Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

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

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whether the criteria have been met; or a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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

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

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

Nominations

White Horse (Taylor Swift song)

Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

This article is about a 2008 song by Taylor Swift when she was 18. After revamping the article I believe it now is up to FA standards. I'm open to any and all suggestions to improve it further. Thanks, Ippantekina (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The Dance of the Twisted Bull

Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

In 2000, Alexander McQueen ditched Givenchy to sell his label to the Gucci Group, who were far more appreciative of his subversive talents. To prove his worth, his first collection under Gucci would need to make some serious profit, so for his nineteenth collection McQueen tamped down on the theatrics and went commercial. The Dance of the Twisted Bull is a searing-hot exploration of bullfighting, flamenco, and sexuality that reportedly drove sales up 400%. ¡Olé! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Coccinellidae

Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

This article is about ladybirds, also known as ladybugs, lady beetles and ladybird beetles. The FA list could use a beetle-related article and these are arguably the most recognizable of all. Special thanks to Chiswick Chap. LittleJerry (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment from Ling

• Brown, L., ed. (2007) Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• Holland, Mary (2016). Missing Publisher.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• Aslam, Muhammad. Is there no date with that? Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.); Missing access date

Added two. Can't find identifier. LittleJerry (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I was gonna teach you how to find identifiers (sometimes you just google!), but dude, it's right there on the article itself. Just look at the article and scroll down just a little bit. It's there in a box under the keywords. § Lingzhi (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 11:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• Wainwright, Martin (17 May 2006) Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.) § Lingzhi (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Its a news article. There is no identifier. LittleJerry (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The Guardian has an ISSN number. You can find it, forex, in the Wikipedia article about that publication. § Lingzhi (talk) 04:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Why is the ISSN number for the publisher itself important? I've never had to do this an previous FACs. LittleJerry (talk) 11:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I've just now been informed that for newspapers, it isn't customary to require identifiers. So you're OK. § Lingzhi (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• This: |editor1=Hodek, I might kinda look like it should work, but it doesn't. Just try to click the link. Or better yet, copy/paste importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); to [[Special:MyPage/common.js]] and see all the Harv errors. § Lingzhi (talk) 04:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments from SilverTiger

• Overall, the article seems to be rather short for a family of insects with 6,000+ species.
• First sentence under Fossil History, "Over living 6,000 species of Coccinellidae..." - please switch "living 6,000" to "6,000 living"

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• Could you say what the Sternorrhyncha are a bit more clearly the first time they are mentioned?

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• Why isn't the subfamily Monocoryninae linked anywhere?

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• Is there no cladograms for the traditional seven subfamily scheme? And could you elaborate more on said seven subfamily scheme?

Clarified, the traditional subfamily scheme is not supported by genetics. There's no need for a cladogram. LittleJerry (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• And/or ones that show all the tribes, either all together or divided by subfamily?

Well there are lot of them. They would take up a lot of room. Chiswick Chap? LittleJerry (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Early life of Cleopatra

Nominator(s): Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC), User:PericlesofAthens

Once again, Pericles and I have joined hands and united to present another FAC for your consideration. Cleopatra is well-known for her later life, and probably most known for her death, but her early life is seldom discussed. Pericles has done a wonderful job starting and researching this article, and I am honored to have been granted permission to continue his work. After some effort and discussion with Periclles and Iry-Hor, I believe this article is ready for FA. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment. Not doing a full source review yet, but noted in passing that the article would benefit from some editing for citation consistency. At the moment we have some cites using {{citation}} and others {{cite book}}, some books which include publication locations and others which don't... rationalization needed here. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria This has been fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Iry-Hor

First of all I should declare some sort of conflict of interest: I discussed the article prior to its nomination (although in an extremely limited fashion!) and Unlimitedlead is currently reviewing at FAC an article I nominated. That said I think I can repeat what I stated in the discussion: the article is very well written and impressively well referenced. I found a few minor things to update:

• Duplinks: in section "Reign of Ptolemy XII and Roman interventionism" to Seleucid Empire (twice), in section "Return to Egypt from exile": to Talent (measurement), to Gaul (appearing at "Gallic"); in section "Accession to the throne" to Thebes and to Ancient Egyptian Religion (this one first shows up in section "Birth and tutelage").Iry-Hor (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Iry-Hor: All fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Kusma

Reserving a spot here, review to follow. —Kusma (talk) 08:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• Lead: "The early life of Cleopatra ... began with her birth" sounds a bit obvious, and the rest of the first sentence is a bit too convoluted. Try to first quickly define the scope of the article, then use further sentences to give background. I would also suggest not to mention Cleopatra V before you first link to Cleopatra.

Done.

• "Cleopatra's father was a client ruler of the Roman Republic" can this really be stated so directly/is this true before 60 BC? He is not listed at List of Roman client rulers.

Fletcher p. 5 and several other sources describe the Egyptian state as a client kingdom of Rome; if it is not true before 60 BC, it certainly was at the time of Cleopatra's eary life, which is the topic of the aricle. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• Several MOS:SEAOFBLUE issues.

The only SEAOFBLUE issues I see are in cases of titles, such as Ptolemaic pharaoh Ptolemy XII Auletes. I believe that rewording sentences to avoid the SEAOFBLUE would make them extremely confusing to read. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• Not convinced by the value of several links (will and testament, Marriage in Ancient Greece) and some of the easter-eggy ones (like "open hostilities" linked to Alexandrine war).

Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• Birth and tutelage: do you really need all the citations in "cousin or sister-wife Cleopatra V Tryphaena [11][12][13][nb 2][nb 3]"? They look a bit intimidating.

Sadly, yes. The topic of Cleopatra's mother is a much heated debate within academic circles. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• "Little is known of Cleopatra's early life". According to prozesize, enough for a 2480 word article ;)

We try ;) Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• "her Roman colleagues would have preferred to speak with her in her native Koine Greek." who is meant by "colleagues" and why would they have preferred to speak Greek?

The sources only states that the "colleagues" are "Romans with whom she came into contact [with]..." The same source only states, "...Romans with whom she came into contact [with] would insist on speaking Greek. Greek had been used officially by the Romans since the early third century B.C., and in Cleopatra's day Cicero complained that there were still people who demanded interpreters... Latin would have been useful to her not so much to speak to Romans but to read material in that language..." Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• We are told about intermarriage twice, separated by a sentence about Egyptian priests.

Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• Is the (speculated!) Egyptian half-cousin relevant for her early life? "At the beginning of her reign Cleopatra sought the support and loyalty of the Egyptian priesthood" makes it sounds like this was something that didn't start until later.

Moved to the Accession to the throne section.

• Reign of Ptolemy XII and Roman interventionism: introduce Antiochus IV?

Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• Many not-so-great links (violating MOS:OL). Linking to collateral (finance) does nothing to explain how they could "will the kingdom as collateral". Legitimacy (family law) is unhelpful. "Proposed bill" piped to bill (law) is disappointing. tax revenue and interest should also be unlinked.

All unlinked.

• Exile of Ptolemy XII and Cleopatra: first sentence is too long and confusing. "the Roman Republic annexed Cyprus and drove Ptolemy of Cyprus, where he committed suicide" something seems to be missing here.

Fixed.

• "Whether by force or voluntary action, Ptolemy XII left Egypt in exile to Rhodes and his Roman host, Cato the Younger, who castigated him for losing his kingdom while seated on a latrine and undergoing laxative treatment." there are too many things in this sentence, and they are not connected properly. And it isn't clear whether the person on the latrine was Cato, and whether he was in Rhodes while castigating.

That sentences was perfectly grammatically correct and clear, but nonetheless I have adjusted it according to your suggestion. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to stop here for the moment. I think the article isn't quite ready and needs some copyediting and MOS:OL link removal. Happy to look at the rest once this kind of issues has been looked at in the whole article. —Kusma (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Kusma Thanks for all your comments thus far; they have all been addressed. I completely understand your concerns regarding overlinking and prose, and I shall take a thorough look at them when I am free tomorrow. I understand (based on what others have told me) that the article is rather well-researched and well-written, so I am hopeful that these minor issues will not be a setback to the nominations' progress. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment by Buidhe

The footnotes look excessive to me. I would look into removing or integrating into the text. Examples:

• Fn 1 includes information about the death date, but this article is about her early life so detailed information about the death date is not relevant to the article subject. Axe it.
• The text says that Cleopatra's mother was Cleopatra V Tryphaena but the note suggests that it could have been Cleopatra VI Tryphaena. Seems to me that some of the note's content should be integrated into the text
• Fn 4 is about Cleopatra's father and does not actually offer additional information about the article subject. It does not belong in this article.
• Fn 5 is unnecessary because you already say she spoke a different language. Relevant to other articles about ancient Egypt but not this one.
• Fn 6: why is the legal status of Alexandria and citizenship of its residents relevant to this article? Axe it.

etc. (t · c) buidhe 07:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@Buidhe All done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

1980 World Snooker Championship

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

This article is about the year that Cliff Thorburn ground his way to the world title. Coverage of the final was interrupted by the broadcast of live footage of the Iranian Embassy Siege, which caused numerous viewers to complain to the BBC. I'm happy to provide reviewers with the relevant extracts from any of the offline sources. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Dietrich v The Queen

Nominator(s): MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

This article is about an important decision of the High Court of Australia. A former featured article, it was placed up for review in December 2021 and eventually delisted as it failed to meet the modern FAC criteria. Over the last 15 months it has undergone a total renovation from the ground up. I am nominating for FAC as I believe every issue raised in the delisting has been thoroughly addressed. The article has not only undergone a full re-writing by myself, but valuable assistance has been given to me by many other experienced editors. Over 4 weeks it was reviewed and eventually passed as a GA article. Since then one of the original editors supporting delisting from FA status has made edits to the article and it has undergone a full copyedit. I now propose the article covers all relevant literature and meets modern FA criteria. Very much looking forward to reviewing and acting on any feedback. Thank you all, MC MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Ling

• Durie, Graeme (1993). Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.)

- Done

• Grace, David (2001). Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.)

- Done

• Groves, Mathew (2018). Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.)

- Done

• Kift, Sally (1997). Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.)

- Done

• Roche, Declan (2001). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?

- Not done, it's hard to explain but one does not access "pages" for this the way I accessed it. It is an interactive book the way I access it and you click on different concepts and links rather than a book with pages.

• Wheeler, Fiona (1997). Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.)

- Done

• Every article in the "News reports" section: Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.)  § Lingzhi (talk) 07:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  All actioned @Lingzhi.Renascence. Thanks heaps for the feedback. MaxnaCarta (talk) 06:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz Vision EQXX

Nominator(s): X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 01:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

This article is about a proof of concept electric car introduced in 2022 by German automaker Mercedes-Benz. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 01:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sorry - I hate dropping opposes on nominations, but this isn’t up to scratch. There are unsupported claims in there, breaches of the MOS in regards to LQ, dates, etc and some clumsy prose. Can I suggest you withdraw, work on it for a couple of weeks and then return? - SchroCat (talk) 02:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  Can you point out where, exactly? Critique is fine but vagueness is not. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 02:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Where? All over, is the simple answer.

Lead

• Cites are not needed in the lead unless for quotes – and the ones that are supporting the statement " average energy consumption of 8.7 kWh (31 MJ) per 100 km (approximately 11.5 km per kWh)" should be in the body with the rest of the sentence – the lead should summarise the article, not have different information.
• "Mercedes-Benz'": Benz' is not the possessive: Benz's is the correct form
• "However": always a bit of a flag and is certainly misused here
• '"... entire company is headed."' Should be ' entire company is headed".' Per LQ

Overview

• One paragraph supported by one citation. Unfortunately the citation is not at the end, so the last sentence is unsupported – and I'm struggling to understand why you took out the citation needed tag
• Elsewhere in the bit that is supposedly supported, we are told "Initial design ... began in January 2021": for the life of me I can't see that in the source, so that's a sourcing fail. Ditto the claim that the car has "1,000 km (621 mi) of range" – the source says it "will travel more than 620 miles on a single charge", which is different.

Elsewhere

• Both "hood" and "fender" are US English and the article is written in (and tagged) as British English. "Bonnet" and "wing" are the correct terms – and what a "distinguished fender" is, is anyone's guess.

This isn't a full in-depth review, just a very quick glance at a couple of points that caught my eye. As I said above, I would recommend withdrawing and returning in a couple of weeks once the prose and sourcing are FA compliant. Looking at the talk page I don't see any record the article has been through a peer review. I suggest that would be your best option, adding it to the FAC peer review sidebar to raise its profile. - SchroCat (talk) 08:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

SchroCat, I did bring it to peer review. It was unattended for for two weeks. Thanks for the pointers though, I'll work on it. Cheers. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 08:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

So why isn't it recorded on the article talk page? There should be a record of it.

As I've said above, this is not a full review, just a spot check on a couple of points and there is enough for me to retain my oppose here, even after these have been completed. - SchroCat (talk) 08:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, I closed the discussion and I removed it from the talk page as I thought it was not needed anymore. Anyhow, I did not expect you to withdraw your oppose anyway. It just gives me a starting point from which I can improve the article. The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Mercedes-Benz Vision EQXX/archive1. I have also recorded it on the talk page. Apologies for the mishaps, I am relatively new to the process. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 08:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

1984–85 Gillingham F.C. season

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry everyone, I'm back again with yet another (#23) nomination of a Gillingham season. Hopefully the quality of the article is better than the quality of the season, which was very up and down and ultimately ended in disappointment for all the Gills fans, including a pre-teen ChrisTheDude. Feedback as ever gratefully received and swiftly acted upon...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Pseud 14

Non expert prose review:

• since the club was elected back into the League -- suggest linking to re-election article as you did in the lead.
• The club also signed two players who were out of contract: Tarki Micallef, a midfielder who had last played for Newport, and Dave Shearer, a forward who had most recently played for Grimsby Town, as well as forward Paul Shinners from semi-professional club Fisher Athletic. -- not sure, but is Paul Shinners also out of contract when he got signed? Perhaps split his bit into a separate sentence.
• in both of which Cascarino again scored -- should it be both of which?
  • It already is.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
    • You're right, I did miss that. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
• conceded a last-minute equaliser. -- suggest linking equaliser to the sports term, if available.
• which was expected to keep him out of the team for up to six weeks. -- was he out for six weeks? Perhaps it should be specific i.e. which kept him out of the team for X weeks.?
  • His eventual return to the team is mentioned in the final paragraph of that section. I don't know if it was the injury that kept him out for the entirety of that time or if he was available again earlier but Peacock kept McDonagh in the team because he was playing well -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

That's all from me. Otherwise, very well-written. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

• @Pseud 14: - many thanks for your review. A couple of responses above..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and satisfied with the changes. Support on prose. If you have spare time and interest, I would also appreciate your input/comments on a current FAC. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@Pseud 14: - many thanks for your review. I was already planning on looking at your FAC and will do my best to do so over the next couple of days..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Great Lakes tornadoes of September 26, 1951

Nominator(s): ChessEric 22:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

This article is about three strong to violent tornadoes that caused vast destruction and numerous casualties. Several sources were used to make this article, including the Climatological Data: National summary, a highly respected tornado researcher named Thomas P. Grazulis, and the National Weather Service Green Bay, Wisconsin. The article also includes other non-tornadic weather events that came from the system as a whole. It may need some more details in a few areas, but I like the way it turned out.ChessEric 22:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Image review. There are no images. Can any be found? Or could a map be added? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I try to use only public domain photos because I don't know the process to get the license for other photos. The one time I did do that for another article I made, it didn't work out. To my knowledge there are no photos of the tornadoes, and the damage photos are not public domain. There are some photos of the system in the NWS PDF ref, but I don't know how to extract them. If someone could help me with that, I would appreciate it. ChessEric 07:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I can either make a map for you or try to extract something from the PDF -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 07:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Cool. I would appreciate it. ChessEric 11:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I have requested a fellow editor who makes tornado maps all the time to make a map for me. ChessEric 07:00, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Black Monday (1987)

Nominator(s):  § Lingzhi (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

One day in late 1987 I stood speechless in the waiting area of a major hospital. A doctor had just told me that my mother had only a 50/50 chance of surviving the day. [Spoiler: she lived, but lost her eyesight.] As he turned to leave, the room was silent. Doctors, nurses, and patients' family members were huddled in a tight ring under the TV set on the wall. Numbers were scrolling by on the screen. Their own problems were set aside as they watched an even larger crisis unfolding. It was Black Monday, 1987, the biggest stock market crash since 1929. The day still lives in the institutional memory of the Federal Reserve, the NYSE, and similar organizations in Japan, Germany, and other countries around the world. Its impact on popular culture is reflected in Black Monday (TV series). § Lingzhi (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment from Buidhe Note: Lingzhi has requested that I avoid doing a source review (or any review?) of this article, or any others of theirs at FAC. I am not planning to, and I hope that whoever does is appropriately thorough at reviewing the article and verifying sources.

• Now after looking at this article, I cannot help but notice that some sources are missing ISBNs, DOIs, and/or other identifiers.
  • Oh yeah, I'm rusty. Forgot. Straightforward matter to add them in. § Lingzhi (talk) 09:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
• I am also confused by the article structure; there are subsections for five countries even though the crash affected—directly or indirectly—far more countries than that. Is there a reason these particular countries are picked for extensive elaboration, while others aren't mentioned at all?

I won't bother you any more(t · c) buidhe 04:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

• • It would be overkill to cover every country, so I chose a few that were instructive and/or representative. The crash started in Asia, moved to Europe, and then (famously) walloped the US. Japan and Hong Kong stand in for Asia; moreover they are both instructive. Japan's stock market and economy were among the least damaged through time, while Hong Kong experienced considerably worse damage. Hong Kong is also emblematic of some of the speculative nature of the stock bubble. New Zealand is instructive because its post-crash policies were the opposite of other countries', and it suffered significantly for that reason... Britain stands in for Europe. Why not West Germany? Oddly enough, I just couldn't find anything. I can tell you this: West Germany's economy was in far better shape than that of the US; the West Germans were famously phobic about inflation, and many people consider the verbal tiff between Baker and the Germans as the pinprick that burst the bubble. And the US because it is the US. § Lingzhi (talk) 09:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

    While I certainly see how this organization would be useful for a research paper or similar, I don't see how covering certain countries and not others can meet the FA requirement to be comprehensive. One possibility would be to move "by country" to a different article and instead have a section for how the crash developed chronologically across major stock markets. I am inclined to oppose on this point. (t · c) buidhe 14:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

    • I am completely unsurprised. As it was earlier in another article, when you were adamant that a hurricane is not a storm, you have some form of perspective on reality. I ain't taking jack shit out of this article and moving it to another one. Please Oppose now, and be on about your own business, or strike. § Lingzhi (talk)
      • I'm not surprised either, and its one in a succession of early early opposes over a single issues (my way or the highway), from this coord who knows that the well is being tainted for later reviewers. As a possible solution (and was going to bring this up anyway (with less drama and taking toys away), should the sections be merged under a "contagion" type header. Ceoil (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
        • I believe the article is comprehensive. There are different ways to consider or measure how the concept of "comprehensive" should be unpacked. There is not only one approach or paradigm for organization, with (therefore) only one definition of "comprehensive" (similar to the way that the character Sheldon Cooper on The Big Bang Theory would view this sort of question). That is, Buidhe's argument above is "approach==geographical; and (therefore) comprehensive==all countries, or none". But my method of organization is (as I mentioned) "all instructive cases". I believe I have included all instructive cases. Forex, removing New Zealand would really gut the point that supplying liquidity was the main antidote for the crash (or... actually... for the events immediately after the crash... but that's a fine point). And finally, info about all countries just does not exist. Those countries were not studied. Why weren't they studied? Umm, I would suggest they were not studied because their cases were not instructive, for various reasons. § Lingzhi (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

    It would be overkill to cover every country, so I chose a few that were instructive and/or representative - Is this not OR? — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 13:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

    Ixtal: No, I don't think so. Actually, 1) I didn't really choose them; they chose themselves. My search for sources chose them. What you see is what I found. More specifically, I started from the core and most authoritative sources on the subject, and worked my way outward to include places they discussed. My discussion very directly reflects the discussions in the central texts, 2) I never make a claim in the article that these sources are representative! 3) If you read WP:OR, I don't see anything there that resembles your line of reasoning, and 4) See Johnbod's comments below. § Lingzhi (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• I don't believe that comprehensiveness requires a particular article organization, but it is more about ensuring that the coverage of each country is roughly proportional to the RS coverage (including non-English RS). Another reason that the article structure seems questionable to me is that it's leading to content in the lead that is not cited in the article; Malaysia, for example, is mentioned in the lead but not the body. (t · c) buidhe 00:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Nope. If you think I'm gonna dig up German-language sources for this topic, you are very sorely mistaken. In fact, if you think anyone needs to dig up German-language sources for this article, you are very sorely mistaken. Here is the take-home point: no German-language source is gonna say anything that is both significant and new when compared to the English-language sources. The English-language sources are extremely in-depth and cover the topic very thoroughly. They offer several different insights and explanations. Many of them were written by native speakers of German (or Japanese, or...). More importantly, if German sources had anything both significant and new to say, the English-language sources would find out and would quote them. Economics is a huge field. There are I-dunno-how-many-thousands of published economists. If a German paper caused a stir by saying something new, someone would translate it into English. Probably the authors themselves would wanna translate it into English, to further their careers with wider publication... As for Malaysia: 1) It's actually sometimes OK to put one or two things in the WP:LEAD which aren't in the article, and 2) if you think the Malaysian info is not that kind of info, then we can 2a) add a sentence about Malaysia to body text, or 2b) delete Malaysia from the Lead. The end of the story here is, you are grasping at straws, wasting everyone's time. You have no argument based on comprehensiveness. Oppose or strike, and be done with it. § Lingzhi (talk) 02:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll just say that the German stock-market is generally notoriously stable, and therefore uninteresting to investors, with large holdings by banks and so on. Long lists of short sections covering a vast range of countries are generally a curse in WP, & without looking at the article yet their omission here seems absolutely right. Johnbod (talk) 01:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

To reiterate, this section would be better organised under an overall, chronological "spread" or "contagion" main-header. The danger with the current structure is tack-on sub-headings such as "also in Liechtenstein"... Ceoil (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I have to run out the door now, but let me set your mind at ease: unless someone is editing to make a WP:POINT (for whatever personal reason), no one is gonna do that. This topic is not sexy at all. There are no fanboys. In fact, it's work to add a section to this article. Liquidity this, portfolio that, blah blah blah. It's work to add any real content... Look at how stable it has been, aside from my edits, over the years... § Lingzhi (talk) 03:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it could be better served by cause -> effect, than the current structure which is just effect. Ceoil (talk) 04:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Ceoil

• Lead: Should this be a note, or abbreviated In Australia and New Zealand the day is referred to as Black Tuesday because of the time zone difference from other English-speaking countries
• Background: During a strong bull market, - driven by?
  • Haha, good question. As you may have gathered from scanning the article, economics (the queen of the social sciences) is quite often a field where every simple question has five or six complicated answers. That would be because everything affects everything else. But if you think it needs to be added (and it's actually not an unreasonable request), I can add a sentence or two. Will get on that. § Lingzhi (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
• Background: The sentence beginning In late 1985 and early 1986 is uncited
  • I'm working under the assumption that that sentence can safely be deleted. So I did. § Lingzhi (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
• Japan: distinctive institutional characteristics? - dont like either distinctive or characteristics
• Overall very good. More later. Ceoil (talk) 10:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
• The "see also" sect should be converted to a shot "depictions" or "in media" para. Ceoil (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
• Have a concern about slippage re POV and judgmental language, eg still had not been settled, and later the Fed would be forced to raise interest rates yet again. Have edited these, but from a short scan of a large article, they do indicate a tone I am not usually comfortable with, regardless of affiliation. I suggest that this kind of editorial voice is removed as far as possible. I thi k you have all the hard work done in establishing facts, but need to better convery the sequence. Ceoil (talk) 03:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Ceoil, I have not had time to read all of your edits. But "his negative news regarding the trade deficit created an anticipation that the Fed would be forced to raise interest rates yet again" is not PV, full stop. Every source says it was bad trade news, full stop. Sorry to say that I am growing a little concerned that you are removing useful explanatory text from the article. § Lingzhi (talk) 08:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
    • You wont offend me by reverting, although "yet again" could be better phrased. I'm *leading support* here bty, so will stop editing directly and restrict to griping here (on minor points I have to say) Ceoil (talk) 08:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Femke

Thanks for working on such an important topic! I don't have time for a full review, so will focus only on the lead.

• It is too difficult in places. The third paragraph in particular has jargon that needs to be explained or omitted. Words like implied volatility, financial options and volatility smile shouldn't be in the lead without explanation for an article like this with an expected wide audience (WP:ONEDOWN/WP:EXPLAINLEAD)
• I believe all indices in the infobox are US-specific? If so, is there a way to reduce that bias? Is the Federal Reserve the US federal reserve?
• Opinions may differ, but I believe the first paragraph is a bit too numbers and statistics-heavy.
• It seems to be missing the trigger / causes of the crash. That section hasn't been summarised in the lead. Femke (alt) (talk) 07:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Femke (alt) or Femke, thank you for your review. It's most helpful.

• The third paragraph in the lead, about the volatility smile, is definitely inside baseball for economists anyway, so I relocated it to the Aftermath section. That single edit removes the lion's share of the offending jargon in the lead, IMHO. The only jargon-ish thing left might be market liquidity, but leaving it there might be educational, IMHO. Is that enough for you?
• I would be quite happy deleting the entire infobox, but I have no desire to rekindle Ragnarok. But then if we start expanding its data snippets to include info from other countries... where does that process end? We run afoul of being accused of lack of comprehensiveness if we don't include everything. Would it be OK with you to include this sentence (roughly cribbed from body text): "Huge crash in stock prices in industrialized countries, starting in Asia, then spreading to Europe and the US"? Then to make room, we could delete one or two of the US-centric bullet points. Does that sound like a solution? [That sentence does look a little long for an infobox, but what can ya do...]
• I dunno, I think numbers are pretty important to the article. It's all about quantities. I dunno if cutting out some numbers would be beneficial...
• OK, since the volatility smile paragraph has been moved out of the lead, I can try to come up with a very, very, very brief summary of causes... or come to think of it, maybe not even a summary, just a list of the various subtopics of the causes section...? I made a new paragraph (second paragraph, now) in the Lead about possible causes.. it still has jargon, but gosh, I think the jargon is both unavoidable and educational... Does that sound OK?
• Let me know what you think. Thanks. § Lingzhi (talk) 11:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Source review

I'll take a look over this shortly. (In the interests of full disclosure, note that the nominator asked if I would consider taking a look at this on my talk page, after I praised their script.) Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 11:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I also deposited US $20 million in a Swiss bank acct, but we won't discuss that. § Lingzhi (talk) 12:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

You must have forgotten to have given me the account details... nudge, nudge. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 12:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Leonardo DiCaprio

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

With a career spanning over three decades, he's proved himself to be a titan(ic) of the industry. From a Romeo with a heart of gold to a conman with a devilish grin, he's a rare actor who has hardly gone wrong with his choices of roles. Giving it a retry after its last FAC had major sourcing issues, which I have amended now. FrB.TG (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Bronkhorstspruit

Nominator(s): Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

The first conflict of the First Boer War was a one-sided affair that can barely be termed a battle in terms of the contest. A blasé British commander did not consider the Boers to be able to present a threat to the men of the British Army, and was resoundingly defeated in around 15 minutes. The battle was a taste of what was to come over the following couple of months; a series of humbling defeats for the British.

This has undergone a Good article review followed by an A-class review from WP:MILHIST. It's been a while since I've nominated here, but I've been back reviewing for a few months, so I'm pretty happy that this should be there or thereabouts. As always, all input is welcome. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Image review—pass

(t · c) buidhe 15:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• Page range for Laband 2021?
  • Added. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 14:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• Infobox: the uninitiated may be confused by reading that the battle was a "Boer victory" when the Boers are not listed as one of the belligerents.
  • Someone made some changes to the infobox and got rid of "Boers" from the combatants field. Readjusted. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 14:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• Does "Dutch" really need linking?
  • I only linked because it directs to the historical, rather than modern state. Can remove if you feel strongly. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 14:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't care that much. It doesn't seem helpful and is something of an Easter egg - I was expecting something on the Dutch as an ethnic group.

Removed. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

• "and Transvaal in 1877. The last of these annexations occurred even though Britain had previously recognised the independence of the Boer South African Republic in that region." Could you make the connection for a reader? Was Transvaal part of the BSAR?
  • Expanded. Maybe too much. Let me know what you think. (This was sat in a sandbox I'm working on for the parent article on the overall war. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 14:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

It's ok. But you have missed the last question. "The Transvaal" still appears out of the blue.

I've moved "an area the British called the Transvaal" a couple of sentences later to hopefully make it clearer. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

• "the Transvaal" or "Transvaal"?
  • Sort of both, but I've tried to tidy it up. It is used to refer to the region as a whole (the Transvaal) and the political entity (Transvaal). Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 14:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

If you are going to use the same word to mean two different things - not something I recommend - you need to make this really clear for a reader.

• "and the large number of wagons". The number of wagons has just been specified, so suggest deleting 'large number of'.
  • The sources specifically mention the size of the wagon-train being a slowing factor, I think removing this lowers the reader's understanding. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 14:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• "24 days after receiving the order to return, Anstruther's column was confronted by the Boers. After demanding under truce that the British stop their march, which Anstruther refused, the Boers attacked. The British took heavy casualties and surrendered after about 15 minutes".
  • Rewrote, see what you think now. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 15:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• "the elimination of the Zulu and Bapedi threats". Could this be unpacked a little?
  • Clarified a little: "By the end of 1879 British defeats of the Zulu and Bapedi, both of which had previously raided in the region.." Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 15:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• "a new Liberal Government in London". Why the upper-case G?
  • Who doesn't like capital letters?
• "William Ewart Gladstone". Do the sources give his full name?
  • I have one which uses the full name, two which use "W.E. Gladstone", and one which uses "William Gladstone". As our article is at William Ewart Gladstone, I adopted that in the article. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 14:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• First map: How does one identify what is Transvaal and what Natal?
  • The border is marked along the river between Newcastle and Wakkerstroom. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 15:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

By 'eck lad, tha's reet, but it ain't 'alf difficult to spot. Any chance you could find someone who knows their way around maps to colour code the two?

• "who had command of the garrison at Lydenburg". Is "had" necessary?
  • Changed to "commanded". Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 15:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• "taking somewhere in the region of 245–270 soldiers". Optional: 'taking approximately 245–270 soldiers'.
  • Much better, thank you. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 15:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• "and to guide and look after the oxen." guide the oxen?
  • Can probably be considered synonymous with driving the wagons, I suppose? Can remove it if you'd like. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 15:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I think paraphrasing to "drive" would be an improvement.

Trimmed to "..to drive the wagons and look after the oxen." Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

• "Anstruther received communication". Perhaps insert an indefinite article?
  • Sure, done. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 15:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• "planned their attack the next morning". Did the planning take place the next morning, or was that the proposed time of the planned attack?
  • Rejigged to clarify. I think I swapped this last night, and didn't notice the ambiguity. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 15:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• No link for Anglo-Pedi Wars?
  • Nothing ideal. I've tweaked it slightly to [[Sekhukhune#Sekhukhune Wars|Pedi wars]] Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 15:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• "Felix Machanik suggested that ... he believed". So, did he suggest, believe, or suggest that he believed?
  • Changed the first to "said". Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 15:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

• "The two Boer forces rendezvoused". What two forces?
  • For sake of terminology, the Heidelberg and Middelburg commandos. I guess what you're getting at is that you want this repeating for clarification in the article? Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 16:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Repeat? I don't see it at all. I have just reread and still don't. The prose left the Boers with "He left Heidelberg on 18 December and rendezvoused with two other forces en route. They camped halfway between Pretoria and Bronkhorstspruit overnight on 19 December and the next morning planned their attack." So three groups had already joined up; two of them are unnamed. Hang on; got it. Strongly suggest 1. "Laband also says that Francois Joubert mobilised the Boer militia in Middelburg, ordering them to travel parallel to the British, but hidden from them." → 'Francois Joubert mobilised the Boer militia in Middelburg, ordering them to travel parallel to the British, but hidden from them.' and 2. actually say what happened. They were ordered to do something; yes, good - what, if anything did they then do?

Changed 1. as suggested. The answer for two is: they rendezvoused with the other Boer force. I included this in the article, by saying: "The two Boer forces rendezvoused". But seriously, I agree that it is frustrating, but that's all I have from the sources, other than an oblique reference that the Brits actually noticed their horses at a farm on the early morning of the 20th, but thought nothing of it. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Some of your comments from my Mercenary War articles come to mind.

You write "Francois Joubert mobilised the Boer militia in Middelburg, ordering them to travel parallel to the British, but hidden from them." Will the sources stretch to making this 'Francois Joubert mobilised the Boer militia in Middelburg; a commando from there travelled parallel to the British, but hidden from them' or similar?

I actually read the source carefully, and not only am I happy to do that, I've added a bit more on the above. So we now have: "Francois Joubert mobilised the Boer militia in Middelburg; a commando from there travelled parallel to the British, but hidden from them, though at one stage British officers noticed an unusually large number of riding horses at a Boer farm, but thought nothing of it." Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

• "a skirmishing line" → 'a skirmish line'.
  • Changed. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 16:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• "Nonetheless, Anstruther replied that". Does nonetheless add anything? Much as I like the word. (Perhaps 'Notwithstanding'?)
  • Meh, just removed. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 16:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• "and their numbers had grown to 250–300". I am a little puzzles, how had that happened?
  • From the source "From various eye-witness reports it would appear that the main Boer party had not only increased in numbers during the negotiations to about 250-300.." I could expand to some variation of "and more had appeared, swelling their numbers to 250–300." Or include the "eye-witness" part. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 16:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I leave it with you. Maybe something like "and they were reinforced to a strength of ..."

My issue with that wording is that my impression is that they were always there or thereabouts, just not visible to the British. How about a simple "..and their visible numbers had grown to.."? Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

How about "While this discussion had been happening, the 250-300 Boers had closed to within 160–220 yards (150–200 m) of the British column"

Sure that works. I've also switched to the wider "200–300" estimate based on all the sources, rather than just Duxbury. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

• "who had received five wounds". Why "had"?
  • Removed. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 16:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• "Lead: most of their surviving men being captured." I don't see this in the article, which strongly suggests that all of those not killed or wounded surrendered.
  • I suppose technically, they were all captured, but because the sources tend to talk about those who recovered then being taken as prisoners, I wasn't including the wounded as being captured. See Duxbury for example: "He also allowed twenty unwounded men to remain behind to help bury the dead and assist with the wounded. The remainder of the unwounded were taken prisoners." Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 16:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I gather that here you are using "technically" as a synonym for 'in fact'? If immediately after the battle all of the Brits were killed or captured, say so.

Okay. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

• "while around 30 of those who had recovered were taken as additional prisoners". So there were others who had recovered who were not taken as prisoners?
  • The sources aren't any clearer than this. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 16:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

• A lot of article for a single paragraph of battle. :-)
  • @Gog the Mild: Ha. Have responded to all above, though I'm sure you'll have come backs on some. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 16:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Yep, looking good. As you guessed - how did you know? - a couple of come backs. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Now even more article for the single battle paragraph. :-))

@Gog the Mild: More changes, more responses, but I trimmed the Background section back a touch. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Ping me when you're done and I'll give it another run through. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Go for it, I think. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 19:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Second look

• "Boer commando force". Isn't "force" just repeating "commando". ('British regiment force') I assume it wasn't a force of commandos?
  • Good point, I think the latter, which I'm more used to, is why I did it. Trimmed. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 07:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
• "The Transvaal region had a population of around 36,000 to 45,000 Boers". Just for my information, does that include women and children? Ditto the Pretoria figure and the British settlers.
  • The source doesn't say. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 07:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
• "describes Anstruther as seeming". Optional: lose "seeming".
  • Sure, why not. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 07:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
• Does "close formation" merit linking to Close order formation
  • Linked. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 07:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Cheers. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 07:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

A really smooth and informative read. So much so that I shall even overlook the plethora of background information and support. Nice one. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Merenre Nemtyemsaf I

Nominator(s): Iry-Hor (talk) 07:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

This article is about Merenre Nemtyemsaf I fourth king of the Sixth Dynasty of Egypt ruling for 6 to 11 years in the 23rd century BC. There is a lot to say about his short reign owing to an unexpected consequence of a reform he undertook: thanks to him provinvial nobles became more independent from the central authority and started to be buried in their provinces... where they wrote their biographies on their tomb walls. Read the article to know more about the large caravans of donkeys travelling the Nubian desert, transport boats on the Nile bringing granite to the pyramid and more! Iry-Hor (talk) 07:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Unlimitedlead

I will admit I have an affinity for Ancient Egypt, but I have never written extensively about it. I am honored to review one of Iry-Hor's FA noninations; this is going to be fun. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Unlimitedlead I am looking forward to your comments.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: I feel like at this point, I have really gotten a feel of what Iry-Hor's writing style is like, and surprise surprise, we have yet another comma avoider. Sigh. I really am alone on this one, aren't I? Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Iry-Hor's article seems spot on to me in terms of comma use. So, yep, you are. :-)) Would I be rubbing salt in to quote a renown grammarist - [1]? Or to suggest that your professor is correct in suggesting that your desire to sprinkle random commas all over the page is a sign of old age? RALMAO! Gog the Mild (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Gog the MildUnlimitedlead Ahah I wasn't aware that commas could be such a contentious subject matter, other than the Oxford comma that is.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Iry-Hor, Gog and I have a long-standing comma feud :) Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The Comma Wars are fiercely contested. I managed to get through my life to about a year ago - which included about 50 FACs - oblivious to this. Oh, that that happy state could have continued. :-) As another editor has commented querulously - there is actually a school of commaists who would insert punctuation after the first three words of the King James' Bible? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

General comments

• "Also dating to the reign of Ramses II is the Saqqara Tablet, explicitly relating the succession "Pepi I → Merenre I → Pepi II", with Merenre located on the 24th entry": This paragraph ends in a note, but not a citation, which is generally required at FAC.

Fixed I used the citation in the footnote which refers to the Saqqara Tablet.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Why is the title of Shaw (2008) not capitalized? I see a similar situation with several other sources in the Bibliography section.

Done wherever I could see some capitalization missing. If you see more, let me know, there might be more as jstor removes capitalization in the titles in many cases.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Citation 120 has two periods at the end.

Fixed here and elsewhere.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Ditto with citation 160? Maybe it is intentional.

Fixed nope it is a mistake, that is because the final "." is added by the template and sometimes I forget this, write the final '.' and two show up.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Why is "sixth dynasty" in lowercase in the infobox?

Fixed my mistake I thought dynasties shouldn't be capitalized anywhere. I have capitalized it in the infobox. More generally, should I capitalize dynasties throughout the main text ? Also should I capitalize the word "dynasty"? That is, in the main text should I write "sixth dynasty", "Sixth dynasty" or "Sixth Dynasty"?

I am not sure myself, but I lean towards "Sixth Dynasty". Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok I have capitalized throughout "Sixth Dynasty" (and similarly for other dynasties). That is also my preferred format.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Lead

• "He ruled Egypt for six to 11 years..." Is there an appropriate link for Egypt?

Tentative fix the preceding sentence "[...]was an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh[...]" already has a wikilink to "Ancient Egypt" so I wikilinked here to History_of_Egypt#Dynastic_Egypt_(3150–332_BC). Iry-Hor (talk) 06:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• "...in the number provincial administrators..." Do you mean: "in the number of provincial administrators"

Fixed yes ! Thank you.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• If Memphis was the capital at this time, I suggest referring to it as such in the lead.

Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• "...revealing thriving exchanges with Nubia..." What do you mean by "revealing"? I think this is a strange choice of words; I would rephrase.

Done, I wrote "Several trading and quarrying expeditions took place under Merenre, notably to Nubia where [...]"

• "...that Merenre has a canal dug to facilitate the navigation..." You should stick to the past tense: "...that Merenre had a canal dug to facilitate the navigation..."

Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• "In parallel..." Is this necesarry?

Removed.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Why is Pyramid Texts not capitalized?

Fixed. This is the same issue as with the dynasties: I am never quite sure what should be capitalized and what should not be.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I would wait and see wait others say, although I think keeping the capitalization consistent across Wikipedia articles is always a good thing. Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Parents and siblings

• Why is Pepi I mentioned after Ankhesenpepi I? Pepi I seems like a more significant historical figure to me.

Fixed yes, I have updated the sentence accordingly.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• "...indicated by her titles, she notably bore...": Two things here. Why is there a comma? It could easily be a period, causing the splitting of the sentence, or a semicolon. Secondly, why is this notable? "Notably" is inching close to POV, and unless the consensus among academics is that this is indeed notable, I could delete that word.

Done you are right there is nothing especially notable here I used the word to make the link between both pieces of the sentence. The problem is fixed with the added period as you advocated.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• "the sole women": Did you mean "the sole woman"?

Done this was a typo.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• Who is Gustave Jéquier?

Done he was a Swiss archaeologist. I have clarified and wikilinked.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Consorts and children

• "aunt queen": Should this be dashed, since it describes one person? I am not sure, so do not do this just because I said so.

Fixed I changed to "aunt and queen" in order to avoid the problem. As I am not a native English speaker, I tend to be mistaken on such fine issues and prefer to bypass them completely when possible.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

• "...and given that historical sources state...": I would replace "historical sources" with "they also" because it is clear from the sentence that you are referring to the historical sources.

Done, thank you this also permits the sentence to be more precise as indeed a single source reports the age of Pepi II at the time of his coronation so the sentence now reads "Since historical sources agree that Merenre's reign intervened between those of Pepi I and Pepi II and lasted for around a decade and given that one of them states that Pepi II acceded to the throne at the age of six,[...]"

• Not sure why, but Wikipedia tends to prefer "acceded" over "ascended".

Changed throughout.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

• "at six": This just feels petty at this point, but I think saying "at the age of six" would help the article sound more eloquently written than it already is :)

Done thanks it reads better indeed.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

• "...Pepi I as had been hitherto proposed": Proposed by whom? Historians? And if so, any ones in particular worth noting?

Done you are right this was not precise, I have updated the sentence as follows: "[...] this indirectly indicates that Merenre I might have been Pepi II's father[21] rather than Pepi I,[13][23] as had been hitherto held by a majority of Egyptologists.[24][25]" References [24] and [25] are new and were lifted from Pepi I's article. They are Collombert's 2011 and 2018 research papers on excavations in Pepi I's necropolis in Saqqara, where he discusses the issue and states that the prior hypothesis of Pepi I fathering Pepi II is held by a majority of Egyptologists. To be honest I do not know who said that first, I found a 1955 piece stating this but in all probability the hypothesis dates from earlier periods. Do you think this is precise enough or should I find a precise list of names of Egyptologists who thought Pepi I was Pepi II's father prior to Collombert's excavations ?Iry-Hor (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

That is likely sufficient. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Attestations

• "(many of which are discussed in this article)" Is this necessary?

Removed I agree this is superfluous.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• Link sphinx?

Done. Iry-Hor (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment by Buidhe

The number of footnotes in the article seems excessive by far. If the content in the footnotes is aiding reader understanding of the subject it should be in the article, not hidden in a footnote, if it does not, then it does not belong anywhere in the article. (t · c) buidhe 15:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Buidhe Ok but specifically what do you think? Which footnote is not aiding the reader in understanding the article ? And which one should be included in the main text ? I have removed or incorporated to the main text 13 footnotes. I don't see how to reduce the other ones for now. Some of the long footnotes respond to questions that have been raised in the previous FA of Pepi I, asking for details on specific points. Others allow the reader to understand sources talking about the same thing using different names or differing numbering. Some give necessary examples illustrating the point made in the main text allowing an in-depth inquiry without overloading the text for the casual reader. But I am of course opened to further improve the article with your suggestions on specific footnotes.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Personally I do not find the number of footnotes to be an issue; in fact, I find that it is impossible to write about historical figures (especially Ancient Egyptian ones) without using a large amount of notes. I do concur that it would be beneficial for a few to be incorporated into the main text, however. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I moved footnote 4 to a separate section in the main text and all dates for Merenre's reign at the end of the chronology section. I removed two more footnote and will continue to see how to further reduce the remaining ones.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I have incorporated more footnotes in the text and deleted a few, the article is now down to 16 footnotes out of 33 originally. Let me know what you think, I hope this addresses your concern.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Buidhe Now down to 13 footnotes, is this sufficient or are the remaining ones still too much ?Iry-Hor (talk) 11:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Weesperplein metro station

Nominator(s): ~Styyx^Talk? 13:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

"Weesperplein. Universiteit, Hogeschool van Amsterdam. Uitstappen linkerzijde. Overstappen op tram 1, 7 en 19." — One of the busiest metro stations in Amsterdam, with a hidden twist under it (literally). It was initially the terminus of all lines of the city. I hope to bring this to FA status after getting through a GAN and a (not-so thorough) PR. ~Styyx^Talk? 13:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

First-time nomination

• Hi Styyx, and welcome to FAC. Just noting that as a first time nominator at FAC, this article will need to pass a source to text integrity spot check and a check for over-close paraphrasing to be considered for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• "Extensive tests were carried out in September before the station opened on 16 October." - which year? If it was 1977, reword the previous sentence to clarify how a train passed through fully nine months before the station opened.

Indeed 1977, which I added to the sentence. The body does clarify that the structure was mostly complete by 1974.

• "The station was renovated again during 2017 and 2018. A new elevator and two additional staircases between the hall and tracks were constructed." => "The station was renovated again during 2017 and 2018, when a new elevator and two additional staircases between the hall and tracks were constructed." (merging two short and rather perfunctory sentences)
• "was used as a fallout shelter with the capacity of 5,000 people" => "was used as a fallout shelter with a capacity of 5,000 people"
• "The shelter wasn't maintained" => "The shelter was not maintained" (no contractions per MOS)
• "An extra area for a platform below the one used by East Line was created" => "An extra area for a platform below the one used by the East Line was created"
• "5,000 of which inside the shelter" => "5,000 of them inside the shelter"
• "weren't maintained from 1999 onwards" => "were not maintained from 1999 onwards" (as above)
• "The former shelter can be accessed via sliding doors at the top level of station" => "The former shelter can be accessed via sliding doors at the top level of the station"
• "Weesperplein was the first station to start being constructed" => "Weesperplein was the first Amsterdam Metro station to start being constructed"
• "A metro was first rolled into the underground tunnels on 25 January 1977" => "A train was first rolled into the underground tunnels on 25 January 1977"
• "when the Amsterdam Metro doesn't run" => "when the Amsterdam Metro does not run"
• "This would make Weesperplein be a station" => "This would make Weesperplein a station"
• "with 36373 passengers per day" => "with 36,373 passengers per day"
• Don't suppose there are any newer figures than 2018.....?

Nope. Figures of mainline railway stations are made public every year, but metro stations are not. They decided to publish it once in 2019 using data after the new line 52 opened and never did again. So the only thing I can find is 2018, nothing before, nothing after.

• "Luchtspiegelingen of Matthijs van Dam" => "Luchtspiegelingen by Matthijs van Dam"
• "Verplaatsing of Charles Bergmans" => "Verplaatsing by Charles Bergmans"
• "Located on the station hall" => "Located in the station hall" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, ChrisTheDude! I've made the changes accordingly and responded to a few. ~Styyx^Talk? 12:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support on prose -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments from mujinga

• wat leuk iets uit nederlands hier om te zien! and cool to welcome a new nominator as well.
• as noted in the GA review, the infobox pic could do with alt text, some other pix too
• "The station was designed by two architects.." suggest starting the article body proper with "Weesperplein metro station was designed by two architects.."

Done.

• i found the first two pix rather dull, perhaps we can spice it up with a metro map, also useful for context

Where would you want it? The map was in the article before I expanded it from a stub. I actually wanted to retain it in the "Services" section but that messed up the table used there and I couldn't figure a way out of it.

• given smooth curves to "guide" passengers - who is saying guide here? does it need to be quoted?
• say albert heijn is a supermarkt for those who don't know hamsters

While Albert Heijn is a supermarket, their To Go brand doesn't have large stores since it's to go. Added convenience store instead.

• "In addition, Weesperplein is the only station to have a third reserve track" - can you explain what that means?

Explained based on source.

• Replacing bicycle parking racks.[9] - where did the bike parking go?

This only happened at one of the entrances. Corrected.

• "When all lines apart from the East Line, including the East–West line, were cancelled by the municipality on 19 March 1975,[12] the area was used as a fallout shelter" suggest something more like "After the East–West line was cancelled by the municipality on 19 March 1975,[12] the area was intended to be used as a fallout shelter"
• "were cancelled by the municipality " either here or later I think you need a few more sentences for completeness on why the construction was controversial and why the lines were cancelled, since it's a big part of Amsterdam history
• It was expected to take "4 to 5 years" to finish the station - I don't think you need quotation marks here or if you do, you need to say who said it

Removed.

• "The station was reported to be almost completed by June 1974, but that operations would start years later.[20] During the digging process of the station, two former freshwater storage basements were found. Inside the Singelgracht are 33 of such basements, but not much is known of them as they are not in use.[21]" - needs rewriting, "but that" and "33 of such" don't read well

Reworded first sentence. Is "33 of these" any better?

• "A train was first rolled" is rolled a technical term or Dutchglish?

I don't think that really makes sense in Dutch (not the way the source uses it). I'm not sure but, rolling stock tends to... roll? I'll have to figure that one out.

• "Braille patterns were installed on the handrails at the station in 1984 to assist blind and visually impaired people.[28] On 12 July 1999, a high-speed tram of line 51 caught fire at the Weesperplein station due to a blocked disc brake. The tram was carrying no passengers at the time. The smoke caused all levels of the station to be evacuated.[29] Two people were taken to the hospital for smoke inhalation, but were discharged quickly after their condition was determined to be minor.[30]" this is a bit proseline and could be rewritten into longer, joined sentences
• "Supply of new and disposal of old materials was done at night, when the Amsterdam Metro does not run, by using the rails, to prevent congestion of the roads with trucks." - "to prevent congestion of the roads with trucks" reads awkwardly, suggest rephrasing (and you have congestion in the next sentence as well)
• "The quality of the repairs was found to have " - found by whom, since you then give a direct quote ... also this paragraph is proseline again, needs rewriting

Rewritten.

• lead: suggesting flipping paragraphs 2 and 3 round

I was a bit on the edge but I think swapping them around indeed makes more sense.

• "In 2018, the station was reported to be "somewhat ready" in case a new East–West line was planned" - reported by who and we need the Dutch in the references. also re " like it was originally intended in the 1970s." suggest "as originally intended"

Done.

• bearing in mind the discussion in the GA review, I would suggest re-adding GVB as the acronym for Gemeente Vervoerbedrijf, both because you have "GVB tram: 1, 7, 19 Bus transport GVB bus: N85, N86 (night)" and because GVB is what it is commonly known as

Added (back).

• auto peer veiewer suggests: Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 40 metres, use 40 metres, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 40 metres.

Was mostly not an issue since I used {{Convert}}. I think the example you mentioned is the only one that wasn't (to avoid repetition).

• As it stands, I have issues with the article meeting criteria 1a and 1c. I think this is a GA class article which needs a bit more work to get to FA prose standard. Doing the peer review was a good step towards this, shame it wasn't more helpful. So I'd oppose for now but happy to revisit. In future perhaps you could ask the guild of copy editors to have a look. I'd also suggest reviewing FA candidates yourself as a way to see how things work. Mujinga (talk) 13:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Source review

• I thought i'd do a source review and spotchecks, it's my first time doing this so helpful advice would be welcome. I used a variety of checks, including trying out User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck. I also read Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC and User:Ealdgyth/FAC, Sources, and You.
• Looking at this version
• I can't find the relevant bit of the MOS right now, but the foreign langauge titles need to have an (your) [english translation] afterwards, for example: 3 "Waarom vinden we de stations Lelylaan en Muiderpoort zo onaangenaam? 'Reizigers willen gezien worden'" ["Why do we find the Lelylaan and Muiderpoort stations so unpleasant? 'Travellers want to be seen'"] or similar

Done, though skipped a few since I don't think translation a few of them were necessary. Let me know if you think a specific ref still needs a translation.

• Bibliography is not alphabetically listed

Ah, so that is the correct way.

• For ref4 better to have a third party reference, you might have to change the sentence a bit, then for example maybe use this or this.

Swapped with In de buurt. The other source you gave only confirms the sandwich shop, not the Albert Heijn To Go store.

• Needing the padlock to show they are paywalled : ref35

Added.

• User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck gives "Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.);" for some newspapers, that is fine because you consistently ahevnt given ISSN. and it gives "Missing archive link" for delpher links, that's ok because delpher is itself the archive. "van Vollenhoven 2000, p. 8–9. P/PP error? pp. 8–9."

Added pp.

• Otherwise sources are high quality and formatting is good, not finding any copyvio as I go Mujinga (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Spotchecks

Looking at this version

• 2a ok
• 2b quote for underground labyrinth ok
• 5 ok
• 7 AGF
• 8 ok
• 16 quote can be verified but prob not needed
• 24a needs to be from 23 seconds to cover the cited info

Changed.

• 24b "For the first three years" not covered by source

The video says "de eerste jaren", so the first few years. Adjusted.

• 28 all good
• 32 looks like you are drawing on "Intern wordt geconstateerd dat de kwaliteit van het geleverde werk tekortschiet en regelmatig over moet worden gedaan. Vanwege asbest is bij station Weesperplein een vertraging ontstaan van circa 2 maanden" - I would say "The quality of the repairs was found to have "fallen short [of standards]" and had to be redone several times. The asbestos caused delays in metro operations for two months" needs rewriting. You don't need the quote or should say who said it (namely the internal review). "redone several times" isn't quite right, it would seem the repairs had to be carried out regularly (regelmatig). Although WP:NONENG can be read in different ways, I think it's good practice to provide the Dutch text as a |quotation in the citation when putting direct quotes in the article body (although in this specific case I also don't think you need the quotation) - this is something I did at We Are Here (collective) as an example

Reworded the sentence a bit.

• 33 all good
• 38 all good interms of verifiability, but can you add the Dutch quoted in "|quotation" in the reference, per NONENG

Added quote.

• 39 the quote should be given in Dutch but also i think it's a bit of stretch from "Een van de stations ligt er al. Een beetje dan" to "somewhat ready". and the quotation again isn't supernecessary here

Removed quoting. Somewhat done seems like a better translation.

• 42 same thing for quotation per NONENG, I can find it in the source as " als je door het plafond heen omhoog kon kijken" although I'm not sure if it needs quoting actually

Removed quoting.

• 44 all good
• 49 primary source but purely informational so OK
• References are generally lining up well, a few quibbles including the quotations Mujinga (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Epsom riot

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 06:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The Epsom riot was an interesting point in history when the frustrations of many soldiers who just wanted to return home after the First World War exploded into violence and left a policeman dead. There were several riots in the UK from Canadians, Australians and Americans who wanted to return, and several in France with Brits wanting to get home and the logistics of moving that many men were not as smooth as they should have been. This went through a rewrite in early 2021 and has recently been granted MilHist’s A-class. All comments welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support on prose; I gave this a review at A-class and was very impressed. It certainly meets the FA criteria. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 07:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks Harrias - your comments there were very helpful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Source review – pass

• The article is well-referenced throughout, and all references are to reliable sources.
• Citations are all formatted consistently and in an appropriate style.
• Checks for additional, unused sources on Google, Amazon and several of the journal listings revealed an array of webpages, but no significant omissions.
• Spotchecks carried out for source/text integrity, and for copyvio, close para-phrasing:
  • "The slow progress of repatriation was a cause of anger among the waiting servicemen. The winter of 1918–19 was one of the hardest for several years and there was an influenza pandemic. Delays in transporting the troops were exacerbated by the need to cancel at least one ship because it was deemed unsatisfactory." – Cited to ref #6 "Morton 1993, p. 267." All checks out fine.
  • "A group of twenty soldiers assembled outside Epsom police station; they were dispersed peaceably by the police. Word of the Canadians' arrest spread fast among the soldiers and at around 10:30 pm a group of seventy Canadians gathered at the station." – Cited to ref #25 "Gardner 2007, p. 449." All checks out fine.
  • "Some of the Canadians saw Green lying on the floor and realised he was in trouble; six of the soldiers picked him up and carried him across the road to the house opposite. One of the men gave him first aid for about thirty minutes before they left. The homeowner noted that it was 12:30 am." – Cited to ref #40 "Gardner 2007, p. 453." Doesn't specifically state that the house is "opposite", only "nearby". Other than that, all fine.
    • I’ve moved that to the end as the Knight citation carries the ‘opposite’ info. - SchroCat (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
  • "it concluded on 30 July with the verdict that Green was a victim of manslaughter. The inquest determined that Connors, McAllan, McMaster, Masse, Wilkie and Yerex should face trial, as should Todd the bugler." – Cited to ref #46 ""Epsom Riot Inquest". The Times. 1 July 1919." Doesn't specifically name the men, rather saying "that the six soldiers committed for trial by the Magistrate at Bow-street Police Court last Saturday, and Robert Todd, were guilty of manslaughter."
    • We should be okay, as the information is already cited. If you want I can always duplicate the earlier reference here too? - SchroCat (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
      • I assume it is one of the book cites which covers it? I can't find it in any other cited news sources? Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 19:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
        • I've added a book reference, just to reinforce it. - SchroCat (talk) 08:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

That'll do for this morning. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 07:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• Many thanks Harrias - that’s much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I'd hoped to get back to this today, but it'll be a few days now, as I'm going away. I just want to make it clear for any potential reviewers that I have absolutely no major concerns regarding the sourcing; this is an excellently sourced and referenced article. I might just ask for a few copyedits to maintain text–source integrity. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 21:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
    • Thanks Harrias. Enjoy your time away and I look forward to any further comments when you can. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 02:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
• I'm happy with this now. I've less formally glanced through a few of the other news sources I can access, and have no concerns with any of those. Nice work. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 07:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks Harrias - your comment at the A class and here are much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Steelkamp

• "convalescent hospital" and "public house" can be linked.
• "including Bramshott, on Bramshott Common, Hampshire; Witley, near Guildford, and Woodcote at Epsom, both in Surrey—the two towns are approximately 15 miles (24 km) apart; Ripon, North Yorkshire; Buxton and Seaford, both in East Sussex; and Kinmel, near Rhyl, North Wales." This sentence is quite confusing to me. You could reword as "Bramshott in Hampshire, Witley and Woodcote in Surrey, Ripon in North Yorkshire, Buxton and Seaford in East Sussex, and Kinmel in North Wales."
  • I’ve gone for a half-way fix, removing the distance, but retaining the town names, which clears it up a little. Have a look and let me know if it still feels a bit garbled and I’ll trim further if you think so. - SchroCat (talk) 02:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
    • Can Bramshott Common at least be removed? It doesn't strike me as a well known place judging by the length of the article, compared to Guildford, Epsom and Rhyl. Steelkamp (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
      • Hi Steelkamp, Of course. How does it look now? - SchroCat (talk) 14:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

        That looks good. Steelkamp (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• "The situation led to riots at Kinmel in March 1919 and at Witley Camp on 15–16 June." Why specific dates for the latter but only the month for the former?
• I'm not sure whether explanatory footnotes should be placed before or after reference footnotes, but they should at least be consistent. Note [b] is before note [9] but note [c] is after note [7].

Steelkamp (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks Steelkamp. Three of the four are all done per your comment, one dome halfway. Let me know what you think and I can alter further if needed. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 02:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• Why is "Station-Sergeant" hyphenated in the image caption but not elsewhere?
• "or a sergeant was with the couple and a fight broke out between the two Canadians". Just to clarify, is sergeant referring to a police sergeant or one of the Canadians? Was the fight between the private and his wife or the private and the sergeant?
• I assume a specific time for the initial fight is not known? I ask because there is a specific time for when the 70 Canadians gathered at the police station.
• bugler could be linked. (I initially thought it was a misspelling of burglar)
• Is there a reason why Ripon Army Camp and North Yorkshire are linked twice?
• "Colonel Frederick Guest of the Royal Canadian Army Medical Corps". CAMC could be added after this in brackets as the abbreviation appears later in the article.
• Does Todd the bugler not have a known first name?
• Epsom and Ewell could be linked.

That's all from me. Steelkamp (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Steelkamp, these are all now done. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Support. Steelkamp (talk) 03:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks Steelkamp - your efforts here are much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Ian

Recusing coord duties, I reviewed/copyedited/supported at MilHist A-Class but will hold off here until a few more comments and possible changes are in... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I've reviewed changes since I last copyedited towards the end of the A-Class review and am pretty happy still. Just a few things:

• In the lead, between 300 and 800 is mentioned twice in successive paragraphs, perhaps eliminate between 300 and 800 of in the second instance, or say hundreds the first time and the range the second time (suggestion only).
• Station sergeant Thomas Green (three occurrences) -- as station sergeant appears to be a rank I'd expect it to take title case in each of these instances.
• Ross and Parson could only identify a limited number of participants --> Ross and Parson could identify few participants (suggestion only).

That's really it as far as the prose goes... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ian, thanks for your comments at A class and here: all duly attended to. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Tks Schro, obviously leaning support, will just let the image and source reviews play out. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments by ChrisTheDude

• the four paragraphs of the lead are all pretty short, I would be tempted to combine them into fewer
• Wikilink public house? Might help non-UK readers
• "In 1919 Station sergeant Thomas Green" - in the lead his rank had a hyphen....?
• "The soldiers at the front of the house" => "The soldiers at the front of the building".....?
• That's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks Chris, The bottom three all dealt with. Let me have a think about the lead and I’ll get back to you on it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 02:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
    • Ping me when you would like me to revisit, as I can't guarantee to remember :-P -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
      • Hi Chris, how does that work for you? Cheers SchroCat (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
        • Works perfectly - now more than happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Sergeant-thomas-green.jpg: when and where was this first published? Also the UK tag in use requires the image description specify what was done to try to identify the author. Ditto File:Sergeant-thomas-green.jpg, which also has a dead source link
  • Hi Nikkimaria, you’ve listed the same image twice here? - SchroCat (talk) 06:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
    • Sorry, second should be File:Epsom-station-1919.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
• File:Main_entrance_of_Woodcote_Park.jpg
• File:Sergeant_Green's_funeral,_Epsom_1919.jpg: as above, need to specify what was done to try to identify author. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

OK, I've sorted three of them, with one to come:

• File:Sergeant-thomas-green.jpg: Front page of the Daily Mirror, 19 June 1919. (Added to the description)
• File:Epsom-station-1919.jpg: I had previously found this but (stupidly) didn't record where, and now can't find it again. Any thoughts on how we can address this?

• What's the earliest publication that can be confirmed? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Nikkimaria, When I did the research in the first place, I found a 1919 reference, but can now only find c. 2009, which is a real pain in the neck. Do you have any suggestions? According to this, it went out of copyright in 1989. - SchroCat (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• It's attributed here to a museum which may have more information? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• I think it's not a valid copyright claim from them (they claim copyright on all photographs they hold, despite the provenance. I'll take the image out for now - it can always go back in once I've had a response from them that we can work with. - SchroCat (talk) 07:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• File:Main_entrance_of_Woodcote_Park.jpg: Postcard published in 1915; updated description to show this
• File:Sergeant_Green's_funeral,_Epsom_1919.jpg: Updated to show steps taken

- SchroCat (talk) 13:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria, three of these sorted, with one problem - any suggestions much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

I gave the article an informal peer review offline a little while ago, and on rereading the text now I have only three further comments, none of them important enough to prevent my supporting the elevation to FA:

• I don't know if is deliberate, but numbers are sometimes in digits and sometimes in words:

• Double figures: "A group of twenty soldiers"; "capable of fielding fewer than 20 officers"
• Triple figures: "between 300 and 800 Canadian soldiers"; "400 men could be sent down from Ripon"; "Between three and eight hundred soldiers made their way to the police station"; "between seven and eight hundred Metropolitan Police officers".
• Thousands: "between two and four thousand patients"; "between 2,079 and 2,200 occupants".

• Not deliberate - just the usual clumsiness, now changed. - SchroCat (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

• "fewer than 20 officers and constables" – probably showing my ignorance, but I thought a police constable is as much a police officer as a sergeant or higher is.
• The drawing of the funeral procession is a bit tiny for my elderly eyes.
  • Elderly indeed - it's not a drawing but a photograph! Now enlarged. - SchroCat (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

The article seems to me neutral, balanced, well sourced, properly illustrated (with that one caveat about possible resizing), highly readable, and in all respects meeting the FA criteria. Happy to support, Tim riley talk 08:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

• Many thanks Tim, much obliged to you! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
  • SchroCat, may I have a quick extra nibble of the cherry? The captions of the two pictures in the Aftermath section could do with rationalising: the first reads "Sergeant Green's funeral, June 1919" (and yes I can see it's a photograph now, thank you) and the second reads "Sgt Thomas Green's grave in Epsom Cemetery". Might be as well to lose the first two words in the latter. Tim riley talk 14:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
    • Of course - all duly attended to. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Tiberius III

Nominator(s): Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

This article is about a Byzantine Emperor who rose to power during a time of intense strife, and reigned for a short seven years before being deposed by a previously deposed emperor. In his short reign he seems to have done much to stabilize the empire, and historian Constance Head remarks that he might have been considered one of the great Byzantine Emperors, if only he had been able to reign for longer. It has recently passed a MILHIST A-Class Review, and I believe it should pass through FAC with relative ease. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Image review—pass

(t · c) buidhe 04:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Support from Harrias

• "..Byzantine aid. al-Malik.." Shouldn't start a sentence with lowercase.

  Done.

• "..the Kynegion.." As it is a redlink, could you provide some context as to what the Kynegion was?

  Done.

• I found the Family section quite hard to follow, which I guess isn't too surprising, given the whole point is that things got a bit confused. Not sure if much can be done, but I found it particularly unclear at first if "Byzantine historian Graham Sumner has suggested that this may instead be later Emperor Theodosius III (r. 715–717)." meant that Sumner thought Theodosius III was the bishop, president and confidante (possibly instead of Tiberius's son) but might have also been Tiberius's son, or that Sumner just thought they might be the same person.

  Hopefully makes more sense now.

Overall, very little to fault, good work. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 10:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Harrias: Done all. Thanks for reviewing! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

All good now, I'm happy to support. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 07:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recuing to stake a claim. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• Who or what are "the Cibyrrhaeots"? (Sounds like an unfortunate infection.)

  Done.

Does "of the Cibyrrhaeot Theme" mean that he was born there or that he was posted there?

Posted there; not sure how best to specify that.

• "beheaded between August 705 and February 706". By whom, the Bithynians?

  Done.

• Brandes, 2003: TREADGOLD should not be in all upper case.

  Done.

• "the Umayyad Caliphate renewed their attack". "their" → 'its'.

  Done.

• "and declared Apsimar as emperor." Delete "as".

  Done.

• "allied himself with the Greens (one of the Hippodrome factions)". Sadly the parenthetical explanation is going to enlighten almost no readers.

  Done.

• "Leontius' own dethroning of Emperor Justinian II". Is "dethroning" encyclopedic? Or even a word? Perhaps 'usurpation'?

  Both Cambridge and Oxford seem to consider it as a formal word; it is used with surprising frequency by some of the sources.

• Enlarge the map, and put it at the start of "Rule" rather than the end of "Background".

  Done.

• "the Anatolian themes". Which would be what?

Just for a change I'm not picking at themes. The phrase relies on a reader identifying that Anatolian is related to Anatolia, and then knowing what and where Anatolia is/was. Perhaps you could help them out?

Done.

• Not sure exactly what the question is; has "themes" not been defined enough?

• "Tiberius is usually referred to as Tiberius III by modern conventions" reads odd grammatically. Would "conventions" → 'historians' work?

  Done.

• "that conquered the remainder of Byzantine Armenia". You can't say "remainder" unless you have already discussed what happened to the rest of it. Maybe 'what little remained of Byzantine's territory in Armenia' or 'the Rump of Byzantine-administered Armenia' or something similar.

  Done.

• "captured by the Arabs and brought to Syria". "brought" → 'taken to'.

  Done.

• "iberius attempted to contain the Arabs at sea by way of creating new military provinces". Is "way of" doing anything?

  I just think it's neat... removed.

• "escaped from the theme of Cherson". Perhaps tell us where that is?

  Done.

• "according to Byzantist Constance Head"; "scholars Leslie Brubaker and John Haldon"; "Byzantine historian Graham Sumner". False title alerts.

  Done.

• "Byzantist"; "Byzantinist". Which?

  Byzantinist is more modern; standardized.

• "the date where Tiberius was captured in Sozopolis". "where" → 'when'.

  Done.

• Link quarter.

  Done.

• "Constance Head comments that although little is known of Tiberius". Delete "Constance".

  Done.

• "this son of Tiberius may be later Emperor Theodosius III". Perhaps 'this son of Tiberius may be the later Emperor Theodosius III' or 'this son of Tiberius may have later become Emperor Theodosius III' or similar.

  Done.

• "Sumner presents the evidence that both figures". Delete "the".

  Done.

A nice article. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Done or responded to all. Thank you for reviewing! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Looking good. Two come backs above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Have done one and responded to the other. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Lovely stuff. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

Only two comments, and very minor ones at that: I can't work out your rationale for using or not using false titles. The historian Wolfram Brandes, The Byzantinists Anthony Bryer and Judith Herrin etc, but Byzantine historian Graham Sumner, Byzantine historians Cyril Mango and Roger Scott. And the map of the empire is too small for my elderly eyes to see anything much without clicking on it and navigating away from the article, which is always a pity, I think. Otherwise nothing but praise for a succinct and readable article. To my inexpert eye it appears balanced and well sourced, and it is admirably illustrated. Happy to support. – Tim riley talk 10:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Tim riley: Both issues should be taken care of now; thank you for the review! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Zama

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Hannibal! Elephants! Scipio Africanus! Numidian cavalry! Two great generals at the top of their form fight it out for the fate of empires. Yes, it's yet another battle from the Punic Wars. With added elephant dung. But it was decisive. [Plot spoiler] Hannibal was finally beaten. I have had an eye on this one for some time and have been working up to it. It went through a rigorous GAN from Harrias last week and I now offer it up for comments and queries here. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Harrias

• It strikes me that I completely forgot to bring up the length of the lead at the GAN. MOS:LEADLENGTH suggests that most FAs "have a lead length of about three paragraphs, containing 10 to 15 sentences, or about 300 words total." This lead is double that. I appreciate that it is still four paragraphs, but those middle two paragraphs are chunky. In the interest of me ripping the heart out of your prose, how do you fancy trimming it down a bit? Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 22:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

You just can't get decent reviewers these days. Trimmed. While still four paragraphs, two are relatively slight and only one can, I think, still be described as "chunky". Even that has been slightly slimmed. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Chunky one now trimmed back further. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Definitely getting better. Could I tempt you into a little more?

Both commanders felt a need to commit to a battle, so when the Carthaginian army marched inland to confront the Romans a battle shortly ensued. This opened with a charge by the Carthaginian elephants. These were repulsed, with some retreating through the Carthaginian cavalry on each wing and disorganising them. The Roman cavalry units on each wing both took advantage to charge their counterparts, rout them and pursue them off the battlefield. The two armies' close-order infantry were each deployed in three lines. The first twofront lines engaged each other and after a hard-fought combat the Carthaginians were routed. The second Carthaginian line, fighting "fanatically and in an extraordinary manner", then assaulted the Roman first line, inflicting further heavy losses and pushing it back. After the Romans committed the troops of their second line the Carthaginians were forced to withdraw. There was a pause, during which the Romans thinned and extended their line, to match that of the Carthaginians. These two lines charged each other, according to Polybius "with the greatest fire and fury". The fight continued for some time, with neither side gaining the advantage. The Roman cavalry then returned to the battlefield and charged the Carthaginian line in the rear, routing and destroying it.

Yeah, I don't reckon I looked at the lead in detail at all during the GA review. My bad. I'd recommend getting rid, or at least para-phrasing, one of the quotes. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 23:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Some more trimmed per your suggestions. Your suggestions re the cavalry will leave a reader with the clear impression that each side only had one cavalry contingent, which wasn't so. Quotes don't need to be cited in the lead, so long as they are in the main text. They do need to be attributed. (If they're an opinion.) Some further trimming in other paragraphs, Gog the Mild (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• "The first two engaged" -> "The front lines engaged" – the reason behind this suggestion is because there might be ambiguity amongst readers as to whether "first two" means two from each army, or just two overall. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Changed to "The first two lines engaged each other".

Overall, I'm content with the reduction; we've dropped down to around 420 words, which for a longer than average FA, seems about right. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• Just noticed that presumably during the GA trimming, "Scullard, Howard H. (1955)" is no longer used as a source, so can be removed. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 23:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Removed.

• Support, while there might be bits I'd do differently, I'm happy this article meets the FA criteria. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 16:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Support by Unlimitedlead

I would like to clarify that I am not stalking every one of Gog's FA nominations, but rather I am stalking the FAC candidates page. It just so happens that Gog produces an exceptional amount of work that I have personal interest in; ergo, I am always early to his nominations. Now that that has been said, review to follow over the next few days. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• Several duplicate links spotted, but they seem appropriate.

I have removed a couple anyway.

• I swear, File:Stele des Polybios.jpg is going to haunt my in my dreams. I see it everywhere I go!

You can't get too much of Polybius!

• ALT for File:Bust of Sulla (loan from Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek) - Glyptothek - Munich - Germany 2017.jpg (slightly) does not match the image.

I keep doing that. Tweaked.

• Ditto with File:Hannibal Slodtz Louvre MR2093 (cropped2).png

Also fixed.

• Several of the publications in the Sources section (looking at Bahmanyar and Hoyos in particular) have strange capitalization; upon further inspection, the covers of the publications themselves do not capitzalize words that normally would be. Not sure what to do in this case, but I am happy to leave this matter in the hands of someone more knowledgeable than I.

The MoS lays down a style, regardless of what the works themselves say. (Which can differ between the cover, the title page and the information page.) I have run through and picked up two errors - one of which was Bahmanyar, very eagle eyed.

Review of the article's actual text will follow shortly. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• "...resulted in such a severe defeat for Carthage that it capitulated" For better prose, I suggest replacing "it" with "the city".

But the city didn't capitulate. The state of Carthage did. Happy to consider tweaks if you think this is not clear from context.

I belive it is unclear: I thought you were referring to the city. I would say "the state", or something like that, instead for clarity.

I have avoided the issue by using "the Carthaginians".

• In your previous FAs, Iberia was linked in the lead and accompanied by the brief explanation "(modern Spain and Portugal)". Why is that not the case here?

Sloppiness? Fixed.

• Is it possible to briefly introduce Mago Barca?

Umm. I don't want to go into too much detail about someone who was dead before the battle started, but a little more inserted in the article. See what you think. Re the lead, I think its fine - it is clear from context that he was the commander of a Carthaginian army serving in Italy and I think that is enough for the lead.

• Polybius is not linked in the lead, nor is he introduced.

Oops. Done.

• "...with neither side gaining the advantage": Is it "the advantage" or "an advantage"?

It's "the".

Those were my comments on the lead. You were doing so great, Gog; I am saddened to find that the lead was sparse in terms of commas. The Carthaginians had exactly five times more elephants than there are commas in the lead! Sigh, let us just move on past this disappointment and take a look at the article's body. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

You counted the commas! *shocked* You need to get out more Ull, or stay in more, or something. Get yourself over to the UK and I'll show you how to have a good time. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The American is tempted to take you up on that offer. See you in a decade? Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Do so. Although you may wish to check with Harrias what I d for fun. Although what they do is even more gruelling. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Primary sources: Overall a wonderful section. There is not a lot to say about it.

• Hoyos accuses Appian of bizarre invention in his account of Zama, Michael Taylor states that it is "idiosyncratic": Who is Michael Taylor? Also, I think that comma should be replaced with a semicolon, or something to that effect.

Comma: I disagree, but it would mean one less comma, so pouf! Introduction: I don't think it helps a reader to put modern historian in front of each and every one of them. I say "Modern historians usually" at the start of the section where several views are mentioned and I don't think a reader will have difficulty working out who is being referred to.

I take your point. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

More to follow. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• consul is not linked at first mention in the body.

Corrected.

• "despite not meeting the age requirement" I believe at an earlier FAC, I pointed out that stating Scipio's age at this time could be helpful; it was implemented in the article? Can we have that again here?

We can.

• "...while still in Spain..." Spain as in the modern country? Or as in the Iberian Peninsula?

Argh. Changed to Iberia.

• Ah, I see you have linked Balearic Islands this time :)

I'm a slow learner, but I get there.

Looks like that is all from me. Another wonderful effort. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you kindly Unlimitedlead. All addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I will support this nomination, then. Great work. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment by a455bcd9

Hi, just one comment: do we have a source for File:Mohammad adil rais-battle of zama-1.PNG? Best, a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Excellent point. We do now. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Problem solved for me ✅ a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a455bcd9 (Antoine). Do you fancy doing the full image review? :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Is there a guide "How to do image review?" somewhere by any chance? :) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Try User:Nikkimaria/Reviewing featured article candidates#Media. When I do them my basic checklist is "appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted". If you like, once you have done it you can ask someone else to look it over to confirm, or otherwise, your judgement. I imagine Harrias would be willing as they have already looked at the images at GAN. And if you feel the need, do ask questions. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll give it a try, following your basic checklist :)

• File:Stele des Polybios.jpg: Ideally a photo with a better resolution would be better, but we don't have one. The Commons description says "relief stele of Kleitor supposedely depicting the Achaean statesman and historian Polybius", so should we include this in the caption? Also, for consistency with Scipio and Hannibal we could add the date.
• File:Map of Rome and Carthage at the start of the Second Punic War Modified.svg: OK
• File:Helmet typ Montefortino 01.jpg: OK
• File:Campagna africana di Scipione 204-203 aC.png: OK
• File:Bust of Sulla (loan from Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek) - Glyptothek - Munich - Germany 2017.jpg: OK
• File:MASSINISSA - MAA 23 - 87000716.jpg: OK
• File:Hannibal Slodtz Louvre MR2093 (cropped2).png: OK
• File:Mohammad adil rais-battle of zama-1.PNG: OK
• File:Roman Consular Army.png: OK
• File:Numidian cavalry.png: "A Numidian cavalryman as imagined in 1891" => How close to the truth do we believe this to be? Should we keep it?

a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

Very little from me. These are the only points that I noticed, and very minor they are:

• "Rome stripped Carthage of all of its overseas territories" – do we need the second "of" here? Or in any of the nine later "all of"s? (Though possibly "After Scipio overran all of Carthaginian Iberia" looks more natural with the "of".)

I am going to regret having questioned your counting skills, aren't I. Done.

• "Despite the Romans being well supplied with siege engines" – without boring everybody to sobs with grammatical niceties about gerunds, I suggest this would be better as "Although the Romans were well supplied ..."

Grammatical! You want grammaticaal? I usually charge extra for that. Done.

• "Scipio lined them one behind the other" – reads a little oddly to me: perhaps "one behind another"?

Rephrased as "Scipio arranged a principes maniple directly behind each maniple of hastati."

• "Javelinmen" – as discussed at the FAC for the Battle of the Trebbia, the word is hyphenated by the OED and Chambers.

Hyphen added.

• "Lazenby describes these skirmishes as "desultry". – I bet he doesn't: the word is "desultory"

"Desultry: boring, staid, not sexually attractive". What's your problem?

• "Carthage appealed to Rome, which always backed their Numidian ally" – we seem to switch from singular to plural here. Possibly "backed its"?

Whoops. Done.

• "These elephants ...should not be confused with the larger African bush elephant" – I'm still not likely to confuse anything with an African bush elephant and I still think "should not be confused" has a touch of WP:EDITORIAL about it.

Tweaked.

• "Masinissa also married Syphax's wife, Sophonisba, Hasdrubal's daughter. Syphax was taken as a prisoner to Italy, where he died." – did he marry her while Syphax was still alive? Perhaps monogamy was not a requirement at the time.

He did. Indeed, think Sabine women. ("youthful and beautiful"; "as irresistible a charmer as Helen or Cleoptra"; "so rekindled his earlier passions".) I mean, what is the point of being a king if you have to stick to the rules?

I seldom think Sabine women – not my area of expertise – but thank you for clarifying. Tim riley talk 14:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

• "the adoptive grandson of Publius Scipio" – I think the old boy was an adoptive grandfather, but Scipio Aemilianus was his adopted grandson.

Oh dear. Fixed.

That's all from me. – Tim riley talk 09:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

That is very kind of you Mr riley. I realise that these sword and sandal epics don't match your favourite chivalrous charmers, so I appreciate your plugging away at them regardless. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

My privilege and pleasure! If so minded, dear boy, you may return the compliment by looking in at the peer review of the article on John Galsworthy, which I'm hoping to bring to FAC in the not-too-distant. – Tim riley talk 14:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

• Good evening Tim, 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) 16:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

• Forgetful of me (old, Master Shallow!). I hasten to complete my review with a support. The article is a splendid read, seems neutral and judiciously proportioned, has excellent pictures and appears well and widely sourced. Meets the FA criteria in my view.

As a matter of general interest, what was the last article you brought to FAC in which nobody was killed? Tim riley talk 16:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Tim, I have bad news for you: no one gets out of here alive. Try to bear up. I have submitted the odd nomination where the body count was only in the hundreds. Although I can't remember when. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I've taken 53 articles to FA, jointly or severally, and as far as I can recall we have managed to get through without killing anyone. But I suppose we must all accustom ourselves to your liberal scattering of corpses. And it must be admitted that your battle (I mistyped as "ballet" before correcting myself) articles are superb. Tim riley talk 17:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah ha! Technically no one died because of the Truce of Calais! It reduced the tempo of the Hundred Years' War but "did not stop ongoing naval clashes between the two countries, nor small-scale fighting in Gascony and Brittany." Of course, the truce only happened because of the Black Death and its immediate after effects - which killed an estimated 62.5% of the population of England. And a third of the population of the world. And Treaty of Guînes. That's two. Out of 60; 62 by the time this one is promoted, assuming that I can con the coordinators into thinking that it meets the criteria. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, good! One out of 62 with no bloodshed! Tim riley talk 21:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Support from Jens

Carthage expanded its territory in Iberia, (modern Spain and Portugal) from 236 BC - should the comma behind the gloss?

It shouldn't be there at all. Thanks.

• Scipio and Carthage entered into peace negotiations -- this was already mentioned.

Whoops. Fixed.

• The Carthaginian senate recalled both Hannibal and Mago from Italy -- again, we had a very similar sentence already.

True again. Also expunged.

• those which could fled, avoiding - not sure here; does it need to be "avoided" rather than "avoiding" and without the comma?

Nope, it reads fine to me. You sure? I could always just rewrite it.

• Maybe add a sentence on Scipio's war preparations, since this seems to be a gap in the article. We learned that he was allowed to built an army, and the next thing we learned is that he set over to Africa. I was wondering to what degree this was actually backed by the senate. But yes, this is all not really pertinent to this article, which is on this particular battle, so not sure if anything should be added.

LOL! I mean, actual, real LOL. In a pre-FAC going over, mostly but not exclusively, at GAN, Harrias and others persuaded me to take an axe to what I originally had as background, including specific info on the points you raise. (Eg, see the Prelude section of Battle of Utica (203 BC).) Harrias feels strongly about this; they take a bare bones approach to anything not closely focused on the article title. (See also here.) So, given that they have supported the article as is, and that you don't seem to view this as a deal breaker, I'll invite their opinion before doing anything. Similarly AirshipJungleman29. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Excellent read! It might take me a few days to respond since I am travelling. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that Jens, much appreciated. Your points all addressed, with one awaiting further input before actioning, or not. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, all good! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that Jens, much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Damen station (CTA Blue Line)

Nominator(s): – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The previous FAC of this article got closed due to trifling poppycock procedural issues, but I would like to nominate this article that I hope provides a thorough and comprehensive history of one of the most popular stations on the Chicago "L". The oldest station on the Blue Line, this aesthetic station is credited for developing the surrounding area. Although it and the neighborhood took a dive in the mid-20th century, being one of the roughest areas of the "L" by the mid-1980s, they have rebounded significantly and received multiple renovations since then. Unfortunately, the historic character of this station means that it has not received ADA accessibility despite these renovations. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Untitled Goose Game

Nominator(s): MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Untitled Goose Game is a 2019 stealth game about being a goose and bothering the people of a small English village. The game, developed by Australian studio House House, was inspired by the style of Super Mario 64 and the mission-like objectives of the Hitman franchise. I love this game and think it'd be great for FA. Got it to GA a few months ago. Excited to hear everyone's comments! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• "Cite error: A list-defined reference named "gamestm_206" is not used in the content (see the help page)." (t · c) buidhe 23:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Fixed MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

PCN02WPS

Claiming my spot, I'll give this a read in the next day or two. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Samarium

Nominator(s): ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 09:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

A lanthanide with interesting properties; used in magnets, nuclear reactors, catalysts .etc. I sent this article to a PR a few months ago, and addressed ComplexRational's comments on the article. Hopefully, this article will continue to improve and be FA! :) ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 09:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Coord note -- Hi Praseodymium, I gather this would be your first FA if successful, in which case welcome...! As a reminder for reviewers and fellow coords, a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing will be required at some stage. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Casliber

• Good to see an element - will take a look soon Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• • Dumb question, is the convention to write "samarium(II)" without a space before the first parenthesis? Looks a bit squishy. Cas Liber

Yes this is convention for noting valence. -DePiep (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• • link "luster". Cas Liber

IMO common word, so not done. YMMV. -DePiep (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Most people outside chemistry or geology would not get the nuance. So yes, I disagree. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I have added the link. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• • link trigonal, monoclinic, boule, orthorhombic

Should the links be added to these words in the compounds template or somewhere else? InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I saw them in the body of the text so would link there - and compounds template is ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• • ... and the soluble ones are only slightly toxic. - err, if slightly toxic, what is the actual toxicity to - liver, kidney, blood etc.

This source and a couple others say that soluble Sm salts are slightly toxic when ingested without going into specifics. Is the source reliable and is this specific enough? InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

No dramas, you've done the best you can given the sources Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Otherwise looks ok on comprehensiveness and prose, hence Support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments by DePiep

• wrt Isotopes of samarium (the 10 main isotopes end up in the article infobox): have cleaned up towards base reference NUBASE2020. Samarium-146 needs attention (fix references used/notused), see talk.

-DePiep (talk) 06:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• ref#36, Bärnighausen: could not resolve "journal title=none". -DePiep (talk) 09:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• Samarium § Compounds table header: a, b, c not explained. BTW, folded table in article body?

The same table is there in the Samarium compounds article, so the table might not be necessary in this section. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• {{Infobox samarium}} uses "α, α form, poly" substances (allotropes?). But none of these is described (mentioned) in article body. Also, are they synonyms or different names? -DePiep (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments by InterstellarGamer12321

The only issues with the article I have found so far have been highlighted by other commenters. Remaining issues are minor. Therefore I support the promotion. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Lecoq_de_Boisbaudran.jpg: source link is dead, needs an author date of death and US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Thomas A. Spragens

Nominator(s): PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

This article is about a president of Centre College in Danville, Kentucky (my second such FAC nomination), who oversaw the college from the late 1950s until the early 1980s. After working for the government during World War II, assisting several presidents of Stanford, and leading Stephens College for five years, Spragens took the Centre job and kept it for 24 years. He oversaw integration of the college and the merger with the nearby Kentucky College for Women, nearly doubled the number of students and faculty, lessened the intense ties between the school and the Presbyterian Church, oversaw construction and upgrades of several campus buildings, and helped to start a collegiate athletic conference. Many thanks go to Rockhead126 for finding and uploading an image of the subject. I'd be grateful to receive any and all feedback! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

I reviewed this for GA and remember thinking it was in pretty good shape. Some comments:

• "was an American administrator and a figure in higher education". He doesn't have a particularly easy career to summarize, but I think the second half of this is unnecessarily vague. I took a look at Andrew Sledd, also an FA, and at John C. Young (pastor); they have "an American theologian, university professor and university president and "an American educator and pastor who was the fourth president of...". Could we go with "educator and the 17th president of..." here? That seems the highlight, and the other roles are all covered in the first paragraph of the lead.
  • Changed as recommended. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

    Looks like this didn't get changed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

    Whoops, I meant to change that. I have amended it according to your recommendation but I stuck with administrator instead of educator as I don't believe he ever taught. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:55, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• "it also led to chapel becoming optional for students": suggest "it also led to attendance at chapel becoming optional for students", assuming that's what's meant, and a similar change where this is mentioned in the body.
  • Changed both. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
• I recall asking you to remove some "also"s in the GA review; I think there are still too many. When the prose is clearly a recounting of events or achievements, "also" isn't necessary -- the reader already expects that each sentence is adding something to the list. I would cut the second and third instances in the lead -- the second doesn't add any information, and the point of the third, in "During his time at Centre, Spragens was also involved in several other organizations and pursuits", is already conveyed by "other". Looking at that sentence, though, I think you could cut it completely -- it's a topic sentence for the list of Spragens' roles, and I think it would be more concise to just start with "He was selected by two governors..."
  • Thank you for reminding me of this, and I agree that there were too many. Almost all of them have been removed, the ones that stayed are not of the kind you describe. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
• "Spragens was also an effective fundraiser for the school, as he made it one of his top priorities upon taking office, and his Fund for the Future Campaign ultimately raised $34 million for the college." This is a bit imprecise. "As" connotes causation here, but he wasn't effective because he made it a priority. However, I looked at the source and it doesn't really say he made it a priority; it says he played a major role in it which is subtly different. Perhaps just mention his success?
  • Removed "as he made it one of his top priorities upon taking office" and reformatted second part of that sentence with a semicolon. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
• "He attended Lebanon High School and was recruited by then-president Charles J. Turck to attend Centre College": just curious here: there's no mention of a sporting talent of the kind that might get a high-school student recruited these days. Why would a college president attempt to recruit a high school student? Was that (is that) normal behaviour in US colleges?
  • I admit the circumstances were quite unusual - nowadays recruitment on the part of a college president would be very strange as well. In Spragens's situation, him and three of his classmates who were in an all-male singing quartet who had some regional recognition, and Dr. Turck spoke with them to see if they would attend Centre to succeed the "Centre College Quartet", all four members of which were seniors at the time. Spragens's three friends went to Centre but Spragens opted for UK instead. The info is in the second paragraph of page 2 of the source; I would have quoted it here but I didn't want to re-type the whole paragraph. If you think adding the reason behind this recruitment to the article would be helpful, I can do that. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

    Up to you -- I think the story would add a bit of colour. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

    I agree, I've added it. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• "After the war's conclusion, Spragens left his government positions in favor of a role at Stanford University. Beginning at Stanford in summer 1946, he worked as an assistant to..." Could be more concise. Suggest "In summer 1946, Spragens left his government positions to work at Stanford University as an assistant to...".
  • Changed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
• And I would make it "assistant to the college president" just in case a reader unfamiliar with US college terminology thinks this refers to Harry Truman.
  • Good thought, changed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
• Is there a suitable link for "Synod of North Carolina"? Or for "Northern Synod of Kentucky"?
  • I don't think so; the general link for "synod" is at Presbyterian polity#Synod. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
• There's nothing about how he got hired at Centre -- if the sources don't cover it there's nothing you can do but I thought I'd check.
  • CentreCyclopedia doesn't say anything specific, nor does his interview (FN 2) or the Weston book. Everything I've seen just says he "accepted an invitation" or some variation of that wording. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  This article, which continues here. The use of CCTV for instruction while at Stephens seems prominent and might be usefully added to the discussion of his time at Stephens. Wehwalt (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  I have added information from both parts of that article. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• "Early in his term" is vague, which would be OK, but the next sentence starts "The following year", so presumably we don't need to be vague?
  • That is a good point, I will look in that book for some specific years. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  I have looked up the specific year and added it in place of "Early in his term". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• "This change was received well by much of the campus community." The source is not neutral, so I would suggest adding this to bolster it.
  • Added, thank you for finding that. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
• This could be used to give the date of Walker's hiring.
  • Added this as well, thank you. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
• "This plan was met with widespread praise, including from The New York Times." I don't think the source is neutral enough for this. I would suggest digging up the NYT clip to support this if you want to keep it. If the source gives details I can probably find it for you if you don't have access.
  • I do not have access nor do I have any super specific details about the article. If you want to have a look that would be awesome but I won't be heartbroken if I have to take that sentence out. I have commented it out for now. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

    I agree the article doesn't really need that sentence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

    If you give me the approximate date of this, I can probably send you the text or a pdf. Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

    It appears to be January 10, 1962, Joseph M. Sheehan, "Groups within N.C.A.A. aiming at lofty goals", page 28. If you want a copy, send me an email through the Wikipedia email function and I'll send it as an attachment. Wehwalt (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• "raised nearly $34 million for the college": the source has "about" so I would stick with that -- we've no way of knowing if it was just over or just under.
  • Changed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
• "In addition, Centre was selected to obtain a chapter of the Phi Beta Kappa honor society, of which Spragens himself was a member." Wordy; how about "A chapter of the Phi Beta Kappa honor society (of which Spragens was a member) opened at Centre during Spragens' tenure"?
  • Changed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
• I don't think we need the mention of Catharine's death.
  • Removed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
• "the college's enrollment nearly doubled, from 380 students to 700, and the size of its faculty followed the same trend": any reason we can't give the numbers for the faculty?
  • The Kleber source, which I used for this information, gives exact student numbers (During his presidency, Spragens increased the size of the student body from 380 to seven hundred...), but doesn't give any faculty specifics (...more than doubled the size of the teaching faculty...), so I tried to integrate this information as best I could. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

    I'll have a think about other ways to phrase this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

    Just an update to say that I found a source with faculty numbers so I have added those. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:02, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• "a member of committees in Danville's First Presbyterian Church": I think this is too minor to be worth mentioning.
  • Removed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
• "This came to fruition in 1969, when the college": I don't think we need the first phrase; it's connective tissue which the reader doesn't need. Suggest just "In 1969, the college..."
  • Changed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
• "He is largely credited for his successful fundraising efforts and for the numerous buildings that were constructed during his presidency": I don't know what "largely credited" means.
  • I've reworded this and broken that sentence into two. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
• "many of the students formed committees and teaching groups among themselves": doesn't seem relevant to this article.
  • Removed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:09, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: thank you for the review! I have responded to your comments. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Have struck most; there are a couple of replies above. I'll be traveling for a couple of days and may not respond quickly till Tuesday or Wednesday, though I might have some scraps of time here and there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Mike Christie I believe everything is now addressed! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

• "During this time, he was selected to be a part of a commission that produced a report, "The Church and Higher Education", to the Synod of North Carolina, which was completed in July 1955.[7]" I would mention inline which church is being referred to, since you have not mentioned any great religious involvement.
  • Changed to "Presbyterian Synod of North Carolina..." with link to Presbyterian. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• The date he concluded his term at Stephens is mentioned in the infobox but not sourced in the text.
  • I don't have a source for this date at present, pinging Rockhead126 who added this info. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
    • Looking on Newspapers.com, it appears Spragens resigned effective November 11, the day he ended up taking over at Centre. According to multiple sources, was still serving as president of Stephens on November 7, when he announced a long-term development plan for the school. Centre announced on November 9 that he would take office on November 11. The Kansas City Times article from the previous October that I cited in the article body indicated that James G. Rice would take over as acting president of Stephens on November 11. Rockhead126 (talk) 02:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

      Thank you - I have been doing some more research for the past few hours and found this, which has the same "will resign next week" line as one clipping that you linked above, so I believe you are correct in saying the eleventh. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• "resignation on November 16, 1981" it looks like he had already resigned, and this was just the date it became effective. This source might be useful if you wish to discuss the circumstances of his resignation. Also see here and this with [2] this its continuation. It strikes me that there may be details here you'd care to include. It just seems to me that given that his major claim to notability is his presidency of Centre, occupying 24 years, that more could be said than four paragraphs.
  • Many thanks for linking those sources; I have used those and some left by Rockhead126, and had another look through Newspapers.com myself in order to add more information and bring the article up to par with respect to the comprehensiveness standard. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

That's it for now. I'll look in on it again when you're ready.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@Wehwalt I believe it's ready for another look! Thank you for your comments thus far. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Examples of a way to cite an article that spreads out over two pages can be found at New Jersey's 1927 biannual elections proposal, for example, ref 6 and 9, if you care to do it that way.

• Done for Briney (FN 3) and Brock (FN 4). PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• "He enrolled in, and attended, the University's College of Commerce (now the Gatton College of Business and Economics) for a year and a half, but afterwards transferred to the College of Arts and Sciences and majored in economics.[2]" The source is from 1982. Can it validly tell us what the present name of the college is?

• I have added a citation from the college itself which supports the name change. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• "At Stephens, he implemented a plan which saw the use of closed-circuit television as an aid within classrooms, for which the school received "wide notice".[3]" I would, instead of "as an aid within classrooms", which reads awkwardly, say something like "an academic aid" or some such. You explain it in the next sentence.

• Changed as recommended. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• "He was a member of the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools ..." he was or the school was? If the latter, so what?

• He was, but I misread the source and he was a member of the above-named association's commission on colleges and universities. I have updated this in the article for accuracy but I can remove the whole bit if you think it is too trivial or irrelevant. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• "with the eventual goal of abandoning its current facilities and constructing new instructional, residential, and athletic buildings at a site nearby U.S. Route 63.[11]" Should "nearby" be "near"?

• Changed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• "which would prevent payment to players and eliminate gate receipts;[28]" I would end the sentence here. There would not have been payments to players as forbidden by NCAA rules (I know from that NYTimes article that Centre was an NCAA member). Do you mean athletic scholarships?

• I recall this wording being similar to the one used in the source; I know that Centre did not give athletics-specific scholarships during the time Spragens was there anyway. I am headed to the library soon so I will double-check what the wording in that book was and adjust this sentence accordingly. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• I am having more trouble than anticipated getting my hands on the Craig source again (which was used to source this bit) so as I wait I have hidden the "payment to players" portion of the sentence. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• The sentence in personal life about his involvement on a higher education study committee might find a better home elsewhere.

• Moved. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• The Legacy section seems to wander a bit. I might focus on his improvement of Centre and put the items such as Kent State chronologically in the recounting of his presidency.

• Done, moved 1968 DNC and 1970 Kent State bits to body chronologically. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

That's it for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Please ping me when you want me to take another look. Wehwalt (talk) 01:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: I believe it's ready for another look, just a few things that weren't done as recommended. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Support Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• "was an American administrator and the 17th president of Centre College in Danville, Kentucky, from 1957 to 1981" => "was an American administrator and served as the 17th president of Centre College in Danville, Kentucky from 1957 to 1981" (as presumably he wasn't only an administrator for those 24 years)
  • This is much closer to how I originally had it phrased and I am hesitant to change it back for a few reasons: I recently stumbled upon EEng's essay Wikipedia:Location, location, location!, one part of which is about the "served as" construction and how it could almost always be simplified to "is" or "was"—I know this is just an essay but I agree with the sentiment—and I am hesitant to remove the comma after "Kentucky" as it should be there per MOS:GEOCOMMA. The two solutions that I have in mind are removing the date range altogether or changing "and the 17th president" to "who was the 17th president" - which do you think would work better? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• "three-fourths of Centre's facilities" - I am assuming that saying this rather than "three quarters" is a American English thing?
  • Yes, I changed it to three quarters anyway. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• "He was selected by two governors to be a part of commissions which studied higher education within the commonwealth" - as a Briton when I hear that last word to me it refers to the Commonwealth. I have to assume that here it means something else.....?
  • Kentucky is one of four US states (with Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia) who refer to themselves in their long form name as a "commonwealth" rather than a "state" - I have simplified this by changing "within the commonwealth" to "in Kentucky". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• "Turck's hope was that the four of them would attend Centre and replace the "Centre College Quartet", the members of which were soon graduating" - as an irrelevant aside, speaking as the father of an 18 year old who is currently going through the agony and stress of applying for university in a country where the only way to get in is by being really really good academically, I find the notion that someone could not only get into university but in fact be personally sought out by a university just because he could sing well to be mind-blowing.......
  • It is certainly a little strange; then again, the fact that he was president of a semi-major liberal arts college for 24 years while only holding a bachelor's degree is also strange to me (and something that I had to double- and triple-check when I was first writing this article)! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• "and he began in this role on exactly one month later" - word "on" is not needed
  • Removed, good eye. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• You convert a couple of sums of money into current terms, but not others, even others in the same paragraph......?
  • Fixed; inflation adjustments added to all mentions of money. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• "He was Presbyterian," - who was? The father, or the son who was the subject of the immediately preceding sentence?
  • The father, I've moved this to the next paragraph to avoid ambiguity. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• "which required the president and most board members be Presbyterian" => "which required the president and most board members to be Presbyterian" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Fixed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: thank you very much for the review -- I have addressed your comments! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

44th Chess Olympiad

Nominator(s): Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

This article is about a team chess tournament with global participation in the spirit of the Olympic Games that took place in Chennai, India in August 2022. After the article attained the GA status, some brief sections have been merged with longer ones, so it stands to reason to believe that it meets all criteria for an FA in the field of sport.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

First-time nomination

• Hi Kiril Simeonovski, and welcome to FAC. Just noting that as a first time nominator at FAC, this article will need to pass a source to text integrity spot check to be considered for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size
• Suggest adding alt text
• File:44th_Chess_Olympiad_2022_stamp_of_India.jpg: is there a source to support the given licensing?
• File:Chess_Olympiad_2022_official_logo.png is missing copyright owner. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I've made changes in line with the suggestions. I couldn't find a source to support the licencing for the postal stamp, but the same licence is used for all Indian postal stamps (see the stamps in this category).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Source review by Bilorv

Good to see a chess article at FAC! I'm reviewing this with one eye on WCC commentary, rooting for Ding. I'll do some spotchecks, in reference to Gog the Mild's comment. Reference numbers as of Special:Permalink/1148495851.

Spotchecks: #2, #3, #8, #10, #13, #17, #21, #23, #50, #96, #101, #105, #115.

Source comments:

• TASS is generally unreliable (RSP entry) as a Russian government propaganda outlet. Source #111 is acceptable as verifying a Russian Chess Federation statement, but other uses need removal.
• Other than this, I'm happy that the sources given are reliable for the facts in the article, after some investigation into the sources I haven't seen before. Primary sources are largely acceptable for simple statements of facts or official statements.
• I can't see a source for "Both sections set team participation records" or the repetition in the body, "both records for a Chess Olympiad" and "also a record". Reference #13 says vague promotional things like "Clearly, this scale and magnitude ... is going to be unprecedented" and Chess-Results doesn't seem to state the record directly. Reference #50 (not cited inline) does say the previous record was 179 countries, so perhaps the claim could be changed to this record.
• Reference #23 doesn't say "Only one bid was submitted"; perhaps #24 implies this by only listing one bid in the appendix. (Though unreliable for this fact, TASS implies Argentina and Slovakia did bid in some way.)
• Reference #115 doesn't say "The Chinese team ... won gold medals in both events at the 2018 Chess Olympiad".
• Formatting issues pose a 2(c) problem. You should consider what parameters to include for each source e.g. URL, title, work or publisher, date or access-date; and whether they should be in italics or linked. For instance, source #46 and #118 lacks a mention of work/publisher; #51 and #52 have neither a date nor an access-date; The Times of India is linked in #92 but not in #43 or #100; is it "ANI" or "Asian News International" etc. These are examples but the whole reference list will need a run through. Some of the data is also incorrect, such as the "author" 'Team, BS Web' in #29, 'ANI' in #32, "official website" in #46.
• I can't access source #61. Archiving may be worthwhile.

Other comments:

• "The olympiad was initially ..." – Should "Olympiad" be capitalised for consistency?
• "1,737; 937 in the Open" – I think a colon is more accurate than a semi-colon (the latter half is a breakdown of the 1,737 number, not a standalone clause).

— Bilorv (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed review. I've run through all the references and made corrections on the formatting (e.g. replacing "work" with "publisher", correcting author data, linking to the publisher on the first mention etc.). Additionally, I was able to find other reliable sources to replace TASS as a source, as well as to support the claims that were not literally stated in the previous sources. Those that could not be found, such as "only one bid was submitted", were rephrased in a meaningful way. Finally, I've replaced "olympiad" with "Olympiad" and put a colon in line with the other comments (BTW, both Nepo and Ding are gentle and good players, so it's difficult to choose one).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Better-looking references and most issues are solved. A couple of follow-ups: I think the new source on records is about overall countries/teams, not necessarily that there was a record for Open and Women's sections considered separately. The new Ruchess source doesn't seem to verify the sentence The president of the Russian Chess Federation Andrey Filatov had stated earlier the same day that the two cities would likely co-host the event. Sources #119 and #123 need a publisher. — Bilorv (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I've found a new source in which Filatov's statement is explained in greater detail and worked it out a little bit in the text. On the record-breaking number of participants in both sections, the cited source says “We have 185 countries registered with 186 teams in the open section and 156 in the Women’s section. Batumi Olympiad had set a record with 179 countries with 184 teams in Open section and 150 in Women’s section., which I thought would be sufficient.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean on the records quote. Thanks for the improvements! — Bilorv (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Support, particularly on sourcing. — Bilorv (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Review by DaxServer

Hi. I performed a quick ce but hasn't done much of source checks. Here are some pointers for the moment:

• "the United States were regarded" ... either "the United States was regarded" or "the United States team was regarded" or "the players representing the United States were regarded" - I think it's the first?
• Split the |author= in citations to |first= and |last=
• There're some redundancies in the form of duplications, but I gotta go sleep now, will re-review them later

— DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I've replaced "author" with "first" and "last" everywhere. As for the use of the country teams in plural form, this is because the article is written in British English where it's the common form (for instance, The Guardian reported Uzbekistan's victory with "Uzbekistan win", so it's totally acceptable to use "the United States were regarded").--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah I see — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• MOS:REFLINK - citations are standalone entities, I'd suggest linking publishers in all citations where there is an article. For the authors who have articles, link them using |author-link=

— DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I've added a couple of new links (e.g. Leonard Barden). The publishers are linked on the first mention but not every time they appear per MOS:OVERLINK.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments Edwininlondon

I'm pleased to see a chess article here. I'm afraid I have to do this review in chunks. This is what I have so far:

• I have never seen references used in the lead. I can't see any hard rule that says it is not allowed, but it is adding unnecessary clutter to the only part of the article most people read.
• Not sure about the opening sentence. It would be better if it mentioned that it is an international tournament between countries.
• I assume the players on a team are chosen by their national chess association. Would it therefore not good to link the country names to the national association pages? For example, the Netherlands. I'm saying this because there is an inconsistency: country names are mostly not linked at all inline (although for some reason Belarus is), mostly linked in the table of participating countries (although some like Canada and Mexico are not).
• More link issues: Moscow should be linked in lead and its first occurrence in main text. And Russian Chess Federation should be linked.
• the link label won in 2006 is not a strong one. Perhaps rephrase to "having previously won the 37th Chess Olympiad in 2006."
• It may sound odd but the idea is that you have to introduce everything again after the lead. So FIDE needs to be explained again in the Bid section. And linked again. See for comparison 2014 FIFA World Cup final. I would recommend to rename the first section Background and give a general overview of what the Olympiad is, before you talk about the bidding.
• I'm not quite following the arguments of why it was moved to Moscow, but at the very least I'd say that the statement "which was chiefly organised in Moscow" is dubious. 11 Russian cities were used.
• The positioning of the sentence "Khanty-Mansiysk was to ... and physically disabled players" is a bit odd, with most of it coming back to the first factor, explaining what Chess Paralympics means.
• That same sentence leaves me wondering: was the Chess Paralympics event also moved to Moscow? The current phrasing is ambiguous.
• Because earlier "inaugural" was used, you don't need to say "first ever" again.
• "Shortly after this announcement, the AICF .." --> what is AICF?
• "On 15 March 2022, FIDE .." --> only link the first occurrence in the body. FIDE was mentioned before
• "top 28 boards in the open section" --> In the lead you have a capital for Open

More soon. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Just a note on lead citations: per MOS:CITELEAD, The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. It is definitely not unheard of to have citations throughout the lead. — Bilorv (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

That is certainly true for normal articles, but is it for Featured Articles? Other reviewers more experienced than me are better positioned to provide a view of what is FA standard. In the 100 or so FAC reviews I have done, I've never come across a citation-laden one. And rightfully so, as it adds unnecessary clutter. Edwininlondon (talk) 05:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Here is the rest of my comments:

• with all these rituals borrowed from the Olympics, I do think the article needs to address, albeit briefly and in the Background section, the relationship with the Olympic Games, or lack thereof. Is the IOC involved at all? Is chess the only sport that has an Olympics clone?
• The five-time World Chess Champion Viswanathan Anand passed ... --> Anand passed ... (he's already been introduced)
• The claims about Rwanda, Pakistan, and Netherlands Antilles all need references. The current 54 reference does not back these up.
• can you explain your choice of Afghanistan's flag?
• list of participating countries should be alphabetical: Cameroon is out of order. Check others
• "weather conditions,[61] Teimour Radjabov withdrew ..." --> grammatically not quite ok
• "Viswanathan Anand described the team .." --> Anand described the team
• and Anish Giri --> a bit of introduction would be good, for example: Dutch Grandmaster Anish Giri. Was he playing himself? Would be good to add.
• from Fabiano Caruana, who suffered three losses, and Levon Aronian --> only refer to people by their last name once they have already been introduced
• 7½ out of a possible 8 points (7/8 .. --> should that not be 7½/8 ?
• why is there no dSB score for India-2 in the rankings table?
• Oliwia Kiołbasa had the highest individual score in the Women's event, playing for Poland on board three, who scored 9½/11 --> grammar
• (1961–78) --> a bit too cryptic perhaps, as it could be read as years of birth and death. Perhaps just say something along the lines of "world champion between 1961 and 1978"
• on an official YouTube channel, --> on FIDE's official YouTube channel
• FIDE followed a recommendation by the International Olympic Committee to suspend Russia and Belarus from participation in international tournaments,[59] including the Olympiad. --> this to me suggests that the IOC explicitely mentioned the Olympiad in their recommendation. Did they?

Sorry for the delay. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Gordon Steege

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Part 3 of a random/unplanned trilogy following on from Alan Rawlinson and Wilf Arthur: veteran of No. 3 Squadron RAAF in the Middle East theatre of World War II; fighter ace with precisely 8 confirmed victories; rose to command wings in the Pacific; left the air force with the rank of group captain after the war. Are you sensing a pattern here...? Thereafter things diverged: unlike Rawlinson who joined the RAF and Arthur who never resumed a military life, Steege re-joined the RAAF during the Korean War, where he didn't take long to ruffle a few feathers... Oh, one other thing all three have in common -- they've died too recently to qualify for an Australian Dictionary of Biography entry as yet (yes, I've thrown my hat in the ring)... Thanks in advance for your comments! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

I'll get round to this. (That was a most peculiar nomination.) Gog the Mild (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• "After leaving school". Is it known when this was?
  • Sources don't state -- working backwards from his joining the RAAF in mid-1937 I guess we could assume he left school in 1933 but that's just me...
• "he worked for three years at the Perpetual Trustee Company." Is it known what he did there?
  • Not till now but your dogged persistence (or insistence?!) has led me to find a source -- done.
• Link strafing?
  • Done.
• What does "forcing down" mean?
  • Umbrella term for brevity: three were shot down and two were damaged badly enough they had to crash land.
• "as the Afrika Korps and a Luftwaffe contingent". Perhaps reverse these? As "a Luftwaffe contingent under General Erwin Rommel" may cause confusion. Or 'as the Afrika Korps under General Erwin Rommel, supported by a Luftwaffe contingent ...' or similar?
  • Let me just double-check the way the sources put it before replying/altering..
• Wiktionary considers Stuka - upper-case S - to be an English word. If you don't, it should be in a lang template, not just in italics.
  • Mea culpa, you mentioned that at the last one -- done.
• What's "a fighter sector course"?
  • "fighter sector training course" do it for ya?!
• "to take charge of No. 73 Wing. The wing's combat units consisted of two P-40 Kittyhawk squadrons and a Supermarine Spitfire squadron." ... "Steege led No. 73 Wing on garrison duty at Los Negros, commencing in March 1944. The wing's combat squadrons—Nos. 76 (Kittyhawks), 77 (Kittyhawks) and 79 (Spitfires)". Seems a little repetitive for consecutive paragraphs.
  • I get you and wasn't entirely happy with it myself. My preference would've been to put the squadron numbers and their aircraft types in the first para and just the squadron numbers in the second, but it's a bit difficult to reconcile exactly which squadrons were there at the start. It was definitely 76 (Kittys) and 79 (Spits) but the third could've been either 77 or 78 (both Kittys) as a bit of unplanned swapping around occurred at the time. I'll have another read and see if I can make it any better...
• "Steege was appointed the RAAF's director of operations in February. In December 1946 ..." → 'Steege was appointed the RAAF's director of operations in February 1946. In December ...'
  • Actually I don't think we even need 1946 for February as we mention the year shortly before so removed entirely.
• "Steege had posted in to Japan in May". Possibly just 'to', or 'into'? And why "had" rather than 'was'?
  • The "had" because we'd backtracked a few months in the timeline, but see what you think of my rejig...

I don't understand why you're not sticking to chronological order, but whatever; it works well enough for a time-hopping pargraph.

• "squadron was relegated". Seems PoV, I assume it is solidly sourced?
  • Well both refs are by official historians (though the works themselves are not official histories) and I think "relegated" reflects what they say about an ostensibly air-to-air combat squadron being used in purely defensive tasks. Apparently there was even talk of evicting the squadron from Kimpo because the Americans only wanted units there that were engaged in offensive roles.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Tks Gog! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I am going to leave you with the "a Luftwaffe contingent under General Erwin Rommel" thought and support. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Tks Gog, reworded that along one of the lines you suggested, and re-jigged/clarified the 73 Wing fighter squadron situation. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Image review

Despite my consistent insistence that I am unversed in the art of Wikipedia images, in this particular case, I believe the article passes the image review. If someone could verify that for me, I would greatly appreciate it, but I do believe that everything appears to be in order. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Unlimitedlead, it all looks good to me too. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Tks guys! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

SC

Marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 13:15, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Middle East

• "the London Gazette should really be "the London Gazette
  • Done.
• "Four days later, No. 3 Squadron re-located to Sidi Haneish, Egypt, having retreated 500 miles (800 km) and operated from nine airfields in ten days." Someone is going to refer to the consistency part of WP:NUMBERS, so it may as well be me...
  • Done (good 'ole MOS)... ;-)

More to come. - SchroCat (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• Tks for those so far Schro... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Just four more from the rest:

Korean War

• "Tait had a daughter": Maybe "Joan" here, as the last Tait mentioned was Frank
• "Steege himself flew few missions" ->"Steege flew few missions"?
• "Convair 440 Metropolitains": sp? Wasn't it "Metropolitan"?
  • Tks, all done.

Sources

• It's not part of FAC and you are under no compunction to do anything, but if you add |ref=none to your sources, then those of us with a script installed won't see an error message. No probs if you don't though!
  • Not a prob, done.

Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Tks again Schro! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support Nice work, as always! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Appreciated! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720

Non-expert prose review.

• No concerns with the prose.
• Spot-checked the lede and infobox and the information is cited in the article.
• Suggest archiving the refs
  • Heh, I find the archiving bot a bit all-or-nothing but you're right, on balance it's a good idea, especially as the beloved Australian government sites make a habit of rejigging their systems every few years -- will do.
• Suggest wikilinking ref 58 to The Canberra Times
  • Nice spotting, I think I had an earlier ref to that paper where I linked but then replaced it with another -- will do.

Those are my thoughts. I can support. Z1720 (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Tks very much for stopping by, Z1720! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Cherry Valentine

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 14:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC) and JuanGLP (talk + contribs) 14:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

This article is about an English drag queen and mental health nurse who competed on the second series of RuPaul's Drag Race UK. The article has been edited and reviewed extensively — following the subject's death, the article received well over 100,000 views, appeared in the "In the news" section, was promoted to Good status, and appeared in the "Did you know" section. I think any major issues would have been flagged by the community by now.

I'd like to think the article meets FA criteria and I'd appreciate feedback from reviewers to get this entry promoted. I'm happy to co-nominate this article for consideration with fellow WikiProject Drag Race editor User:JuanGLP. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 14:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Aoba47

Addressed comments

This is a placeholder and I will either post further comments later this week or over the weekend. I do have a few quick comments below: I do not see a clear reason why the birth date and death date need to be cited in the infobox when both should be presented and cited in the article itself. I see the death date cited in the article, but I do not see the birthday present or cited in the article. Good catch! I've moved the citations out of the infobox. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC) Thank you for looking at this, but I do not think the citations are necessary for the lead either. The information about when Valentine was born and died should be present in the article and cited accordingly so I see no need to cite either of these dates in the lead. From my understanding, citations in the lead are limited to either controversial or highly-contested information and/or quotes. Continuing off this comment, I would put the information on Valentine's birthday in the article, where it is currently not discussed. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC) I see what you mean. Done! ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC) The lead seems too short for the article. I have not read through the actual article itself so it may match, but it is something that jumped out at me so I was curious about your opinion on this? I've added a second sentence. Unless you think gender identity or cause of death should be included in the lead, I'm not sure what other details might be necessary or helpful to readers. Definitely open to ideas! ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC) Thank you for your response. I am not sure yet as I have not read the article in full so I will re-read the lead once I have done that. Aoba47 (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC) For the first line in the article saying the subject's name, (i.e. Ward, as his father had done, was expected to develop a career as a mechanic.), the full name should be used (i.e. George Ward). I am assuming there is no middle name. Done. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC) Drag queen should be linked in the first instance in the article to be consistent with the link in the lead. Done. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC) Was there any reason Ward chose Cherry Valentine as a drag name? It seems like most of the time they provide some sort of explanation for this kind of thing, especially when given a platform like Drag Race to talk about themselves. Good question! But, unfortunately, I've not come across an answer after various Google searches. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC) @Another Believer, I found this source that mentions the "origin" of Ward's drag name, it may help with the explanation: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/uk/rupauls-drag-race-uk-star-george-ward-known-as-cherry-valentine-passes-away-at-28/articleshow/94399798.cms?from=mdr — JuanGLP (talk + contribs) 15:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC) @JuanGLP Great find! Thank you. I'll update the article now. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC) Done. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC) In the citation titles, show titles like RuPaul's Drag Race UK should be presented in italics in each instance per WP:CONFORMTITLE. Done. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC) Gah! @Aoba47: Thank you for your assistance with formatting. I had searched for the text "RuPaul's Drag Race UK" but clearly forgot to also search "U.K." and "Drag Race" in general. Much appreciated. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC) It happens to the best of us. I hope I was not over-stepping by making those edits. It is easy to miss that kind of thing, especially when sources present the franchise title in different ways. I do have one more quick comment about the citation titles. For Citations 31 and 36, I would avoid putting the entire title or whole words in all caps even if the source does it in their own title. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC) Definitely not over-stepping, I appreciate the help. I've fixed citations 31 and 36. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC) I hope these comments are helpful so far, but this is mostly a placeholder as I have not done a a real read-through of the article. It is great to see a LGBT biography in the FAC space, and best of luck with it. Please ping me by this time next week if I have not posted a full review. Aoba47 (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC) Thanks! Happy to continue discussing any concerns or requests you might have. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC) I am glad that I could help so far! Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC) I would add WP:ALT text to the infobox image. Done. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC) I cannot find the infobox image in the source link in the WP:FUR, but I am not sure if that is just an issue on my side. Just wanted to point out that this was not addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC) Yes, Nikkimaria also flagged below. I'm not sure I understand how to fix but I will try again later. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC) No worries. I just wanted to make sure that this comment did not get lost in the shuffle. Thank you for your patience with my review and apologies for the amount of comments. You have done great work with this article and it is solid shape. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC) You mentioned The Vivienne and their Romani heritage in this edit summary. I think this would be worth mentioning down in the "Personal life" section, either in the prose or as an end note, as it does add context to why the prose uses "credited". Without that context, I could see some readers being confused by this portion. I've tried to clarify. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC) For this part (while still working as a nurse, working in children's), I would avoid repeating "working" in the same sentence in such close proximity. Fixed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC) Is there more to add about Cherry Valentine: Gypsy Queen and Proud? I am not only curious about the context directly with the documentary (like the production, reception, etc.), but also context on Ward's relationship with his heritage, like if he was able to reconcile it with being a drag queen, genderfluid, etc.? I've tried to expand on the documentary a bit. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC) I would link RuPaul's DragCon to the appropriate article. Done. (RuPaul's DragCon UK.) ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC) A majority of the information in the tables is not present in the prose. By this I mean, his appearance on God Shave the Queens, all of the music and stage stuff, and their award nomination. This should all be incorporated into the prose. I've expanded a bit on God Shave the Queens, music releases, and the "Good Ones" music video appearance. I've actually removed the stage table (not secondary coverage) and the award table, since the WOWies are presented by production company World of Wonder and I couldn't find any other coverage. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC) Thank you for addressing this point. I would think primary sources would be okay for the stage events, but I could also see an argument about them not being notable if they did not attract secondary coverage. I am not familiar enough with biographical articles so I will leave this up to you and future reviewers. Aoba47 (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC) In the "Television" chart, I do not see a clear reason to need two citations for the God Shave the Queens entry. If more "official" links are preferred, I've removed TheWrap and kept the World of Wonder link. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC) The Vulture citations include a publisher, New York, but none of the other citations do this. I would remove the publisher to be consistent with the other citations, and the Vulture link provides enough context in my opinion. Done. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC) I had some additional time today so I wanted to do at least a few read-throughs of the article. I hope these above comments are helpful. I will likely take a break from the article until later in the week so I can have a fresh perspective on it. Aoba47 (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC) Thanks! Please feel free to take another look when you have a moment. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC) Thank you for the quick responses. I will look through everything above and will read through the article again later in the week. Aoba47 (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC) This may be too nitpick-y so feel free to disagree, but for this sentence (Ward qualified as a mental health nurse in 2015.), would it be beneficial to link "qualified" to qualification types in the United Kingdom for readers outside of the UK? Done. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC) I do not think "love for" needs to be quoted and I believe it could be paraphrased. Done. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC) Ward's appearance in Jodie Harsh's "My House" music video is not mentioned in the prose. I have the same comment for "A Little Bit of Love" and "Stay Here Forever". I've added mention of "A Little Bit of Love" (not specifically that a recording was released but how the cast performed the song). There's not really secondary coverage for "My House" (unless this is considered a reliable source?), but the video exists. Similarly, there's not really secondary coverage for "Stay Here Forever", but the track exists. I suggest we leave mention in the tables but not in the article body as a necessary detail? But, of course, I'll make whatever changes are necessary to meet FA standards. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC) I respectfully disagree as I think that anything in the tables should be represented in the prose. It may not have gotten secondary coverage, but I still think it is worthy of a very brief mention in the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 00:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC) OK! No prob. I've added mention of both. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC) The infobox says Ward died in Hornsey, England, but I do not see that supported in the prose. I do not think specific details regarding Ward's death need to be provided in the prose, with sensitivity to his suicide, but I would still include the city along with a source to support this information. Done. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC) For this part (and Michelle Visage said Ward was) I would clarify that Visage is one of the show's judges. While this may be common knowledge to Drag Race fans, I could see this being confusing for unfamiliar readers. Done. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC) I believe this should be the end of my review. The lead still looks short to me, but I do see your point. I am not sure what else to really add so I will leave that up to other reviews. Once my comments have been addressed, I will look through the article once more, but I doubt I will find anything major. Just to be clear, my comment about the infobox image is different than Nikkimaria's image review. I am not focused on the copyright, but I do not see the image in the source link. Aoba47 (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC) @Aoba47 Thanks for clarifying about the image. You're right, I don't see the image either (User:Meena did the upload, not me). I would be fine if someone just deleted the image so someone could eventually upload one properly. @Nikkimaria: What do you think? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC) I think there is value in having an image of the subject, but we do need to be able to track down where the image came from. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC) Does this tweet (or this URL) work? That's all I can find via Google Image. I am not stuck on this particular image, though, if uploading a different one is easier. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC) I checked on Google, I see some articles using the image: [3] [4], though I believe the first one is just the image but cropped. — JuanGLP (talk + contribs) 03:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC) I would reccomend citing the tweet directly as that appears to be the original source. I am not sure if either of the two other websites are really notable or high-quality by Wikipedia standards. Aoba47 (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC) I've updated the URL at File:Cherry Valentine 2020.jpg. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything and for your patience with my review. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing and supporting. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! @Another Believer, is one of the best users on Wikipedia, that is both helpful and kind. 🎉 — JuanGLP (talk + contribs) 16:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I am glad that I could help. If you would like me to collapse my comments, feel free to let me know. I agree about Another Believer. They are one of the first Wikipedia editors (if not the first) I talked to when I first joined this site back in 2016 and they really made me feel welcome and helped me a lot. Aoba47 (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, both, for your kind words. @Aoba47: Collapsing would be much appreciated, mostly so I can easily see what still needs to be addressed. Thank you! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Of course. I have collapsed the comments so reviewers can still look through them if they would like. Aoba47 (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Cherry_Valentine_2020.jpg is missing a fair-use tag and needs a more expansive rationale. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria Better? Tried my best to fix. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Not there yet unfortunately. Still missing a tag, and the rationale should add who is believed to be the copyright holder, how it (doesn't) compete with the copyright holder's usage, why text is not sufficient, etc. Once you add a tag you can look at other examples of images using it. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what to do here. @JuanGLP: Are you familiar with fair use image tags and rationales? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

@Meena: Putting this discussion/request on your radar, as the editor who uploaded the image. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry if I am not allowed to help, but I have added a fair use licensing template. Is it the right one? Spinixster (chat!) 03:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@Spinixster No need to apologize for helping! I'll let others determine if the template is correct since this is not my area of expertise. Thanks for taking a stab at fixing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead does seem a little thin. Maybe mention his death?
  • @ChrisTheDude: I've expanded the lead a bit. Hopefully User:Aoba47 approves, too. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:38, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
• "George Ward was born on November 30, 1993" - add his place of birth
  • Of course! Done. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
• "As his father had done, was expected" => "As his father had done, he was expected"
  • Fixed. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
• "at the University of Cumbria where he was introduced to Manchester's drag scene" - this gives the impression that Manchester is in Cumbria, which it isn't. Maybe change to "at the University of Cumbria, during which time he was introduced to Manchester's drag scene"
  • Very helpful! Thanks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
• "his fondness of Valentine's Day" => "his fondness for Valentine's Day
  • Done. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
• "Ward returned to work in National Health Service (NHS)" => "Ward returned to work in the National Health Service (NHS)"
  • Done. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
• "and RuPaul's DragCon UK announced a" - a convention can't announce anything, presumably it was the convention's organisers? Also add "that" after "announced"
  • Done. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for reviewing and supporting. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Pseud 14

• After failing to impress judges with her performance -- perhaps you can include a month and year or indicate that the show had resumed after the pandemic for the beginning of the third para.
  • I've shuffled some content which I hope helps with understanding the chronology. She was eliminated in the second episode. Episode 4 the last filmed before lockdown. Filming resumed later in the year. She made appearances in Episodes 5 and 10. Do these changes help? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
    • That reads much better now after the changes. Thanks for clarifying that. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• Cherry Valentine had to lip-sync - the preceding sentence only says she failed to impress the judges in the Rusical, perhaps you can specify that she had to lip sync because she was bottom two or something along those lines, for those unfamiliar about the concept of Drag Race
  • I've added mention of her bottom two placement. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• a documentary show about the tour -- a documentary about the tour (it is already mentioned as a series)
  • Done. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• inquest -- suggest linking
  • Done. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• with donations benefitting "Cherry's legacy fund and mental health charities close to George's heart" -- would it be better if this was paraphrased in straight prose instead of the quotation?
  • Done. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

That's all from me. This was a very good read. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• @Pseud 14: Thank you! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I am satisfied with the changes. Happy to support on prose. If you have spare time and interest, I would also appreciate your input/comments on a current FAC. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

SC

Marker for me. I'll be along shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• Should “Traveller” be capitalised? (I ask from a position of complete ignorance, and only because I read something on the BBC and they don’t).
  • Great question, but I'm not sure. I was following Romanichal and sources, but I'm totally open to changes as other editors see fit. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
• "moniker" is slang, so "stage name" would be better
  • Done. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
• Do we need to use "Cherry Valentine" at every mention? “Valentine” should suffice after the first mention
  • There's some inconsistency here across Wikipedia. I'd say, generally, quality articles about queens use the full name throughout since they don't have "true" last names (examples: Bolivia Carmichaels, Flawless Shade, India Ferrah), and because most queens are actually referred to by their "first" name (example: everyone calls Detox Icunt "Detox"; no one would call her "Icunt"). There are some exceptions, depending on the subject's name preferences and what sources do. When I see sources like BBC using "Cherry Valentine" throughout, BBC using "Cherry", and Gay Times using "Cherry", I tend to prefer not to refer to Cherry Valentine as "Valentine". ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
• This switches between "he" and "she" at various points, and it's not clarified until a bit later when you say "Ward used he/they pronouns when not in drag". It's a bit off to have his early life description, then career, than back to him growing up, being a T/traveller, coming out and being a drag queen. You should think hard about moving the first two paragraphs of Personal Life into the Early life (which is all those paragraphs deal with). You can go straight from the end of his career to his death
  • I see where you're coming from, but I think I disagree, only because these paragraphs in the Personal life section refer to multiple projects mentioned in the Career section. I think it would be confusing to readers to mention Drag Race and Gypsy Queen and Proud in the Early life and education section. If you feel strongly about moving content, I could try taking a scalpel to the Personal life section and relocating the content which describes his upbringing, but leaving mention how the subject's experience relates to their career. What do you think? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

OK. Let me draft up an idea for you in my sandbox - if you don’t like it, that’s fine and you can go with yours, but it may help. What I would prefer is if the question over their entry to drag and the his/hers pronouns be explained before the pronoun is swapped around in the rest of the article. That would avoid the confusion I initially had while reading. I’ll ping you a copy when I’m done, which will be in the morning. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Have a look at User:SchroCat/sandbox to show my suggestion. The moved around bits are in green, just so they're easier to see where they end up. I've cut out some of the bits that are not needed (when he talked about his early life, we don't need to know who he told - that's not important, what he said is the key bit. Other bits sit quite comfortably in the career section. - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@SchroCat Very helpful, thank you. I've made these changes, based on your suggested text relocations. However, I think we might disagree about where to place the following two sentences:

• Described as genderfluid and queer, Ward used he/they pronouns when not in drag.
• As part of the LGBT community, Ward hid his Traveller heritage because he feared he might receive "hate or backlash".

I'm not convinced these belong in the Early life and education section. I understand you're trying to address pronouns earlier in the article's prose, but we should not imply the subject made his preferred pronouns known at a young age. What do you think about leaving these two sentences about gender and sexual orientation in the Personal life section? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• "he said; "Growing" – there's no punctuation needed (except in AmEng) before the quote, but if you want to use something, it shouldn't be a semi-colon.
  • Changed to colon. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
• "Tayce, and Tia Kofi" v "Sum Ting Wong and The Vivienne": you should be consistent with the serial comma
  • Added comma. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
• "Additionally": delete. It’s another paragraph, so it’s obviously additionally, and the word does no beneficial work, particularly at the beginning of the paragraph.
  • Done. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
• "paid tribute to him; these include...": paid as past tense and include as present?
  • Changed "include" to "included". ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

That's it. Not much to pick up on, but the stuff in the 'personal life' section sits out of place for me. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• “Ward died in Hornsey on 18...”: maybe “in Hornsey, north London on ...”, as there will be many who have no idea about where it is? - SchroCat (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  I've changed to "Ward died in the north London district of Hornsey on...". Hope that works for you! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• The citations shouldn't have the language field in them (the documentation says only to use them for non-English sources.
  • Done. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
• "In the episode, Ward reflected on his 2022 documentary about being raised within the English Traveller community called Cherry Valentine: Gypsy Queen and Proud" This doesn't work properly - you're saying the community is called CVGQ&P. It would be better as "In the episode, Ward reflected on his 2022 Cherry Valentine: Gypsy Queen and Proud documentary about being raised within the English Traveller community" - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Done. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

All My Hits: Todos Mis Éxitos Vol. 2

Nominator(s): – jona ✉ 01:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

This article discusses the second installment of All My Hits by the American Tejano singer Selena, which was released five years after her death. As a lesser-known album, I have chosen to feature this specific article for its FA status, owing to the cherished childhood memories I hold of singing these songs on this album with my mother. – jona ✉ 01:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• There doesn't seem to be any structure to the critical reception section at the moment. May I suggest taking a look at WP:RECEPTION for alternatives? While there might be limited album reviews, I would not dedicate one paragraph to one review as this appears WP:UNDUE. Heartfox (talk) 03:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• I revised the section and tried to summarize what the reviewers wrote. – jona ✉ 13:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• "All My Hits: Todos Mis Éxitos Vol. 2 is a greatest hits album by American singer Selena and was released posthumously on February 29, 2000" => "All My Hits: Todos Mis Éxitos Vol. 2 is a greatest hits album by American singer Selena released posthumously on February 29, 2000"

• Done. – jona ✉ 13:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• "expressed his interest in persevering his daughter's memory through her works" => "expressed his interest in preserving his daughter's memory through her works"

• Done. – jona ✉ 13:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• "The album peaked at number one on the US Billboard Top Latin Albums and Regional Mexican Albums chart" => "The album peaked at number one on the US Billboard Top Latin Albums and Regional Mexican Albums charts" (you are talking about multiple charts)

• Done. – jona ✉ 13:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• "The album was the second best-selling Regional Mexican Album" - I would say "....of the year" to make absolutely clear you don't mean of all time

• Done. – jona ✉ 13:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• "Concurrently, the artist was" - I think "At the time, the artist was" would work better

• Done. – jona ✉ 13:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• "The envisaged crossover album, Dreaming of You was" => "The envisaged crossover album, Dreaming of You, was" (need the comma to close off the clause)

• Done. – jona ✉ 13:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• "As stated by A. B. Quintanilla, Suzette Quintanilla," - clarify who these people are

• Done. – jona ✉ 13:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• "to commemorate the label's decennial milestone" - unnecessarily wordy. Just say "the label's tenth anniversary"

• Done. – jona ✉ 13:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• "The rendition of "No Quiero Saber" on All My Hits: Todos Mis Éxitos Vol. 2, originates" - no reason for the comma after 2

• Done. – jona ✉ 13:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• "Initially appearing on Amor Prohibido," => "It initially appeared on Amor Prohibido,"

• Done. – jona ✉ 13:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• "The seventh track featured on the album, "No Me Queda Más" originates" => "The seventh track featured on the album, "No Me Queda Más", originates"

• Done. – jona ✉ 13:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• "cited as her last concert before her death" - why "cited as"? Surely it either was her last concert or it wasn't.....

• It wasn't, but it is universally reported as her final concert. I added a note with a source that clarifies this. – jona ✉ 13:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• "This is followed by "Muñequito de Trapo", originally featured on the eponymous album, represents" => "This is followed by "Muñequito de Trapo", originally featured on the eponymous album, which represents"

• Done. – jona ✉ 13:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• "showcases the re-recorded rendition discovered on Ven Conmigo (1990)" - it wasn't really "discovered" on that album. Probably just say "included on"

• Done. – jona ✉ 13:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• "The album trailed the debuts of Shakira's MTV Unplugged and Los Temerarios's En la Madrugada Se Fue, respectively" - last word is meaningless in this context and should be removed

• Done. – jona ✉ 13:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• "The album unseated Shakira's MTV Unplugged from the top spot of the Top Latin Albums chart and climbed to number 171 on the Billboard 200" - when?

• I added that it was during her fifth anniversary, let me know if it'll be better to just write the date. – jona ✉ 13:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• "All My Hits: Todos Mis Éxitos Vol. 2 along with recent releases from Shakira and Los Temerarios, contributed" => "All My Hits: Todos Mis Éxitos Vol. 2, along with recent releases from Shakira and Los Temerarios, contributed"

• Done. – jona ✉ 13:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• Under References, you have a sub-heading of "websites", but some (eg Jasinski, Patoski, Perone) are not websites -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• It was a suggestion during the GA process, but I added back "works cited". Thanks for your review, I really appreciated it! – jona ✉ 13:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The link to the ripped copy of Selena Remembered falls under WP:ELNEVER. Can you justify the use of Smoothvega 2020? --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 15:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• I removed the link and removed the Smoothvega source. Thanks for the comments, much appreciated! – jona ✉ 13:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Me Too (Meghan Trainor song)

Nominator(s): NØ 00:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

This article is about Meghan Trainor's song "Me Too". This song received considerable attention twice, once when Trainor pulled its music video down after allegedly unauthorized photoshopping of her body, and another time when she fell on-stage while performing it on The Tonight Show. It has a simple production and bumptious lyrics which received criticism at the time. Nonetheless, the song has enjoyed enduring popularity and Trainor has continued performing it later into her career. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 00:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Media review—pass

• File:Me Too (Official Single Cover) by Meghan Trainor.png has an appropriate FUR
• File:Jason Derulo 2013 December 1.jpg appropriately licensed in Commons and use seem fine in the article as its co-writer
• File:Me Too (Meghan Trainor song - sample).ogg is 10% of the original song, length is permitted
• File:Me Too screenshot.png has an appropriate FUR and use of non-free image provides visual context of the digital manipultation and is adequately discussed in the "Music video" section.

That should complete media review. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the image review. I really appreciate it!--NØ 19:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Support by Unlimitedlead

• "benefits of her lifestyle" I do not think this is reflected in the article's body. I can see that it is vaguely implied, but I suggest explicitly saying this or just getting rid of it.
• "...the chairman of Epic Records..." This does not make it apparent that Trainor herself is associated with Epic Records; can you make this clear?
• "Following the disagreement..." Personally I did not understand from the previous sentences that there was a disagreement.
• If Jason Desrouleaux is more well-known as Jason Derulo, would it be beneficial to refer to him as such?

• Changed everywhere except the infobox, where birth names are usually used in the songwriter(s) field.

• Also I think introducing Derulo and Peter Svensson would be helpful.
• Brennan Carley of Spin compared it to Will.i.am and Britney Spears's 2012 single "Scream & Shout": The wording here is somewhat unclear- it could imply that "Scream & Shout" was a song by both Will.i.am and Spears (which it is), or it could imply that Carley compared the song to Will.i.am, and then also compared it to "Scream & Shout" by Spears.
• "Some music critics commented on the production and Trainor's performance on "Me Too"; this has strange wording. Maybe something like this would work: "Some music critics commented on the production of "Me Too", as well as Trainor's performance of the song"
• Link Gap Inc.?
• "Some critics were positive." --> "Some critics were positive regarding the lyrics."
• "This week it appeared at number 4 on the Digital Songs chart..." Which week? The eleventh?

These are all my comments at this time. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the comments, Unlimitedlead! They should be addressed now :) --NØ 19:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I will support this nomination, then. Nice, short, and well-researched. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Source review

• Album titles should be done in italics per WP:CONFORMTITLE so Thank You should be in italics for Citation 4. This is also true for show titles so The Tonight Show and Today should be in italics in the citation titles. Song titles should also be consistently in single quotation marks.

• Should be good now.

• Citations 5 and 6 should have the albums linked.

• I was discouraged from doing this during a previous source review.

• Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Citation 61 has a by-line from The Hollywood Reporter as it was an article that had originally appeared in that publication so I would mark it as such in the citation.

• Done.

• In this case, I would recommend just replacing it with the original publication (here). Aoba47 (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• It seems that a majority of the citations just include the site without the publisher, but Citation 17 includes Andpop and Channel Zero so it is not consistent with the others. Is this done to solidify that Andpop is an appropriate source? Apologies for wrapping a few comments in one, but what makes Andpop a high-quality source for a FA? Since it appears that the site is dead, it is harder to check the primary source.

• I've corrected the formatting error with the ref. Not sure why they went defunct but they had a multi-staff editorial team which included Brittany Rodrigues who has written for Huffington Post and Baltimore Post Examiner and Julia Lennox who has written for Global News and ET Canada so it should be good.

• That makes sense to me. That is a solid explanation for how it is an appropriate source for a FA. Aoba47 (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Has this song been the subject of retrospective reviews? I could not find any, but I have only done a superficial search. I believe we have discussed this in a previous FA, and it just do not appear that Trainor gets this kind of retrospective coverage compared to other artists.

• Added.

• Apologies in advance as this does not technically fall under the scope of a source review. Would it be possible to trim down or consider the paragraph on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon performance? I am not sure four separate sentences on the reviews are necessary for instance as they could be bundled for the overview sentence and one or two examples given. An example of possibly excessive details are (in a green and black sequin dress and high heel) or an overly wordy part (was accompanied by a backing band which gave the performance a big rock and roll finish)

• The size of the content included represents the due weightage proportionate to the extensive media coverage drawn by the performance. I believe it is regular practice to briefly note what someone wore during a performance if this was covered by sources and the removal of anything else will be detrimental to readers. You are right in pointing out that this falls more under the scope of a prose review, though.

• Fair enough. I do remember that this was one of the main discussions around the song (this and the edited music video) and I still do see discussions on both cropping up periodically so I think that is a fair point. I will leave this matter up to other reviewers. Aoba47 (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I hope this source review is helpful. I will do a deeper dive in the sources to make sure all the information matches and is supported once my above comments have been addressed. I hope you are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Aoba47! Hope you are having a great week as well.--NØ 11:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• I will look through the sources again later today. I do not imagine I will find anything major. Thank you for the responses to everything! Aoba47 (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Citation 13 uses this link, which does not go to the actual article, and I would replace it with the following link instead. The current link leads to a "Listen to this article" audio file and an image, but not to the actual article.
• Citation 14 requires a subscription so it should be marked as such in the citation. The same comment applies to Citations 26, 30, 32, 33, 34, and 72.

Once all the above comments have been addressed, this will pass my source review. I hope you have a great weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a ton for the help. Everything should be taken care of. I will note that I am able to access ref 72 without a subscription, though.--NØ 12:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. This FAC passes my source review. Aoba47 (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Heartfox

• "Some music critics commented" → it's okay to just write "Music critics commented". Unless it says "All music critics commented", it is already implied that some did.
• "blamed it for Trainor's commercial decline" → a footnote or further explanation would be helpful here; this is the first time I'm reading anything about a commercial decline
• "MTV News's Madeline Roth admitted all listeners may not fully related to the lyrics of "Me Too", but "its dance-friendly beat will at least have you on your feet"" → this doesn't fit in with the introductory sentence "Some critics were positive regarding the lyrics"

• I believe the point this review conveys is that the song's unrelatable lyrics did not completely ruin it, so I think it is appropriately placed. I've tried to amend the introductory sentence a bit to reflect this better.

• "During the same week, it appeared at number" → are these its peaks or just a random week?

• Switched to peaks now.

• "during the smooth performance" → feels a bit POV-ish
• Argentina, Israel, Latvia ref needs trans-title and language parameters
• release history table needs row scopes and headers
• Google Play is in German—this supports a US release date?

• Good catch. Surfing through different web archives of this link proves the digital download was available in various countries.

Great work! Heartfox (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful comments, Heartfox. Hopefully they have been satisfactorily addressed.--NØ 21:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Support :) Heartfox (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude

• "She initially recorded doo-wop songs in a similar vein as her debut single" => "She initially recorded doo-wop songs in a similar vein to her debut single"
• "Jada Yuan of Billboard believed it delicately forwarded Trainor's retro image to a more urban R&B style" - I'm not sure "forwarded" is the right word here. Maybe "shifted Trainor's retro image towards"....?
• "Hazel Cills opined the pulsating" => "Hazel Cills opined that the pulsating"
• "Chuck Campbell opined Trainor's sass" => "Chuck Campbell opined that Trainor's sass"
• "MTV News's Madeline Roth admitted all listeners may not fully related" => "MTV News's Madeline Roth admitted all listeners may not fully relate"
• "Rolling Stone wrote she sang with unanticipated ardour" => "Rolling Stone wrote that she sang with unanticipated ardour" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• @ChrisTheDude: - all done -- NØ 13:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Support by Lee Vilenski

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede

• In It, Trainor asserts her confidence in her looks. - you don't need the first "her". Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• Trainor's confidence in it was not genuine - maybe Trainor's confidence was disingenuous. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• Isreal having it as a number one (where it wasn't elsewhere) might be relevant. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• It was number one on Israel's TV Airplay chart, which is different than the national record chart and probably not lead-worthy.

• which has a meta concept - what does this even mean to a reader? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• She reprised it on television shows - presumably the song, not the fall? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Prose

• A fan of his project Wallpaper, Meghan Trainor began co-writing songs with producer Ricky Reed -considering a wallpaper is something that already exists, maybe reword to make it a bit easier to read Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• "You don't have your bullet. You don't have that big song." - does this quote add anything not in the prose/ Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• When Reid heard it, he jumped up and said "That's what I'm talkin' about!", playing it 29 times in succession - seems a bit overkill. Can easily just say he liked it, or that he thought the style was what was required.Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to keep this quote as Reid's extreme appreciation of that song was highly influential on the creation of "Me Too", and it's best conveyed with the quote.

• "Who's that sexy thing I see over there?", referring to her own reflection in the mirror.[19] She thanks God for waking up with a positive feeling and declares that she cannot help but love herself.[20] In the chorus, Trainor sings: "If I was you, I'd wanna be me too".[ - quotes should follow the same sentence structure as the rest of the sentence, so they shouldn't start with a capital unless they start a sentence in our prose, even if the original does. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• She assumes an Eastern European accent during the lyric, pronouncing the word "wanna" like "vahna" - I have a bit of an issue with this. The source is more derising of the track, suggesting that the songwork is poor, rather than her intentionally using an Eastern European accent (it's also a bit off, because I'd suggest they are suggesting it's more of a faux-Russian accent, rather than say an Estonian, Polish or Moldovan one). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• I have now attributed the accent to the critic more clearly and put it in quotes. We do have to stick to the source so I don't belive it would be appropriate to refer to it as anything other than "Eastern European" in the article.

Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:09, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Hey Lee Vilenski, I believe the comments should be addressed now. Cheers!--NØ 11:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Pseud 14

Article is already in great shape overall, just a few very minor comments:

• Minor nitpick - in a similar vein is a MOS:IDIOM, perhaps it can be specified
• Same with go back to the drawing board
• at number 13 on the chart in its 11th week of charting. -- perhaps a full stop at 11th week. So chart isn't repeated.
• Perhaps a variation of the use of "reprise" in the second paragraph of the Live performances section to avoid repetition

I have not read the other editors' comments so apologies if there are repetitions/overlaps. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you so much for the prose review, Pseud 14. I have implemented your suggestions into the article.--NØ 11:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Support on prose. If you have spare time and interest, I would also appreciate your input/comments on a current FAC. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Angeline Quinto

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

After a brief break from tackling BLPs and focusing on other music related FACs, I've decided to start working on another Filipino singer. Angeline Quinto began her career after winning a reality talent competition around ten years ago. Since then she has released several albums and has recorded material which has been featured as soundtracks of various films and television series in the Philippines (at least 35 combined), earning her the nickname "Queen of Teleserye Theme Songs". She ventured into acting and has received praise and accolades for her work on film and television. Constructive criticism, in any form and from anyone, will be appreciated. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Image/media review

• File:Angeline Quinto at Barrio Fiesta in UK in April 2014 (cropped).jpg has a clearly defined purpose in the article as the infobox image. The source and author links work, and I appreciate the archive for the source link. The image has appropriate WP:ALT text. I always prefer to add more context (i.e. the location/event) to image captions like these, but FAs like Jennifer Lawrence do not do so, and this should be fine then.
• Are there any other images you can use in this article? It appears that this is the only image of Quinto on Wikimedia Commons.

I found the existing image from Flickr and it appears to be the only image that is licensed to be uploaded to Commons. None I could find exists elsewhere unfortunately. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I understand that. Thank you for looking into it. I am the worst at finding these kinds of images so I am sorry for not being much help in providing advice on how to get other free-use images. Aoba47 (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Do you think it would be helpful to add an audio sample to the "Musical style and themes" subsection? It is not a requirement by any means, and it is encouraged to keep non-free media usage to a minimum, but it may be helpful to add an audio sample to illustrate something about her musical style that cannot be conveyed through the prose alone. I could see justification for a sample to illustrate either her soulful singing style or her vocal range. FAs like Mariah Carey have done this kind of thing. Again, it is just a suggestion though so feel free to say no to this.

I've thought of adding it before but was also hesitant because non-free use should be minimal. Nevertheless, I agree with your suggestion, and felt it would be helpful to include, I have added in the appropriate section for your review/comments. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the sample. I can understand your hesitancy, and it can be a pain in the neck to upload an audio sample. I have two quick comments about the caption. In this part, (Quinto has been praised for her range), I would clarify who is doing the praising (i.e. critics, fans, etc.) as it is not immediately clear. I would also attribute the "soulful renditions" quote as I would avoid using quotes without direct attribution in the prose. I have made some minor edits to the sample, and feel free to revert any you disagree with, and while working on the two comments above, I would be aware of presenting this information in a concise manner since this is a caption after all. Aoba47 (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thanks for your edits. I have revised the first part of the caption completely so that it is consistent with what is in the prose. Let me know if the changes look ok. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks appropriate to me. Thank you for the update. Aoba47 (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I hope this review is helpful. This FAC passes my image review as everything is appropriate with the current image, but I do have questions on whether other images or even an audio sample would be beneficial to include in this article. However, that does not hold back my image review. If other things are added, let me know so I can review them. Unfortunately, I will not have the time to do a full prose review, but I still wanted to contribute to this FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Aoba47 for always being so helpful with your reviews whether image/media or prose. They are very much appreciated. I have addressed your points above. Let me know if you have additional comments with the change(s) I did/added. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the very prompt responses. I have a few comments about the audio caption, and once they have been addressed, I will be more than happy to pass this review. Aoba47 (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. This passes my image and media review. Aoba47 (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720

Non-expert prose review.

• "It was supported by the single "Patuloy Ang Pangarap", which earned Quinto an Aliw Award for Best New Artist." Did the single win the award, the album or the artist?

I have revised the lead to avoid the ambiguity. I believe the artist themselves is credited for the award for their body of work, which in this case is the album. (hopefully I made sense)

• "She followed this by playing the lead in the drama series Kahit Konting Pagtingin (2013)," -> "She then played the lead in" to reduce the number of words.

Done

• "She has discussed her family background publicly; she was initially resentful at being adopted during her early childhood. She later shared a close bond with her adoptive mother, who died in 2020, and credited her as instrumental to her achievements." I don't think this first part of the sentence is necessary. I suggest: "She was initially resentful at being adopted during her early childhood, but later shared a close bond with her adoptive mother and credited her as instrumental to her achievements."

Done as suggested.

• "Quinto developed an interest in music and began singing at age six." If she is singing, she is probably interested in music so I suggest, "Quinto began singing at age six."

Done

• "and got involved with the wrong crowd," This is an MOS:IDIOM; I suggest that this be made more specific.

Revised, hopefully "negatively influenced by her peers" is a much clearer and more specific explanation.

• "Quinto went on to win the competition on February 20, 2011 at the Ynares Center in Antipolo." -> "Quinto won the competition on February 20, 2011, at the Ynares Center in Antipolo." To reduce the number of word and added a comma after the year per MOS:DATECOMMA.

Done

• "In 2013, Quinto took on a starring role in the romantic comedy series Kahit Konting Pagtingin." -> "In 2013, Quinto starred in the romantic comedy series Kahit Konting Pagtingin." To reduce the number of words

Done

• "From October 29, 2021 to February 19, 2022," Comma after 2021 per MOS:DATECOMMA.

Done

• "Alwin Ignacio writing for the Manila Standard appreciated Quinto's artistic growth and commended the "emotional commitment and truthfulness" of her performances." Add commas after Ignacio and Standard.

Added

• "Quinto will next star alongside Alex Gonzaga in the comedy film Single Bells, which will premiere at the Metro Manila Summer Film Festival in April 2023." Remove "next" per MOS:CURRENT

Removed

• "Quinto said of the comparison, "She has been my idol for so long, of course, it would show in my performance. But I always try to do things with my own touch. I am a performer, I have my own style. Maybe because people also associate me with my idol, so that is what they see. -> The closing quotation mark is missing.

Added missing quotation mark.

Those are my thoughts. Please ping me when the above have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for taking up this review Z1720. I have actioned all comments above. Do let me know if there's anything I may have missed. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

My comments have been addressed. I can support. Z1720 (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and support Z1720. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Support Comments by DWB

• This isn't a necessity as I don't know the rules for BLP articles but would there be any benefit in changing "Angeline Quinto (born November 26, 1989) is a Filipina singer, actress, and television personality. She is known for her vocal range and soulful singing style. " to "Angeline Quinto (born November 26, 1989) is a Filipina actress, television personality, and singer known for her vocal range and soulful singing style."? I imagine there are rules that her most notable career goes first though.

I believe that would be correct per MOS:ROLEBIO

• Maybe as an alternative: "She is known for her vocal range and soulful singing style. Her music has garnered critical praise for its lyrical content and themes of love, heartbreak, and empowerment." could be changed to "Known for her vocal range and soulful singing style, Quinto's music has garnered critical praise for its lyrical content and themes of love, heartbreak, and empowerment."?

Done as suggested

• Instead of "2010–2012: Star Power and Born to Love You" is it worth changing it to "2010–2012: Star Power and acting debut" or something similar? As an uninitiated I assumed Born To Love You was another album, I know it's mentioned in the lead but I'd forgotten by this point.

I have changed per your suggestion, as it does make sense since this section covers her acting debut on film and television.

• You alternate between naming Raquel Velasquez fully and by surname, you should only have to mention her full name on her introduction unless dealing a second person of the same surname.

Done. Full name on first instance and surname in the succeeding mention.

• There are a lot of short sentences here "In 2020, she began a relationship with former casino dealer Nonrev Daquina.[87][88] In December 2021, the couple was reported to be expecting their first child together.[89] On April 27, 2022, Quinto gave birth to their son.[90] They became engaged in September 2022.[87]" I feel like it could flow better, a suggested alternatve is "Quinto began a relationship with former casino dealer Nonrev Daquina in 2020. Their first child together, a son, was born on April 27, 2022." This is a suggestion, the kid is born so I don't know how much value there is in knowing it was reported in December.

Done as suggested

• There's a duplicate link at "lwin Ignacio, writing for the Manila Standard"

Removed duplicate link

• Are there any appropriate portals that can be added to the end of the page?

Added a biography and Philippine portal at the bottom

These are some ideas, BLPs aren't my wheelhouse but these are what stand out to me. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for taking up this review Darkwarriorblake. I have actioned and provided my responses to your comments. Let me know if I may have missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Good job Pseud, I will support based on what I can see, it's a relatively brief article so there wasn't much to comment on. Again as I don't really deal in BLP articles I don't know if there are standards beyond quality, but I think the prose and layout is of a sufficient standard and it is well referenced and archived. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 17:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Much appreciate your time in providing the review and thank you for your support Darkwarriorblake. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• "She was initially resentful at being adopted during her early childhood" - shouldn't we mention that she was adopted before saying she was resentful at it happening?

Tweaked as suggested, so that she is mentioned as being adopted by her grandaunt first. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• "she contemplated of pursuing " => "she contemplated pursuing "
• "for the soundtrack the romantic comedy film" => "for the soundtrack of the romantic comedy film"
• "her patron's fiancée, played by Ahron Villena," => "the fiancée of her patron, played by Ahron Villena,"
• "but praised the casts' performances" => "but praised the cast's performances"
• "or its use of certain dialogues" => "or its use of dialogue"
• "Quinto named several Filipina singers, including Jessa Zaragoza and Jolina Magdangal, as inspirations" => "Quinto also named several other Filipina singers, including Jessa Zaragoza and Jolina Magdangal, as inspirations"
• "Early in her career, critics have likened" => "Early in her career, critics likened"
• That's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks for your review ChrisTheDude. I have actioned the above. Let me know if I may have missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your review and support ChrisTheDude Pseud 14 (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

James Madison

Nominator(s): ErnestKrause (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC) Cmguy777 (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

This article is about the fourth President of the United States James Madison. Its first FAC took place mostly at the end of last year, it didn’t pass, despite having several supports, an image pass, and a nearly completed source review. At the time, Hawkeye had raised the issue of whether the slavery section could be improved which has since then been upgraded and addressed largely by the co-nominator, Cmguy777, of this re-nomination. The current updated version appears stable, with an upgraded discussion of Hawkeye's concerns from the past few months, and ready to continue with the FAC assessment. The current version of this article appears to be at FAC-worthy level and has benefited from several pre-FAC assessments last year from several experienced editors. Looking forward to responding to and addressing the support/oppose comments which are part of the assessment process concerning this nomination for this well-known president. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I added a neutral source to the Slavery section, Spies-Gans. She is a Princeton ulumnis. Princeton was Madison's alma mater. The Slavery section is divided into three parts: History, Treatment of Slaves, and Views on Slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius

I hope to look at this later. I already conducted a partial review of this article late last year, but I stopped after someone added a "neutrality" tag to the article. I will continue where I left off, but I'll also quickly look over the first few sections of the article when I'm done. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Ceranthor

Will focus on slavery section since I previously supported the rest.

• "Madison emancipated one slave, Billey, whom Madison sold into an apprentice contract that freed Billey after seven years of servitude" - I appreciate the effort to make clear pronouns/subjects here, but it's a bit wordy as is  Fixed
• "In 1801, Madison inherited more than one hundred slaves at Montpelier after his father's death.[267][268] Madison brought slaves to the White House while president.[269]" - bit choppy sentence structure wise  Fixed
• "Although Madison grew more dependent on slavery at Montpelier," - how so?  Fixed
• " In 1786, a slave Anthony ran away. Madison's father put a runaway slave notice in a Richmond newspaper. A reward of $10 was given for Anthony's recapture. " - how does this relate to treatment of slaves?  Fixed

Made some minor copyediting changes. ceranthor 21:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I will look into these. I think the slave reward letter let's the reader know slaves were not free even though they ran away. Recapture was not voluntary. I am only going by what the sources say. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I made narration changes to the Slavery section that address the above issues. The Anthony runaway slave sentences were removed. The "dependent on slavery" information removed. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Support on prose. ceranthor 02:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that read through and the edits in the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Allreet

Also interested in the Slavery section, a point at a time.

Slavery > History section:

• Narrative flow and clarity. Abrupt beginning, chronology, and connection between thoughts.

• Added a short preface for adding some clarity and to give more continuity. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• Use of some sources; e.g., book reviews instead of the actual books.

• The Issenberg book is one of the main books, and its in the new preface now in that section. There are more book references in the main article for this topic in James Madison and slavery if any of those would enhance the summary of that main article in this biography. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• I added details to the opener of the Slavery section. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• Connection: I should have been more explicit. The sentence "In 1783, serving as a Virginia Delegate in Congress..." leads readers to think the action was somehow tied to Congress. It's also inaccurate to indicate the action was a proactive step against slavery. Not in the least. It was purely personal and reactive. However, the story nicely illustrates the moral dilemmas Madison faced. Billey (later William Gardner) was given to Madison as a companion when both were young, so the two grew up together. Billey subsequently spent three-and-a-half years (1780-1783) with Madison in Philadelphia. The experience in a free state "tainted" Billey, who tried to escape. Punishment would normally have been in order, but Madison was fearful returning Billey to Virginia might foment rebellion, so he sold him into an indenture contract (under Pennsylvania law slaves could not be sold to new masters). Later, after Billey completed his indenture and was freed, Madison hired him as a business agent, as did Jefferson. I have sources on all of the above and am working on a condensed version.

• I have no problems with changes being made. I agree with your assessment. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• Changes have been made. Please let me know whether more references need to be added. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• The NY Review of Books source requires subscription. Most details on Billey: Broadwater pp 187-189 and Feldman pp 51-52. Capture and indenture: Brant p 56. Letter to his father on the incident: Founders Online. Allreet (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• Changes made to the introduction. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  • Details on Montpelier in the intro para and first para are redundant. Something on the economics and culture in the South and Virginia might be better as a general opening. Slavery had been part of the country's social fabric for well over a century by the time of the Revolution. Allreet (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

    I removed redundant information and added detail on Southern slave plantation society. Spies-Gans (2013) was the source. I used French (2001) as a source for information on Billey taken from the William Gardner (former slave) article. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Slavery > Treatment of Slaves

• Taylor's quote describing Madison as "garden variety" is somewhat offensive. Better would be to describe what that might mean using the content referred to in the same sentence: "According to the memoir of Paul Jennings, a former slave at Montpelier, Madison never showed anger with or struck a slave and never permitted one to be whipped.—Paul Jennings, A Colored Man's Reminiscences of James Madison, p. 15. Jennings's observation is also mentioned in Broadwater, p. 189. Allreet (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• Please sign the above comments. I removed the Taylor quote. I am not sure it is good to use first-hand primary sources. I don't think we know completely how slaves were treated at Montpelier. How did Ambrose or Madison Sr. treat the slaves at Montpelier? Madison had complete control of Montpelier after 1801. Madison was also away from Montpelier for extensive time periods after 1801 while Secretary of State and President. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, I think we are getting into unchartered territory on slave treatment. Jennings was brought to the White House at age ten. He may have been referring to Madison's treatment of slaves at the White House. Also Jennings was a household slave at Montpelier, Madison's footman, not a field slave. All we want is to get Madison to pass the FAC Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Cmguy777: I was about to add the White House when I saw your comment. Jennings was with Madison at both the White House and Montpelier, so he was writing about Jefferson for the entire period he knew him and he was referring to all slaves under Madison's care during that time. And if the memoir won't do as a source, Broadbent relates what Jennings said and he supports the words I used. Allreet (talk) 02:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Please add your information. I would also add when Jennings wrote his memoir, his position as Madison's footman, and the time frame he was with Madison. This gives the reader more historical context. I have no issues adding the information to the Madison or Madison and slavery articles, possibly both articles. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

To save time I added information on Paul Jennings. The National Park Service was used as a reference. I also added the Taylor reference. I did this in the interest of time. Jennings, I think is a good addition to the article. He seems to be a popular historical figure and I think would add to the reader's interest. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Allreet; those comments are all quality research and I'm thinking which part of Wikipedia's best example of slavery among the Founding Fathers you are following. The best example at Wikipedia for slavery among the Founding Fathers is the 2 FA articles for George Washington and slavery and George Washington. On the basis of that example, then where would you think is the better place for your current edit which you just put forward: should it go on the James Madison and slavery article or the James Madison biography page? ErnestKrause (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

ErnestKrause: Thanks. I was concerned the original text was insensitive (as if some slaveowners weren't so bad). I also think Jennings's description is convincing and that it fits the Treatment of Slaves subsection perfectly—as do Madison's instructions to his plantation's overseer. Both are hard evidence, specific to Madison's views, and not just opinions or general summations. I'd use it here since the subsection is short, and worry about the other possible FA later. Allreet (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Image review - pass

Sixteen images.

• File:James Madison(cropped)(c).jpg,

File:1811, Sharples, James, James Madison.jpg, File:James Madison, by Charles Willson Peale, 1783.png, File:James Madison by Gilbert Stuart.jpg, File:James Madison Portrait2.jpg, File:USS Constitution vs Guerriere.jpg, File:British Burning Washington.jpg, File:Battle of New Orleans Jean-Hyacinthe Laclotte.jpg, File:Tippecanoe.jpg, File:Gilbert Stuart, James Madison, c. 1821, NGA 56914.jpg, File:James madison-Age82-Edit1.jpg - old artworks - okay

• File:Constitution of the United States, page 1.jpg - US government document - okay
• File:Foundation of the American Government by Henry Hintermeister.jpg Copyright expired - okay
• File:Official Presidential portrait of Thomas Jefferson (by Rembrandt Peale, 1800).jpg - old artwork - US government artwork - okay
• File:Louisiana Purchase.png, File:ElectoralCollege1808.svg- Wikipedian generated - okay
• File:MadisonBirthplacePortConwayVA.jpg - State of Virginia copyright - 1971 - okay per discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James Madison/archive1

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Source review - pass

Not my era of expertise. But works cited seem to be of high quality.

• fn 69: Hanover College is the publisher, so no italics  Fixed
• fn 190: The American Presidency Project is the publisher, so no italics  Fixed
• fn 263, 286, 310: Access date?  Fixed  Not fixed Note: reference 263 required a subscription to read. Should be deleted. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)  Fixed

  You can mark it as requiring a subscription. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• Url access marked for all three cites. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• fn 286: Publisher?  Fixed Note: added publisher and year. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
• fn 291: Miller Center is the publisher, so no italics  Fixed
• fn 316: This is the only journal reference with an ISSN  Not fixed Note: unclear how to fix other than remove the ISSN. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)  Fixed

  You can remove it or add ISSNs to the other journals. Just a matter of consistent formatting. I always add them because some other language wikis want them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• Drop isbn for consistency. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• Graeber (2013) is not used; move to further reading  Fixed
• Hamilton (1941) Do not abbreviate the names of US states  Fixed
• Library of Congress. 2003. Location?  Fixed
• Manweller, Mathew (2005) Location?  Fixed
• Suggest moving "Montpelier: The People, The Place, The Idea" to the external links  Fixed

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• Hawkeye, thanks for all those cite comments. I'm thinking that they are all in there now. Ready for next set of comments when they are available. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• Spot checks:
  • fn 294: Source says "one admirer" but does not say "contemporary"  Fixed Note: Where is this issue found in the article? Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)  Fixed Note: "contemporary" changed to "admirer". Cmguy777 (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

    "Historian Gordon Wood commends Madison for his steady leadership during the war and resolve to avoid expanding the president's power, noting one contemporary's observation that the war was conducted "without one trial for treason, or even one prosecution for libel".[294]" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  • fn 79, 112, 138, 294, 314: okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the Source review and Image review here, Hawkeye. Separately, nice comments about Leahy in the other assessment below. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• Issues
  • Books in the Bibliography are still not in alphabetical order (Rijord should come after Reed)
  • Wood (2011) should be after Wood (2009)
  • Last dozen entries are in random order (other web sites etc are in publisher order)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Hawkeye, I've done these this evening and they look like they are consistent now and in order for the 3 items you've just listed. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The very last entry still looks out of order to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Last Cite books moved up to other Cite books above and moved from end of list. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

Resolved

What is "administrative morass" supposed to mean from the lead?  Fixed Note: removed awkward phrasing; reworded sentence. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC) Not sure Washington and Jefferson owning slaves is relevant here.  Fixed Note: removed the comparison of Washington and Jefferson to Madison from the introduction. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC) More to follow later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC) From "Early life and education", who was the classmate from "Along with another classmate, Madison undertook an intense program of study"?  Fixed Note:The classmate was Aaron Burr. He was one year behind Madison at Princeton. Rival debating societies. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC) Height, eye color, and being "congenial in small gatherings" are superfluous details  Fixed Note: Removed eye color and "congenial in small gatherings". I believe Madison was the smallest person to hold the Presidency. Is that too trivial? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC) Note:Information removed. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC) Yes, it's quite minor and can safely be deleted. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC) "never saw battle" → "never battled"  Fixed Shouldn't "republican" from "republican government would be effective against partisanship and factionalism" start with upper case?  Fixed It feels repetitive to have three consecutive sentences start with "He" like the first paragraph of "Ratification of the Constitution" currently does.  Fixed Note: Changed "He" to "Madison" 2x. Every sentence from the second paragraph of "Bill of Rights" (except for its last) starts with his surname. Try to change this up to avoid monotony.  Fixed Ambrose helping with Montpelier management prior to dying in 1793 only needs to be mentioned once (you currently do so within "Early life and education" as well as "Marriage and family").  Fixed The word "affair" within "Chesapeake–Leopard affair" shouldn't have italics  Fixed I feel you've misused "at present" for "believed that blacks and whites were unlikely to co-exist peacefully, at present" when this comes from a someone who died long before the 20th century.  Fixed Note: removed "at present". Overall, this definitely has improved since its first FAC :) SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Following recent revisions, I'll support this nomination. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Gwillhickers

• Weak support at this time. — The slavery section, though generally comprehensive and neutral, could stand to use a couple of points of context, esp since slavery is an otherwise controversial issue, replete with many modern-day distortions that have emerged 100s of years after the fact. Also, the citation convention used in this article is an assortment of different citation formats, with many templates mixed right in with mark-up text.
  FA Criteria 2c requires: consistently formatted inline citations
  Since the greater majority of citations use the SFN format, the others, and there are nonetheless many, will have to be converted to the SFN format. if all FA criteria are to be met. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks Gwillhickers. What "couple of points of context" need to be added to the slavery section? It may take time to get the whole article to SFN. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

They've been added here Much citation work still needs to be done, which I'm currently working on. Overall prose looks fine, with no factual errors or POV issues that I can see. Good work. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no issues with the above context being readded to the article section. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I've logged in this morning to see if any Harvard cites were still in the article to be addressed and they appear to all be consistent now in sfn. Are all the citations now consistent. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I converted two references to sfn format. Added photo of Dolley Madison. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

There are still a fair number of <ref> or <ref name=cite'label> cites that still need conversion to SFN. Nothing that can't be dealt with in a day or so. Not as big of a deal as having statements with no citations, but it is a point of FA criteria that should and will be remedied directly. . -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: Thanks for catching a syntax errror. I've been using the SFN format to keep the citation convention consistent, per FA Criteria. I usually catch any errors as I review a given edit immediately after making it. Thanks for your concern. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Citations and sources in order

@ErnestKrause and Cmguy777: — I believe the citations are all in order now, adhering to one citation convention. When you get the chance, please double check. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

They are not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

They should now be in alphabetic order; it took me about a dozen adjustments and I'm thinking that it is now ok. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks for tending to this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• Modifying my vote to Strong support -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for your edits and your support. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment from Hawkeye7

As a military historian, most of this is beyond my expertise, but I was concerned about the characterization of the proposed amendments to the constitution as "protecting individual liberties". Madison and Henry clashed over the arming of the militia. This was the organization that mounted nightly patrols looking for escaped slaves and put down slave rebellions before they could spread. It was a key part of the organization of a slave state like Virginia. Henry feared that the provision in the constitution that the federal government was responsible for "organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia" also meant that it could disarm the militia, which would cause the end of slavery. [5] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The brand new book by Carl Bogus is intriguing, though its only been out for a few weeks with its publication date from 2023. I'm not sure its fully a part of the established literature and matches prevailing viewpoints, as interesting as Bogus's reading appears on first sight. For example, Second Amendment proponents often cite Madison's close relation to Jefferson and Jefferson's principle of Democracy needing to 'cleanse' itself of its encrustations from time to time, apparently with the use of firearms as needed. Also, Madison as a revolutionary had vivid pictures of Battle of Bunker Hill and the importance of firearms to the rebellion against England. I'm thinking that Bogus offers an interesting perspective, though its not the only one out there in academia. Do you think that Bogus belongs in this article or in the James Madison and slavery article? Possibly, Bogus ought to belong in the Second Amendment article as a close match to his subject matter? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree with ErnestKrause. This specific topic, if it belongs anywhere, would be better placed on the Second Amendment, or other Talk page, esp since the Madison article treats Madison's dealings with the Bill of Rights as a whole in one small section, and doesn't dissect each and every Amendment. Doing so, on a FA nomination page, more than suggests that FA promotion is hanging by this one highly questionable contention. Continued on the Second Amendment Talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

This is a Constitutional concern. It is true slaves had no individual liberties. For that matter neither did women or Indians. It is too wide a subject for the Madison article. I think best to address the issue after FAC is completed. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

The motivations of Madison and the right to bear arms are interesting. There may have been many, including putting down slave rebellions, Indian wars, stop a military invasion. It may take time to sort this out. There are better places to discuss this at a future date than an FA review. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

If the thought was to add some of this to the Madison article at some future date, then that would mean that the FAC was currently underprepared, ie did not cover criterion 1b. I would appreciate clarification on this. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no way anyone can prepare for someone introducing a radical idea that just appeared in a newly released book, one that is not consistent with the multitude of reliable sources on the Bill of Rights.

FA criteria 1b states: "It is comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context." (emphasis added)

This one opinion, from one source, is not a major detail, let alone a "fact". This general biography should only deal with established facts as supported by the greater majority of reliable sources. Once again, the Bill of Rights section does not cover each and every Amendment, and mulling over the 2nd Amendment with this fuzzy idea would only invoke due weight issues involving one fringe opinion from one source. This discussion really needs to be hacked out in a different forum, and if and when it can be considered a "major detail", the idea should be mentioned in the 2nd Amendment or the Bill of Rights article or elsewhere, as again, the Bill of Rights section doesn't mull over the finer aspects of each and every Amendment. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

The issue is neither new, nor WP:FRINGE, but all I was suggesting was removing that characterisation of the proposed amendments. I don't think there is a need to go into more detail about them since they have their own articles, but that being the case, this article requires careful wording. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. What specifically do you want removed? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I see now. You want to remove the "protecting individual liberties" part. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that part can be reworded. Madison sought a moderate approach to the Bill of Rights. He did not want to weaken the Constitution, but he wanted people to have a bill of rights. This is Ketcham's (1990) James Madison book statement: "Madison sought to prevent broad construction of some powers of Congress from encroaching on the rights of the people." p. 290. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I reworded the sentence using the term "rights of the people" instead of "individual liberties". Cmguy777 (talk) 03:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The sentence has been edited and reworded better. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The sentence has been rewritten by Cmguy for the request by Hawkeye and Gog the Mild; let me know if that looks ok? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The sentence was also modified by Randy Kyrn. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I also added the word "broad" as in "broad actions of Congress" which is what Madison wanted to prevent, for example, Congress establishing a state religion. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Ling

• I am not sure how many details we care about these days. Listing all the warnings for the Bibliography and References sections by hand would take like an hour, and it might be wasted time. So how about I do a count, and then someone can tell me which ones we care about?
  • P/PP error? 2 instances
  • Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.) 13 instances. [Some of these may be in Further Reading]
  • Missing archive link 33 instances
  • Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC; 4 instances
  • Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (46 with; 7 without);
  • Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year= 2 instances
  • Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter? 3 instances
  • I think that's all. Maybe I should write a little Python thingie to spit out details quickly. § Lingzhi (talk) 08:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment in the FAC. Can I draw your attention to the instructions on the FAC talk page that says not to use graphics. This includes things such as {{fixed}} as it slows down the loading of the main FAC page. Just use text to mark something as being done please. The main FAC page says the graphics may be removed if they are used, so you may want to swap them out for text. - SchroCat (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Older nominations

Supermarine S.4

Nominator(s): Amitchell125 (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

This article is about R'J. Mitchell's revolutionary and beautiful-looking aircraft, designed as an entrant for the 1925 Schneider Trophy competition, but which crashed during navigation trials prior to the contest. Amitchell125 (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• File:Supermarine_S.4_monoplane.jpg: when and where was this first published and where is the CC tag coming from?

@Nikkimaria: I have thought it easier to replace the image in the infobox (having spent ages trying to understand the correct tag for it). Hopefully this works. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

If the new image was published in 1925, suggest adding PD-US. Ditto the others from the same source. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• File:S.4_being_built_at_the_Supermarine_works.png: where is the CC tag coming from?

@Nikkimaria: I have replaced the templates with what I think are now the correct ones, please let me know if they are now appropriate. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The UK tag now in use requires that you "specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was". The US tag requires a publication date well before the given source - where is it believed to have been published? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Having spent some time looking, I have been to find the information you require, and so have removed the image. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Ditto File:Henri_Biard_and_R.J._Mitchell_in_front_of_the_Supermarine_S.4.png, File:1925_Schneider_Trophy_competition_at_Bay_Shore_Park,_USA.jpg

I have amended the text in the Biard/Mitchell photograph to say that a cropped version of it was published in 1925, so the larger image was available then.

I have replaced the tag and added what I believe is the right additional information. If the licences/information for these images is still not correct, please point me in the direction of someone who can help get them sorted! Amitchell125 (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• File:Supermarine_S.4_(film).png needs a stronger FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Done, please advise if still more is needed. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes please, particularly with regards to purpose of use. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• "he saw the three previous" - sentence starts without a capital
• "The S.4 was the first" - conversely this is in the middle of a sentence so shouldn't have one
• "which created a sensation in the when" - think there's a word missing here
• "The windy conditions had however blown" => "The windy conditions had, however, blown"
• "Mitchell, who was on board that rescued Biard" - again, think there's at least one word missing here
• Don't think all the "see also"s are needed, especially the S5 which is already linked in the prose. They are also all linked in the template at the bottom
• That's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

All done, but the See also section in these kind of articles tends to include a superfluous list of aircraft listed elsewhere in the text (I agree with you that the section wasn't needed). Amitchell125 (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Review by The person who loves reading

• This article is well-written: professional writing.
• This article is comprehensive: contains only major facts.
• This article is well-researched: lots of reliable sources.
• This article is neutral: from a neutral point of view.
• This article is stable: no recent edit wars.
• I have already fixed some little grammar mistakes.
• Support The person who loves reading (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Ian

Recusing coord duties to review... Copyedited so let me know if you have any concerns there. My only outstanding query at this stage is re. The S.5 was given a smaller fuselage cross section, and more streamlined floats, modifications which provided it with estimated increases in speed over its predecessor -- "Estimated increases" sounds odd, generally one would expect a figure to follow this; do we mean it was designed to be faster than the S.4? (Obvious one would think). Then again, why would any increase in speed be estimated only? If the S.5 flew faster than the S.4's highest recorded speed then that would be that, wouldn't it? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Text now (hopefully) clarified. The large number of modifications introduced in the design of the S.5 to improve its performance meant that the effect of a single modification would not have been precisely known, hence estimated. However, the sentence as previously written didn't make proper sense. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Tks AM, I think you've taken care of that concern. I'm leaning support but will await the results of the source review (which I could possibly undertake myself but can't promise) and confirmation the image queries are resolved. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Wood River Branch Railroad

Nominator(s): Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

This article is about a little-known shortline railroad in Rhode Island with a very interesting history. 5.6 miles in length, it opened in 1874 and connected rural Hope Valley, Rhode Island, to the national rail network at Wood River Junction, Rhode Island. In addition to shipments for local residents, the company served a number of mills, a factory, a coal dealer, and a lumbering operation; later, a grain mill became the primary customer. Passengers and mail were also carried until 1927.

Money was always short, and the railroad had some very interesting events as a result - one man became president in 1904 to make sure the railroad kept running so his mother wouldn't be isolated at her Hope Valley home. The railroad was almost abandoned after major flooding in 1927, but a deal was worked out where Southern New England's dominant railroad, the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad, intervened to keep the line going. In 1937, grain mill owner and former speaker of the Rhode Island House of Representatives Roy Rawlings bought the railroad for $301 (not a typo). The company finally came to its end in 1947 when the grain mill and several other buildings were consumed by a series of fires. A few remnants of the line can still be found today. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I forgot to mention I intend to claim this nomination for WikiCup points. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

  Alt text added for all images. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• File:Wood_River_Branch_Wincheck.jpg: when and where was this first published?

  Uncertain, other than in the United States. That's why I used the license for presumed copyright expired where copyright term is life +70 years and the date of author's death is unknown. I do have a beginning and end year for when this photo could have been taken, and the latest possible year is 1896, 127 years ago, when the locomotive was reported as inoperable and never ran again. I cannot envision any scenario where this image is copyrighted still in the United States. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  The life term is not an issue, but the tag also indicates a publication before 1928? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  That's an inherent part of the template on Commons: [6]. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  And I'm an idiot and just realized there's another template without the published before 1928 part. I've swapped to that template now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  There is, but a US tag is needed in addition to that one. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Ugh, I wish I could definitively say when it was first published... this is a bit of a pain. Would PD-US-unpublished work? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Trainsandotherthings: Are you certain it wasn't published before? If not, you cannot apply above license. A09 (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  No, I don't know for certain when it was first published. But I maintain that there's almost no way a >127 year old photograph originally taken in the United States can remain copyrighted to this day. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  What is the earliest publication that can be identified? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  The image is present in "Two Tickets on the Wood River Train" which was published in 2018 and is the primary source for the article. It is stated to be part of the Langworthy Library's collection. I could contact them or pay them a visit to find out more but that could take me a while. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• File:Islandora_16068-Hope_Valley_engine_house_OBJ.jpg is tagged as requiring restoration. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Someone else added that tag unilaterally after I uploaded the image. I don't think it's really in need of restoration, it's not a perfect image but you can clearly see the subject (the engine house). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Support by Lee Vilenski

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede

• Perhaps a suitable link for railroad. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Prose

• Wood River Railroad is bolded in prose... Could we maybe do it in the lede somehow instead? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Wood River Branch Railroad is bolded in the prose for no reason. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Can we state amounts for inflation? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  Will work on getting inflation templates done. I've tried to address your other comments. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  I think I got to them all, but I will give the article a fresh look later in case I missed any that need templates still. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Lee Vilenski:, just reminding you about this review. I know you're working on your own FAC as well, so no rush. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Support from Cyclonebiskit

Placeholder for future review. This kind of article is outside my wheelhouse so some of my comments will WP:AGF on styling and information. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Lead

• Made a minor correction per MOS:GEOCOMMA.
• owner of a grain mill that was the line's biggest customer. – is this referring to the mill or the business owner? If the latter it should be whom not that

  Referring to the mill, which by the end provided 85% to 90% of the line's traffic. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Little of the line remains today. – A specific date is strongly preferred per MOS:RELTIME. The last year mentioned in the body is 2017.

  2017 is the date Karr published the second edition of his book. Kennedy published her book in 2018, so I will use that as it's more recent by a year. I'll make the change later today. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I've stopped being lazy and now actually done this. I also noted that the most recent RIDOT State Rail Plan indicates part of the right-of-way is now used for streets. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Formation and construction

• Residents in the Hope Valley area first asked the Stonington – are you referring to "the Stonington" as a company? I didn't see mention of a company/operator up to this point. You seem to go back and forth referring to "the Stonington" as the line and an entity throughout the article.

  I can see why it might be confusing, but "the Stonington" and "the Stonington Line" were the two names commonly used for the New York, Providence and Boston Railroad, both as a line and as an entity. I modified an early sentence to read "Southern Rhode Island's first railroad was the New York, Providence and Boston Railroad (commonly known as the Stonington Line or simply the Stonington), which opened between Providence and Stonington, Connecticut, in 1837, connecting to New York City via steamboat." Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Early operations

• While upon opening the line quickly began to show a significant operating profit... – The wording feels a bit clunky. Maybe change part of it to "...the line quickly showed a significant..."

  I agree, rewrote this as "The line quickly began to show a significant operating profit, but this was all but eliminated by interest payments on the $57,000 of bonds, totaling $4,000 annually." Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The Waltrus years

• He recalled one instance when he gave a New Haven Railroad executive intent on abandoning the line "some doughnuts, a glass of milk, and let him talk to my mother ... we decided not to abandon it". – The second half of the quote doesn't flow with the first part. I'd suggest rewording to not have it be part of the quote.

  I've taken out the second part of the quote and instead paraphrased. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• The Wood River Branch Railroad was temporarily placed under the control of the United States Railroad Administration with the rest of the nation's railroads in 1917 – Is there a reason why this happened? I'm guessing it's due to World War 1 but this needs to be made more clear if so.

  Yep, the World War I nationalization of the railroads was because the private companies could not cope with the major increase in traffic. Explicitly stated as much in the prose. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

End of passenger operations

• The floods mentioned can be linked to Great Vermont Flood of 1927 (which itself requires a lot of work). I found a USGS report that provides an overview that could be of use, it's not necessary though.

  The problem is that article only discusses Vermont, but it was clearly a region-wide event (I ran into this previously for a different flood and had to create 1936 Northeastern United States flood because no central article existed). I'd much prefer linking to a similar article for this flood event, linking to the Vermont one will confuse readers. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• ...and also asked Richmond and Hopkinton to cancel the railroad's taxes if it could be reopened. – Is Richmond and Hopkinton a company, rail line, two people, or two towns? I'm assuming towns based on later text but it should be made clear here.

  Your assumption is correct, and I've made it clearer in the prose. Trainsandotherthings (talk)

• ...the Plymouth locomotive (numbered A100)... – is this the gas locomotive leased by New Haven?

  Owned by the New Haven. The Wood River Branch couldn't afford to buy it, so the New Haven bought it for them and leased it to the Branch. That's why it was taken back when the railroad closed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Demise and legacy

• ...which paid the company $26,558,75 for the right to salvage the line... – I'm assuming the typo that needs fixing is for $26,558.75 and not $26,558,750?

  Yes, typo on my part. Fixed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Little of the Wood River Branch Railroad remains. Portions of its right-of-way remain extant as of 2017... – restructure to specify the year first before describing its state per WP:RELTIME

  Reworked, the paragraph now reads "Portions of the railroad's right-of-way remain extant in the form of a trail as of 2018, and the abutments and a pier from a Wood River Branch Railroad bridge remain in the Wood River. Some segments of the right-of-way have been reused for streets. A handful of preserved mill buildings that were once railroad customers survive as of 2017." Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Locomotives

• Originally built in 1872, by 1898 Wincheck was irreparable. – was this from wear and tear or accidents?

  Will take a closer look at Kennedy later today, but likely wear and tear; Wincheck was not new when the railroad acquired it. The Hope Valley Advertiser says that in 1898 Wincheck was "in a state of innocuous disuetude, and fit for the scrap heap, these many months" [7]. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Now clarified; Kennedy writes that Wincheck was retired in 1896 when it was inspected and found too worn out to keep running, due to wear and tear. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• The section only details five locomotives but indicates there were ten. I also don't see mention of the A100/1872.

  The funny thing is the numbers weren't consecutive and some were skipped. Cinderella was 6, and then became 9 (allegedly the number was repainted upside down by a painter who had a reference that was also upside down). Gardner Nichols was 1, Wincheck was 2, and Polly was 5. 3, 4, 7, and 8 were never assigned to any locomotives. From 1919 until the 1927 flood the New Haven routinely assigned several different 4-4-0 locomotives it owned to the line as well, with numbers in the 1500 to 1700 range. I will add a paragraph for the Plymouth locomotive today with some details I didn't want to include in the main section of the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I made use of the notelist to point out to the reader that some locomotive numbers were skipped. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Station listing

• I went ahead and reformatted the table to adhere to WP:MOS. I swapped the distance and station listing to improve contextual understanding of the table.

  No objections on my part. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Those are my initial comments on the article. It was a fun read. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit: Thanks again for the review, I believe I've addressed all comments. Let me know if you have any further questions or comments. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

All the changes address my concerns and I'm happy to support. Great work here. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Shooting of Stephen Waldorf

Nominator(s): Harry Mitchell (talk)

London. 1983. A police task force is hunting a dangerous escaped criminal. Thinking they've got their man, they follow a car through the West End. When the car grinds to a halt in traffic, an armed officer moves in to confirm their suspect's identity. Apparently believing his quarry has recognised him, the officer opens fire without warning. Two more armed officers join in the shooting and, having run out of ammunition, the first officer begins clubbing the man with the butt of his revolver. Only afterwards do the officers realise that the man, who survived but suffered five bullet wounds and a broken skull, is not the escaped criminal David Martin but a 26-year-old film editor named Stephen Waldorf. There was considerable outcry in the public and the press. Two police officers were charged with (but acquitted of) attempted murder and the British government rapidly initiated reforms to police firearms policy.

I've essentially rewritten the article from scratch over a few months as part of a project on British police shootings and the development of police firearms policy. It's had a peer review, where @Tim riley, SchroCat, and Mujinga: offered some valuable suggestions, and now I think it's ready for its bronze star but I'm always happy to hear more feedback. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Whoop, whoop, this is the sound of the police. I was in Madam Tussauds with my nan when this happened! Now, how about a map? SN54129 13:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  I wasn't even conceived! ;) Do you think a map would be helpful? A bit like my reply to SchroCat's comment in the PR that the article doesn't focus much on Wadorf—it wouldn't really have mattered if his John Smith and he was shot in Dulwich because it's the action of the police officers and the reforms that followed that make the incident noteworthy. Still, I can try and dig up a map if you think it would be useful. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  Heh :) I was thinking os one showing their respective routes, and where the police joined in, but perhaps we don't have that level of detail? SN54129 12:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Source review

Spotchecks not done

• Don't mix templated and untemplated entries in Bibliography
• Worpole or Warpole? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Nikki, Worpole fixed. The bibliography is all cite book and cite journal; the only non-templated bit is Waddington's chapter, which is the same way I referenced a chapter on Bennerley Viaduct, or have I missed something? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Is there a reason to not use a template for that as well? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Do the templates allow for that? I hate template syntax; I just hate typing out citations by hand even more! @Nikkimaria HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Squires, Peter (2023). "Armed Responses and Critical Shots: Learning Lessons from Police-Involved Shootings in England and Wales". In Clare Farmer; Richard Evans (eds.). Policing & Firearms: New Perspectives and Insights. London: Springer. ISBN 9783031130137. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Image review

No licensing issues found (t · c) buidhe 16:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

If we're trading in ages, I was 31 at the time, so a little more respect from you youngsters, if you please! I could find very little to carp about at the peer review, and after a further perusal I can find no more, except to repeat that in my view the images at the top of the article should be put in reverse order so that Waldorf − the subject of the article − has his picture before that of David Martin. I don't press the point and am entirely happy to support. Tim riley talk 15:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Support by SC

I was also happy at PR and another readthrough shows this is a strong article that meets all the criteria of the FAC. An excellent piece of work. - SchroCat (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Support by SN

I suspect I'm the only one that didn't have to pay to get into M. Tussaud's then  :) fine article. Think I agree with Tim re. pic placement, except I might suggest arranging them vertically rather than horizontally. Cheers! SN54129 15:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• The photo sn't mine, it's taken from elsewhere on the web. If anyone has the skills to change the order and remove the whitespace, they would be welcome to do so. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  @HJ Mitchell: There's now this one, of them swapped around, which looks like this; or this vertical one, which appears like this. See what you think. SN54129 11:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Sticking my oar in, I think SN has done a fine job with the images, though on balance I rather disagree with him about arranging the two pictures vertically: I think horizontally looks more natural. Tim riley talk 11:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Serial Number 54129 thanks for that. I'm happy with either. Pick whichever you like bestor we can have a little straw poll here! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Serial Number 54129 I didn't realise you'd uploaded that to Commons. It'll need to be uploaded to enwiki with a fair-use rationale as it's not freely licenced. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Chris

• "When the car stopped in traffic, Detective Constable Finch" - as this is his first mention, should his forename be given?
• "a third officer, Detective Constable Jardine" - and here?
• "He had served a nine-year prison sentence, starting in 1973 for a series of frauds and burglaries" - I would say this should be either "He had served a nine-year prison sentence, starting in 1973, for a series of frauds and burglaries" or "He had served a nine-year prison sentence starting in 1973 for a series of frauds and burglaries" but not what is there currently
• "Martin escaped his cell and escaped" - maybe change the second "escaped" to "fled"?
• I note that the police officers' forenames also aren't given in the body and they are only referred to as "DC [name]". This seems oddly deferential. I would suggest that their full names be given the first time they are mentioned (assuming we have reliable sources for them).
• "An article in The Independent ten years after the incident, described it" - don't think that comma is needed
• That's what I got. Oh, and as it appears mandatory to declare it, I was ten years old at the time. By the look of things I watched Tales of the Gold Monkey after my tea that evening :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Hi Chris, thanks very much for having a look. I've addressed all your comments excep the one about the officers' names. I've deliberately excluded their first names per WP:BLPNAME, much as with Martin's girlfriend and the car's driver. I don't think it's right that the top Google hit for somebody's name should be a Wikipedia article about a single event they were involved in, especially 40 years later. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support - a valid point about BLPNAME -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Support by Unlimitedlead

I shall never reveal my age, but I can disclose that this event took place at least ten years before I was even conceived. Comments to follow soon, I suppose Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• "The shooting caused a public outcry..." Perhaps this is British English or a personal shortcoming, but the grammar sounds strange to me. I would say "caused public outcry" instead.
  • It sounds fine to me and Wiktionary says "outcry" can be used as a countable or uncountable noun. Tim, does Fowler have an opinion on this? Or do you? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
    • Fowler doesn't mention the word, but in the examples in the OED the indefinite article is usual. I shouldn't find "caused public outcry" jarring or wrong, but I think that, like you, I'd have written "caused a public outcry". Tim riley talk 11:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Do we know Detective Constable Finch's real first name?
  • See my reply to Chris above; I've deliberately excluded per WP:BLPNAME. I included the surnames because it would be too complicated to explain the sequence of events without som way to refer to them.
• "Finch, an armed officer, incorrectly believed that Waldorf was Martin and that he had been recognised" This long sentence can be condensed to be more concise. You could try something like: "Finch, an armed officer, incorrectly discerned Waldorf to be Martin."
  • The sentence isn't very long, and Finch's justification for shooting was the thought "Martin" (who turned out to be Waldorf) had recognised him.
• Also do we know Detective Constable Jardine's first name?
• "The shooting caused an outcry..." Ditto with my first comment.
• "(Martin was known to carry two guns)" You have already said this previously.
  • Removed.
• "The investigation found that the officers had fired a total of 14 shots" I would add "subsequent" before investigation for clarity.
  • I'm not sure tit's necessary (you can't have an invetigation into shots fired until after they've been fired) but it doesn't hurt anything so done.
• Link parliament to Parliament of the United Kingdom?
  • I would consider that overlinking but I'm more conservative in my linking than most editors.
• What are AFOs? This needs to be stated.
  • Not sure what you mean? In the lead we have a smaller number of better-trained officers, to be known as authorised firearms officers and in the body the term "authorised firearms officer" (AFO) became the standard national designation for a for a police officer trained in the use of firearms and both link to the Wikipedia article on the term. Does it need more explanation than that?
• "In a 2023 book chapter..." I think the book should be named, rather than vaguely referring to it as "a 2023 book".
  • I haven't named any of the other books I've quoted from, just the authors and their expertise, so I don't think it's necessary to name this one.
• Peter Waddington is linked twice in the Bibliography section.
  • Not sure that's a problem but he's the only one so unlinked.
• Do we know more about Stephen Waldorf's life? What did he do after the incident?
  • He gave a few interviews (which is mentioned in the article) but other than that he wasn't notable before the incident and he was't notable after it. It almost wouldn't have mattered who the police shot in this case; the incident is known for the mistken identity and the reforms that followed it.

That's all... Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Unlimitedlead thanks ofr your comments! Nice to see I'm not the youngest one here! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I will support this nomination.Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

caeciliusinhorto

As with Tim's and schro's comments from your peer review, I'm struggling to find much to pick you up on for the writing of the article – my minor quibbles:

• "which caused damage to his abdomen and liver" – "which caused damage to" seems unnecessarily wordy to me; any reason not to prefer "which damaged" or even "damaging"?
• "Waldorf was taken to St Stephen's Hospital, as was the other passenger (Martin's girlfriend) who was grazed by a bullet" - I think this phrasing is in response to mujinga's query about the passengers in your PR, but this reads awkwardly to me; I would have suggested simply removing the parenthetical, but in deference to mujinga's confusion perhaps "... to St Stephen's Hospital, as was Martin's girlfriend who was grazed by a bullet"? (Alternatively, you could rework these sentences a little more to something like:

Waldorf suffered five bullet wounds—damaging his abdomen and liver—as well as a fractured skull and injuries to one hand caused by the pistol whipping. Martin's girlfriend was also grazed by a bullet. Both were taken to St. Stephen's Hospital.

• "Finch was returned to uniform" – I had to think about this a little to realise that it probably meant Finch was previously a plainclothes officer; this isn't actually established anywhere in the article however.

Haven't done any source checking yet, but I should be able to get access to a few of them. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Caeciliusinhorto-public/Caeciliusinhorto Apologies for the delay. I believe I've addressed all your concerns but happy to talk about it if not. Let me know if you need any help with source checking; the two journal articles are both accessible via TWL and I own physical copies of all the books. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Caeciliusinhorto-public, 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) 13:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Al-Walid I

Nominator(s): Al Ameer (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

This article is about the sixth Umayyad caliph, al-Walid I, whose decade-long reign represented the zenith of Umayyad power and prosperity, though his direct role in its successes is unclear. His reign is often deemed by historians to be the fruit of his father and predecessor, Abd al-Malik's, long, hard work. Started editing this article in Feb 2019, it passed GAN in July of that year, and I have been working on it periodically since. I believe it is finally ready for FA consideration. Al Ameer (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• Some images are missing alt text

• Added. Al Ameer (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• File:Gold_dinar_of_al-Walid_707-708_CE.jpg is missing a US tag for the coin

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• File:Coin_minted_during_the_reign_of_al-Walid_I_ibn_'Abd_al-Malik_in_Istakhr.jpg is missing tagging for the original work.

• Image removed as superfluous. Al Ameer (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Ditto File:Syria,_Damascus,_The_Umayyad_Mosque.jpg

• Will look into this promptly. Al Ameer (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• I left a note with the author/uploader and will wait a few days or so for their response. If not, I will seek a replacement image. Al Ameer (talk) 03:21, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• File:Arabische_Eroberung_2.jpg: see MOS:COLOUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• A new and improved map is being tackled by Amitchell125 which should hopefully comply with this guideline. Al Ameer (talk) 03:21, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Borsoka

• Indicate the years when Marwan I reigned.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 03:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• ...he gradually restored the dynasty's rule in Syria and Egypt Could the sentence be more specific instead of using "gradually" (for i{xtnstance, "by the end of his reign" or "by [year]/by around [year]")?

• Thanks for suggestion, done. Al Ameer (talk) 03:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• ...with its eastern dependencies... Consider specifying the territories or deleting the uninformative text.

• Revised––basically the Iranian regions. Al Ameer (talk) 03:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Do we know why he abandoned speaking the classical Arabic?

• I have not found any more elaboration on this, including why he abandoned the 'classical' Arabic, than what is in the article currently. Al Ameer (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Unlike his father, al-Walid heavily depended on al-Hajjaj... vs Al-Hajjaj's prominence was such that he is discussed more frequently in the medieval Muslim sources than al-Walid or Abd al-Malik... Contradiction?

• Not necessarily, but I could see what you mean. Decided to scrap the second sentence. Part of it is more pertinent to the article about al-Hajjaj and the rest is somewhat redundant with the Assessment section. Al Ameer (talk) 03:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• ...a desire to install one of his own loyalists, his katib (scribe), Qurra ibn Sharik of the Banu Abs Perhpas "to install his loyal katib (scribe), Qurra ibn Sharik of the Banu Abs"?

• Revised. Al Ameer (talk) 03:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• ...the mistreatment of Medina's pious residents by Abd al-Malik's appointed governor to the Hejaz, Hisham ibn Isma'il al-Makhzumi Only the pious residents were mistreated? If yes, how or why?

• Will look into this further and elaborate. From memory, he persecuted pious men like Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib who criticized the Umayyad caliphs, etc.
  • Done. Al Ameer (talk) 03:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• "The Qaysi" or "the Qays"?

• The latter. Al Ameer (talk) 03:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Who are Blankinship and Hawting?

• Defined. Al Ameer (talk) 03:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Indicate the years when Yazid III, Yazdegerd III, al-Walid II, Ibrahim reigned. Borsoka (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Added. Thanks for the review so far. Will address the two remaining points in short order. Please let me know if any other suggestions. Al Ameer (talk) 03:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Why al-Walid instead of Al-Walid at the beginning of the first sentence of the lead?

• This change was introduced by Apaugasma with the reasoning that the introductory sentence is not a full sentence, hence the Arabic article should be lowercased per MoS Arabic. While I am not sure I agree, I want to give Apaugasma the opportunity to weigh in. Al Ameer (talk) 03:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
  • I was being a bit overenthusiastic there. While al- should only be capitalized at the beginning of a full sentence (so not in titles or wherever there is not a full sentence with subject and verb), this of course is a full sentence and we'd probably better be consistent with this.

  Arabists usually go out of their way to not start a sentence with al- because upper case Al- looks jarring, and the rule of 'only at the start of a full sentence' is actually more a corollary of 'avoid wherever possible'. With all the bold and the introductory parentheticals in the lead sentence one might read the al- here rather as part of a lemma than as part of an actual sentence, which might justify the use of lower case. But as I said, it's probably better to be consistent, so I went ahead and changed it. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you for the explanation Apaugasma and restoring the previous version in the meantime. It might be something to raise at MoS Arabic as well (unless you have already and I missed it). Al Ameer (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
  • WP:MOSAR currently has "Al-" and its variants (ash-, ad-, ar-, etc.) are always written in lower case, also when forming part of proper nouns, except when beginning a sentence. I think that's a good rule to just follow consistently, and I was wrong to try and make an exception to it, even though some RS might do precisely that (see for example [8], where the title (including the lower case al-) is 'reused' as the first word of the lead, even though the convention in EI2 is to make the opening line only render the subject without any predicate, so it's not actually a full sentence). On WP, it's more important to have something consistent and simple to follow for everyone.

  The guideline is tucked away a bit and not formulated in the clearest way, but then the Arabic MoS in general still needs a lot of work. Existing WP practices need to be more fully described, and some of these practices also need to be streamlined better with common practice in RS. All of that then needs to be explained in simpler and clearer instructions. There's a lot to do there, but I think that there are just not enough editors interested in this. In part we also suffer from a lack of editors who are properly familiar with RS in the field of Arabic and Islamic studies, so in a way I'm actually glad that editors with little expertise stay away from creating a strict MoS. It would easily end up enforcing all kinds of things not common in RS at all or downright contrary to common practice in RS. When we get more editors with experience in the field, things will naturally evolve from there. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Introduce Musa ibn Nusayr as al-Walid's governor in North Africa in the lead.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 03:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• The al-Aqsa is attributed to his father by some sources, according to the main text.

• Need to and will amend the main text (and then lead) to elaborate on this. Even those scholars who attribute the commencement of the mosque’s construction to Abd al-Malik credit al-Walid for completing it. Al Ameer (talk) 03:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• I modified/expanded on this now; let me know if you think this portion of the lead still needs to be amended. Al Ameer (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• When did his reign end? The infobox says that 25 January or 11 March although he is said to have died on 23 February.

• Fixed, might add a footnote about different authorities' dating of his death. Al Ameer (talk) 03:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, at least a footnote is necessery if the date of his death is uncertain. Borsoka (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Appears I had a footnote about alternative death dates; I modified it and moved it to the infobox; let me know if better here or in the first sentence of the lead instead.

• I would put the footnote in the main text. I understand, only a primary source verifies the alternative dates of death. Borsoka (talk) 02:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Done, and yes. Since this is a footnote which only mentions that another 'early' source cites slightly different dates for his death, I figure this is OK—but if unnecessary, I have no issue scrapping it. Al Ameer (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• The infobox says that he was buried in Bab al-Saghir, while the main text mentions an other possible place of burial as well.

• Amended infobox for consistency. Al Ameer (talk) 03:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Wallada bint al-Abbas ibn al-Jaz (main text) or Wallāda bint al-ʿAbbās ibn al-Jazʾ al-ʿAbsīyya (infobox)? Borsoka (talk) 03:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Amended for consistency. Al Ameer (talk) 03:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to revert my two minor edits if you disagree them. Borsoka (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks Borsoka. I reverted one of them, the separation of 'Patronage of great mosques' from 'Public works and social welfare' because these two (public works and congregational mosque patronage) are closely linked, the mosque-building being an especially notable part of the larger program of caliphal-driven public works. Al Ameer (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• "See also: Qays–Yaman rivalry" should be moved to section "Balancing tribal factions" from section "Provincial affairs".

• Yes, done. Al Ameer (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• ...which set "a dangerous precedent with de-stabilizing consequences in the future"... Could it be explained, perhaps with examples, in a footnote? Borsoka (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• I clarified per the source that this was unprecedented as far as Medina's governors were concerned and have provided examples in a footnote, per your suggestion. Al Ameer (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• I would delete "with de-stabilizing consequences" because it is not explained in the footnote.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• I understand the claim that Yazid III's mother was the daughter of a Sasanian prince is verified only by a primary source.

• I added secondary sources to back this—the claim, in any case, is traced back to al-Tabari. Another old source, al-Ya'qubi gives a slightly different name, Shafarand instead of Shah-i-Afrid and a different grandfather; but the secondary sources prefer Tabari's version. Al Ameer (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• I understand the sentence about his summer 696 campaign is verified only by a primary source.

• Somewhat. I specified in the citation that this information is from a footnote so the author in this case would be the editor Everett Rowson rather than Tabari. The footnote discusses what other primary sources mention about al-Walid's summer raids in 77 AH (696) and 78 AH (697). Al Ameer (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• Do you have a better map? Borsoka (talk) 02:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Working on it—made a request at the Graphics Lab and might take a stab at it myself if it drags. Al Ameer (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

All but one of my concerns were addressed and the map is not worse than maps placed in many other FAs so I support the article's promotion. Thank you for this interesting and comprehensive article. Borsoka (talk) 06:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• @Borsoka: Thank you for taking the time to review and help improve the article. Your support is appreciated :) Al Ameer (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Funk

• I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 11:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks Funk, looking forward to it. Al Ameer (talk) 03:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• The German map stands out as a bit of an oddity, due to the language and because it cuts out part of the Maghreb. Are there any English, less cropped alternatives?

• To my knowledge, no and we sorely need such a new map showing the expansion phases as this one does, but in English and perhaps with a little less detail. This is not a satisfactory answer, but I am not sure how soon such a map can be created. Will bring it up to the Lab tomorrow or so to see if someone will take it up. Al Ameer (talk) 03:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Link ethnic groups like Arabs, Berbers, etc.?

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• "and replacing Greek and Persian" Link these languages?

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• "These policies effected the gradual transition of Arabic as the sole official language of the state" I wonder if Arabization should be linked anywhere in this article?

• Linked. Al Ameer (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• "Umar had Hisham publicly humiliated" Do we know how?

• All I know is that he had him "stand before the people", without much elaboration, and this was considered a public humiliation. It is also noted that some of the pious folks whom he abused did not use the opportunity to retaliate against him. Al Ameer (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• "and the historian Khalid Yahya Blankinship notes that the army of Damascus, numbering some 45,000 soldiers, were taxed a quarter of their salaries for nine years to pay for its construction." If this is a fact, and not an opinion/interpretation, why does it have to be attributed to a particular historian?

• Good point, revised. Al Ameer (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• "Aphrodito Papryi" Papyri?

• Fixed typo. Al Ameer (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• Any other interesting buildings he sponsored or similar that can be shown in the latter part of the article, which looks a bit empty?

• I had pictures of the Aqsa Mosque and the Mosque of Medina, but since these both look totally different than al-Walid's constructions (unlike the Damascus mosque), I just opted to remove them. Currently looking for an image of the unfinished Umayyad palace/administrative structure built on the southern wall of the Temple Mount. These are attributed to al-Walid and have essentially remained unchanged since. Al Ameer (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support - looks good, and the Temple Mount structure sounds interesting, perhaps there's something unidentified on Commons or Flickr, I'd be happy to help in the search if I can get pointers as to what to look for. FunkMonk (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review and support FunkMonk. Figured to look in the Commons Category of Southern Wall, Jerusalem and its subcat, Southwestern corner of the Temple Mount, which contain photos of the excavated site of the unfinished Umayyad govt palace (dar al-imara) and associated structures. These 4 images, File:Jerusalem (31981248672).jpg, File:Aechaeological park - panoramio.jpg, File:הגן הארכאולוגי ירושלים.jpg and File:Jerusalem SWCornerTempleMount J84v c.jpg are the best I’ve come across so far (all with the benefit of the Aqsa Mosque being in the backdrop). Let me know if you have a preference for any of these or others. Al Ameer (talk) 05:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the first two seem to have the best focus on the structures in question? And perhaps the first one the most? FunkMonk (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Added now. Thanks for the suggestion. Al Ameer (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Cplakidas

Reserving a spot here. Constantine ✍ 06:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• upon the viceroy's direction 'recommendation', perhaps? Al-Hajjaj was powerful, but Walid still formally ruled.

• Good suggestion, done. Al Ameer (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• renewal of the Muslim conquests link to early Muslim conquests here rather than further down? The article does not deal with the earliest conquests, but until the end of the Umayyad period.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• the caliphate's domestic front possibly unclear what is meant here. What front?

• Let me know if the revised language works. Al Ameer (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• During the second half of his reign 'al-Walid's reign' for clarity

• Revised. Al Ameer (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• In the 'Eastern frontiers' section it might be useful to add that leaving the local rulers in power would eventually lead to a near collapse of Umayyad power in the next decades.

• Sound. Revised. Al Ameer (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• In the 'Byzantine front' section, it might be worthwhile to note that the frontier achieved under al-Walid solidified as the Arab–Byzantine frontier until the turn of the 9th/10th century, when the Byzantine reconquest began.

• Had trouble locating a source that supports this. Can you provide one? Al Ameer (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• In 709, al-Walid dismissed Abd Allah ... Qurra ibn Sharik of the Banu Abs is too long, suggest splitting up.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• central religious importance of Mecca and Medina add why this is (e.g. 'as the birthplace of Islam' or 'as the holy cities of Islam', since you mention them as such later on); many people will not know what you refer to.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• The latter was the maternal grandfather who is 'the latter'?

• Clarified. Al Ameer (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• wary of the Hejaz once again developing into a center of anti-Umayyad activity I assume Ibn al-Zubayr's revolt is meant? I would recommend explicitly mentioning it here again.

• Revised. Al Ameer (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• However, Wellhausen doubts that al-Walid preferred one faction over the other add after Wellhausen's observations that this balancing act would not be maintained by his successors, contributing to the downfall of the Umayyad dynasty.

• Great point, done. Al Ameer (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Aphrodito Papryi link Aphrodito, and a typo here ('Papyri')

• Done (needs its own article eventually). Al Ameer (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• During the Third Muslim Civil War is it not more correct to say that this affair helped cause the civil war?

• Yes, revised. Al Ameer (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• The publisher in Ahmed 2011 is incorrect, Prospographica et Geneaoligica (typo here) is the series of the book.

• Fixed. Al Ameer (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

That's it for a first pass. An excellent article, really little to complain about. Constantine ✍ 08:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: Thanks for the great suggestions. Left a question for you regarding the Byzantine frontier. Other than that, let me know if anything else. Al Ameer (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Source review

• McMillan 2011 : page numbers/ranges needed

• The only version I have access to is the ebook which does not include page numbers, unfortunately. Al Ameer (talk) 04:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Powers, Stephan, ed. (1989) : Correct name is Powers, David S. (i.e. Stephen is middle name, not first)

• Corrected template. Al Ameer (talk) 04:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• The Restoration Project of the Masjid al-Aqsa by Mïmar Kemalettın (1922–1926) --> ... (1922–26)

• Fixed. Al Ameer (talk) 04:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Although not specific to this article, I think we should standardize Hawting's name (Hawting, G. R vs. Hawting, Gerald R.) in templates

• For this article at least, it is now consistent. Al Ameer (talk) 04:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Kennedy, Hugh and Kennedy, H. ;)

• Same here … Al Ameer (talk) 04:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• The Works of Ibn Wāḍiḥ al-Yaʿqūbī (Volume 3): Biesterfeldt and Günther are series editors (Islamic History and Civilization). This particular volume was edited by Gordon, Robinson, Everett, and Fishbein.

• Yes; going to have to correct this one in a few more articles. Al Ameer (talk) 04:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Bacharach, Jere L. (1996): pp. 27–44. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

• Pages added. Al Ameer (talk) 04:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Should Hillenbrand, 1994 be before Hillenbrand, 1999?

• Yes, done. Al Ameer (talk) 04:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Do we need page ranges for George as well as Bacharach? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 04:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Hungarian nobility

Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

This article is about a privileged group of people in the Kingdom of Hungary. Between c. 1000 and 1944, mainly noblemen were appointed to the highest offices in the kingdom but the Hungarian aristocrats never formed a uniform class. The wealthiest noblemen held more than one-third of all lands in the kingdom, but tens of thousands of peasant-nobles had no more than a single plot. Furthermore, there was a sharp legal distinction between "true nobles" and "conditional nobles" (such as the "nobles of the Church"). Although nobility was officially abolished in Hungary in 1947, Hungarian noble families still live in Hungary and the neighboring countries. I highly appreciate all comments and suggestions from the reviewers. Borsoka (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Support by Unlimitedlead

Saving my place here. Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• "especially their tax-exemption and the limitation of their military obligations": I think this phrase can go without "their".

• Done.

• "Louis I of Hungary introduced...": Seeing as this entire article is about Hungary, I think "of Hungary" is superfluous.

• Done.

• "Actually" is a strange word to use. I would delete it for better prose.

• Done.

• "The monarchs granted hereditary titles and the poorest nobles lost their tax-exemption from the middle of the 15th century" Two seemingly unrelated topics. Can you either split the sentence or rephrase it?

• Done.

• Link List of princes of Transylvania to "princes of Transylvania"?

• Done.

• "Hungary was proclaimed a republic": can you find an appropriate link for "republic"? I was thinking either Second Hungarian Republic or Hungary.

• Done.

More to follow. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Borsoka Have you seen these? Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I did (and I thanked them to you :)). I think I addressed all of them ([9]). Borsoka (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• "Neither of these two theories are universally accepted" If these theories are not accepted, then the preceding sentence(s) should read something like "According to some scholarly theories".

• Done.

• I find it strange that Constantine VII is referred to as Constantine Porphyrogenitus. I am aware that it is a common name, but I still find it odd.

• Done. (Although, according to my experiences, he is mainly referred to as Constantine Porphyrogenitus when his works are mentioned.)

• Can we use a death template in place of the (d. 959)?

• Sorry, I do not know that template.

• Carrying on with that point about Porphyrogenitus, I do not believe Porphyrogenitus can be considered a surname. As such, if you keep on referring to Constantine as such, I would suggest sticking with Constantine.

• Alternative solution.

• "...two centuries later literary sources mention tents still in use" You have not states previously that tents were used.

• Rephrased.

• In addition to saying when the Gesta Hungarorum was compiled, I would also briefly say that it was.

• Done.

• Personally, I find that the Origins section does not actually discuss much about the Hungarians' origins. A good majority of the section is about other information, such as lodgings and burial practices. As such, I would find another place to move that to or simply create a subsection.

• The section is not about the origin of the Hungarians, but about the origin of the Hungarian nobility. Consequently, the section adds information about the Magyar leaders and their way of life before the establishment of the feudal kingdom. Borsoka (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

More to follow. Unlimitedlead (talk) 13:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• "Actually, as Martyn Rady noted..." The use of "actually" here is too POV/colloquial for my liking. Additionally, the usage of "although" could suggest a contrasting idea, which is not the case here.

• Done.

• Any links for "cavalry"? Maybe just cavalry or Hungarian cavalry.

• "Heavy cavalry" linked.

• "...which enabled their integration" Was this a gradual or more rapid process?

• Done.

• Introduce Otto Győr; his sudden mention is of no significance to a casual reader.

• Done.

• "Unfree peasants cultivated..." The usage of "unfree" is strange to me. Perhaps a synonym could be found; but when I think of unfree peasants, I think of serfs or indentured laborers. Is this what the article is referring to?

• Done.

• " Light-armored horsemen": "Light-armored" or Lightly-armored"?

• Done. Borsoka (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

More to follow. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• Ottoman Empire is linked twice in the lead.

• Done.

• What is the relevance of note 3?

• It mentions two noblemen who built stone castles. I think it is relevant.

• "During the following decades..." I suggest replacing "During" with "In".

• Done.

• "Historian Erik Fügedi" --> "The historian Erik Fügedi"

• Done.

• The article uses "demesne", but then occasionally refers to them as "domains".

• Now demesne is used when the royal demesne is mentioned.

• "This first Diet (or parliament) declared the monarch to be of age" How old was he at this time? And do we know the reaons behind the decision to declare the King to be of age?

• Done.

• "The monarchs could not appoint and dismiss their officials at will any more" --> "The monarchs could not appoint and dismiss their officials at will anymore"

• Done.

• In 1328, all landowners were authorized to administer justice on their estates "in all cases except cases of theft, robbery, assault or arson": What about the latter crimes? How were such criminals dealt with?

• Done.

• "Ladislaus the Posthumous was crowned with the Holy Crown of Hungary, but the Diet proclaimed the coronation invalid." On what grounds?

• Done.

• "Most noblemen adhered to Lutheranism... converted to Catholicism in Royal Hungary in the 1630s" What religion did all these people practice prior to the Reformation?

• Their ancestors were Catholic.

• "reconquered territories": "reconquered" or "regained"? The article did not convey to me that these lands were acquired by military force.

• Clarified.

• Link Virgin Mary?

• Done.

• Introduce Voltaire.

• Done.

• "%" --> "percent"

• Done.

• Latin is linked towards the end of the Cooperation, absolutism and reforms section but is mentioned earlier.

• Done.

• Shouldn't Template:Noble kindreds in the Kingdom of Hungary go at the end of the article?

• Done.

• The title of Lukačka (2011) should be capitalized.

• Done.

• Ditto with Fügedi (1986b)

• Done.

That's all from me. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you for your meticulous and comprehensive review. Please let me know if any more changes are needed. Borsoka (talk) 02:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

That will be all from me; I will support this nomination. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• Maps are illegible at current size, and see MOS:COLOUR

• I resized them. Sorry, I do not understand and do not want to understand MOS:COLOUR because I cannot edit maps, pictures, etc. Do you still suggest that any of the two maps should be deleted?

• You can request help at WP:MAPREQ if needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you for your suggestion. I requested help. Borsoka (talk) 05:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• File:HetVezer-ChroniconPictum.jpg: source link is inaccessible

• Changed.

• File:Hungary_13th_cent.png is tagged for factual accuracy and the source appears questionable - it seems to have copied the image from somewhere (which would make the tagging incorrect) but not clear from where

• Deleted and a new map added.

• The source for this new map also appears questionable. Where is it taken from? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• I think it is a reliable source ("taneszközök" means "material for teaching" in Hungarian) Borsoka (talk) 05:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Added two more sources. Borsoka (talk) 06:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• File:Hunedoara_castle.jpg needs a tag for the original work.

• Changed. I do not understand your reference to "a tag for the original work". Could you add a link to such tags?

• Ditto File:PM_139782_RO_Kemeny.jpg

• I do not understand your reference to "a tag for the original work".

• This is a photograph of a architectural work. The image has a tag reflecting the copyright of the photograph, but is missing one for the architectural work. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• I deleted the picture. I am unable to deal with these issues with photographs and architectural works. Borsoka (talk) 05:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• This applies also to File:Castelul_Huniazilor_-_panoramio.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: where can I find the tag reflecting the copyright for the architectural work here ([10]), and here ([11]) (both from recently promoted articles)? Borsoka (talk) 03:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• This is only a requirement for places like Romania which do not have freedom of panorama; in places like the UK, conversely, their FOP laws mean that only the photographic copyright needs to be considered. This is why I did not request such a tag for File:Lockenhaus_-_Burg_(2).JPG in this article: it is located in Austria which has FOP for architecture. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• What about this picture ([12])? It is one of the "Winners of Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in Romania". Borsoka (talk) 04:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Should you wish to use that image in this candidate, it will also need tagging improvements. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• In this case, I do not want to use it. That the winner of a wikipedia competition cannot be used in wikipedia indicates that something is basically wrong with the competition. I added new pictures ([13], [14], [15], and [16])Borsoka (talk) 05:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• The second and third of these will need date/place of publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• The second case is fully addressed. The date of publication of the third picture is mentioned in the file. I added a source for the picture. Borsoka (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• I don't see a publication mentioned in either source - can you elaborate on where these were published? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• The place and date of publication is mentioned on the second picture. The date of publication is mentioned in the file of the third picture (c. 1915). Borsoka (talk) 02:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Do you have a source for these claims? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• In the first case (Batthyányi) yes, the picture itself. In the second case (Almásy), no, I do not have source, but it is quite obvious that Almásy is younger than 30, so the picture must have been taken before 1925. I added two new pictures ([17], [18]) Borsoka (talk) 04:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC) And added a third picture ([19]) as well. Borsoka (talk) 04:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• You can look at the picture itself and use markers such as the apparent age of the subject to make assumptions about when the picture was created. This is not the same as being able to say when it was published. Images can be published long after they were taken, or not published at all. Can you identify publication of those two images? File:Baroness_Emma_Orczy_by_Bassano.jpg will need that as well, and per the tag on it "please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was". Nikkimaria (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• 1. Inscriptions on Batthyány's picture say that it was published by Károly Ostermann (Kiadja Osterman Károly) and printed by the Brothers Pollák in Pest 1867 (Nyomt. Pollák testvérek Pesten 1867-Nyomt. is an abbreviation for Nyomtatva /"printed"/) . 2. The source link at Emma Orczy's picture says that it was taken at Bassano Ltd but does not name the photographer. The same link also informs us that the picture was given by Bassano Ltd to the National Portrait Gallery in 1974. Can we conclude that 1974 is the year of publishing? The link also indicates that the picture can be used and shared. Borsoka (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• File:Stibor.jpg: which tag is believed to apply to the photo?

• Sorry, I do not understand your note, so I deleted the picture.

&File:Paul_I,_1st_Prince_Esterházy_of_Galántha.jpg: when and where was this first published?

• I do not know. Why is it interesting? Changed. Borsoka (talk) 06:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• File:Emperor_Franz_Joseph_I-Gyula_Benczur-1896.jpg: source link is dead; when and where was this first published?

• Changed.

• File:István_Bethlen,_Tibor_Kállay,_1923.jpg: where was this published and what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• Changed.
  • Thank you very much for your comprehensive image review. Borsoka (talk) 06:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
  • I added a further picture ([20]). Borsoka (talk) 06:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• File:Andrássy.jpg: when and where was this first published?

• In 1865 (added).

• File:Wesselényi_Ferenc_nádor.jpg is missing a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Added. Borsoka (talk) 05:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Ceoil

Given the article is 9308 words long and has a +1000 year span, this might be a long review/FAC but it appears a very worthwhile one. The article is very well written, so this review will mostly be about clarity ... via word reduction and removing the few extraneous aside have seen so far. Ceoil (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Lead

• Your FAC blurb is far less confusing that the three lead opening sentences.

  I would put "c. 1000 and 1944" in the opening sentance. Ceoil (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• I opted for an alternative solution ([21]). Borsoka (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• but the kings could promote "a daughter to a son" - rephrase maybe as "...under the Hungarian royal prerogative of prefection the kings could promote "a daughter to a son"
• Most parts of medieval Hungary were integrated into the Habsburg monarchy in the 1690s. Monarchs The Habsburgs confirmed the nobles' privileges several times"

*We have Habsburg dynasty (article mentions the early modern period) and Habsburg monarchy (article mentions after the 1690s). The House of Habsburg article claims that the held "the throne of the Holy Roman Empire...continuously from 1440". I understand the difference, but maybe explain.

• Don't like "all noblemen's equality" - equality between the [as outlined above its a very complex strata, not sure of the proper division terminology] classes of nobility. Is "maintained" (passive) right - should it be "reinforced" (active)? Ceoil (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Origins

• Masses of Magyars?
• Around 950, Constantine Porphyrogenitus (d. 959) recorded the Hungarians were organized - wrote that the Hungarians were...?
• Historians who say - "claim"

• I would avoid "claim" because it would lead to heated edit warrings. I would say "are convinced". Borsoka (talk) 06:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Excellent so far. Ceoil (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Ceoil Louis II drowned in a stream while he was fleeing from the battlefield at Mohács (in response to your edit summary [22]). Borsoka (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Support on prose, though I may have minor queries for the talk page. Ceoil (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC) Thank you for your comprehensive review and also for your edits. Borsoka (talk) 02:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Cplakidas

Reserving a spot here. Constantine ✍ 06:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Lede

• Did some minor tweaks.

• Thank you for them. I made one change ([23]).

• from the 11th century may I suggest adding an 'until the mid-20th century' here?

• Done.

• Most aristocrats claimed ancestry from a late 9th century Magyar leader. the first time reading this, without looking at the link, I got the impression that most aristocrats descended from the same 9th-century Magyar leader. Should be reworded.

• Reworded.

• local chiefs were integrated in the nobility. who are these local chiefs and why are they different from the Magyar leadership?

• Reworded.

Origins

• "the tongue of the Chazars" can you briefly introduce the Chazars/Khazars here?

• Done.

• Tents still in use are only mentioned in 12th-century literary sources I don't understand what is meant here; 'still' confuses me as to which period this refers to.

• "Still" deleted.

• regarded themselves as descendants of one of the legendary seven leaders of the conquering Magyars same problem as above; and if this is in a footnote, then it shouldn't be in the lede.

• It is in the lead because dozens of aristocrats claimed Magyar chieftains as their ancestors.

• Then I would suggest moving the footnote into the main body. If it is important enough to mention in the lede, it should not be a footnote.

Development

• Introduce Martyn Rady

• Done.

• The kings appointed their officials from among the members of about 110 aristocratic clans what period is this about?

• Done.

• Link customary law?

• Done.

Golden Bulls

• {{lang|la|knezes}} is this really a Latin term?

• Yes, a medieval Latin term.

• I am pretty sure it is Slavic (knyaz)

Self-government and oligarchs

• Monarchs took an oath at their coronation, which included a promise to respect the noblemen's liberties after the 1270s. What exactly happened after the 1270s, the coronation oath or the inclusion of the promise?

• Rephrased.

• delegates of the noblemen and Cumans briefly explain who the Cumans were.

• Done.

Age of the Angevins

• briefly introduce Matteo Villani

• Done.

• voivodes and boyars are definitely not Latin terms

• They are medieval Latin terms.

• They are both Slavic terms though; perhaps uses in Latin texts, but definitely not Latin...

• link Eastern Orthodox at the first mention ( Orthodox landowners)

• Done.

• link seigneurial

• Manorialism is linked because seigneurial is a disambiguation link.

Birth of titled nobility and the Tripartitum

• Introduce István Werbőczy

• Done. Borsoka (talk) 02:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Constantine ? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@Borsoka and Gog the Mild: Apologies, was unexpectedly unavailable. Will continue reviewing tomorrow. Constantine ✍ 15:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Early modern and modern times

• As before, did some copyedits, feel free to adapt, revert, or discuss.
• The Croatian and Slavonian magnates also had a seat at the Upper House I assume it means that each magnate had a seat? Perhaps then 'The Croatian and Slavonian magnates also had seats at the Upper House'?

• Done.

• The noblemen formed one of the three nations (or Estates of the realm) in Transylvania what were the other two?

• Done.

• Relief forces since the siege of Vienna is not mentioned, 'Relief' is unnecessary and possibly confusing.

• Done.

• 1.25 million florins is there some way to give this in modern terms (USD equivalent) or by analogy (e.g. compared to the average salary back then)
• Link 'Protestants' at the first mention (restrict the Protestants' rights). Suggest using Reformed Church in Hungary as the link target as well.

• Alternative solution (link to Protestantism) because many of the noblemen were Lutherans, not Calvinists.

• maintained that the Hungarian nation consisted of the privileged groups...recognition of the Romanians as the fourth Nation there is a confusingly inconsistent use of the term 'nation' here. In the latter case, it bears repeating that Nation=Estate of the realm.
• The rise of nationalism is hinted at through the language issue, but some more context would be welcome, e.g., IIRC, Hungarian nationalism emerged in large part through antagonism with the German-Austrian element and the spread of German in the cities, even Buda/Pest, or that the Hungarian nationalism provoked a corresponding backash in other nationalisms (Croatian, Romanian, Slovak, etc). I would also recommend having a separate section header for this, because it is a seminal event in the history of the Hungarian nobility (and Hungary, which after all was a multi-ethnic state at the time).
• Link Many of them converted to Christianity to Jewish assimilation?

• Done.

Other

• Minor issue, but not all Hungarian-language sources are denotes as such.

• Done. Borsoka (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

That's it for a first pass. A well-written and very comprehensive article on a topic I knew little about. Will have a look through a few sources I have over the weekend, but I don't expect anything major to be missing. Constantine ✍ 20:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your comprehensive review. I need some time to address some of your suggestions. Borsoka (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Order of Brothelyngham

Nominator(s): SN54129 18:52, 22 March 2023‎ (UTC)

A bunch of men pretending to be actors? Check.

A bunch of men actually indulging in "games, madness [and] obscene debauchery"? Check.

Men beaten, goods stolen, a town terrorised? Check.

A hapless bishop writing letters but achieving little else? Check.

Welcome to 14th-century England—again! Another curious gem displaying the past through an alternative lens, this reached GA-level some years ago and then got forgotten about, which is a shame. Having undergone an expansion, polish and update in scholarship, I thought it was worth presenting here. Thanks in advance, all. SN54129 18:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• For the Exeter map, I'd actually suggest the alt text is better suited to be the caption than the current caption

Right, swapped em out.

• File:Miniature_Fête_des_Fous.jpg: what's the original source of this? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

14th-century guy, dead famous in the illustrated manuscripts world (although probably not to anyone else!), so have added some provenance to the commons page.

SN54129 14:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Chris

• "The Order of Brothelyngham was a group of men, who" - don't think that comma is needed

Agree.

• "The group appears [singular] to have named themselves [plural]" - any way to avoid this apparent conflict?

Can never remember whether this is an AmBritEng thing ior just my crappy brain, but singularized the latter.

• "The Church had waged a campaign against theatrical ludi" - could we explain what "ludi" are/were?

Made a short intra-dashes explanation and a slightly fuller background in a new footnote.

• "the medievalist Lawrence M. Clopper, suggests" - no reason for that comma either

Done.

• "such practices by the laity, in this case, expressed by the Brothelynham Order" - there's a G missing here

Fixed.

• "This group comprised, as were English monasteries during the period, solely of men" => "This group was comprised, as were English monasteries during the period, solely of men"

Done, although I wonder Tim riley hasn't raised an eyebrow at that yet!

• "in lieu of the sacrifices emphasized" - UK subject so UK spelling should be used

I know—i'm there! But my bloody auto-refill-whatever, thinks it's in South bloody Dakota or somewhere! I try and catch it where I can, but.

• "that group should be stigmatized by Christians" - same again, also I believe the word "the" is missing before "group" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree again.

• Thanks, ChrisTheDude, very much for looking in,; all your points, for now, both appreciated and addressed-even the most embarrassing! Cheers, SN54129 16:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Hi Chris, have you had a chance to revisit? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
    • Apologies, I forgot all about this one. I'll give it another sweep later today..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:02, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Smalljim

Thanks for this great piece of research. A few suggestions:

• Would the second sentence "...which by now was commonly perceived as corrupt." be better as "...which by then was..."?

• Probably-done.

• I think I'm right in that the entry in Bishop Grandisson's Register is the only contemporary (or near contemporary) source - that important fact should be mentioned prominently.

• I think I can dig out a source which backs this this specifiv=c claim)-I'd certainly like too, and it shouldn't be too difficult.

• Why "Grandison" rather than the far more commonly used "Grandisson" (even in our own article John Grandisson)? I note it's how ODNB spells it, but it's unclear why Audrey Erskine went against the trend.

• It was a 50/50; I was going to wait and see who had complained the loudest by the close of play!

• To aim a possible spanner in the heart of your work (sorry!), I'm not sure if all of your sources rely on Hingeston-Randolph's 19th-century transcription and Chope's translation of 1921, but there is another source: Records of Early English Drama – Devon, Ed. John M. Wasson. University of Toronto Press (1986), that provides more recent versions of both. The book is downloadable as a pdf from the Internet Archive here, but there's no preview (not here anyway). It appears to be a fine piece of scholarship which, on pp. 9–10, contains a newer transcription of the Latin in the Grandisson Register, and there is a new translation by Abigail Young (per p. [vii]) on pp. 323–4. Both differ in a number of points from Hingeston-Randolph's and Chope's work. For instance H-R's quin pocius erroris, translated by Chope as "or rather the Error" becomes quin pocius orroris, translated as "– nay, rather, the horror –". I think we should always prefer later translations over older ones, unless they are clearly inferior. There are a number of places where use of this more modern translation may be preferable, e.g. in the quote box aside "Historiography".

• No, it's an excellent source, and I'll certainly mine the secondary aspects of it deeply! There just aren't enough of them, unfortunately. The new translation, I will make the primary use of in quotes and put Chope etc, in a footnote etc., again, for the reader to GoCompare if they so wish.

• Boy Bishop probably shouldn't be capitalised.

• Done.

• Under "Activities in Exeter" - "Name", last sentence, Mortimer doesn't say that Sempringham was the only abbey in the country to house both monks and nuns under the same roof. Mortimer doesn't seem to be too reliable here either: he says Sempringham was Premonstratensian, but it was clearly in the Gilbertine Order at the time.

• To square the circle, I've omitted his Order error and replaced part of the claim with a similar source. I think he's reliable for small claims such as these.

• Under "Riotousness", first sentence of second para, Wasson has quendam, not quemdam.

• My eyes. Done.

• Under "Later events", H-R and Wasson both show the ludum noxium register entry as being in 1352, not '53.

• Added a secondary source confirming what you say.

• In the bibliography, Frodsham, Henisch and Salisbury are out of alphabetical order.

• Rejigged.

• The bibliography entry for Grandisson. J. suggests that he was writing in 1897 - that needs amending, and Hingeston-Randolph is available online at https://archive.org/details/05089497.1331.emory.edu/page/1055/mode/2up (inter alia).

• This is an old problem to which I haven't found a satisfactory result. The obvious example is Shakespeare of course: imagine having a cite to {{sfn|Shakespeare|2023}}! So the way around it is to let |ref={{whatever}}.That way, we can quote the recent(ish) translation than the original primary source. It's a pain, but IO rely on others' template knowledge in matters of these!

• Hmm. I'm certainly not an expert, but I don't see this as a problem: look at the FA Hamlet#Editions of Hamlet for instance - there are a number of editions of the play listed there and none of them shows Shakespeare as the author. Couldn't you just omit |last1=Grandisson |first1=J. from the cite book template?  —Smalljim  21:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I hope some of this is helpful. I rarely comment at FACs, but this grabbed my attention!  —Smalljim  16:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Smalljim Thanks for this-if you check my latest edits I've addressed all your points, except of course, the New Source. I've started on that but will get stuck in further tomorrow. I'm creating a table of that historiography quote box so the reader can compare between Chope etc and Wasson, which should be interesting. As I said above, I'll make Wasson and his 1986 commentary the primary source, shunting H-R etc, into the background, somewhat.
  Thanks for looking in, these are all great points! SN54129 19:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Happy I can help a little. I've commented further under the last bullet point above, and may have a few more after another read through (if you can bear that!). In your next editing session you'll spot the wonderful invented word 'Grandissonam' that's crept in :)))  —Smalljim  21:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for the help, Smalljim, and the technical know-how for |ref=editor- rather than author-so easy I can't believe it! Instead of all that messing about with templates etc. Anyway, I've done that throughout, so we know just have H-R in 1897, bibliographically. The other main thing-the newer source is also appreciated. I've used it on all major quotes, comparing them to Chopes' trans, letting the reader find out for themselves that Grandisson was even more of a hardnut than he has probably been given credit for! By the way, you're right about emphasising the limited and so biased, nature of the source, so I merged most of the discussion into its own source-hopefully that clarifies things for further along. Thanks for Grandissonam; that must be the accusative of To Grandisson...? ;)
• Also, let me know if you do have further thoughts, of course. SN54129 17:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

First few after a quick canter through looking for typos etc. More on actual content later. You might like to revisit:

• "They also practiced extortion" – unless they were American I suggest they practised it.
• "gladitorial shows" – "gladiatorial"?
• "a termination which in devon everyone would understand" – capitalise?

More anon. Tim riley talk 18:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for catching these, Tim! SN54129 15:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

First lot of general comments

• "Bearing their 'Abbot' aloft" – double quotes, please (MoS).

• Done.

• "Martha Bayless has calculate that" – past tense seems wanted

• Done.

• "only 10%" – the MoS suggests "per cent" rather than "%" in prose.

• Done.

• "of poplar theatrical satires were not attacking the Church" – "popular"?

• Done.

• in re the above two points, "only ten per cent were not"" – seems an odd way of saying "ninety per cent were"

• Indeed! Reversed.

• "The Order of Brothelyngham is … They were treated" – confusion of singular and plural

• Done.

• "dressed in the robes of a Bishop" – capital letter necessary?

• Done.

• "was a European phenomenon" – meaning Continental Europe?

• So "was a continental phenomenon..."?

• Fine with me. But note that the OED capitalises Continental when used in this context. Tim riley talk 14:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• "while wearing masque" – I can find nothing in the OED to suggest that "masque" is a costume. Perhaps "wearing masque costume" or some such?

• Good catch. Done.

• "and hiding one's identity" – "one's"?

• Their.

• "their tormentors receive rewards" – past tense wanted here?

• Done.

• "was commissioned by his Bishop" – not sure the job title needs a capital letter here or elsewhere when used generically

• Of course!

• "letters of the Bishop to his staff, the Order's avowed opponent" – his staff was the avowed opponent?

• Corrected, courtesy of em-dashes  :).

• "comments that that methodology, however, "limited the historical value of his scheme" – we could advantageously lose the "however"

• Done.

• "often due to translation or interpretative differences" – In AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer.

• Thanks, done.

More to come. Tim riley talk 22:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Concluding

• "This group was comprised" – the group comprised (i.e. consisted of) and was not comprised of.

• Done. Schoolboy error. Never fall for it.Err...
  Be aware there's a chap here who runs a script changing instances of comprising to -ised of, because they prefer it that way.

• Evidently not a speaker of the King's English or a reader of Fowler. If I have time I'll seek out his/her solecisms in other articles and correct them. Tim riley talk 14:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• "per Wasson" – per? Prefer good English to bad Latin.

• According to?

• Me. And the chap whose name I forget who insisted that the Tube should have signs saying Way Out rather than Exit.

• Oh, on rereading I see what you meant. Yes "according to" looks fine to me. Tim riley talk 14:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks! SN54129 14:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• "preversion" – what?

• Ah, that bloke in Dr Strangelove? (Meant 'perversions', but social ills describes it better.)

• "as medievalist John Tydeman argues … scholar J. Kestell Young describes it" – two clunky false titles.

• The's done.

• "The leader of the Order" – you need to make up your mind whether or not to capitalise "the order". At the moment you sometimes do and sometimes don't.

• Well spotted!

• "approbrium" – should this be "opprobrium"?

• Done.

• "they suspected the religeuse" – a word unknown to the Oxford English Dictionary. Perhaps you mean "religieuse", though that applies only to nuns and other pious females. (Not quite true: it also applies to a pastry consisting of a small profiterole placed on top of a larger profiterole and decorated with cream and icing, but I doubt if that is relevant here.)

• Sounds gorgeous! The profiteroles on top each other, not the nuns on top of each other  ;)

• The nun on top would presumably be the mother superior. Tim riley talk 14:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Ho ho ho ! SN54129 13:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Those are my few queries. On a purely stylistic point I found your use of the construction "So-and-so and such and such, says Fred Smith" rather than the more usual "Fred Smith says So-and-so and such and such" rather tiresome on repetition, but others may disagree with me. Tim riley talk 09:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Have gone through and adjust a couple of quotes; see what you think.

• Thanks again, Tim, I appreciate the detailed review! Cheers, SN54129 13:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll have a further rereading and come back here to sign off my comments. Tim riley talk 14:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Righto Tim, in your own time; I forgot to explain about 'preversions', amusingly, but have done so now  ;) SN54129 14:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Happy to support. Meets the FA criteria in my view. A most interesting read – I had no idea there were such goings-on. Should be a box-office hit on the front page. – Tim riley talk 13:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your input and support Tim, it's appreciated. Yes, look out next year for the... Brothelyngham Tapes, or some such  :) SN54129 13:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Further comments from Smalljim

Thanks for dealing with my first batch so promptly and efficiently. I've had another read through this evening, and come up with some more red ink, I'm afraid :(

• In the lead: the caption to the lead image states that Grandisson launched his attack from here. OK, the cathedral was the seat of his power, but he wrote from Chudleigh, as the adjacent sentence confirms. And perhaps "verbal attack" might be clearer.

Clarified that it was his officials who were at the cathedral.

• 1st para "courtesy of a grand theatrical stage" - no! Even Chope (1921) doubted this.

Or a throne of course. Clarified.

• Who first used the term "Brothelynghamites"?

I've removed it now, but as far as I can tell, in reliable secondary independent sources, it was Daniel Frankforter.

• In "Background": 'They were also known as an "abbeys of misrule"' Omit 'an'?

Done.

• 2nd para "debacchationes obscoenas". In both H-R and Wasson it's debacaciones obscenas.

Done.

• Young quote - no need for the two identical references

Done.

• In "Source material": this still sounds as if more than one of the Bishop's letters mentions the Order - I believe that it is only mentioned in the letter of 11 July 1348.

Clarified.

• I don't get "Furthermore, he would only record events that in his eyes breached canon law." That restriction may be worth mentioning, but what is it furthermore to?

Tweaked, th\t there was more than one available offence open to prosecution.

• H-R didn't restrict himself to indexing the registers in calendar form, as you state. Although North, writing in the ODNB, says "He restricted himself largely to indexing the contents of the registers" - that's clearly not what he did with Grandisson - he provided (sparsely) annotated transcriptions.

Clarified.

• Chope published his translation in 1921 in D&C N&Q, not in Transactions of the Devon Assoc (it's correct in the bibliography).

Done. Good spot!

• In "Activities in Exeter": "understood the word to have meant...", might perhaps be better as "to include the element...", and omit "just" before "a bawdy house" (the point is that the word 'brothel' has dramatically changed its meaning since that time.

Done, absolutely agree.

• You're missing an "n" from "Gradisson's Registrum", and why suddenly use the Latin word for Register?

Changed.

• You have that H-R suggested that Grandisson himself invented the name for the group, followed by 'In his indignation that people so worthless "guiltily laughs at Holy Religion", as he put it[29]'. Yes H-R's footnote does make that suggestion, but he doesn't use your quote (guiltily laughs...) - that is in Chope's translation (not comment), though it's garbled: Chope has "...guiltily laughs Holy Religion to scorn...". Whatever - it needs tidying!

Reworked. Hopefully ungarbled and tidied  :)

• You state that Sempringham ... was known humorously as Simplingham, cited to Chope. Chope doesn't say humorously.

Removed; not sure where that came from (even Mortimer doesn't use it...)

• In "Riotousness": you have several times provided two (or more) different translations (Chope and Wasson). I don't think that giving multiple translations that only vary slightly actually helps the reader's understanding of the topic. Maybe such examples should be restricted to the Historiography section? As I said earlier, I think we should prefer a later translation unless it's clearly inferior. Also, the translations in the REED volume, edited by Wasson, were provided by Abigail Young (see comment in my first batch above) - is it important to note that? I don't know.

Removed superfluous translations. Used later translations now and throughout. Acknowledged and sourced Young as translator in the Sources section.

• The phrase "...with strong Sabbatarian tendencies.[25]" should be attributed so it doesn't appear that it's what Erskine says (she doesn't).

Done.

• In the next paragraph we have Latin (Quendam lunaticum...) and four translations. Surely not necessary here.

Quite. Redux.

• In the last para you refer to "a contemporary record" - what is it? It seems to be cited to H-R, 1897 p. 1684. but there's no such page in this book.

It was an odd way of phrasing "...his letter". Tweaked.

• "They were certainly disobedient, and either of which would be sufficient to ensure the Bishop's ire.[44]" I don't understand this sentence.

Clarified.

• "He subsequently excommunicated the Order". Can you confirm this? Is there another contemporary record?

Dunno, but the relevant, reliable independent secondary source is Julian M. Luxford.

• In "Historiography": The Chope translation appears twice, and the one in Wasson is missing many spaces between words.

Yes a shame, but got rid of the quote box and spaced some of the letters out. Bizarre! SN54129 16:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• "...celebrate the investiture of their abbot with horns". May be better as "by sounding horns" or similar, in case there's confusion over something to do with Viking helmets :)

Done.

• In "Notes: 4. Chope only provides one or two examples.

Tweaked.

• The word "lieu" has a superfluous "e" on the end ...

Done.

• ... as does Hingeston in Note 8.

Ditto.

• In "Bibliography": Davis is out of alpha order.

Done.

Sorry!  —Smalljim  23:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

No worries, Smalljim, it's what you're here for  :) see what you think as to the changes I've made in response; I think I've addressed nearly everything you raised. Cheers! SN54129 16:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again, SN54129. I do have a further query about the excommunication. Your text: 'They appear not to have heeded the Bishop's edicts, for he subsequently excommunicated the Order, calling the men "a threat to religion, the King and the Church"' is cited to Luxford 2005, p. 146. I managed to find Luxford's book on Google Books and I think it's telling me that the word 'Brothelyngham' is only mentioned once, on page 143. Fortunately that page was available to me, and Luxford writes there, about the Order: "In fulminating an excommunication against them, Grandisson called them 'a threat to religion, the king and the church'...", citing that to H-R pp. 1055-6 and Chope, pp 62-4 (which is the original letter in Latin and in translation). There's obviously a discrepancy here: there's no mention of a subsequent excommunication in the original letter, but maybe Luxford knows of a later contemporary document and refers to it on p. 146 (which I can't see). Can you clarify, please?  —Smalljim  14:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, relying on google books—page one error! Christ, I've found that sometimes it turns out to be a different book! Talk about fool me once... *facepalm*

No, Smalljim, there's nothing on the following page of Luxford wrt Brothelyngham (note he starts a new chapter section before the end of the page). However, I think I know what he's getting at, and if I were allowed to fill the thing full of my own WP:OR, I'd say so. I suspect that the men involved in the 1352 riots, who tended towards similar activities, were probably the same individuals he encountered here. If that's the case, then, of course, they were subsequently excommunicated in G's condemnatory letter of 1352. But such time passes between the events, and Luxford draws no direct parallel, that it is stretching it to say they were probably the same men who we know were later excomm'd. So I've tweaked to clarify this. SN54129 16:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion! They might have all been dead, though - I've just found, in Radford (1935), p. 363, the very interesting fact that the Brothelyngham incident occurred just a couple of months before the Black Death reached Devon (and one month after it reached England's shores). Might be worth mentioning as part of the historical framework. In H-R (p. 1069) there's a letter from Grandisson dated 19 Oct 1348 that's apparently about its arrival, but my 'O' level Latin isn't up to reading it (it mentions "pestilencias" several times, and as expected there's quite a lot of "peccata"s too)... Maybe that's why he preferred to stay in Chudleigh! I guess there'll be a translation floating around somewhere.  —Smalljim  17:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Found a translation, Smalljim: Rosemary Horrox, v. respectable, original in H-R. Can't draw any overt conclusions (or go into too much more detail; per FAC requirement #4), but it's interesting that he actually encourages processions etc as a way of deterring the plague...it's almost certain that the Brothelyngham people were a direct response to this plea, but of course, I doubt we'll ever find a source that directly links them. I focussed on the unspoken connection re: processions rather than the exhortations about sin and penance. SN54129 18:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I thought you might be able to find one! I think that's a good addition. I'm still finding problems, however...

• It's Terribilis

• Done.

• In "Source material", Robbins (1901) p. 506 doesn't verify the full date. Actually I think this source is superfluous as the content is verified by e.g. Wasson.

• Robbins verifies the letter name; added Chope ref for date.

• In "Historiography" the sentence beginning "Luxford has described the effect..." is cited to Heale, and I can't find the quote about "abbatial greed" in either.

• Replaced Luxford for Heale; see p.260.

• In the references, the relevant Luxford page is 143 not 146, according to Google Books

• Typo adjusted.

• I can't make the refs to Heale 2016, p. 143 and p. 260 match up with what Google Books tells me is in the book (but that might be me).

• Heale p.260, Luxford p.143?

I'm going to take a break, and encourage others to have a look. But based on what I've seen I think it might be worth doing a general check on source-content integrity: the evidence does hint that there may be problems with the sources that I haven't checked.  —Smalljim  21:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for these catches Smalljim. Luckily, rumours of source/text integrity issues have been much exaggerated. Enjoy your break. SN54129 12:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Smalljim, 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) 13:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Source details

Source/text integrity check: This version reviewed, 90% of a Secondary sources checked and confirmed; no Primary sources

Ref # Article says Source says Ref supports? 1a theatrical ludi—or popular games the ludi, the Games, which were days, or series of days, of entertainments and competitions... They included dramatic Performances Y 2 originated as part of the Roman Empire's cult of the state ludi circenses... association with the provincial cult of the emperor in the western empire Y ? Can you email me a scan of this page? I've got the 2002 edition rather than 2004, but the page numbering must be different 3 by the Late Middle Ages were denounced by the Church as loci for the ungodly and easily tempted Innocent’s denunciation of ludi theatrales provided a paradigm for reform in the later Middle Ages ? Y 4a/b ever since Pope Innocent III's condemnation of "ludi theatricales" in 1207, in which he described them as encouraging ludibria, insania, debacctiationes obscoenas In 1207, Innocent III forbids the "ludi theatrales"...which he describes as "LUDIBRIA, INSANIA, DEBACCTiationes obscoenas..." etc Y 5 has calculated that 90 per cent of popular theatrical satires attacked the Church somehow Only about a tenth of the parodies surviving have no connection with the Bible or the Church. ? (Does "parody" equate to an attacking satire?) I replaced 'satire' with 'parody'? 6 The Order of Brothelyngham is considered by historians to have been a pseudo-religious Order created in Exeter in 1348 for the purpose of satirising the clergy The O of B, a mock religious order begotten in Exeter in 1348 with the aim of ridiculing regular clergy Y 16 Feast days such as these were specifically intended to mock the church—in the case of the Feast of Fools, over a period of four days—both by its practices and rituals and its hierarchy, and by doing so, celebrate the disfranchised The Feast of Fools which originally consisted of four separate celebrations... traditionally allowed the inversion of ecclesiastical hierarchies—the lower clergy members were permitted to mock church services, to sing, to dance, to celebrate the special holy status of the meek, the humble, and the generally disenfranchised Y Can you send a scan of this one too? It's mostly OK, just the "period of four days" that I want to check 17a/b/c Hingeston-Randolph, who first edited Grandisson's registers... They were an early expression of what became known later, in France, as Sociétés Joyeuses... Hingeston-Randolph also understood the Brothelynghamites to be more in the manner of a dissenting sect of the Church Grandisson's learned editor thinks that this secta was a sect of medieval dissenters, but the description clearly points to a sociéte joyeuse Y, although "learned" is POV, as is "clearly" Apologies, "learned" etc, is from the source, not our article! ~Sigh~ Sometimes I worry about myself! 18 Sociétés Joyeuses, says Katja Gvozdeva, were theatrical companies often devoted to foolplay and slapstick, visual comedy staged during carnivalesque amusements... the term, which can be simply translated as 'fool play' Y 19 They were also known as "abbeys of Misrule" An Abbey of Misrule or a sociéte joyeuse Y (although misrule shouldn't be capitalised) Done 20 particularly, comments the historian Katja Gvozdeva, with their emphasis on popular "carnivalesque rituals" A symbolic attribute of the male sociéte joyeuse in the framework of the carnivalesque rituals Y 22 He considered their Holy Innocents' Day plays to be scandalous Bp JG requires the Exeter Cath vicars choral not to perform scandalous plays on Holy Innocents Day Y 23c/d playing "'somergames' within sacred precincts"... capturing and tormenting those playing the roles of Christ, Peter and Andrew, following which their tormentors received rewards In addition, he and others objected to wrestling, singing and dancing and ‘somergames’ within sacred precinct... [Peter Xst & Andrew] The event is a ‘game’, and the context seems to centre on the rewarding of the tormentors and demons with food and drink for being the best tormentors. Y 23a/c or dressed as monks... it is impossible now to know whether the movement started in great numbers or attracted a crowd as it progressed over the days Brothelyngham, as they called themselves, dressed up as monks... and gathering a crowd Y Can you send me the source for this one? Sent. You sent me Floyer - I'm after Henisch! Sorry SchroCat-sent via usual channels-note it's only a couple of pages from WP:RX. (BTW, SN54129, I noticed a rogue square bracket in the midst of 'licensed anarchy"[24] during which] the Church') - SchroCat (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC) Thanks for catching that! SN54129 11:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC) 25 [split into two refs] 26b/d he would only record events that in his eyes breached canon law, so not necessarily the whole of the Order's activities might be recorded / The scholar Abigail Young suggests that their processions must have involved a large number of people, given the amount of activity they were accused of comes from de Grandisson's registers, where he naturally only noted what violated canon law in one way or another. / the abbot's followers were detaining passers-by and demanding money, but certainly involved a lot of people, both on horseback and on foot, in a procession or parade Y Can you send me this one too? Sent. 27 The Black Death entered the British Isles in the town of Weymouth, a seaport in the co. of Dorset [p126, then p.127 for timing ] the Black Death had recently arrived in England, probably through Weymouth, Dorset Y 28 In response, in a letter called Terribilis, King Edward III instructed prayers to be said in churches around the country. His letter is dated 28 September 1348 Edward III had asked... the Archbishop of Canterbury, to arrange prayers against the plague throughout the province of Canterbury... In this letter of 28 September 1348 to transmit the order to the other bishops of the southern province. The letter is generally known, from its opening word, as Terribilis. Y (although better to go with "in a letter known as Terribilis") Changed, thanks. 30a/b Grandisson promulgated the royal instruction via the Dean of Exeter, attaching his own thoughts on what was necessary / "exhorting them with salutary admonitions... mass devoutly" John Grandisson, Bishop of Exeter, forwarded them to the Dean of Exeter with the following note of the local action to be taken / direct quote Y 31b Christine North, comments that that methodology "limited the historical value of his scheme" He restricted himself largely to indexing the contents of the registers, a method which limited the historical value of his scheme Y 32 The letter was called Litera pro Iniqua Fraternitate de Brothelyngham, The first is "Litera pro iniqua fraternitate de Brothelyngham," issued by the bishop Y 35 one reviewer described the Bishop's "extensive extracts" as being of "enormous significance" or some of the extensive extracts from the Register of Bishop John de Grandisson. However, these scarcely detract from the usefulness of the volume and add considerably to its general reading interest. There are, of course, also many substantial items of enormous significance including several sections of John de Grandisson's writings Y, although better to identify the individual in a clearer way than "one reviewer" Named. 37 brothel, meaning "good for nothing but 'brothel' means good-for-nothing Y 38b "demonstrates particularly well the ambiguous relationship between the play, ritual and theatre", noting the theatrical nature of the Order's activities: the members celebrate the investiture of their abbot by sounding horns, it takes place takes place on trestles (in theatro) and his character is clearly intended to be a burlesque démontre particulièrement bien le rapport ambigu entre le jeu, le rite et le théâtre qui sera l’objet de la présente analyse / au son de cors et de clochettes /Bien que son sacre ait lieu sur les tréteaux (in Theatro), l’abbé burlesque semble être investi d’un pouvoir bien réel. Oui Murky buckets! SN54129 11:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC) 39a/c or brothel, meaning... or "foul" / Grandisson condemned their play as being composed "incontumely and [with] approbrium" brothel, again, was a common name for any foul fellow / the bishop finds himself compelled against a play composed "in contumely and approbrium" Y 40 As used in the 13-century text, "...brothely [wretchedly] broght to Babyloyn" “brothely [wretchedly] broȝt to Babyloyn” (1256), or left behind to farm and tend vineyards. By linking the two and demonstrating their similarities, the poet offers a warning to contemporary priests whom he sees in similar danger of provoking God’s wrath through their spiritual filth Y 41a/b/c meaning 'good for nothing' not a bawdy house / [direct quote] / removed rather than a bawdy house / to modern historians and commentators, "such sport is as much folklore as drama" / but the members of the Order seem to have considered themselves actors rather than villains Y 44a/b/c/d Hingeston-Randolph also understood the Brothelynghamites / On repeated, regular occasions throughout 1348 the gang disturbed the peace of the city with assaults and riots / when they met them / A similar outbreak of anti-clerical fake monasticism in the area, this group of pseudo-monks—describing themselves as an "Order of hermits"—occupied Townstal. The men "claimed power by a special papal privilege to hear confession and offer the sacraments" without Grandisson's permission, or, indeed, any theological training whatsoever (removed portion) The "Brothelynghamites" [cited to Hingeston-Randolph] / In July, 1348, the peace of the city of Exeter itself was disrupted by a group of men who called themselves members of the order of Brothelyngham... the town theater, whence they ventured from time to time / those whom they cornered / received news of another pseudo-monastic sect which had established itself as an "order of hermits" in the parish of Tounstalle and claimed power by a special papal privilege to hear confession and offer the sacraments without episcopal permission Y 45a/b The scholar Ian Mortimer agrees that Sempringham was an obvious target for popular satire / "sniggering in some secular quarters [was] inevitable" Removed / "sniggering in some secular quarters is inevitable" Y 46 Sempringham contained both monks and nuns under the same roof some monastic houses for both monks and nuns, for example, Sempringham, Lincolnshire Y 47 Hemisch surmises that it was the Church's very success against its own clergy and their games that led to the adoption of such practices by the laity, as was the case with the Brothelyngham Order. Even where the church won the battle and prevented her clergy from taking part, the feast was adopted by the laity...formed an Order of Brothelyngham Y 48 a/b/c/d/e This group comprised, as were English monasteries during the period, solely of men / The Brothelyngham men, dressed as monks, paraded their abbot around the streets of Exeter on something akin to a litter, and, with their abbot enthroned above them, they proceeded to beat up and rob such citizens as they encountered / the historian Martin Heale has described the extent of ill-feeling felt by the general population towards the perceived "abbatial greed and luxurious living" / There are also signs that literary critiques of abbatial greed and luxurious living bore some correspondence with wider lay attitudes in late medieval England / A comparison with supposed real life greedy abbots, says Heale, "is hard to mistake". a group of men who rode through the city under the name ‘the Order of Brothelyngham’ / rode through the city under the name ‘the Order of Brothelyngham’. This mock religious order ‘put a certain lunatic and madman in charge... going by the name of abbot’, and dressed in a monastic habit. The false ‘abbot’ was then led through the streets of Exeter, while his attendants apprehended clerics and laymen and ‘held them against their will ... until they had extorted from them certain sums of money’ / The insinuation of this satire about grasping abbots is hard to mistake Y 49a/b Chudleigh-his main headquarters outside of his Cathedral / The historian Audrey Erskine has questioned whether his violent responses to such cults and gangs might reflect something choleric in his character His principal residence was on his manor of Chudleigh / he opposed the development of more dubious cults. The registers also illustrate the vehement, sometimes violent, expressions of his seemingly choleric disposition Y 51 The Bishop instructed his men to condemn the Order the following Sunday by means of proclamations in the Cathedral and all other churches and chapels of the city. They were to emphasise that those who disobeyed, and failed to publicly withdraw from the fraternity, would not only be excommunicated but met with physical force, as the Bishop could—and stated his intention to—call upon the assistance of the city militia [Summarising Grandisson's letter] Y 53 His particular focus on the drama as a source of social ill has long been known to historians; as the medievalist John Tydeman argues, Grandisson's "injunctions to his clergy have long constituted a familiar element in histories of medieval drama" Yet as far as diocesan records go, outside of entries in the registers of medieval bishops, most notably those of the redoubtable John de Grandisson, whose injunctions to his clergy have long constituted a familiar element in histories of medieval drama Y 54 a/b he seems to have had a particular antipathy to the creation of much new in his diocese, ranging from popular religion to the building of chapels / Grandisson again wrote to his officials, this time in Totnes and other churches, condemning what he called a group of "disciples of Antichrist" response to the situation at Dartmouth is in keeping with his noted antipathy to both the creation of new chapels and the settling of friars in his diocese, as well as the expression of popular religion / Grandisson issued instructions to the dean of Totnes and the rectors of Dittisham and Stoke Fleming that certain "disciples of Antichrist", posing as brethren of the Order of Hermits in Townstal, had committed many abuses Y - although I'll be back to the wording of this in my prose review *Trembles*  :) SN54129 11:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC) 55 the scholar J. Kestell Floyer describes it as "a withering blast of sarcasm and indignation" The Bishop treats them to a withering blast of sarcasm and indignation Y 62 [Direct quote - portion removed] Bayless agrees that "medieval parody rarely offers any sophisticated analysis of its target: even at its most critical its aim is not to direct reform but to humiliate the victim", with violence often a first, rather than a last, resort Y 63 ludi "lūdus, ī" Y (although the source has a rogue dollar sign - "Latin-English$ Pocket") And for this too. 66 Re. Powick Priory This priory, in a suburb of Exeter... Y 67 Re. St Nicholas's one of Exters most distinctive neighbourhoods Y 68 Posloe Priory Now in the eastern suburbs of Exeter Y 77 Luxford, meanwhile, has argued that for the modern historian, the significance of the Order is what their own expressed beliefs reveal of their own—and likely more general—views of the priesthood: that, for example, "monks and nuns blindly followed leaders, were idolatrous, avaricious, even luxurious (thus 'Brothelyngham')" The beliefs about monasticism that their behaviour exhibited are revealing—monks and nuns blindly followed leaders, were idolatrous, avaricious, even luxurious (thus 'Brothelyngham). Partial: the source doesn't make clear the position is one for the modern historian - it just says "The beliefs about monasticism", rather than clarifying whose beliefs. The rest is fine Removed his suggestion that "modern historians have argued..."? 78 One of the only known English examples of popular theatrics under the guise of religion, argues the Chaucerian Glending Olsen, it went through a multitude of forms, beginning as a version of the French Abbeys of Misrule and ending up as a fundraising exercises he discusses and edits. for the sermon joyeux... The authors establish some linkage between parody sermons and ritual festivity. One example of popular play with religious forms in England is the Order of Brothelingham. Known only through Bishop John de Grandisson's complaint in 1348, it seems to be a rare English analogue to the abbeys of misrule in France. It featured a mock-abbot in monastic costume and some sort of ceremony with followers worshipping ("adorantes") him to the sound of a trumpet, then turned into a moneyraising venture. Y

• Done. All of it, I think - if I've missed any, please let me know and I'll go over that one too. Around forty refs checked with only one very minor quibble. I'm going to AGF if there are any others that I haven't seen from the article. - SchroCat (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for all that, SchroCat, much appreciated, and I think I've attended to all your adjacent comments, although my choice of the massive table was perhaps not the best for clarity! Cheers, SN54129 11:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

More comments from Smalljim

Only a short break! Thanks for the work on the references in that huge table. I've been looking through it and have spotted a few issues that it hasn't picked up on:

• In "Source material" you write that H-R was "commissioned" by his bishop, whereas North (ODNB) states that he began work "at the bishop's suggestion". In none of H-R's three Grandisson volumes does he mention a commission, so I suggest the wording should be changed.

• Welcome back. Gone with 'suggestion' per yours.

• You cite "They were published two years later" [than 1885] to North. North doesn't say that, and the three volumes were published in 1894, 1897 and 1899.

• No that was me misreading '85 for 95', unluckily. However North doesn't provide those three dates either, so 'several years' should suffice.

• Again citing North, you note that H-R restricted himself to "indexing their contents ... although the letter itself was fully transcribed". This gives the wrong impression. Some of H-Rs work on other bishops' registers was indeed restricted to calendaring, but he fully transcribed all of Grandisson's extant registers. What he did with other registers isn't relevant here and I suggest that whole sentence should be removed.

• The problem here is that we have a reliable secondary source that so says something, but doesn't say, for example, "he fully transcribed all of Grandisson's extant registers", merely that he indexed them in totalis., and she doesn't make exception. On second thoughts, Chope can be read to imply the letter was transcribed completely.

• Also, in renumbering the Luxford page from 146 to 143, you have apparently missed four citations because there are now references for both pages (refs 6 and 7 as I write).

• Good ole Luxford!

• Hi again Smalljim, are you satisfied with SN's responses to your source review comments? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

A few others I've noticed in the lead:

• In the first sentence, shouldn't it be in the mid 14th century?

• Indeed.

• In the first para, Brothelyngham is missing its "n".

• A calamitous failuser of ctrl+f...

• In the caption "...officials wherefrom he ordered..." could be better worded.

  Yes, it was slightly convoluted... tweaked.

Best  —Smalljim  21:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC) (Sorry, I edited some <br>s etc in the table because I use the syntax highlighter gadget, and everything was pink. I forgot to take the edits out after - hope that's OK.  —Smalljim )

Thanks for today's timely prompts, Gog. I have no problem at all with SN's speedy and good-natured responses to the many points I have raised. However I do still have a problem: I keep finding more issues with the text. I've been taking copies of the whole article and scribbling on them with a red pen. Although I admit that on this fifth review, some of the red ink is getting paler, I'm still finding enough inaccuracies to prevent me from supporting. Here are a few (this version):

• Refs 70, 71 and 74 should all be to ref 42. There is no note 2 on p 1055 as claimed by ref 71 and the other two refer to note 1.
• In the short "Later events" section, (a) the date in the 4th sentence should be 1352 (9 August), not 1353. (b) There's no evidence (unless it's in ref 41) that the performance was actually "called Ludum Noxium" - in Wasson that's a Latin phrase (in lower case) translated as "an objectionable diversion". And (c) in the last sentence you have that the group was excommunicated almost immediately: "which we in this writing impose upon them" (cited to Wasson), but read around that and what Wasson actually says is "...under pain of greater excommunication which we in this writing impose upon them and any one of them thenceforward if they do not effectively obey these warnings and prohibitions henceforward." (my italics)
• The first sentence of "Historiography" states that H-R first published G's registers in 1897 - no, he published the first volume in 1894.

There's plenty more red ink on my latest copy, but I really don't have the time at present to devote to explaining it clearly, and there are still chunks of text that I haven't examined yet and sources that I haven't seen - I had intended that this should be a short process for both of us!

Please take into account my regretful decision opinion that this article in its current state is not suitable for promotion to FA.  —Smalljim  22:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that Small. Could you help me out by letting me know which FAC criterion or criteria it fails. And, if possible, some brief details of why? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure. I'm sorry for the upset: it was a hard decision to make and a tough opinion to express. To avoid any misunderstanding I've amended the word "decision" to "opinion" above.

Regarding the FA criteria, it would have to be the second clause of 1(c). Had I not come along to look closely at the sources I wonder whether the article would have been promoted with many of its inaccuracies intact - each one minor in itself, but together certainly not amounting to our "very best work". The accurate representation of what reliable sources say is surely the single most important aspect of Wikipedia. Best,  —Smalljim  21:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

SC

Putting down a marker. - SchroCat (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Having spent a number of years living in Devon, I'm always delighted to see an Exeter-centred article appearing at FAC, particularly the non-symmetrical frontage of its cathedral.

Overall

• There is some overcapitalisation of "order" when you are not referring to the Order of Brothelyngham. These include, but are not limited to: "fake religious Order" (lead); "a pseudo-religious Order" and "the social Order" (Socio-religious); and "Grandisson issued an Order" (Later events). These uses of "order" are not shorthand for the "Brothelyngham Order" and should be lower case

Lead

• "city of Exeter": maybe " city of Exeter, Devon?
• "the faux religious dressed "...?????
• "The Bishop clearly": lower case B, per CAPS

I'm going to stop here and work through some of the queries on the sources (no point in doing the prose review if this fails the source review), but hope to be able to return afterwards. - SchroCat (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I've addressed these points (I think!) SchroCat; thanks for them, and thanks for looking over the sourcing. That's ball-breaking, I know, so don't feel it's incumbent on you to do them all! Cheers, SN54129 11:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Only a few more from me:

Name

• "he scholar Ian Mortimer": "he scholar"? is that like "He Man"?

• :) well caught!

Riotousness

• "Hemisch surmises": Henisch?

• Done.

• "On 11 July that year Grandisson, writing from Chudleigh[33]—his main headquarters outside of his Cathedral[48]—instructed his chief agents in Exeter—the dean, the archdeacon,[7] and the rector[49] of Exeter Cathedral—to investigate the Order and its members,[7] whom Grandisson referred to as "evil persons".[43]" This sentence tries to do a bit too much, I think, with the two dashed-off clauses. Additionally, "the dean, the archdeacon,[7] and the rector": I'm not sure you use the serial comma elsewhere (although I haven't checked fully, so my error if you do)

• Yes, I couldn't see any other serial commas with, but my eyes are a bit manky and there are, of course, hundreds of the buggers!
  I divided that one massive sentence into three smaller ones, and cut out some repetition. Much better?

• "the creation of much new in his diocese": I think this is too open to misinterpretation. He probably didn't complain about a new house being built, or new crops planted in a field, but to religious change instead.

• Absolutely true. How about "He also seems to have had an antipathy to religious innovation in the diocese, opposing, for example, popular religion to the building of new chapels." By the way, I got an edit-conflict there-thanks for reverting the numbnuts.

• "his letter of the 11th": probably best to go with "letter of 11 July"

• Done.

Historiography

• "nay, rather,the horror": space needed before "the"

• Done.

That's the lot, I think. An interesting piece. - SchroCat (talk) 11:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks SchroCat, for the review and also for taking on the spot checks as you did. Hopefully, I've dealt with your attendant points also. Cheers! SN54129 11:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support All good from me. I'm happy with the changes and with the state of the sources, given the extended review I've done. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

• Smalljim did well to reveal a number of problems with the sourcing, and the article is the better for having those issues resolved. Ideally this sort of thing should be sorted prior to FAC nomination, but I for one am in no position to cast stones. SchroCat's exhaustive and detailed check of a large sample of the sources suggests that the issue has been resolved as part of this FAC. As such, I am minded to promote. However, as coordinators should only promote when there is a consensus to do so, and given that Smalljim is entirely reasonably opposing, I wish to check that the "supports" indicated prior to Smalljim and SchroCat completing their look at the sourcing still stand. So, ChrisTheDude and Tim riley, do you wish to withdraw your indications of support? Apologies for dragging you back to this nomination, and thank you for your time. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

If consensus is to promote despite my (admittedly vague) warnings of further unresolved problems that I have identified but don't have the time to deal with properly at present, I'll continue to improve the article as time permits after promotion. However, the five points I identified in my post of 16 April (diff), should, I think, be resolved first at least. It appears that my "very best work" bar must be set higher than that of other editors :)  —Smalljim  22:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Clocked this and then forgot to reply: apols for delay. I am really not expert enough in the subject to comment either way on the sourcing. It looked, and looks, all right to my layman's eye, and SchroCat's review offers reassurance. I am not inclined to withdraw my support, but will quite understand if the upshot is to make any necessary changes before promoting – whether on the current FAC or on a second attempt. Tim riley talk 13:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

As a coordinator, I would like to see at a minimum Smalljim's five concerns addressed before I would promote. Hog Farm _Talk 03:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog 2

Nominator(s): JOEBRO⁶⁴ 17:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

This 1992 Sega Genesis game needs no introduction, but I'll do my best to try: while Sonic the Hedgehog's success proved that Sega could compete with the behemoth that was Nintendo, Sonic the Hedgehog 2 proved that success wasn't a fluke. It established Sonic as a major franchise and made the Blue Blur an industry icon. It wasn't all fun and games behind the scenes, though—development was rife with cultural clashes between the Japanese Sonic Team alumni led by Yuji Naka and Mark Cerny's American Sega Technical Institute staff. Despite considerable reductions in scope, Sonic 2 shipped on time and is still widely considered one of Sonic's best outings.

I began rewriting this article all the way back in 2020 but finally got around to finishing it recently. I believe it's the most comprehensive resource for the game on the internet and it's been a while since Sonic's paid FAC a visit—I hope you enjoy the article! JOEBRO⁶⁴ 17:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text
• Given the number of non-free screenshots, each will need a stronger justification. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: added alt text and strengthened the FURs—if it needs more work just let me know. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 16:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This has been open for three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I'll give this a review in the coming days. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  Haven't forgotten about this. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I am reviewing this right now and will post my comments sometime today or tomorrow. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 03:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments from BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4

This is my first time participating in a featured article review, so please tell me if I seem to have missed anything or if anyone would like clarification on any of my comments. I have not made any major edits to this article, only corrected a typo I found while reading it, and ran it through IA bot. I am a fan of the Sonic franchise, however, and have made edits to other Sonic related articles. That probably doesn't matter, but I figure it doesn't hurt to note.

Overall, I do not see any major issues. The prose is generally well written, the overview is comprehensive, interesting, and well-organized, and the sources all appear to be of high quality. I only have minor trifles concerning some of the writing and context supplied:

• "Sonic 2 features twice as many unique level tropes..." Not everyone may know what a 'level trope' is, so perhaps word that more clearly. Maybe "level gimmick" or "level feature"?
  • changed to "themes" JOEBRO⁶⁴ 13:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
• "Cerny was not surprised, as marketing executives controlled what games developers created and did not understand game development." I think this statement needs to be qualified in its context, specifically, what aspect of game development did Cerny believe the executives to not understand. Reading the paragraph surrounding this, it seems the conflict was that Sega management did not understand how much time the game would take? Whatever the case, I think this needs clarification.
  • I've changed it to "Cerny... believed the marketing executives who controlled game development did not understand the process"—let me know if this is better JOEBRO⁶⁴ 13:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
• "Early in development, STI implemented a routine whereby Sonic was hurt if he ran into a wall at full speed, but removed it in later builds." Potentially unclear what "routine" means in this context. Perhaps make it instead say "In early builds, Sonic would take damage if he ran into a wall at full speed, but STI later removed this feature."
  • I've actually straight-up removed it. I don't think it's terribly important and the developers don't provide any justification behind the idea so I think we can live without it JOEBRO⁶⁴ 13:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
• "Sega of America objected to the name "Miles Prower", so he was given the nickname Tails as a compromise." I personally feel this bit could do with a little extra context as to what about Miles' name was objectionable, if this is known- I assume they believed Americans would not understand or like the pun.
  • I've expanded with a bit more detail from the source. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 13:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
• "Critics consider it an improvement over the first Sonic the Hedgehog, saying it features greater level diversity and design, better graphics, and quality-of-life improvements" Unfamiliar readers may not know what "quality-of-life" means. I would suggest wikilinking this text to wikt:quality of life to clarify.
  • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 13:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

These are all minor issues, however. Considering the general high quality of the article otherwise, this has Strong Support from me for a promotion to FA. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 04:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4: thank you for the review! I've addressed all your comments JOEBRO⁶⁴ 13:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Axem Titanium

I have nits and where better to pick them than at FAC? Axem Titanium (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Lead
  • "Archeology" doesn't appear in ref [175]. Can you pick a different term that's more supported? Is there a Wikipedia article you can link to for this concept?
    • Changed to "research". Can't think of an article to link to, unfortunately—the closest would be The Cutting Room Floor, which isn't explicitly named in the cited ref, or debug mode, which is related but not a 100% match. (I think an "unused video game content" could be a viable potential article that could be linked, but it doesn't exist) JOEBRO⁶⁴ 01:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
• Gameplay
  • "By default, the single-player controls both Sonic and Tails simultaneously" - Trying to keep the wikilink to single-player intact without piping leads to this unnatural construction. Can you reword?
    • I've changed it to "In the default single-player game mode, the player controls Sonic and Tails simultaneously"—is this any better? JOEBRO⁶⁴ 01:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
  • "populate acts" - not sure I agree with the usage of "populate" here for non-person objects
    • changed to "fill" JOEBRO⁶⁴ 01:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
  • "Knuckles the Echidna in Sonic the Hedgehog 2" - Is this the official title of a product? I don't see it in the ref.
    • Yeah, it is. I've added a ref for clarification—slipped through the cracks. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 01:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
  • "Knuckles in Sonic 2" - Following the above, the entire subhead is italicized, when only the title portion should be
    • per above, Knuckles in Sonic 2 is the official title JOEBRO⁶⁴ 01:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
• Development
  • Explain who Yuji Naka is before saying he quit. I don't understand why it's relevant that he quit without this context.
    • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 01:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
  • "Cerny said that this did not create "much of a creative loss"" - I don't understand what this quote means. Creative loss of talent? Loss of ideas? Need a bit more context to understand the quote, and it might be better to just reword away from a direct quote.
    • He's referring to ideas, reworded. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 01:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
  • "visa problems" - change to immigration problems. Not everyone knows what a visa is without a wikilink.
    • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 01:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
  • "maximum possible speed" - Was this a hardware limitation? There must be some cap based on something
    • Clarified. For whatever reason, the Sonic 1 devs applied a cap that prevents players from obtaining Sonic's fastest speed while running. They removed it in Sonic 2 to make the gameplay faster. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 01:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
  • "Tails was implemented using an artificial intelligence routine that allowed him to mimic Sonic's movements, becoming playable with a second controller" - The dependent clause "becoming..." is disconnected from the main sentence. Use a semicolon or start a new sentence.
    • I've just removed it entirely since it's mentioned in Gameplay already. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 01:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
  • "While Yamaguchi was assisted by Jina Ishiwatari, he worked mostly alone." - What is the purpose of this sentence? Ishiwatari isn't brought up for the rest of the article. The two clauses also conflict with each other. Is he assisted or did he work alone? If you want to keep the mention of Ishiwatari, maybe describe what she did in more detail, separate from Yamaguchi.
    • I've removed her since she's not mentioned elsewhere. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 01:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• Reception
  • Can you find any contemporary Japanese reviews? Would help globalize the section.
    • I found a review from Beep! Mega Drive that I'll incorporate. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 01:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
  • "though CVG and GamePro respectively" - awkward attempt at parallel construction, please split.
    • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 14:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
  • "GamePro writing they challenged" - missing a preposition in here
  • "the Genesis' theoretical inability of scaling" - this is impenetrable jargon, consider just excising the entire clause starting with "GamePro writing" since it seems like a very minor point
    • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 14:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
  • "considered" and "praised" are a bit overused in the Reception section; try varying up the word choice a little.
    • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 14:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
• Post-release
  • "Aftermath" is a pretty ominous-sounding section title. Since this section discusses the next steps for the development teams, maybe try something that's more descriptive of that?
    • I've just removed the first subheading entirely, I don't think it's entirely necessary JOEBRO⁶⁴ 14:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Wikilink pinball
    • It's already wikilinked in development JOEBRO⁶⁴ 14:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
  • "Emulated versions of Sonic 2 ... " - the list is slightly out of chronological order
    • Fixed JOEBRO⁶⁴ 14:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
  • "offered the remake free" - offered the remake for free
    • Fixed JOEBRO⁶⁴ 14:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
• Legacy
  • Can you avoid the phrase "fourth generation of video game consoles" in articles not specifically about that? The naming is a contentious topic on Wikipedia and you can easily write around it using the phrase "16-bit era", as that article notes it's better known by.
    • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 14:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
  • "originating the concept of the "street date"" - This feels like it can't be true. This has to be exaggeration on the part of tech executives who want to pat themselves on the back. At the very least, please make it more clear that Sonic 2sday popularized it within the games industry, not necessarily in other industries.
    • I've clarified and added another source to better back the claim. Believe it or not, it's not an exaggeration—it's widely considered the first notable case of a single, unified release date for a video game. At the time, game launches were uncoordinated and varied wildly. (For example, Super Mario Bros. 3 was released in Japan in 1988 but didn't come to the States until 1990.) After the success of Sonic 2sday, coordinated release dates became commonplace JOEBRO⁶⁴ 14:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
  • "Critics consider it an improvement over the first Sonic the Hedgehog" - This sentence is just repetition from the Reception section, but in reviews of ports. Please make this more clear and maybe find a more interesting observation to make here about the port reviews?
    • Done—changed to "Writing in retrospect, critics said it refined Sonic's formula..." JOEBRO⁶⁴ 14:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Ref 175 archeology, same note as above
    • Done JOEBRO⁶⁴ 14:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Enjoyable read, seems comprehensive. Willing to support. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! I'll address/respond tomorrow. (I was away this past weekend so I won't have time until tomorrow afternoon) JOEBRO⁶⁴ 01:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Chilean cruiser Esmeralda (1883)

Nominator(s): Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC), Muwatallis II (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey folks, this article is about the Chilean cruiser Esmeralda, a warship that marked an important milestone in naval design—albeit a short-lived one. This was the world's first protected cruiser, a type that made Esmeralda's builder a lot of money. The soundness of Esmeralda's design has been debated both then and now, but given the rapidly improving naval technology of the time, it was in any case destined to be quickly surpassed by new warships. Little more than a decade after Esmeralda entered service, Chile sold it to Japan to help fund a newer and larger vessel. My thanks in advance to everyone who takes a look through this article! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text
• File:Bombardeodeiquique.png needs a US tag
• File:Tsushima_battle_map-en.svg would benefit from a legend, and what's the source of the data presented?
• File:Japanese_cruiser_Izumi_at_Sasebo_1908.jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Hello Nikkimaria! I've added a US-PD_expired tag and swapped the second image for a regular map. For alt text, I think only one image needs it + the captions serve well enough for the others. Please let me know if you disagree. For the third image, a publishing date is not required per Japanese copyright law, which for this time period needs a publishing or creation date to prove something is in the public domain. I have a longstanding unresolved talk page message related to how the publishing requirement was added to the template. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria, does that resolve the issues? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

For the alts, where the caption is sufficient, an alt of "refer to caption" is preferred to a blank alt, unless the image is unlinked (See MOS:BLANKALT). The new map also needs more specific sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: To me, WP:SKYISBLUE would apply to the map... It has basic first- and second-level locations listed, and that's all. That said, I've replaced it with {{maplink}} and added that alt text to all applicable images. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

Good to see you back at FAC.

• "Constructed by the British shipbuilder Armstrong Mitchell in the early 1880s, the company's founder ...": needs rephrasing; the founder was not constructed by Armstrong Mitchell.
• The lead says Esmerelda showed the flag and conducted gunboat diplomacy during the Panama crisis of 1885. The body has "the Chilean government sent the ship on an unusual and statement-making voyage to Panama, where it showed the Chilean flag alongside the great powers" with no more details about what Esmerelda (or the Chilean government) did there. Do we need both "show the flag" and "gunboat diplomacy" in the lead?
• Suggest linking to "Navy_Directory#Background" instead of to wiktionary for "stricken"; the wiktionary sense is hard to spot on that page. You have another link near the end of the article; if you do want the duplicate link I would make the same change there. Are "struck" and "stricken" synonyms in this usage?
• In the "Background" section I think it would be worth giving the date of the end of the War of the Pacific (presumably April 4, 1884, when the Treaty of Valparaiso was signed), and the date of Esmerelda's completion, making it clearer that she never participated in that war.
• I initially read "developed it from the Japanese cruiser Tsukushi" as meaning that the ship that became Esmerelda was originally destined to become Tsukushi. The next sentence clarifies the situation, but how about "who based the design on that of the Japanese cruiser Tsukushi" or something similar?
• "Nathaniel Barnaby, the Director of Naval Construction for the British Admiralty, (the department in charge of Britain's Royal Navy), would later write that ...": don't use both parentheses and parenthetical commas.
• Per MOS:TYPOFIX you can correct "Chili" to "Chile", unless you feel it's significant in some way.
• "This perspective was part of a larger effort to draw attention to the underfunded and under-equipped state of the United States Navy." Does this mean that the quote just before this should not be taken at face value?
• We say it "lacked a proper conning tower", but later that "the conning tower was provided with its own 1-inch armor".
• "While the British government upheld its neutrality through the active prevention of warship deliveries to the countries involved in the War of the Pacific, Esmeralda was finished after the conclusion of the conflict and arrived in Chile on 16 October 1884." Presumably the Chileans knew about the British policy. If they knew they would not be able to take delivery till the War of the Pacific was over, I think that should be clearer in the "Background" section where the war is discussed as an incentive for the order.
• "She did not find them, although Abtao would later join the rebels." Suggest "and" instead of "although"; there's no contradiction here.
• "which bombarded the positions of the Presidential troops until they finally capitulated": I think you can drop "finally".
• "fired three shots to alert the Presidential forces of the arrival of the Congressionalists": I think it should be "to the arrival", not "of", but why would Esmeralda want to alert the enemy?
• "with a successful result": a bit vague -- what actually happened?
• "Renamed Izumi, the Japanese Navy": needs to be rephrased; the Japanese Navy was not renamed. Perhaps "It was renamed Izumi and employed by the Japanese Navy in ...".

All fairly minor points; looks good overall. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• Hey Mike Christie! I didn't even have a chance to leave you a talk page message before you caught this. :-) Thanks so much for this review. I've tried to address all of your thoughts, and some specific points follow:
  • "Struck" and "stricken" are synonyms in naval parlance. I've added a more specific links to wikt:stricken#Adjective, as I'm looking to give the definition of the word. Does that work?
  • The Background section: I added "Esmeralda was the most capable of these ships, and although British neutrality meant that it could not be delivered until after the war's conclusion, the Chileans ordered it with the intention of gaining naval superiority over their neighbors", citing Grant's Rulers, Guns, and Money. I haven't added the requested dates for the end of the War of the Pacific/Esmeralda's completion, but I can if this change is not enough to satisfy your point.
  • The conning tower point is tricky. It had a conning tower in the sense that the position was used like one, but unusually it was not one of the best-protected areas on the ship -- it was only protected against rifle fire. I've added the rifle fire bit to the article, and could swap "proper" for "full-fledged" if that makes more sense?
  • Three shots: that's an excellent catch. I went back to the source and clarified that the ship's crew was alerting the Congressionalists to their arrival. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The fixes all look good. Re the conning tower, how about saying it lacked a "fully-armored conning tower", if that was the main shortcoming? And one more point I just noticed: you refer to Esmerelda almost throughout as "it", but in the "Chilean Civil War" section you twice use "she", which I assume is an oversight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I've gone with "thickly armored," if that works? From the descriptions in sources, it sounds fully armored... just not against naval guns. :-) I've also added an explanatory note in the article for that + addressed your second point. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Support. Changes all look good. Perhaps "heavily-armored" instead of "thickly-armored"? But either is fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Source review

• It's only taken us ship types a dozen years or more to notice, but Conway's is actually an anthology with each navy's chapter written by various contributors. And Gardiner is the editorial director, not an actual editor of the volume.
  • Fun fact, I've actually been doing this for over a decade now. ;-) I've no clue how I missed it here, but it's now fixed. I kept Gardiner as an editor because I imagine he still took on some editorial duties... thoughts?
• You have a habit of shortening page ranges instead of expressing them fully in the References section.
  • I used to shorten them all the time, but that was later disallowed by policy! I believe I've fixed them.
• A lot of journal articles are missing page numbers.
  • Added. There's one left that does not have page numbers in the online copy.
• Italicize ship names when they appear in article titles.
  • Done.
• It would be nice to see some ISBNs (or OCLC numbers for older titles). And ISSNs for journals
  • I've added these for all that I can! Mechanical Engineer either doesn't have an ISSN or isn't coming up in a search.
• While I can't really speak to the Spanish-language sources, the English ones are known to me as highly reliable.
• Although surely you can find something a bit more academically inclined than the Encyclopedia Britannica for the Esmeralda Affair?
  • Britannica is only being used as a source for the name (i.e. to support calling it the "Esmeralda Affair"), and I don't have a replacement for it.
    • Scratch that. Some Google searching revealed that Lauderbaugh, a source I'm already using, calls it by the same name.
• Formatting of the endnotes is consistent.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review, Sturmvogel 66! I've left replies in line. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
    • Put Lyon in his proper spot and we'll be done here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
      • @Sturmvogel 66: Apologies, I completely missed this note. Lyon is already listed as the chapter author in the short and long refs, so I'm not sure what you're referring to? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
        • Yes, but he's not in alphabetical order--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Cplakidas

Look interesting, reserving a spot. Constantine ✍ 10:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: - are you still anticipating making a review here? Hog Farm _Talk 03:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Yes, within the next two-three days at most. Constantine ✍ 08:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "Jeune École". Foreign words should be in lang templates, not just in italics.
• Link treatise.
• "the emerging Jeune École school of French naval thought". Yu have already said that the Jeune École school was French. Does that need to be repeated? Ditto "naval".
• "Armstrong had or would soon be constructing protected cruisers for over a dozen countries." This doesn't quite work grammatically. Perhaps 'Armstrong was or would soon be constructing ...'?
• "including its propulsion plant and magazines." The bit about the magazines does not seem to be a summary of anything in the main article.
• "a good portion of the ship". "good portion" is ambiguous. Perhaps 'large part'?
• "an Admiralty comparison of Esmeralda to the Mersey design". Optional: → 'an Admiralty comparison of Esmeralda with the Mersey design'.
• "which measured out to about". Suggest "measured out" → 'was'.
• "ten-inch ... 10-inch ... 10-inch ... ten-inch ..."
• "it was 1 inch (25 mm) over the important machinery". Perhaps 'it was 1 inch (25 mm) thick over the important machinery'?
• "the various sources of information about the incident ... do not agree with that interpretation". Just to be clear, they argue that none of the documents support an interpretation that that Esmeralda was ordered to block an annexation of Panama?

• "Esmeralda engaged in a prolonged chase with the steamer Imperial". This reads as if they were jointly pursuing some third party, which I assume is not what you wish to convey. Maybe "with" → 'of'?
• "to allay suspicion". Is it known whose suspicion they wished to allay?
• "Itata reached Chile without incident". Possibly 'Itata reached Chile without further incident'?
• "but was returned to San Diego with the acquiescence of the Congressionalists." Why was she returned? Who to? Or just to pick up a further cargo of armaments. How did the acquiescence of the Congressionalists enter into this?
• "while kicking off the successful Liberal Revolution.". I am unsure that "while kicking off" is encyclopedic.

• "(respectively)". I don't think that parentheses are needed.
• "warned off an army hospital ship and troop transport". Was one vessel fulfilling both these roles? If not, can I suggest 'warned off an army hospital ship and a troop transport '.
• "the Japan Weekly Mail reported". Is it necessary to give the source in line? You don't for anything else. Providing hte information in Wikipedia's voice seems acceptable.
• "¥90,975". Any, even approximate, idea as to what this equates to in today's money? Or even in 1912 in a more familiar currency.

Welcome back to FAC. You haven't lost your touch. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hey Gog the Mild, thanks for the review and the compliment! I've actioned most of these with some comments below:

• I won't have access again to Sondhaus until tomorrow, at which point I'll address the "including its propulsion plant and magazines" point.
• "various sources": I've added "necessarily" to better convey the ambiguity.
• "allay suspicion": Do the next sentences about the Itata incident not answer that question? :-))) I've edited the sentence.
• "returned to San Diego": I've rewritten the sentence. "Itata reached Chile without further incident, but to put a halt to the escalating situation, the Congressionalists sent the cargo ship back to San Diego with its cargo intact."
• Japan Weekly Mail: this wording is strange because I was writing around the newspaper saying it would happen, vs. reporting that it did happen after the fact, leaving room for changed plans. Normally I might drop it, but it's a useful example of the type of task the ship would have been asked to do. Thoughts?
• I learned awhile back that currency conversions with things as large as warships can be problematic. (See the discussion beginning "how is the sale figure denominated in the original source".) That said, this smaller scrapping bid might be more appropriate than converting the original cost of a full-fledged capital ship, particularly if it's in 1912 values. Let me know what you think. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

• The propulsion and magazines point has been fixed. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Saving Private Ryan

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

This article is about the 1998 war film Saving Private Ryan, a highly influential film about a troop of soldiers tasked with recovering a single man and the last surviving son of the Ryan family, James Ryan, and getting him out of World War II alive. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Niland_brothers.jpg: when and where was this first published?
• File:Matt_Damon_TIFF_2015.jpg: the source link includes a ND license, and the photo ID link for NASA is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria, I removed the tag from the Matt Damon one as I searched the site and it appears to have been removed. I wouldn't know where to find the original release date of the Niland brothers image but I know it's prior to 1945 since three of them were dead by that point.Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 18:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

On Damon, now we're left with a problem: the NASA tag states their stuff is not copyrighted unless noted, and now our only source link asserts copyright (the ND license). On Niland: that supports that the image was created before 1945, but the given tagging is based on publication. If we can't demonstrate a publication from that era, we can't use that tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Morning Nikkimaria, so I have replaced the Matt Damon pic with File:Matt Damon 2014 3.jpg and I have found this page here with a newspaper clipping using the image of the Nilands. Is that any good? Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 09:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

That gets us halfway there - it demonstrates this was probably published in the 40s. But any idea what that publication is? We'd need to confirm lack of copyright renewal for the current tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

So searching the article title on newspapers.com via our library gives me this, which probably won't load for you unless you go through the library. This was printed in The Buffalo News, June 9, 1944 . Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 16:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Great. So if you can add that information to the image description page, this should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Done Nikkimaria Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Serial# emerges from pill box

Saw this the other day as it happens, so count me in. The main question is, without having read the article yet, whether it's true that the opening scene is what most people remember of it.... SN54129 12:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Serial Number 54129, sorry was that not a rhetorical question? The opening scene is definitely the most memorable part, probably followed by what happens to Miller. IMO anyway, the sources only talk about the opening scene. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi User:Serial Number 54129, now would be a good time to leave the pill box and storm the opening sequence. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: If you mean now would be a good opportunity not to get TOTALLY TROLLED at FAC, then I heartily agree. Let me look at it tomorrow; just spent 2 hours trying to get a doctor's appt (I.e: no), so I think Glenlivet calls. SN54129 17:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Looking forward to reviewing this! Although I don't foresee any major problems, will probably focus on the thematics rather than plot, production etc. Cinematography kicks ass man. SN54129 19:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• "gave Hanks the script and he was immediately interested" - suggest "script, who was"
• Also "and with with Gordon" etc
• MOS:LQ seems inconsistently applied (e,g, "give the character a "much harder edge."")
  More tomorrow! SN54129 17:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Done Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm about to send Tom Hanks and a band of rag tag soldiers out searching for private Serial Number 54129. Hope all is well! Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 11:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

Resolved

If you can find out for certain what the total budget was (instead of giving a range), then I'd go with a specific number. "The cast includes"..... I'd recommend "Other cast members" or "The cast also include" or something like that when we've already mentioned Tom Hanks and Matt Damon who are also part of the cast, contrary to what the current phrasing suggests. By "most involved scene", do you mean the one used most for filming? "Despite concerns about releasing a serious war drama in a season normally reserved for escapist entertainment" is a trivial concern you can safely scrap; just focus more on the actual results "had an important impact on" → "impacted" "three of four brothers"..... we should add "Ryan" in there to better establish a family connection The plot section should make a distinction between James Francis Ryan (the one being sought) and James Frederick Ryan (who he got temporarily mixed up with) as the middle name discrepancy was how John Miller and his crew realize they initially went after the wrong guy Try to avoid having super-short paragraphs with just one or two sentences as that makes the flow of text feel choppy Under "Cast", you should adjust "Saving Private Ryan's cast includes" per my earlier comments for cast listings within the lead Using "Frank" for "Frank performed rewrites" is confusing when Frank Darabont and Scott Frank are both being discussed shortly beforehand It seems like "found this a 'a mentally demoralizing experience' because the cast started together" has an extra "a". One of them should be deleted. The entire "Context" subsection is superfluous, and most of it focuses on other irrelevant films. Speculation over how much this movie would earn also isn't nearly as important as the official gross. Don't presume all readers will know what publications the critics are writing for; we should name more of these than just Salon.com (which I'm not fully sure is trustworthy) "Best Director (Spielberg) and Best Actor (Hanks) at the Empire Awards ." has a stray space before the period "Best Casting (Casting Society of America, Denise Chamian)" is missing a comma between the ending parenthetical and its accompanying citation The New York Observer needs italics for "While the Observer found the German characters" (and should use the paper's full name) "now considered one of the greatest war films ever made"..... see WP:RELTIME "anchored by another winning performance" should have "anchored" start with an upper-case "A" "Notes" are a separate entity from "References" and thus shouldn't be lumped under the same heading as them Once these get fixed, you should be up to par. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC) I've done these, I'm sure we've had this discussion about Context sections on a previous FA but I do disagree on them being superfluous, I find them quite interesting and it sets up expectations vs reality which i think, especially for films 20, 30, or 40 years ago, helps establish what the films were competing against, provides natural internal links to these films, and helps us understand where things predicted to do well failed and things thought to be limited end up overperforming. I have, however, trimmed it down a bit. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Following the compromise of a trim and all other points being addressed, I give my support to the nomination. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you SNUGGUMS! Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 08:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Accessibility review

The infobox image is missing alt text. Heartfox (talk) 03:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Heartfox am I missing something? The infobox has an alt field that is filled in. Did you mean the infobox? Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

It was added by Vaughan J. Heartfox (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Heartfox: You are correct. I added the alt text. Some parts of the alt text was added by Darkwarriorblake. — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 22:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Pseud 14

Non expert prose review.

• and went on to win many prizes -- perhaps accolades is a more suitable word
• and a third thought dead -- presumed dead
• Spielberg said he wanted to reflect the courage -- perhaps present or display or showcase
• arrive On Normandy beach -- should “on” be in lowercase?
• Suggest linking monochromatically to Black and white for those unfamiliar with filming approaches
• the 7 mi (11 km) long … 1 km (0.62 mi) segment -- should be consistent in both instances
• and at a cost of $12 million.[26][47][12][40][20][14][47][38] -- This could be a case of citation overkill with up to 8 sources to support this sentence. This is not source review, but perhaps consider citation bundling or only use the source(s) the support this or a similar style of attributing multiple reference via efn.
• with squibs and explosives -- worth linking squib to its article
• additional content, including behind-the-scenes -- suggest linking behind-the-scenes
• In the critical response section, perhaps merge the lead and only sentence to the second para

Those are my comments. A well-written article about one of my favorites and one of the first war films I've seen in my youth. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Pseud 14, done. Chompy Ace 09:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Support on prose. Looping Darkwarriorblake (nominator) on this with regards to Chompy's revisions. Also, if either have spare time and interest, I would also appreciate your input/comments on a current FAC. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you to Pseud 14 and Chompy Ace, I've had a few things on recently and wasn't able to give this immediate attention. Pseud I will take a look at your article as it's short and I'm lazy. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

2007 World Cup of Pool

Nominator(s): Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

This article is about the 2007 edition of the World Cup of Pool. This is a doubles event played every year. An exciting event that came down to the very last couple of balls. I've only promoted one previous pool event (2019 WPA World Ten-ball Championship) so I'd appreciate any comments you might have about this article Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• Will do a full review later, but one drive-by comment on the lead - you have "deciding rack" linked to Glossary of cue sports terms#deciding_rack, but as no such anchor exists on that article it just takes me to the top. Scrolling down to D reveals that there isn't even a listing for "deciding rack", unless it's the same as "deciding frame"........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. They are the same thing (a rack is the same as a frame). I'll fix that. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

More commentsSupport from Chris

• Name of the venue is different in the lead to the infobox and first para of the body
• "with players taking shots alternatively" - think you mean "alternately". "Alternatively" means something quite different
• Any reason for italics on alternative breaks?
• "play alternating shots in scotch doubles style" - no need to link for a second time
• "played from 25 to 27 September as a race to eight" - earlier you had hyphens in "race-to-[whatever]"
• "The pair met the Dutch B team; and won six racks" - don't think that semi-colon is needed
• "The defending champions Filipino pair" - don't think this works grammatically
• "The other semi-final match was played between China, seeded 8th and the unseeded Japanese team" => "The other semi-final match was played between China, seeded 8th, and the unseeded Japanese team"
• "The final had a lot of dry breaks, with six in the first 15 racks, having had just ten in the rest of the tournament" => "The final had a lot of dry breaks, with six in the first 15 racks, there having been just ten in the rest of the tournament"
• "Below is the results" => "Below are the results"
• Think that's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry for the delay ChrisTheDude. I've done the above Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments from TAOT

• You have a space in "SBS 6", but the article in question consistently uses "SBS6" with no space.
  • Yeah, makes sense. I can't say I'm an expert on Dutch TV.Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• The first round of the event was played from 25 to 27 September as a race-to-eight racks contradicts the format section, which states Matches were played as a race-to-nine racks until the final.
  • Added Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Link deciding rack as the first mention in the body.
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• You have Taiwan as "Chinese Taipei" in the results bracket, but as "Taiwan" elsewhere. This could cause confusion.

yeah, sources aren't helpful here, as https://www.azbilliards.com/world-cup-of-pool-team-taiwan-show-their-class/ lists them as "Team Taiwan", whereas http://www.azbilliards.com/tournament/1772-partypoker-world-cup-of-pool-2007/?action=results lists them as at least using the Chinese Taipei flag. I've changed it to "Taiwan" for now, but retained the flag. I know this is a contentious subject, so I'd prefer someone with more understanding make sure I'm not misrepresenting. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Any possibility of adding more photos?
  • I'll have a look, but I doubt anything is suitable. We have basically no images of pool players. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• The prize funding table is confusing, as the other listed amounts do not add up to $250,000. I suggest noting which award amounts were given to more than one team to make this clear. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
  • It does make sense if you look at the draw - obviously there will be more first round losers than second round losers, because the field cuts in half at each point. I don't think we benefit from stating that 16 teams all gained the money for losing in the first round. That's why we include a total to begin with. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• I've covered the above TrainsAndOtherThings, and left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taiwan to clarify the deal with the flags and such. Thanks for your review. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Great. I think your explanation regarding the table makes sense. I've given the article another readthrough, and I have no further comments on the prose. Support on prose. By the way, the ping didn't go through - my username is lowercase after the first letter! Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720

Non-expert prose review:

• "Rogers Sportsnet in Canada, Solar Entertainment in the Philippines;" Should this comma be a semi-colon to be consistent with the formatting of this list?
• "and Videoland in Taiwan." Is this Videoland Television Network? If so, wikilink.
• "Finland won the lag, but made a dry break in the opening rack, but retained the break throughout the match as they won 9–0." Replace or delete one of the "but"s.
• Spot-checked the lede and infobox; the information was in the article's body.

Those are my comments. Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Z1720, I've covered the above. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

My comments have been addressed, so I can support. Z1720 (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments from NØ

• Would it be possible to be consistent with whether the poker website is referred to as "PartyPoker.com" or "Partypoker"?
  • I've changed one ref where we are talking about the name. The event is specifically "ParktyPoker.com World...", But the name of the company is partypoker - personally I think it should be Partypoker. This shouldn't be necessarily the same as the name of the proper name of the event as a whole. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• "The defending champions were the Filipino team of Efren Reyes ..." - "Filipino team consisting of Efren Reyes ..."
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• I think its alternate title of "the 2007 PartyPoker.com World Cup of Pool" should occur once in the body of the article as well, as it isn't sourced in the lead.
  • Added to body - sourced to source already in Body. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• There are four sentences beginning with "The event" in the Format section, three of them consecutive. You can use "It" instead to bring some variation.
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• "The Japan team of Naoyuki Ōi and Satoshi Kawabata" - Maybe "The Japanese team" to be consistent with how the other teams are introduced.
  • Sure. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• "and having trailed 6–7 won the final two racks to win 8–7" - Is it possible to write this as "and having trailed 6–7 won the final two racks with 8–7" without the repetition "won ... win", without changing the meaning?
  • I've changed it slightly to avoid this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• There seems to be inconsistency in how the refs are expressed, with both AzBilliards and azbilliards.com in use, as well as both worldcupofpool.com and worldcupofpool.
  • Sure, I'll make my way through them. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, my current FAC could use some comments.--NØ 11:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• • Yeah, no drama, I'll leave some comments in a bit MaranoFan. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I hadn't seen this. Shouldn't take more than a few minutes. Shall get to this later today. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support--NØ 11:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Image review -- GTG

One image with appropriate licence and working link. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Request for the coordinators

• Hi Gog the Mild. I know traditionally we don't allow another item before the source review concludes, but I don't have a co-nomination right now (and haven't got any lined up for this purpose). As it looks like all I'm awaiting is a source review, would you mind me doing another solo item? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi LV, sorry, but no. Once we start allowing that sort of dospensation we are into thin end of hte wedge/slippery slope territory. (And someone is likely to re-open the why do we allow a second nom before the first is closed anyway issue.) So practice patience, and/or neutrally ask around editors who may wish to do the source review. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Source review

• The article heavily relies on AzBilliards.com (14 out 24 times). What makes it a high-quality reliable source?
  • Sure, AZBilliards is pretty much the industry standard now. They have been open since the laste 90s with a big team, and they publish results and news from their large in-house team as well as the journalist network. There is a forum side of the website (which, we obviously stay far clear from) but the actual news and results are of the highest standard. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
    • Oh, and they also publish the Billiard Buzz magazine, which I think has been going since like 2015. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
• FN 7: it seems Philippines take first ever PartyPoker.com World Cup of Pool" was published on August 27, 2006 by Matchroom Sport. I would include Matchroom Sport as the publisher and add |via=The Break. FrB.TG (talk) 05:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
  • @FrB.TG and Lee Vilenski: - have these been satisfactorily resolved? Hog Farm _Talk 03:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

    Awaiting response to my second point. FrB.TG (talk) 08:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Al-Musta'li

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 12:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

This article is about the ninth Fatimid caliph, whose rise to the throne in 1094 was due to the machinations of the powerful vizier al-Afdal Shahanshah, and caused a major rift in the Isma'ili branch of Shi'a Islam. Al-Musta'li remained under the thumb of his vizier for the duration of his relatively short caliphate, and his reign is mostly a record of al-Afdal's actions. The article is a pendant to Nizar ibn al-Mustansir, al-Musta'li's elder brother, who was likely the legitimate successor. For the initial sections on the disputed succession and Nizar's revolt, there is considerable overlap between the two. Both articles were heavily rewritten, effectively from scratch, in 2020. Al-Musta'li passed GA in March 2022, while Nizar's article became FA in May 2022. As usual, I am looking forward to any comments and suggestions for further improvement. Constantine ✍ 12:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text
  • Done.
• File:Godefroi1099.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: Is that not covered by PD-Art? Constantine ✍ 14:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
    • PD-Art accounts for the fact that reproduction of a 2D work does not garner a new copyright in the US. It doesn't speak to why the original work was PD in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
      • Ah, OK, thanks. US tag added. Constantine ✍ 18:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• "when learning of al-Mustansir's passing" => "when learning of al-Mustansir's death"
  • Done.
• Is there not more to say about al-Musta'li himself? The "reign" section, for example, barely mentions him
  • Unfortunately, no. As a younger son, he was not in line for the succession, and would have been a mere name, if that, in the footnotes of history. As caliph, he was a puppet ruler, and even on affairs concerning the Isma'ili da'wa, it is unknown whether it was al-Musta'li showing agency or whether, as figurehead, events were attributed to him. All historical and modern sources on his life focus on two things: the disputed succession, and then the events of his reign, which saw the arrival of the Crusaders. I have also given only a brief overview of these events, and not gone into as much detail as I could, since they properly belong to the article on al-Afdal, who actually was responsible for the government.
• That's it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: comments addressed. If I may ask, did you find the article easy to understand? Or is there more context/detailed explanation that can be added somewhere? Constantine ✍ 09:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Chris, anything you wanted to add? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Kusma

Will do a naive non-expert review soon. —Kusma (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• Lead: is "youngest of the sons" definite enough to be stated like that?
  • That appears to be the consensus. In the main article text, I was a bit more cautious given Walker's comments, but most sources don't hesitate in calling him that (e.g. Gibb and Özkuyumcu). Halm, as you point out, is an exception. I have rephrased it, however, to make clear that he at any rate wasn't the oldest.
• I am wondering whether it is worth giving a little bit of historical context about the Fatimid Caliphate and where al-Musta'li stands within its history. (According to that article, the Fatimid Caliphate was in decline at this time and ruled only over Egypt). The capital was in Cairo?
  • Excellent point, done.
    • Much better. However, "Life" is no longer a very descriptive section header (and not all of the life is covered here).
      • Added a new subheader.
        • You could perhaps even drop the "Life" now (it is a biography, after all) and upgrade the Level 3 to Level 2 headings.
• CE dates seem to be Julian; I assume this is standard?
  • Hmmm, since the Gregorian calendar wasn't around yet, I guess so? What would be the difference?
    • A few days :) I don't think you need to do anything here.
      • My point (very much not clearly made) was what you 'tipped you off', i.e. why the dates "seem to be Julian" ;).
        • I was curious and checked a calendar converter.
• Life: "youngest of all of al-Mustansir's sons" Halm p. 88 has him as the fourth oldest of ten sons, quite a bit different from the youngest of seventeen. Would it make sense to state how much younger than Nizar he was?
  • Yes, this puzzled me for a while. I don't know where Halm gets this from. Walker, who lays out his investigation in some detail, is quite definitive: "it now appears even more likely that the future al-Musta'li was the youngest of al-Mustansir's sons. He was, moreover and perhaps most importantly, the only one born (and raised) under the dictatorship of Badr." The statement of Halm contradicts even Halm's own notes on the issue, since he remarks (p. 366) on the existence of Ahmad's older namesake brother. I guess what Halm means is that Ahmad was the youngest of the four surviving sons of al-Mustansir at the time of the latter's death, but this is contradicted by calling these four the 'eldest'. Given that Nizar, likely the firstborn, was born in 1045, thirty years before al-Musta'li, it beggars belief that al-Musta'li may have been among the older sons of al-Mustansir. As noted above, the communis opinio among scholars is that he was indeed the youngest son.
• "no definite designation of Nizar" this makes sense only in conjunction with the footnote that talks about Nass (Islam). It might be worth moving some of that footnote into the main text. Or to just say "no formal designation"?
  • Changed.
• The three paragraphs starting from "In 1122" are later explanations and justifications for al-Musta'li's accession. I found this a bit confusing, as the accession itself hasn't happened yet in the body of the article, and it seems we are jumping forward and backwards in time. Perhaps an introductory sentence would help, or some reordering (you could have the paragraph talking about al-Mustansir's death and the accession right after talking about Ahmad's wedding, and then tell us about al-Amir's proclamation and other attempts to justify what happened. In other words, first have the succession and then the dispute about the succession?
  • Good suggestion, done.
• Would it make sense to cite some modern Nizari scholars? And do we know what other Islamic leaders/scholars at the time thought of this split?
  • Good question: I have tried to find WP:RS on the issue (or at least some source in a language I can read) while working on Nizar's article, but have failed so far. Modern Nizaris are obviously partisans of Nizar's succession, but remarkably for an event of such apparent importance I don't have the impression that it is a major talking point. As long as there is an 'imam of the time', the past is not so relevant, it seems. The reaction of other Islamic leaders is also difficult to know; within Ismailism, the reaction is known and given in the article. Outside, it must have been seen as a simple succession dispute, if it registered at all. If you are a Sunni ruler or scholar, and learn of these events, you would likely not attribute any particular religious significance to them, since you already reject Fatimid claims and legitimacy in toto.
• Nizar's revolt and the Nizari schism: How long/when is the "in the meantime" (you mean the time between al-Mustansir's death and the "grand assembly of officials")?
  • Yes, but it is needlessly confusing. Have rephrased to 'After fleeing from Cairo'.
• "allegiance of the Arab tribes" which Arab tribes? Are they important players? (I do not understand enough of the context here).
  • No names for the tribes are given here, although I could make an educated guess who these were (Juhayna, Tha'laba, Tayy). The point is that the Arab tribes were semi-autonomous, and could provide a crucial pool of military manpower (as well as an excellent and skilled, albeit undisciplined, raiding/reconnaissance force). Have slightly rephrased to emphasize the military dimension of this, but don't know if it is enough.
    • The main issue for me is that "al-Afdal managed to win back the allegiance of the Arab tribes" is surprising, as we didn't yet know that their allegiance had changed.
      • After further consideration, I decided to remove this. It is covered in a bit more detail in Nizar's article, and here it is rather redundant.
• perhaps clarify "immured" to "immured and died" as in Halm?
  • Done.
• Do we know anything about the rumours that he was poisoned? (Where do these rumours come from and who wrote about them?)
  • Well, the sources report it as a rumour, but as Halm notes ('wie üblich munkelte man'), this is the inevitable rumour that will always arise when a ruler dies at an early age, and in unclear power relationships, as here. The other sources don't even mention the rumours.
    • Mentioning this only in the body and not in the lead is fine.

A very interesting article about a puppet ruler in a complicated time. As I said, I found the "Disputed succession" bit somewhat hard to understand, and as this is kind of the central issue from the religious split perspective, it would be worth clarifying it as much as possible. As I said, I am clueless about the period, so I apologise if I missed something obvious. —Kusma (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• Some comments above. Thank you for the interesting responses. —Kusma (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
  • @Kusma: a delayed thanks for the many valuable comments. Have responded above. Constantine ✍ 09:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
    • Much improved. I think there are a few smallish issues left (header levels issue above; Arwa al-Sulayhi is linked at second instead of first mention; I guess a native speaker will find some prose issues), but I think I don't have much else to add here. —Kusma (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

      I think with the recent edits in response to others it is good enough now, happy to support. —Kusma (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Funk

• I didn't get to review his brother, so will have a look soonish. FunkMonk (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
• At first glance, there's a bunch of WP:duplinks, which can be highlighted with the usual script.[24]
  • Duplinks taken care of. Constantine ✍ 09:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• " All three refused, each claiming that he had been designated as successor by their father." When I first read this, I was confused, because I thought "he" referred to al-Musta'li. Not a big deal, but maybe "they" would be clearer?
  • Rephrased to 'each claiming to have been designated' for clarity.
• "A letter sent to Queen Arwa al-Sulayhi" Link and present her at first mention, now this only happens further down.
  • Fixed.
• Wow, I've never seen a footnote within a footnote before (b), but I guess that's the only way to do it in this case.
  • Yeah, not exactly ideal. I have moved the imam footnote up, so hopefully readers will see what an 'imam' is in this context before they get to nass. Have also trimmed the footnote to keep the essentials (although I fear even so it is information overload).
• "to make common cause the Crusaders" Missing "with"?
  • Indeed, fixed.
• "and main candidate for their father's succession, Nizar" The article body seems much less clear that he was actually designated as such.
  • Changed to 'most likely candidate'; given that Nizar was likely the oldest son, he would normally have succeeded. An many sources simply assume him to have been the de facto heir-apparent.

• Support - not much to complain about. FunkMonk (talk) 12:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Unlimitedlead

I will review after Kusma's comments have been addressed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• "Throughout his reign, al-Musta'li remained subordinate to al-Afdal, who was the de facto ruler of the state" Which state? I think this needs to be explicitly stated.
  • Clarified.
• "While Egypt experienced a period of good government..." This is rather vague.
  • Have tried to clarify. What exactly do you think needs to be elaborated?
• "Despite Fatimid attempts to treat with the Crusaders..." What does it mean to "treat with"? I would reword.
  • Done.
• Cairo is double linked in the infobox.
  • Fixed.
• "Ahmad's oldest half-brother, Nizar ibn al-Mustansir, was apparently considered at the time as the most likely successor to their father, as was the custom..." What custom? I would briefly explain or place a note.
  • Hmmm, have rephrased slightly, but do I really need to explain primogeniture in succession? That the eldest usually succeeds in a monarchy is common knowledge.
• "...Abdallah and Isma'il made for a nearby mosque..." "made off" sounds quite colloquial; reword?
  • Done.
• "In it he puts forth a number of arguments..." "puts" is present tense; please switch to past tense.
  • fixed.
• "Modern historians point out that this was a deliberately misconstrued argument, as the princes were sent away for their protection, not because of their rank" Is it possible to have a citation for this sentence?
  • Clarified that this is Walker's view, and repeated the citation
• Link Coup d'état?
  • Done.

@Unlimitedlead: Thanks for taking the time, I've addressed your comments so far. Constantine ✍ 10:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

As always, I am more than happy to give my suggestions on how to improve an article. However, I do not feel comfortable supporting or opposing this nomination at this time. Thank you for understanding. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@Unlimitedlead: Sure, and I am thankful for any suggestions. But may I ask what you feel is missing for your support? Constantine ✍ 12:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey, I just feel like the article does not discuss enough about the titular monarch. It talks plenty about the historical context and people close to Al-Musta'li, but I personally feel like a large portion of the article is unrelated and could probably be deleted. However, I recognize that there is a shortcoming in the historical record and modern academic discussion; that is why I do not oppose. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, I fully sympathize with that. Thanks again for your time and suggestions! Constantine ✍ 09:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Borsoka

• The long reign of al-Mustansir ensured that he had numerous offspring... Is there a connection between the length of a ruler's reign and the number of his children? For instance, Sigismund of Luxemburg ruled for 50 years but he fathered only one child.
  • There definitely is, if you have a large harem at your disposal and not much to do since your viziers govern the country for you... But you are right, the statement is open to misinterpretation. Rephrased.
• Other reports... No reports have been mentioned. Is his date of birth mentioned in the first sentence a fact or an assumption?
  • Removed and replaced with a variant date. The commonly mentioned/accepted date is the former (1074).
• Do we know his mother's name?
  • No, at least not in the sources cited here, and I haven't been able to find anything anywhere else. Given the deliberate Fatimid policy of not allowing prominence to anyone from the family but the caliph and his designated heir (with some exceptions that are notable precisely as exceptions), her name was likely never recorded.
• I assume Nizar was Ahmad's half-brother.
  • Indeed, aded.
• Do we need a footnote within a footnote? I think the issue could be solved with a wikilink to nass (Islam) and a reference to the Ismaili conception of imamate in the main text.
  • I've resolved at least the first part. Frankly I don't particularly like the ultra-condensed information dump in the footnotes, so I would normally agree, but a) it has been expressly requested in previous reviews about Fatimid caliphs, and b) our various articles on the imamate of the various Shia branches are not a very inviting read.
• ...was apparently considered as the most likely successor to his father... Is "apparently" necessary? By whom or when was he considered as his father's heir? Perhaps "their father"?
  • Rephrased a bit.
• ...is often stated ... By whom or when?
  • Added.
• ...favoured the accession of Ahmad. Why?
• I would mention Cairo before referring to it as "the capital".
• (father of the Caliph al-Hafiz) Do we need to know in the article's context? If yes, his reigning years should also be mentioned.
  • Yes because it is unlikely that he will ever have an article, and this is the only way to distinguish him. Added the regnal dates, good suggestion.
• ...at the wedding banquet... I am not sure that all readers will understand that this is a reference to Ahmad's wedding.
  • Clarified.
• Link Fatimid Great Palaces when the first reference to the palace is made (in the section's second paragraph).
  • Done at an earlier place, where it is now mentioned
• Introduce (and link) Queen Arwa al-Sulayhi when she is first mentioned.
  • Done.
• What does the term "Musta'li leader" mean?
  • Clarified.
• ..., but the Fatimid vizier's efforts ultimately failed Consider deleting this text, because the following sentences contain a full account of the events.
  • Good point, done.
• ...other Seljuk emirs of Syria... Were all of them emirs or some of them were leaders bearing a different title (such as atabeg)?
  • Good point. 'Rulers' is better.
• ...to make contact with them... I assume with the crusaders/crusader leaders.
  • Clarified.
• Do we have further information about his family? Was Sitt al-Mulk his sons' or al-Amir's mother? Borsoka (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Will give the same answer as above, in that Fatimid women and junior princes are rarely mentioned in primary sources and consequently even less so in modern accounts. If I find any such info, I will add it.
• Mustaʽli Ismailism should be mentioned and explained in the main text.
  • Done.
• I understand his date of birth mentioned in the lead is not a fact.
  • It is the commonly accepted date. The alternative is always mentioned as such, an 'also mentioned'.
• ...and main candidate... Is this factual and neutral?
  • Have rephrased as 'most likely candidate', but the consensus appears to be so. Nizar was apparently the oldest brother, and custom and doctrine would suggest him as the obvious successor. If we take some of the medieval historians at face value, he may even have been the designated heir apparent, we just don't have any evidence for that (and it would make the usurpation even more blatant, so modern historians generally discount this).
• Al-Musta'li died in 1101 and was succeeded by his five-year-old son, al-Amir. I think this could be the closing sentence in the lead. I would not repeat the year of death in the lead but would mention the rumours that he was poisoned.
  • Moved the death to the end. On the poisoning, Halm, who mentions this, makes pretty clear that it was the usual rumour that happens when a young monarch under the tutelage of a powerful minister dies. I.e., I prefer not to make it official by putting it in the lede.
• Consider linking the Siege of Jerusalem (1099) in the lead.
  • Done.
• ... a major victory over the Fatimid army ... Perhaps "a major victory over al-Afdal/al-Afdal's army"? Borsoka (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
  • In the sense that it was led by al-Afdal? Done.

@Borsoka: many thanks for the extensive and helpful review. Anything else? Constantine ✍ 16:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for this interesting and well written article. I support the article's promotion. Borsoka (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Source review

• Brett, Michael (2017): Google books has preview
  • Added
• Özkuyumcu, Nadir (2006): I would suggest removing hyphens from the ISBN (turn 0 results outside Wikipedia). Check unhyphenated ISBN for comparison.
  • Personally, as long as the ISBN is correct and worldcat etc can find the correct resource by it, I don't really care. The problem is that often there is an expectation of conformity for ISBN formatting, and usually the hyphenated forms are used in the other citations. As a result, I have also used the hyphenated forms in the template.
• Daftary 2007, pp. 1, 39–86: this range is unreasonable. Suggest using 39ff instead.
  • Done, but again there appears to be no standard here: I have been admonished against using 'ff.' in several reviews in the past.
• Brett 2017, pp. 205–218 : ditto
  • As above
• Correct page for [35] is 249 and not 248
  • Thanks, fixed.
• Spot checks done for roughly 20% of the citations. No problems found except for the minor point above
• Sources are all high quality and correctly formatted except for the minor points listed above. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 16:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@AhmadLX: Thanks for the thorough review, I have addressed your comments. Constantine ✍ 09:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Irish nationality law

Nominator(s): Horserice (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Seeing as how it's almost St. Patrick's Day, I thought it'd be a good time to put this article forward for FAC. This article is about the history and regulations of Irish citizenship. Given the manner in which independence was achieved, it's interesting to observe how closely tied Ireland and Britain remained after independence and how that is reflected in nationality law. I completely rewrote the article last summer and recently took it through a GA nomination successfully (thank you Morogris). Looking forward to feedback, Horserice (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Healy_passport.jpg is mistagged. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• Added PD licenses. Horserice (talk) 10:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Support by Ceoil

Very much Support here. The writing is crisp, clear and easy to follow: no small feat given the danger of slipping into dry and complex legalese. I also like the skillful way the evolution of the laws are intertwined with the country's ever changing relationship with the UK, giving full historical context. Only two quibble are

• Can you explain the modern difference between Irish citizenship and nationality in the lead. - many readers will be using the article for basic advice.

• Hmm since there isn't a practical difference, would that not be more confusing to readers? Irish law doesn't actually define the two terms separately and so I'd also struggle to think of a relevant bit to place in the lead.

• Lead again: Although most of Ireland gained independence in 1922 - "most" is vague, maybe 26 of the 32 counties.

• Done.

To note, the sources are all first class. The page is really well done and clearly explains the complex legal history in language clear to laymen. Ceoil (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for supporting and going through the article! I'm glad that you found it engaging. Horserice (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

John M Wolfson

I'll get to this in the next couple days. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Consider condensing or removing the third-level headers.

• Reduced some of these headers and moved a few of them to higher levels.

• Any particular rights of citizenship, other than abode and suffrage/officeholding?

• Nothing exclusive to Irish citizens actually comes to mind. I could mention eligibility for the Defence Forces or welfare benefits, but those are open to all EEA citizens. It would be odd to mention things like eligibility for the House of Lords in an Irish article, but even that is open to all Commonwealth citizens and not exclusive to British/Irish citizens. Visa-free travel to other countries has nothing to do with Irish law and would not fall in scope for this article (but I will add a link in See Also). Is there anything in particular you think should be highlighted?
  • I guess the British stuff (elections, etc.) suffices. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Consider a "see also" section to stuff like Visa policy of Ireland and Visa requirements for Irish citizens.

• Done.

That's all from me for now. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for going through it, Horserice (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Looks good to me; while I'm still doing some lookthroughs all I'd insist on changing at this point are the prose parentheses, either to commas or linking where appropriate. For example, change "entitled to (but not automatically granted)" to "entitled to, but not automatically granted,", "a wider British nationality (British subject status)" to "a wider British nationality" unless you think that would be an MOS:EASTEREGG and that particular wording is important, etc. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  I removed parentheses where appropriate. I did leave the current phrasing for "a wider British nationality (British subject status)" as it is though because there's a lot of commas otherwise. Horserice (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Support from Airship

First-class article. Can find literally nothing to have a flap about; personally, I would turn the list in the honorary citizenship section into prose, but honestly either is fine. Great job. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

USS Marmora (1862)

Nominator(s): Hog Farm _Talk 05:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

If this nomination passes, I believe it will be the first tinclad warship to be a featured article. The best documented of the whole lot, Marmora is probably best known for being present when the ironclad Cairo sent itself to the bottom of the Yazoo River by steaming over a couple naval mines, and then torching a couple settlements in Arkansas in the next year. Hog Farm _Talk 05:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
  • I've added alt text for all but the map, which I can't think of a good way to describe. Hog Farm _Talk 01:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Valereee

Date context:

• I'm wondering if the lead sentence could use an addition about the dates of service? The ship was built and put into service in 1862 and saw her last service/was declared surplus in 1865, is that worth mentioning in the lead sentence?
  • I've added the 1862-1865 dates into the first sentence
• New sections/subsections (such as Yazoo City and later service) probably need a year listed in the first date mentioned; I found myself scrolling up to the section above to see what year we were talking about with On February 2, Marmora began a movement up the Yazoo River.
  • I've done this for all but two sections - "Late 1863" has the year in the name, so I don't think it's necessary to duplicate the date there, and I've left it off of the Chickasaw Bluff and Fort Hindman one because the prior section about the Cairo takes up less than two weeks of time, so the time context should still be pretty fresh

Valereee (talk) 15:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

• "USS Marmora was a sternwheel steamer that served in the Union Navy during the American Civil War from 1862 to 1865." maybe "USS Marmora was a sternwheel steamer that served in the Union Navy from 1862 to 1865, during the American Civil War. This stops the dates from hanging off the end of the sentence and also you drop the 1862 date again right afterwards.

• Done

• Do 12-pounder and similar require conversion or footnoting for metric equivalent?

• Probably - I don't know if it's possible with the template, but I've asked at Template talk:Convert. If it's not possible to do this via template, I'll try to go through and provide manual conversions for everything. Hog Farm _Talk 02:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• It looks like there may not be a firm consensus that providing those conversions is appropriate. Hog Farm _Talk 14:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• "in junction" maybe "in conjunction"?

• Done

• "In early 1863, Grant and Porter made a plan known as the Yazoo Pass expedition" This reads a bit oddly. Perhaps this is what the action has come to be called, but did Grant and Porter called their plan this?\

• Rephrased

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• I understand you've given standard info on the characteristics that we see in FA ship articles, but can anything be said on living conditions or arrangements on her? Crew size?

• Nothing I've seen that's particularly solid on this information. Hog Farm _Talk 16:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• It might be worth mentioning more clearly what the three crew received the Medal of Honor for, assuming Medal of Honor citations of that era are considered reliable.

• Have added a bit here

• "Extracts from her ship's log were later published more times in the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies than those of any other tinclad.[96]" Assuming this is significant, the question is why were extracts published more often? If they are particularly juicy, would it worth be including some bits in quote boxes?

• Nothing particularly juice (that's USS Romeo and the squadron commander talking crap about the ship captain in his official reports). I've added the one bit of significance Smith applies to this information.

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: - Have replied above, all done so far except for the pound to kg conversion. Hog Farm _Talk 04:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I just raised the issue, I'm fine with whatever you come up with there. Support Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Source review

Spotchecks not done

• Encyclopedia of Arkansas should be italicized
• FN3 is missing publisher. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: Thanks for the source review! I've converted the E of A refs to be cite encyclopedia, and have added the missing publisher. Hog Farm _Talk 16:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Funk

• I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 11:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• "Wartime map of the Satartia, Liverpool" But the source says it's from 1911?
  • Oops, fixed. I don't know why I was under the impression that Porter had drawn it. Hog Farm _Talk 01:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• "and the name originated with the island of Marmara" Do we know why it was named after this island?
  • Not that I've seen.
• Do we have any more info about the pre-military activities of this ship?
  • Unfortunately, I've been able to turn up very little on this.
• "by an escaped slave" Perhaps an interesting article could be linked here? Fugitive slaves in the United States?
  • Linked
• "USS Cairo. Marmora was present when Cairo sank on December 12, 1862." Link the ship's name in caption?
  • Linked Cairo in the caption
• Link flotilla?
  • I'm using flotilla in more of an informal sense of "collection of warships" rather than the more formal sense linked there - do you think it'd be better to link or simply come up with another word to use there?
• "reached the site of the Confederate fort, and sent a party ashore to help destroy the fort" Perhaps "destroy it" to avoid repeating "fort"?
  • Done
• "A modern view of the Mississippi River in the area of the former site of Eunice, Arkansas" Link places?
  • Done
• " slowed by her boiler problems" Her problems makes it sound like it's a problem that has been mentioned earlier, but it seems it hasn't. Just say "slowed by boiler problems"?
  • Rephrased as suggested
• "She then fired on the woods on the opposite side of the river." Why?
  • I don't think it's important and haven't had a chance to get to the library to consult Smith, so I've just removed the sentence
• "that burned every structure within a mile of Eunice, including a warehouse and railroad depot." From reading the article about the town, perhaps worth mentioning it never recovered and remains uninhabited?
  • Not finding much explicitly stating that, but I've added a statement that Eunice was replaced w
• "They began returning downriver on February 19, returning to Yazoo City on February 28" Could the double "returning" become less repetitive by for example saying "arriving" at last occurrence?
  • rephrased

@FunkMonk: - Thank you for the review! Sorry about the delay in getting to these Hog Farm _Talk 04:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support - looking good to me, maybe the flotilla term is a bit confusing if it doesn't mean what most people think it means, but you can deal with it how you like. FunkMonk (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Harrias

• "..from C. Brennan, William Nelson, and James McDonnell." Is that last one definitely James McDonnell, and not the ship's captain James McDonald? It seems a mighty odd coincidence otherwise?f
  • This came up, in a way, in the ACR, as well. I suspect it may be, but the sources I've consulted consistently use McDonnell for the seller, and don't make a connection
• "..these numbers were painted onto the pilothouses of the tinclads beginning in June 1863. She was commissioned into the Union Navy on October 21.." Putting the "October 21" date after the "June 1863" date makes it seem like she was commissioned in 1863, but according to the infobox it was 1862, so add the year for clarity.
  • Done
• "Marmora left Carondelet for Cairo, Illinois on.." Needs a comma after "Illinois", per MOS:GEOCOMMA.
  • Done, although my personal opinion is that GEOCOMMA is a load of crock
• Per MOS:TIME add a non-breaking space into all the times in the article.
  • I caught 5 of them, which I think is all
• "..wanted to confirm or deny that information.." – This phrasing is pretty awkward; "wanted to verify that information" would be much more natural, but I wonder if you've changed it to avoid close para-phrasing/copyvio concerns?
  • The original text in the source is "Walke wanted confirmation of this". I think "wanted to verify that information" would be OK from a copyvio perspective, so I've switched to that
• "Cairo heard men.." Ships can't hear, so this reads a little awkwardly to me.
  • Rephrased
• "..reaching Coldwater, Mississippi two days later." Needs a comma after "Mississippi", per MOS:GEOCOMMA.
  • Done
• "..prompting retribution from Marmora. Marmora fired on.." Rephrase to avoid finishing one sentence, and starting the next, with the same word.
  • Rephrased
• "The morning of June 16, saw a combined.." No need for that comma.
  • Removed - I'd actually been requested to add this comma in the A-Class review
• "..found the town of St. Charles, Arkansas deserted.." Conversely, this needs a comma after "Arkansas", per MOS:GEOCOMMA.
  • Done
• "..moved up the Little Red, where she captured two Confederate gunboats, Tom Sugg and Kaskaskia, on that river." "on that river" at the end is redundant.
  • Done
• "On September 19, Acting Master Elias Rees, who was commanding Marmora at that time, reported.." Get rid of "at that time".
  • Done
• I'd move the location of Island No. 70 (in the Concordia Bend on the Mississippi River) from the note to the main body.
  • Done
• "..in the Liverpool, Mississippi area." Add a comma after "Mississippi", per MOS:GEOCOMMA.
  • Done
• "..Marmora and Exchange pushed on to Yazoo City, but came under.." I don't think that comma is needed.
  • Done
• "..from the river town of Napoleon, Arkansas to Island No. 76." Another MOS:GEOCOMMA needed.
  • Cone
• "..while Gibson reported on September 13, that the vessel.." No comma needed.
  • Removed, another comma request from the ACR
• "..was sent to Mound City, Illinois in June.." MOS:GEOCOMMA.
  • Done

That's the main body. I always look at the Lead after.

• "Purchased for military service on September 17, she was converted into a tinclad warship." I would recommend rewriting this as "She was purchased for military service on September 17 and converted into a tinclad warship."
  • Done
• "..but was not present when the fort surrendered on January 11 after the Battle of Fort Hindman." Given she wasn't there, I'd cut "after the Battle of Fort Hindman". It isn't important enough to include in the lead of this article, I don't think.
  • Done
• "..and Gaines Landing, Arkansas after.." MOS:GEOCOMMA.
  • Added
• "..at Mound City, Illinois the next month." MOS:GEOCOMMA.
  • Adde

That's it on the prose from me. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 12:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• @Harrias: - Thanks for the review! I've replied to or actioned all of the above. Hog Farm _Talk 19:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Ludwig Ferdinand Huber

Nominator(s): —Kusma (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

This article is about "either a very minor or a relatively minor character in the constellation of 18th century German events", as Goethe scholar Thomas P. Saine put it. Minor or not, he did have some influence and interacted with many great writers of his era: close friend of Friedrich Schiller and Isabelle de Charrière, reviewer of works by Johann Wolfgang Goethe and Marquis de Sade, lover and eventual husband of Georg Forster's wife Therese Huber, and overall I found him a fascinating character. —Kusma (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

This is just a drive-by comment, but do you think some of the paragraphs could be split? The "French occupation of Mainz and resignation from service" section is one paragraph with 17 sentences and I think that can be a bit overwhelming to readers. It kind of looks like a wall of text, especially with the new display. Heartfox (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for this comment! While I did check how the article looks in Vector2022 (I use Monobook for my work here), I only thought about image placement, not paragraph lengths. I have added some breaks. —Kusma (talk) 08:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

  Done (but I am sure the alt texts can be improved, I am terrible at describing pictures).

• File:Dora_Stock_-_Christian_Gottfried_Körner.jpg: when and where was this first published, and what is its status in its country of origin? Ditto File:Dora_Stock_-_Minna_Stock.jpg, File:Dora_Stock_-_Dora_Stock.jpg, File:Dora_Stock_-_Ludwig_Ferdinand_Huber.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for reviewing! The images were first published in Germany before 1900. Evidence and copyright tags added. —Kusma (talk) 08:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Jim

I'm very busy in RL at the moments so comments will appear sporadically. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look, no worries at all about being slow! Some responses below. —Kusma (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• What immediately struck me was the swathes of yellow produced by the Headbomb/unreliable script. Some were links to Google text, but others were links to Google pages with no text or, worse, to WorldCat. I don't see the point of linking with pages that have no text, especially when they are repositories, not even the original documents. Since you don't need to prove the existence of any publication (except, I suppose, in the unlikely event that's challenged), these links seem pointless distractions.

  I have removed the WorldCat links that are duplicated by OCLC but kept the Google Books links that help with verification by providing full text or snippets.

• In the journalist section, you have repeated earlier main text links to August Wilhelm Schlegel and Therese Forster

  These are deliberate; I think it is difficult to find the earlier (piped) Therese Forster link, and Schlegel is very important here and the link is reasonably far away. It could be removed, but I don't think it helps.

• about six of their children died in infancy before Huber's birth— About six looks odd was it six, or from five to seven, or what?

  You are right that it sounds odd. Jordan (you can find this on Google Books by searching for "seven children" in her book) says "six or seven previous children". The Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie has six children including LF Huber. I can't prove this conclusively, but looking through what the works cite for this information, the original source for this seems to be a biography of LF Huber written by Therese, and that has six children followed by Huber, so seven in total. For some reason this was mangled into either "six including LFH" or "seven plus LFH" by other authors. So yes, the sources support "five to seven" or "six or seven", depending whether we drop the ADB or not. The exact number is rather immaterial here; perhaps "several" is best, what do you think?

• Several looks better

• ''and he had no religious education and no interest in religious questions. — and he had no religious education nor any interest in religious questions. perhaps?

  Done.

• link "engraver" —

  Done.

• agreeing to marry her once he would have the means—...once he had the means

  Done.

• Saxon minister—Saxony minister?

  Saxony minister for precision.

• ''Also in 1790, his superior left Mainz—I may have lost track, but who was his superior?

  Will find out. My sources don't say, but I tried to clarify that he became the most senior diplomate of the Electorate of Saxony in Mainz (whoever was the senior member of the legation was recalled to Dresden, so Huber was in charge).

• Huber was reprimanded for his return to Mainz and ordered back to Frankfurt, which also was taken by Custine for a short time, arriving there on 22 or 23 October.—dodgy grammar Huber was reprimanded for his return to Mainz and ordered back to Frankfurt, which also was taken by Custine, who arrived there on 22 or 23 October, for a short time.

  Sorry, it is Huber who arives in Frankfurt 22 or 23 October, and I could not tell exactly when Custine took Frankfurt. Must have been shortly after he took Mainz (this quick advance is unsurprising; Mainz was the only major fortress in the area). Clarified a bit.

• Huber did not merely regard the book as pornographic, but considered its underlying principles.—???

  Amended, let me know what you think.

• Forster, who had become a French citizen, could not legally go there... and so Forster crossed the border instead, and they all met in Travers in Switzerland—so did he cross illegally? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  Clarified. Neuchatel was reasonably neutral, but Forster as a French citizen could not join his family there (I think he would not have received a residence permit). He did cross legally, but the whole cloak-and-dagger conspiracy business was necessary to avoid looking like a spy for the other side.

Thank you for the helpful comments so far! I think I've answered everything. —Kusma (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• I'm happy with the changes above, and I'll Support now, but just a couple of minor things for your further consideration

• Friedrich Schlegel ridiculed Huber in one of his sonnets.— presumably we know which?

  It was next to a sonnet, and the epigram has the boring title "An denselben" ("to the man himself"). I've cited it now also to the edition of Schlegel's letters, which mentions the publication. The two-liner reads

  Huber mein Freund sey billig und laß Dich in Spiritus setzen

  Gönn' es der Nachwelt auch, daß sie den Kritiker schaut.

  or in my own quick English translation

  Huber my friend be reasonable and have yourself preserved in alcohol

  Allow posterity to see what a critic looks like.

  But adding it probably goes too much into detail. —Kusma (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

• link tuberculosis, pneumonia, necrosis and particularly vehmic court, which I think few readers will know

  Links added (vehmic court is now a duplink, but a very rare word)

• That's all, good stuff Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you very much for the review and the support! —Kusma (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Harry - Support

Not at all my area (the only bit of German history I'm reasonably read-up on is the wars of unification) but I'll do my best to offer some useful commentary but it will mostly focus on prose/MoS/readability:

• However, he was never financially well off "However" is word to watch and implies a contradiction here where there isn't one; suggest "nonetheless"
• engraver Johann Michael Stock is a false title, which is acceptable in some forms of English, but you have the Bavarian-born writer in the lead; it should be consistent

  I only learned about false titles here at FAC (from a very helpful review by User:Tim riley). I am trying to avoid them here.

• he was appointed as secretary to the legation "appointed as" is apparently not incorrect, but just "appointed" reads more naturally
• Consider linking Low Countries.
• However, he was unwilling to be separated from Therese and returned to Mainz on 13 October Another "however" that could be replaced with "nonetheless" or in this case just removed. The sentence would work fine without it.
• retaken by Prussian and Hessian troops,[104] with the bloodshed shocking Huber don't use "with" to join two clauses like that (it's common in journalistic writing, especially headlines where space is at a premium, but it's not suitable for an encyclopaedia), especially as it forces a tense-change mind-sentence. You would be better splitting the sentence in this case.
• Related to the above, do we know how much bloodshed he saw or how personally involved he was? It might tell us something about the impact on Huber.

  He wasn't hurt, just shocked as Mainz had been taken peacefully, and this was his first glimpse of real war. It isn't super important here; if you think it is too much detail, we can drop it.

• Mainz had soon after come under siege by Prussian and Austrian troops and capitulated on 23 July 1793, making it impossible for Forster to return to Mainz repetition of Mainz. Recommend just cutting the last two words.
• from 4 to 5 November 1793, with Forster imploring the others ", with" again
• his 1792 review of Göschen's first edition of Goethe's works in the Allgemeine Literaturzeitung where he compared Goethe to Proteus has been widely influential Can we say what it influenced or how or anything more? To just say it was influential is a little weasel-y, but if the sources don't specify there's not much we can do.

  Tried to expand this a bit and added a source calling it a leitmotif of Goethe reception.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your very helpful comments. I have addressed everything (also the things without direct replies). In Germany, short sentences are bad style, and that often influences my English style, so thank you for calling me out on sentences that should be split. Do you think there was enough context for non-experts? —Kusma (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Happy to support on prose. Everything I could pick out is addressed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720

Non-expert prose review.

• "Huber found employment as a diplomat, and in 1788 moved to Mainz, where he became friends with the world traveller Georg Forster and his wife Therese, and later became Therese's lover and moved into the Forsters' house." This feels like a run-on sentence. Suggest splitting into two sentences or adding a semi-colon.
• "When the world traveller Georg Forster with his wife Therese and their young daughter, also named Therese, arrived in Mainz on 2 October 1788 to take up the position of librarian at the university, Huber had a "plan of conquest" to win their friendship, and helped the Forsters settle in the new city. This sentence feels awkward. Perhaps, "Georg Forster, his wife Therese, and their young daughter also named Therese, arrived in Mainz on 2 October 1788 to take up the position of librarian at the university. Huber had a "plan of conquest" to win their friendship, and helped the Forsters settle in the new city." This splits up the sentence into two and removes some words.
• "Huber had finally come clean to Körner and Dora," I would consider "come clean" to be an idiom, and suggest something like "Huber revealed his other relationship to Körner and Dora," or something similar.
• "Huber became editor in chief and moved to Stuttgart followed by his family." Suggest a comma after Stuttgart
• "in the Berlin journal Kronos 1801." Is the journal named Kronos 1801, in which case 1801 should also be in italics, or should there be an "in" between Kronos and 1801?
• "In August, also the five-year-old Adele died." -> "In August, the five-year-old Adele also died."
• Quick check of the sources did not reveal any formatting concerns.
• The lede doesn't mention anything about Huber's reception and legacy after his death. Should a sentence be added at the end about this?

Those are my thoughts. Please ping me when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much @Z1720! I have tried to address your concerns in this combined diff. I found removing the jargon and splitting the awkward and run-on sentences difficult and expect further improvement is possible. Please let me know what you think. —Kusma (talk) 08:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I looked at the edits and I am happy with these changes. I can support this. Z1720 (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda

Invited, I read the article during vacation but have time to comment only now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll look at lead ad infobox last.

Family

• "in addition to English, French, and German, he could read Italian" - could Italian be introduced without repetition? ... and if repeat why English first?

  It's alphabetical :) I do like to collect all of his skills together.

  I didn't get the alpha-sort ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• do we need Shakespeare's given name?

  I'm a bit apathetic about this one. Is it better without?

  for me yes - example: Mozart's Don Giovanni, whoever doesn't know Mozart's given names can be sure to find it in the opera, and even without any opera near, he would be recognised without the clumsy given names --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• use French source?

  Nice that we have this, but I don't see how we can use it here.

  I think for an interlanguage link, but haven't done it myself yet, - nevermind --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• "Pierre Beaumarchais play The Marriage of Figaro" - several concerns:
  • It's rather famous, so no link to the author (nor given name) is needed, nor saying that it is a play.

    I think it is so overshadowed by Mozart's The Marriage of Figaro that it is very necessary to say it is a play and who wrote it.

    well, I believe that a reader who got this far possibly knows the origin of Le nozze, and if not could look it up, but I'll leave it up to you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  • I'd prefer the French title.

    Done, I use original titles throughout.

Friendship

• the caption of the "kiss"-drawing seems too complex.

  Simplified.

  thank you, but I now see "Dorchen", and while you and I know that it's derived from Dora, an English-only reader may profit from a footnote explaining that --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Diplomat

• "the Göttingen philosophy professor Friedrich Bouterwek's novel Donamar" - too complex for my taste ;)

  Simplified?

Exile

• "Ueber ein merkwürdiges Buch (About a Peculiar Book)" - I think the translation should either be a title (italic in title-case) or a translation (straight and sentence-case)

  It is now a translated title gloss in single quotes and title case.

• "de Sade's novel Justine" - as for Figaro

  I don't think there's anything I can remove here.

Reception

• "most well known"?

  What would you prefer and why?

  I don't understand it at all but my be just me. "best-known"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

That's it for now, hope I can look at the lead after sleep. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for reviewing Gerda! I have made a few changes, see above. —Kusma (talk) 10:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I like the changes. More tomorrow (or much later today), - going to listen to a concert in the afternoon. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

A few responses just for explanation, - do as you please. I'll look at the lead now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Lead

• I'd prefer a stub for his father to the ill link right at the beginning (which could go to his first mentioning in the body.

  I hate stubs. I am happy to write a proper article before this one hits the Main Page, but I won't write a bad stub.

  When I was introduced to FA country, red links were simply forbidden, and even later - when ill was introduced - ill-links were not tolerated in lead and infobox. A stub is a way around that, but of course a real article is much better: good plan. (I wrote 2 articles off Otto Klemperer for that reason.) --GA

• "He grew up bilingual in French and German after his parents moved to Leipzig when he was two years old." - Do we know that his father didn't speak German to the infant until after the move?

  I know they spoke French at home after the move. In the sources, I see no mention of bilinguality before age 2.

• "managed to invite him to come to Leipzig and later to Dresden" - they invited him to come to Dresden? The long sentence seems to simplify matters a bit too much, and leaves open if Huber moved to Dresden before or after Schiller.

  I'm not sure we need to know in what order they moved, but I have tried to be more precise.

• can we avoid "became" in two sentences in a row, became friends - became lover?

  Tried to change the first one.

• how about a translation of Das heimliche Gericht, and saying that it's a tragedy? (if not in the lead then in the body)

  Added a gloss. Huber called it a tragedy; sources mostly call it a play about knights.

• "there was a final meeting" - how about clearly saying who met whom?

  Added.

• "He was mostly forgotten after his death, and studied mostly as a friend of Schiller, Forster and de Charrière." - At first, I read that he studied ;) - perhaps "of interest"?

  Added

• I think the break-up of the friendship to Körner and Schiller over him having treated Dora not well is worth mentioning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  Added, although I fear we are getting into too much detail now.

• The lead image - how about the more mature one? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

  Originally I had removed the colour portrait because I had difficulties finding evidence of publication, and was very happy to find something by Dora that wasn't a profile; I think it also works well. The 1801 portrait works well in opposition to Therese's in the same format, so I would like to keep them together in the same section.

  Thank you very much for looking at the lead in so much detail! Please let me know what you think of the changes. —Kusma (talk) 09:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you very much, taking the time to explain in detail. Support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

CBS Building

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

This article is about the only skyscraper designed by Eero Saarinen before his untimely death in 1961. As the name may suggest, the building was constructed for CBS, which owned it until two years ago. Saarinen wanted to make it the "simplest skyscraper statement in New York"; the building's nickname, Black Rock, comes from the fact that its dark-gray granite facade resembles a solid wall from a certain angle. Nonetheless, the CBS Building had innovative features for its time, including a reinforced-concrete frame (the first in a post-war skyscraper in NYC) and a sunken plaza surrounding it.

This page was promoted as a Good Article nearly two years ago, and the page received a GOCE copyedit just recently, for which I am grateful. I think it's up to FA quality now, and I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks @Nikkimaria, I've gone ahead and done that. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Kusma

Will review this soonish. —Kusma (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• "William Zeckendorf had acquired all of these structures but sold them to CBS before he could develop them" do we know what he had planned to do and why he sold instead of developing the plot?
  • It's a bit of a long story. Zeckendorf acquired multiple sites on Sixth Avenue in close proximity to each other. Stern, Mellins & Fishman don't really give an exact reason, but he wanted to build hotels on several of the sites that he acquired. Some of these sites, like 1301 Avenue of the Americas, were developed as office buildings; others, particularly the New York Hilton Midtown, became hotels. Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
• It would be nice to have a sentence or two about Eero Saarinen for background and context. And perhaps to mention that Eliel Saarinen was his father.
  • I have added a few words to clarify this. Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
    • You really don't want to tell us that Saarinen is the Gateway Arch and Tulip Chair guy? —Kusma (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
      • Nah, I prefer to think of him as the Dulles Airport and TWA Flight Center guy. Seriously though, I have now added some of the other designs with which he was involved. Epicgenius (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
• I don't understand "The plaza around the CBS Building helped influence the 1961 legislation". Did it influence the content, or did it help someone else influence it, or did its influence help the legislation pass? And did it indeed pass?
  • The legislation passed in 1961. Its content, particularly the section that permitted developers to add office space in exchange for open public space, was partly influenced by the presence of the plaza at the CBS Building. Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
• Is it "52nd and 53rd streets" or "52nd and 53rd Streets"? (Both are in the article)
  • Grammatically, it should be the former (although I personally prefer the latter). Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
• "appear as a massive load-bearing chamfer,[52] though this effect was purely aesthetic" tense. Also, does this mean they look like something load bearing but are not?
  • I have fixed the tense. The chamfers do indeed look like load-bearing columns even though they aren't. Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
• "northwest-corner pier bore no load" does it bear load now?
  • It still does not. Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
• "are a uniform width" of a uniform width?
  • Yes, I have fixed it. Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
• I would prefer L-shaped and V-shaped to "L"-shaped and "V"-shaped.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
• "core was designed to withstand most of the wind shear hitting the building" This sounds like it was designed to collapse whenever there is enough wind shear?
  • I have to confirm this later, but basically, no. The building is actually designed to deflect most of the wind that hits it; the core would still be stable in high wind. Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
    • OK. "The core... The core ... mechanical core... " is a bit repetitive in the "Structural features" section, could be more elegant. —Kusma (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
    • You're right. I have fixed this now. Epicgenius (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
• Are there basically two lobbies, one north and one south, the lobbies separating the west and east halves filled with commercial space?
  • Yes, there are two lobbies, one each to the north and south. The west and east sections were originally filled with commercial space. I know the east section is still a restaurant, although I do not know if the west section still has any commercial space (last I checked, it was a Charles Schwab). Epicgenius (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• There is a bit of a story about Gastrotypographicalassemblage, apparently more or less thrown away by CBS and later restored elsewhere.
  • Yep. I didn't add the details when I first expanded this aricle, because I thought they might not be germane to the CBS Building, but I've now added some context. Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
• Other stories section: "high flexibility in planning interior offices" and "high amount of standardization within the floors with offices for executive(s?)" seem slightly contradictory? Also, "Movable partitions could be set up on each story at intervals of as small as five feet" duplicates what is said earlier in the section.
  • Regarding the first part of your comment, these are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The executive offices had highly standardized dimensions, but the other floors could be arranged in a more flexible manner. I've removed the redundancy regarding the 5-foot intervals. Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
    • Ah, I see. So we have high flexibility by design but they chose high standardization on the floors for execs. —Kusma (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
      • Yeah, precisely. Epicgenius (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
• History: The Park Avenue story does not seem important enough to be mentioned twice.
  • It seems like the story is only mentioned once (in the second part of "History"). The only other time that Park Avenue is mentioned is at the beginning of the "Planning" section, where the article mentions only that Paley believed 6th Avenue was better than Park Avenue. Epicgenius (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
    • I think "Paley dismissed the Park Avenue sites as having "too cold a feeling"" followed by "Paley had believed Sixth Avenue to be "more stimulating" than Park Avenue" could be together instead of in separate subsections; it seems you are saying twice that Paley found Sixth superior to Park Avenue. —Kusma (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
      • Oh, I understand now. I have now moved up the second mention of Park Avenue. Epicgenius (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
• 53 West 52nd Street: make it clearer that this was the neighbouring plot
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Would suggest to link the Seagram Building again to avoid unnecessary ctrl-F
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• "In February 1962, after Saarinen's death, CBS announced " this is long after Saarinen's death, and we have just talked about it in the previous section; would suggest to drop this mention of the death
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
• "was selected as the general contractor at this time": "at this time" seems superfluous
  • Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
• Construction: when was the construction completed?
  • It was finished by around 1965 (I couldn't find a source for the exact date, since some work continued even after workers moved into the building in late 1964). Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
• 20th century: very odd heading. It made me double check that everything up to now has been about the 20th century. "Occupants and use in the 20th century", perhaps?
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
• "nicknamed CBS/51W52" who called it that? From the lede, I guess the nickname didn't stick?
  • CBS itself called the building by that name, but the appellation wasn't popular. Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
• "The final cost was not revealed at the time" so it was revealed later?
  • It wasn't revealed at all, unfortunately. Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
• The first paragraph of "20th century" would perhaps also fit into the preceding section as "Construction and first use by CBS" or something. Then the 20th/21st century sections could be about the later changes in usage and refurbishments.

• I have moved most of the first paragraph to the previous section, which is now titled "Construction and opening". Epicgenius (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

It took me until the third mention to realise that "The Ground Floor" is probably the name of the restaurant, not just a description of its location.

• Oops. I have fixed this. Epicgenius (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

"Throughout the 1980s, CBS downsized its presence in the building" and then "By the early 1990s, CBS ... no longer required the entire building for its use" seem contradictory

• Actually, these were supposed to mean the same thing. CBS reduced the amount of floor space that it occupied in the 1980s. By the early 1990s, CBS didn't need the entire building anymore, as it didn't occupy the entire building.

Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I think my point is that you are saying that in the 1980s, they "reduced the amount of floor space", i.e. they no longer needed the entire building. And then in the 1990s, you tell me they no longer needed the entire building. Do you mean that during the 1980s, they reduced the number of offices they used in the building until there was so much free space that they started leasing it out in the 1990s? —Kusma (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Yep, that is what I mean. Epicgenius (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Suddenly you call the building "Black Rock", a name that is used only in two paragraphs in "History". Ctrl-F to highlight the phrases "CBS Building" and for "Black Rock" to see what I mean.
  • I've rephrased the article to use the name "CBS Building" consistently. Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
    • Still two "Black Rock" left. I'm not complaining, just want to note it in case this wasn't deliberate. —Kusma (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
      • Oops, I actually did forget about it. I've fixed that now. Epicgenius (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
• 21st century: did the sale go through, and what became of the companies' 2021 plans?
  • Yes, the sale has been completed. The renovation hasn't started yet Epicgenius (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Critical reception: this is all from 1965 and ends rather surprisingly with information from the mid-1960s. Isn't the 1997 designation as a city landmark part of the critical reception? There should be a lot more than one sentence in the "History" section about that decision and the reasons for it.
  • I'll look for more contemporary reviews of the building, but as far as I know, it was largely ignored by the architectural press after the late 1960s. There are some more-recent pieces of commentary, like this or this, but I don't know if they qualify as good enough for an FA. In my view, the city-landmark designation may not really be critical reception - the designation is actually a lagging indicator of public perception, since the Landmarks Preservation Commission usually only acts after a preservationist has already proposed that a building be designated as a landmark. I'll add some detail about the landmark status, though. Epicgenius (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
    • The designation as a landmark would not feel out of place with the "Awards" for me, but it's not a hill I want to die on. —Kusma (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
      • Upon further thought, I've moved the landmark designation down to "Critical reception", which I have retitled "Reception and landmark designation". Epicgenius (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

        That works, or perhaps "reception and awards". —Kusma (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

That's it I think, some small to medium sized issues. Overall this is (as usual) an amazingly well-researched article with tons of information about an interesting building (a bit too much information for a non-architecture geek, but it is difficult to say whether anything specific needs to be cut). I am trying to remember whether I've seen the building when I went to MoMA, but that was in the mid-2000s so quite a while ago... In various GA reviews, I often have disagreed with you about where to put the planning/development part of the "History" section, and I still have doubts about this but I am willing to follow consensus of architecture editors here. —Kusma (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Kusma, thanks for the comments. Sorry for the late response, as I did not see this earlier. I will respond to these tomorrow. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@Kusma, thanks again for the feedback. I think I have responded to all of the issues that you mentioned above. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Good fixes. A few further queries/comments above; stuff with a strikethrough needs no further discussion. —Kusma (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Kusma, thank you once again. I've addressed your other comments now. Epicgenius (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

My queries have been addressed, happy to support. —Kusma (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

I'm sorry, but at about three weeks in with only a single general support, this nomination will be archived unless significant movements towards a consensus to promote occurs within the next few days. Hog Farm _Talk 00:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Support by Lee Vilenski

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede

• The 38-story, 491-foot-tall (150 m) building, the only skyscraper designed by Eero Saarinen - one too many "the"'s here. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
  • I have reworded this accordingly. Epicgenius (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• I know this might be a long shot - any chance of citing the Landmark number in the prose? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Yep. I've done this. Epicgenius (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Prose

• 51 West 52nd Street - as a Brit, is this a real address? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
  • It sure is. The NYC government wasn't very creative with street names when it laid out the Manhattan street grid. Epicgenius (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• 52nd street is linked in body but not lede. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
  • I've linked it in both the body and lead now. Epicgenius (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Carson, Lundin, and Shaw - does this proper name follow the oxford comma? Our article doesn't, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
  • It does not use the Oxford comma, so I've removed it now. Epicgenius (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• nacting the 1961 Zoning Resolution - probably no need to link to a specific part of this article. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
  • It currently links to 1916 Zoning Resolution, which was passed 45 years earlier. I never got around to making a proper article for the 1961 legislation, however. Epicgenius (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• The article doesn't seem to mention if the building has actually changed hands. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Is there nothing post-2021? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, there hasn't been any news since the end of 2021, including updates on whether the sale was completed. The owner of this building is recorded as "51 W. OWNER, LP", which isn't very informative (it's a holding company for the actual owner, and I'd have to look into this in more detail in a few days). Epicgenius (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Additional comments

• Otherwise, there's very little to pick fault with on this entry. Great work Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Thank you very much for your comments. I've replied to or fixed all of them now. Epicgenius (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Source review

I'll do a source review for this one soon. Hog Farm _Talk 17:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• " "The Midtown Book". The City Review. Archived from the original on March 9, 2016. Retrieved December 2, 2016." - what makes this high-quality RS?
  • It is not. I have fixed this. Epicgenius (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• Formatting looks OK
• "In 1964, the Architectural League of New York cited the CBS Building as one of eight CBS facilities being built nationwide to "very high standards"" - I read through the copy of this article on Wikipedia Library ProQuest and could not find the exact "very high standards" quote?
  • Oops. I misremembered what the Times said; the paper itself said that the buildings were constructed to "high architectural standards", and it wasn't the League which said that. I have fixed this. Epicgenius (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• "According to Architectural Record, the CBS Building has about 800,000 square feet (74,000 m2) in gross floor area" - should be page 28, not p. 29?
  • I have fixed this. Epicgenius (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• "On each story, a passageway runs from north to south through the core, providing access to both the elevator lobbies and service rooms there" - not seeing in the source where the passageway runs from north to south?
  • It's in the floor plan, rather than in the text itself. However, I understand what you're saying about the source not mentioning the passageways running north-south, so I've removed that part. Epicgenius (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: for response. I spotchecked six references and found the three minor issues above, so I'll want to do further spot-checking after I get the response on this. Hog Farm _Talk 22:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Thanks for the source review; I appreciate it. I have responded to the issues you pointed out above. I wouldn't mind if you did additional spot-checks. It's been almost two years since I expanded the article, and while I did check the article for source-text integrity before nominating it for FAC, I might have overlooked some things (for example, the incorrect page number for Architectural Record was probably a wrongly pressed key). Epicgenius (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• "Bockmann, Rich (February 24, 2020). "CBS Asking More Than $1 billion for Black Rock Building". The Real Deal New York. Archived from the original on October 21, 2020. Retrieved July 14, 2021." - title of the source should be "The Price is Right? CBS Asking More than $1B fox Sixth Ave HG" I think
• "Schwab proposed installing planters in front of the building, though the local Manhattan Community Board 5 initially refused to approve the plans" - I don't think this is an accurate summary of the source, which appears to object more to Schwab signage that was going to be added along with the planters and less to the planters themselves

Checked 8 more refs and turned up those two. It's all minor, but 5/14 showing minor issues still isn't great. Hog Farm _Talk 02:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Hog Farm. I have fixed both of these. For Bockmann, that is because I copied the name of the tab rather than the title of the article. For the signage, I did intentionally condense that info, though I must have forgotten to mention the signage in the process. I will recheck the remaining sources to see if I made any other mistakes with article titles, page numbers, etc. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Please ping me when you've finished going back through things. Hog Farm _Talk 02:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Will do. I will probably not be able to do this until the weekend, when I have access to my home desktop, where I can compare the sources on multiple screens. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. My home desktop was offline for the past week, so I haven't been able to do it until now. I am about 1/4 of the way through. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Gerda

I am interested and plan to review. I read it all weeks ago, and was generally happy, but get to it only now. Details hopefuly tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Lead

• "tower" - with the image, we see that is not a normal tower.
• for those unfamiliar, mentioning "New York City" sooner might help to place it.
• "Inside, the building has a gross floor area" - do we need the "inside"?
• I wonder if the Saarinen quote might be better in the introduction para.

Site

• any reason not to link Equitable Building (Manhattan)?
• curious: why "Just before the building's construction" and not "Before the building's construction"?
• perhaps give date to the purchase?

Architecture

• perhaps link "chairs" to the designer section of Knoll?
• "Louis Sullivan's Guaranty Building" - both are linked. I'm used to opera where we skip a link to the composer when the opera has an article, because those really not knowing Mozart can be sure to find him in Idomeneo.
• "polyurethane as insulation" - perhaps that's lead-worthy?
• wl mechanical floor?
• "The piers contain electrical wiring and air-conditioning and heating ducts" - and ... and?

Ground floor

• I'd love an image of the interior.

Planning

• ref order after "on the plot"

Reception

• "The CBS Building has also won architectural awards." - why "also"?

That's it. Thank you for the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

1995 Aigio earthquake

Nominator(s): SamBroGaming (talk) 05:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

A destructive earthquake took place in Greece in 1995. It occurred in a zone where the maximum expected shaking over half a millenia was less than this event. It caused the strongest ground motion ever recorded in the country. Luckily, despite this, it only killed 26 people due to two buildings collapsing, and a further 200 were injured. SamBroGaming (talk) 05:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you to @Ceranthor: for helping me with the article. SamBroGaming (talk) 05:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

First-time nomination

• Hi SamBroGaming, and welcome to FAC. Just noting that as a first time nominator at FAC, this article will need to pass a source to text integrity spot check to be considered for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Image review pass (t · c) buidhe 05:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Few More Comments from Ceranthor

• I provided a lot of comments at the peer review. A few more things that are mostly minor concerns. I feel like the third and fourth paragraphs of Tectonic setting can be combined.
• "(Mw  5.6[note 2])" - move note 2 to outside parentheses
• Could we add a little more to the caption than "USGS ShakeMap for the event"?
• Really nitpicky, but this is FAC after all... I notice some inconsistency in directional notation. Such as WNW in tectonic setting but then east–west in impact. Should really be consistent style throughout.
• "Recorded 5.4 on the mb  and Ms  scales" - add a period to be consistent with note 1
• For sources, should ideally have either all full names or all initials for authors for consistency.

Otherwise, support. ceranthor 19:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I have addressed all issues you pointed out, except I am unsure how to combine the third and fourth paragraphs of the tectonic setting. SamBroGaming (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@SamBroGaming: The third and fourth paragraphs just need to be rewritten in such a way that they flow together as one short paragraph rather than two super short paragraphs. All the information should be retained, just rewritten in a way that they flow together. ceranthor 01:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: I have merged those two paragraphs. SamBroGaming (talk) 07:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Prose comments from Airship

• The lead could be improved significantly. At the moment, I'm not sure it meets FA criteria 1a—engaging and professional prose. The sentences are all short and staccato, it's a single paragraph which reads like a list in prose form, and there is no discernible flow or connection between sentences.
• Agree with above—the third and fourth paragraphs of tectonic setting can be joined together.
• "a north dipping, west-northwest trending" what does this mean? are there any helpful wikilinks?
• I think I know what a slip rate is, but I have "strike" means. On a related note, you define "dip angle" on the second appearance.
• "The fault reactivated during this earthquake. It showed surface rupturing and produced its largest aftershock." Which fault? Offshore? Onshore? The whole thing? What does "its" refer to—the earthquake or the fault?
• "where the sea moved 2–3 m (6 ft 7 in – 9 ft 10 in) closer to land." can the sea move closer to the land?
• I'm not sure about the relevance of the entirety of the Future hazard section. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  • For the lead, other than making the sentences flow together, is there any other solution you'd recommend?
  • For the future hazard section, I think it is important to highlight potential threats of a similar type in the region, as a portion of the significance of this quake is from the extreme shaking—well over the 1 in 400 year expected max in the brand new Greek seismic guidelines.

  For the rest of your concerns, I will go in and fix them. Thank you for taking the time to look at the article. SamBroGaming (talk) 03:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  @AirshipJungleman29 I have gone through and revised the issues outlined other than fixing the flow of the lead. Thank you for pointing them out. SamBroGaming (talk) 03:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Hi AirshipJungleman29, 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) 18:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

SamBroGaming, take a look at the leads of the Category:FA-Class WikiProject Earthquakes articles. I would suggest two paragraphs, with one focusing on geological information, and the other focusing on human impact and response. Sorry for the delay Gog ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29 I have taken a look at those articles, and changed the lead here to flow better and more resemble the other FAs. Hopefully the phrasing is less awkward now. SamBroGaming (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Much better. Support ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Source review

Spotchecks not done

• Redundancies in citations, eg "United States Geological Survey. United States Geological Survey.", should be avoided
• Don't mix {{citation}} and {{cite web}}
• Be consistent in when you include retrieval date
• What makes Bouckovalas a high-quality reliable source?
• While the academic literature cited is extensive, I'm surprised to see almost no popular/media sources - these usually discuss impacts left out of the academic literature. Do you feel the current sourcing provides comprehensiveness? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for taking time to review this article.

• Citations are not my strongest suit, so how would I revise the redundancy to meet the citation guidelines?

• Rather than repeating the same information in multiple parameters, decide which parameter you will use and do that consistently. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• I will get rid of all {{citation}} tags.
• By that do you mean have an access date for every single reference?

• Not necessarily. You need to have a consistent "rule" for yourself - you put them in this case but not that one. You could make that every single reference has them, but you don't have to do that as long as you come up with something else that is consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• Honestly, I'm not too sure what exactly makes him super highly reliable, or if he is at all. It is unfortunately the only reference I found with the specific values it provides.

• Unfortunately being the only reference that says something, doesn't make it a reliable reference. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• I'm also not very good with non academic literature type sources. What should I be looking to incorporate within the article? I feel it does provide the scientific aspect quite well, and I am not sure what could be added outside of it. I will look into that though, thanks. SamBroGaming (talk) 03:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• I'd suggest looking at similar articles which are already featured to get an idea of what the balance is. (Usually the problem is the other way around - too few scientific publications - so keep that in mind when looking). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi SamBroGaming, how are you doing with getting these points addressed? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Gog the Mild:, unfortunately these past couple weeks have been far busier than I expected initially, but now I should have time to fully look into the suggestions. tldr: I'll be done with the listed suggestions by next weekend. SamBroGaming (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Nikkimaria I have now gone through the citations and changed all citation s to cite|web s, and removed the retrieval dates as it seemed like the best way to have consistency for me. As for Bouckovalas, his work was published through one of the leading technical universities of Greece, and I think that would be reliable enough to include in the article. SamBroGaming (talk) 02:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

The work in question was published on CiteSeerX, an open repository, not through a Greek university. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

In that case, I will remove that source and rewrite the section to have info without it. Thank you for catching that oversight. SamBroGaming (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Since I forgot to mention, I do think the academic sources do a good job of covering the earthquake, and I don't think more mainstream references are necessary here. SamBroGaming (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

North East MRT line

Nominator(s): ZKang123 (talk) 07:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

This article is about Singapore's 3rd MRT line first opened nearly 20 years ago. It is the first fully automated underground MRT line in Singapore, and I hope to have this passed before 20 June, which is the line's 20th anniversary. ZKang123 (talk) 07:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I kinda feel it is FA material, but as a totally unprofessional GA reviewer, I kinda have a horribly weak support for this, so it’s kind of a comment. It appears clear and concise and well-sourced.

Brachy08 (Never Gonna Give You Up, Never Gonna Let You Down) 04:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius

Lead:

• "Operated by SBS Transit, the 20-kilometre (12 mi) line is the MRT's shortest." - The fact that the NEL is the shortest in the MRT system doesn't seem to be mentioned, or cited, directly in the article.
• "Chinatown, Little India, Serangoon and Hougang" - Can these be linked?
• "Coloured purple on official maps, it is the country's first fully-automated underground rail line. ... Singapore's third MRT line" - This info should be in one sentence, rather than split across two paragraphs. For instance, "Coloured purple on official maps, it is Singapore's third MRT line and the country's first fully-automated underground rail line."
• "the NEL was planned during the 1980s and 1990s to alleviate traffic congestion on roads leading to the northeast suburbs. Its alignment and stations were finalised in 1996." - Can you add more detail about the delays to the lead? This should only be one sentence, but a concise explanation about why the project was delayed would be great.
• "except for two stations; Buangkok station opened on 15 January 2006, and Woodleigh station began operations on 20 June 2011." - I would clarify that these stations were built along with the rest of the line but didn't open in 2003 (as opposed to being in-fill stations that were built after the line had already opened). E.g. "Two stations did not open with the rest of the line; Buangkok station opened on 15 January 2006, and Woodleigh station began operations on 20 June 2011.
• The third paragraph appears to be summarising the "Culture", "Infrastructure", and "Station facilities" sections, but it is quite short. In particular, I suggest adding details about the facilities (i.e. elevators/lifts, safety, accessibility, Civil Defence) which do not appear to be summarised at all. By contrast, that paragraph describes the rolling stock and signalling system in some detail.

More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Addressed most of above points. Although unsure how I would cite it is the shortest, given the other lines' distances are longer... ZKang123 (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

My apologies, I forgot about this, as I was busy in real life. I'll leave some more comments tomorrow.

For line lengths, I would either leave out this information altogether or find a secondary source. If you really can't find a source but still want to include it, I would add an explanatory footnote which gives the length of every MRT line. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Added a footnote ZKang123 (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Epicgenius, any more to come? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yep. I will look into this more within the next day or so. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• History:

• "roads would be inadequate to serve planned 21st-century housing estates" - Do you mean that roads alone could not serve the projected traffic counts?
  • Reworded and fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• "To minimise the impact on other development, plans for the line were developed early to determine which parcels of land would be needed for its construction" - Who developed these plans? I would personally rephrase this as "To minimise the impact on other development, [the planner] developed plans for the line early on to determine which parcels of land would be needed for its construction".
  • Fixed. "roads would be inadequate for projected traffic into the planned 21st-century housing estates."--ZKang123 (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• "portion after Braddell Road" - North or south of Braddell Road?
  • Northern, Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• "In February 1991, it was proposed to extend the line to Pulau Tekong via Pulau Ubin, to serve future residential and industrial developments in the long-term plans for the islands." - I'd change "the islands" to "these islands", as many readers may not immediately realize that Pulau Tekong and Pulau Ubin are islands, even if it's implied.
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• "the Woodlands extension took precedence with firm plans for development there, unlike in the northeast" - I also think it's redundant to say "the Woodlands extension took precedence" twice in two sentences. Instead, I suggest "there were firm plans for development around the Woodlands extension, unlike in the northeast"
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• "On 20 May 1999, SBS Transit (then Singapore Bus Service) was appointed to operate the line with the Sengkang and Punggol LRT systems." - Just to clarify, do you mean that SBS Transit was appointed to operate the line and operate both LRT systems?
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• "In 1998, the timeline for Punggol station was moved up because of planning housing developments" - Should this be "planned housing developments"?
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• "Two delays occurred that day: a train, stalled between Boon Keng and Potong Pasir, had to be manually steered to Farrer Park; and another train was removed from service when it failed to leave Dhoby Ghaut station because its sensors mistakenly indicated that a set of doors remained open" - I think the details of these delays might be excessive, unless these delays negatively operated the line's operation for a long time (e.g. a few days or longer). In fact, I think the info in this sentence is encapsulated by the beginning of the following paragraph: "Although the NEL has experienced a few glitches since its opening..."
  • Removed excessive detail.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• "On 17 June 2003, SBS Transit announced that two stations (Woodleigh and Buangkok)" - You've already mentioned the names of the two stations in the previous section. I would just say "On 17 June 2003, SBS Transit announced that Woodleigh and Buangkok stations"
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• "The Buangkok station opened "with much fanfare" and activities which included a walk-and-jog" - Similarly, I think it would suffice to say that the Buangkok station opened as scheduled.
  • Removed excessive detail.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• "Several commuters alighted at Woodleigh station by accident on its opening day, intending to get off at the adjacent Serangoon station and unaware that Woodleigh had opened; SBS deployed several staff members to assist confused commuters. Other curious commuters alighted to see the station's interior or try an alternative route from the station" - I think this detail may be excessive, too. I would assume that some commuters would be confused and others would want to look at the station when it opened.
  • Removed excessive detail.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• "transport minister Ong Ye Kung said" - Did Ong say this when tunneling was completed, or at some other time?
  • Fixed to add tunnel breakthrough ceremony.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Network and operations:

• "5:30 am and 12:30 am", "5.42 am", "11:56 pm" - These should be formatted consistently (with either a period or a colon between the hour and minute).
• "The NEL initially had a higher fare than the North South and East West lines" - Just wondering, was the original NEL fare a flat fare or a distance-based fare? Later on, the article says that the NEL uses the same distance-based fare as other lines, but I wonder if a distance-based fare was used beforehand, too.
• "15-year license" - Should this be "licence"? Incidentally, this sounds a little like a lease.
• "the fully-underground 20-kilometre (12 mi) NEL runs ... The line runs" - This is a little redundant; I suggest changing one of these sentences to not use "runs". E.g. "the fully-underground 20-kilometre (12 mi) NEL operates between Singapore's city centre and the northeastern parts of the island."
• "The NEL will continue towards the Punggol Coast station in 2024," - I suggest "The NEL is expected to continue towards the Punggol Coast station in 2024". Otherwise, we run the risk of WP:CRYSTALBALL-like wording.
• "and the line is coloured purple on official maps" - How come this is in the "Stations" section?
• "may be built in the future" - I'd drop "in the future", as the phrase "may be built" already implies the future.

Culture

• "Unlike the other NEL stations, the entrances to Buangkok do not use glass" - I'd say "Unlike at the other NEL stations". You're comparing the Buangkok entrances and the other stations' entrances, rather than comparing Buangkok's entrances and the other stations themselves.
• Are Dhoby Ghaut, Sengkang and Punggol given their own paragraphs because they have particularly interesting designs?
• "The network's first such integration" - Of an office building and station complex?
• "the Punggol station was intended to be integrated with the LRT station and the bus interchange" - I would mention, more directly, that Punggol station also features an LRT station and bus interchange (currently, this is implied rather than stated directly). Also, unless it's the case that Punggol station wasn't integrated with the LRT station and bus interchange, I'd just drop "intended to be". E.g. "Designed by the 3HPArchitects and Farrells architectural firms, the Punggol station was also integrated with an LRT station and bus interchange".
• Do we have references for the artwork list?

More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Unsure about the types of fares... that would be something to dig into... Addressed the other points ZKang123 (talk) 07:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Epicgenius ? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about the continued delays. I will complete this by Monday. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Station facilities

• "When a station is used as a civil-defence (CD) shelter, the PSC becomes its command centre" - The PSC becomes the CD shelter's command centre?
• "Their speed is reduced by half when not in use by commuters" - I'd just say "Their speed is halved when not in use".
• "55 metres (180 ft) travellators" - This should be singular. e.g. "55-metre (180 ft) travellators"
• "Each station has an entrance with barrier-free access via lifts and ramps" - I would say "Each station has an entrance that was built with barrier-free access via lifts and ramps", since we're contrasting this with older stations that are being retrofitted with ramps and lifts.
• "Westinghouse platform screen doors (PSDs) are a safety barrier between passengers on platforms and trains" - I think PSDs in general act as a safety barrier, not just Westinghouse PSDs. Additionally, this may go against MOS:SEAOFBLUE, since the links for Westinghouse and PSDs are right next to each other. But see below.
• "A total of 768 PSDs were supplied to the NEL's 16 stations" - A few things here:
  • Are we talking about how many pairs of doors are in each station (in which there are 48 pairs per station)? Usually, when I read about PSDs, they are described in terms of how many stations have PSDs (in which case there are 16 PSDs) or how many platforms have PSDs (in which case there are 32 PSDs, assuming there are two platforms per station).
  • I'd rephrase this in active voice.
  • Also, it appears that Westinghouse is only supplying PSDs to the initial set of 16 stations, not the extension. I would just say "Westinghouse supplied 768 pairs of PSDs to the NEL's original 16 stations".
• "Except for three stations (Dhoby Ghaut, Sengkang and Punggol), NEL stations are designated civil-defence (CD) shelters" - I'd condense this too, i.e. "All NEL stations except Dhoby Ghaut, Sengkang and Punggol are designated civil-defence (CD) shelters".

That's all I have for now. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Rectified all of the above ZKang123 (talk) 02:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Support - everything looks good to me now. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

Feel free to revert any copyedits I've made that you disagree with.

• I see you have a footnote to explain "Woodlands extension", but why not link the phrase to North–South MRT line#Woodlands extension in the text?
• "Yeo's successor, Mah Bow Tan, said that the northeast's low population made it financially unfeasible to build the NEL instead of the Woodlands extension. Mah said in 1992 that the Woodlands extension was built because, unlike the northeast, plans were "firmed up" for development in Woodlands; the NEL would be built when housing developments in the northeast were completed." If I have this right, the first sentence is sourced to 1993 comments, and the second is from 1992. There's some redundancy here, and I don't like "was built" when in January 1992 the Woodlands extension had not yet started construction. I think we could compress this to "According to Yeo's successor, Mah Bow Tan, the Woodlands extension took precedence because there were firm plans for development there, unlike in the northeast, where the low population meant that the NEL would not be as cost-effective."
• "When the 16 stations were announced, Potong Pasir (then named Sennett), Woodleigh and Punggol would not be built with the other stations due to lack of development around the station sites." Suggest "Three of the 16 stations announced in 1996, Potong Pasir (then named Sennett), Woodleigh and Punggol, were not included in the initial plan. Their construction was deferred until the areas around them were further developed."
• "The timeline for Punggol station was moved up to serve the upcoming Punggol 21 developments". I don't have access to the source for this, so can't be sure this works, but I think the date should be mentioned; perhaps "In 1998 the timeline for Punggol station was moved up because of planning housing developments" in the area. If Punggol 21 is worth mentioning specifically, and I suspect it is, how about a red link?
• I don't quite follow the sentences about Sennett station. If the government made no decision to construct Sennett/Potong Pasir until February 2002, how were they able to build it in such a short time? It sound like the lines were handed over for testing in December 2002. Did Potong Pasir really go from paper to working station in ten months? I see from the "Opening of reserved stations" sections that Woodleigh, at least, was built but not opened, but this seems out of sync with the earlier "...would not be built with the other stations".
• "many of whom were impressed by its comfort and speed". Suggest cutting this; it's not very useful to the reader, and in fact the source article quotes quite a few minor complaints as well.
• "A station designated "NE2", between HarbourFront and Outram Park, may be built in the future if development warrants it". According to the planning map, this station was included in the 1991 concept plan; I think that would be worth mentioning at this point.
• "Its simple layout, spacious interior and transparency facilitate navigation." What does "facilitate navigation" mean? And I don't see anything about this in the given source -- am I missing something?
• "To increase the line extension's capacity": what does "line extension" mean here? Just the Punggol Coast station? If so it seems odd that almost a twenty percent increase in rolling stock was needed for one more station.
• "Each train, made of fire-resistant materials, includes fire and smoke detectors and a fire barrier under its frame. They have..." Syntax should be consistent; "Each train" is singular, but "They" is plural. Suggest "The trains are made of fire-resistant materials, and include fire and smoke detectors and a fire barrier under the frame. They have..."
• "and three additional stabling tracks are being built for the NELe": needs an "as of" date, and I assume that "e" is just a typo?
• "the IAGO (Informatisation et Automatisation par Guide d’Onde) waveguide allows two-way communication between the trains and the waveguides": surely not what you meant to say -- nobody is communicating with the waveguides.
• "The reliability of the line's signalling system ensured that the NEL maintains its "mean kilometres between failures" target of one million train-km (620,000 train-miles)." The source doesn't really draw this conclusion so directly. It talks about the improvements to reliability, and then mentions this number.
• "The renewal programmes maintain the line's reliability" -- suggest cutting this; it doesn't tell the reader anything the previous sentences haven't conveyed.
• "Every station has a passenger service centre (PSC) on its concourse.[165] The PSCs are generally curved, unlike the boxier designs of those in older MRT stations.[166] In addition to assisting passengers and checking and topping up their fare cards, the PSC monitors and controls the functions of connecting tunnels and communicates with the OCC at the depot." You're using PSC to mean both the physical structure and the employees that staff it, which is a bit disconcerting to read. I think making it "the PSC's staff monitor and control..." would address this.
• "Station seats have armrests to assist those who have difficulty standing." This seems to make no sense. The armrests are not in use by those standing.
• "set up by the to improve"?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Going through the suggestions:

"When the 16 stations were announced, Potong Pasir (then named Sennett), Woodleigh and Punggol would not be built with the other stations due to lack of development around the station sites." Suggest "Three of the 16 stations announced in 1996, Potong Pasir (then named Sennett), Woodleigh and Punggol, were not included in the initial plan. Their construction was deferred until the areas around them were further developed."

I don't quite follow the sentences about Sennett station. If the government made no decision to construct Sennett/Potong Pasir until February 2002, how were they able to build it in such a short time? It sound like the lines were handed over for testing in December 2002. Did Potong Pasir really go from paper to working station in ten months? I see from the "Opening of reserved stations" sections that Woodleigh, at least, was built but not opened, but this seems out of sync with the earlier "...would not be built with the other stations".

As for Senett (now Potong Pasir), it was planned to be built as a shell station, then the government decided to build the station in full but let it remain closed. According to the source, the three stations were announced but they would be "reserved".

OK, but we still have "would not be built" in the article -- you're saying they were in fact partly built? Or at least Sennett and Woodleigh were? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Verified they would be built as structural shells instead of fully built and added a note on the govt's decision to build them fully. ZKang123 (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

"Its simple layout, spacious interior and transparency facilitate navigation." What does "facilitate navigation" mean? And I don't see anything about this in the given source -- am I missing something?

I'm trying to rephrase from this portion: "The space planning of the station took future connections into consideration and adopted a simple layout to allow clear and easy wayfinding to help commuters navigate to the various modes of transport". Might specify "visual navigation".

The source here is the LTA so I don't think we should phrase this (complimentary) description as if it were an achievement; it should be stated as the goal of the design. I also don't see anything in what you quote about a spacious interior or transparency. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

"To increase the line extension's capacity": what does "line extension" mean here? Just the Punggol Coast station? If so it seems odd that almost a twenty percent increase in rolling stock was needed for one more station.

I guess passenger capacity for the train load.

"and three additional stabling tracks are being built for the NELe": needs an "as of" date, and I assume that "e" is just a typo?

NELe: North East Line extension. Added as of 2019.

"the IAGO (Informatisation et Automatisation par Guide d’Onde) waveguide allows two-way communication between the trains and the waveguides": surely not what you meant to say -- nobody is communicating with the waveguides.

I guess something went wrong in the copyediting... (version before copyedit). The original version was "the IAGO waveguide (Informatisation et Automatisation par Guide d’Onde or waveguide transmission line system for computer and automation applications), which allows two-way communication between the trains and the track tubes emitting the microwaves, monitors the trains' positions and movements".
Actually according to the source it says: In a world first, the IAGO waveguide - essentially a microwave emitting tube running the entire length of the track - sends "signals" which are picked up by receivers on board the moving train, enabling the train's position to be known accurately. There is two way communication between the train and the waveguide.

You now have "...which allows two-way communication between the trains and the track tubes emitting the microwaves..." I would make this just "allows communication between trains". A waveguide for microwaves is the equivalent of a wire for a landline telephone; two people on a phone call are communicating with each other, not with the wire, and similarly here the trains are communicating with each other, and not with the waveguide. Similarly a waveguide is not going to "monitor the trains' positions and movements" -- an overall system that incorporates the waveguide might do such a thing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

"The reliability of the line's signalling system ensured that the NEL maintains its "mean kilometres between failures" target of one million train-km (620,000 train-miles)." The source doesn't really draw this conclusion so directly. It talks about the improvements to reliability, and then mentions this number.

How would I rephrase this? Maybe " The NEL maintains its "mean kilometres between failures" target of one million train-km"?

Station seats have armrests to assist those who have difficulty standing

Those who need help to get up from their seats... ZKang123 (talk) 09:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Also here's the book source for further cross-checking. ZKang123 (talk) 09:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I've struck some points above and left replies for the ones I think need more attention. FYI, for future reference, it might be easier for you to reply directly in the original bullet list by indenting -- that would save you from having to copy down the text for each point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok addressed the above points ZKang123 (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Support. I made a small change to the IAGO sentence; otherwise all points addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Accessibility review

Ensure all tables have row scopes, col scopes, and captions per MOS:DTAB. Heartfox (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Done that. ZKang123 (talk) 07:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• Several of the images would benefit from being scaled up - in particular the planning map is illegible at that size
• File:North_East_Line_logo.svg is too simple to warrant copyright protection
• File:North_East_Line_planning_map.png is missing a data source. Ditto File:MRT_Route_Map_NE.svg. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  Scaled up the planning map image. How do I change the NEL logo copyright (what license specifically)? Added data sources for the maps. ZKang123 (talk) 04:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Source review

• Formatting:
  • fn 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 48, 70: CS1 maint errors - get rid of the |url-status=live cards.
  • fn 130, 132, 146, 161, 165: "p." should be "pp."
  • Leong (2003): capitalise the "T" and "S"
  • Tan (2003): capitalise the "T"
• All sources are of high quality
• Spot checks:
  • fn 109 Not seeing it. (Also: why is Bidadari in small letters?)
  • fn 26, 80, 114, 116, 135 - okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Rectified the above issues. Removed speculative "future" bus interchanges ZKang123 (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)