, but I will leave this for other reviewers to decide as it is not a major point in my opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Who is saying these quotes ("tornado of fire" and "variety of living things.")? I'd avoid including quotes without clear attribution in the prose. Also, punctuation should be on the outside of the quotation marks unless you are citing a full sentence.
  • I've removed the quotes for now. I would have thought that something like "which Aoba describes as a 'tornado of fire'" would work somewhat, but it read a bit awkwardly when I previewed it.
• The first sentence of the "Production" subsection is a bit of a run-on with two "with ..." clauses nestled in each other. I think it would be better to make on their prior collaboration for "Amuletum" into a separate sentence.
  • Adjusted.
• I have a comment for this part, (with early arrangements for the track "Pilgrimage" being written during Aoba's first trip to Okinawa). I would avoid the "with X verb-ing" sentence construction as that is a common critique for FACs.
  • Broke the sentence into two.
• I am uncertain about this part, (noted the production process as unconventionally collaborative). I would clarify in the prose that this is Aoba's opinion as there are plenty of cases where the production process is very collaborative.
  • Changed to "Aoba compared the production process to working on a ship".
• I would spell out the EP acronym as extended play to help readers who may be unfamiliar with this type of music jargon. If the acronym is used later on in the article, then I would introduce it as a parenthetical here, i.e. extended play (EP).
  • Done.
• Wouldn't the "Cover art" sub-section be a better fit for the "Release and promotion" section? I normally associate album art with promotion rather than the development of the actual album.
  • Moved to the end of the release section. I thought it seemed a bit out of place there; would this be better off on its own (e.g. a "Packaging" section)?
    • I do not think there is enough information to support a separate section. I would move this information before the "International vinyl release and tour" subsection to avoid presenting information out of chronological order (i.e. talking about the later international release and then going back to the album cover). The reason I suggested this was because the album cover really did not have anything to do with the development of the album and in my opinion has far more to do with the release and marketing. This kind of thing has been done for articles like Mata (album). It may be better to incorporate it into the "Release and promotion" section. Aoba47 (talk) 18:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Done. joeyquism (talk page) 19:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• I am unsure of the rationale for File:Parfum d'étoiles.ogg. I do understand it is being used to illustrate the Erik Satie comparisons that were made for the album as a whole, but I question how useful this would be for readers who never heard anything by Satie. I think audio samples are very helpful for album article, but I am uncertain about the rationale here. It may be best to wait for other reviewers to look at this, but since I thought about it, I wanted to raise it to your attention.
  • I understand your concern here, and I do agree that it would be unhelpful to those who are unfamiliar with Satie's work. I'd still like to include the sound bite, though; perhaps a general description of the audio would suffice? Maybe something to do with the prepared piano performance? I can move the felt covering part that appears in the development section to the composition section if needed. Let me know what you think.
    • I do not think changing the rationale to something about the prepared piano would be a good idea as that is more about the song and not about the album. By that I mean, it does not appear that the felt covering or the prepared piano performance have been discussed outside of this one song, but please let me know if I have missed something. The audio sample should focus on something that is representative of the album as a whole. I could just be overly nitpick-y on this part. Aoba47 (talk) 18:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  I feel that there is some merit in including this sound bite, as it is representative of the style and composition of the album, after all. I've edited the blurb beneath it to include information about its inclusion of vocalizations and field recordings, both of which have been featured in other tracks on the album and are mentioned in other paragraphs in the same section. I should also note that the articles for Loveless, Kids See Ghosts, and the recently-listed Worlds feature sound bites with descriptions of the songs themselves, rather than within the context of the album as a whole. I don't feel as if you're being nitpick-y; this is valid criticism and I'd rather address it properly than blow it off. joeyquism (talk page) 19:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for the response and links to the FAs. I slightly disagree with the Worlds example as the caption does explain how the sample is representative of the album. This is likely a matter of personal preference. I will not hold up my review based on this. It is likely best to wait and see what other reviewers have to say. I agree that the audio sample is overall beneficial. I prefer something that more explicitly says how a song is representative of the album; for instance, the Beats Per Minute review talks about “Parfum d’étoiles” as one of the album's "simplistic piano ballads" which help to maintain its "hostly and serene" tone. But, I recognize this is just my point of view so I would be okay with the audio caption staying the same. Aoba47 (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Noted. If other reviewers comment on this, I will refer to your comments and use them to guide my revisions on the audio description. Thank you for the link to the Beats Per Minute review! joeyquism (talk page) 19:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• I am not sure exactly what this part means, (her portrait on the single's cover artwork as proof). The "portrait" word choice in particular sounds odd. The citation says that she "put herself on the album cover", and that is clearer to me. I would instead say something about she included herself on the cover. The word "portrait" makes me think of portrait painting.
  • Removed the mention of the cover. I thought it sounded a bit awkward while writing it, too.
    • I think this information is relevant so I would include it. It does add further context to why the source views it as an appeal to global audiences. It just needs to be worded more clearly. Aoba47 (talk) 18:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Added it back in with a revised wording. Personally, I'm still a bit iffy on the wording, but if it looks good I won't prune any further. joeyquism (talk page) 19:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• For the track listing, would it be helpful to have a note that Tracks 4, 7, 19, 14 are known just by their Japanese titles. I was initially confused when looking at this section as I was unsure if it these translations were part of the title for all releases.
  • Done.
• For the citation titles, make sure to italicize album titles per MOS:CONFORMTITLE.
  • Done.
• The citations that are in Japanese should have their titles translated to English. I would use the trans-title= parameter for this.
  • Done (hopefully all of them have been covered).
• Citation 33 includes Fantano 2020, but it does not lead to anything. Going off this, I do not think Anthony Fantano's YouTube channel is considered an appropriate source for a FA as it is a WP:SPS. I think the same applies for The Needle Drop. There has been discussions on WP:RSN about him (including this one) and unfortunately, I do not think there is enough of a consensus to support including him. I think these citations would need to be removed.
  • Fixed citation 33. Normally, I wouldn't include a Fantano mention in an article (I didn't do it when rewriting Leak 04-13 (Bait Ones)), but I think his inclusion is justified by the fact that Fantano was one of the first prominent English-language music critics to notice both this record and Aoba in general, seeing as much of the previous Western attention came from one very dedicated reviewer on Sputnikmusic and Beats Per Minute, the latter of which hadn't even reviewed Aoba's work until the release of "Porcelain". Additionally, I tried to refrain from using him as a source on biographical details, and only cited his opinions on the album. I definitely think there are some good points made on both sides in the RSN link you provided; however, I'd like to get more consensus on this before I remove Fantano from the article entirely, and I am open to more discussion about it with you.
    • I will leave that up to other reviewers, specifically whoever does the source review. In my opinion, Fantano is a clear example of WP:SPS and should be avoided for a FA. The fact that Fantano was one of the first prominent English-language music critics to discuss this album and this artist does not make him a reliable or high-quality source. Sources are not considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards just because they are the first to discuss something. Self-published sources such as blogs are typically avoided even for reviews. Again, that is just my opinion though, and it is always best to get as many opinions as possible. Aoba47 (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Given your justification, I've decided that I'm going to remove him from the article. While I enjoy his reviews and do believe that at some point his reviews should be treated with the same regard as those of Robert Christgau, I agree with your point that his inclusion is not entirely warranted by his attention and therefore should not be considered reliable solely based on this. I'll get to removing his citations after I reply to your last comment. Thank you for your insight on this! joeyquism (talk page) 19:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Just an idea, but you could try to justify Fantano's inclusion by providing evidence that he is a respected and noteworthy critic (i.e. links in respected music websites about him, etc.). I am not saying that it would necessarily work, but if you would like to keep his sources, I think that would be a better argument. The difference with Robert Christgau is that he worked as a music journalist for various reliable sources. You could also try asking other editors about this who specialize in music. Just to be clear, I can relate to this as I have run into annoying issues with sources and whether or not they are appropriate for a FA or Wikipedia in general. It is a learning process for sure, and I am still very much learning myself. Aoba47 (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  I have an uneasy feeling that future reviewers may also be reluctant to the inclusion of Fantano's reviews on the article; Fantano's reliability has been discussed ad nauseam on the wiki, and I would rather avoid providing fuel for potential arguments (the discussion you linked contained particularly charged remarks from some users). Nevertheless, I have saved the references and prose in a note in case of a suggestion that it be added back. I may also bring it up in the Wikimedia Discord server for quick perspectives, but for now, I am comfortable with excluding him per your comments. joeyquism (talk page) 20:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I really enjoyed reading this article. I have honestly never heard of this artist or this album, but I knew that I had to review this FAC as it does involve part of my username. I just wish my Japanese was not so rusty. I hope these comments are helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times to make sure I have not missed anything. Please let me know if you have any questions about my comments. I hope you are having a great end to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• @Aoba47: Glad to hear you enjoyed reading the article! Hopefully I've thoroughly addressed all of your concerns above, and I would love to hear back about your thoughts on some of the things I may have contested. Hope you're having a great weekend as well! joeyquism (talk page) 17:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you for the kind words. I have left my responses above. I will read through the article again sometime either tomorrow or on Sunday if that is okay with you. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  That is entirely fine with me! Thank you for your good luck wishes, and I'm looking forward to hearing back from you soon. joeyquism (talk page) 19:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  I have looked through the article a few more times and I do not have anything else to comment on. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I hope you have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  Awesome!! Thank you so much for your review and support, and I hope you have a wonderful weekend yourself! joeyquism (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Image review by Generalissima

• File:Windswept Adan cover.jpeg Fair use image, typical use-case here as an album cover.
• File:Pandanus tectorius.jpg - Various CC licenses. I right-aligned this, as it could cause sandwiching issues on wider monitors in this position.
• File:Bolivian charango 001.jpg - Released into PD.
• File:Ichiko Aoba UK - 3 September 2022 (cropped).jpg - CC-BY.
• All images have good alt-text and seem relevant to the article.

Support on image review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Chart history (IanTEB)

This article is really great. While I haven't done a thorough enough deep dive to provide any comments about what's already included, I think there ought to be a mention of the album's chart history. It made a single appearance at 85 on the Billboard Japan Hot Albums and made two appearances on the Top Album Sales chart with a peak at 43 (the latter can probably be omitted for being a component chart). On the Oricon Albums Chart, it charted two weeks upon release and peaked at 88; it later resurfaced half a year later in July 2021 with a new peak at 63. Oricon in total accounted for 1,386 sales. This is not too much information and can probably be worked into the reception section. IanTEB (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC) Oh my goodness; thank you for notifying me of this. I can't believe that I overlooked this information, and will add it promptly. As for the Oricon data, is there a specific link that you obtained this information from? Oricon's ranking data past the top 50 albums seems to be paywalled entirely, and I don't have a Japanese address that would allow me to purchase it (that being said, I would be incredibly annoyed if I had to do so). If there's a reliable (and preferably free) source that exists out there for this information, please let me know. Thank you again for the help! joeyquism (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

NØ

• While probably pedantic, I prefer to say an album was released "by" a label and not "through" it, if you want to take a suggestion.
  • Done. I feel that this reads better, too.
• Do you think the album title for qp should be lowercased? Stylizations generally aren't used in wiki text aside from one mention
  • I've gone ahead and capitalized "Q" in the title for each instance. It does seem that most references to Qp in the literature are written in lowercase, but I'd say a regular title case stylization for this article is fine with me.
• I like the quote in the Production section but couldn't it just be part of the prose after the colon instead of a blockquote?
  • MOS:BLOCKQUOTE states that for quotes that are "more than about forty words or a few hundred characters", one should format them as block quotations; this one is 44 words long by my count. I've left this as is, but if you still don't find it suitable, feel free to let me know!
• The title used in ref 62 is "Windswept Adan on Billboard Japan Hot Albums", even though the link seems to go to the full chart. I think "Billboard Japan Hot Albums" would be a more appropriate ref title, considering.
  • I've reduced the titles for both references to Billboard Japan charts.
• That's all from me. Really enjoyed this article!--NØ 16:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your kind words, MaranoFan! If there's anything further that you'd like me to address, please let me know. Hope you're having a wonderful day :) joeyquism (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Happy to support this article for promotion. You did a really great job with this!--NØ 18:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you so much! joeyquism (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Source check and comments (IanTEB)

I've been requested to do a spot check of the Japanese sources in here particularly. I'll also give some miscellaneous comments if I find anything.

• [4]: The source technically does not say that "Amuletum" and "Bouquet" were released as two singles; they were issued on one double A-side titled "Amuletum Bouquet". The article isn't incorrect since single can have two interpretations: a song promoted as a single (which would apply to both songs), or the release itself. Since the Natalie source (and Japanese music reporting in general) seems to favor the release definition, "in conjunction with the release of the songs 'Amuletum' and 'Bouquet' as a joint single" / "double A-side single" could be more accurate. Very minor thing.

• Done; thank you for this clarification! joeyquism (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• [a]: Not a spotcheck, but I would incorporate footnote directly into the prose since the connection between the title and Pandanus tectorius is hard to grasp without it and not everyone would check footnotes. This is just a personal preference, though, feel free to ignore.

• I was also thinking about this earlier; however, this seems extraneous enough to where it could be left out of the prose and put inside a footnote. I think that a random link to a Japan Tourism Agency article would be a bit out of place here. I may change my mind later, but for now I've left this as is. joeyquism (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• [5]: verified. I also cross-checked the translated Tokion to the original Japanese counterpart; all checks out. Though, Tokion does have an article you could link.

• I think the English version is more pertinent here, as the article is for an English language audience; however, if there's a way to link a non-English edition in a source, I'll add it. joeyquism (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• [5] (second use): verified
• [7]: verified. Though, Masato Matsumura should be credited as interviewer on the Cinra source.

• Done for both Cinra sources. joeyquism (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• [8]: mostly good but does she specifically specify going to the islands to write? The sentence would be understood the same if those two words are cut, so I hope it's not a big deal.

• Done. joeyquism (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• [10]: verified, against Japanese edition as well
• [16]: verified, assuming good faith on liner notes unless you have a link you can send

• I've included all the liner notes and the pages of the book that I used on this Google doc - let me know if you have trouble accessing it.

• "the single" can be removed before "Amuletum" in Production since it has already been introduced in Background

• Done. joeyquism (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• [17]: verified. Ototoy should be changed to lowercase per English capitalization rules, though.

• Done. joeyquism (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• [18]: verified
• [18] (second use): verified
• [19]: verified
• [21]: verified; again assuming good faith on liner notes
• [22]: verified
• [23]: verified
• [18] (third use): verified
• [22] (second use): verified
• [22] (third use): verified. The description of the charango is not fully included, but simple descriptions have leeway. It could maybe be shortened to "a lute family instrument traditionally used in South America"

• Fair point; I was most referring to the wiki page for charango, which isn't necessarily reliable on its own. I've reduced to just "lute-like instrument traditionally used in South America" joeyquism (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• [22] (fourth use): verified
• [24]: verified
• [26]: verified, but add subscription notice to the Financial Times cite

• I should have checked this before; thank you for pointing this out. Done. joeyquism (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Is the Japanese title to Ai Ga Nakucha Ne necessary for this article?

• I figured I'd be consistent with the Japanese title translations regardless of who made the work. I can see how this can be distracting, though. Feel free to let me know what you think and I will prune if needed. joeyquism (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• [39]: verified
• [40]: most of this seems to rely on the Financial Times article, which I cannot access
• Shouldn't Uncut be in italic?

• You're right. Fixed. joeyquism (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• [47]: verified
• [49]: verified
• [51]: verified
• [52]: verified
• Since all other song titles are translated, you could add "(Tagalog for 'repeated whipping') after "Hagupit" per the already cited Cinra interview.

• Done. joeyquism (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• [54]: verified
• [55]: verified
• [56]: verified except for abrupt shifts, which I presume is from the the Financial Times?

• "Abrupt shifts" is indeed from Financial Times. joeyquism (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• [22] (fifth use): verified
• [59]: verified
• [61]: verified, but shouldn't the Bandcamp title be "Windswept Adan on Bandcamp" for consistency with the Apple Music source?

• Standardized all titles for sources from streaming services. joeyquism (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• "Aoba's personal record label" could be removed before Hermine since the label was already introduced in Background

• I think another reference to it being hers is warranted given how far away the background section is from the release section, but I've removed "personal" as it seemed to be fluff. joeyquism (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• [62]: mostly good, but it did not stay for the following two weeks on Oricon; it stayed for two total counting week one, so it should be "where it remained for two weeks".

• Done. joeyquism (talk) 17:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Should there not be an "a" before livestream?

• There are apparently two correct usages of "via" at least according to Merriam Webster: simply "via", and "via a". I find that the latter is rather choppy, so I've decided to leave it as is. joeyquism (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• [63]: verified
• [64]: since this article was published before the event was held, it can not be used to state that the exhibition was held. This is an easy fix; you can add "Aoba announced an exhibition featuring [...] to be held from 4 December to 27 December 2020".
• [65]: same comment as above; just add "She announced another livestream performance"

• Done for both. joeyquism (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• [66]: Verified, but I would also specify "self-cover", or better yet change it to "re-recorded acoustic versions of" (the acoustic part needs to be implemented since it's in the lead). Also, I understand it is more of an EP, but the single title should probably be in quotations rather than italics.

• That's much better. Done. joeyquism (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• [67]: verified, but I would change 音楽ナタリー to Natalie or Natalie.mu, if you want to specify its their music publication

• Seems that I also overlooked this, thank you for pointing it out to me. Done. joeyquism (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• [68]: verified
• [c]: I would remove this footnote since the sources do not contradict each other: Oricon is reporting the lifetime sales count, whereas Billboard is only reporting the sales from that chart week

• Done. joeyquism (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• [69]: verified
• [8] (second use): verified
• [70]: verified
• [71]: verified, but Brutus should be in lowercase

• Changed to title case. joeyquism (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• [72]: verified
• United Kingdom is in Europe. Granted the source also makes this mistake, but I think it is still best to correct (unless its talking about the EU, in which case that should be clarified)

• You are correct, however the United Kingdom and continental Europe tend to be separated in prose due to them being considered separate markets (see Mother's Milk (album)#Commercial performance for an example in the context of marketing) joeyquism (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• [73]: verified
• I would remove the italics to Roots per my comment on [66]

• Done. joeyquism (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• The "All songs on the Roots edition are covers performed by Aoba" text above the track listing for Roots can be removed since this should be in the prose instead

• From what I've seen, points like these are reiterated in the track listing area, regardless of if they appear in the prose or not. I will leave this be for now, but I will remove if other reviewers note that it is not relevant. joeyquism (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• [69] (second use): verified
• [89]: verified
• [90]: verified
• [91]: verified
• [92]: verified
• [91] (second use): verified

For reliability, I've used Tokion, Cinra, and Mikiki, which I consider all of good quality. I've gotten Cinra and Mikiki past my own GAs and they have shared authors with other reliable sources such as Real Sound. Natalie has been vetted reliable by the animanga WikiProject. I've never used Brutus, Ototoy, or An An, but these are primary interviews so I see no problem regardless.

In most of the cases where a citation contains both Japanese and Enligh sources, I've checked all. Citations that I did not check (listed for the convenience of future reviewers): [1], [2], [3], [6], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [20], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [41], [42], [43], [45], [46], [48], [50], [53], [57], [58], [60], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [93], [94].

Overall, really good! IanTEB (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the comprehensive source review, IanTEB! I've addressed your comments above; feel free to let me know if I need to edit further. Hope you're having a great day! joeyquism (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Awesome! My point about the Japanese Tokion article was just that I verfied the accuracy of the Enlgish translation; regardless, I'd encourage wikilinking Tokion on the source. As an additional point, I would capitalize "Gift" in the Aoba chronology and remove the Japanese title in the infobox since I'm unsure if it is standard (you could add Template:Infobox Japanese if you want to keep it in some way, but my opinion is that it looks cluttered without too much use for the reader). Other than that, I'll support in regards to the areas I've checked. IanTEB (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much IanTEB! Regarding your point on Tokion - I think that the one that has an article is not the same as what I'm referring to in the text; they have different publishers and no mention of its past on the website other than a vague "Tokion was relaunched on July 28...", so I'm apprehensive about linking it here. As for your last point, I've capitalized "Gift" and removed the Japanese title for now. Thank you again, and if there's any review you'd like me to do for you in return (I understand that a source review is a lot to ask of someone), I'd be glad to give it a spin! Just leave a comment on my talk page and I'll take a look. joeyquism (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I have a few GAs up, but I would be most grateful if you could review Draft:Same Thing (EP) when I move and eventually nominate it. Good luck with the rest of the FA! IanTEB (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments 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

• Should we link to "studio album". My thoughts are that lede sentences should be as accessible as possible from as if someone hit "random article". Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• I haven't noticed "studio album" being linked in the first sentence of any FA-quality articles, though I have noticed "album" being linked. Let me know your thoughts on this. joeyquism (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think I mind so much, but one of them should be linked. I could see why someone might be familiar with the word "album" (as in photo album), but not a studio album. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• I've linked "album". joeyquism (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Same for single. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Same logic as above. I initially had this wikilinked in the prose, but someone ran a regex script on the page that removes commonly linked articles. Additionally, "single" is linked in the infobox. joeyquism (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, but we link the first usage in the lede and in the body regardless of tables and templates. Whilst the word "single" is simple, it has a different meaning to a single thing. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Done. joeyquism (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Looking later in the article, It looks like it was 43 on the Billboard chart, which is better than where it started. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• The ranking of 43 is after the album's reissue on vinyl in 2021, and is on the Top Album Sales chart, which is more of a supplementary chart as opposed to the Hot Albums chart, which is a major record chart in Japan, much like the Billboard 200. This inclusion was mostly inspired by the lead section of the article for the album Alicia. joeyquism (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think I may have gotten confused by it both being "Billboard". No drama. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Is it normal to not mention mention the structure of the album (how many songs, etc.) Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• I am not sure that this information is included in a standard album article lead; the number of songs is listed in the track listing section either way. I referred mostly to MOS:ALBUM for this. joeyquism (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Prose

Additional comments

• masterclass" and "beautifully restless" by Sputnikmusic - this is a pet pieve. Publications don't say things, authors do. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Fixed. joeyquism (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• , she wrote the sentence "There were no words on - do we need the caps? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• I would think so - MOS:CONFORM states that:

When quoting a complete sentence, it is usually recommended to keep the first word capitalized. However, if the quoted passage has been integrated into the surrounding sentence (for example, with an introduction such as "X said that"), the original capital letter may be lower-cased.

However, if you have any further thoughts on this, please let me know.

it doesn't seem to end in a full stop, so it can't be a full sentence in that respect. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. joeyquism (talk) 15:35, 22 June 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)} 18:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• The image is a bit weird. There's nothing on it to make one assume it's an album cover - needs at the least a caption. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that this is standard either. I think the most I've seen is a caption for "Standard edition cover" as seen on Red (Taylor Swift album); however, seeing as there are different covers for different versions, I'll consider including a caption given your further feedback. Added. joeyquism (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, it's a bit weird even if it was obviously an album cover not to have a caption, if I'm honest and in this case it's not obvious at all. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  I've had a look at the above, I've done some replies, I'm happy with the rest. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Lee, I've addressed your comments above. If you have any further concerns, feel free to let me know! joeyquism (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  works for me :). support Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for your review and support! I'll see you over at your nomination soon! joeyquism (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Pseud 14

Not much to add on here as the reviews before mine has polished the article really well. Just some very minor comments.

• David Honigmann of Financial Times deemed it a -- David Honigmann of the Financial Times deemed it a
• Other artists whose work has been compared to Windswept Adan -- whose work have been compared
• In the Release History table, I would match the abbreviated form as "Refs" since it is spelled as "References" in full. Or simply "Reference" as it only used one citation is used per row.
• That's all I have. Great work here. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Pseud 14! Thank you for your review. I believe I've addressed everything you mentioned above; feel free to let me know of any further comments that you may have. joeyquism (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Elias

for your review on GiTM I feel honor-bound to review your stuff back 8) as always i lay the caveat you don't have to agree to every suggestion, within reason . if you also have time I have another FAC at Shirt (song) that could use an additional perspective. PSA 🏕️🪐 (please make some noise...) 02:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Most of my comments will be about concision, so here are some phrases to trim:
  • "in conjunction with the release of two songs titled" (I would trim to "alongside the release of two songs, 'Song 1' and 'Song 2'")
    • Done. joeyquism (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
  • "by both Aoba"
    • Done. joeyquism (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
  • "Recording sessions for the album"
    • Done. joeyquism (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
  • "production process"
    • I think there is a distinction between "production process" and just "production" - when I think of the latter, I think of production style rather than the development of an album. Let me know what you think about this, along with other comments I may contest.
  • "for accompaniment on the album"
    • Between the two, I would opt to leave "on the album" in the sentence, as just "for accompaniment" reads a bit to me like they were asking for companionship in general? joeyquism (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
  • "the demos would then shape"
    • I also feel as if this reads awkwardly without "then". While writing this sentence, I also contemplated the inclusion of this word specifically, but ultimately decided to leave it in, as I feel that it adds an element of linearity (i.e. there's a timeline there - Umebayashi made demos, then Aoba wrote based on those demos. I'm not sure if I'm elaborating on this clearly, so feel free to pick my mind further on this). joeyquism (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
  • "Umebayashi stated that he sought"
    • Done. joeyquism (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
  • "suited both Aoba's vocals" and other instances of the word "both", but which ones you'll keep and which ones you'll remove, I leave it to your discretion
    • Removed that instance of "both", but I've opted to include the other instance in "Both Umebayashi and Aoba". joeyquism (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
  • "such as her 2018 album Qp" (you already introduce Qp beforehand)
    • Done. joeyquism (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
  • "the landscape of the island of Adan" (try "the Adan landscape")
    • I've opted to write it as "the landscape of Adan". joeyquism (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
  • "considered it to be her"
    • I feel as if the inclusion of "to be" adds to the formality of the text, akin to something like "Critic considered it to be Artist's magnum opus" versus "Critic considered it Artist's magnum opus". joeyquism (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• "in her native Japan" is not exactly hitting my ear the right way.. can we find a way 2 rephrase?
  • I am unsure of how to rephrase this without omitting the implication that she is from Japan, which is a detail that I'd like to keep in for the sake of clarity (despite her very obviously Japanese name, Ichiko Aoba also could very well be from a melting pot society like those of Canada or the United States - though I do understand that her nationality is clarified in the lead). If it means anything, I will note this phrasing appears in other FAs (see 1991–92 Gillingham F.C. season#January–May and Operation Grandslam#Justification for the use of force). joeyquism (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• "Aoba began drawing attention" - "receiving" seems like the more appropriate word
  • I've kept it as is for now. While I understand (and share) your concerns about WP:ELEVAR as noted later on, I've found that synonyms, when used correctly, can make text more engaging and more adherent to 1a of the FA criteria. Also, "received" is used later on in the paragraph in a different context; I wouldn't want readers to quickly have to contextualize the word differently in adjacent sentences. joeyquism (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• "Windswept Adan was first conceptualized by Aoba" make this active voice. A lot of phrases here can actually be turned into active voice
  • Done. I personally struggle a lot with quickly distinguishing between active and passive voice, so if there are any other phrases in here that alert you, please let me know. joeyquism (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• "ephiphany" obvious
  • This is how she describes it in the Hashimoto/Tokion source. I am of the belief that this is a valid description rather than synthesis - unless you mean that it is obvious that she had an epiphany, in which case I would agree. I'll revise based on a further clarification. joeyquism (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• "The narrative follows a young girl with prophetic powers from a village of inbred families on the fictional remote island of Kirinaki who is exiled by her family to the island Adan to preserve her bloodline while preventing her from participating in intermarriage" i think this is a nitpick, but there are zero pauses in the sentence. Can we can make this more readable
  • Yeah, I had trouble with this sentence too. I've added a comma there just to break it up, as the alternative "The narrative follows a young girl ... on the fictional remote island of Kirinaki. She is exiled by her family to the island of Adan to preserve her bloodline and prevent her from participating in intermarriage" is rather choppy. joeyquism (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• "which had been characterized by its minimalist guitar and vocal arrangements" by whomst ?
  • These are characterizations made by reviewers of Windswept Adan only; there is only one review of Qp by a reliable English source, and no reliable reviews exist for works made earlier than 2018 (as far as I know - either way, I didn't really research that because it wasn't wholly relevant to the subject matter of the article at hand). I don't feel that it would be appropriate to include "characterized by reviewers" or "by critics", because this would likely require further explanation that these reviewers did not review Qp or Aoba's earlier work, but rather retrospectively noted this in their reviews of Windswept Adan. joeyquism (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• "Film" is preferred to "movie", which has a more casual feel
  • Done. However, I did mark this article as being written in American English, where "movie" is the common term and is considered proper, so I may change it back later on. joeyquism (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• "waves crashing" -> "crashing waves" ?
  • I feel that either one works, though I'd rather "crashing" be written as what the waves are doing rather than a descriptor of the waves. joeyquism (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• "Track" is used in several consecutive sentences in the Songs section; should be breezy enough to rephrase
  • I only removed around two instances of the word "track". Let me know if I should prune further. joeyquism (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• To avoid MOS:EASTEREGG, link "the flower" with the definite article, instead of simply the word "flower"
  • Done. joeyquism (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• I don't think links to Cover art and Nude swimming are needed
  • Removed. joeyquism (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• The use of verbs on the critical reception section is giving WP:ELEVAR; using "write/wrote/writing" and "said/saying/say" more is alright
  • I understand your concern here, though I am a bit uneasy when it comes to using these words. From my understanding, WP:ELEVAR is more about using undue antecedents and labels that obscure the reader's understanding, such as in the example listed in the essay:

Have One on Me is the third studio album by American singer-songwriter Joanna Newsom, released on February 23, 2010 via Drag City as the official follow-up to the harpist's highly acclaimed second studio release, 2006's Ys.

To those familiar with Joanna Newsom, "the harpist" is an obvious placeholder for Newsom; however, to an uninformed reader, the inclusion of this label is unclear. I am not sure that ELEVAR applies here, as there doesn't seem to be any instance of a synonym for "said with praise" that detracts from the clarity of the passage (at least to me - let me know how you feel about this). Note that this isn't an excuse for me to not work on this further; I just feel that replacing these words with "wrote" and "said" would dull down the section a bit. joeyquism (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Currently I am unsure about how the section is structured. Right now, it's written by individually listing a handpicked selection of comments made by reviewers, without that much cohesion. I recommend reading WP:RECEPTION, which says, among others, to synthesize common themes that arise from the reviews.
  • I will admit that I did notice this as well and have also read the essay you mentioned here before, though I feel as if there is little in common between most critics' reviews other than the general period of time that they decided to review the work, which I feel takes precedence here. For example, I do recognize that critics like McMullen and Mackay had explicitly praised Aoba's worldbuilding skills, but I'm disinclined to group them together primarily because of the time gap. I also recognize that Thompson, Marston, and Cowan all praised the instrumentation on the album, but I feel like grouping them outside of their current paragraph, which currently groups them as "the later reviews", would be a bit awkward. In other words, I think that maintaining a chronological order is more pertinent here. If only all of the critics had dropped their reviews at around the same time; then I would be more adamant about grouping reviews by what they touch on rather than when their writers made them. Perhaps I'm also just inexperienced in writing reception sections (the reviews for Leak 04-13 (Bait Ones) were stratified across a decade and had little in common as well), but if you have any specific pointers, please let me know. joeyquism (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  PSA, I've since addressed your comments regarding the reception section. joeyquism (talk) 06:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I've pushed back a lot more on this review in contrast to those of other commenters, so I apologize if I came off as belligerent or stand-offish here; that was not my intention. Of course, since I've contested many of your points, I would like to hear your thoughts on my responses. Thank you for a most thorough review, PSA; I think this kind of criticism is what this article needed. I'll take a look at Shirt over the next few days. joeyquism (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi PSA, is there more to come on this? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Gog, I believe that I've addressed most of the issues laid out by PSA, including the reception section that Heartfox also mentioned below; if you have the time to take a look for yourself, an evaluation would be much appreciated, though of course I do not wish to hold you to it against your will. joeyquism (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I may yet do, :-) , but I am here wearing my coordinator hat, wondering what PSA and Heartfox thought of your edits and comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Gog - hope you're doing well! Just writing again to check how you feel about the current status of this nomination looking good to go or not; PSA indicated here that they're currently busy with work training, and while I do not wish to speak on their behalf, I am not really sure as to when they'll be able to respond and I've probably bothered them to death about it off and on-wiki. I apologize if I'm being a bit too insistent here; I'm going to offer the excuse that my judgment is definitely a little off due to a lack of sleep from recent traveling. If this query/reply is inappropriate, of course let me know if I should strike it here. joeyquism (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Heartfox

I agree with PSA that the critical reception section is lacking. I don't see why a 2020 release and a 2021 international release (less than a year apart) are so different that it justifies forgoing thematic structure in favour of chronological structure, which is much less helpful to readers. Even a domestic reception vs. international reception could be more justified and engaging, but it doesn't seem like that would be possible here. The track listing is the same; it's the same album? Normally there would be separate paragraphs if there was like a 1990 release vs a 2010 reissue. Also, all but one of the reviews contains a quotation which doesn't align with MOS:QUOTE "Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style". Unfortunately I oppose per WP:FACR 1a as this section does not feel as engaging as it could be. Heartfox (talk) 03:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Removed nearly every quote and rearranged. Let me know if this is to your liking or not. joeyquism (talk) 06:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Apologies if I came off as irritated or blunt with this reply; I haven't been in the best headspace recently (see my user page) and I will admit that I was a bit dismayed and rather upset after reading your comment. Your criticisms are, of course, valid, and I cannot justify any discourtesy against you for expressing your thoughts. Still, I will reassert my hope that I've addressed your concerns adequately, and I patiently await for your response. Hoping to get a strike through your oppose here at some point before the tentative three-week checking period comes around. joeyquism (talk) 08:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, this section works much better now. Some stuff remains in WP:WIKIVOICE. For example, "applauded Windswept Adan for its cohesion and polished sound" implies that the album is cohesive and polished, but this is an opinion. There are also some MOS:SAID discrepancies, such as the use of "observed" and "noted" in describing opinions. Heartfox (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out, Heartfox. I've since revised "applauded Windswept Adan for its cohesion and polished sound" to "applauded the production on Windswept Adan as cohesive and polished", and replaced the "observed" and "noted" quotes with "wrote that on the album, Aoba had embraced a wide range of sounds..." and "John Lewis said that on Windswept Adan...", respectively. Let me know if this works for you, or if I should edit further. joeyquism (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Nice work, Heartfox (talk) 03:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Heartfox, is there likely to be more to come from you on this nomination? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

My comments were resolved. Heartfox (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 9 July 2024 [33].

---

Hearst Tower (Manhattan)

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

This article is about another skyscraper in New York City. This time, it's the headquarters of the media conglomerate Hearst Communications, which has occupied the site for nearly a century. The tower is unusual both for its shape, readily recognizable by the large triangles on its facade, which double as its structural system. It is also unusual because the lowest part of the building was built 80 years before the tower itself, in anticipation of a high-rise development above it.

This page became a Good Article three years ago after a Good Article review by A person in Georgia, for which I am very grateful. After a recent copyedit by Miniapolis, which I also appreciate, I think the page is up to FA quality. I look forward to all comments and feedback. While the previous nomination was archived due to lack of commentary, I hope that isn't the case this time around. Epicgenius (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Prose review by Generalissima

• Very solid lede, I can't find anything to change there.
• Bit of an uncertain time scale in the second paragraph of the Site section: The Hearst Tower is near an artistic hub while listing a number of organizations which are implied to no longer be in the area makes it uncertain to me whether the artistic hub still exists. (If they do exist, or moved out later than the early 20th century it should be good to specify.)
  • Some of them do still exist, most notably the American Fine Arts Society and Carnegie Hall. However, for the most part the hub has been replaced by Billionaires' Row. Epicgenius (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
    • This would be context to mention then, if you can find a source. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
      • I was largely speaking from my own experience and observations, but it turns out this source actually talks about the artists' hub being replaced with Billionaires' Row. I'll add that source now. Epicgenius (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• Was anything on the site before the Hearst Magazine Building (or is this unknown)? You mention the area during the early 20th century but not the specific lot.
  • I will have to check for this later, but I think there were a bunch of low-rise structures. Epicgenius (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
    • I just added a few sentences about this. Epicgenius (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• Might be good to link gross floor area as I don't remember seeing that specific term before.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• Architecture section in general is very solid. Good job at explaining pretty niche technical details.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• You should cite the source of the quote a rectangular steel box the size of a Smart car at the end of the sentence.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• Nothing jumps out to me in the Features subsection as off.
• I think the efn should go after the parenthesis and period at the end of the Original development subsection.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• Rest of history section seems good.
• The quote from Herbert Muschamp is a little lengthy; would there be a way to shorten it a little?
• The reception section in general is a bit hard to parse, and it seems like many of the quotes could be paraphrased or summarized together; referencing WP:RECEPTION would be a good idea.
  • I've tried to paraphrase and summarize the quotes. In the process, I got rid of the Muschamp quote. Epicgenius (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

That's all for now. Good work on the article as always. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Generalissima, thanks for the feedback. I have addressed some of the issues you raised and will get to the rest of these soon. Epicgenius (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Generalissima, thanks again. I have resolved all of the issues you raised above. Epicgenius (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

The changes look great! Thank you. Support on prose review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually, since the previous FAC got archived for lack of activity, I feel it's best to do an image review too, to prevent a similar fate.

• File:Hearstowernyc.JPG: PD.
• File:W 57th St Nov 2020 160.jpg: CC-BY-SA 4.0
• File:Hearst Tower August 2021.jpg: CC-BY-SA 4.0
• File:Hearst Tower Lobby October 2006.jpg: CC-BY-SA 3.0 (It might be a good idea to mark in the caption that this photo was taken in 2006)
• File:HearstMagazineBuilding.JPG: CC-BY-SA 3.0
• File:Nueva York7042.JPG: CC-BY-SA 4.0/GNU Public Documentation License.
• All images are properly formatted, appropriate to the article, and have good alt-text. Support on image review as well. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

750h

• I was the only reviewer at the previous nomination which was unfortunately archived; my support still stands however. great work as always! 750h+ 05:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Source review - pass

I will do a source review.--ZKang123 (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• (Before the almighty Gog comes in, ensure all titles are in title case or sentence case)
  • I actually did that already (using your script). Epicgenius (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• The present link of ref 1 brings me to "experience.arcgis.com". I think you can remove the "NYC.gov" website parameter and just wikilink the department (or not, see later comments)
  • I removed the parameter. Epicgenius (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Ref 2 checks out on the addresses. It doesn't exactly support that the building was designated a landmark in 1988, though the document was dated as so, only mentioning the hearings in 1987.
  • The landmark designation date is listed at the top of the report (February 16, 1988, Designation List 200), but I've added another source for this. Epicgenius (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Ref 4 checks out on the location (which is south of the station; took a bit of finding for me). Minor prose comment, but I'm unsure if it's necessary to mention what services serve the 59th Street–Columbus Circle station. And should it be "in the base" or "at the base"? I suppose the entrances lead directly into the station?
  • Yes, there are entrances within the building itself to the station (i.e. at the base). I've removed the services. Epicgenius (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Ref 5: Remove that stray "[" in the publisher parameter.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Please also be consistent in wikilinking the various publishers or websites, given I see in Ref 4 you did for the MTA but not for the other departments (or do their articles don't exist?) Personally I prefer wikilinking all just in case, but it's up to you whether to link every first instance, or not link them at all. (Truthfully this is rather trivial and depends on every editor - as far as I'm aware there's no proper consensus).
  • I've removed the link. (It was added through a template, but I've substed the template to get around this.) Epicgenius (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Ref 7: Not sure which part of the page supports his decision to develop the building. I guess it's this part?
  • "In the same year Hearst engaged his by then close friend Joseph Urban to design the International Magazine Buildin;J. It was to be located on West 57th Street, a rapidly developing section of New York already distinguished by imposing commercial buildings, carnegie Hal 1 (1891), the Art Students' league (1892) and numerous art galleries much frequented by Hearst."
    • Yes, that is correct. Epicgenius (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Ref 8 checks out
• Ref 19 checks out. Also skyscrapercenter.com is an academic resource from my understanding.
• Ref 37 supports on the facade being retrofitted ("how the choice of a diagrid system - a highly efficient triangulated truss tube structure – met the engineering and architectural requirements for the tower.")
• Refs 56, 76 checks out.
• Ref 116 checks out. Would add a bit more mention about the public hearings.
• Ref 128 checks out, especially the claim about it being "the most beautiful skyscraper to go up in New York since 1967, when Skidmore, Owings & Merrill completed the stunningly serene 140 Broadway, in lower Manhattan."
• Ref 142 checks out (but what's with the additional p15 for?)
  • I've removed page 15. Epicgenius (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Ref 21 checks out

Almost all good. No other issues on the reliability of sources (most are from NYT or architectural academic groups). Just a couple of edits needed.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@ZKang123: Thanks for the source review. I've addressed all these issues now. Epicgenius (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Everything is in order. Passed.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Joeyquism

Hello! I'll get to writing out my review when I wake up tomorrow; should be done by Tuesday or Wednesday evening at the latest. joeyquism (talk) 06:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Below I have listed my comments on prose; feel free to refuse with justification:

• The lead is (almost) perfect, as noted above by Generalissima. I do question whether "pylon" should be wikilinked here along with the first mention in the body - someone with little knowledge of architectural terminology (such as myself, an admission which may ultimately deem my review dubious) may not be aware of the concept. Please excuse my ignorance if the link above is for the incorrect usage of the word.
  • That seems like an appropriate link. I've added it. Epicgenius (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
    • I'm of the belief that this should also be linked once in the body as well (particularly in the sentence beginning "The base contains six pylons"). However, I shall leave this decision up to you, and this minute point should not influence my final vote. joeyquism (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• ... the site was commonly referred to as the Hegeman site. - Are there any sources that would better corroborate the use of "commonly"? I cannot view the source in the reference tag for whatever reason; if it does state "commonly" or something in the area of "referred to as the Hegeman site", please let me know, but otherwise, I think the use of that word with only one reference is only a little bit misleading.
  • Good point. I've removed "commonly" as it was just in that one source. Epicgenius (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• The two sections combined 597 feet (182 m) are tall ... - I found myself in a bit of trouble when reading this sentence. Is it supposed to be something like "The two sections are combined 597 feet (182 m) tall", or is this a particular way of architectural phrasing?
  • Nope, that wording was an error. I've also fixed it (it should be "The two sections are a combined 597 feet (182 m) tall", but I've reworded this sentence to "The two sections have a combined height of 597 feet (182 m)" for clarity). Epicgenius (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the clarification. New wording looks good. joeyquism (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• ...the windows on the third through sixth stories of the facade illuminate the atrium. - Perhaps add the word "now" in between "facade" and "illuminate", as the current purpose of the windows is a consequence of the later removal of the office space
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• hydraulic boom arm had two periods following it in this revision. Notifying you to let you know I've removed this.
  • That looks good, thanks. Epicgenius (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Rest of the architecture section looks great.
• ... the approval took a relatively-short three hours. - The source states that the formal review took "2 hours and 40 minutes"; would it be worth it to specify this further as "took less than three hours"? Maybe not the best wording here, but something in the ballpark would be a little better. Note that I did not do a comprehensive spot check. Otherwise, no further complaints on history section.
  • I have changed it to "the approval took less than three hours", but feel free to let me know if you instead prefer that I include the exact time it took. Epicgenius (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
    • This wording should be good. joeyquism (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• ... the structure was designed "an unusual style, by an unusual [and unusually talented] designer". - Add the word "in" after "designed"?
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

This article was excellently written. At points, my scrutiny would become pettifoggery, and I could not justify the inclusion of such comments in my review to myself (perhaps the written comments are already over-exacting). Once the remarks above are addressed, I will very likely come back to support. Thank you for a most wonderful read, and well done! Hope you're having a great beginning to your week. joeyquism (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Joeyquism, and I appreciate the fix you made as well. I've now addressed the issues you pointed out. Epicgenius (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: I've added a little footnote after your reply to the first point, but as indicated, I will not let this defer my vote any further. I would say we're generally good to go here. Support :) joeyquism (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

SC

• "Above it is the Hearst Tower addition, which was completed in 2006 and designed by Norman Foster.” It may be better to tweak this so it’s a little more chronological (ie. "Above it is the Hearst Tower addition, designed by Norman Foster, which was completed in 2006."
  • I've done this, but I used a slightly different wording to avoid repeating the phrase "which was completed in". Epicgenius (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• "The tower is on…" As this is the opening of the article, probably best to full name it here.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• "200.00 by 200.83": is there a way to get it to '200 by 200.83'?
  • Yes. I've done this. Epicgenius (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• Instead of "several headquarters of organizations", it’s slightly better to say "headquarters of several organizations"
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• "Sixteen people had owned the land": was this joint ownership, or were there 16 plots of land held separately?
  • Actually, it's neither of these. There were fewer than 16 plots (I don't know how many plots there were, precisely). However, each plot had a separate owner, and several plots had multiple owners. Epicgenius (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• I'm a bit bemused by the sentence "There are no vertical columns within the tower's footprint", when columns are discussed lower down (including "Mega columns"!), and the photo appears to show what looks like columns!
  • Oops, I have no idea how that slipped into the article, especially given that the sources don't actually mention this. (Also, the primary columns are diagonal rather than vertical, but I think that nuance will be lost on most readers.) Epicgenius (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• "Hearst reportededly met": A bit there needs to be deleteded
  • Oops again. I've fixed this. Epicgenius (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• "List of America's Favorite Architecture": Any reason that is in quote marks?
  • Nope. I've removed them. Epicgenius (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• Footnote D looks more like a citation than a footnote to me
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

That's the lot – all very minor fare in an excellent article. - SchroCat (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments SC. I believe I have now addressed all of the issues you raised. Epicgenius (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Nice piece of work. - SchroCat (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments from HAL

Staking out a block. I'll drop some comments soon. ~ HAL333 02:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi HAL333, just checking if you still intend to work on this one. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• All books should have publisher locations or none should. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Gog the Mild, thanks for pointing this out. I went with "none should". – Epicgenius (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 9 July 2024 [34].

---

Qalaherriaq

Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

This article is on Qalaherriaq (AKA Erasmus Augustine Kallihirua and many, many other names), a young Inughuit lad who served as a interpreter (after an essential abduction) in the 1850s, converted to Christianity, and tragically died at around 22. This was my first article in a series on Inuit interpreters. I have tried to squeeze as much as I can out of these sources, and it's the kind of story I'd like to run at TFA down the line :3 Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Why two copies of the same image?

• File:Qalaherriaq, 1850s, Inughuit hunt (cropped).jpg is missing alt text

• File:Qalaherriaq_signature.svg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Qalaherriaq,_1850s,_Inughuit_hunt_(cropped).jpg, File:Qalaherriaiq_map.jpg, File:Qalaherriaq,_Buried_Esquimaux.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Alrighty, licensing and alt-text should all be fixed. I originally had two of the same because I wanted to show both angles of the double-portrait but also thought the front-facing was the best image of him... but I was able to find a good-quality scan of an 1855 drawing of him, and that I think is a step up. Generalissima (talk) (it/she)

• • • When and where was File:Qalaherriaq_signature.svg first published? Ditto File:Qalaherriaiq_map.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

    Signature is from a letter which was later stored in archives, which I guess counts as unpublished. The map I realize was not included in the book about the subject and is also unpublished. Corrected this. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria, any further thoughts? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Nothing from me. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

sawyer777's comments

will be back later; ping me if i seem to have forgotten about it! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 05:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• (in Wolstenholme Fjord section) especially during an era marked by severe hardship for the Inughuit. some context may do well here - what was particularly hard about this era, compared to other periods of Greenlandic history? ... sawyer * he/they * talk 08:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
• A short biography, Kalli, the Esquimaux Christian, was published by Reverend Murray in 1857, becoming the main primary source on Qalaherriaq's life. i'd like to hear a little more about this biography, if there's more to write about it - what kind of impact did it have? how did it reflect the relationship between Murray & Qalaherriaq? ... sawyer* he/they * talk 03:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  • The sources elaborate on this a little - I added some context. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• The crew encountered several abandoned igluit at the site of Uummannaq, now Pituffik. Inside one igloo, the crew found a heaped pile of seven bodies, the survivors were assumed to have fled the area without burying the dead due to an epidemic. presumably the seven bodies were victims of the epidemic, but this definitely took me a second to figure out, especially as the immediate context is looking for victims of a violent massacre. edit: it's also a comma splice

... sawyer * he/they * talk 03:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• • Oops, fixed.

sawyer777's source review

incoming! (disclosure: Generalissima asked me to do a source review) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 04:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Cyriax 1962 could use archiving.
  • I don't think it's possible to archive, as it's paywalled by T&F. I archived the museum source tho. - G
  • side-note, i often wish the archiving parameters didn't strictly require the URL, so that we could avoid URL-DOI redundancy. (OR if we had DOI archiving parameters??)
• also don't think the "via" parameter helps much here, and it's given inconsistently.
• no issues with the sourcing quality; primary sources are designated as such and the secondary sources are mostly academic. the non-academic sources (Nunatsiaq News, Canadian Encyclopedia which is marked green, & maybe Malaurie 2003?) don't give me much pause, and seem perfectly good for what they're cited to.
• spot-check:
  • ref 1a - yep
  • 3b - also good
  • 7a - yes
  • 11a - yes
  • 16 - yes
  • 20 - a lot packed into this one, & it all checks out!
  • 26 - i assume this is supposed to say p. 994, in which case it checks out (& can be merged with ref 28). poor guy :,(
    • Oops, fixed. - G
  • 33 - yes, and could probably be changed to just p. 986
    • Fixed. -G
  • 37 - page does not mention an autopsy but otherwise good. (the autopsy is mentioned on p. 994, so you could just add that to the citation!)
    • Fixed. - G
• in general, not many complaints! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 06:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
• @Sawyer777: I think everything is fixed up! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  all checks out for me; good work. with the context of the other reviews, support! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 06:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Sawyer777 and thanks for your work on this, Can I just double check that I should take this as a pass on the source review, a pass on the spot check, and a general support for promotion? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  yep! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 17:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Support by Pickersgill-Cunliffe

• Suggest including the "HMS" in the ship links, looks awkward splitting it up
  • Fixed. - G
• Forsyth was a commander, not a captain
  • Fixed. - G
• A word or two introducing what Prince Albert and Assistance were doing in the area when first mentioned would be useful. They're currently thrown into the text a little haphazardly
  • Added context here.
• John Ross should be Sir John Ross - also maybe a word to note that he wasn't actually part of this official search party?
  • Fixed. - G
• The text raises some confusion over the different groups of ships looking for Franklin. Initial reading suggests that Penny and the Assistance groups (you should also note who was leading this, because it's currently unclear with the first mention of senior officers being both Forsyth and Ommanney) were separate, but we then get "Ommanney and Petersen returned..." which suggests otherwise. The text should more obviously explain the makeup of this group of ships, what it was doing and who was a part of it
  • Added context as above.
• Considering there's no link, a word or two prefacing what exactly Prince Albert is would be useful
  • Fixed. - G
• "Snow's" - give his full name and explain who he is, why should the reader find his account impactful?
  • Done. - G
• Link brigs
  • Done. -G
• Per above, if you're going to preface a ship with its type then do that for all of them
  • Okay, done. - G
• Suggest redlinking ship names where appropriate, e.g. HMS Sophia
  • Done. - G
• Do we know anything about Lady Franklin? She isn't showing up in any of my lists of Royal Navy ships
  • Ah, she's not Royal Navy it turns out! Private ship built for the purpose. Corrected. - G
• "the life of the party" is there a particular person attributed to this quote?
  • I knew I saw this somewhere talking about him, but I could not find it again. I took the quote out. - G
• "and do not reflect"
  • Fixed. - G
• Link midshipman
  • Corrected. - G
• "an Assistance midshipman" suggests there were others, when actually Markham was the only one in the expedition
  • Oh, good point. Corrected. - G
• "of the Franklin expedition"
  • Fixed. - G
• "Qalaherriaq was placed in St Augustine's College"
  • Fixed. - G
• "Qalaherriaq had suffered"
  • Fixed. -G
• "Captain Ommanney"
  • Fixed. - G
• Split out the links for Edward Feild and Bishop of Newfoundland
  • Fixed. - G
• Suggest adding a conversion for the £25
  • Added. - G
• "Memorial University.)" Move full stop outside of bracket
  • Good catch, fixed. - G

Some initial comments here. I will look to come back at a later date for another read through. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• @Pickersgill-Cunliffe: I'm sorry that it took a while (and that I finished during a time where you assuredly quite busy!) But I added context and implemented your suggestions. :) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Pickersgill-Cunliffe, 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) 13:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• I've been meaning to get back to this for ages now but it kept slipping my mind. Happy to support. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

SC

Putting down a marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 09:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

SchroCat Gog the Mild (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes? - SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Apologies. False alarm. I somehow managed to miss your entire review below! Time for a break I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

LOL - no problems! - SchroCat (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

IB

• In the article you list numerous variations of his name, but only include two here. Any reason?
  • There are so many that I had to trim it down a little bit; Qalaherriaq and Kallihirua are the only ones common in modern academic sources, and the latter is luckily contained within his baptismal name. The other ones are mostly minor spelling variations from period accounts. I added a brief efn here, inspired by other articles of figures with numerous names.

Lead

• "victim to a British abduction": "victim of a British abduction" would be more common in BrEng, (or, even better, "victim of abduction by the British"), but is your form okay in CanEng?
  • I think "victim of" is more universal anyhow, so I'll use it. - G

Search for Franklin's expedition

• "the Admirality launched": Spelling: Admiralty
  • Fixed, thank you. - G

Interpreter service

• In the quote box: "Ethnology, 1875 [13]" there's a naughty little space crept in before the citation
  • Oops! Fixed. - G
• "of the HMS Resolute ... the HMS Pioneer": we're not supposed to use the definite article before ships are introduced: just HMS will suffice
  • Oh, TIL. Fixed. - G
• 'uncivilised life."': should be 'uncivilised life".', per WP:LQ
  • Ooh yep, fixed. - G
• "a adolescent son": "an adolescent son"
  • Fixed. - G

England

• "Eskimaux and English vocabulary, for the use of the Arctic expeditions": as this is a book, it should be in title case
  • Oops, yep. Fixed! - G

That's my lot. Interesting article which I enjoyed. – SchroCat (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• @SchroCat: I think I have responded to everything! Thank you so much. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support. All good for me. - SchroCat (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Support from PMC

Committing to a review, throw popcorn at me if I don't get to it within a week. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Please picture me dodging an onslaught of popcorn as I leave these comments.

• The lead is a nice tidy summary of the article
• Minor gripe "describe him as victim" normally that would be "as the victim", no?
  • Fixed. - G
• "with his family mourning him". The "with X" construction always reads a bit awkwardly to me (especially since the sentence says "with...without"). It might take some jiggling - maybe split it into its own sentence? "His family, who never learned his fate, mourned him as lost"? idk.
  • Does this make more sense now? - G
  • Side note: body says his mother mourned, lead says family. Minor contradiction but it is one so I'm pointing it out
    • Ah yeah fair point. Source just says "mother" TBF, so aligning with body. - G
• I'd cheat that crayon drawing bigger with upright=1.5 at least. Could do the ship image too.
  • Good idea. - G
• "A landing party, including Charles Forsyth and Captain Erasmus Ommanney went to shore aboard HMS Intrepid, followed by the other ships." - I think this either needs another comma after Ommanney, or no comma after party
  • Yeah. - G
• 4/5 bluelinks in the Cape York landing section are dupelinks (exception of Kalaallit). Not sure they're far enough away from the originals that it's justified
  • Good point, fixed. - G
• "Qalaherriaq was described in Ommanney's diary..." this sentence is very passive voice. Not a hill I'll die on but you could revise to be more active, along the lines of: "Ommanney's diary described Qalaherriaq as readily volunteering to go with the expedition, not even returning to camp to gather his possessions."
  • Yeah, that works better. - G
• "family; however, this account" - I think you need the semi-colon or the however but not both
  • Oh, yeah. I'm bad with semicolons. - G
• I think para 1 and 2 of Interpreter service work better as one, since they're both on the same topic. Come to consider - are the "later British sources" you mentioned earlier after the "period descriptions" in para 2? Might want to rearrange these to be chronological
  • Those are the period sources (later meaning "after the expedition", but now I realize one isn't even British. Fixed this a bit.)
• "Qalaherriaq's volunteering to service" the grammar here just feels awkward to me. "Qalaherriaq's decision to volunteer" perhaps?
  • Good point. - G
• "Qalaherriaq was originally supposed to be returned to his family" per who?
  • Petersen, clarified. - G
• 3 more dupelinks here - HMS Resolute, Inuktun, and Greenlandic (you duplicate Greenlandic a couple more times later too)
  • Oops. Fixed. - G
• I might make the box quote a little skinnier here, it feels odd to have it sticking out so far past the image (this is one hundred percent what I would call a personal aesthetic preference, so if you like it as it is, I won't be shirty)
  • Yeah, that's a fair point though. - G
• "a trope of" - troupe, I think?
• "Qalaherriaq was the subject of..." this sentence is very long
• "do not reflect Inuit mapping" - my focus is more on clothing, so I'm not sure of this, but did the Inuit have much of a written cartographic tradition? If so, how did it differ from the European style?
  • They had carved models of coastlines! Thank you, that's a good thing to mention. - G
• "due to a recent epidemic" do we know what of? No worries if not
  • Sadly, the sources don't specify.
• I understand the decision to use Inuit words for things that aren't common in English, but since "igloo" is the common English term, why not use it?
  • Yknow, that's fair. - G
• you know what I always do when I come across a plague grave, I excavate it
• This is once again an aesthetic thing, but having the image and quote both on the left feels odd.
  • I don't think I could avoid sandwiching if they were alternated here.
• "Here he learned to read and write while receiving a religious education. During his time at St Augustine's, he additionally served as an apprentice to a local tailor." - you could combine these two sentences
  • Good idea. - G
• Why stick the painting paragraph at the end, out of chronological order?
  • Ooh, yeah, flows better that point. - G
• Poor Qalaherriaq. This is a pretty straightforward biography - just curious, is there any modern analysis or reflection about him worth including?
  • Just the sources I cite already; but they aren't really talking about each-other, mostly just critiquing the 19th century accounts. -G

Mostly nitpicks and gripes, no serious concerns or issues. Another excellent piece of hidden history from you. ♠PMC♠

• @Premeditated Chaos: Okay! I think I got to everything. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Looking good to me! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Joeyquism

Also committing to a review here. Should get to it when I wake up. joeyquism (talk page) 07:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

What an incredibly unfortunate and sad story. Nevertheless, it's very interesting and you've written it beautifully overall. Some things that I've noted are listed below; feel free to refuse suggestions with justification:

• Upon the officers' return to their ships, Beck became notably distressed. - What I'm thinking here is the use of "notably" in the case of fame or being worth paying attention to, which is technically not incorrect if applying the latter definition, but I think "noticeably" is a bit better here.
• When the same information about the North Star was repeated to the explorers and denied any violence against the British, Petersen was convinced that Beck had confused the information about the North Star with Franklin's expedition. - Missing a clear indicator as to who denied the violence; was it the officers/interpreters, or the Inughuits (both of whom are also assumedly explorers in this case)? Might be pedantry, but may be worth bringing up IMO.
• ... where the Inuk is depicted as praising European civilization ... - Is "Inuk" the antecedent for Qalaherriaq, or are the Inuk people in general depicted as praising Europeans? Within the context, it's clear what it means, but could be made a bit clearer.
• Add {{American English}} template

Otherwise, I'm not seeing anything glaring that needs to be fixed; of course, let me know if I'm being a pedant above. Very well-done; I am personally feeling a lot sadder now having read the accounts of that poor boy :( Thank you for your work in wonderfully telling the story of a young man who definitely deserved a much, much better life. joeyquism (talk page) 15:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• @Joeyquism: I think I fixed everything you've mentioned here. Thank you very much for your review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Support - Looks great! Thank you for all your hard work on this article; it was a great read. joeyquism (talk page) 18:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

elias

full disclosure, I learned about the existence of the FAC through WP:Discord, though this review is completely by my own accord . i'll try to leave some comments this weekend . PSA 🏕️🪐 (please make some noise...) 04:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok @Generalissima, two initial comments I have:

• "He arrived at St. John's in October 1855, and began study at the Theological Institute" am I tweaking or does "study" need a conjugation here?
  • Ok, I thought "began study" was a more common phrasing but it turns out to be pretty archaic so I rephrased it. - G
• You have a missing comma after "vessel" in "coupled with the Inughuit's great excitement aboard the vessel resulted in no useful information"
  • Fixed. - G

Will read the rest tomorrow evening since I still have a tight schedule this week. PSA 🏕️🪐 (please make some noise...) 13:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, now that that's out of the way...

• You describe Inuktun in #Name as a dialect, but the article for it says it's a language. I understand terminology in linguistics can be a bit of a headache, so I wanted to clarify your usage of the terms here.
  • From what I can tell, it's classified as a dialect - of both Greenlandic and Inuktitut (dialect continuums are weird).
• I would've edited this into the page but chose not to because it might come across as a stylistic preference. "these" in "these first of the expeditions" miiiight be a typo/be changed to "the"
  • Opes, yes. The first of these expeditions.
• "under the command of" can be trimmed to "commanded by", a phrase you use for the other folks
• "other British caretakers; as the secretary of the Society, had previously worked" what does this mean
  • Oops, missing a pronoun (and works better as a clean sentence break.)

That's pretty much all. Overall well-written; it just has a few things that need to be ironed out. Sorry it took me this long. Elias (PSA) 🏕️🪐 | [please make some noise] 00:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

• @PSA: There we go! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• "he died at from complications". Some sort of typo here.
• "A posthumous biography, Kalli, the Esquimaux Christian, was written about Qalaherriaq." Perhaps mention the date of publication. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Generalissima, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Oops! Fixed both of these. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

PerfectSoundWhatever

Hi there! I'm new to FAC reviews so feel free to disagree/give feedback, thanks.

• First sentence is difficult to discern meaning from as a general reader. I don't know what "HMS Assistance" and "Franklin's lost expedition" are. It would be helpful to quickly introduce/contextualize these.
  • Rephrased. - G
• Would change "Canterbury" -> "Canterbury, England" for context.
  • Fixed. - G
• It might be nice to abbreviate "Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge" such that the second mention doesn't repeat it.
  • Fixed. - G
• Overall, lead is well-written.
• "This was rendered Kallihirua" -> "This was rendered as Kallihirua"
  • Fixed. - G
• Inconsistent use of quotation marks: why is Kalli quoted but Kallihirua, Qalasirssuaq, etc. not.
  • Since "Kalli" is a nickname, but the others are transliterations of his name or actual names assigned to him. - G
• contextualize "the Admiralty" if you can.
  • Contextualised. - G
• it feels odd that 95% of the content in "Early life" is background information that doesn't involve Qalaherriaq. I would structure this in a way that puts a "Background" section first, and follows with a more chronological biography. Or, keep the structure, and rename some of the first level headers.
  • Renamed a header; i want to keep his early life before the background so the reader actually gets to "meet" Qalaherriaq first before all the necessary context to understand why he was approached by that expedition.
• "the only ship that could be readily identified" by whom? This took a couple of re-reads to understand.
  • Rephrased. - G

More comments to follow. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 19:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi PerfectSoundWhatever and thanks for that. Could you sign reviews, four tildes. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, was interrupted midway and forgot. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 19:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• link "oral histories" like you do in the lead
  • Fixed. - G

That's all really for prose. Very well-written article overall. I'll do a quick spotcheck as well:

• From this version
• [4]b can't find "the Assistance crossed Baffin Bay" backed up in the source.
  • I mean yes, but the Barrow Strait is directly across Baffin Bay from Greenland. If a source says someone sailed from London to New York, we don't need to find a source to say that they crossed the Atlantic while doing so.
• [5]c Petersen part checks out. I can't find the Parker Snow segment, or the quote "young man without father or mother" in Høvik & Jeremiassen 2023. What am I missing?
  • Ops, needed to repeat the Martin cite there. -G
• [16][17] looks good
• [34] good

Thanks — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• @PerfectSoundWhatever: Fixed! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 04:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Looks good, I'll support — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 05:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 8 July 2024 [35].

---

2023 World Snooker Championship

Nominator(s): Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC), HurricaneHiggins

This article is about last year's World Championship. The last FAC failed for inactivity, rather than quality. Let me know what you think! Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose

(Note: my alleged contribution to the article results from having run IABot on it, and a co-ordinator confirmed at the previous nomination that I'm OK to express an opinion. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC))

• Most of my comments from the first nomination have been addressed in edits by HurricaneHiggins, but the sources cited for Main draw still don't verify the dates of matches, or the details of the final (referee, frame scores, breaks).

I did some spot checks on the Third qualification round section and found the following issues. This suggests to me that some background knowledge, rather that just the cited sources, has been used:

• "The 2006 champion Graeme Dott reached the final round with a 10–6 victory over Andy Hicks. From 7–9 behind against John Astley, world number 21 Anthony McGill made breaks of 136 and 98 to force a deciding frame, which he won." seems to be uncited. Ref 53 only covers the Thepchaiya Un-Nooh/Mark Joyce match. Maybe refs 54 and 55 need to be move or re-used.
  • Aye, it was in 54. I have moved it.Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
• "former world seniors champion David Lilley2 - "former world seniors champion" not verified by cited source
• "Two-time semi-finalist Stephen Maguire2 - "Two-time semi-finalist" not verified by cited source
• "Northern Irish player Jordan Brown" - "Northern Irish" not verified by cited source
• "2023 German Masters runner-up Tom Ford" - "2023 German Masters runner-up" not verified by cited source
• "Stevens defeated fellow Welsh player Jamie Clarke" - nationalities are not verified by cited source
• "2022 Crucible debutant Ashley Hugill." - "2022 Crucible debutant" not verified by cited source
• "Pang Junxu, runner-up at the previous month's 2023 WST Classic" - "runner-up at the previous month's 2023 WST Classic" not verified by cited source
  • I can see that having these colour bits could be seen as not supported by the sources, I'm happy to take them out. I think there are some pieces where it's worth stating something about the person, why the match matters, etc. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

  I've gone through this section and removed some fluff. See if you think that is better. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

• Hi BennyOnTheLoose, 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) 16:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping, Gog the Mild. I'll have a look at another section. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Second para of First round section

• "The 2023 German Masters champion Ali Carter faced Welsh debutant Jones. Carter made a 143 total clearance in frame five, but Jones won the first session 5–4 and went on to clinch the match 10–6" - not supported by cited source.
• "Carter called the loss "a disappointing end to a good season" - not supported by cited source.
• "Making his 25th Crucible appearance, three-time champion Mark Williams faced Jimmy Robertson, who had lost in the first round on each of his four previous Crucible appearances." - not supported by cited source.

Third para of First round section

• "Mark Allen, who had won ranking titles during the season at the 2022 Northern Ireland Open, the 2022 UK Championship, and the 2023 World Grand Prix, won the first five frames against debutant Fan. Although Fan won the next three with breaks including 122 and 110, Allen took the last of the session to lead 6–3" - not supported by cited source.
• "who had won his first ranking title earlier that season at the 2022 Scottish Open" - "first ranking title" not supported by cited source.
• "Wilson said afterwards that Slessor's comeback had made the scoreline "too close for comfort." - not supported by cited source.

I'm not sure what the issue is, but I request that the nominators check the text to sources. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @BennyOnTheLoose, I did a spot-check on your last example. It appears that the article was archived at an intermediate point before World Snooker added additional details and quotes. They will often publish a preliminary version of a story with "more to come" and it seems that this was archived, rather than the final version. This is the full version of the article, with Wilson's "too close for comfort" quote about Slessor's comeback included: https://web.archive.org/web/20230423094637/https://wst.tv/wilson-wins-north-east-derby/ I'm not sure how to fix this, especially since the links are to the old version of the WST website before its redesign, which broke a lot of the links. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 11:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Similarly, here's the full version of the Mark Allen/Fan Zhengyi match report, which verifies the material you quoted: https://web.archive.org/web/20230609114338/https://wst.tv/vafaei-stirs-up-osullivan-clash/ Same issue as the above, where the archived version of article is the preliminary version, not the final version. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 11:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

That's rather awkward. Gog the Mild any advice for this situation? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Not my speciality area and I am obviously playing the role of Mr Stupid here, but I am not sure why a cite cannot be replaced with one which actually supports the text. I am dissuaded from attempting it myself by your joint expression that it is trickier than that. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Gog the Mild. I'm sure it would be possible to go through the article and replace all the URLs manually, but my concern is that if someone runs IABot again, the URLs will all be auto-replaced by the wrong ones. But I'm no expert on this either. @Lee Vilenski, would love to know your opinion. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

IABot archives as close to the access-date as possible if I recall correctly. This is a real issue on news websites which usurp URLs with different info. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

So, @BennyOnTheLoose, @Lee Vilenski, @Gog the Mild, we have a few interlocking issues here. First, the WST website featured a lot of detail, information, & quotes from the tournament that are not found elsewhere. Second, the WST site was redesigned & relaunched in early 2024, in such a manner that old URLs no longer work, and so we have to rely on archived sources. Third, when it comes to these archived URLs, IABot defaults to the earliest archived version of an article — in this case, preliminary versions that contain only skeletal info. This implies that replacing URLs manually will produce only a temporary fix, as they will be reverted the next time someone runs IABot again. As the person who wrote most of the prose, I can vouch for the fact that all of the information in the article was correctly and fully sourced at the time it was written — and the archived sources still exist. I just don't know how we can get around the issues above. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 09:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Right, I see. Thanks for the explanation. Sourcing information can always be changed manually post-FAC; I don't know that we can legislate for that. But can we not use {{nobots}}, {{bots|deny=<botlist>}} or {{bots|deny=all}}, see Template:Bots? Gog the Mild (talk) 09:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @Gog the Mild. That sounds like a potential solution, if we can turn off the automatic changing of URLs. I'd probably need someone else to implement that properly, though, as I'm not the most technical minded contributor. I typically focus on writing! HurricaneHiggins (talk) 10:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

My adding <nobots> may have resolved it. Ideally someone needs to test that. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Can confirm, error is " Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• Hey BennyOnTheLoose, checking in if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination at this juncture? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• David Fuchs thanks for the prompt. I looked again at my comments above for the Third qualification round, and the following have not been resolved. I haven't checked my comments against other rounds. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• "From 7–9 behind against John Astley, world number 21 Anthony McGill made breaks of 136 and 98 to force a deciding frame, which he won. Thepchaiya Un-Nooh made four centuries, including a 145, as he defeated Mark Joyce 10–5." - not all supported by the cited source, which is the match record for Thepchaiya Un-Nooh v Mark Joyce.
• "Two-time semi-finalist Stephen Maguire" - "Two-time semi-finalist" not verified by cited source
• "Northern Irish player Jordan Brown" - "Northern Irish" not verified by cited source
• "2023 German Masters runner-up Tom Ford" - "2023 German Masters runner-up" not verified by cited source
• "Stevens defeated fellow Welsh player Jamie Clarke" - nationalities are not verified by cited source
• "2022 Crucible debutant Ashley Hugill." - "2022 Crucible debutant" not verified by cited source
• "Pang Junxu, runner-up at the previous month's 2023 WST Classic" - "runner-up at the previous month's 2023 WST Classic" not verified by cited source
  • I've made all of the above changes BennyOnTheLoose. I, like you, am not a fan of some of the over the top asides, but I do think a persons nationality is bordering on WP:BLUE teritory. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Looking again at my comment on the Second para of First round section:

• "The 2023 German Masters champion Ali Carter faced Welsh debutant Jones. Carter made a 143 total clearance in frame five, but Jones won the first session 5–4 and went on to clinch the match 10–6" - still not supported by cited source.
• "Carter called the loss "a disappointing end to a good season" - still not supported by cited source.
• "Making his 25th Crucible appearance, three-time champion Mark Williams faced Jimmy Robertson, who had lost in the first round on each of his four previous Crucible appearances." - still not supported by cited source.

Please check my other comments above too. Regards, 14:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• • Oh, I hadn't seen them, but they are all in the citations, just the archives are wrong. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
    • So, BennyOnTheLoose, it's not so much that there is an issue with the cited material not covering the text, but rather that the archived URL of the page is from before the prose was written. The thing being referenced (the original website) is being suitably referenced, but has been archived to the closest archive, the one before the text existed.
    • Thanks for being so thorough BennyOnTheLoose. In my opinion, confirming the exact archive of the text is a bit overkill for FAC, although I do agree it's a good task to complete. I simply am not going to find the time to go through every WST reference in this article and move the reference one archive later in time. I have changed the three that you have just mentioned to show that the prose is being covered by the cited article, but currenrtly I know of no automated way to make these changes wholesale. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:32, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
      • Gog the Mild and David Fuchs; sorry to invoke you again. I checked some of the above and they are supported by different archived versions, and the couple of cases where that wasn't the issue have been resolved. I'm a little torn between remaining neutral, on the basis that I'm not sure that "claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate", and supporting on the basis of assuming good faith. (I am conscious that many of the sources that I use for FACs are offline and pretty inaccessible to most readers, although I will always be able to provide relevant extracts to reviewers. What's more, I was the one ran IABot on the article). Is there precedent for this sort of situation that can guide me? I'm satisfied that the other criteria for an FA are met. Sorry if I'm making a big deal of this! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

        @BennyOnTheLoose it's up to your discretion. Dead links are not prohibited as verifiable cites, and it's not something the FA criteria particularly speak to specifically. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

      • Support (finally). Thanks, nominators and coordinators. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• File:Cazoo_World_Snooker_Championship_logo.png: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I was unable to archive the source, although I'm not sure that means the image isn't suitable anymore. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria, any thoughts on this? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Is an alternative source available? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I've managed to successfully archive this now. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Support from Harper J. Cole

Hi there, here's a few comments...

• The tournament featured five female players, the most in 31 years "31 years" could be linked to 1992 World Snooker Championship.
  • I feel like that is an WP:EASTER EGG link. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. Harper J. Cole (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Ukrainian player Iulian Boiko, who in 2020 at age 14 had become the youngest player ever to compete in the event While this is worth mentioning in both the 2020 article and Boiko's own article, it seems a bit off topic here.
  • Agreed. Removed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
• Sean O'Sullivan was on course for a maximum break when he potted two red balls in one shot Do we know how close he was (were they the last two reds)?
  • It was the 10th red, so not particularly close I suppose. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
• Poomjaeng posed for a selfie with Stevens after the first session, while trailing 3–6. I don't think you need a comma here.
  • Sure. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
• Afterwards, Vafaei made disparaging remarks about his second-round opponent O'Sullivan that stoked a widely publicised rivalry between the players. Just personally, I'd describe it as a feud more than a rivalry. In sports, "rivalry" is typically used to describe players of roughly equal ability who frequently play each other, e.g. Higgins and Davis in the 80s. Vafaei and ROS have only played each other a few times, with their differences being mostly personal.
  • Can't say it matters to me, I have changed it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Wilson, who had dropped his cue between sessions while signing autographs, dislodging a weight in the butt, said that the cue was not the reason for his defeat Did this happen between sessions of the match with Higgins, or earlier?
  • I believe it was during this match! Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
    • Maybe change to "after the first session" or "between the first and second sessions" to make it clear? Harper J. Cole (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
      • Neither of the sources used actually state the time (one says he did it while signing autographs, the other whilst practicing), so we can't make that claim. It's very possible he did it prior to the first session. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• The final was played as a best-of-35-frames match, held over four sessions on 30 April and 1 May, between Brecel and Selby. No need for the second comma.
  • Removed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Harper J. Cole (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Harper J. Cole, thanks for your review! Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

No worries - just one more to follow up on above. Harper J. Cole (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm satisfied: Support --Harper J. Cole (talk) 10:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Sammi Brie

Let's give that prose a bath, shall we? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• The event's main stage produced 90 century breaks, including two maximum breaks, one by Kyren Wilson in his first-round match against Ryan Day, and the other by Selby, who became the first player to make a maximum in a World Championship final. Reflow punctuation: The event's main stage produced 90 century breaks, including two maximum breaks: one by Kyren Wilson in his first-round match against Ryan Day and the other by Selby, who became the first player to make a maximum in a World Championship final.
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• It marked the 47th consecutive year that the tournament was held at the Crucible, and the 55th successive year that the World Championship was contested through the modern knockout format. Remove comma CinS
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• Doherty made a 137 break as he defeated Hammad Miah 10–6, but broached the possibility of retirement at the end of the 2023–24 season if his overall form did not improve. CinS remove comma or add "he" after "but"
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• Fan lost the first four frames against Maguire, but recovered to secure his Crucible debut with a 10–6 victory Remove comma CinS
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• Perry, who won three frames in the match on the final black ball, reached the Crucible for the first time since 2019, but stated that he felt "physically sick" afterwards because of Davis's presumed relegation. Remove comma after "2019" CinS or rephrase
  • Rephrased into two sentences. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• However, Pang reduced O'Sullivan's lead to 6–3 after the first session, and came within two frames at 9–7 before O'Sullivan clinched a 10–7 victory. Remove comma after "session" CinS
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• This marked the first time Robertson had made a 146 break in professional competition, and the first time any player had made two 146 breaks in a professional match. Remove comma CinS
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• Jones won the first session 5–4, and went on to clinch the match 10–6 Remove comma CinS
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• fued typo!
  • I thought for a minute this was a briteng thing, but it turns out I've just been spelling it wrong for years. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• Tournament officials halted play on table two for 45 minutes while event staff cleaned the area, and rescheduled Perry and Milkins's first session to the following evening after table one was deemed unplayable. Remove comma CinS
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• Despite the interruption, Allen completed a 126 break that he had started before play was suspended, and went on to defeat Fan 10–5 Remove comma after "suspended" CinS
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• Lisowski took a 6–3 lead in a fast-paced session where only two frames lasted longer than 15 minutes, and moved 9–4 ahead in the second session. Remove comma CinS
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• Perry won the first five frames of his rescheduled tie with Milkins, and finished the session 7–2 ahead. Remove comma CinS
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• Brecel led 9–7 after the second session, and extended his lead to 11–8 in the third session. Remove comma CinS
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• promised to "come back fighting next season." Remember your MOS:LOGICAL
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• Jones won six consecutive frames in the second session to move 10–6 ahead, and won three of the four frames played in the final session Remove comma CinS
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• "disrespectful to the game of snooker and the people who come along to watch," LOGICAL
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• O'Sullivan made another frame-winning 78 break from Vafaei's break-off, and went on to take a 6–2 lead Remove comma CinS
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• Afterwards, he said he was "so surprised" to progress to the quarter-finals, but was "honoured" to have reached that stage Remove comma, and maybe ", but was" just becomes "but"
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• Higgins potted the black after a lengthy safety battle, and went on to lead 4–1 Remove comma CinS
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• In the final session, Selby won three of the first four frames to move one from victory at 12–6. maybe move within one?
• Three seeds, Allen, Brecel, and Selby, and one qualifier, Si, maybe Three seeds—Allen, Brecel, and Selby—and one qualifier, Si,
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• Brecel, who made just one half-century in the session, flipped the cue ball off the table with his cue while conceding the opening frame, and was told to calm down by referee Rob Spencer Remove last comma CinS
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• adding that "to win means so much in such a tough game and in such a big tournament." LOGICAL
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• said of the final session that: "I really wanted to win Unnecessary colon
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• Selby made a 123 break in the opening frame, and moved 3–2 ahead Remove comma CinS
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• Allen said he had "underperformed" in the match and was "disappointed", but commented Remove comma CinS
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• Brecel won five of the first six frames for a 5–1 lead, and finished the first session 6–2 ahead. Remove comma CinS
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• Selby made a 96 break in frame 11, and also won frame 12 Remove comma CinS
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• In the 16th frame, Selby made a maximum break, the fifth of his career, the 14th in Crucible history, and the first time a player had achieved a maximum in a World Championship final. Change second comma to a colon or dash
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• and "something I will remember for the rest of my life." LOGICAL
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• Selby said he "battled" in the final and "gave everything", but congratulated Remove comma CinS
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• Steve Davis commented that: "It's great to see Maybe Steve Davis commented, "It's great to see
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• Two players made maximum breaks of 147, Kyren Wilson in the fifth frame of his first-round match against Ryan Day, and Mark Selby in the 16th frame of the final Change first comma to colon. Remove the other comma.
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks for this Sammi, I totally missed it when it was posted. Will fix this up. :). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
    • Hi Sammi Brie - I've gone through and corrected all of the above. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

      Happy to Support. At least you won't be feuding over your spelling. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Oh, another snooker article! What makes livescores.worldsnookerdata.com and cajt.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk a reliable source? The Guardian does not need an ISSN. I've reviewed many of these sources in other snooker reviews, but I note that World Snooker is inconsistently linked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• Livescores is the Official World Snooker Tour website - they just had a different URL for scores. Cajt is Chris Turner's old website, who is a snooker statistician who used to work for the BBC and Eurosport. I can delink the source names, which is always my favoured method. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Jo-Jo ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Nothing to add from me here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• References: article titles should be in a consistent case - sentence or title - regardless of how they appear in their original. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry Gog, I must have missed this. I'll get on it today. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  Hmm Gog the Mild. I asked at Wikipedia:User scripts/Requests to see if we could script the process (it seems like a much more suitable way to do this than change them all manually), but it was brought up that perhaps we should just retain whatever the citation itself uses. Do you know if this has been discussed anywhere before and if there is a consensus to use consistent titles? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  I found a script that makes this change and have edited as such. :) Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  Hi Gog the Mild - any ideas if I need more on this one? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  hi @FAC coordinators: - any ideas if I need any more on this one? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 8 July 2024 [36].

---

John Rolph

Nominator(s): Z1720 (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

This article is about an Upper Canadian lawyer, politician doctor, and medical teacher. This figure's career is characterised by moderate Reform stances and constantly switching between a political life and practicing medicine. I hope you enjoy reviewing as much as I enjoyed researching him. Z1720 (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• File:John_Rolph_Portrait.jpg: when and where was this first published?

• Source says it was published 1800-1880, so I have updated that on Commons. Source does not say where it was published, and I do not know how to add that to the existing Template:Inforamtion, so I put it in the description. Z1720 (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• Source says "date" - is that publication date or creation date? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: I am not sure as I don't know how Archives Canada defines "date" on their website. My guess is that it is the creation date as the source is an autographed card and thus was not "published" in a book or album, but rather originally taken for Rolph's personal use. Z1720 (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• File:Third_Parliament_Buildings_1834.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• Added. Z1720 (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Responses above. Z1720 (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Does the above resolve your concerns? Z1720 (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The lead image has a copyright tag indicating it was published before 1929. If I understand your response, you're saying it wasn't published at all - is that correct? If that's the case the current tag will need replacing. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Since there is no confirmation from the source that this was ever published, I have replaced the tag with "never published" licencing templates on the image's commons page. Does this resolve the concerns? Z1720 (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

That works. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Just want to clarify: have all the image issues been resolved, so that there are no more concerns with the images used in this article? Z1720 (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

HF

I will try to review this soon. Hog Farm _Talk 02:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• I think the lead needs some editing - for instance, it is stated in multiple places that he was elected to the Parliament in 1824. In general it seems that much of the first paragraph is duplicated in the following two paragraphs

• I have done a full edit of the lede, cutting a lot of the information. My goal is for the first paragraph to state why he is notable and the second and third to describe his biography. Z1720 (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• Is it known why he returned to England in 1817?

• I will have to consult Godfrey's book, which I have placed on hold at the library and should have a copy of in about a week. Biographi and Patterson both say that he returned to continue his education, with no special reason given beyond that. Z1720 (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• Godfrey explains that he went back to solve financial problems and obtain his education. This has been added to the article (and cited). Z1720 (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• The article doesn't directly address much why Rolph first entered politics in the 1820s - the brief description in Patterson suggests that opposition to the Family Compact and the treatment of Robert Fleming Gourlay were causes - do Godfrey or other sources go into more explicit detail on this than Patterson?

• I will have to check Godfrey when I get a copy of the book. Unfortunately, the copy of Muggeridge's article that I had access to was missing a page, so I don't have info from that source from 1809-1826. Patterson seems to be giving more of a background of the political scene when Rolph entered politics, so I don't think I can use this. I'll check Godfrey when I get his book but Rolph also did not leave many letters or editorials of his thought process so his motivation for politics might not be in the historical record. Z1720 (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• Added info about Rolph's discontent with the political clique of the time. Z1720 (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• If Rolph was associated with the Reform party, then why did he run as a Tory for the Toronto city council seat?

• Muggeridge, Biographi, and Patterson do not say why, so I will have to wait for Godfrey's book before clarifying. Z1720 (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• I made an error: Godfrey says that the Tories endorsed Rolph, not that Rolph ran on a Tory slate. I corrected this in the article and outlined why he was endorsed. Z1720 (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• The lead refers to Bond Head as a Lieutenant General - this doesn't seem to be accurate and I'm assuming that's an error for Lieutenant-Governor

• Fixed. Z1720 (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• "After Rolph submitted objections to Bond Head's tactics in the previous election to the legislature. " - sentence fragment

• Fixed. Z1720 (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• The infobo indicates that he was in the legislative assembly until 1870, but the article indicates that he chose not to run for re-election in 1857?

• Fixed: Biographi verifies that stopped being a legislator in 1857. Z1720 (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that's it from me. While I did not conduct a formal source review, the sources used all appear to be sufficiently reliable, quick searching doesn't turn up any glaring sourcing ommissions, and I've skimmed through the Patterson source and compared it to the article. Hog Farm _Talk 18:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Responses above. Z1720 (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I anticipate supporting; please ping me when you've been able to consult Godfrey again. Hog Farm _Talk 20:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Finally got the book, responses above. Z1720 (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks good, supporting. Hog Farm _Talk 01:58, 25 May 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 three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm conducting reviews at FACs: hopefully, someone will pity this nomination and review it in time. Z1720 (talk) 21:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Heartfox

I will review this. Anything useful in https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/onhistory/2022-v114-n2-onhistory07279/1092218ar.pdf by chance? Heartfox (talk) 02:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@Heartfox: I considered adding information about this when writing the article. However, this event mostly concerns his brother, George. Yes, John was George's lawyer at the many subsequent court proceedings, and scholars suspect that John's election to the parliament was a reason why George was attacked. However there are lots of other reasons why Tories wanted to harm George (accusation of adultery with his servant, and apparently his personality was annoying to Tories). Also, the court proceedings lasted several years and overlapped with Rolph's visit to England; I was worried that if I mentioned it, it would become a constant thread throughout the biography and confusing for the reader, as well as UNDUE for John's biography. Z1720 (talk) 02:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• "In September he returned to North America, settled in Charlotteville Township, and was called to the bar in the province" → Could the locations be made more specific? I'm just a bit confused as this part of the article switches between Ontario and Upper Canada.

• Changed province to Upper Canada. Z1720 (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• "became a member of the Board of Education" → what is the Board of Education?

• Source doesn't explain what this is, so I do not know. Should it be left in or removed? Z1720 (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
  • being a trustee already implies he was part of a larger organization, so I would remove it

• @Heartfox: Removed. Z1720 (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• "that rules Upper Canada" → ruled?

• Changed. Z1720 (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Reform movement is linked in the lede but not the body

• Linked. Z1720 (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• "In the summer of 1826", "In spring 1833" → MOS:SEASONS

• The sources are not more specific then the season, so I removed or rephrased. Z1720 (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• "equivalent to £50,000 in 2019" → is this in Godfrey?

• This is from Template:Inflation. This will update as the template is updated. Z1720 (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Best, Heartfox (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• @Heartfox: responses above. Z1720 (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Support. Heartfox (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

sawyer777's comments

here to help prevent this getting archived :) starting with the "works cited" section:

• the "via" parameter is used inconsistently

• Removed all instances of the via parameter. Z1720 (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Kett 1967 doesn't need a JSTOR stable URL since the JSTOR parameter is used

• Removed. Z1720 (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• publishers are linked only in the first applicable citation - MOS:REFLINK allows (but doesn't require) repeated linking in citations, since they're standalone. i'd suggest linking publishers across the board if we're linking publishers at all, but since MOS doesn't require it neither will i. (the same for the linking of journals, which i just noticed)

• I linked to the first time they are mentioned. I also wikilinked authors if they have an article in the first mention.

• Muggeridge 1959 should have an ISSN consistent with the other Ontario History journal cites (i assume it doesn't have a DOI if one hasn't been listed; not unusual for old articles)

• I had to get a hard copy from the library to find this article. A Google search doesn't list an ISSN, I can't find it on the publisher's website (and that issue is behind a paywall) and the library's online catalogue doesn't have this information. I do not know how else I can find this information. Z1720 (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  the ISSN is for the journal itself, so it's the same for all of the articles! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 18:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Added. Z1720 (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

i'll be back for more! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 07:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Sawyer777: Responses to above. Z1720 (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

looks good - i'll be back later for some more feedback! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 18:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Sawyer777, reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

could sense this coming - i'll get to it later today. busy week! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 12:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

back at this.

• is it "the Inner Temple" or just "Inner Temple"?

• Wiki-article for Inner Temple uses "The", so I made that consistent in the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Rolph was discontent with the political clique that ruled Upper Canada called the Family Compact. a little context about the ideology of this group would be helpful

• Added information about the Family Compact into the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• "reformer" is inconsistently capitalized - is this based on those who held a reformist ideology vs. members of the Reform party? if not, should be made more consistent.

• You are correct: the Reform party had a reform political ideology, similar to the Conservative Party of Canada with a conservative political ideology, or the Liberal party with a liberal ideology. If there are any instances where the wrong capitalisation is used, please let me know. Z1720 (talk) 02:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Rolph was an Anglican who thought everyone in Upper Canada should belong to the Church of England. i'm interested to hear more about this belief of his, if any information exists - i'm also curious if this was a popular opinion at the time, or if he was particularly conservative in this view.

• I removed this passage: upon reading it again from the source, his stance was more nuanced than this, as described in the subsequent paragraph. Z1720 (talk) 02:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• In 1837, he denounced clergy reserves because they led people to think a ceremony within the state-sponsored church would give them salvation, instead of seeking it outside of church institutions. this strikes me as something that would be confusing to the average reader - "isn't that the point of church institutions?" etc.

• I tried rewording this to more precise language, and ensured that it was cited properly. Z1720 (talk) 02:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• as someone who knows very little about Canadian history or geography, i think adding c:File:Canada upper lower map.PNG somewhere would be helpful to the average reader for visualization purposes, but this one's totally up to your discretion.

• I'm concerned that using a map that relies on colour might be again MOS:ALT. I think if others want information about Upper Canada, they can click on the wikilink. Z1720 (talk) 02:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

i've read through the article several times, and honestly don't have that much to say - the other reviews have covered & resolved quite a lot of prose issues. i did a couple of small copyedits myself, but i was expecting to have more feedback, haha. good work! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 01:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• @Sawyer777:Replies above. Z1720 (talk) 02:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  looks good to me :) support after looking over the other reviews. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 04:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Source review - pass – the sources are comprehensive and high-quality. For Read (1982), it appears the title of the book has not been standardized in title case like the rest of the sources. Heartfox (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• @Heartfox: Fixed. Z1720 (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Looks good. Heartfox (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Anything else needed for the source review, or is this a pass? Z1720 (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Maybe title case for Muggeridge as well? Idk Heartfox (talk) 21:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• @Heartfox: Fixed, I think. I'm using my phone right now but I think the formatting is ok. Z1720 (talk) 23:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments bySupport from Dugan Murphy

I'll read through the article and write out some comments soon. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Is there documentation of the reason why Rolph was released from POW camp? Was his release connected to the Battle of Queenston Heights, or did it just happen to happen around that time?

• Godfrey says it was a prisoner swap, so I added this information to the article and cited it. Z1720 (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• The third paragraph of the Early life section: it starts with him joining the militia and surprisingly quickly moves to the story of his retirement. Is there just a little more content you can add there about his service and it ending before you go into his retirement? That would make the transition less jarring, I think.

• I added information about Rolph's activities in the militia, but it seems like he was absent during any of the militia's combat. Also added info about Rolph staying employed with them after the war. Z1720 (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Who labeled Slatter as a spinster?

• She was labelled as such in Godfrey, but he does not describe what this means. I decided to remove it. Z1720 (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Rolph never referred to this event in his life – It's one thing to say his papers don't mention his wedding, but does Godfrey really say that Rolph never mentioned it to anybody ever? That's quite a claim.

• The quote from Godfrey is "The wedding registry, verified by handwriting experts, confirms Rolph's signature, but the marriage remains a mystery. Rohph never referred to this event, which leads to speculation about the possibility of a double life." I reworded slightly to better match what Godfry says. Z1720 (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Wasn't St. Thomas still in Upper Canada (not Ontario) when Rolph bought his farm?

• Fixed. Z1720 (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Same question about Dundas at the time Rolph moved there.

• Fixed. Z1720 (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Why should "Reform-minded" be capitalized?

• It probably shouldn't be. Fixed. Z1720 (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• This is very nitpicky, but I don't think it's necessary to Wikilink deed.

• Removed. Z1720 (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• easier to obtain, improving public education and ensuring – I saw the article use a serial comma earlier, so you should either remove it from that spot or add it here (my preference), for consistency, per MOS:SERIAL.

• Done. Z1720 (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Now that I'm seeing "Reform" capitalized again, I'm realizing this is likely a reference to Reform movement (Upper Canada). That is Wikilinked in the lead but not in the body until almost the end of the article. You should unlink it there and link it from its first use in the body, which would be the sentence about Baldwin, Bidwell, and Baldwin (unless that's truly a lower-case use of the term), or perhaps the "Reform-minded" referred to in a previous comment by me.

• You have hinted at the problem, which is politicians who followed the reform political ideology (which Wikipedia calls reformism, but I haven't seen a source use that term) created a bloc of Reform politicians which is kind-of-but-not-really a political party. I wikilinked both the movement and the political party in their first use in the article body. Z1720 (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I see from your comment earlier about the multiple issues of "reform" that this is not super straightforward. Looking it over, I'm still wondering if oppose reformer policies should be capitalized and if any uses of the term in the Political views section should be capitalized. Dugan Murphy (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I went through the section and capitalized what I think should be capitalized. Z1720 (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• I see "Reform" capitalized and not capitalized all over. I recommend you do a control-F search for the word and make sure that every time the word is used in reference to the Upper Canadian Reform movement, that it is capitalized. And vice versa.

• Done. Z1720 (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• In the legislature Rolph – I think a comma is warranted there.

• Done. Z1720 (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• The only source I can find for naturalise vs. naturalize in Canadian English is this website, which says to use the latter. Do you have a source to the contrary? Naturalisation comes up in the lead as well.

• Canadian Oxford Dictionary seems to use the z, so I used the z. Z1720 (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• declared all Americans in Upper Canada as citizens – I think "as" should be "to be".

• Done. Z1720 (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• The first time "Tories" is used it should be Wikilinked, instead of later when "Tory" is Wikilinked.

• Done. Z1720 (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• The amended legislation passed without Rolph's support – Can you summarize here the primary difference between Rolph's proposal and this ammended version?

• Done. Z1720 (talk) 04:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• There's mention of Rolph marrying Slatter, then later marrying Haines, but nothing is said in the body about how his first marriage ended. The infobox says it ended with Slatter's death, but that claim isn't supported by the body, which it should if it is to be in the infobox. Including that info here would also help the reader understand how he could be getting married for the second time.

• Removed the reference in the infobox. This marriage really is a mystery, as specified above. I can't find any additional information about this. Z1720 (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Should "Provincial" in the section header be capitalized?

• Nope. Fixed. Z1720 (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Why refer to Francis Bond Head as "Bond Head" instead of "Head"?

• Sources say the last name is just Head, so I ctr+f'ed the article and removed all instances of Bond Head. Z1720 (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Does campaign in the constituency refer to campaigning to voters? Seems like an odd wording to me, but if it's more common in Canada, than that's appropriate.

• Canadians would say "campaign in the riding" but reviewers of my articles in the past have said that Wikipedia's international audience does not know what a riding is and that riding is more of a slang term. Since constituency is more well-known and it means the same thing, I used that term instead. Z1720 (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• This website says you should use "criticize" instead of "criticise" in Canadian English.

• Fixed. Z1720 (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll add more comments later. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• @Dugan Murphy: Comments above addressed. Z1720 (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  In the above section of comments, I have only one follow-up. The rest of the above issues seem to be fully addressed. I'm still looking over the article and this nomination to see how my comments below have been addressed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Having read through the rest of the article:

• Rolph agreed to the rebellion under three conditions: – This sentence lacks a serial comma, and I see from your reaction to an earlier comment that you have decided to go all in with serial commas in this article.

• Added Z1720 (talk) 01:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• His views on the meeting or a rebellion were not published or written down. How do we know everything in the following paragraphs about Rolph's views on the rebellion?

• Added language to clarify that his views on the meeting or rebellion at the time of the meeting were unknown. Z1720 (talk) 01:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• "Organised" should be "organized". Same for "disorganised" later on.

• Fixed, and found some other instances in the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• Are the "government troops" and "Loyalist troops" the same thing or different?

• Changed, as Loyalist means something else in Canada, but not in this instance. Z1720 (talk) 01:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• Similar question: are "Patriot troops" the same as "rebels"?

• So this is a bit tricky. They were specifically Americans who aligned with the Patriote movement and mostly focused on leading a rebellion into Upper Canada. I added that these were American volunteers. Z1720 (talk) 01:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• Is "Patriot's" supposed to be Patriots'?

• Fixed. Z1720 (talk) 01:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• Rolph was granted amnesty in 1843 and returned to Toronto in August. – Could be rewritten as "Rolph received amnesty in 1843 and returned to Toronto in August of that year."

• Done. Z1720 (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• Park and Rolph's policies – I believe that should be "Park's and Rolph's policies".

• Done. Z1720 (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• Same for Rolph and his allies' suggestions,

• Done. Z1720 (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• What does incorporating the Upper Canada profession mean?

• Clarified that it's incorporating the medical profession in Upper Canada Z1720 (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm still unclear on what it means to incorporate a profession. Does that mean that an incorporated profession can only be practiced by license holders or something like that? Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• The quote from the source is "Rolph lost no time in changing the manner of business of the Board...One of his first acts was to suggest that the Board petition the legislature to pass an act of incorporation for the medical profession of Upper Canada." I added in the article that Rolph was trying to get the board to petition the legislature, but I am not sure what else I can add here to clarify. Z1720 (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm a little uncomfortable including information in the article that neither of us understand, but I see that your wording is now clearly true to the source. So I guess if the source is good, maybe it's ok to keep. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• I think the only word in "Minister of Crown Lands" that should be capitalized here is "Crown".

• After checking MOS:JOBTITLE, I think it's supposed to be capitalised. Z1720 (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you for looking that up! I see you're correct. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think "Minister of Agriculture" should be capitalized here.

• Per above, since there is no "the" before the title, I think it's supposed to be capitalised. Z1720 (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• "Centralisation" should be "centralization".

• Done. Z1720 (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• Why is "Railways" plural?

• Singularized because that's the way it is in the wikiarticle. Z1720 (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• I think there should be a comma after "Railways".

• Agreed. Done. Z1720 (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• Does "Medical Board" need to be capitalized?

• It is capitalized in the source, so I have kept it that way. Z1720 (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• Depending on whether or not it passed, I recommend changing that would expand to either "that expanded" or "that would have expanded".

• It did not pass. Z1720 (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think "counter-argument" needs a hyphen.

• Done. Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• teaching medicine where he treated should be "teaching medicine in which he treated"

• Done. Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• During the 1830s more radical needs a comma.

• Done. Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• The lead uses and Wikilinks "Republic of Canada", which is nowhere in the body. The body uses "State of Canada", which I'm guessing is the same thing. Sounds like the body should be using this Republic name of that's recognized and has an article. "State of Canada" comes up a few times.

• I removed the reference to Republic of Canada: I'm not sure its the same thing so I removed it. Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• There's no need to capitalize or hyphenate "Lieutenant-Governor"

• Removed. Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• "practicing" should be "practising". I can't believe I found an American spelling that should be British spelling!

• So according to the government of Canada website about Canadian spelling (because it is so confusing that the country needs to devote money to explaining this) if it is a noun it's practice (with a c) but if its a verb it's practise (with an s). I ctr+f'ed this to ensure every instance is correct. Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The lead still says "medical practises". There's also a "Medical practise" section header. That's everything I found with my own control-F search just now. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The lede should say medical practise because the sentence is referring to the verb. In the level 3 heading, it is also referring to the verb in this case: although the section starts off with the creation of his medical school, it also refers to his activities with the Provincial Lunatic Asylum and Medical Board of Upper Canada, which he did not own and were not in charge of. Therefore, I think the heading is referring to the verb, not the noun. Z1720 (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The lead says As a doctor, he ... incorporated new ... medical practises into his lectures. The way I'm reading the sentence, the s makes practises a plural noun. Are you reading it as a simple present conjugation of the verb to practise? If I read it that way, the sentence doesn't make sense to me. The verb in that sentence is incorporated, not practise. I am also reading the section header as a noun. Practice/practise doesn't have to be an establishment owned by Rolph to be a noun. I can swing at a golf ball (verb) or have a good golf swing (noun). To make it a verb in the header and still have it make sense, I think it would have to be something like "Practising medicine". (I suppose you could sidestep this back-and-forth by rewording as simply "Medicine" or something like that. In that vein, I suppose you could replace "practices" in the lead with "techniques".)

@Dugan Murphy: I changed the lede to "procedures", because I am unsure about which one to use, and the sub-heading to practice. Z1720 (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• The Canadian government granted him amnesty and he returned to Canada in 1843, and later created a new medical institution called the Rolph School in Toronto. Could be "The Canadian government granted him amnesty and he returned to Canada in 1843, later creating a new medical institution called the Rolph School in Toronto."

• Done. Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• opposition member of the government his focus needs a comma after "government".

• Done. Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• The lead says Rolph retired as dean in 1870, but the body doesn't say he ever retired.

• Clarified in the article body that Rolph did retire. Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Overall

I'm trusting the source review by Heartfox and haven't looked at the sources, but this certainly seems well researched. Earwig didn't find any likely plagiarism. The prose of this article is super easy to read and adheres well to WP:NPOV. The article seems to be comprehensive, leaving no obviously large stretches of Rolph's life uncovered. Nevertheless, I don't see undue weight on any single part of his life. The lead section does a good job of summarizing the article. Those are all my comments for now. I haven't yet looked at the responses to my first batch of comments. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• @Dugan Murphy: Comments above. Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Dugan Murphy: Addressed capitalization of Reform above. Z1720 (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Just three minor things now, I think, per my new replies above. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@Dugan Murphy: responded to the practice/practise comment and the medical incorporation comment. Not sure what the first minor concern referenced is. Z1720 (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I seem to have misspoken when I said "three". The only issue I see now is the great practise/practice controversy of 2024. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any other issues keeping this article from deserving featured status. Trusting the source review by Heartfox, I fully support this nomination. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

P.S. I have my own FAC nomination that has yet to attract any comments outside the image review. It's also about a 19th-century Canadian topic! I would be thankful if you were to read through the article and comment on the nomination, especially if you can find any instances of the English not fitting Canadian standards. You'll find that nomination here. Thanks in advance! Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• Publisher location for Gates? (Toronto.)

• Yep, it's Toronto. Fixed. Z1720 (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Link naturalization and naturalize.

• Done. Z1720 (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Link Upper Canada.

• Done. Z1720 (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• It would be helpful if somewhere in the lead a date were attached to the Upper Canada Rebellion.

• I put a year in the first paragraph. Z1720 (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• "an opposition member of the government". That sounds like a contradiction in terms.

• I replaced this with a more specific event of the formation of the Morin-MacNab administration three years later. Z1720 (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Gog the Mild: Responses above. Z1720 (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 8 July 2024 [37].

---

Robert Schumann

Nominator(s): Tim riley talk 09:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

This is almost certainly the first time there have been two articles on composers up for FAC (Igor Stravinsky is already here). I'm venturing outside my comfort zone with Schumann. With one exception – Rossini – the previous nineteen composer FAs I've nominated or co-nominated have been French or English, and though I can't claim to be an expert on French or English music, still less am I expert on German music: the input at the peer review from Ssilvers, Aza24, SchroCat, MyCatIsAChonk, UndercoverClassicist, KJP1 and Iadmc has been of inestimable value and I am profoundly grateful. Suggestions for further improvement – prose, proportion, balance, sourcing and anything else – will be most welcome. Tim riley talk 09:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Iadmc

• Support A lot of work has been done recently and the article is ready for being featured, in my opinion. All the FA criteria are fulfilled and the article is especially well sourced and written.— Iadmc♫^talk  09:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this support, Iadmc, and for your input at PR. I don't think our paths had crossed until a week or so ago, and I hope they will cross again. Tim riley talk 10:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Indeed! See you around — Iadmc♫^talk  10:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Thought Shouldn't the infobox link to his List of Works?— Iadmc♫^talk  16:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a rotten trick to play on our poor readers. An info-box is meant to sum up the key points within an article, and not to take the poor souls off to some other article altogether. Tim riley talk 17:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Since it is another article altogether and the alternative is to list some works according to some editor's opinion, why not? We link some places and people who have articles in the info box: Zwickau, Bonn, and Clara Schumann. The List is less likely to keep them from the main article. — Iadmc♫^talk  18:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

We link to the list from the top of the Works section. No need to do it twice. Tim riley talk 18:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

We link Zwickau, Bonn, and Clara Schumann in the lead. Should we unlink them in the infobox? Why? — Iadmc♫^talk  18:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

But they are all mentioned in the article, and the list isn't. Personally I despise info-boxes for composers, which me judice serve no useful purpose, but this one was in situ when I began my overhaul and it seemed presumptuous to remove it. Tim riley talk 18:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

This edit was made on the sly. Removed List of works and signature with no explanation except "additional info and refs; rem uncited material". This needs further discussion. I won't replace them unless others agree I should. The signature is better in the info box, imo. And yes: those items are mentioned already so why link them? This is a way to remove the box, I fear, by rotting it — Iadmc♫^talk  17:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

His signature has in fact vanished — Iadmc♫^talk  17:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

There is no case for putting a composer's signature in an info-box. The box is there to sum up what is in the article. An autograph does no such thing. Tim riley talk 18:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

But it should be somewhere in the article if it exists? — Iadmc♫^talk  18:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

A case could be made, I suppose, for including it elsewhere in the article, but I’ve never seen the point, personally. It doesn’t help explain the individual or aid the reader in any way. It is, however, something tangibly connected to the composer though.

I’m going to pull you up on the rather uncivil accusation that Tim did something “on the sly”. He did a major rewrite that cut unsourced material and added quality content. That’s not ‘on the sky’, and it leaves an unpleasant taste. You should consider striking that rather contemptible part of your comment. SchroCat (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

SchroCat (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Done. Sorry Tim.— Iadmc♫^talk  18:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that Tim's rewrite is remarkable, in fact. I just had some concerns to air and did so in an uncivil manner — Iadmc♫^talk  18:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, both. I confess I found the phrase "on the sly" rather hurtful. As far as I can recall (I may be mistaken) the autograph is not reproduced in any of the biographies about Schumann I've studied for this overhaul. If it isn't in the books it seems perverse to make room for it in a 7,000-word article. I had to drop some excellent images that were crammed into the then existing version: we have to use our limited space prudently. One wise colleague commented that seeing the subject's handwriting might possibly be illuminating in an article about a visual artist, but tells one nothing about the subject in an article about a musician. Tim riley talk 18:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I see the point. Ignore me, then! I'll look through the article again soon to see what needs fixing or goes against MOS etc. A glance says it's pretty good, though — Iadmc♫^talk  19:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

MyCat

• Throughout his childhood and youth his love of music and literature ran in tandem, with poems - is this comma needed?

• Yes indeed. They ran in tandem with each other, rather than with poems etc. I could make the comma a dash if you think it would make the point more clearly. Tim riley talk 11:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• And now done. Tim riley talk 12:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Wl jurisprudence and Roman law and ecclesiastical law (if that is what the latter two are referring to)

• It is. Good idea. Done. Tim riley talk 11:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Somewhere I saw "homeopathy" be spelled "homoeopathy" in BrE, but I'm hardly one to correct BrE spellings

• Both are correct. The OED actually gives precedence to the longer variant, though I can't remember ever seeing it used anywhere. The Times, the BBC, The Guardian and the current edition of Fowler all spell the word as "homeopathy". Tim riley talk 11:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• together with his discovery that she was an illegitimate, impecunious, adopted daughter of Fricken - I know what impecunious and adopted are saying, but what purpose does "illegitimate" serve here? Even is she was being dishonest, perhaps that's a better word, as I see "illegitimate" as connecting to "adopted" here.

• Being born out of wedlock carried a considerable stigma in those days. The source uses all three adjectives. Tim riley talk 11:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps together with his discovery that she was an "illegitimate, impecunious, adopted" daughter of Fricken to make the point that it is a quote? — Iadmc♫^talk  12:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it's all right. I'll leave it as it is for now and wait to see if anyone else comments. Tim riley talk 12:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Is there a particular reason the web citations are cited with text as opposed to using the full templates?

• Just what I've always done. Works fine and nobody seems to object.

That's all I got- excellent work here! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the above, and for your input at PR. My regards to you and Igor. Tim riley talk 11:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The citation style is perfectly acceptable per WP:CITE — Iadmc♫^talk  12:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Support then- wonderful job MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for your support here and for your earlier input. Tim riley talk 06:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Support from UC

Not sure I'll have many more nits to pick after the PR, but will drop in here to give it a go when I can. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Doing my best to find some. Apologies if I'm re-raising anything from PR:

• at Leipzig and Heidelberg Universities: I am chewing on the capital U here: my thinking is that it's probably not right, since it isn't strictly part of a proper noun any more (that is, there's no proper noun Leipzig and Heidelberg Universities. Advise the universities of Leipzig and Heidelberg.

• OK. Done. Tim riley talk 18:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• I wouldn't italicise alter egos, as it's English (ego doesn't really have a plural in Latin, but it wouldn't be egos if it did)

• Done. Tim riley talk 18:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Link chamber music in lead?

• OK. Done. Tim riley talk 18:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Despite the bitter opposition of Wieck, who did not regard his pupil as a suitable husband for his daughter, Schumann married Wieck's daughter Clara in 1840: as the relative clause doesn't make any sense until we have the last bit, this would perhaps be better reordered to put the marriage first, then the objection second.

• This was originally as you suggest, but was changed at the request of a peer reviewer. Tim riley talk 18:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Very well; it would be uncollegial to pull you in the opposite direction. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Schumann's always precarious mental health: hyphenate always-precarious as a compound modifier? MoS makes an exception for -ly compounds, but this isn't one.

• OK. Tim riley talk 18:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• affluent middle class family: hyphenate middle-class as above. I might suggest using affluent in the lead to replace comfortable: I'm mindful that in some parts of the world, "middle-class" means "ordinary" rather than "petite-bourgeoise".

• Changed. Tim riley talk 18:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• during 1835 Schumann gradually realised that Ernestine's personality was not as interesting as he first thought: I know this is couched as "in the view of", but it's still fundamentally unverifiable (how can we measure the interesting-ness of someone's personality) and, frankly, a bit infra dig for us to be making what reads as a quite sneery comment at Ernestine's expense. The word "realised" could perhaps be reworked into more of a statement of opinion: it's one thing to say that he found her less interesting, it's another to say that she objectively was uninteresting.

• Redrawn. Tim riley talk 18:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Professionally the later years of the 1830s were marked by an abortive attempt by Schumann to establish himself in Vienna: to me, abortive means short-lived, which I'm not sure is appropriate if it lasted for several years. "Failed", "unsuccessful" vel sim?

• The source uses the term "abortive" but I wondered about it and am inclined to agree with you. Changed. Tim riley talk 18:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• described its "himmlische Länge": I believe that under the MoS, if we italicise a non-English quote, we don't then use quote marks.

• Very possibly, but I'll both italicise and quote here unless absolutely forced not to. It seems to me unhelpful to the reader not to do both. Tim riley talk 18:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• To me, doing both is redundant, but I can see the argument. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Clara gave birth to a daughter in September, the first of the Schumanns' seven children to survive: do we know her name?

• We do, but I don't propose to give the names of all his children. I don't think it is of value to the reader. Tim riley talk 18:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• de gustibus, assuming they're not remotely notable in themselves. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Op 54. The following year he worked on what was to be published as his Second Symphony, Op. 61. : the first Op. should have a dot to mark the abbreviation, I think.

• So it should. Done. Tim riley talk 18:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• the D minor symphony from 1841, published as his Fourth Symphony (1851) and the 1835 Symphonic Studies (1852).: comma after (1851).

• Hmm, but done. Tim riley talk 18:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• the twenty-year-old Johannes Brahms called on Schumann with a letter of introduction from their mutual friend the violinist Joseph Joachim.: I know I'm generally more comma-happy than you, but I think we really need one after friend here.

• I don't think so. That would make Joachim their only mutual friend (which he may have been, but I don't know.) It's the difference between "my brother, John" and "my brother John".

• Very well, but then at least we want something like "their mutual friend Joseph Joachim, the violinist". There's a more elegant and technical way of putting this, but the four-word noun phrase is just too "heavy" to stand in this position without some sort of punctuation to give structure to the sentence. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• To avoid handbags at dawn I've redrawn. Tim riley talk 19:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Handbag holstered. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• In "Works", Romantic era is linked on second mention, which seems odd.

• A hangover from the régime that forbade links from within quotations. Old habits die hard. Now linked at first instance. Tim riley talk 18:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• The other three were stand-alone concert works inspired by Schiller (The Bride of Messina), Shakespeare (Julius Caesar) and Goethe (Hermann and Dorothea).: I expected these links to go to Schumann's works, not to e.g. Shakespeare's. To reduce the easter egg factor, suggest "Schiller's The Bride of Messina, Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, etc.

  OK. Done. What think you of Requiem Mass in the opera and choral section, which worried me for similar reasons? Tim riley talk 18:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think that's fine: if we were linking to the specific work, I'd expect the linktext to cover the "a", which it doesn't. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• (see sound clips, right): phrases like this are discouraged: on certain screens (particularly mobile), the clips may not be to the right of the text. Personally, I'd simply cut this altogether, as the caption to those clips makes clear what they are.

• Pruned. Tim riley talk 18:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

All very minor: I doubt they'll take you very long at all. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks UC. Your eagle eye is, as ever, greatly valued. Tim riley talk 20:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

SchroCat

• Support. I was happy at PR, but the article has been strengthened since. - SchroCat (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, SchroCat, for support here and input at PR. Tim riley talk 15:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Ssilvers

The 4th paragraph of the LEAD section says: "...but he was not a good conductor and had to resign after three years." At first glance, one would think this meant that his technical conducting skills were poor.

However, the problem seems to have been social skills, not technique. The body of the article says "...he accepted a post as director of music at Düsseldorf in April 1850. Hall comments that in retrospect it can be seen that Schumann was fundamentally unsuited for the post. In Hall's view, Schumann's diffidence in social situations, allied to mental instability, "ensured that initially warm relations with local musicians gradually deteriorated to the point where his removal became a necessity in 1853".

The LEAD (not lied) ought to be harmonised with the text below. I suggest "...but his shyness and mental instability made it difficult for him to work with other/orchestra musicians, and he had to resign after three years." I am so sorry that I do not have time to review this thoroughly. Good luck! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

That will do nicely. Thank you, Ss. Tim riley talk 19:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I added a sentence to the Lead about the period 1843-1849. One other question about the Lead, where it says "The marriage was followed by...." Should it be "wedding" instead of "marriage", as the marriage was ongoing? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Good question! Not sure the two terms don't overlap rather a lot (The Marriage of Figaro is about his approaching wedding day rather than his married life with Susanna) but point taken, and I'll change. Tim riley talk 19:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Image review by Generalissima

• File:Robert Schumann 1839.jpg: Public domain.
• File:Schumannhaus ALT.JPG: Public domain.
• File:Portrait of A Young Age of Robert Schumann.png: Public domain - the photo is uploaded as an "own work", but that might refer to the physical picture of the photo including the frame?
• File:Schumann-Abegg-theme.jpg: Public domain, but can be copied over to commons as it is out of copyright outside in its source country as well.
• File:Neue-Zeitschrift-fur-Musik.jpg: Public domain.
• File:Clara-Wieck-1832-signed-illegible.png: Public domain.
• File:Clara und Robert Schumann Relief MIM.jpg: Released into public domain on upload.
• File:Robert u Clara Schumann 1847.jpg: Public domain.
• File:Schumann-photo1850.jpg: Public domain.
• File:Du Ring am meinem Finger.jpg: Public domain (Like above, can be transferred onto commons.)
• File:Rhenish-opening-score.jpg (Like above.)
• File:Schumann-Genoveva-score.jpg (Like above.)
• File:Robert-Schumann-Haus.JPG: CC-BY-SA 2.0
• I am unsure if this is part of the image review, but all the music files are also good to use, as they are CC licensed.
• Images have appropriate alt-text.
• I would move the 1847 Robert and Clara Schumann picture to the right, as per MOS:IMAGELOC.
• No sandwiching issues as I can see.

Seems pretty good to me, besides that one image realignment; adding the licensing that lets the other files be transferred to commons would be nice, but I don't think is actually pertinent to the article itself per FA criteria. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Generalissima, thank you for this thorough and encouraging review. I'm a bit reluctant to move the 1847 image to the right hand of the page: having it flush left varies the layout a bit, I feel. I'm indebted to you for your review. Tim riley talk 19:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Tim riley: Oh, I just realized that the "Clara Wieck in 1832" image could be left-aligned, as she appears to be facing right. Is there a way to move those around to keep the layout interesting? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Perfectly happy for you or anyone else to rejig the images if you think they'd be improved thereby. Tim riley talk 19:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay! Anyhow, since it's essentially an optional element of the MOS as it pertains to image, I'm happy to Support on image review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Source review

To follow.... - SchroCat (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Quality

All sources are both reliable and of high quality. Subject specific searches do not show any major or concerning gaps in the sources used.

Formatting

• For most of the chapter titles you use sentence case, but Larkin's "The 'War' of the Romantics" doesn't.

• It's like "the Wars of the Roses" - treated as a phrase consisting of a couple of proper nouns. I think it's got to keep the source's capitalisation here. Tim riley talk 18:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• There are a few different formats for ISBNs which should be made consistent.

• How on earth did I manage to do that! Now duly hyphenated. Tim riley talk 18:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• FN142 needs a full stop after pp.

• Indeed so. Done. Tim riley talk 18:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• FN 56: Browne Conor. "Robert Schumann's Das Paradies und die Peri and its early Performances": why is "early" lower case and "Performances" capitalised?

• I was following the source. It's a one-off web page rather than a book chapter, but I don't think there's any harm in taking the minor liberty of lower-casing "performances", and have now done so. Tim riley talk 18:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

That's the lot. - SchroCat (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your keen-eyed review, SchroCat. I'm much obliged. Tim riley talk 18:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Pass for the source review. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan

Hi Tim riley, my comments:

• I'm not quite sure about this, but wouldn't including August Schumann in the infobox be prudent?

• He's not really notable, I think. If it were not for Robert nobody would have heard of him. Tim riley talk 14:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• "musical historian": wouldn't "music historian" be better?

• This may be an Engvar thing: cf. BrE "musical director" and AmE "music director"

• "living composers": just "living composer", since we have only one here?

• But that wouldn't make grammatical sense. Tim riley talk 14:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Translate Die Zauberflöte as done for other German language words?

• Good idea. Done. Tim riley talk 14:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• "After a year in Leipzig": add a comma after?

• More Engvar. In the King's English we don't automatically put commas after introductory dates. If they serve a useful function in clarifying the meaning fine (e.g. "On meeting Joyce, Beckett was impressed", to save the reader wondering momentarily who Joyce Beckett was). But they are usually superfluous. Tim riley talk 14:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Link to international law as done for the other branches?

• I considered this, but I'm not sure our article on international law is about quite the subject Schumann studied. The general import is clear enough in any case, I think. Tim riley talk 14:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Do any authors discuss why Schumann named his two selfs Florestan and Eusebius? Was the first based on the character in Fidelio by Beethoven, and the second one on Greek bishop?

• This is covered in the footnote. As it is all conjectural, it is, as discussed at the peer review, better footnoted than in the main text.

• Link to Ferdinand Schubert?

• Excellent suggestion. I didn't realise he had an article. Never heard of him, truth to tell, before I started reading up for the revision of the article. Done. Tim riley talk 14:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• "toured to": just "toured"?

• Without the preposition it reads as though they did tours of those cities rather than touring from one to the other.

• Translate Waldszenen?

• Good idea. Done. Tim riley talk 14:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Link to Goethe on first use instead of second?

• Yes, good. Done. I'd forgotten he wasn't mentioned alongside Schiller at the first mention of the latter. Tim riley talk 14:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Translate Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung?

• It's translated earlier in the text. Tim riley talk 14:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• We're missing commas at a lot of places. Would it be ok with you if I added those myself?

• No it wouldn't: we don't need an avalanche of unnecessary AmE-style commas. Tim riley talk 14:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Remove the bracket after Hermann and Dorothea?

• Yes. This is a hangover from an earlier suggested revision (see previous comments). Done.

• Link to The Record Guide?

• Already linked at earlier mention. Tim riley talk 14:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Link to Toby Saks in the Andante piece?

• No objection, but I'm not sure that's usual in play-box legends. Tim riley talk 14:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Link to Wagner and arias in the Opera subsection?

• We have a link to Wagner earlier. I don't think anyone reading an article about Schumann would benefit from a link to "aria", though I don't strongly object. Tim riley talk 14:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• "most of the minor ones": do we have the exact numbers?

• No. We can't know the exact number because, as mentioned in the text, Clara and Brahms suppressed some of the late works.

• Link to Edvard Grieg?

• Linked earlier. Tim riley talk 14:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• We mention Faure and Messager's pilgrimage to Schumann's tomb, but haven't specified where it is.

• Very good point. Added. Tim riley talk 14:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Is the link to Joan Chissell in the Legacy subsection necessary? We have linked to her quite a few times already. Also, was this prize at the Royal College of Music endowed by her? If so, then consider mentioning that?

• It was created in her memory. Tim riley talk 14:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Why have you not used sfn and sfnm tags instead of plain ref tags? Is there no consensus to do so on the talk page, or have you not opened a proposal to do so yet?
• Refs #18, #26, #30, #53, #56, #99, #110, #126, #131, #132, #133, #138, #144, #145, #146, #147, #149, #160, #165-169: Convert to cite web?
• Refs #48 and #49: Convert to {Cite AV media notes}?
• Ref #110: Consider converting to sfnm and cite web refs.
• Ref #110: Convert to Cite AV media?
• In the biblio, you shouldn't have to use the subscription required template. I believe URL access level or access level parameters will do the job just fine.
• In the biblio, link to Anthony Peattie.

• Done. Tim riley talk 14:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Add the trans-title values for Liliencron 1875 and Maintz 1995.
• In Marston 2007, there seems to be an error in the first name.

• Typo amended. Tim riley talk 14:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• I have taken, jointly or on my own, 20 articles on composers to FA, and most of them have used the referencing format used here. You will see, above, the comment from another reviewer: "The citation style is perfectly acceptable per WP:CITE". It is not in the slightest need of "fixing". You may notice that the source review, above, is a pass. Tim riley talk 14:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

That is all from me. The lead and body are very well written and I can strong support it. But the source formatting is at strong oppose level, you should fix it as soon as possible. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 13:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Wolverine

I'll have some comments in a few hours. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 07:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• From 1829 he was a student of the piano teacher Friedrich Wieck, but his hopes for a career as a virtuoso pianist were frustrated by a worsening problem with his right hand Should be from 1829 on

• It is correct as it is. Tim riley talk 13:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• virtuoso pianist were frustrated by a worsening problem with his right hand, and he concentrated on composition. Should be "so he concentrated on composition."

• "So" is not normally used as a conjunction in formal British English. Tim riley talk 13:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• Despite the bitter opposition of Wieck, who did not regard his pupil as a suitable husband for his daughter, Schumann married Wieck's daughter Clara in 1840. Add comma after daughter and Clara

• I'm not sure she was his only daughter (I think she was, but cannot be certain from the sources) and the comma would mean that she was. Tim riley talk 13:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• Schumann composed prolifically, writing, first, songs I'm not understanding "first" here

• It means he wrote songs first then other things Tim riley talk 13:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• During his lifetime Schumann was recognised for his piano music – often subtly programmatic – and his songs. Use em dash for both

• The MoS is happy with either type of dash. Tim riley talk 13:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• recently Wolfgang Rihm have been inspired by his music, as were French composers such as Georges Bizet Should be "as have French composers such as Georges Bizet "

• Rihm is still with us, whereas Bizet et al were 19th-century: present tense for the former and past tense for the latter. Tim riley talk 13:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• On 13 June 1810 the local newspaper, Comma after June

• Unnecessary in the King's English (though compulsory in AmE, I believe). See current edition of Fowler, pp. 4 and 732. Tim riley talk 13:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• Throughout his childhood and youth his love of music and literature ran in tandem − Replace the last symbol with a comma

• Good. Done. Tim riley talk 13:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• Musically, Schumann got to know the works of Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, and of living composers Composer should be singular

• That wouldn't be English, unless you are proposing an exceptionally clunky false title. Tim riley talk 13:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• August Schumann died in 1826; his widow was less enthusiastic about a musical career for her son and persuaded him to study for the law as a profession. "For the law" to just "law"

• Fine as it is. Normal BrE usage. Tim riley talk 13:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• According to his room-mate Emil Flechsig Hyphen unnecessary

• You're right. The OED prints it as a single word, as does Chambers. Adjusted. Tim riley talk 13:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• After matriculating at the university on 30 July 1829 he travelled in Switzerland and Italy from late August to late October. Comma after July

AmE usage, not wanted here. Tim riley talk 13:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• he wrote to his mother on 30 July 1830 telling her how he saw his future: Same here

• Ditto. Tim riley talk 13:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• A six-month trial period was agreed. Changed to "agreed upon"

• Unnecessary extra word. Tim riley talk 13:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• for piano, a programmatic piece depicting twin brothers – one a poetic dreamer, the other a worldly realist – both in love with the same woman at a masked ball. Em dashes needed

• No they aren't. See the Manual of Style: either spaced en-dashes or unspaced em-dashes are prescribed. Tim riley talk 13:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• Schumann had by now come to regard himself as having two distinct sides to his personality and art: he dubbed his introspective, pensive self "Eusebius" and the impetuous and dynamic alter ego "Florestan". Change to and his impetuous and dynamic alter ego "Florestan".

• The second his would be ambiguous: Schumann's or Eusebius's? The definite article covers both possibilities. Tim riley talk 13:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• The condition had the advantage of exempting him from compulsory military service – he could not fire a rifle – but by 1832 he recognised that a career as a virtuoso pianist was impossible and he shifted his main focus to composition. Em dashes again

• As above. Tim riley talk 13:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• Among the contributors were friends and colleagues of Schumann, writing under pen names: he included them in his Davidsbündler (League of David) – a band of fighters for musical truth, named after the Biblical hero who fought against the Philistines – a product of the composer's imagination in which, blurring the boundaries of imagination and reality, he included his musical friends. Em dashes please

• No - see above. Tim riley talk 13:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• According to Chissell, her concerto debut at the Leipzig Gewandhaus on 9 November 1835, Comma after November

• No, as explained above. This is in BrE. Tim riley talk 13:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• Ferdinand allowed him to take a copy away and Schumann arranged for the work's premiere, conducted by Mendelssohn in Leipzig on 21 March 1839. Comma after March

• As above. Tim riley talk 13:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• In the Neue Zeitschrift für Musik Schumann wrote enthusiastically about the work and described its "himmlische Länge" – its "heavenly length" – a phrase that has become common currency in later analyses of the symphony. Em dashes please

• As above. Tim riley talk 13:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment: OK, so please replace your en dashes with em dashes and add a comma after the month in DMY format.

• No to both - see the Manual of Style. Tim riley talk 13:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• she was the better-known of the two but her career was continually interrupted by motherhood of their seven children. Should "the motherhood of their seven children."

• Unnecessary extra word. Tim riley talk 13:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• He studied works by Haydn and Mozart, despite an ambivalent attitude to the former Should be "towards the former"

• Fine as it is. See current edition of Fowler, pp. 137 and 685. Tim riley talk 13:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• It was premiered at the Gewandhaus on 4 December "Was" is redundant

• This is in BrE. Premiere is not used intransitively here. Tim riley talk 13:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• and repeat performances followed at Dresden on 23 December, Berlin early the following year, and in London in June 1856 "In" before London is not needed.

• OK. Removed. Tim riley talk 13:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• Genoveva, a four-act opera based on the medieval legend of Genevieve of Brabant, was premiered in Leipzig, conducted by the composer, in June 1850. Again "was" is redundant

• It isn't: see above. Tim riley talk 13:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• During 1850 Schumann composed two substantial late works – the Third (Rhenish) Symphony and the Cello Concerto. For this one, the dash should be a colon

• No. See Fowler, p. 202.

• Absolute music such as those works are in the minority in his piano compositions "are" to "is"

• Yes. Done. Tim riley talk 13:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• Schumann shares the second place in the hierarchy of the Lied with Wolf. Remove "the"

• This is the normal form. It refers to the genre. Without the definite article it would be specific and the noun would need to be plural, but that is not what Moore is saying. Tim riley talk 13:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• They are known for the quality of the texts he set: "Sets" should be plural

• That would not be English. Tim riley talk 13:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• consisting of nine Heine settings and the Op. 39 set of twelve settings of poems by Eichendorff. Add semicolon after "settings"

• Unnecessary. Tim riley talk 13:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• Schumann's literary sensibilities led him to create in his songs an equal partnership between words and music unprecedented in the German Lied. "The" unnecessary

• Better with it in my view. Tim riley talk 13:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• Conductors including Gustav Mahler, Max Reger, Arturo Toscanini, Otto Klemperer and George Szell have made changes to the instrumentation before conducting his orchestral music. Who exactly are you referring to when you say "his"

• Schumann's, which is the only possible meaning, it seems to me. One doesn't want the name "Schumann" in three sentences in succession if it can be avoided. Tim riley talk 13:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• Hall comments that Schumann's orchestration has subsequently been more highly regarded because of a trend towards playing the orchestral music with smaller forces in historically informed performance. "Subsequently" is redundant and "performance" should be plural

• The adverb makes the meaning clearer, and the noun should not be plural. HIP is a genre. Tim riley talk 13:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• with movements depicting a solemn religious ceremony in Cologne Cathedral and outdoor merrymaking of Rhinelanders. Add "the" before "outdoor"

• Otiose. Tim riley talk 13:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• the vigorous opening bars succeeded by the wistful A minor theme that enters in the fourth bar. Add "are" after bars

• Not needed. Tim riley talk 13:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• In addition to his chamber works for what were or were becoming standard combinations of instruments, Schumann wrote for some unusual groupings and was often flexible about which instruments a work called for: in his Adagio and Allegro, Op. 70 the pianist may, according to the composer, be joined by either a horn, a violin or a cello, and in the Fantasiestücke, Op. 73 the pianist may be duetting with a clarinet, violin or cello. His Andante and Variations (1843) for two pianos, two cellos and a horn later became a piece for just the pianos.

• Not sure what point you are trying to make here. Tim riley talk 13:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Never mind that. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 16:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• The work was never given complete in Schumann's lifetime Completed?

• Correct as it is. It is an adjective and not a participle. Tim riley talk 13:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• The songs featured in the recorded repertoire from the early days of the gramophone change to "date from the early days"

• But they don't. They date from Schumann's time a century earlier. Tim riley talk 13:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• Schumann's solo piano music has remained core repertoire for pianists change to "a core"

• Correct as it is. Tim riley talk 13:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• Bizet, Widor, Debussy Replace commas with semicolons

• A matter of personal preference. Tim riley talk 13:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• Other twentieth and twenty-first century Add hyphen between "first" and "century"

• Were it in its own I should do so, but the coupling with the twentieth century makes it desirable to omit it so that "century" attaches itself equally to both. Tim riley talk 13:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• edited by Clara and Brahms, but it was not complete: apart colon = full stop & apart = Apart

• The colon here serves what Fowler calls the function of "delivering the goods that have been invoiced in the preceding words". A new sentence would break that connexion. Tim riley talk 13:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

My criticisms above are minor; overall, this is a lengthy, well-written piece. When all is done, I'd appreciate a review of the narwhal FAC. Thanks, Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 11:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll look in at your Narwhal nomination. Meanwhile, thank you for commenting here. Tim riley talk 13:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. You have my support. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 16:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for your support, Wolverine. I'll comment at your Narwhal FAC as soon as I can. Tim riley talk 17:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• Article and chapter titles should consistently be in either title or sentence case, regardless of how they appear in their original.
• "His works typified the spirit of the Romantic era in German music." You sure that should be past tense? Have they since ceased to do so?

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for these. I have my right arm in plaster and cannot type very easily but hope to be improved by midweel and will attedn to your comments then. Tim riley talk 06:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh dear, that sounds like an unhappy state of affairs. I'll promote this, on the assumption that you will see to the two minor points above once you are able to. If either raise issues, could you let me know. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Gog - will certainly do. Tim riley talk 20:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 8 July 2024 [38].

---

Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number

Nominator(s): λ NegativeMP1 02:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

"You all came back, huh? Why? You all know how this ends, don't you?" - Richard

Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number is a sequel to one of the most influential indie games of the 2010s, but is widely considered weaker than that game and is generally only remembered for being banned in Australia. The article for it is basically my #1 work on this site, having been worked on by me since my first non-talk page edits. It's also a former featured article candidate that failed due to concerns I was not able to address on time due to some real life events. With the copyedits done since then and all meaningful sourcing being exhausted, I believe that this article has very little in its way to becoming a featured article. I look forward to addressing any comments. λ NegativeMP1 02:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Support from Panini!

No change, unless if MP1 got into some huge Wiki-drama that I should condemn. Panini! • 🥪 03:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Support from Draken Bowser

Never got around to playing the sequel, but the first game was a good one. I have a feeling the nom will be successful this time, just need to iron out a few kinks. Dropping a few suggestions

Lead

• "The game takes place before, during, and after the events of Hotline Miami, with most of it focusing on the aftermath of the massacres committed against the Russian mafia in Miami by the previous game's protagonist, Jacket." - I think this is just a bit much to take in for the article's second sentence.
  • I can agree, but I'm not sure if there's a better way to word this or shorten it.
• Prefer "with Dennaton incorporating all unused concepts they had from the development of the first game into the sequel."
  • Done.
• "received generally positive reviews from critics, with reviewers generally praising the soundtrack and gameplay"

Gameplay

• "such as" - used five times in relative proximity.
  • Reduced repetition.
• "It is divided into several chapters (such as a building), each of which is further broken down into several stages (such as the floors of the aforementioned building)." - sometimes we need parentheses, but would it be possible to rephrase?
  • Unless you have any suggestions, I'm not sure.
• "Most chapters have the player take control of a different character, with the game having thirteen playable characters in total." → "Most chapters have the player take control of one of thirteen playable characters."
  • Done.
• "with enemy reactions towards player action being varied and enemies being able to get stuck in place." - could be slightly rephrased for better flow.
  • Rephrased.
• "Exclusively for the version of the game released on Steam-release" - and I'd prefer to swap the following clauses into - "a level editor allowing players to create their own levels is included." - or to swap the entire sentence on its head leading with info on the level editor and ending on "..with the Steam-release."
  • Done.
• "the players to create their own cutscenes and dialog, making it possible for players to create their own campaigns." - repetition.
  • Rephrased this bit completely.

Synopsis

• Are video games subject to plot-section word limits? It's at 738.
  • Technically, there is a recommendation to keep it under 700 words, but this game has a convoluted plot and I think it's at the shortest it can be at.
• " Following the events of Hotline Miami, the player character, 'Jacket', has been arrested after being manipulated into killing off the leadership of the Russian mafia by 50 Blessings, a neo-nationalist terror cell that masquerades as a peaceful activist group, gaining nationwide infamy." - a long sentence introducing many new ideas. Does "gaining nationwide infamy" refer to Jacket, 50 Blessings or both?
  • Added "leading to him", which should specify Jacket I think.
• Prefer "serves with him in a commando squad deployed in Hawaii in 1985."- and I think I get what is meant by: "the basis of the shopkeeper" - but could the idea be communicated more clearly?
  • Changed to remove "the basis of", since the shopkeeper is just Beard.
• "In 1991, a group of copycat killers known as The Fans attempt to emulate Jacket for attention, while the Son of the Russian Mafia boss of the first game seeks to return the Russians to power against the Colombian Cartel with the help of The Henchman, the latter of which seeks retirement." - a lot to take in before the full stop.
  • Broke the sentence.
• "- in an act of desparation -" - ndashes.
  • Done, I think?

Halftime break. Will return later. Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Development

• "a team composed of" prefer "duo"
  • Done.
• "Dennaton prioritized developing the game specifically for the fans of the original, comparing their development strategy to that of the Mega Man series. Unconcerned with trying to attract a larger audience, they described that they would 'give people that like the first game another game that they will enjoy.'" - the message conveyed by the quote is almost identical to the first clause.
  • Changed.
• "The success of Hotline Miami was noted to lead to the increased the popularity of the artists behind the game's soundtrack.
  • Done.

Marketing and release

• "It was announced here"
  • Done.
• "Burns of VideoGamer and Rad of IGN praised the narrative, with Burns praising Dennaton's world design and Rad praising the variety in character motivations. Dave Cook of Vice praised the narrative for being a "smart story that many people simply didn't understand", and praising the ending." - "The soundtrack was additionally praised for its combination with gameplay by Thurster of PC Gamer and Burns of VideoGamer. Some tracks received additional praise for their specific uses in the game, with "Roller Mobster" being praised by Thurster of PC Gamer, and "You Are The Blood" being praised by Caty McCarthy of VG247 post-release in 2018"
  • Lower repetition.
• Perhaps: "Many viewed it as whatattendees(?) shared Nathan Grayson's view of adescribed as a"
  • Done.
• "that they would not change the ruling."
  • Done, though I left it as saying "challenge the ruling" since that seems like the proper lagnuage here.
• "Upon release of the game"
  • Done.
• "calling it a "grave mistake" in the game that did not feature into the narrative."
  • Done.

That's all I've got. Draken Bowser (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I've addressed all of the above comments unless specifically noted otherwise. λ NegativeMP1 23:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Draken Bowser, 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) 12:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

• I've been thinking about it. With the comments from the last review in mind and also my personal impression I'm waiting for one or two competent prose reviewers to speak their mind before pledging. Draken Bowser (talk) 12:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

• This review seems to be in good hands. I'm passing the torch. Draken Bowser (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Image review by Generalissima

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hotline_Miami_2_cover.png
  • Classic and standard fair use cover image. Not much to say here, the fair use rationale is composed satisfactorily.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hotline_Miami_2_Gameplay.png
  • Low-res gameplay image, again the fair use rationale seems correct and well-composed. Definitely helps understand the game for someone who's never played it.
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jonatan_S%C3%B6derstr%C3%B6m_(Cactus)_-_Game_Developers_Conference_2010_(2).jpg
  • Correctly licensed CC picture of the lead designer and programmer. Good to go as well.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RTX_2014_-_Playing_Hotline_Miami_2_(14583610172).jpg
  • Correctly licensed CC picture of someone playing it at a con. Gives context for the game's development and marketing.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hotline_Miami_2_Rape_Scene.png
  • Fair-use image for a particularly controversial scene that recieved widespread media coverage. Like the others, good fair-use rationale here.
• (not a picture but still a media) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Roller_Mobster_(Carpenter_Brut).ogg
  • Gives context for what the OST of the game sounds like. Seems like a reasonable choice for this. Fair use rationale seems good to go as well.
• Fair use heavy, but seems like it's all justified, and none of it seems gratuitous. Very well illustrated for a recent video game article. Support on image review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Skyshifter

Might turn this into a full review later. For now, I've noticed that some references need better formatting. Some examples are: the Hardcore Gamer sources shouldn't repeat the website's name in the title; the GameSpot ones lack both the author and date; the Eurogamer ones lack the author's names; etc. I'd recommend going over the references to add these missing parameters. I'd also recommend adding italics when the game's name is cited in the title, similar to what was done in OneShot. Skyshiftertalk 21:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, I've went through and italicized the games titles, as well as add all missing author first and last names unless the information was not available (ex. the Stadia primary source, the Famitsu source). λ NegativeMP1 17:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Some formatting is still needed for the references.

• Article titles should be consistently in either sentence case or title case.
  • I'm using the way the articles are named on their publisher site, and I'm hesitant to change the way they're worded there in any way.
• Some websites are inconsistently linked. You should link all of them for consistency. This includes refs. 5, 11, 21, 27, 34, 51.
  • Got them all, I believe.
• Remove "PC Gamer" as author for refs. 9 and 17
  • Done.
• On ref. 14 change the website parameter to publisher to avoid italicization
  • Done.
• On ref. 18 remove "on Steam" from the title, remove store.steampowered.com and add Steam as publisher
  • Done.
• Ref. 20 lacks website parameter
  • Fixed.
• Add translated title to ref. 31
  • I don't know anyone that can translate the title, so not doable right now.
• Add Stadia Community Blog as publisher for ref. 35
• Ref. 37 has an extra apostrophe
  • Removed.
• Metacritic shouldn't be italicized
  • I'm not the best with references, so I'm not sure how to do this without removing the publisher parameter.
• Ref. 44 needs italics for the game title
  • Done.

Additionally, the infobox image needs alt text. Skyshiftertalk 18:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Done all of the above unless stated otherwise or if extra direction is needed. λ NegativeMP1 19:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I was pretty sure Gematsu had an article or redirect (I remember seeing it blue in another article today?), but they don't, so I've removed it (sorry). I've also fixed the Stadia link. I added a Japanese translation for 31's title with help from ChatGPT, hopefully that's fine. I've also removed the italics from Metacritic. On ref 42, I renamed GamesRadar to GamesRadar+. Regarding consistent title or sentence cases, it is a common procedure for FAs that tends to be pointed out by coordinators [39].

On a different note, I noticed that the Game Informer and GamesRadar+ reviews are mentioned in the reviews table, but not in prose. You should incorporate them to prose or remove them from the table. Skyshiftertalk 02:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Alright, made the case across the titles consistent. And removed Game Informer and GamesRadar+ from the review box since I don't think their opinions would've added anything important to the reception section. λ NegativeMP1 02:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Pass on reference formatting. Skyshiftertalk 03:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720

Non-expert prose review:

• "include knocking out enemies with a door or kicking them against the wall, as well as finishing moves" -> " include knocking out enemies with a door, kicking them against the wall, and finishing moves."
  • Done.
• "Jake, a nativist member of 50 Blessings, and Richter, a reluctant operative of 50 Blessings" -> "a nativist member of 50 Blessings named Jake and a reluctant operative of 50 Blessings named Richter" there are a lot of commas in this sentence so this will remove some of them.
  • I believe the suggestions from DRB have addressed this.
• "The trials result in a film depicting him as "The Pig Butcher"." Is this "him" referring to Jacket?
  • Clarified.
• I did numerous copyedits to the article. Feel free to revert anything you feel is unhelpful.

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

All of the above done, and thank you for the copyedits! λ NegativeMP1 21:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Issues resolved, support. Z1720 (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Support comments by DWB

Hi Negative, here are some of my initial thoughts, mostly relating to copy editing. I have no knowledge of this game so some things seemed unclear to me as a casual reader. I will take a look at the rest of the article soon, I'm up to Development.

Media

• From a presentation perspective, the media is all right aligned and seems to be either stacked on top of each other or pushed out of their respective sections. I'm on a higher resolution (2560x1440) and, as an example, it looks like this to me. The lower the resolution the more things fit but I would potentially suggest swapping the image of Soderstrom in the development section for this smaller one which is also clearer and forward facing File:Jonatan Söderström (Cactus) - Independent Games Festival 2010.jpg as the current one has him facing out of the article rather than in and is 90% not a picture of the main subject. I would also suggest left aligning both this image and the gameplay one, I think this would resolve much of the stacking problems. Left aligning the image of the assault would also prevent it being pushed down by the metacritic box.
  • Changed the image and moved some over to the left.

Text

• "The game takes place before, during, and after the events of Hotline Miami," add the year of release of the first game in brackets after it.
  • Done.
• "The game takes place before, during, and after the events of Hotline Miami, focusing on the background and aftermath of the massacres committed against the Russian mafia in Miami by the previous game's protagonist, Jacket." suggested -> "The game takes place before, during, and after the events of Hotline Miami, focusing on the background and aftermath of the massacres committed against the Russian mafia in Miami by Jacket, the protagonist of the previous game."
  • Done.
• In the version of the game released on Steam, the player has access to a level editor, allowing them to create custom levels and share them."-> "allowing them to create and share custom levels with other players."
  • Done.
• "The game was originally conceived as downloadable content for the previous game, with the project becoming a standalone sequel after the length of it surpassed the base game. " -> "The game was initially conceived as downloadable content for the previous game, but it became a standalone sequel after its length surpassed that of the original."
  • Done.
• Multiple sentences starting with "the game", "The game was first announced to be in development in December 2012 through Jonatan Söderström's Twitter. The game was developed to be the last in the series, with Dennaton incorporating all unused concepts from the development of the first game into the sequel. " -> ""The game was first announced in December 2012 via Jonatan Söderström's Twitter. Developed as the final installment in the series, Dennaton incorporated all unused concepts from the first game's development into the sequel."?
  • Done.
• The lede has issues which stem from discussing release platforms in multiple places, both at the end of the 2nd paragraph and the end of the 3rd. I would maybe take a look at the 4th para of Spider-Man_(2018_video_game) and potentially merge the last two sentences of hte 2nd para into the third para.
  • Done.
• "Both the player and enemies can be felled from a single attack. " - > "Both the player and enemies can be felled by a single attack."
  • Done.
• "Additionally, the enemy AI is inconsistent, with reactions towards player action being varied." I think this is too vague, the first part sounds like it's broken, maybe an example of how it changes?
  • Will get to this later as I found some sourcing to add more information about it but I'll have to add it. Done.
• "Upon completion of the game, "Hard Mode" is unlocked for levels in which the player achieved a rank of C+ or higher." what does ranking involve? What are players scored on? What's the range of grading?
  • I get this text is vague, but this is unfortunately the best I can do I believe. There's no decent sourcing for the high score system. Could possibly reword it but this is the best in terms of what can be worked with..
• Sounds a bit marketing speak "Exclusively for the Steam release, a level editor allowing players to create their own levels is included." -> suggestion "The Steam version of Hotline Miami 2 includes a level editor, allowing players to create their own levels"?
  • Done.
• "The plot of Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number is told out of order" -> "The events of Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number are presented out of chronological order" Is this what this means?
  • Yes, fixed.
• Following the events of Hotline Miami, the player character, "Jacket",[a] has been arrested after being manipulated into killing off the leadership of the Russian mafia by 50 Blessings, a neo-nationalist terror cell that masquerades as a peaceful activist group, leading to him gaining nationwide infamy. -> "After the events of Hotline Miami, the player character, 'Jacket,' is arrested, having been manipulated by 50 Blessings—a neo-nationalist terror cell posing as a peaceful activist group—into assassinating the Russian mafia's leadership, which leads to his nationwide infamy.""
  • Done.
• the background and the aftermath of Jacket's rampage. remove the second "the"
  • Done.
• The whole second paragraph here is a bit wordy. Here is a suggestion for the whole section ""The game follows several playable characters through a series of intersecting plotlines that explore the background and aftermath of Jacket's rampage. 'Beard,' the shopkeeper from Jacket's hallucinations in the first game, serves with him in a commando squad deployed in Hawaii in 1985. Operating simultaneously with Jacket in 1989 are Jake, a nativist member of 50 Blessings, and Richter, a reluctant operative of the same group, both committing their own massacres, with Richter being coerced. In 1991, a group of copycat killers known as The Fans try to emulate Jacket for attention. Meanwhile, the Son of the Russian Mafia boss from the first game aims to restore the Russians' power against the Colombian Cartel, assisted by The Henchman, who seeks retirement. Martin Brown, a sadistic actor, uses his role in the in-universe film Midnight Animal to fulfill his violent fantasies, while detective Manny Pardo employs extreme violence to deal with criminals. Evan Wright, a writer, seeks to document the massacres in a book."
  • Copy pasted this version, since I tried my own methods in the past to reword this and I wasn't too sure how to make it less wordy.
• the Soviet Colonel – in an act of desperation – murders remove the spaces between the '—'
  • Done.
• but Beard manages to carry him to safety and save his life. - saying the same thing twice, carrying him to safety or saving his life are sufficient alone
  • Reduced to "saving his life."
• The trials also result in the creation of a film depicting him as "The Pig Butcher". who is this in reference to? It sounds like it's meant to be Jacket but the prose makes it seem like it's about Evan?
  • Made this clearer.
• Evan is given leads by his friend Manny Pardo, a police detective who uses his position to go on killing sprees during stakeout operations, justifying them as self-defence, needs a full stop instead of continuing on to talk about Richter.
  • Done.
• The aforementioned film's star, Martin Brown, dies when he is accidentally shot by an actress with live ammunition on set of the film's final scene I assume this is talking about the Pig Butcher? I'm a bit unclear why we're jumping from the trial, to Evan, to the film, back to Evan, to two otehr characters and then mentioning the film again. It might be that way in the game but we can take some liberties to present events in a sensible reading order unless the jumping about is essential to the narrative. I would maybe move the first mention of the Pig Butcher to AFTER Evan's mother coming from Hawaii, then we can introduce the film, the murder of Martin Brown, and the fans inspired by Jacket altogether.
  • Reorganized the section. It is told this way in the game, but explaining the game in chronological order is already something this article does that the game does not, so how the game presents it doesn't matter. Readability comes first here.
• they are all killed except for Tony, who is personally killed by Pardo afterwards while attempting to surrender. who is Tony, Russian Mafia or a fan? Who is the "all" being killed?
  • This is established earlier on, where the Fans are introduced in the character section as well as "Inspired by Jacket's killings, the Fans carry out a string of murders against petty crooks and drug dealers, unaware of the larger context of Jacket's campaign of violence."
• Meanwhile, the Son is trying "the Son tries"
  • Done.
• In their final moments, Manny Pardo we've gone from referencing him by surname to full name again, change to Pardo.
  • Done.

Hope these are useful Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Development

• Shortly after the release and success of the first game, Dennaton began developing downloadable content, while also stating that the game was financially successful enough to fund a new game. -> confusing and assumes the reader knows what DLC is. I'd drop the "while also stating that the game was financially successful enough to fund a new game." altogether since it's stating the obvious and is more relevant to the origina' game's article than this one. I'd suggest something like "Following the success of Hotline Miami, Dennaton soon began developing downloadable content to expand on the game, planning for it to both rival the base game in scale and introduce new playable characters alongside a level editor."
  • Done.
• As the downloadable content's proposed length surpassed that of the base game, the project was converted into a sequel. -> However, as development progressed, Dennaton realized the scope was greater than that of Hotline Miami and decided to transform it into a full sequel.
  • Done.
• On 26 November 2012, ten days after Dennaton stated plans to release downloadable content, Söderström announced Hotline Miami 2 to be in development through a post on Twitter. waffling a bit, suggest "Dennaton announced the sequel on 26 November 2012, via his Twitter account.
  • Done.
• However, the developers were still focused on fixing bugs in this original game. I'd question the relevance? Are we saying they were splitting resources? Was it affecting development of the sequel? I'd get rid of the "However", and change it to something like "The developers simultaneously worked on fixing bugs in the original game" and move this up to just after the 2nd point above.
  • I just got rid of this entirely, since it didn't effect development at all as far as any sourcing for this game is concerned.
• The game was made in Game Maker 7, which was the same engine used in the first game. -> As with the original game, Hotline Miami 2 was built in Game Maker 7.
  • Done.

Music

• The success of Hotline Miami increased the popularity of the artists behind the game's soundtrack. switch "increased" to "contributed to a rise in"

Marketing and release

• planned release date of later that year. -> release date scheduled for later that year
  • Done.
• "announced/announcement is used 3 times in the first two sentences
  • Changed one to "disclosed" to reduce repetition.
• known as the Hotline Miami Collection,, it's not a nickname, just say titled, or even just "compilation of both games, the Hotline Miami Collection, released..."
  • Reduced.

Misc

• This game is nearly 10 years old, are there any retrospectives about it's modern appeal? Has it influenced any other games? Win any awards?
  • While the first game had a lot of influence on the indie game scene, this game was overshadowed and is basically disregarded as the first game but worse. There is some minor retrospective commentary, but its not very substantial and I honestly don't think it's worth covering due to how insignificant it is.
• Are there any sales figures available?
  • Unfortunately not.

I think that's everything. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe I've gotten everything you pointed out, with any adjustments or differences from what you suggested being pointed out when relevant. λ NegativeMP1 21:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Negative, this is mostly fine. One issue I've just noticed is that much of the synopsis is unsourced? Ref 4 doesn't seem to cover most of it. I have found https://www.vice.com/en/article/gqmpbw/the-ghost-wolf-legacy-hotline-miami-2s-story-explained-251 which may be worth looking at and seeing if it can be used, it's already present in the article as "{ref name="VicePlot"}". I did really struggle just finding that, it seems like this game did not get a tonne of coverage, but you can also cite the game itself which I would do as the only thing that doesn't need a ref is the plot section. Unless the game MOS is different to the Film one. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Video game plot sections can in-fact be assumed to be cited to the game itself, and most games do that. Ref 4 is only there because I was planning on expanding the bit about Richard to say he was a manifestation of characters fears, which I added just now. I think the Vice article was formerly in use at one point, though I think I got rid of it because I didn't find it particularly useful. Maybe if the characters and setting section needed sources. λ NegativeMP1 21:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, on the basis this section doesn't have to be sourced I am happy to lend my support. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Hardcore Gamer is viewed as sorta unreliable in WP:VGRS. Is Danny O'Dwyer and Crossley, Rob part of the GameSpot staff? What's "Abstraction Games"? store.steampowered.com is this a reliable source? What's #35? Is Chris Carter in #40 a reputable source? #45 may no longer be a reliable source. Rock Paper Shotgun is sometimes linked and without commas, and sometimes with commas. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Hardcore Gamer was viewed as reliable in 2015, at the time of this games release, as it wasn't purchased by Valnet yet. Even now, per this discsusion, there is no current consensus or noticeable enough decline in quality for it to be unreliable even as a Valnet-owned property.
• Yes.
• Abstraction Games is the developers site and SteamPowered is the games Steam listing. These fall under primary sources.
• VideoGamer.com content published in 2015 is still considered reliable.
• Fixed the Rock Paper Shotgun consistency. λ NegativeMP1 15:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo, is that satisfactory? Thanks. And should I take your earlier comment to mean that you won't be able to do the spot check on this one? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this counts, but a check of every single source in the article was done by Vami IV earlier this year in the previous FAC. While it was a separate FAC, this article still has mostly the same sources as then (if not the exact same). The only significant changes since then and now are prose. λ NegativeMP1 21:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Good thinking. But sadly, changing the prose is just as liable - in theory - to break the source to text fidelity as changing or adding sources. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, unless this can wait several weeks I can't do the spotchecking. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

If a spotcheck is still required then I can give it a gander tomorrow (ET). Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

With apologies for the delay, I've spot-checked about two-fifths of the refs, which I hope is sufficient:

• Ref 2: I can't seem to find how this verifies the claim that "kicking [enemies] against the wall" is an ability. The other uses of this source are all verified.
• Ref 3: All uses verified.
• Ref 6: Verified, though do you think it could be worth adding that Hard Mode was introduced in response to some players saying the original game was too easy?
• Ref 7: Both uses verified.
• Ref 8: Both uses verified.
• Ref 11: Verified.
• Ref 13: Verified.
• Ref 15: Verified.
• Ref 20: Verified.
• Ref 24: Verified.
• Ref 26: Both uses verified.
• Ref 28: Verified.
• Ref 33: Verified.
• Ref 37: Both uses verified.
• Ref 38: Both uses verified.
• Ref 41: All uses verified.
• Ref 43: All uses verified.
• Ref 46: Verified.
• Ref 47: Verified.
• Ref 50: Both uses verified.
• Ref 53: Verified.
• Ref 54: Verified.
• Ref 56: Verified.

Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 18:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Got rid of the kicking enemies against walls bit, and implemented the hard mode development suggestion. λ NegativeMP1 18:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you NegativeMP1, I'm satisfied with the changes made. At first, I thought complaints about the original game's difficulty might have benefitted from clarifying that the complaints stemmed from a lack of difficulty, but the context provided by the rest of the sentence indicates that Dennaton wanted to provide more of a challenge to fans who felt they completed the first game too easily. Support. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

• ref 2 is used to cite the statement about chapters and stages, but the Gamespot references only 30-odd "levels" and doesn't discuss the breakdown as the example given.
  • • In the following sentence, it is used to cite 13 playable characters, but the Gamespot review only gives a roughly a dozen count, and doesn't mention the specific special abilities called out for different characters. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  I've used the PCGamesN reference to try and verify the levels breakdown (since it talks about each level having "floors"), though I can remove it if needed. I've also used that reference to back up the playable character abilities, though I removed the playable character count. λ NegativeMP1 16:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  On second thought, I've went ahead and just completely removed the examples since I felt it was better to have a simplified description than try to put two things together to equal one based on assumption. λ NegativeMP1 21:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments from TWOrantula

• Ooh! Looks interesting. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 17:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Lead

• Cut "throughout the game"
• witnessing the events
• Link level (video games) and cut "of the game"
• "is tasked with defeating" -> "must defeat"
• "In the version of the game released on Steam" -> "In the Steam version of the game"
• More to follow. Nevermind.

• • Outsider passerby comment: I'm skeptical that these are actually improvements, and seem more like personal preferences. "Throughout the game" is helpful and harmless. "The" events ties back to the previous sentence on Hotline Miami 1, i.e. the events spoken of there; without "the" it refers to any old events, so that change seems bad. We shouldn't expect game-unfamiliar readers to have to hover over a wikilink to "level (video games)" to see which sense of "level" is meant; "level of the game" makes clear it means video game levels cleanly. (Usual reminder here that hover does not work on mobile, which is how 50% of readers view articles.) The other two suggestions, while harmless, I don't see as improvements, either - just alternate ways of saying the same thing. SnowFire (talk) 08:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  That is my fault. This is my first FAC review, and I am quite unsure on how things work around here. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 16:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  Don't worry, for the most part I'm still trying to figure out how things work in FAC too. For the most part, I agree with SnowFire's stance on these comments, but don't let that scare you away from the process. λ NegativeMP1 05:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@TrademarkedTWOrantula, seconded. Don't be too worried about posing queries. One way of looking at this is: either the nominator has a ready response that you are happy with, in which case no worries; or they don't, in which case it is as well that you made the query. A good FAC review is likely to some to and fro over these sort of issues, so just get in there. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments Support from BP!

Nitpicks!

• Link Hardcore Gamer
  • There is no Hardcore Gamer page to link to, though?
    • I mean Siliconera doesn't either, but requires to be linked. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 23:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
      • I don't really think it's required to be linked if the page doesn't exist, but there.
• 2 PC Gamer citations aren't linked yet as citations
  • Linked.
• One of the Engadget citations wasn't italicized yet
  • Done.
• Hardcore Gamer as citations aren't linked yet
  • See my comment above.
• Make sure to archive all the citations just in case the website dies in the future (some of them haven't been archived yet).
  • Most of them have been, I'll run an IABot request on the others when the bot lag goes below two and a half hours.
• add author at ref 19
  • Done.
• I've seen a couple of FAC reviewers before suggesting that Destructoid as a situational source should be omitted, though I may be wrong but this is FA somehow. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Addressed all of the above unless stated otherwise. As for Destructoid, (still gonna bring it up even though you struck that comment) this writer in specific was a staff editor, and is at present the site's managing editor. λ NegativeMP1 16:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

    I guess Hardcore Gamer is different than Siliconera that shouldn't be linked. I don't have issue with the article anymore. Nice work! 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 08:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 7 July 2024 [40].

---

Battle of Plum Point Bend

Nominator(s): Hog Farm _Talk 17:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

One of the few general fleet actions of the American Civil War. Military technology was greatly changing at the time of the Civil War, and this battle is perhaps an example. The Union was using early forms of the (then-)modern ironclads, while the Confederates had brought back the ancient idea of the naval ram with their cottonclads. The Confederate cottonclads defending Fort Pillow (upriver from Memphis) surprise the Union fleet and sink a couple ironclads, but the battle is in the end largely meaningless as both sunken vessels are repaired and the Confederates were forced to abandon Fort Pillow due to the fall of Corinth, Mississippi. Hog Farm _Talk 17:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC

Image review; pass by comment

• I'm very new to image reviewing so take everything with a grain of salt.

• File:NavalBattleOfFortPillow.jpg: source is dead. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• File:NavalBattleOfFortPillow.jpg: proof of publication? The source could use a bit beefing out instead of just a title. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• File:The photographic history of the Civil War - thousands of scenes photographed 1861-65, with text by many special authorities (1911) (14760373384).jpg: looks good. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• File:The photographic history of the Civil War - thousands of scenes photographed 1861-65, with text by many special authorities (1911) (14576178149).jpg: looks good. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• File:Engagement of the Union and Rebel Gunboats near Fort Wright, May 10 1862.jpg: looks good. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• File:Currier & Ives - Brilliant naval victory on the Mississippi River, near Fort Wright, May 10th 1862.jpg: looks good.

• Defending the Arteries of Rebellion: Confederate Naval Operations in the Mississippi River Valley, 1861-1865 needs ndash for year range. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • @Therapyisgood: - I have improved the documentation for the NavalBattleOfFortPillow image and have resolved the dash issue

• • • Pass image review. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan

Hi Hog Farm, some comments:

• Add a space between "c." and "On dozen"?
  • Done
• Fix the double linking to Missouri State Guard?
  • Done
• Link to superstructure?
  • Done
• "The battle was one of the very few fleet actions, even rarer Confederate offensive and some historians considered it the first fleet action in the war. As a result of the battle, the Union navy ships were strengthened at the waterline": Shouldn't these facts be included in the lead, which can thereby be expanded to 4 paragraphs? They seem significant to me.
  • I've added a bit to the lead. I think that a four-paragraph lead would be too long for this article; it's only 15 kb of readable prose including the lead.

That is all from me, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• @Matarisvan: - Thanks for the review! Replies are above. Hog Farm _Talk 01:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  Happy to support. Just one minor comment I forgot to add earlier: do we have any photos of what the site looks like now? If yes, consider adding? Matarisvan (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, I don't think there's any freely licensed images available of the site. Hog Farm _Talk 12:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Source review

• Are the publication locations needed? Most publishers have the location name in their names (University of North Carolina Press, University Press of Kentucky, etc)
  • I personally prefer to include that information in the citation style I generally use.
• Can links be added to some of these books? Perhaps from internet archive or google books. Just makes verifiability easier for the reader
  • I don't like linking to Gbooks as I've found the source previews available there to often be so limited as to not be useful. I've linked Calore, Fowler, and McPherson on Internet Archive. I did not link to the Internet Archive copy of Bearss as I think there's significant differences in parts of the recovery and restoration material between the 1966 edition on there and the 1980 edition I used a print copy of.

Spotcheck below, choosing randomly (AGF for sources I can't find online):

• McPherson 2012: uses 5, 29 good
• Calore 2002: uses 2, 3, 4, 8, 63, 66, 69 are good
  • I'm unsure about ref 68: from what I can see there's no mention of the General Earl Van Dorn nor is the First Battle of Memphis named on that page
    • The loss of all ships except for General Earl Van Dorn is supported by the description of the loss of the various other vessels and then the statement "Only the Van Dorn escaped, fleeing to join two other Confederate gunboats at Liverpool Landing on the Yazoo River". (General Earl Van Dorn and Van Dorn are variant names for the same ship. As to the exact name "First Battle of Memphis", yes, Calore never uses this exact phrasing but I don't think it's original research to be able to link and name a battle where the source text is obviously referring to that engagement. If it helps, I can include p. 143 in the citation range where it says the fighting occurred at Memphis.
• Smith 2010: uses 42, 64 good
  • I am likely missing something, but could you provide the quote that backs ref 61?
    • "the captains of the Federal flotilla also learned, if they did not already know, that their vessels required additional waterline protection. Capt. Davis immediately ordered that each ironclad be strengthened with additional wood and iron protection".

That makes up a good bit of the refs, and I can't find most other sources in their entirety online anyway. Just some small fixed needed Hog Farm- otherwise, lovely work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@MyCatIsAChonk: - thanks for the source review! I always appreciate seeing source reviewers doing spotchecks. McCaul and Tomblin are available through Project MUSE on the Wikipedia Library, and I have print copies of all the other book sources if you would like me to provide quotations for further spot-checking. Hog Farm _Talk 22:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Replies above are good- I'll look into Tomblin just for extra fun, but I trust the rest are good:

• Tomblin: uses 13, 23, 33, 48, 51, 62 are good
  • Ref 37: could you give the quote? Again my eyes are likely deceiving me
    • @MyCatIsAChonk: - "Stembel, fearing the rebels would board his boat, ordered his men on deck with cutlasses, carbines, and hand grenades" Hog Farm _Talk 01:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Hog Farm, all done here. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Pass the source review then! Also, I need a source review at a nom of my own- would appreciate any comments if you get time! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Ceoil

Adding placeholder. Ceoil (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• Have only made trivial edits re prose. No grammatical issues.
• Its not said in the lead that this was an American Civil War battle, nor does the lead give an indication as to its strategic importance in that war.
  • I've expended the lead a bit
• For the layman, in the first instances (lead and body) make the visible pipe Ironclad warship rather than Ironclad
  • Done
• Similar for "drafts" as in The Union ironclads had lighter drafts...laymen won't know, and a brief explainer in parenthesis would help...same with cottonclad rams
  • I've added a sentence to describe what the cottonclads were, as well as a note to indicate the definition of draft. As draft is a basic definition that I'm struggling to easily find a source that defines, I'm going to claim the WP:BLUE exemption unless somebody challenges the definition. Hog Farm _Talk 02:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• A few Union ships ran past the Island No. 10 defenses on the nights of April 4/5 and April 6/7, what is the 'Island No. 10?
  • Island No. 10 is stated to be a Confederate stronghold in the previous paragraph - is something else needed? There's not really much to say about Island No. 10 other than that it was a Confederate stronghold on the Mississippi River
• Fort Pillow, which was 50 miles (80 km) north of Memphis, Tennessee, on the river - this a reoccurring minor 'is/was' tense issue...surely it is still 50 miles (80 km) north of Memphis?
  • I guess so. The river has changed course somewhat but its still probably fairly similar. Have switched to "is"
• Redundancy: Union naval ships
  • Resolved
• Enjoying reading, brutal stuff, more shortly. Ceoil (talk) 23:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Resuming:

• Lead: Each day, a single mortar boat guarded by an ironclad took a position further downriver to bombard the fort, while the rest of the fleet remained upriver. - What's with "each day", better mention "tactic was to use an Ironclad..."
  • I've rephrased this a little bit
• Lead: did not have steam pressure built up and were not prepared to move - thus unprepared Ceoil (talk) 23:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Change made in both the lead and the body
• Some blue linked terms could do with explanations in parenthesis eg Ironclad (a warship protected by steel or iron armor), holystoning
  • I think a discussion of holystoning is really beyond the scope of this article but I do intend to describe a little bit more the nature of the Union ships
• many of the links are to dab or redirect pages. Ceoil (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  • I've not seeing any links to dab pages, and I don't think the redirect links are problematic as there's none of them that I think are likely to change targets.

The article is really well written, was difficult to find faults...support on prose. Ceoil (talk) 23:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

FM

• I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Link more names and terms at first mentions in captions?
  • I've reworked the captions a bit
• Maybe just a pet peeve of mine, but it's a bit unfortunate that the map interferes with the "aftermath" title. Perhaps rejig some image layout in that area?
  • I have addressed this. Hog Farm _Talk 14:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• "were located off of Fort Pillow" is the "of" really needed?
  • Not really, removed
• "and that the attack could drive as far upriver at Cairo" Is "as" meant instead of "at Cairo"? "as far up river as Cairo"?
  • Fixed
• "but the latter vessel had to be intentionally run aground onto a shoal, where she sank." Why did it have to?
  • I think it was to prevent the ships from sinking in deep water where the crew could escape easier and the ship could be refloated easier, but I'm having some difficulty finding a source that spells that out.
• "The Confederates lost about a dozen men, of whom three were killed" This is a bit confusing, I'd read "lost" as if they all died, but then you say only three were killed?
  • Rephrased

FunkMonk - Thanks for your review! I've tried to implement the following changes above - I'm still trying to find a source that supports why I think the two Union ships were run aground. Hog Farm _Talk 01:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support - looks good, if no source about the last issue can be found, there's nothing to do about it. FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

TAOT

I have some general comments:

• The link to naval ram could be linked specifically to Naval ram#Steam rams
  • Done
• What happened to Mortar Boat 16? It is stated the mortar boat was hit twice, but was it damaged?
  • McCaul says the two shots "went through" the boat, which could cover a wide range of damage scenarios. The sources aren't very clear on the level of damage sustained by the mortar boat. I've added that nobody on it was hurt though. Hog Farm _Talk 00:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
• I'm a bit curious at the classification of the battle as a Confederate victory and interested in your thoughts on this. I see two sources call it a Confederate victory, and the Union lost two ironclads (though both were back in service by June), but the Confederate ships failed to stop the bombardment of their fort, which was their strategic goal. It certainly appears to have been a Confederate tactical victory, but strategically it seems to have been indecisive.
  • I've removed the result field from the infobox, as I agree some amount of nuance is necessary. WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX actually discourages the use of anything other than a plain "Foo victory" or "Indecisive" in the results field. I think it's appropriate to retain this in the Confederate victories category, though, as the weight of the scholarship considers this to be a Confederate victory. Hog Farm _Talk 19:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• General Sterling Price, General Bragg, and General Sumter are all mentioned to have been damaged by Union gunfire, the latter "badly", but I don't see this mentioned in the infobox under Confederate casualties and losses. The lead section neglects to mention that the Union ironclads were both refloated and returned to service, making the Union losses seem somewhat worse than they were really. There's no mention of the damaged Confederate ships in the prose here either.
  • I've added mention of the ships being refloated and the damaged Confederate vessels to the lead; I want to revisit the sources again before putting something about the damaged ships into the infobox. Hog Farm _Talk 19:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
    • There's some debate in the sources here - Smith says that Sumter was badly damaged, while McCaul says that the Confederates did not suffer any serious damage. I've removed the "badly" descriptor from the damage to Sumter. Hog Farm _Talk 00:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
      • McCaul p. 111 "these 200 projectiles did not sink or seriously damage any of the Confederate boats" and McCaul p. 110 refers to the Confederates escaping with "minimal damage". McPherson p. 85 "the Confederate vessels had suffered surprisingly little harm". Chatelain p. 126 notes that "there was little damage" to the Confederate ships besides the superstructure damage noted by Thompson. Given the consensus that the Confederate ships were not majorly damaged like Mound City and Cincinnati, I don't think that there's justification for trying to assess who was hit badly enough to put into the infobox. Does Sumter count? Does the mortar boat? I will also note that other naval warfare FAs such as Naval Battle of Guadalcanal and Battle of Savo Island don't seem to be including more minor damage such as splinter damage in the infobox. Hog Farm _Talk 15:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

        I see, so the ships suffered damage which was significant but also temporary and easily fixed. They just took hits which disabled or damaged certain systems which meant they were forced to withdraw. I can see you've done your research and agree with your conclusions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• Will leave more comments in the near future. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

A couple more things came to mind right after I hit save on the initial comments:

• I think it's worth mentioning most of the Union ironclads were members of the City-class, in contrast to the Confederate ships being converted civilian vessels.
  • I've added some information on this. Actually only six of the Union ships were City-class; Benton was a civilian conversion. Hog Farm _Talk 00:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
• An order of battle section might be helpful to make it easier to keep track of which ships were on which side.
• Could you expand a bit on the differences in armaments between the Union and Confederate ships? This seems to have been an important factor in why three Confederate ships were forced to withdraw from the battle.
  • This should be much clearer now. Hog Farm _Talk 00:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
• Were there any repercussions for the captains and crews of the Union ships that failed to follow their orders to keep steam? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
  • No, this wasn't mentioned in any official reports due to personal honor-related reasons Hog Farm _Talk 15:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• "One dozen men killed or wounded". Why are we talking in dozens? The MoS states "In tables and infoboxes, quantities are expressed in figures".
  • Corrected
• In the infoboxes of naval conflicts one usually lists the vessels lost before the human casualties.
  • Done
• "The Union's daily tactic was to send a single mortar boat guarded by an ironclad warship took a position further downriver to shell the fort" Cough.
  • Fixed
• "The Union ironclads had lighter drafts". Drafts are usually higher or lower, or shallower or deeper; rather than lighter or heavier.
  • I see "light" used to refer to drafts frequently in the ACW literature. The tinclad warships are often referred to as "light drafts" in particular
• "As the Confederate ships' armaments were inferior". "armaments" → 'guns'? If rams are armaments then I am unsure about your inferior point.
  • Rephrased here and in the body
• "The two ironclads were refloated and returned to service, and several of the Confederate ships were damaged." Why are we starting a sentence with the aftermath and ending it with events from during the battle?
  • I've re-ordered some things

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Noting that I've seen this and will try to respond soon but I have gotten very busy. Hog Farm _Talk 03:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild - Everything above has been addressed except for the "lighter drafts" which I think is appropriate phrasing. Trainsandotherthings I hope to have a chance to put the order of battle together over the holiday weekend. If/when this gets through I will be taking a break from FAC nominating because of how busy I have gotten. Hog Farm _Talk 00:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Don't feel any rush from me - I was just inactive for a week myself due to life circumstances (moved to a new state, started a new job, my car died and I'll have to buy a new one). I intend to support once an order of battle is added. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Similarly, don't rush on my account. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Trainsandotherthings - The order of battle section has been added - does it meet your expectations? I'm not the best at the table syntax. Hog Farm _Talk 14:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Personally I much prefer naval OoBs in the format used here or here, although that is purely a personal preference. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with it. I'm in support of promotion now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 7 July 2024 [41].

---

Nadezhda Stasova

Nominator(s): —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

This article is about Nadezhda Stasova, 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 Anna Filosofova. Stasova pushed hard for women's education and was instrumental in creating university-standard courses open to women in the Russian Empire. The article underwent a thorough GA review from SusunW last December.

Note: if this nomination is successful, I hope to subsequently nominate Filosofova's article for FA. Maria Trubnikova just went through FAC and was promoted last week. The three articles have very similar sourcing, so any reviewers interested in this one may be interested in that nomination as well. Nominators from Trubnikova's review (Serial Number 54129, Buidhe, Gog the Mild, Averageuntitleduser, Ajpolino, Mujinga, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Borsoka) may be interested in this one and will already be familiar with some of the content and most of the sources. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Image review by Generalissima

• File:Nadezhda Stasova restored higher resolution (cropped).jpg is a retouched version of a public domain, both due to its age. However, I think it qualifies for the preferred PD-Russia-expired license tag, as it has an unknown author and was published prior to 1929. I will say that I am not sure the retouching is useful here? The upscaling has added detail to a point where it seems more like an artists' interpretation of the image, rather than an accurate depiction of the original photo. I would suggest cropping File:Надежда Васильевна Стасова. Деятельница по высшему женскому образованию в России.jpg (with the license change) for this image; and since the following image exists, it might be good just to swap that into the infobox and have the lower res image from the All-Russian League for Women's Equality in-article.
• File:Nadezhda Stasova by Repin.jpg A good image with an accurate public domain tag. Per MOS:PORTRAIT, it should be left-aligned. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  Hmm, I see your point on the All-Russian League photo. What do you think about leaving it out entirely and just using the Repin portrait, which is very striking, in the infobox? If the body then feels a little under-illustrated we could add a small pair of pictures of Trubnikova and Filosofova to emphasize the close collaboration of the "triumvirate". —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  Oh yeah! That's a great idea. (And I forgot to mention this in my initial run-through, but both images have excellent alt-text.) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks! I've now implemented the changes to the images as discussed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  Support on image review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Source Review by SusunW

Sources appear to be reliable. I extensively reviewed them during the GA process and found that while they are English language sources, they relied primarily on Russian sourcing. Comments to follow. SusunW (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• Why are some publishing locations given and others not given? References should be consistent.

• Fixed: added publishing locations to books where it was missing; the only exceptions are those where the name of the publisher contains the location, or non-books.

• "Stasova was the fourth of seven siblings", Muravyeva p. 526 says 5th of 8; Ruthchild 2009 p 75 1 of 7 siblings; Ruthchild 2008 p 151 says 4th of 7. Any idea why the discrepancy? Perhaps you should just say she was one of the middle children of 7 or 8 siblings?

• Modified along the lines of your suggestion, with a footnote describing the discrepancy.

• Ruthchild 2008 does not have page numbers for her entry. According to this version, her biography appears in volume 4: Seton-Zia, on pages 151-152, which should be in the citation.

• Added

• The Palgrave Macmillan Dictionary of Women's Biography editor1-link=Jenny Uglow; 2nd editor is Maggy Hendry. (Were it me, because it has been tradition to obscure women's names, I would state their given names.) Also note, you do not give what edition you are using for the citation. I only find Nadezhda on page 550 in the 4th edition, which confirms only that Elena was her niece and a revolutionary. The previous page 549 has Elena's biography and shows she became a party official. I would likely change the chapters to reflect both bios and give a page range, for whatever edition you are using.

• Added per your suggestion! Thanks for the comments so far. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• "retained their stations in the good graces of the upper class", no page numbers given, but both sources are multi-page references. Ruthchild chapter 6 appears on pages 69-84; Johanson chapter 2 appears on pages 28-50. Pages ranges should be given in the reference citation and in the in-line citation should show the specific page for each source.

• Added

• "differed on their preferred approach", cited to Engel p. 76, but that page is not within the chapter cited and is about a completely different group of women. On pp 58-59, Engel talks about the split in philosophy, but does not mention German or Russian factions. I do find that factions are contained in Ruthchild 2009, p 76 and Stites p. 69

• Adjusted to correct this error.

• I am confused about note "a" citation to Zelnick, since the note specifically attributes the information to Stites, which I find on p. 69. Who is Stites, i.e. note should give his full name and the fact that he is a historian specializing in Russian culture so we know why he is authoritative.

• Comment: I think that one got messed up as citations were moved around - it was supposed to be to Stites. I've fixed it.

I see that you made the corrections, but the note still just gives his surname. It should give his full name, be linked and state why he is authoritative. SusunW (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Added as suggested. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• "Sunday school movement in Russia", p 154 of Zelnik and p 527 of Muravyeva don't classify who is attending the classes. (Muravyeva does say working class women attended the later courses in Sastova's home). You need to add p. 156 to Zelnick where he describes the students. I also think that it is imperative to add a note that these were not the same as Western Sunday school religious instruction courses, but instead private schools focused on combating illiteracy with classes held on Sunday, which was Russian workers' traditional day off, per Zelnick p. 151

• Adjusted as suggested.

• "Hans Christian Andersen's Fairy Tales" Ruthchild 2008 needs p 152; Stites is not on p. 34 but on p. 69. Neither of these give the number of women involved and I cannot find an accessible copy of Kaufman, but Ruthchild 2009 p. 78 says 27 women were employed.

• Comment: Stites does say "Some forty members" while Kaufman puts it around 35. No doubt the number fluctuated over the years of the artel's existence. I've modified the sentence to be a little less specific, accordingly. Page #s added.

Second comment: Rappaport puts it at "One hundred women" in the collective - some widely varying numbers!

• "printers, binders, and suppliers" Rutchild 2008 needs p. 152

• Done

• "lasted until 1879" Ruthchild 2009 needs pp 78-79

• Done

• "plan of action was agreed upon I don't see on either of the cited pages. Actually just found this. It is in Stites, p. 75, but the version of events is different. Source says Evgenia Konradi presented a motion for a women's university at a naturalists' conference in 1867 and when it was rejected, she gathered those who expressed support in Trubnikova's apartment, where they made a plan.
• "petition to Tsar Alexander II." p. 37 of Johanson says the petition was sent to "K.F. Kessler, the rector of St Petersburg University"; Engel p. 60 says they presented the petition to Dmitrii Tolstoi, the Minister of Education; Rappaport p. 671 says Stasova and Filosova went to persuade Dmitrii Tolstoi, but says nothing about delivering the petition to him. Can you clarify? Stites p. 75 says the women delivered the petition to the rector who supported the idea and sent it to the Ministry of Education to approve. That version is confirmed by Johanson pp 37-38
• I don't see the quote "regular, serious courses" on either on Stites p. 34, although p 75 confirms the university approved the plan.
• I don't see any discussion of widespread opposition except in Stites, p. 76 says the government was hostile to the plan.
• "less-advanced, mixed-gender public lectures" is not on Stites p. 34, but is on p. 77
• "host courses for women in Saint Petersburg", Millyutin allowed medical courses only and Johanson 1979 needs to show p. 437
• I don't see the subjects they were allowed to take in Muravyeva, but the other two are fine.
• "in 1872, the Vladimir college" per Muravyeva p. 528 it happened in 1871

• Comments on all of the above. I was working from an excerpt of Stites which had different page numbers, but citing from the full book, I've fixed the page numbers as you suggest. I've tweaked a number of sentences to make the path of the fight for higher education a little clearer, and fix some details (such as who the petition was actually addressed to - good catch!). I think all of the above comments should be addressed by these changes. Let me know if anything still needs tweaking. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• "men's universities was still barred: pages 59-62 and 74-76 are not part of chapter II of Johanson 1987 instead part of chapter 4. Women's Higher Courses: A Domestic Safety Valve pp 59-76. Were it me, I would probably take out the chapter names altogether for Johanson since she wrote the whole book and just cite it as a whole. I get that the PDFs in DeGruyter are by chapter, but if you do it by chapter, then each time the chapter changes, you need to change the reference citation and in-line link.

• Done

• "tuition was therefore high", again not Chapter 2 of Johanson, but chapter 4. (You can avoid changing chapters if you just take them all out and cite only the book.)

• Done

• "for the courses in 1883" should be cited to Muravyeva p 528 and Rappaport pp 671-672

• Done

• "four-year university schedule" is not in Muravyeva or Rappaport. It is in Johanson chapter 4, pp 74-76 and chapter 6. The Bitter End: The Conservative Assault on Higher Education pp. 95-103 (Again you can avoid changing chapters if you just take them all out and cite only the book.)

• Done

• "were shut down in 1886" is not in Rappaport. Same comments on Johanson as previous comment. But, the courses weren't shut down, exactly. Enrollment was suspended pending regulatory changes, which allowed students who were already enrolled to graduate. It does say that without new guidelines the courses would cease but also says a commission "finish[ed] its work" on women's education in 1888, with new regulations pp 97-98 (Perhaps it's a technicality, but if a student enrolled prior to the suspension of enrollment in 1886 they would have completed the 4-year course, in 1890, one year after Alex III allowed enrollment to begin again.)

• Modified the sentence to make this clearer.

• Muravyeva does say p. 528 that Stasova got Alex III to allow enrollment again, but Johanson p. 98 credits that to Elena I. Likhacheva?

• Comment: No doubt both played a role - I've added a parenthetical and a cite to include Likhacheva's involvement, but not gone into detail, as the article is about Stasova.

• "Children's Aid Society" is not in Rappaport.

• Removed stray cite

• "as a kindergarten, hostel, and employment service" is not in Muravyeva's bio of Stasova, nor is p 500. P 500 is from Natalia Novikova and is a bio of Shabanova, Anna (1848–1932) pp 498-502. It does verify the info, but you need to correct the chapter and page range for this reference from A Biographical Dictionary of Women's Movements and Feminisms...

• Added as a separate cite, given the different author

Overall, I find no copyvios. Fixing mostly citation page number discrepancies above should resolve the technical issues. Thorough check of all sourcing reveals no major deviations between sources and article. Minor discrepancies noted above. SusunW (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you for your extremely dedicated work in fixing page numbers, catching discrepancies, and generally giving the article as thorough of a look as anyone could. I really appreciate all of your comments! —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

There is one comment left about Stites, but it doesn't impact the source review. Pass sources and "spot checks". SusunW (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Borsoka

• Stasova was born at Tsarskoye Selo on June 12, 1822. A geographic introduction to Tsarskoye Selo?

• Added

• A link to Russian nobility?

• Added

• Either use or ignore consequently the patronymic. (Vasily Stasov vs Mariia Abramovna Suchkova)

• Added

• Tsar Alexander I of Russia was her godfather. Whose?

• Modified to make clearer.

• ...(nicknamed Sonya)... Is this necessary?

• Removed - fair enough.

• Consider linking cholera to 1826–1837 cholera pandemic.

• Added

• However, she was privately tutored by professors hired by her family, and studied foreign languages, music, art, and etiquette. However? "Despite this, she was privately tutored..." or "Consequently, she was privately tutored..."? If the first version is right, why did her parenets decided to educate her?

• Comment: This one is a little more complex. Muravyeva writes that she received the usual education for a girl of her social position: lessons in French and German... polite manners, music, drawing, dancing, and so forth...the family also [hired professors] to each her and her siblings literature, art, and history. Engel says only that she was exceptionally well-educated for the times. Stites lists some authors she was schooled in (p. 67). Ruthchild, in contrast, presents Stasova's own view, which is presented in the prior sentence. What to make of all this? It seems to me that she received about as good an education as you could expect a Russian noble girl to get, but that nevertheless this was both unequal to what a boy would receive, and inadequate by her own abilities and standards. I'd welcome your thoughts on how best to make that clear and will consider how to modify the sentences myself.

• 2nd Comment: Reordered the paragraph and made some other tweaks - I think it's improved. —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• ...Stasova returned to Saint Petersburg We were not previously informed that she lived in St Petersburg.

• Modified to address this.

• Introduce Maria Trubnikova and Anna Filosofova.

• Added a phrase to the sentence on Trubnikova. I think Filosofova is adequately covered by the quote from Tyrkova-Williams, and of course the link to her own article. I'm not sure if there's an elegant way to sum up either woman in just a few words.

• I think a short introduction could be enough (see below).

• Added

• ...retained their stations in the good graces of the upper class Could you check it is not closely paraphrased?

• Double-checked - all good.

• The reduced group's charter was approved by the Tsarist government in February 1861. 1. What is the reduced group? (A society was mentioned previously) 2. Why did the government prefer the "Russian" group within their association?

• Comment: modified the phrasing to hopefully address the first question. As to the second, I don't think the government *preferred* the "Russian" approach, it's more that they were the ones who actually made something happen. None of the sources tell us anything more about what the "Germans" got up to after the split.

• It included a day care center and a communal kitchen Did the organization included a day care center...?

• Query I'm not sure what you mean by this.

• It may be the consequence of language barrier.

• Modified the language slightly for clarity.

• ..."mostly factory and shop girls"... Rephrase.

• Modified

• Why was the school closed?

• Comment: Zelnik goes into great detail, but in summary: all Sunday schools were coerced into government control or closed, because they were seen as a threat to established authority and a possible breeding ground for subversives and liberals. I've added a phrase to make clearer that Stasova's school was not specifically targeted.

• Introduce Maria Dondukova-Korsakova, Anna Engelhardt, Evgenia Konradi, Elena I. Likhacheva, and Konstantin Pobedonostsev.

• Query Could you clarify what sort of introduction you had in mind?

• Just one or two words (author, activist, noblewoman, etc.)

• Added —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• ...the relevant minister... Could his ministry be specified?

• Comment: he was Minister of National Enlightenment, which did have responsibility for the education system, but also had some connections to religious matters and to science/patents/etc. I decided, on balance, it was simpler to just say "relevant minister" than try to explain the complexities of the Tsarist government.

• Perhaps he could be mentioned as "who was responsible for the education system as the Minister of National Enlightenment".

• Modified per your suggestion.

• Do we know why the Tsar supported lectures to women?

• Comment: the sources are a little unclear, except to say that Filosofova's husband (a top aide to Milyutin) had influence over him (Muravyeva). In general the Tsars (and Tolstoy) were concerned that if they did not allow Russian women to be educated in Russia, they would leave for Zurich, where they would be outside government control and monitoring. I mention this in a subsequent paragraph.

• A link to Vladimir college?

• Comment: No link available, I believe.

• Do we know why the Vladimirski lectures were closed?

• Comment: The sources are a bit vague, but the best I can figure out is they were closed as part of a reshuffling of the supervision of women's education. Women's higher education (the Bestuzhev courses) were approved in April 1876, though they wouldn't actually get going until 1878. Johanson states, p. 43, that St. Petersburg women recognized the upcoming expansion of opportunity and were fine with giving up the Vladimirskii lectures, which were less advanced than they wanted.

• ...(RWMPS)... Delete.

• Done

• [Note b.] German or Baltic or Baltic German? A link to Baltic Germans or Baltic German nobility?

• Comment: - Stites just says ...so-called German faction - meaning some baronesses of German or Baltic extraction, which isn't very helpful. I'm not sure there's a better way to phrase it in the article without making an assumption.

An excellent and interesting article. Thank you for it. Borsoka (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments - I should be able to address these in the next day or so. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@Borsoka - thanks again - I believe I've now addressed all your comments above, or asked for clarification on a couple. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I am extremely busy in real life. I will cheque your edits tomorrow. Borsoka (talk) 03:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

No worries! —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Наде́жда Васи́льевна Ста́сова I am sure é, и́ and á do not exist in Russian alphabet.
• Fixed
• Could you add one or two sentences about her social background and private life in the lead? Borsoka (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
• Expanded the lead slightly along those lines. —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

All my major concerns were addressed. I support the article's promotion. Borsoka (talk) 04:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your improvements and suggestions! —Ganesha811 (talk) 10:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129

Voting myself onto the central committee for this one. Apologies Ganesha811 for missing your ping up there—this is an excellent series of articles, and I look forward to reviewing it tomorrow. Although I might have to oppose now, on principle... ——Serial Number 54129 13:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support, belatedly. Sorry about that Ganesha811, the week ran away from me. Don't forget me for the last one, though! Already page watched  :) ——Serial Number 54129 17:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

SC

Overall

• You should check to see that you are consistent with whether you use the serial comma or not – it appears in some places, but not others

• Fixed I believe it is now used consistently across the article.

IB

• "Nationality Russian Empire": per MOS:INFONAT this field "should not be used."

• Removed

Lead

• "They founded": as it's a new paragraph, it's probably best to start with "The triumvirate founded" for clarity

• Modified per suggestion

Early life

• "served as Stasova's godfather": does one "serve" as a godparent? (wouldn't "Tsar Alexander I of Russia was Stasova's godfather" work better?)

• Modified per suggestion

• "However": this can be safely struck, with the sentence starting at "In later years..."

• Modified per suggestion

Career

• "retained their stations in the good graces of the upper class": A little too purple for me, and I think it fails MOS:IDIOM. Maybe bring in line with encyclopaedic wording?

• Fixed, I hope. This one was a pain - the sources do emphasize the point, but there was no specific anecdote I thought was worth pulling in, so summarization was a bit tougher than I hoped. I agree the wording I had was awkward - I've changed it to read ...were not radical in public style or fashion, and were not ostracized by other members of the upper class for their work.

Higher education

• "a carefully worded petition": I'm not sure we need 'carefully worded': it was unlikely to be sloppily written (and describing it as 'carefully worded' is POV, without attribution)

• Modified per suggestion - the sources do mention this aspect, but it's not a very important detail as you point out.

• "pedagogical": it may be worth linking this to the Wiktionary – it's not a common enough word for many to readily understand

• Done

Later career

• "Stasova served as a mentor": Just "She" will do here

• Modified per suggestion

That's my lot. Interesting article. - SchroCat (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments, I should be able to get to them later today! —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate you taking the time! Let me know if there are any other comments that come up for you. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Nice article. - SchroCat (talk) 05:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

This is not a subject I know anything about, but the article seems to my layman's eye to be thorough, balanced and well sourced. A few minor points on the prose:

• "and read much French literature, as well as the work of the feminist George Sand" – what is Sand's work if not French literature?

• Modified to say "including" instead of "as well as"

• "She spent a number of years abroad" – vague. Is the number of years not verifiable?

• Comment correct, I don't recall any source being specific on this point.

• "with whom she was very close" – with whom she was very close to what? Perhaps "to" rather than "with" here?

• Fixed

• "In contrast to the contemporaneous Russian nihilist movement" – do things contrast to, rather than with?

• Fixed

• "The triumvirate, alongside a number of others" – another vague "a number of". A few? A lot?

• Comment yeah, another spot where the sources are non-specific. I really don't know if we're talking 4-5 others or 20-30. These were also not formal groupings - they were informal alignments among a large number of wealthy women who knew each other through Trubnikova's salon. A little vagueness is probably necessary here, unfoortunately.

• "government support provided only 7% of the budget" – it is normal to use "percent" rather than the % symbol in prose, keeping the symbol for charts and suchlike.

• Modified

• "and tuition was therefore high" – I'm not at all sure what this means. Is there a word or two missing?

• Comment: Because government support was minimal, student tuition had to be set at a high level to cover the costs of the course. No words missing, but I will consider how to rephrase this to make sure it's clear. Thanks for your comments thus far! —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I hope these few points are of use. Tim riley talk 10:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ganesha. If you have addressed all of Tim's comments, could you ping them so they know that. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Tim riley, per request, pinging you in case you have any other responses or comments! Thanks for your notes. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I still think "tuition was therefore high" needs to be turned into comprehensible English, perhaps on the lines of "tuition charges were therefore high" or "tuition was therefore expensive". Tim riley talk 19:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Tim riley, Modified per your first suggestion. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy to support the elevation of this article to FA. As far as I can judge, it is comprehensive and balanced; it is widely sourced, adequately illustrated and in good readable prose. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 13:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and suggestions! :) —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Ajpolino

Short and sweet. Just a few comments from me:

• "The triumvirate successfully pushed..." reads as gently at-odds with the next clause, which tells us that there were successes and failures.

• Removed per your suggestion.

• "she tirelessly continued" - tireless reads as editorializing to me.

• Removed

• "she also frequently" unnecessary.

• Removed per your suggestion.

• "subsequently vowed" the context makes the timing obvious.

• Removed per your suggestion.

• "a number of years abroad" any chance we know where "abroad" was, or anything about these years?

• Comment Tim also asked about this - the sources are regrettably non-specific. The Russian nobility usually preferred France and Germany, but there is no detail available that I know of in Stasova's case.

• "Stasova and the other members of the triumvirate"

• Removed per your suggestion.

• "The triumvirate, alongside a number of others," maybe this isn't worth fixing, but it reads as if it's "the triumvirate, alongside a number of other triumvirates..."

• Modified good point, made this clearer!

• At the beginning of the paragraph about the Society for Cheap Lodgings... I'm left wondering what the organization actually does. At the end of that paragraph you provide a description. Can that be moved up? If that description only applies to the post-split 1861 version of the organization, do we know what the 1859 version did?

• Comment the sources aren't very clear, but my best understanding would be that while the organizing work began in 1859, the government at the time kept fairly close watch on organizations and few of the services described would have been set up before the Tsarist government approved their charter in early 1861. I've made a couple tweaks to help give the reader this sense.

• "particularly to Switzerland" is this relevant?

• Comment I think it's a worthwhile detail, yep - the flow of Russian women to Switzerland was a major issue at the time - Johanson gives it a whole chapter of coverage and Stites covers it extensively as well in his work. I think a few words here make sense given Stasova's deep involvement in the push for higher education for women.

• The final quote gives a pessimistic reflection from Stasova on a topic she has worked on her whole life. Is that reflective of her views at the end of her life? Or is this kind of a random quote from that time? The way it's featured here gives it heavy emphasis. Is that appropriate?

• Comment Good question! Rochelle Ruthchild, who has covered the triumvirate and Stasova extensively (3 of her works are cited here), puts this quote prominently in her summary of the state of Russian feminism at the end of the 19th century. I wouldn't say it's a random quote. Ruthchild writes just before it that "Stasova had recognized that women's liberation involved a lengthy struggle that would not be realized in her lifetime. While acknowledging the difficulties of moving the Tsarist government, she placed much of the blame on Russian women. Their overall consciousness was still undeveloped; they [insert quote here]. I did put it there to help give the article a memorable ending, which per Ruthchild summarizes Stasova's viewpoint at the end of her life and at the end of decades of working on the issue. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Ajpolino (talk) 03:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for these - should be able to get to them tonight. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

All looks good from me. Thanks for the interesting read Ganesha811. Happy to support this FAC. Ajpolino (talk) 02:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Your comments were very helpful! —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

I am struggling to find in the main article the text which "their successes were sometimes limited or reversed" is a summary of. Could you help me out? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

It applies to the section on the push for higher education - although the educational offerings for women expanded during Stasova's lifetime, they progressed by fits and starts and she was eventually herself ousted. Tolstoy limited their initial options to public lectures instead of full courses, the Vladimirskii courses were shut down, the Bestuhev courses were underfunded and then paused, etc. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 6 July 2024 [42].

---

Butterfly (Mariah Carey song)

Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 00:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the second single from Mariah Carey's 1997 album Butterfly. It was a commercial disaster for her, receiving the lowest pop radio airplay of any of her songs in the US at the time and ending a five-year run of top-ten singles in the UK. However, it was nominated for a Grammy. Thanks for any comments about the article, Heartfox (talk) 00:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Aoba47

• I think a link for programmed drums would be helpful if one is available.

  Added

• I am jumping ahead a bit, but are there any citations to support her performance of the song during The Celebration of Mimi. It also seems that Carey has performed the "Butterfly Reprise" version, and I think that should be included if possible.

  Added

• This part, (While separating from Mottola and leaving their home in December 1996, a melody and the words). reads that "a melody and the words" are the ones separating and leaving the home. To keep this as close as possible, I would say (While Carey separated from Mottola and left their home in December 1996) and change the later instance of Carey's to her.

  Reworded to your suggestion

• For File:Walter Afanasieff and Tamara Gee 1 (cropped).jpg, I would include the year that the photo was taken to the caption.

  Added

• R&B should be linked on the first instance in the article.

  Linked

• I'm uncertain of the wording for this part, (Later in 2007, Carey specified she wrote the song). I get that "Later" is used to avoid repetition with the prior sentence, but I think saying something like (Carey specified in 2007 that she) would be better.

  Reworded

• I believe the audio sample would need a stronger caption to better justify its inclusion in the article.

  Edited

• Should there be any discussions in this article on how butterflies would later become one of Carey's trademarks?

  I think this is more for the album article. Even in the song's video, it's mostly about horses and there are no butterflies lol.

• Thank you for the response. I agree as it seems more pertinent to the album article, but I wanted to make sure. Aoba47 (talk) 01:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• Would it be beneficial to have a separate infobox for "Fly Away" (Butterfly Reprise)? I was only curious as it does have a separate subsection, which is the target for the redirect. I am not saying it is needed, but I wanted to ask as it was something that I thought about while reading the article.

  I tested it out but I thought it was mostly duplicative as the section is only two paragraphs

  Understandable. I had a feeling that would be the case, but I wanted to get your opinion on it. Aoba47 (talk) 01:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• For this part, (The latter described Carey's persona), I believe it would be better to just say "Gray" instead of "The latter". It would be clearer so that way readers would not have to look back on the previous sentence.

  Adjusted

• I think it would be worth expanding on the KQED review as I find it too vague in its current form (i.e. what do they mean by "peculiar"?). The review itself is interesting, particularly in its interpretation that the music video is about bestiality, but nonetheless, more context would be useful here.

  I'm inferring bestiality as a joke; added "due to the peephole and horse shots"

  The bestiality part is definitely a joke so apologies if I was inferring that should be added lol. I was pointing that out mostly to say that this review was odd more than anything. Thank you for clarifying this in the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 01:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

These are all of the comments I have for now. I will read through the article a few more times to make sure I have not missed anything. I do really enjoy this song, although I admittedly do not really seek it out. I wish it was given more of a chance for commercial success. I hope this review is helpful, and have a great start to your weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments as always. I think the song is probably her most even mix of vocals, authenticity, and production on a ballad. Heartfox (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I am glad that I could help, and I agree with you on the mixing. I will go through the article again tomorrow. I doubt that I will find much, but I want to make sure I do my due diligence as a reviewer. Aoba47 (talk) 01:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• The Butterfly (Mariah Carey album) article says that Carey performed "Butterfly" on Wetten, dass..? and Japanese television. It uses the Chris Nickson biography (i.e. page 170) to support this information. I do not have access to the source, but is this in the citation? If so, I think it would be useful to add here.

  Unfortunately a lot of citations to that book are made up

  I had a feeling that would be the case. Thank you for clarifying this point for me. Aoba47 (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• For Citation 7, should Butterfly EP be in italics since it is the title of an EP?

  Done

That is everything from me. Wonderful work with the article as always. I just have two clarification questions and once those are answered, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current FAC for Kes (Star Trek), but I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. Best of luck with your FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• M Butterfly.jpg – good.
• Walter Afanasieff and Tamara Gee 1 (cropped).jpg – good.
• Mariah Carey - Butterfly.ogg – good.

This passes the image review. — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 06:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. Heartfox (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "Reception for the music and lyrics was more varied" - this reads a little oddly to me. More varied than what? The previous sentence talks about critical reception for the song, so reception for the music and lyrics of the song was more varied than reception for the song....? Not really sure quite what is being said here...........

  Decided to remove this from the lead to avoid confusion

• Reading the first paragraph of the body, I think the lead should say ""Butterfly" was originally conceived as the house record "Fly Away"" rather than ""Butterfly" was originally conceived as the house record "Fly Away" (Butterfly Reprise)", as it wasn't originally conceived as a reprise

  Changed

• Afansieff image caption needs a full stop

  Added

• "They use the act of flying [...] and materializes it" - subject jumps from plural to singular mid-sentence

  Changed to "Flying acts as a freedom metaphor and is materialized"

• "In The Village Voice, Michael Musto considered them evidence Carey " =>" In The Village Voice, Michael Musto considered them evidence that Carey "

  Changed

• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the helpful comments, Heartfox (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720

Non-expert prose review:

• "with additional work in New York at Crave Studios, in California at WallyWorld, and in New York City at The Hit Factory" Why is New York separated on this list? If this is chronological then it should be more explicit. If it is not I suggest merging the two New York studies together.
• I checked the lede and infobox: all of the info there is cited in the article.

Just one concern. Ping me when you get the chance to look at it. Z1720 (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720: Thanks for the comments. I merged the New York studios. Heartfox (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support concern was addressed. Z1720 (talk) 01:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Source review

1. 43 is linking to the wrong Wikipedia page. What's "lescharts.com"? Why do some Billboards have ProQuest things and others don't? Otherwise, I don't see anything else that needs correction - sourcing seems to rely on prominent websites, newspapers and magazines, and several biographies and books. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Fixed link 43

Lescharts.com is the website officially licensing the French charts to publish online. As can be seen at the top of their website, " Nous sommes maintenant autorisés à publier les 'charts' français! Nous remercions IFOP et SNEP pour leurs accords." (they have an agreement with IFOP and SNEP). There was also a dicussion about these websites here.

ProQuest ids are provided when citing the physical magazine issues available on ProQuest, while ones that don't are when Billboard's website is cited.

Thanks for the source review, Heartfox (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 6 July 2024 [43].

---

Lewis W. Green

Nominator(s): PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I am excited to bring you my fourth FAC on a president of Centre College, this one about the school's fifth president and one of two members of its first graduating class. A skilled minister and educator, Lewis W. Green was president of Hampden–Sydney College in Virginia where he increased their enrollment and endowment and declined offer after offer from numerous other schools. After seven years there he departed for Kentucky's Transylvania University, though he stayed just over a year before returning to lead his alma mater. His five-plus-year term saw the outbreak of the Civil War and the school's use as a field hospital for both sides of the conflict at separate times. He died in office in 1863 after visiting injured soldiers and falling sick, and was buried a walking distance away from Centre in Bellevue Cemetery. Any and all comments and feedback, as always, are much appreciated! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• File:Lewis_W._Green_grave.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria alt text added. Do you think the little sculpture on the gravestone counts as an architectural work? I'm having trouble finding the applicable copyright category for it. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 06:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The whole stone would be a sculptural work. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria I'm not able to find a copyright template for sculptures separately so I have used {{PD-US-expired}}; does this suffice in this instance? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Yep. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Ajpolino

Interesting article on a topic I knew nothing about. Minor comments at first readthrough. Will return for more, hopefully soon.

• "Green left Kentucky after a short time once again, this time in 1840..." suggest shortening to "Green again left Kentucky in 1840..." (or just "Green moved to Pittsburg..." or something like that)
• "board of trustees in short order."
• "institutions was Transylvania, who recruited" should it be "which recruited" since Transylvania is not a person (even though it's obviously standing in here for people associated with the school)?
• "After being elected president of Centre College in August 1857, Green accepted the position following his departure from Transylvania and entered office in January 1858." seems a lot of words to communicate something like "Green was elected president of Centre College, and took up the position in January 1858."
• "Kentucky as a consequence of being elected to teach at Centre" a bit clunky. Suggest "Kentucky when he was elected to teach at Centre"
• "The pair spent two weeks... Ullmann, and Wilhelm Gesenius." makes it sound like husband and wife both studied under these theologians. True? Or was it just husband?
• "he made the decision to emancipate his..." shorten to "he emancipated his..."?
• "go Green decided to free them..." shorten to "go Green freed them..."?
• "he recovered in a short time and was soon after back to preaching" had to read this twice to understand. Could we simplify to something like "he soon recovered and returned to preaching"?
• "devote himself in a full-time role to preaching" shorten to "devote himself to preaching full-time" (or something like that)?
• "He was a popular professor and preacher among students and rarely were there large-scale disagreements between the students and faculty" this reads oddly. What are you trying to get across with the second part? Seems like most schools would rarely have "large-scale disagreements between the students and faculty".
  • Removed that part. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
• "in August 1851 he was successful... slavery in Washington, D.C." also odd to read. What does it mean to be "successful in debating" something?
  • I did word that kind of weird - I just meant that he was debating that issue and that he won the debate. It's not super relevant, though, so I removed it. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
• What does "being withdrawn from the benefits of the... charter" mean?
• "It took until the 1954 election... for Hampden–Sydney to conduct an outside hire for president again." is this relevant? Maybe they just had internal candidates they happened to like for many years. It's not clear this belongs in a biography of Lewis Green.
  • I guess I felt like it showed that he was a sought-after leader who was a kind of exception to a norm for HSC - if you think it isn't relevant enough I can remove it though.
• "on which occasion he delivered an address which was untitled." is this important?
• "he led a campaign in support of the temperance movement and gave a lecture to the same effect." - do we need the note about the lecture? Seems like that could be considered part of his "campaign".
• "During this first year... the 1857–1858 academic year." not sure this is necessary information, especially since the school will be dissolved in the next sentence.
  • I have clarified that the first "the school" mentioned in the sentence was Transy, not just the normal school - I think a picture of how Transy was doing in the midst of this reorganization is relevant enough especially considering Green's time at the school was, in a way, defined by this period of change
• "His inaugural address was given on..." I'm not an anti-passive-voice person, but this instance seems to cry out to be reformulated to "He gave his inaugural address on..."
• "By April, just months after he had taken office, he was named..." don't need this clause – we remember his term start was January from just two sentences earlier.
• "this was a position he held until..." could be slightly snappier as "he held this position until..."
• "due to the Civil War and its proximity to Centre" due to the school's proximity to Centre? Or do to the Civil War's proximity to Centre (so to speak)?
  • The latter (Centre is the school) - I tried to expand on that in the following sentence PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
• "The college did not reopen until October 27 and thirteen days of classes were ultimately lost." seems unnecessarily repetitive, especially emphasizing a relatively short gap (I expected to read that the college remained closed until the war's end).
  • Removed second part. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
• "main building, was still occupied; at one point" perhaps this sentence should say it was occupied and being used as a hospital. Then the next sentence wouldn't seem such a surprise.
• " autopsies in progress on their way to a professor's office" very strange way to end the section on his career. Perhaps the sources allow another sentence or two on Green's role during the civil war, and his involvement in the hospital operations that (presumedly) led to his death?
  • I have to run to class but I will take a look through the sources when I have some time later this afternoon. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
• "Green is a member of the..." right before this, it would fit nicely to note that he and Lawrence (I assume) had X children together (two?) so it doesn't come as a surprise that one married into a political family.
• "This period of illness... biographer Leroy Halsey." suggesting moving this up a half-sentence so that it precedes "he died...".

@Ajpolino: Thank you for the review! I won't have a ton of time with my computer this weekend so I am hoping to address your comments by tomorrow or Monday - apologies for the delay. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@Ajpolino: I believe everything has been changed or responded to (save for one thing)! Thanks again! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Ajpolino I added a sentence about what he was doing at the school and in town during this time, is there anything else you'd recommend there? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Pardon my absence! I'll take another readthrough in the next few days, and then I expect to support. Ajpolino (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ajpolino, how is this one coming along? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the prod. Should be able to get back to this in the next 24 hours. Pardon the delay. Ajpolino (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Round two (final round, no doubt), all small things:

• Not a huge deal, but several sentences in the first paragraph of the lead are very long and easy to get lost in. If you could shorten or split one or two of them, that would enhance the readability.
  • Split a few sentences, are there any that you think still need touching up? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• "Some time after returning" Seems an unnecessary distinction for the lead.
  • Removed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• "oriental literature and biblical literature"
  • Did this in the first paragraph, not sure why I didn't in the second. Good spot, fixed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
    • Just realized this was a mistake on my part - it was oriental literature and biblical criticism, which explains why I repeated "literature" here but didn't in the first paragraph. Fixed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• "Around this time, he was being considered for the vacant presidency of Hampden–Sydney College and was unanimously elected to the position by the board of trustees." it reads odd to include these two moments – (1) Him being considered, followed by (2) him being elected – when you don't do the same for the other positions. Is this important? Slows the flow of the paragraph.
  • I guess I included it just because it was explicitly present in the source; I don't think it's necessary to specify that he was being considered (especially because it goes right on to say that he was being elected) so I removed that part of the sentence. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• "In addition to being president, he"
  • Removed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• "Kentucky General Assembly, though the bill" this might be a good place to break a long sentence into two (and remove "though"; and possibly reword since the antecedent of the following "it" is mildly unclear).
  • Split and changed "it" to "the normal school"
• "Green elected president" I think a word got lost here.
  • Indeed it did. Added "was" PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• "much of Centre's firsthand experience in the" seems an unimportant distinction for the lead; also rings odd to my ear for a town to have a "firsthand experience".
  • Removed as suggested and changed "much of" to "part of" since he died roughly halfway through the war. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• "came from Duncan F. Robertson and Joshua Fry" a weird detail to read without context. Do we know anything about these two men? Are they schoolteachers? Famous classicists? Wanderers?
  • A previous version of the article used the Halsey quote that they were "renowned teachers" though this quote was removed after a recommendation from another reviewer, which I agreed with. Alone, I agree, the names don't really mean much, so I removed that clause, which I think sounds a little more crisp. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• "suffered a "malignant fever", according to the biographer Leroy Halsey," feels strange to include a direct quote for something so matter of fact. Could we just say he was seriously ill for two weeks and nearly died, dropping the fact that Halsey called it a "malignant fever"?
  • Yeah, not sure why I got so specific here. Reworded and trimmed down. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• "and also enrolled" seems redundant?
  • Removed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• "He did ultimately return" → "He ultimately returned" flows better to my ear, though perhaps that's just a matter of personal preference.
  • Agree that it sounds better without "did" and I went ahead and simplified a little more by removing "ultimately" as I don't think it's necessary either. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• "He was first licensed as" seems obvious from the context.
  • Agreed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• "where they heard lectures..." I alluded to this above, but the cited source only says he (rather than "they") attended lectures.
  • Must have missed this before; fixed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• "and he resigned his teaching positions at Centre in order to moved to Hanover, Indiana, so he could accept the new job" this is obvious in context and doesn't need stating.
  • Removed and trimmed a bit more. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• "He returned to Danville having completed his stint at Hanover at the conclusion of the 1838–1839 academic year and upon his arrival was elected vice president of Centre College" - Had to read this twice to understand. Suggest untangling the Hanover part from the Danville part. Something like "At the conclusion of the 1838-1839 academic year, he completed his stint in Hanover and returned to Danville. Upon his arrival, he was elected..."
  • Done, with some other cleanup in the second sentence. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• "In May 1840, soon after taking up these positions at Centre, Green was called" unneeded; the timeline is fresh in our head's from a couple sentences earlier.
  • Done. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• "Western Theological Seminary in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania" our article suggests the seminary could have been in nearby Washington, Pennsylvania at that time. The source just says "Alleghany, Pennsylvania" (the county that Pittsburgh, but not Washington, is in -- not sure if it has always been that way). Could you just have a look and make sure "in Pittsburgh" is correct?
  • Ah, didn't catch that. Doesn't look like we have 100% agreement between sources so I took out Pittsburgh and changed the section header as well. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• "his 25 to 30 slaves, who technically belonged" → "the 25 to 30 slaves, who belonged..." not to absolve him of responsibility with the removal of "his", but rather to remove "technically" which seems unnecessary and grates a bit to my ear.
  • Changed, and switched to "people he enslaved" upon recommendation from another reviewer (I think this is a good way to combine the two suggestions). PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• "inheritance,[17] since he could not take them to Pennsylvania and have them remain enslaved and did not want to leave them enslaved." Already a complex sentence, and this end bit doesn't add much meaning. Suggest cutting it.
  • I added this after another reviewer suggested it - I've removed it but I will let them know that I did so. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• "Green freed them while allowing them to remain..." → "Green freed them and allowed them to remain" could be personal preference, but the "while allowing" reads oddly to me.
  • Changed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• "... Maryland, in order to take up the pastorate of that city's Second Presbyterian Church as part of a desire to and devote himself to preaching full-time." - shorter and avoids the (I think) awkward "as part of a desire"
  • Removed the section you recommended but added back the name of the church since I think that info is important enough. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• "the beginning of his pastorate in Baltimore" → "his arrival"
  • Done. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• "He ultimately decided to resigned"
  • Man, I am obsessed with saying "decided to" for some reason. Removed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• "even so, according to Leroy Halsey... new church edifice." I think this is slightly rosier than what the cited source says. Halsey says "in consideration of his failing health and consequent removal from the pastorate" the trustees removed released him from this $1000 pledge. Not sure this episode really merits inclusion either way, but if you do keep it consider slightly rewording, and removing the explicit attribution to Halsey (unless you doubt the incident occurred and want it attributed?).
  • Yeah, now that I reread the source I must have misinterpreted it or at least made it a little cuter than it actually was. Decided to remove it altogether since it doesn't serve the function in the narrative that I thought it did. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• "had already begun considering him" → "were considering him"?
  • Done. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• "January 10, 1849,[27][25] at which he delivered a speech to the board of trustees.[28] During this speech he called for" suggest consolidating into "January 10, 1849. In a speech to the board of trustees, he called for..." to reduce repetition.
  • Done. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• "professors as several of his main "
  • Done, but I left "as" since I think it reads a little better that way. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• "as a way of campaigning for well-roundedness of students to be a priority of the college" could be personal preference, but this reads smoother to me unwound as "as a way of campaigning for the college to prioritize well-roundedness of the students."
  • Agree, that is much better. Switched. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• "the year after,[32] and the school's" suggest splitting this sentence here.
  • Done. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• "much of the faculty, was a " seems like a word got lost from this sentence.
  • Yep, added "he". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• "It was during Green's presidency... becoming their own institution." suggesting moving this up to the paragraph about the institution during Green's presidency (i.e. immediately following "further increases in funding". Also suggest shortening it to something like "During Green's presidency, a disagreement between the faculty of the Richmond Medical College (now the VCU Medical Center) and the Hampden–Sydney Board of Trustees that oversaw them resulted in the effective separation of the institutions." Maybe the source supports something more artful. The current level of detail seems unnecessary to Green's biography.
  • Unfortunately I don't have access to the source at the moment so I can't speak to exactly what is there, but I reformatted it according to your suggestions. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• "declined an later offer"
  • Done. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• "As there were many in Kentucky who wanted him to accept the position, he traveled to Lexington" - we get the same sense from the next part of the sentence, which says he was received enthusiastically.
  • Done. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• "was next to occupy" → "occupied"
  • Used "took" instead, but agree that shorter is better here. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• "It took until the 1954 ... hire for president again" I still think this is irrelevant and may not reflect on Green at all; though I'm hesitant to push for this if no one has an issue with it but me.
  • Hid this in a comment for now, might end up deleting it altogether. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• " according to the Transylvania historian John Wright Jr., by large majorities" do we need to explicitly call out the historian who wrote this? Seems like uncontroversial fact for us to repeat with only citation for credit.
  • Removed and reworked the end of that sentence and the start of the next. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• "though not without some physical trouble." can you expand on or clarify this at all? Halsey suggests Green overworked himself to infirmity; though Halsey says a lot on this topic, and I admit to skimming parts.
  • Added some info to the end of the sentence. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• "done so,[71] and Green was" suggest splitting this sentence here.
  • Done. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ajpolino: Apologies that it took me so long to work through these - I believe everything has been addressed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

No worries at all. Currently traveling but should be back online in a couple days. Will be happy to do the source review then if Generalissima doesnt have time. Ajpolino (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Caught a bug traveling; go figure. On the mend. Comments and that promised source review by the end of the weekend. Best, Ajpolino (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ajpolino all good! Hope you get to feeling better soon. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Gave it a final readthrough and am happy to support this nomination. Excellent work, and an enjoyable read. Ajpolino (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Source review by Generalissima

Oh, obscure 19th century American figure? This is exactly my wheelhouse. I'll look through these sources in a little bit. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Generalissima courtesy ping, if you're still interested in having a look. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Generalissima Gog the Mild (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Generalissima, I would be grateful if you could let me know if a source review is on the way? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, I'll drop into this subsection to do a source review. The article leans most heavily on Halsey's biography, Probably the only substantial biography of Green. It was published by a major firm and written by a contemporary of Green's who was a professor and Presbyterian preacher (I gather). We can guess Halsey would be predisposed to present Green in a positive light (though he assures us in his preface that he "has not aimed to eulogize, but to present a true picture of the man and the minister"). That said, it's almost certainly the best source that exists on Green. As long as you're not finding it regularly contradicted by other sources, I'm sure it's fine. Other sources are more straightforward:

1. Baker - From a major publisher, written by a historian, and used only to support material that falls directly under the book's topic.
2. Brinkley - Written by a Hampden–Sydney professor (described in obits as "the college historian") about Hampden–Sydney. Used largely to support Hampden-Sydney-era info that it's likely to be reliable on.
3. Weston and Wright - Analogous to Brinkley but for Centre College and Transylvania respsectively. Bonus point to Wright, who was a professional historian. Regardless, I think both are fine here.
4. Sanders article - Author is staff at the Kentucky Historical Society and writes on similar topics regularly.
5. CentreCyclopedia - Couldn't find out much about this publication, but it's a short biography published under Centre College's purview. Seems fine.

Optionally, you could do us all a small service by linking to The National Cyclopedia... article. It's on Internet Archive. This UPenn library page says it was published in 1895, and the Internet Archive copy has that data printed in it. Flagging it in case our reference should be updated. Is listing White as the article's author appropriate? It's the publisher's name. The book gives little detail on who authored the articles. An identifier would also be nice. It looks like OCLC # is 1049877836 (from the Internet Archive page) or 656312787 (from the WorldCat page it links to)? I see Gog the Mild recommend OCLC #s regularly, so he may know which is appropriate.

656312787 relates to the 1893 edition, not the 1892 one. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I also spot checked some claims while I was reviewing the text (referenced in the section above) and all looked good, barring some very minor comments above. Altogether, happy to give this article a Pass on source review. It's a well put together biography built appropriately on reliable sources. Thanks again for the interesting read, and my apologies for the delay in getting this done. Best, Ajpolino (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)  

Support Comments by Dugan Murphy

I'll write some out here. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• The mention of "Judge John Green" without any further biographical information is frustrating to me as a reader. Is his first name Judge? If Judge is his title, can you make that clear by adding just a phrase about the circumstances of this judgeship? How did such a seemingly young person get to be a judge?
  • Removed his name, wasn't really relevant. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
• "renowned teachers" looks like MOS:SCAREQUOTES. If this is a quote from a person, the text needs to state attribution, per MOS:QUOTE. Same for "malignant fever", "influential gentlemen", "the whole Man", "prominent men", and "advanced stage".
  • Removed some, attributed some. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
    • I think the "malignant fever" sentence is a bit unwieldy as a result. I recommend rewording and/or splitting.
      • Reworded this as part of a suggestion by another reviewer. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• "His first education came ... by way of" reads awkwardly to me and requires some mental gymnastics for me to understand. I recommend rewording that sentence, considering the possibility of breaking it into two sentences. It might read more like "At thirteen, he began studying Greek and Latin at a classical school".
  • Reworded as part of the above. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note A looks like WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. What source says he did not attain a graduate degree from another institution?
  • Removed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
• This sentence clause doesn't make sense: "but did not graduate from either after returning to Kentucky when he was elected to teach at Centre". Could you clarify?
  • Done. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
• The way this sentence reads, it says Green was in multiple places on one day: "preached in Danville, its surroundings, and elsewhere in Kentucky on nearly every Sunday". I don't think that's what you mean, so I recommend a rewording.
  • Changed "and" to "or", good catch. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
    • With "on nearly every Sunday", I don't think the "on" is necessary. Up to you. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
      • Removed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• The last sentence of the "Professor and pastor in Danville" section contains a list of incongruous clauses: "was elected", "returned", and "appointed". You could change "returned" to "reappointed" for instance, though maybe that doesn't sound well given the last clause.
  • This is likely a problem of me being stupid but I don't understand the issue with these - would you mind clarifying? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
    • My point is that, where as "was elected" and "was appointed" make sense, "was returned" doesn't, if you're reading this as "Green returned". However, if you mean it as "Green was returned", then I suppose it reads just fine as is. Is that the case? Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
      • Reworded - I believe I fixed it. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• Wikilink Presbyterian polity#General assembly?
  • Done. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
• I think Manumission is a more appropriate word and Wikilink than emancipation here.
  • Switched. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
• "his 25 to 30 slaves" would read better as "the 25 to 30 people he enslaved".
  • I don't know that I agree 100%; the former seems more concise to me. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
    • That's fair enough, especially because that sentence is already kinda long and clunky. But I really would prefer a better recognition of the humanity of the people enslaved by Green. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
      • This part of the sentence got reworded as part of a suggestion by another reviewer, so I think your recommended reword works well now (especially because it can recognize their humanity like you said). PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• Is the purpose of "his move from Kentucky, a slave state, to Pennsylvania, a free state," to illustrate that Green's decision to manumit the laborers he enslaved was made for him by geography? If so, I recommend making that clear.
  • Done. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
• "willing to go Green" – a comma is needed after "go".
  • Added. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
• "freed them as they were" reads ambiguous to me. If I understand correctly, it sounds more appropriate to say "allowed them to stay in the US".
  • Done, with slightly different wording. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
• "he was well-loved" is an opinion that I think should be attributed.
  • Changed to be slightly more true to source and attributed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
    • I notice that in your rewording, you wrote out Halsey's full name. Since you do that and label him as a biographer in the first naming instance, in this second instance you can omit the first name if you prefer. You do that in the third instance, which makes the fourth/last instance "biographer Leroy Halsey" instance seem out of place, so I definitely recommend shortening that last one. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
      • Fixed this. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• Typo: "returnedf"
  • Someone already beat me to this one! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
• "had increased" – delete "had".
  • Is there a reason to delete had? I was going for past perfect tense since it's talking about what the endowment had done before he left office. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
    • I get what you're saying now and I agree it is better left alone. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
• Political economy is WP:DUPLINKed.
  • Removed second. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
• In general, I think this article overuses the semicolon. I recommend replacing with periods in instances in which they make a sentence too long and/or the two halves of the sentences they link are not closely related.
  • Removed most and either split sentences or reworded - left a few that I think are appropriate
• The sentence that begins "This became a theme" is too long and unwieldy, particularly because of the double-dashed "and did".
  • Split into 3 sentences and removed a lot of unneeded detail from the last part. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
• I'm not sure that "large majorities" needs quotation marks. It seems like a statement that we should be free to say without, given the attribution you gave.
  • Removed. Also took out part of the sentence following that, since I found it unnecessary to describe when it took effect and immediately after give the exact date. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
• Does "bringing 300 new students to the school" refer to Centre College? That kind of wording seems out of place given the previous sentences were about the Second Presbyterian Church and the First Presbyterian Church. And then the next sentence refers to something being close to Centre, so apparently we're not talking about Centre here.
  • Yes, "the school" is Centre - the next sentence is also referring to Centre (Enrollment (at Centre) declined drastically due to the Civil War and its (the Civil War's) proximity to Centre). Happy to reword if you think this is poorly written. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
    • Ah, I was reading that "the school" has "proximity to Centre", though I believe now that it is in fact the Civil War which has proximity to Centre. I recommend a slight rewording to clarify that. Perhaps "its proximity" can be changed to "the battles' proximity". Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
      • Reworded. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• It's not as specific, but I think changing "the year before the war's start" to "before the war" would make this sentence easier to read.
  • Done. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
• "57 two" – having these two numbers next to each other is not ideal.
  • Changed to "after two years". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
• I think "acquired more slaves; he owned ten" would read better as "enslaved more people; he enslaved ten".
  • I don't love the repetition of "enslaved"; plus, as I understand it, they were already enslaved when Green got them, as opposed to Green himself putting them into slavery. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
    • I see what you're saying about the repetition in my recommendation. How about "enslaved more people; he held ten in bondage"? What I'm going for here (and in the article's first mention of slavery) is recognizing the humanity of the enslaved, as well as Green's choice to enslave others. I am also under the impression that enslaving is not just the process of selling someone into bondage, but also the state of holding someone in bondage. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
      • Used "enslaved more people" in the first bit; I left "owned" in the second part since that was the reality (albeit a very sad one to say the least) of the situation. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note B: I don't think the parenthetical dates are necessary. Those dates are in the inline citations.
  • Removed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
• Do the sources say anything about the people enslaved by Green not included here? Perhaps what they did for him? That would help in describing and humanizing them.
  • Sadly, not that I can find; I wouldn't expect a ton of information to exist about them since they were dehumanized to the maximum extent possible (i.e. not viewed as humans in the first place) in that time. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
    • Reading page 26 of Halsey and searching in it for keywords like "slave", I can likewise see no insight into the role of the folks enslaved by Green. I'm guessing they ran his house as domestic workers. Twenty-five people seems like a lot of staff for a family of four, though Halsey does say Green came by most of these folks by inheritance, so Green may have had little contact with some of them. But that's neither here nor there if the sources are silent. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
• With the exception of Bascom and Young, the predecessors and successors in the infobox are nowhere in the article. I think you should add them to the article if they're going to be in the infobox.
  • Added. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  • @Dugan Murphy: many thanks for your review - I am currently finishing up finals week at school so I hope to have time to address your comments by tomorrow afternoon. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  • @Dugan Murphy: everything has been changed or responded to above! Thanks for your patience. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
    • There are a few items I think warrant further work and/or discussion. See my responses above. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
      • @Dugan Murphy: I believe everything has been addressed! Very sorry about the delay. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
        • I agree and support the nomination. I haven't looked at the sources, reviewed the images, or checked for potential plagiarism, but the article appears to me to be well-written, comprehensive, neutral, stable, appropriately structured, and consistently cited. It seems to be a good length and the lead looks like an appropriate summary of the article. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@PCN02WPS: P.S. I have my own FAC nomination that doesn't have any comments yet aside from an image review. I would really appreciate if you are able to look over the article and leave some comments. That nomination is here. Thanks in advance! Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

750h

• @PCN02WPS: hi PCN02WPS, I'll take a look at this. Let me know when the above two reviewers finish, in case I duplicate anything. Best, 750h+ 09:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • @750h+: I think you should be good to go if you’re still interested in taking a look. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

    @PCN02WPS: note that i have an FAC open if you'd like to take a look! 750h+ 12:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Green again left Kentucky in 1840 to teach oriental literature and biblical criticism at Western Theological Seminary.: it tells us he left Kentucky to teach at a seminary, but it’s worth noting where the seminary is (in this case it’s Pennsylvania).
  • Done. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 10:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• He was baptized at Pisgah Presbyterian Church in Versailles, Kentucky, in March 1820 alongside his brother Willis. He fell seriously ill with a fever for several weeks during his second year at the school, at one point with a slim chance of survival, though ultimately he recovered. Who fell seriously ill, Willis or Lewis?
  • Good catch, clarified. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 10:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• He ultimately resigned his position effective October 10, 1848. I think that “on” rather than “effective” would be more concise
  • The only catch here is that he technically resigned sometime before that (Halsey says that the notice of his resignation was read at a congregational meeting on October 4), with the resignation only taking effect on the 10th. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 10:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  Oh okay. 750h+ 10:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

That’s all i got. Excellent work on the article. 750h+ 03:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@750h+: thanks for the review and the kind words! First two things fixed and a response for the last. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 10:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Support 750h+ 10:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

More than four weeks in and not a single general support. That would usually have me archiving the nomination. There are plenty of constructive comments, so PCN02WPS could you pick up the pace on responding to them, else this is liable to time out. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild Yes, I will speed things up. I am traveling but will try to take what time I can to work on this - thank you (and all reviewers) for your patience. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 06:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The nomination has now been open a month. There are still no supports. There are extensive comments from two reviewers made seven days ago which have not been addressed. "Nominators are expected to ... make efforts to address objections promptly." I appreciate that RL happens, but if all reviewer comments are not addressed within 24 hours I will archive this nomination as "actionable objections have not been resolved". Gog the Mild (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild That is fair - I have now addressed all outstanding comments. Sorry to be an inconvenience. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

• Both cites 21 and 22 contain p./pp. errors.
  • Fixed, good spot. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
• "though sources agree that the disease from which he died was contracted from these interactions" is not cited.
  • This wasn't explicitly mentioned in the sources but was rather a conclusion I drew on my own. I removed it because it's not citable and also not really necessary to go out of my way to point out given the rest of the footnote. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
• The lead seems very long (472 words), especially given that the main article is fairly brief (2,351 words). I would expect the lead to be about half the length it is. Much of the lead does not seem to be in summary style. See MOS:LEADLENGTH. It also contains information not in the main article.
  • I cut some stuff out of the lead (now at just over 300), let me know if you think more needs to go.

Nice work. It is still on the lengthy side, but - IMO - acceptable. I have made a couple of tweaks, let me know here if you are unhappy with any of them will you? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• "he manumitted the 25 to 30 people he enslaved, who belonged to his wife as an inheritance." This doesn't make sense. Surely they were already slaves when Green's wife inherited them, so how can Green have "enslaved" them? And you can't use "the" at first mention; have these slaves been previously mentioned?
  • I changed this wording at the request of another reviewer, who said that "enslaving" them could refer to holding them in bondage as well as putting them into bondage. The original wording was Around this time, in the midst of his move from Kentucky, a slave state, to Pennsylvania, a free state, he made the decision to emancipate his 25 to 30 slaves, who technically belonged to his wife as an inheritance. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
• "Sometime after moving back to Kentucky following his term at Hampden–Sydney, Green enslaved more people". Really? What were the circumstances of their enslavement?
  • This wording was also changed during the FAC process - the original wording mentioned his purchase of the slaves and the point of the sentence is to show that he owned slaves while at Transy/Centre but when exactly he purchased them is not known. Original wording: Sometime after moving back to Kentucky following his term at Hampden–Sydney, Green acquired more slaves; he owned ten during his time as Centre president PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

The prior wordings look fine to me. "Enslavement" (as a verb) is the act of making someone a slave - they are free prior to being enslaved and a slave afterwards. If the other reviewer has a dictionary with a different definition I would be grateful if they could cite it. Much as I would like to recommend just going back to your original wording, I think Dugan Murphy and I need to discuss this. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Dictionary.com defines "enslave" as "to make a slave of; hold (someone) in slavery or bondage". The second half of that sentence certainly applies here and the first half likely does not, since it is very likely that the ten people in question were enslaved by someone else before they were enslaved by Green. I see what Gog the Mild is saying about the opportunity to misread that sentence to mean that Green put ten free people into bondage, which is possible but unlikely. How's this for a rewording? "Sometime after moving back to Kentucky following his term at Hampden–Sydney, Green grew his enslaved workforce; he held ten people in bondage during his time as Centre president." Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

'increased' rather than "grew" please. Otherwise "he held ten people in bondage" is a softening of 'he owned ten people as slaves' which is what I would prefer, but I can live with it. What about "he manumitted the 25 to 30 people he enslaved, who belonged to his wife as an inheritance" in the previous point? My suggestion 'he manumitted the 25 to 30 people held as slaves, who were technically his wife's property as an inheritance". Gog the Mild (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree on "increased". Also your recommendation on the manumission sentence. My goal here is just to recognize the humanity of the people enslaved by Green, which of course isn't easy given the complete lack of information about them. And varying expectations surrounding language. Given what what little the sources say, and how they say it, it is easy to refer to the enslaved as objects and to minimize their circumstance. It is also easy to minimize the active choice made by Green to hold people in bondage against their will. But by no means is my goal to end up with a word soup that confuses the reader. Thank you for working with me and PCN02WPS on the language. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• "Enrollment declined drastically due to the Civil War". When was this?
  • The point of this clause is to introduce the second clause which compares pre-war enrollment with enrollment in the second year of the war - is there another way you'd suggest wording this? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that if a reader doesn't know when the Civil War - I am guessing that this refers to the American Civil War ;-) - began they don't know when you are referring to. How about 'Enrollment declined drastically from 1861 due to the Civil War and ...' or similar?

• "Green contracted a disease after attending to sick and injured soldiers." Could we have the date, at least the year, in the first sentence of the paragraph. Where did the attending take place?
  • Added "late May 1863". I presume the location was in Danville (I suspect in Old Centre, specifically, since I have that in the lead), though I don't believe the sources mention any specifics with respect to location in this case (I don't have them with me at the moment but I can check if you like in a couple of days). I have hidden the bit about Old Centre from the lead until I can go back and verify it.

Ah, you spotted that bit about the Old Centre in the lead but not the article huh? You can either completely leave it out or wait until you can check your sources and then, maybe, have the option of adding it to the body. It is too trivial for the lead.

PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: thanks for taking a look! Responses above. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Looking good. Just "enslave" to sort out. I came here looking to close this after a few comments. It may be that the "few comments" push me into recusal territory. I'll ponder on't after the enslavement discussion. (Ian Rose, any wise words?) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, probably enough commentary from you to rate recusal, to be on the safe side. I have this on my watchlist and should be able to close. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: reworded both slavery-related sentences as recommended and added clarification about the Civil War. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• Looking good so far. I will go through the article properly and upgrade this to a full review, but unfortunately that won't be until Friday. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Part ii

Recusing to complete the review.

• "forcing him to live with his oldest brother." Why was he "forced" to live with his oldest brother? Was there no possibility of his living with one of the others, or some other relative?
  • Fair point, reworded. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
• Link classical school to classical education.
  • Done. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
• "at one point with a slim chance of survival". Perhaps 'at one point he was given only a slim chance of survival' or similar?
  • Split the sentence after "at the school" and reworded as recommended. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
• Link junior year.
  • Done. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
• The article is very thin on what Green did between 1824 and 1831.
  • You're not wrong, though I'm not sure how much I can add given that the sources are relatively thin between those years as well - he got married and then suffered the death of his wife (which isn't until later in the article), tried law and medicine here and there before settling on the ministry, and finally went to Princeton. I wish there was more I could add but I'm just not sure that the sources support it. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Tricky, do we have a start and/or end date for when he studied Hebrew at Yale ?

Unfortunately not that I can find; the sentence from the source is as follows: In accordance with this decision, he entered the Theological Seminary at Princeton, New Jersey, in the year 1831, and devoted himself with his accustomed ardor to the prescribed studies of the course. Before entering the seminary at Princeton, however, he spent some time at Yale College, giving his attention to the study of the Hebrew language, and such other departments as had a special reference to his preparation for the ministry. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• "In order to learn more". In order to learn more what?
  • Reworded - if you think this is a little too cluttery, I can try again. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
• "Upon his arrival, he was elected vice president of Centre College, he returned to his former positions ..." This isn't grammatical. Try something like 'Upon his arrival, he was elected vice president of Centre College, and returned to his former positions ...'
  • Whoops, must have corrupted that sentence editing it at some point. Reworded this. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
• "and he became co-pastor at Danville's First Presbyterian Church, alongside Centre president John C. Young." Suggest making this a separate sentence.
  • Split this with minor rewording with the above. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
• "he received an honorary Doctor of Divinity degree". Why the initial upper-case letters?
  • I suppose I figured all degrees were given title case; the title of the article itself uses caps but that article also uses lowercase sometimes in the body. Not sure if there's an established rule somewhere but I typically use caps for degree names. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The wiki rule is only to use caps for proper nouns. There are one or two exceptions, but this isn't one of them.

Fair enough, fixed this. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• "he fell ill and became weaker". Weaker than what and/or when?
  • I think I added the comparative case in there on my own; reworded to "and became weak"
• "In mid-1848, Green was invited to Hampden Sydney, Virginia, to speak at Hampden–Sydney College". It seems redundant to state that Hampden–Sydney College was in Hampden Sydney. And he was invited to the college, not the town.
  • Good point, changed to "Green was invited to speak at Hampden–Sydney College..." PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
• "the college's trustees were considering him for their presidency". This is a little clumsy. Maybe 'the college's board of trustees were considering him for their presidency'? Or do you mean 'the college's trustees were considering him for the presidency of the college'?
  • The latter is the intended meaning, reworded to "its trustees were considering him for the school's presidency, ..." PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
• "well-roundedness". Which would be what? Is there a link?
  • There's not a relevant WP link from what I found but I added a wiktionary link to the term. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Clever.

• "Enrollment jumped from 27 students to 100 after his first year and again increased to 145 the year after." Suggest 'Enrollment jumped from 27 students to 100 after his first year and to 145 the year after.' A reader doesn't need to be told this is an increase.
  • Done. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
• "Further, he spent vacations and time away from the college recruiting potential students and securing further increases in funding." Can we avoid "further" twice in one sentence?
  • Changed second instance to "additional". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
• "resulted in the Medical College effectively becoming their own institution." Suggest 'resulted in the Medical College effectively becoming an independent institution' or similar.
  • Reworded as recommended. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
• "Green's teaching responsibilities were largely focused on classes for fourth-year students, such as ..." I think you mean 'Green's teaching responsibilities were largely focused on classes for fourth-year students, and included subjects such as ...'
  • Done. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
• "He traveled to Lexington to see the college before making a decision and was received enthusiastically." What was his decision?
  • Whether or not to take the job; upon reading this again I don't think it needs to be spelled out so I removed that bit. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
• "one such strategy involved the proposal of a 50% salary increase". You can't say "one such strategy" when you haven't previously mentioned any.
  • Removed "such". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
• "in 1856 when Transylvania University, having been recently reorganized by the Kentucky General Assembly ... In March 1856, the Kentucky General Assembly passed an act which reorganized Transylvania". Do we need to be told this twice?
  • Removed the first bit since I think it fits better in the context at the second mention. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree.

• "every other Sunday despite not actually being its pastor." Does "actually" add anything?
  • Removed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
• "During this time, he continued to preach and teach". Specify who "he" is.
  • Done. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
• "he held ten people in bondage". Suggest "in bondage" → 'as slaves'.
  • This was another bit reworded in a prior review - I think the original wording was he owned ten slaves. Reworded to your suggestion. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: everything has been fixed or responded to! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Looking pretty good. Just a couple of minor comebacks above. Gog the Mild (talk)

@Gog the Mild: courtesy ping for one fix and one response. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 4 July 2024 [44].

---

IMac G3

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

In the mid-to-late 1990s, Apple Computer was teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and irrelevance. They were saved by a combination of ruthless cost-cutting by their new interim CEO, Steve Jobs, and a hit product—the iMac G3, which if you lived through the era helped usher in the colorful candy plastics era of consumer products, as well as reshaping the idea of what computers were supposed to look like. This article was reviewed at GAN by DFlhb and I look forward to acting on comments here to make this article on a major product in computer history shine further. Thanks in advance for your time reviewing! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Sodium

Putting myself down for a review. I intend to take a look at a review in a bit. (by next weekish) Sohom (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• but the company still needed new hit products. This probably needs a slightly less optimistic framing
• ... became the iMac, to be inexpensive and with easy Internet connectivity. "to be inexpensive" seems to be off grammar-wise.
• I feel like the Background could do a better job of transitioning into the rest of the article, the last paragraph is a bit stilted and does not do a good job of introducing the next section.
• Engineers adapted the abandoned Common Hardware Reference Platform specification to speed development. Is it abandoned now or was it abandoned then?
• According to Jon Rubinstein, Jobs had always known about the CD tray. I feel like we are missing something here. Why had he not raised this before according Jon?
• The jpeg artifacting of File:IMac_G3_color_carousel.gif is noticeable even at its small size. I'd suggest removing it or replacing it with a GIF with a higher resolution.
• How well did iMac G3 do in the traditional office/enterprise computing space that was prevalent during this time? Do RS cover it?
• Hiawatha Bray said the iMac was doomed and a severe misstep from Jobs a word or two about why Hiawatha Bray thought the way they did would be nice.
• two FireWire ports What is a FireWire port, the article kinda assumes that the reader is familiar but it would be nice to fit a sentence somewhere about what it does. (I guess I'm revealing that I'm Gen Z)
• Wikilink VGA
• Wikilink CD-ROM in the Release section
• Ditto for CD-RW
• maintained Apple's position as a leader of the emerging digital audio and video sector. Less optimistic framing, also this isn't directly in the cited source AFAICS?

That's it for me. sohom@enwiki 23:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey Sohom Datta, thanks for the review. I've tried to address all the above; Bray's comments particularly revolve around the lack of a floppy, so I tried rewording the first mention in the high-level comments and then elaborated later on when discussing the drawbacks. I've reworked the end of the background section to introduce the players a bit and then shift to the specific project, let me know if that works better. The Rubinstein bit gets to the fact that Jobs was mercurial and (as the article talks about somewhat) pretty much would change his mind on a whim. That might be a bit too much going into the weeds, so I'm fine with just simplifying that bit so there's not the back-and-forth and it's a little more straightforward. Only thing I didn't change is the carousel image: as you can see it's not a very lossy GIF at full resolution, the limitation seems to be Mediawiki's thumbnail rendering, and I don't think there's a way of fixing that unfortunately. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The changes look good me. I disagree wrt to the gif, however, that is not worth opposing over. Support sohom@enwiki 03:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Source review by Generalissima

I'm in a productive mood today, let's get going on this.

• Lede is uncited, and since there's nothing seemingly contentious here I'd say that hits WP:LEDECITE well.
• Well, besides the infobox. That introductory price ($1,299) is neither referenced elsewhere in the article or cited for that matter. The price points of later models of the machine are given, but not the first. Should be pretty easy to fix this, however.
• Everything in all body sections is cited. I don't see any potentially controversial or contentious claims that are uncited. Subjective claims are properly attributed.
• Citation section is properly organized and titled.
• Everything with pages has page numbers. The bibliography is also well formatted, and works are cited consistently with ISBNs and ISSNs as applicable.
• Good mix of all sorts of sources here. I was a bit worried about Segall 2013 but it seems to only be used in an about-self context or for direct quotes so I think that's good here. I commend you on digging through 1990s and early 2000s computer magazines for a while; they have certainly been used well.

All in all, I think citing that price figure is the only thing left to do. Cheers. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey Generalissima, thanks for looking. I went ahead and removed the price. The article covers the rough price range (and the more germane point it was cheaper) in the development, and then the lower base prices are discussed in the review, so I don't think you need the exact one (and doesn't seem to have coverage that makes the price so important it should be in the infobox.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Support for source review. Good job with this. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 13:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review

• References: article titles are a mix of sentence case and title case. They should be consistent. (How they appear in their originals is irrelevant.
• Press and Cooper: is it possible to provide a page range?
• "The iMac was Apple's first major product release under its CEO Steve Jobs". Does "its" add anything here? I assume that Apple had other CEOs.
• "the company he had co-founded and then been ousted from". Perhaps dates for each of these? Which would tie in with the "after eleven years away" in the lead, which I can't find referenced in the main article.
• Any chance of an image of the round mouse?
• "4 GB"; "6GB" ?
• "A more substantial revision to the iMac lineup came in 1999." When in 1999? I assume this was different to, and prior to "On October 5, 1999, Apple released a new series of iMacs"?
• "so users could easily add additional RAM; and a slot for an AirPort wireless networking card". Why a semi colon rather than a comma?
• "a better graphics chipset, and a larger hard drive." Better and larger than what?
• "a larger hard drive"; "with more RAM". Similarly.
• Some of the prose is a bit uninspired. Eg, two consecutive paragraphs start "On October 5, 1999, Apple released a new" and "On July 19, 2000, Apple released a new". Or, in one paragraph sentences starting "The new iMac line"; "The new models; "The new iMacs had"; "Three new models".
• "500-, 600-. or 700 MHz processor" and similar cases. Why the hanging modifier when the following main modifier is not followed by a hyphen?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• • Hey Gog, thanks for the opening comments. I've taken a stab at all the above, and I believe addressed most of them. The "larger hard drive" and similar are attempts to make the prose less wordy and technical, they're just comparing the sizes of the hard drives or memory amounts to the previous models they replace. Beyond that, it's kind of just listing tech specs so I don't think there's much room for exciting prose. I'm fine with slimming it down even further, but previous reviews felt that just saying basically "they were faster and had more memory and hard drive space" was even more samey-sounding. I suppose the alternative is drastically summarizing it further and just leaving the specifics to the technical specification section entirely, if you think that's a better option? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 12:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• "its original mouse and keyboard ... calling it an example of style over substance." Should that be 'calling them examples of ...'?
• "were later replaced with the Apple Pro Mouse and Apple Pro Keyboard for the 2000-revision iMacs." I think that readers will realise that 2000 is later than the release date, in which case "later" can be deleted.
• "museums including The Henry Ford". See MOS:INSTITUTIONS "The word the at the start of a name is uncapitalized in running text, regardless of the institution's own usage".
• "nearly 20 percent were Microsoft Windows users who had switched to the Mac". Suggest deleting "had".
• "The iMac continued to be a strong seller for Apple as it returned to profitability, with 3.7 million units sold by July 2000". The previous two sentences have already established the first part of this. Perhaps 'a strong seller for Apple after it return to profitability ...'?
• "public's introduction to Jony Ive". May be worth a second link here, which is allowed these days.
• "The iMac was so successful in the education market Apple created a G4-powered successor named the eMac." This seems to end abruptly. Possibly add something like '... designed for and promoted to the education sector' or similar?
• "George Foreman Grills". Why the upper-case G for Grills?
• Article titles still in title case, see Press; Segall; and Simmonds. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Hey Gog the Mild, I think I've addressed all the above as well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 01:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

One comment above was missed. In is now in green. I am supporting anyway, lovely work. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Support from Z1720

No concerns with the prose. Additional comments below:

• "It sold more than 5 million units in its lifetime." MOS:NUMERAL recommends that integers between zero and nine be written in words. Consider changing the 5 to five.
• I might have missed it, but what is the G3 referring to? Lots of time was spent talking about how the model got the iMac name, but why/when was G3 added?
• Checked the lede and the infobox, and everything seems to be cited in the article.

Please ping me when ready for additional comments. Z1720 (talk) 02:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey Z1720, I've changed the numeral in the lead (I remembered to do it in the body but not there before, go figure.) The G3 processor is mentioned in the lead and later on. The "iMac G3" title was a retronym added to distinguish it from the iMac G4 when the latter released; I'm looking through sources now to see if I can find one that specifically calls out that change rather than just talking about them staying on sale side-by-side, and will update if possible. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Please ping me once you have concluded your research into the G3 addition to the name, and I will take a look. Z1720 (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey Z1720, went trawling. From what I can tell Apple never specifically called it the "iMac G3" themselves; it got shuffled to a subpage when it was sold alongside the newer G4 iMac, but wasn't specifically called that in any press release or anything I found from Apple. Went through Macworlds and press of the time and there was a point of "the new iMac/the old iMac" and "G3 iMac/iMac G3" formulations by the press and retailers to make it clearer; by now it's pretty much always referred to as the latter in retrospectives (e.g. the legacy sourcing covering this in the article.) At this point "iMac G3" is definitely a WP:COMMONNAME thing but if you think it's a little misleading to title it that in the lead I'm open to altering it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it is misleading in the title: If it is called iMac G3 by the industry now, then that is the common name. However, I recommend that a sentence or note is added somewhere in the article body, explaining that, although it was released as the iMac, it is now referred to as the iMac G3 to distinguish it from other products. Since this is a relatively minor point, I'll support. Z1720 (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Image review

Image source, licence, ALT and placement seem fine for me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments Support from RoySmith

Just a few random comments:

• board of directors dismissed CEO Gil Amelio on July 9, 1997, and Jobs replaced him as interim CEO this is a little awkward; it sort of makes it sound like Amelio was also an interim CEO. Maybe something like "...Jobs replaced him, in an interim capacity"?
• Jobs told staff Apple's problems stemmed from its poor products. maybe "Jobs told his staff that ...."
• and was succeeded by 29-year-old Jony Ive, who inherited the award-winning design team could you make it clearer that Ive was already at Apple and just moved up, as opposed to be recruited to replace Brunner?
• much lower than the $2,000 (equivalent to $3,700 in 2023) for entry-level models. -> "... for current entry-level models"
• the Power Macintosh 8600, 9600, and Power Macintosh G3 tower computers had translucent green latches, and the LaserWriter 8500, eMate 300, and Studio Display incorporated translucent colored plastics there's a problem here in that most of those link to product articles with images that don't show any translucent parts. That's not strictly a problem with this article, but it leads to a discordant reader experience. Would it be possible to find images that show the translucent bits of these products?
• Ive was especially proud of the round mouse Ive may have been proud, but the mouse was despised by just about everybody else. This is discussed at Hockey puck mouse. You don't need to go into a lot of detail, but it would disingenuous to not at least mention this.
  • Oh, never mind, I see you cover that further down.
• The first release of the iMac G3 had ... an infrared port ... new models ... The IrDA port and mezzanine slot were removed. It may not be clear to readers that "IrDA" refers to the previously mentioned "infrared port".
• It had the same processor and memory as the previous iMac but with a larger hard drive -> "... but a larger hard drive" (i.e. drop the "with")
• had a 400 MHz and 450 MHz processor, respectively, and larger hard drives Not sure about this, but I think you want "processors" plural, like "hard drives". Likewise with These models shipped with ... a 500, 600, or 700 MHz processor in the next paragraph.

Overall, nice job. I haven't read this in enough detail to venture an official support, so just take these for what they're worth RoySmith (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey RoySmith, thanks for the comments. I believe I've addressed all the above; you're right that the other mentioned products don't have good images that show their translucency in their respective articles; product photos for those details might be hard to find but I'll see if there's some out there on Commons already or Flickr that could be added. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I took another pass...

• unable to quickly distribute split infinitive
• the iMac has Universal Serial Bus (USB) ports, which are faster and cheaper than Apple Desktop Bus and serial ports Possibly "which were faster"? The problem here is that for all three of these technologies (USB, ADB, serial), there's a wide range of possible speeds (well, maybe not for ADB), and the unit cost has varied greatly over time. So the cost/speed comparison is really only valid at some point in time in the past.
• And still on the topic of USB, unsupported by any third-party Mac peripheral seems like an odd statement since the whole idea of USB was that devices weren't platform-specific.
  • The implication is that while Apple was switching to a common standard, it wasn't widely available, and it was essentially killing off the existing Mac peripheral market that did exist, even if it was tiny. Among the invested, ditching the old standards was pretty controversial.
• using the three-dimensional (3D) modeling program Alias Wavefront to sculpt models see if you can rephrase to avoid repeating the word "model"
• primitive 3D printers used to create physical mockups why were they using primitive ones? Apple's not one to cheap out on tooling so I'm assuming the answer is something like "the 3d printers that were available at the time were primitive by modern standards"
  • Yeah, the answer is by modern standards they're primitive. Is there a rephrase you want to make that clearer?
• Jobs reconsidered the network computer concept as similar products struggled in the market could you give some examples of those products?
  • The sources given don't discuss it. Presumably its any of the NC implementations listed on the Wikipedia page that came out before the iMac, but there's nothing specific enough I can mention.
• He was persuaded to recalibrate the project as a full-featured computer who persuaded him?
  • Source doesn't say; reworked.
• with optical and hard drives "optical" and "hard" are not comparable concepts. Perhaps "optical and magnetic disks"?
• In some places, you use "US$", in others just "$". Pick one.
• You've got a few places where you pile on what I assume are extraneous references, i.e. WP:CLUMP. This paragraph is particularly bad: Positive reviews highlighted the computer's ease of use for setup and operation;[56][62][63] According to Morse, the iMac felt "almost human" and approachable for a non-tech consumer.[61] While publications including CNN and PC Week considered the iMac's performance fast,[56][58][62][64] others felt the machine was underpowered, and PC World's testing showed that the machine generally performed less well than Windows PC competitors.[65] While reviews noted that general consumers and new computer buyers would be well-served by the machine,[66] reviews were less sure that it could fit into an office environment, especially if it was not networked.[57][59][64][67]
  • Bundled the longer ref chains into ref bundles.
• its cable was frequently considered too short, "frequently" seems like the wrong word here. Something like, "many reviewers considered..."?
• The quarter the iMac shipped ==> "In the quarter..."
• to making its first profit in three years in 1998 How much profit did they make?
• The iMac's massive success helped buoy Apple ... and refreshed ... and positioned rephrase to eliminate the repetition of "and".
  • Hey RoySmith, addressed most of the above. Additional comments inline. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I found one more split infinitive and fixed that. As for primitive 3d printers, maybe something along the lines of (assuming the sourcing supports this) "They used CNC milling machines and took advantage of the newly emerging 3D printing technology to create physical mockups"? But there's no reason to hold up my support while you mull on the details of that. This is a really nice article; you cover an interesting portion of Apple's history in a compelling and easy to read format. Good job. Oh, yeah, you're missing a couple of WP:ALT texts (IMac wordmark (1998-2003).svg, Apple USB Mouse.JPG) RoySmith (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 1 July 2024 [45].

---

George Floyd (American football)

Nominator(s): Therapyisgood (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Proudly nominating this article for FAC. Instead of PR, I'm hoping an England or UK-based editor can take over where TRM left off before the last FAC was archived. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Pinging everyone who commented at the first two FACs: @Sdkb, Buidhe, Nikkimaria, Jimfbleak, Mike Christie, and The Rambling Man:. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Missed some: @Kavyansh.Singh and AryKun:. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Image review - pass

The article uses 2 images ([46] and [47]) from old newspapers from 1977 and 1981. Apparently, the images were published without a copyright notices next to them, which could mean that they are in public domain in the US. These two images were already present during the first FA nomination, where Buidhe raised concerns that there may be a general copyright notice for the newspapers as a whole that covers the images. @Buidhe: has that concern been resolved? Phlsph7 (talk) 09:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't recall. (t · c) buidhe 15:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the timely response. I'm not an expert so I'll probably have to ask at the notice board.

@Therapyisgood: I had a look at the specific newspaper pages on which these images appear and I did not see any copyright notices. From what I understand from the previous image review, you had a look through the newspapers and the other pages did not contain any relevant copyright notices either, is that correct? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Phlsph7: Yes, that is correct. If someone wants to go through all the pages and finds something different from what I found, that would be OK, but I went through all of them and found no copyright notices to speak of. Thank you for bringing this up. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

It seems like there is a strong case for them being public domain but since I'm not an expert and the issue was not resolved in the last image review, I asked at the noticeboard just to be on the safe side. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

As long as we can say confidently that there was no copyright notice in the newspaper, we should be fine. Typically, it would be either on the front page or in the masthead. - Jmabel | Talk 14:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Just a note that the photos seem to be agency photos of sorts - File:George Floyd playing for Hernando High School, 1977.jpg is marked in the source as a "Tribune Photo" while File:George Floyd Latches Onto the Ball.jpg is sourced to "Herald-Leader". As omitting the notice from comparatively few copies in a low circulation newspaper does not necessarily void the copyright claim, some more research may be needed. Felix QW (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Felix QW: I get your point. What kind of research do you have in mind so we can reasonably exclude this possibility? Phlsph7 (talk) 07:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure, since I am not an expert on the subtle points of American copyright formalities – hence the cautious phrasing as a "note". I just always avoid uploading agency images under a no-notice rationale in the first place. Felix QW (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Phlsph7: I cut the images altogether. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see the images gone. I'm not sure that this step is strictly speaking required but given the controversy here, we are on the safe side this way. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

PCN02WPS

Comments to follow. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Lead and infobox

• Recommend switching the way the links to the Jets' seasons are displayed: I think including "the team's" in the link to the 1982 season and "Jets'" in the '84 link make it more clear that you're linking to their season rather than the overall NFL season.

• Done. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• Is there a reason the 1983 New York Jets season isn't linked like the '82 and '84 season upon mention?

• Now linked. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• "EKU" is used without any explanation; of course, I know what you're referring to but it would be helpful since the full name "Eastern Kentucky University" isn't given in the lead and therefore it might be a little harder for unfamiliar readers to make that connection

• Abbreviated early on now. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• "into the College Football Hall of Fame, and the hall of fame" → remove comma

• Cut comma. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• "and Hernando High School; in 2009, EKU named" → Recommend splitting into two different sentences

• Split. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Early life

• "attended Hernando High School, and played " → remove comma

• Removed. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• "Hernando finished as Gulf Coast (GC) Conference champions" → is the "GC" abbreviation used in sources? I find it very strange to exclude the last "C" since many well-known athletic conferences include it (ACC, SEC, MWC, AAC, etc.)

• Fixed. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• "Leopards' punt returner, and played on offense" → remove comma

• Fixed. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• "had a seventy-two yard punt" → add hyphen between "two" and "yard"

• Added. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• "during the season, and finished the year" → remove comma

• Removed. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Collegiate career

• I was going to recommend using |upright for the image in this section but, and this will sound stupid, I can't find the picture in the code. It doesn't show up in any individual section so I have no idea how it's there. Some explanation would be helpful (more so for my curiosity/confusion than anything).

• I cut the images per above. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• "Against Jackson State in November, had sixteen tackles" → missing word (he had sixteen tackles)

• Added. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• "win the 1979 NCAA Division I-AA football championship" → recommend another link to the championship game since it's only previously linked in the lead

• Linked. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• "to the Second-team" → does "Second" need caps here?

• De-capsed. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• "composed of the second-best players in the conference" → "the second-best players in the conference" seems a very ambiguous explanation; recommend "the second-best players at every position..."

• I've reworked this a bit, a bit of a combination of the two. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• "fourth-most on the Colonels, and he led the team" → Oxford comma used here but not with "sixteen tackles, one interception and one fumble recovery" - either way is fine, just should be consistent

• Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• "sixteen seconds left in the game as EKU won 24–20" → sounds like EKU won the game at the same time he picked off the pass with 16 seconds left, recommend changing "as" to something else

• Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• "against the Broncos" → "against Boise State" (update note at the end of the sentence too)

• Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• "Floyd was in the school's record book no fewer than eight times" → is the exact number not known?

• The source uses the same language. I found EKU's 1982 media guide which does in fact list 8 records dead on for Floyd. I've updated the article accordingly. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Professional career

• "of the 1982 NFL draft, with the 107th" → remove comma

• Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• "John Rowe of The Record described Floyd as a "hard hitter" in July" → this sentence sticks out just a bit; was this in context of his mini-camp/training camp/offseason performance with NYJ or just a review of him as a college player?

• I've tried a reword. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• "Floyd appeared at both safety spots (both free safety and strong safety)" → repetitive use of "both", recommend nixing the second

• Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• "Bill Verigan of the New York Daily News" → is there a reason "New York" isn't italicized? The publication's WP article seems to give the whole title italics

• At some point back when I wrote this the NYDN wasn't in all italics, the "New York" part wasn't italicized. I don't have a strong preference either way, so changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• "late October, and became a starter" → remove comma
• "Paul Needell of the New York Daily News" → ditto as above

• See above. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Personal life

• Lots of "Floyd" in the first few sentences; most of these can be changed to "He"

• Changed a few, left a few "Floyds". Therapyisgood (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• "major at EKU, and wanted to teach" → remove comma

• Removed. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• "He married his wife in March 1983" → Any chance her name could be found?

• I cut it per WP:BLPNAME as insignificant to his career. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• "As of 2023, Floyd is a defensive backs coach for Conner High School in Kentucky" → the previous sentence says he is employed at Boone County; does this mean he is employed at Conner too?

• Yes. Unfortunately Boone doesn't have a staff directory on their website (they do but it's blank). It's also not archived at the Internet Archive, so no luck there. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

That's all I've got for prose. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@PCN02WPS: comments responded to. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Nice, happy to support. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

More than three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Support from Harper J. Cole

• Floyd attended Hernando High School, where he was selected for The Tampa Tribune's all-area football team in all three of his varsity years, composed of the best high school football players in the area. I'm not sure you need the last part of this sentence "composed of..." as it contains nothing that cannot be deduced from the rest of the sentence.

• I've cut but am open to re-adding if someone outside the US or who is unfamiliar with American football thinks this should be re-added. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Also with "The Tampa Tribune's" you aren't italicising the apostrophe and the s (this happens a few times during the article). Unless there's a Wikipedia convention to the contrary, it seems like the whole word should be italicised, even if part of it isn't wikilinked.

• I believe the convention is listed at Template:'s: "Using this template avoids wikicoding issues that may occur when 's is used after a italicized word e.g. USS Ticonderoga's. It includes inline CSS "padding-left:0.1em;" to provide some separation from the previous letter. This prevents the italicized text from crashing into the apostrophe" Therapyisgood (talk) 01:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• After missing the entire 1983 Jets' season While technically correct, it isn't standard to put a possessive apostrophe on "Jets" in this context (as indeed, the article itself does not).

• Removed comma, from here and other uses, though I note sources use the comma as well. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• during the 1985 NFL preseason, where teams played exhibition games before their regular seasons began. No need to explain what the preseason is; it's tangential to the article, and curious readers can always follow the wikilink.

• Not done, though I'm open to hearing others' opinions on this outside of WP:NFL. Also I disagree with your assessment "curious readers can always follow the wikilink" per MOS:NOFORCELINK ("Use a link when 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. Users may print articles or read offline, and Wikipedia content may be encountered in republished form, often without links.")

• the hall of fame classes of EKU and Hernando High School Usually a hall of fame class refers to a specific year (class of 2024 being the players inducted in 2024, for instance). If you're not giving a year, then simply "the halls of fame of EKU and Hernando High School" would be standard.

  Changed as suggested. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• and made The Tampa Tribune's (TTT's) all-area football team, composed of the best high school football players in the area. As above, the explanation seems unnecessary.

• Cut, but am open to re-adding. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• The Tampa Tribune's (TTT's) Also, going by Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Use sourceable abbreviations, we only use abbreviations that the organisation themselves use. Did the Tampa Tribune typically abbreviate their name to TTT?

• I've changed to the Tribune. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• a seventy-two-yard punt return Touchdown lengths are always written with numbers ("72-yard").

• Per what, exactly? Therapyisgood (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• he earned TTT Hernando County Player of the Week for the performance on September 30 No need to add the date here; it adds confusion as to whether we're still talking about the game with North Marion.

• Cut. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• named to TTT all-area team Either "TTT's all-area team" or "the TTT all-area team."

• I believe these are consistent now with the change to the Tribune's. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Before the 1980 season, OVC football head coaches voted Floyd to the preseason All-OVC Team. No need to specify the preseason as you've already said it was before the season.

• Not done. I think it can get confusing for people, especially since the article mentions "First-team All-OVC" later on. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• You can wikilink Kodak.

• No issue linking. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• as of 2020, he holds or ties five school records Can we get more recent than 2020?

• Updated to 2023. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• In an article about the Jets' training camp Wikilink training camp here, as it's the first time it's used (you're currently linking it in the next sentence).

• Linked earlier. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• The Jets waived Floyd in October 1985 (an NFL process in which a team releases a player and makes him available to all other NFL teams) No need to explain the term "waived" as you have it wikilinked.

• Not done per MOS:NOFORCELINK ("Use a link when 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. Users may print articles or read offline, and Wikipedia content may be encountered in republished form, often without links.")

• He taught physical education for eighteen years at Bellevue and Boone County High Schools and, as of 2020, works as an assistant principal at Boone County High School. As of 2023, Floyd is a defensive backs coach for Conner High School in Kentucky. Would his post at Conner High School not imply that he no longer has the Boone County job, or could he work for both?

• I think he's employed by both. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Harper J. Cole (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Therapyisgood:? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 11:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: I'm working on them, albeit very late. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Harper J. Cole:, thanks for the review, comments responded. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Therapyisgood Thanks! With regard to writing the touchdown lengths as numbers; if I'm honest, it was my instinctive reaction that they're written that way. I did find this from AP, though. [48] Also, I searched for "seventy-two-yard touchdown" on newspapers.com for the years 2000-2024 and got 3 results, while "72-yard touchdown" gets 14,997 results.

I've no objections to the other non-changes. Harper J. Cole (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Harper J. Cole: now changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks; I Support nomination. Harper J. Cole (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Little to say here, but I wonder what makes www.mydigitalpublication.com a reliable source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: thank you for the source review. mydigitalpublication.com is just a host for The Eastern Magazine. The Eastern Magazine is an alumnus publication of Eastern Kentucky University. As for the magazine itself, it had a staff and a President in the year cited. I added another bit from the magazine to the article. Other than that, I can't speak to reliability, but it seems reliable. Therapyisgood (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments by SafariScribe

• This line in the Early life section, "George Floyd Jr. was born on December 21, 1960, in Tampa, Florida, and grew up in Brooksville, Florida." Can Florida be reduced to one. It looks repetitive to readers.

• Changed wording. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• In the Early life section, you didn't leave a note of what Hernando Leopards are. Maybe add a note connecting it to Hernando High School (Florida). It may be late but it's important.

• I've changed the wording. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@SafariScribe: thank you for the comments, were you planning on leaving a longer review? Therapyisgood (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Not really. Anyways you did a great job there. I made a few changes to the article including excluding "As of 2020, he works as a vice principal at Boone County High School in Kentucky." It wasn't explained well in the lead in the sense that it isn't necessary. Why not merge the two paragraphs of the lead to one. It's will improve readability sas they both seems to contain his awards/honors. Also, regrouping is important especially in the "personal life section", but that one wouldn't be a problem. Kudos! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 02:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I have read the article and saw it was written well. Support from me though I would love to see images illustrated. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 02:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose from RoySmith

My initial impression is that this is fundamentally a non-notable marginal player who only gets an article because of our absurdly inclusive WP:NSPORTS guideline. I accept that this is the wrong forum to raise complaints about NSPORTS, but I mention this because it leads to groping for trivial material to fill up the space.

We've got an entire section (Early life) filled with details about Floyd's High School athletic career. WP:FACR requires that the article stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail. The main topic is stated in the first sentence: "an American former professional football player". How is all this stuff about his high school play not "unnecessary detail"? What is it about Floyd that makes his high school career so interesting that it's worth devoting almost as much space to as is devoted to his professional career?

Contrast with (to pick a few players who were active back when I followed the sport), for example Phil Simms: the entirely of what it has to say about Simms's high school career is Simms was the quarterback of the Trojans of Southern High School in Louisville and graduated in 1974. Eli Manning has all of four sentences about Manning's high school play. I assume Franco Harris played high school football, yet his article only mentions what school he went to and says nothing about playing football. Troy Aikman mentions the high school he attended and that he was All-State. And looking at a couple of football FAs, Otto Graham says nothing about high school, and Billy Joe Tolliver has one short paragraph. If that level of high-school coverage made sense for those articles, what's different about Floyd that it's worth devoting almost 400 words?

I also have deep concerns about this meeting WP:FACR's "prose is engaging and of a professional standard". Even allowing for the fact that I don't find football interesting, there's very little here that I would call truly "engaging". Much of it is OK, but it's kind of a bland recitation of facts rather than telling a compelling story. Some of it is downright stilted. The "Personal life" section is particularly bad in this respect. It's a random jumble of unconnected facts. The prose itself is a succession of short choppy sentences; the antithesis of "engaging".

@RoySmith: Hello, while I respect your comments there's not much I can do about them. I disagree with your assessment of Floyd as a NSPORTS marginal player. He was inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame, for one, and for another he was covered in several publications in the 1980s and 1970s. That aside, per WP:FA?, section 1b, the article must be comprehensive and neglect no major facts. When a biography subject has received major coverage in several newspapers for his high school play, I think neglecting this important part of his career would run asunder of 1b (and the 1c "well-researched" criterion). Additionally the FA? you quote is 4, which says "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate". If you could give me specific examples of what you consider "unnecessary detail" that would be helpful. The articles you cite are for players whose career were significantly longer than Floyd's. It would make sense that their high school sections are less in terms of coverage because they are less important to the professional careers, and more documentation has been covered about them. As far as the lead goes, I have cut a sentence on his high school play. If you have anything else to add. I will work on the "personal life" section in the upcoming days. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

You're arguing that the other players did more as pros so it makes sense to not cover what they did in high school. How is that any different from saying this guy didn't do much as a pro, so we need to cover his high school career in order to have something to say about him? It only took me a few minutes of searching to find tons of coverage of Phil Simms's high school career in the local papers. Does anybody care that Simms hit Mike Burke with a 12-yard touchdown pass, leading Southern High to a 13-6 victory over Stuart High? Of course not. So why would anybody care that Floyd got two interceptions in a game against Inverness Citrus? Or that he had a 72 yard punt return against Lake Weir?

Looking through "Early life", it's almost entirely cited to The Tampa Tribune and Tampa Bay Times. These are the local papers covering the local high school. It's obligatory coverage. I would expect that anybody who makes it to the NFL was a stand-out athlete in high school. These are the kids who are faster and stronger than the rest of their age group and will excel in whatever sport they play in, so it's not surprising he also played basketball. I'd be surprised if you could find many NFL players who didn't play multiple sports in high school and were good at all of them at that level. I could see covering some of the most significant highlights (like making the all-star team), but if you devote more than a couple of sentences to this, it's just padding. RoySmith (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith: can you take a look now? Therapyisgood (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Just acknowledging that I've seen this, but let me spend some time thinking before I reply. I'll probably come back tomorrow. RoySmith (talk) 01:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I searched for other NFL player FAs and looked at a few: Scott Zolak, William Wurtenburg, Jim Thorpe, Billy Joe Tolliver, Otto Graham, Chris Gragg, Tyrone Wheatley. Most make no mention of the player's high school career, and those that do generally have just a couple of sentences about some outstanding achievement. Tyrone Wheatley is the only one with significant coverage of high school and most of that is talking about his non-football sports (All-American in track, and also being on the basketball team). The parts that are about his high school football note some awards and only mentions his performance in a single specific game. By comparison, you go into much greater detail about substantiallly less significant events.

The rest of the article similarly digs deep for minor achievements. Honorable mention for defensive player of the week? Eighth most number of tackles one year and fourth most another? A single fumble recovery? Assistant coach for a high school team after leaving the NFL? Made all-conference, but only as second team? Perhaps some of these things really are noteworthy, but the overall impression I get is that of grasping for positive things to say.

And, my apologies for the harshness of this, but the "Personal life" section, while improved in organization, is still very far from "engaging and of a professional standard". Most of it is short simple declarative sentences, which gives a monotonous feel. Things like "accomplished his teaching aspirations" is just fluff. Awkward repetition ("he wanted to join ... wanted to play ... wanted to teach"). Saying "he married his wife" is almost comical. Who else (discounting the possibility of a husband) would he have married? Surprisingly, you don't tell us her name (although to be fair, I thought I saw somewhere in a previous FAC that you had originally done so and got talked out of it by a reviewer).

While I'm on the topic of prior reviews, I see you also got talked into "Hernando high school team, nicknamed the Leopards". Just saying "the Hernando Leopards" was fine. Everybody knows what that construct means. I can't blame you too much for acquiescing to this bad advice, but knowing when to push back on bad advice is useful.

It pains me to say this but I'm sorry, I just don't see any path to supporting this short of a major rewrite. RoySmith (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

PS, I found the bit about not giving his wife's name; it was in Talk:George Floyd (American football)/GA1 RoySmith (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree that the personal life section is bad prose. As to his wife's name I didn't include it per WP:BLPNAME (see above), nor did I include his sister's or brother's name. As to the meat and potatoes of your complaint, I will look over the article and make appropriate changes in the days to come. I also disagree on the alleged blandness of the prose overall, and will leave it up to FAC coordinators to make that determination. Therapyisgood (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but reading just the personal life section, I agree with RoySmith. The prose in this section is not up to FA standard. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The three supports disagree, unfortunately. They wouldn't have supported if they thought the prose was not up to FA standards, so I'm not concerned with your assessment of the text. Additionally you have not given specifics on how the text could be improved, other than saying vaguely it's "bland". And no, I'm not rewriting the whole thing just because a wiki mod says he doesn't like it. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose

Having seen the above I thought I'd look at the personal life section to see whether there were any issues or not, and it's clear that there are. Specifically:

Personal life

• "high school, he wanted": there's a good rule of thumb about using the subject's name in a paragraph before using 'he'; doubly so for the first mention in a section.

• Fixed. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• "senior year in college, Floyd": Changing the above to 'Floyd' means this can now be changed to 'he'

• Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• "wanted to teach after graduation before being drafted.": this is a bit ambiguous. As it's written it means he actively wanted to 1. Graduate, then 2. Teach, finally 3. Get drafted. Is that actually what the source says, or does it just say he 'wanted to teach after graduation', but that instead he was drafted.

• I've re-worded; how's it look now? Therapyisgood (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• "Floyd accomplished his teaching aspirations after his selection by the Jets:" This sentence could do with a bit of a rewrite, partly by deleting the quoted bit. The second part of the sentence says much of the same thing, so there's no point in repeating it.

• Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• "Floyd picked up coaching": 'picked up' fails MOS:IDIOM to my eye: "Floyd was employed as an assistant coach at ..." would be far better

• Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• The next two sentences are a bit of a mess, jumping round the dateline. Better to work through chronologically and make it clear that he has two jobs (and as it's now 2024, it would be better to check the sources to see if these can be updated.

• Re-worked. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• "He has": New paragraph, repeat the name

• Done. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• "brother, and married his wife" bit of a comma splice that should be sorted.

• Fixed. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• The less said about he "married his wife" the better. I think it's too much of a stretch of BLPNAME to omit her name, but it's editorial discretion, so it's down to you and any other page stewards. Having said that, several people in this review have said the omission is a strange one.

• Re-worded. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll go over the rest of the article shortly to see on the prose there, but this short section isn't up to FA standard as it stands. As it's fairly short, it shouldn't take much to sort it. - SchroCat (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@SchroCat: comments responded to. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

That’s immeasurably better now, and I’ve struck the oppose. I made one further change: it’s just a suggestion, which I think reads better, but if you think there’s an issue with it, or prefer the previous version, feel free to revert. The rest of the article reads well enough too. I agree that there is a little too much emphasis on his college career, but as it is the background to his inclusion in professional sports (and therefore the basis for his notability), I’ll support. - SchroCat (talk) 05:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 1 July 2024 [49].

---

Homeric Hymns

Nominator(s): UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

This article is probably the "biggest", in all of technical challenge, subject matter, viewing numbers and sheer mass, that I've ever taken on. The Homeric Hymns are a hodge-podge corpus of Greek poems: neither meaningfully "Homeric" nor technically all "Hymns", but an interesting and until-lately quite neglected area of ancient literature. Most survive only in fragments and at least two were discovered by chance in an eighteenth-century barn, but we have them to thank for, among other stories, the most famous retelling of the myth of Demeter and Persephone. I have done my best to chart the winding thread of the Hymns' influence, from most of the greatest hits of ancient literature, to some pretty obscure late antique and medieval works, through to a surprisingly wide slice of modern culture: Botticelli, Goethe, Shelley, Ezra Pound, James Joyce, Alfred Hitchcock and Neil Gaiman. If you like arcane textual criticism and ridiculously long bibliographies, this one's for you. If you don't, I hope you'll give it a look anyway. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

SC

Definitely up for this one. I have a couple of others to sort first, but I shall return (to quote MacArthur). - SchroCat (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you: not that it needed much, but I've popped a few comments on your cookery FAC as well. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• For two of the image captions (bust of Homer and fragmentary painting) you given the century as "2nd" and "1st". For the others you have "fifteenth-century", "sixth and the fourth centuries". Consistency is key (fully written out would be my advice, but the choice is yours)
  • Agreed: all now spelled out in full. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• "The Homeric Hymns did influence": or possibly "The Homeric Hymns influenced"?
  • Personally, I like did influence slightly better (though there's not much in it for me), as we're drawing a contrast with the direct influence of the Homeric Hymns was comparatively limited until the fifth century. The Hymn to Hermes was a partial exception... further up. There might, however, be a better way of doing this whole thing. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• "Thomas William Allen published a series of four articles in The Journal of Hellenic Studies on their textual problems between 1894 and 1897": were the problems only there between 1894 and '97?
  • There were not. Moved the temporal range to the start of the sentence. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• For the table, neither the notes or ref columns should be sortable
  • I think I have sorted this one out -- took a bit of finagling with the code. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• FN 49 pp. should be p.
  • And now is. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Kudos for taking on such a body of work and for producing such an interesting and readable article. - SchroCat (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you: back to you with replies above. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support. - SchroCat (talk) 05:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Putting a placeholder down for later. One drive-by comment: some of the entries in the "subject matter" column have full stops and others do not. As none of them are complete sentences, none should have full stops -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, Chris -- looking forward to it. Good eye on the full stops; I've fixed those. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• "They were comparatively neglected during the succeeding Byzantine period (that is, until 1453), though continued" - I think "They were comparatively neglected during the succeeding Byzantine period (that is, until 1453), but continued" would be better grammatically
  • No objection: changed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
• "The earliest of the Homeric Hymns were composed in a time period where oral poetry was common" => "The earliest of the Homeric Hymns were composed in a time period when oral poetry was common"
  • Similarly, done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
• "Many of the hymns with a verse indicating that another song will follow" - I think there's a word missing here (maybe "end"....?)
  • Exactly so: fixed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
• "As of 2016, a total of twenty-nine manuscripts of the hymns are known" => "As of 2016, a total of twenty-nine manuscripts of the hymns were known" (2016 was eight years ago)
  • "Are" is correct here: it implies that the state of affairs continues, whereas "were" implies the opposite (compare "as of 1959, there are 50 states in the USA", or "as of this morning, I'm the CEO"). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Hmmm, it still reads weirdly to me - if I was writing a football article I wouldn't personally write "As of 1925, Sheffield United have won the FA Cup four times", I'd write "As of 2024, Sheffield United have won the FA Cup four times" to make clear that it is the current state of affairs rather than the then-state of affairs just shy of 100 years ago, even though the number of wins hasn't changed in that time. But I'm not going to hold up the nom over this little quibble -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

      I agree, but I don't think we've actually got the sources to say that: the source being from 2016, it can only itself be evidence for the state of play until then (that situation hasn't changed, but we'd need a second source to actually say that). I'm also not sure we want to set ourselves up with a continually moving treadmill: if we did find a 2024 source and stick it in, we'd have the same problem in 2025, and 2026, and so on ad infinitum. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• "and the only edition to date that has printed digammas in their text" => "and the only edition to date that has printed digammas in its text"
  • I prefer "their" (the hymns') here: I think both are defensible but "their" is slightly more precise (since the edition includes notes, apparatus criticus and so on that are not strictly the text of the hymns). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
• Notes g, i, j, and k don't need full stops
  • Footnotes always end with a full stop (see Bristol University on the matter here): you'll notice that the SFN template automatically injects one. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
• That's all I got - fabulous work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
  • That's very generous of you to say: replies above. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

A most impressive article. Some minor cavilling:

• "and their collection as a corpus likely dates to this period" – unexpectedly AmE phrasing: in BrE one might expect "...probably dates..."

• Not addressed, but up you, natch. Tim riley talk 14:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Oops -- I did mean to do this one: now fixed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• "They were comparatively neglected during the succeeding Byzantine period" – this is the first of nine "comparatively"s in the text. One of them is quoting René Nünlist and can't be remedied, but the other eight bring to mind Gowers's comment: "Timid writers who shrink from positive statements have a bad habit of using comparatively and relatively to water down their adjectives and adverbs, forgetting that those words can properly be used only when some comparison is expressed or implied." I don't think that can be said of the eight "comparatively"s here.
  • Auditing: the plan was to use "comparatively" when there is an implied comparison (usually, to the rest of Greek literature):
    • Their influence on Greek literature and art was comparatively small until the third century BCE: I think this one's kosher: it wasn't small as such, but it was smaller than that of other texts, in particular the Homeric epics. It was also smaller than their influence on later literature.
    • They were comparatively neglected during the succeeding Byzantine period: as above, I think this one's good, since they weren't absolutely neglected (some poets used them)
    • iterative narration ... which is comparatively rare in ancient Greek literature: the implied comparison is with singulative narration: I suppose we could do "which is much rarer in ancient Greek literature than..."?
    • the Homeric Hymns generally place greater focus on single events than the Homeric epics ... resulting in what he calls a comparatively "slow" narration: there's a comparison here with the epics.
    • The Homeric Hymns are quoted comparatively rarely in ancient literature: this one's dubious: the implied comparison is to other texts, particularly the epics. I do think some sort of adverb is useful here, since "rarely" would be a bit too strong. Could do "relatively" just for variety?
    • In late antiquity ... the direct influence of the Homeric Hymns was comparatively limited until the fifth century: as above: there's an implied comparison with other periods, but it's not as strong as some of the others. However, some kind of adverb is useful here still, I think.
    • Although they received comparatively little attention in English poetry in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries: I've changed this one to relatively for much the same reasons as the last two.
      • I'm happy to accept your rationale for all the above. If there's one thing I loathe more than most about GAN and FAC it's reviewers (happily few) who say "I'd write it this way and so therefore must you". I hope never to be such a reviewer. (And nor are you, as I know from your valuable reviews of my offerings.) All the same, I might make some of the comparativelys "not much" or "seldom" or "infrequently", but I pass the ball back to you. Tim riley talk 14:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
• "(that is, until 1453)" – this is the first of seven parenthetical instances of "that is," and the phrase rather outwears its welcome, me judice. Three instances come in the space of 150 words in the Composition section. Some of the instances seem to me useful, such as "in a vernacular language (that is, not in Latin)" but I really think you could blitz those like "Hellenistic (that is, 323–30 BCE) Alexandria" and "singulative narration (that is, accounts of specific events related in sequence), where the meaning and grammar are both secure without "that is".
  • I've removed it except where it's useful to be clear that it's defining the whole, rather than a subset of it: for example the succeeding Byzantine period (that is, until 1453), where it's useful to be clear that "until 1453" is another way of writing "the Byzantine period" rather than a greater degree of precision.
• "all of the surviving manuscripts of the hymns date to the fifteenth century" – unexpected and I think unneeded "of".
  • Now removed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
• "The Homeric Hymns were first published in print by Demetrios Chalkokondyles in 1488–1489. George Chapman made the first English translation of them in 1642" – perhaps drop "of them"?
  • Hm: I'm not sure it's wrong, but it doesn't quite read right to me: we could do something like their first English translation, but that also doesn't sound right. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Don't let my preferences affect the way you write! I comment, suggest but don't demand. Tim riley talk 14:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
• "an artificial literary language (Kunstsprache) derived largely from the Aeolic and Ionic dialects of Greek" – not sure why the German term is mentioned here: the blue link goes to an English one.
  • Kunstsprache is the normal term in Anglophone scholarship for what the Homeric dialect is (see Google Books results here. Strictly speaking, it has a slightly more specialised and precise meaning than "artificial literary language", which is really my explanation of the term, so I think it has value here. I've added a link to the footnote which goes into a bit (well, a lot) more detail about what we mean when we say this word. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
• "Irene de Jong has contrasted the narrative focus" – a word or two of introduction to Irene de Jong would be helpful.
• "René Nünlist has also suggested" – likewise for René Nünlist. Helps the reader see why the person's views are of interest.
  • I've tried to follow a wise colleague's words (courtesy ping to User:Caeciliusinhorto) and avoid giving introductions that would amount to "the classicist..." for views that we would expect to come from a classicist (this was a view fairly widely expressed in the recent-ish FAC on Beulé Gate. Where the person has some other claim to fame (Ezra Pound, for example), I've tried to make that clear so that the reader doesn't assume that they're necessarily a subject-matter expert. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
    • There's no one right answer to this. I am perhaps permanently influenced (not to say scarred) by this comment at the 2011 peer review of my revision of Thomas Beecham:

"Sir Adrian Boult": I don't know who this guy is nor why I should care what he thinks. Since the reader, like me, may be too lazy to click, I suggest a brief characterisation of him.

But I quite see your point of view, and I happily leave the matter in your hands here. Tim riley talk 14:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• "the didactic poem Phainomena" – for those, e.g. me, who are unfamiliar with the term "didactic poem" a concise explanation would not go amiss. One knows what both words mean, but not quite what the two together mean, or whether the didacticism of the poem is material here.
  • I've added a little, and a link. It's really a term of genre, equivalent (and in some senses antithetical) to "epic poem", "lyric poem", vel sim. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
• "earliest known poet to use them" – I think I'd hyphenate "earliest-known" – otherwise he's the earliest of known poets to use them.
  • That's what's intended, isn't it? That is, there might have been a poet who used them earlier, but we don't know that he did. Theoretically, for example, a poet that we do know about might have used them in a lost work, and so they're a known poet, but not in this list. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Hmm. OK. Tim riley talk 14:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

      Reading again, I think I've managed to express the rationale for using the hyphen here: changed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• "the Restoration playwright and poet William Congreve" – pushing it a bit to call Congreve (b. 1670) a Restoration playwright? I have the impression that the term is normally applied up to about the end of the 17th century, and not as late as 1710.
  • Ah, this is my misunderstanding: he wrote Restoration comedy, which is a genre term that goes up to, well, him -- and after the end of what we'd normally call the Restoration period. Axed.. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
• "In 1744, he released a revised version of his 1710 Semele: An Opera, with music by George Frideric Handel and a newly-added passage of the libretto quoting Congreve's translation of the Hymn to Aphrodite" – this baffles me. Who is "he"? Despite reading and rereading I can't construe the text as meaning anyone but Congreve, but he was long dead by then.
  • I'd slightly got the wrong end of this one: with the help of some extra sources, I think I've now made sense of it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
    • That's perfect now. I thought I was going bonkers. Tim riley talk 14:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
• Semele – could perhaps do with a blue link.
  • Done as part of the above. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

That's all from me. I think you have achieved an exemplary distillation of a great deal of information, and made it comprehensible to the lay reader. Tim riley talk 11:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you as ever, Tim, for your sharp eyes and wise comments. Replies above: would appreciate your thoughts on the surviving adverbs, most of the rest I think dealt with unproblematically. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I am happy to support the elevation of this article to FA. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria (and has impressed me mightily). Tim riley talk 14:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments from The Morrison Man

Not sure if me looking over the article again would be good practise after also handling the GA (though if more comments are needed, I'm always available), but I would still like to just pop in here and wish you good luck during the review! The Morrison Man (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you: that's very kind. I don't think there's any problem with GA reviewers coming back for another go at FAC (@FAC coordinators: please do correct me if I'm wrong), as it's a different set of standards, but equally you've more than done your time in reading and reviewing the article the once (and with your very helpful comments since the nomination). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

The Morrison Man, there will be no problem at all with this. Your already being familiar with the article is a pleasant bonus. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll be sure to take another look at it, in that case! The Morrison Man (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@The Morrison Man: apologies for the prod, but are you still planning to give this a look? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, apologies for not letting you know sooner. My comments should be up tomorrow! The Morrison Man (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Whoops, seems like my changes didn't save and I haven't noticed untill now, sorry for not providing the comments earlier like I promised! Just like with the GA, feel free to ask questions or discuss any suggestions that you don't agree with, and I'm sure we'll be through these in no time. The Morrison Man (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Just to note that I almost certainly won't be able to get to these for about a week, but thank you for them: I'll ping you when I do. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• “It is unclear how far the hymns were composed orally, as opposed to with the use of writing” - This sentence feels overly complicated to me. Maybe something like: “It is unclear whether the hymns were composed orally or through use of writing,” could work?
  • Just thought of a potential alternate version myself after reading over it again: "It is unclear whether the hymns were solely a product of oral composition or whether writing was also involved [in their creation]" The Morrison Man (talk) 23:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Not sure either of these work. Everyone agrees that writing is involved somewhere in the process, if only because they all became written texts in order to be recorded in manuscripts, and that oral composition is somehow involved, if only because the poems at least reference and imitate works of oral poetry. It's not a binary, but a spectrum. The questions is where you mark the balance along that spectrum: both oral composition and writing are definitely involved, but how involved? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
      • Alright, I do still think that the current sentence could read better. How about changing "how far the hymns were" to "how much of the hymns was"? That would fix the sentence for me and I do believe it keeps the same meaning. The Morrison Man (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
        • That’s slightly different - it would imply that we are trying to look at individual hymns or sections of hymns and ascertain whether those sections were themselves composed orally or through the use of writing. In practice it is much fuzzier and these sharp binaries are generally to be avoided – for instance, it could be the case that a passage of narrative, iterated over for several generations as an oral poem, was later polished up by a poet using writing into the form we currently have. Trying to ascertain which parts of the result represented oral composition versus written would be impossible and indeed somewhat meaningless. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
          • I now see what you mean, yes. Then it should be kept this way. The Morrison Man (talk) 12:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
• “reciprocity” - Would just using reciprocation do the trick here too?
  • They're not quite the same thing (though are very similar): reciprocity is the practice/relationship rather than the action, and more about the general state of balance (that acts from one party are or should be reciprocated by the other). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
• “performance within that cult, though the latter did not necessarily follow from the former” - Shouldn’t “did” be present here? latter does not necessarily follow
  • I don't think so: it did not follow, in ancient Greece, that a poem composed with reference to a specific cult was actually composed for use by that cult. The present tense would imply that we're using abstract logical deduction rather than counter-example. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Ah, I did read it as deduction, which explains our difference in understanding The Morrison Man (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
• “polities” - Could this be swapped out for “city-states”? Easier on the layman reader. If not, I would link it.
  • Most Greek polities were city-states, but not all were: see Thessaly and Macedon as the clearest examples (and of course, later, the Hellenistic kingdoms). I've linked it, though. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
• “but never performed.” - Change to something like “, though it was never performed.
  • I'm not sure I'm seeing the problem this is fixing, or how it makes an improvement -- to me, that reads as a slightly clunkier way of saying the same thing?
    • I think the current form of the sentence reads a little clunky, though if you disagree it would be ok to keep it in. The Morrison Man (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe all my comments have been addressed, and I have found no more. I will now support. The Morrison Man (talk) 12:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@The Morrison Man: Much obliged (and for your time in doing the review) -- thank you. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Image review from Generalissima

• File:Exekias Dionysos Staatliche Antikensammlungen 2044.jpg Own work CC upload of a public domain art piece.
• File:Homer British Museum.jpg Public domain upload of a public domain statue.
• File:Hermes Stabia 1.jpg Public domain, although the license appears to be formatted incorrectly on commons.
• File:Sandro Botticelli - La nascita di Venere - Google Art Project - edited.jpg Public domain.
• File:Page from the first printed edition (editio princeps) of collected works by Homer.jpg Public domain.
• File:Pinax con Ade che rapisce Kore-Persefone, da Locri - MARC.jpg CC-BY-SA-4.0
• Complete side note, but I'd wikilink Demetrios Chalkokondyles in the caption for the book.

All imhave alt-text. All are laid out correctly, and are relevant to the texts. I do slightly question the infobox image; wouldn't it be better to put in the front cover of Demetrios Chalkokondyles' editio princeps, as the first published volume of the compiled hymns? That Dionysus Cup is very nice and would be fitting somewhere in the article, however. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for these, Generalissima. I've tweaked the formatting on the Stabiae image licence. On the infobox image: a matter of taste, maybe, but the folks at Penguin Classics thought that the Dionysus Cup would make a pretty good main image too. A chunk of Chalkokondyles' edition would also work, except that all the images I can find on Commons (and in the PD more widely) are from the Iliad part of that text, not the Homeric Hymns. There's also some value, I think, in having something broadly contemporary with the Hymns themselves, rather than two thousand years more recent. I've linked him in the caption. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

That's fair enough! I think the images are in a good state now - Support on image review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 07:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Aza24

• Just a quick comment. I feel that the lead and body are missing clarity as to the musical content of these hymns. Presumably, no music notation survives (and perhaps it never existed?). Do we know if the melodies were improvised, or performed in accordance with tradition? These feel like things which should be addressed more explicitly. Otherwise, the reader may be left wondering. Mathiesen's Apollo’s Lyre (1999), the standard modern survey of ancient Greek music, probably discusses this. I see that Grove has an article ([50]) but it seems largely redudant to the article's current content. – Aza24 (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Hm: I don't think we know very much about this at all, to be honest. There's a little bit in Mathiesen (thank you for the nudge towards that; I hadn't come across it), which I'll work into the article (essentially: no, the notation wasn't written down, but it may well have been fixed by tradition, like the lyrics -- equally, from Henderson, it may well have totally shifted over time). Thank you also for the Grove article, though I agree there doesn't seem to be much I can pull out of there that isn't already in the article. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  I've added a chunk to the "Content and function" section on music -- trying to say what we can, which isn't a lot, especially as basically none of the sources directly talk about the performance of the Hymns (they do talk in general about early Greek music or "Homer", though). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Good choice and a definite improvement. I find that Wikipedia articles often forgo important information entirely when its limited, but its inclusion here seems worthwhile. Sometimes its necessary to state the obvious (e.g. "we don't know much about the music"), just so readers don't walk away thinking "what about the music?". Aza24 (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Pardon my stalking, but maybe these articles about the hymns' performance will be useful: Homeric Epic in Performance, "Homeric Hymn to Apollo": Prototype and Paradigm of Choral Performance, The performance of the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite, The Homeric Hymns as Poetic Offerings: Musical and Ritual Relationships with the Gods, Choreia and Aesthetics in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo: The Performance of the Delian Maidens, and this modern project Hymns: Visual Album. Artem.G (talk) 06:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you: I'll have a look here and see what I can pull out. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  OK, I think I've got what I can here: there's a lot which would be of interest in a specific article on e.g. the Hymn to Aphrodite or the Hymn to Apollo, but doesn't really fit into an overview article on the whole corpus. I can't find any secondary references to the Getty Center/Four Larks project, and I'm reluctant to include it on primary testimony only per MOS:POPCULT: have you got anything here? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  most sources are about individual hymns, I didn't find any general "theory" of their perfomance, probably because they differ in purpose, or just because of lack of evidence; I think you're right here. For Four Larks I have no sources and don't propose to include it, it was just an interesting finding. There is also this Homeric Singing page that might be interesting. It's not about the hymns, but about all Homeric epics. Artem.G (talk) 08:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, it's an interesting field, and it's quite amazing to hear people play reconstructed Greek music on modern replicas of the instruments. Most of it's pretty conjectural, to be honest -- lots of people (for instance, West cited in the article) trying to use the "natural" rhythm of the words to talk about the likely rhythm of the songs, and the pitch accent as a guide to the melodies. It's not a silly idea, but you end up with reconstructed music that doesn't really hang on any real evidence, and of course the possibility of having different musical settings for the same lyrics, as we find throughout just about every period of history, pours a great deal of cold water on the whole thing. Good territory for Music of ancient Greece to cover, but I think there's too much distance and too little certainty to put it in here, really. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan

Hi UndercoverClassicist, marking a spot, will add comments soon. Matarisvan (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for all of these: you have done a great deal of work for me in finding all of these articles for such a huge pile of scholars! I've seen the Biard comments: I need to take another run at that article, partly in light of the help and advice received there, and am keeping the ACR feedback to hand for when I do -- it will be very useful. As for this one, replies below. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Consider linking to the German language wiki for René Nünlist?
  • Done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Link to Claude Calame in body and biblio?
  • Done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Link to Delos?
  • Done (now duplinked in the table, but I think that's fine). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Have any scholars speculated on whether the hymns were only intended to be invoked at singing competitions? We know Ancient Greece had sports, sparring, chariot racing competitions; the hyms might have been sung there too.
  • I wouldn't draw such a sharp distinction: in most cases, athletic and musical competitions were tied up as part of the same thing. The Olympic Games, Panathenaic Games and so on had musical and poetic competitions as part of the programme; early in Greek history, Hesiod writes of winning a tripod for poetic singing at the funeral games of a local ruler. It's better to think of singing contests as being part of bigger events (i.e. religious festivals, which athletic competitions generally more-or-less were) than as a stand-alone thing. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Link to Jenny Strauss Class in the body as done in the lead? Also, why use Jenny in the biblio and Jennifer in the lead?
  • She's "Jenny" on her faculty page and on the cover of the book, so I've normalised with that. Linked where mentioned in the body; she isn't mentioned in the lead. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Link to Callimachus in body as done in the lead?
  • Done (he was linked on a later mention). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Translate gymasiarch per NOFORCELINK?
  • It isn't really a translatable term: it's its own thing, with quite specific but also quite hard-to-pin-down details. Compare words like Taoiseach, daimyo or consul: we treat those as items of vocabulary in their own right, explain them if it's useful and practical (here, I don't think it's really either), and link in any case. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Was the negligible influence of the Hymns in the Byzantine era due to a negative Christian view of pagan literature? Do any authors speak about this?
  • It wasn't: after all, they didn't generally imitate them, but they did keep copying them (and therefore reading them), which is a tremendous pain in the neck to do with a text you don't really like. The Homeric epics were ubiquitous in Byzantine literature, so it's more a matter of shifting literary fashions than any grand religious-ideological statement. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Translate and link editio princeps in the image caption?
  • Linked; given the value of brevity in a caption, and that it's explained in the body text, I think it's wise not to do so here for a second time. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Reword "an operatic libretto, Semele" to "Semele, an operatic libretto" to avoid SEAOFBLUE? There's only a comma as a separator.
  • Normally a good idea, but I think that would create the implication or ambiguity that he wrote Semele in 1707: we don't know the date for sure, only that it was before 1710. Given the comma, we don't have a true SEAOFBLUE to be worried about. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• What was the influence of the Hymns in France, Spain, other parts of Europe? I'm sure they must have had an impact, do any authors write about this? One big paragraph might suffice for this, wdyt?
  • Not much, as far as I can find: there's a little on the reception of the Persephone myth in German literature, such as Schiller, but here we have the problem of telling the myth apart from the Hymn: nobody is willing to come out and say that Schiller was directly using the Homeric Hymn as opposed to the underlying myth (which was certainly popularised by the 1777 discovery of the Hymn, but equally was already known through Ovid). We do have a mention of a French translation, but I can't find much evidence of their involvement in French literature (they aren't mentioned once in The Cambridge History of French Literature), or indeed in Spanish. In the C15th at least, I wouldn't expect there to be: Greek literature in general had huge penetration in Italy, where many exiles from Constantinople ended up, but it took a while for it to really catch on in the rest of Europe. Gilbert Highet's well-known book on the classical tradition has quite a lot on French and other imitations of other classical poets (particularly Pindar), but only Chapman on the Hymns. There's a tiny bit in Richardson's introduction to Cashford, which I've added. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Translate ottava rima?
  • A translation wouldn't help much, as it's a poetic form: equally, I don't think a full explanation is possible here within the constraints of readability, or (honestly) particularly clarifying in an article that's about the Hymns, not the translation. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Link to Coraline (film)?
  • Done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• We have the textual history of the 33 hymns, what about the 1 epigram?
  • It's in a few manuscripts, but doesn't really have a distinct textual history to speak of: it's only a couple of lines long. The first sentence of the article makes clear that we mean to include it when we speak of "the Hymns" as a whole. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Shouldn't the textual history section be placed before the reception section? I'm not sure about this though.
  • The thinking behind the current arrangement is that the two cover the same chronological ground, so there's no a priori reason why one should go ahead of the other, but that Reception is likely to be of more interest to more readers, so we shouldn't force them to go through what is, for most people, a pretty dry chunk of editors and manuscripts to get to the juicy stuff about Joyce and Botticelli. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Why is Dionysus linked twice in the List of Hymns?
  • I've generally thought of the list as being like a bibliography or list of footnotes: we expect, more than for the body text, that readers might read it out of sequence (for instance, if they choose to sort by surviving lines), and so duplinking is more forgivable/useful here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• I'm not quite sure about this, but transliterate the Greek letters theta, phi, sigma used here?
  • Done for theta and psi; I don't think we've got a sigma. The M of the manuscript title is a Latin M (for Mosquiensis). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• In the biblio, to be consistent, you will have to link to Apostolos Athanassakis, Alessandro Barchiesi, Glen Bowersock, Luciano Canfora, Han Lamers, James J. Clauss, John Miles Foley, Sebastiano Tusa, Alison Keith, Anne Draffkorn Kilmer, Edwin Seroussi, Shirley Strum Kenny, Robert Parker, Irene Peirano, David Piper, Simon Price, Nicholas Richardson, Øivind Andersen
  • Thank you for finding these; they are all linked. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Why do Strauss 2006 amd van der Berg 2001 use ISBN 10? Google Books provides ISBN 13, consider adding? Pearcy 1989 and Sowa 1984 can be excused on account of their year of publication.
  • ISBN 13 was first used from January 2007; it is possible to convert an ISBN 10 into an ISBN 13, but practice here is to use the form printed on the book, which is ISBN 10 for both of these. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

That's all from me, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 10:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, @UndercoverClassicist, if you have some free time, I have posted my comments on the A Class Review of the Henry Biard article. I understand that you must have been busy with this FACR and weren't able to check those out. Matarisvan (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Matarisvan, 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) 18:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Gog, I would like to support for promotion to FA class. Matarisvan (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Source review

There seem to be quite a few people on prose already, so I will try to look at sources. —Kusma (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• Source formatting looks fairly uniform already.
• Many JSTOR items have DOIs, others do not. You could consider making this consistent.
  • In theory, they've got a DOI only if that links to a page that isn't JSTOR -- for example, a lot of the CUP journals have a DOI that points to Cambridge Core and a JSTOR link to, well, JSTOR. It's not out of the question that a reader will have access to one but not the other. When the only DOI I can find is JSTOR itself, I haven't duplicated it. If I've messed that system up, please do tell me! UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
    • OK, that makes sense. —Kusma (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Pfeiffer 1976/1968 has ISBN 0198143427 or 9780198143420 (reeditions are new enough to have ISBN, better than OCLC in my view if we have both).
  • Added the ISBN 10, removed the OCLC. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Piper 1982: David Piper is a disambiguation page.
  • Disambiguated. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Richardson 2003: should this use |chapter=Introduction?
  • Personally, I wouldn't, as he's the main author (well, translator, editor etc) of the whole book: I'd only use that for an edited volume where it was necessary to separate the author of the contribution from that of the work. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
    • As you choose. —Kusma (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Cambridge Scholars Publishing is a bit questionable. (It is on Beall's List). Can you comment on the reliability of Bodley 2016, Clark 2015, Rice 2020?
  • Interesting: I hadn't come across that list before, and Beall doesn't give any specific rationale for including CSP. Looking around online (e.g. here on reddit, they seem to have a reputation for being somewhat low-tier, and not a particularly good place for academics to submit manuscripts to, but generally legitimate (one comment somewhere-or-other called them "the bottom end of reputable"). I can't find much footprint for Musical Receptions of Greek Antiquity in the usual classical review sources, but Bodley herself is a grown-up musicologist with plenty of publications in serious academic presses on the same topic area. Likewise, Paul Rice: his book also has a few cites in (inter alia) a Brill volume here. I am less convinced by Clark: I can find little trace of her or her book anywhere scholarly, and it's only really included as further reading/supporting plot summaries, so I've swapped it out for better sources that can do the same job. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
    • The talk page leads to a discussion about CSP publishing recycled Wikipedia articles., so they certainly must be used only with great care. I agree that Bodley and Rice look relatively decent, so I think they can stay. —Kusma (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

      Yes, I'll definitely be checking their individual works much more closely in future. They've published some quite robust stuff by fairly big-name people, but also, it seems, some works that don't measure up to that standard. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Cassola 1975 probably has an ISBN
  • It does; added. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Taida 2015: the linked ISSN does not find anything. The whole issue of the journal (published by Vilnius University) is here: [51]. Worth using |trans-journal=? (I don't read Lithuanian, unfortunately).
  • It doesn't get a hit in Worldcat, strangely, but it does in the ISSN portal. Translation and link added. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Sources look great: scholarly journals and books from reputable publishers (with very few question marks as above). Only very small formatting issues. Happy to do spot checks on request. —Kusma (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you, Kusma: really useful on a number of counts. Replies above. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Looks like a pass to me now. —Kusma (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Choliamb

Hello, I see you've been busy. I'm butting in again uninvited. I haven't read the whole article, just the section on the history of the text and the early editions, which is the only area I feel competent to comment on. There are a couple of areas of confusion here:

A. Manuscripts

• First, and most important, the discussion of the manuscript tradition, and especially the relationship of M and Ψ, is incorrect. The article currently describes Ψ as one of the sources of M, but that is not true. The manuscripts of the Homeric hymns fall into two groups: one group consists of M alone (the only ms. to preserve the hymn to Demeter and portions of the first hymn to Dionysos); the other group consists of all of the remaining manuscripts (which lack those hymns). Ψ is not one of the sources of M, but rather the source of all of the manuscripts except M. It is the hypothetical ancestor of the defective branch of the tradition, the branch that lacks the first two hymns. The discussions of the manuscripts in Richardson 2010 and Olson 2011 are clear about this (see Olson's stemma on p. 49 for a nice graphical representation of the relationship, which shows M and Ψ as cousins, independently descended from the ultimate archetype Ω).
  • This is now fixed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• But I'd suggest citing the introduction to West's Loeb edition, p. 22, instead, since that is widely available and has the simplest and most easily understandable description of the tradition, aimed at general readers rather than editors of classical texts.
  • Added to a relevant footnote. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• The article describes John Eugenikos as a "priest and polymath", but was he really a priest? The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium describes him as a deacon (not the same thing), as well as a notary and a nomophylax. Are there other sources that identify him as a priest?
  • Hm: I suspect that's me misunderstanding "deacon". Now 'just' a polymath. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
    • I see that some sources (e.g., Simelidis) call him a "churchman," which is vague but true, so I suppose that's another option. Choliamb (talk) 02:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• The suggestion that Eugenikos copied M after his return to Constantinople in 1439 was made not by West, as stated in one of the footnotes, but by Thomas Gelzer, "Zum Codex Mosquensis und zur Sammlung der Homerischen Hymnen", Hyperboreus 1.1 (1994), pp. 113–137, at p. 124. I haven't read West's article on the hymn to Dionysos (= West 2011), which is what you cite here, but in the intro to the Loeb edition (p. 22, n. 23) West rightly attributes this view to Gelzer. See also Simelidis 2011, pp. 259–260, who disagrees with Gelzer and suggests a date earlier in the 1430s. All of these specific dates are pure speculation unsupported by any evidence at all, so it might be better to omit this note entirely and leave it at "first half of the 15th century," which is what we know for certain. Gelzer's article, by the way, is an important one for anyone interested in the textual tradition of the HH, although in this case there's enough English bibliography that I can understand if you'd rather not cite a German article.
  • Corrected. I'd added Simelidis to the note: at the moment, I'd like to leave it in. I do recognise that the dates are speculative, but my (very uninformed) impression is that there's a general view that we can at least tentatively be more precise than "any year between 1401 and 1450 is an equally good guess". However, if someone has put it in print that the guesses are baloney, that would be another matter -- do you know if they have? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. Speculation ≠ baloney, and not all dates between 1401 and 1450 are equally probable. Certainly if the attribution to Eugenikos is correct, and he was born "after 1394", then the first quarter of the 15th century seems unlikely, and the first decade is probably out of the question. I think the way you currently handle this, with a more general date (based on the watermarks of the paper and the general characteristics of the hand) stated in the text, and the more specific suggested dates (based on historical context and what is known of Eugenikos's life) in the footnote, is good.

• The notion that Ω, the original archetype behind both the M and the Ψ branches of the tradition, was a minuscule manuscript is not original to Olson; much of the evidence was collected already by Allen in his 1895 article in JHS, pp. 142–143 (summarized in the editions of Allen and Sikes and Halliday: 1st ed., p. xv; 2nd ed., pp. xx–xxi).
  • Added, though I'd like to keep Olsen in the footnote to give the authority of a recent source, confirming that this view hasn't been overturned or rejected. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• This article is probably not the place to discuss the circumstances of the discovery of M in "a stable where for many years ... it had been hidden among the chickens and the pigs", and Matthaei's efforts to purchase it from its proprietor, "a cunning and greedy old man"; but it's a wonderful story, told with copious quotations from the Latin correspondence between Matthaei and Ruhnken, by O. von Gebhardt, "Christian Friedrich Matthaei und seine Sammlung griechischer Handscriften", Centralblatt für Bibliothekswesen 15 (1898), pp. 441–458. (The quotations translated above are from a letter of 1783, printed by Gebhardt on p. 450.) It's great recreational reading if your German and Latin are up to it.
  • Indeed it is: I'm vaguely thinking about working on Homeric Hymn to Demeter, and there will be plenty of space for it there. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

B. Allen's editions

• Contrary to the statement in the article, the 1904 edition with commentary by Allen and Sikes was not in the Oxford Classical Texts series (which never included commentaries). The 1904 edition was not even published in Oxford; it was published in London by Macmillan, as you correctly report in the bibliography. Allen's Oxford Classical Text of the hymns was published in 1912, as the fifth volume in the OCT Homer (see here); Sikes had no part in it.
  • This is now corrected. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• The second edition of Allen and Sikes was published by Oxford in 1936 (but still not in the OCT series). By this time, Sikes was out of the picture (Allen, in his preface to the 2nd ed., writes that Sikes "has long betaken himself to other provinces, and resisted entreaties to assist in a revision"), and Allen found a new coauthor in W. R. Halliday. Sikes is still credited on the title page, but after Halliday, and his name does not appear on the spine. Officially this is Allen, Halliday, and Sikes 1936, but most people refer to it informally as Allen and Halliday. It is superior to the first edition, and anyone citing Allen's scholarship, which is still valuable in spite of its many flaws, should cite this one instead. Since this edition, unlike the first, remains under copyright, I will not give a link to an online version here, but if you were to go to a popular online archive, and search for the names Allen and Halliday together, it's not impossible that you might stumble upon one.
  • It's now cited, and linked. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• But wait, there's more! In fact, if not in name, Allen's first edition of the Homeric hymns was actually Goodwin's posthumous Oxford edition of 1893. Goodwin had done a lot of preliminary work for his edition, but he died leaving only some notes and drafts for the first few hymns; the material was entrusted by the press to Allen, who was Goodwin's student, and he was the one responsible for turning it into a publishable edition, although out of respect for his teacher his name does not appear on the title page. See the preface to the 1893 edition for Allen's description of what Goodwin left behind (not much); and see also the WP article on Allen, which correctly credits him with the preparation of this edition, and cites two reviews that accurately describe his contribution. (Taida, the source you cite for much of the section on early editions, is not always the most reliable guide, and seems unaware of the circumstances of publication.)
  • This point is now integrated into the article. Must admit I struggled to find good summary sources on the history of textual criticism, though it seems that combing through the various prefaces is probably the way to go. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

C. A few other small points

• The article currently says that "most modern editions of the text are based on that made by Filippo Càssola in 1975". This statement, which is also taken from Taida, is misleading, I think. What subsequent editors like Richardson (in his Cambridge green-and-yellow volume; not in his Oxford edition of the hymn to Demeter, which was independent of Càssola) and West (in the Loeb edition) rely on is not Càssola's text per se, but his collation of the manuscripts and his apparatus, which are better than Allen's. The texts themselves naturally differ from Càssola at a number of points. And Olson in his edition of the hymn to Aphrodite does not rely on Càssola at all: he writes (p. viii) that he prepared fresh collations the manuscripts and that he has corrected Càssola's readings where necessary. My advice is to cut this sentence about Càssola entirely, but if you want to keep it, it should simply say that he provided fresh collations and a fresh discussion of the manuscript tradition (the first since Allen), without implying that subsequent editions are derived from his.
  • Cut: I think that fact on Càssola is worthy, but it won't be supported by the cited material: I might dig around and see if I can find a review that gives a sense of why it's an important work (to the effect that you outline) and reinstate mutandis mutatis. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Finally, in the text you mention Richardson's 1974 Oxford edition of the hymn to Demeter and West's 2003 Loeb edition of the entire corpus, but you don't provide citations for them and they don't appear in the bibliography. Both are essential works of scholarship that really do belong in any serious bibliography of the Homeric hymns.
  • Both are now in the bibliography, and I've added notes pointing readers towards them in the relevant footnotes. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Consider adding Goodwin 1893 as well? Also mentioned prominently in the text (as the first edition to use the modern numbering), but not listed in the bibliography. (Available via Google Books and Hathi Trust.) Choliamb (talk) 14:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
      • Absolutely: done. Added a bit on it from Sikes's review here: I assume that the "T. G. Allen" he credits with finishing it off is Thomas William Allen? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

        Yes, G. = Gulielmus, Latin for William. Allen's preface to the edition is in Latin ("Delegati typographei Clarendoniani, ne omnino opus incohatum periret, mihi Thomae Gulielmo Allen Goodwini discipulo commiserunt ut librum perficerem"), so that must be where Sikes got it. But what a silly error on his part. Choliamb (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

        Yes -- that's exactly what I thought Sikes had done! Fortunately, got a second review which gives the full English name, so we don't even have to do the very minor bit of SYNTH necessary to correct him. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Much indebted to you as always, Choliamb. I've made small fixes where I can: I'm away from home at the moment, and will get to the more substantive stuff when I'm more able to do so. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
  • @Choliamb: I think everything is addressed here now. Thank you as ever: it is rare to be able to get an expert review on content as well as style, and it certainly does the article a huge amount of good. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

    Hardly expert: I taught a course on the Homeric Hymns only once, thirty years ago, and I haven't kept up on the critical literature since then, which is why I declined to comment on the rest of the article. Fortunately, the manuscripts and their relationships haven't changed since then!

    One final note: I skimmed the earlier comments about the illustrations, including the image of the edition of Chalkokondyles, which as you noted is not ideal because the page shown is from the Iliad rather than one of the hymns. I can't remedy that, but I can offer an alternative. The Leiden University library has a good scan of M, licensed for free use, so I have uploaded to the Commons an image of one of the pages of the hymn to Demeter: File:Leiden BPG 33 H fol 33r - Homeric Hymn to Demeter 187-236.jpg. Do with it as you will. I'm not sure it's a better lead image than Exekias's Dionysos cup, which most readers would probably find more engaging, but at least it can replace Chalkokondyles. Choliamb (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

    I concur: replaced the manuscript image with this one, but kept it where it is. Not quite as pretty as the old one, but far more relevant. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• No ISBN for The Reception of the Homeric Hymns? Possibly 9780198728788.
  • Not sure what had happened there: I'd entered an ISBN which didn't seem to exist. That one's correct: changed throughout. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
• "some are later in date". "in date" seems unnecessary.
  • I've changed this bit to "more recent", partly to break up the avalanche of "late"/"later" in the sentence. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
• "when they were used extensively by Alexandrian poets". I am puzzled, "used" as what, or to what end?
  • Quoted, alluded to, parodied, emulated, antityped... as in "Shakespeare used Ovid's Metamorphoses in writing Romeo and Juliet". I don't think it would be wise to be overly specific, especially in the lead. The term "used" is, well, used in the source HQRSs. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
• Link corpus. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Linked to Wiktionary; the enWiki link to text corpus is about a more niche meaning in linguistics. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Gog -- all done or replied. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.